Aligning agricultural extension program objectives with sustainable development goal targets: A systematic review

Introduction

Between 2015 and 2022, over 140 countries revised their national agricultural strategies to reference the Sustainable Development Goals in some form [1] . This widespread adoption created an expectation that agricultural extension services, which serve as the primary interface between research institutions and farming communities, would similarly reorient their program objectives toward SDG targets [2] . But the extent to which this reorientation has moved beyond policy rhetoric into operational practice remains unclear. Agricultural extension has long operated at the intersection of multiple development objectives. Extension programs simultaneously address food production, income generation, environmental management, and social equity concerns [3] . The SDG framework, with its 17 goals and 169 targets, offers a structured way to organize these overlapping mandates. However, the breadth of the SDG agenda also creates challenges for extension organizations with limited resources and capacity [4] . Previous reviews have examined SDG integration in agriculture broadly [5] or focused on specific goals such as SDG 2 [6] . What has been lacking is a systematic assessment of how extension programs specifically have attempted to align their objectives, activities, and monitoring indicators with relevant SDG targets. This gap matters because extension programs without clear SDG alignment may contribute to development outcomes in an ad hoc manner, making it difficult to track progress or justify continued investment [7] . The concept of alignment itself requires clarification. Merely mentioning an SDG in a program document differs from building measurable pathways between extension outputs and SDG indicators [8] . This research adopted a three-tier alignment classification: rhetorical alignment (SDG language in program documents), structural alignment (program objectives mapped to specific SDG targets), and operational alignment (monitoring indicators directly linked to SDG indicator frameworks). The review covered literature from 2015 through early 2023, examining 94 peerreviewed articles and 37 policy documents to assess the current state of SDG alignment in agricultural extension programming worldwide [9] .

Theoretical Framework

This review was guided by the theory of change approach commonly applied in development program evaluation [10] . A theory of change articulates the causal pathway from program activities through intermediate outcomes to longterm impacts, making it possible to identify where extension objectives connect to broader development targets. The research also drew on institutional isomorphism theory [11] www.extensionjournal.com to explain why extension organizations may adopt SDG language without corresponding operational changes, a pattern of mimetic adoption driven by external legitimacy pressures rather than internal commitment to alignment.

Material and Methods

Material

The systematic review was conducted from the College of Humanities and Development at China Agricultural University, Beijing, between September 2022 and March 2023. Literature searches covered four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, CAB Abstracts, and Google Scholar. Search terms combined agricultural extension vocabulary with SDG-related terminology. The initial search returned 1,847 records. After removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, and applying inclusion criteria (English language, published 2015-2023, focused on extension programs with explicit SDG reference), 94 peer-reviewed articles remained. Additionally, 37 policy documents from national extension agencies and international organizations were included through purposive searching of FAO, World Bank, and IFPRI repositories.

Methods

Articles were coded using a framework with three dimensions: alignment level (rhetorical, structural, or operational), SDG target specificity, and geographic region. Two researchers independently coded a random subset of 30 articles to establish inter-coder reliability (Cohen's kappa = 0.81). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. The thematic analysis focused on seven SDGs most directly linked to agricultural extension: SDG 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 13, and 15. Alignment scores were calculated as weighted composites reflecting the depth of SDG integration in program design, implementation, and monitoring. Metaanalysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity in outcome measures across the reviewed literature, so narrative synthesis was the primary analytical approach following PRISMA guidelines [12] . SDG 2 received the strongest alignment across all three tiers, with 29.7% of programs achieving operational alignment and a mean score of 6.8 out of 10. SDG 15 and SDG 5 showed the weakest integration, with operational alignment rates below 13% and mean scores under 3.5. SDG 2 dominated the distribution at 31.7%, followed by SDG 1 at 14.3% and SDG 13 at 12.8%. The concentration around food security-related goals suggests that extension programs gravitate toward their traditional mandates rather than engaging with the broader SDG agenda.

Results

Discussion

The finding that only 28.6% of reviewed programs had established formal indicator mapping between extension outputs and SDG targets reveals a considerable implementation gap. Many extension organizations appear to have adopted SDG language in response to donor and government expectations without restructuring their www.extensionjournal.com monitoring and evaluation systems accordingly. This pattern fits the institutional isomorphism framework [11] , where organizations adopt external symbols of legitimacy without deep operational change.

The dominance of SDG 2 in extension program alignment is understandable given agriculture's direct connection to food production. However, the relative neglect of SDG 5 and SDG 15 represents a missed opportunity. Extension services interact regularly with gender dynamics in farming households and with natural resource management practices, yet these connections are rarely formalized in program frameworks [13] . East Africa's stronger alignment performance likely reflects the region's longer experience with results-based management in development programming, supported by donor-driven M&E requirements from organizations such as USAID and DFID [14] . The three-tier alignment classification used in this review proved useful for distinguishing between superficial and meaningful SDG integration. Programs stuck at the rhetorical level often lacked the technical capacity to translate broad SDG aspirations into operational indicators [15] . This suggests that capacity building for extension planners in indicator development and results-based management should be a priority for organizations seeking genuine SDG alignment. The gap between South Asian programs' rhetorical adoption and operational implementation appears connected to fragmented governance structures where extension planning and national SDG reporting occur in separate institutional silos [16] .

Limitations

This review was restricted to English-language publications, which may have underrepresented extension programs documented in French, Spanish, Portuguese, or other languages. The reliance on published literature and accessible policy documents means that operational alignment practices not captured in formal publications were missed. The three-tier classification, while useful, involved subjective judgment in borderline cases despite acceptable inter-coder reliability. Finally, the review captured alignment at a single point and could not assess whether programs deepened their SDG integration over time.

Conclusion

This systematic review of 131 documents revealed that while SDG references in agricultural extension programming are widespread, genuine operational alignment remains limited. SDG 2 received the deepest integration, but even for this most-addressed goal, fewer than 30% of programs had established measurable indicator linkages. SDG 5 and SDG 15 received the least attention despite their direct relevance to extension work with farming communities. Results-based management adoption emerged as a consistent predictor of stronger alignment quality across regions. Extension organizations seeking to move beyond rhetorical SDG adoption should invest in three areas: training staff in indicator mapping techniques that connect extension outputs to SDG targets, establishing monitoring systems that track SDG-relevant outcomes rather than only activity counts, and creating institutional mechanisms that link extension planning to national SDG reporting processes. East African programs offer instructive examples of how donor-supported M&E frameworks can accelerate this transition when combined with genuine institutional commitment.

References

1. FAO. Tracking progress on food and agriculture-related SDG indicators. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2022.
2. Swanson BE, Rajalahti R. Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems. Washington DC: World Bank; 2010.
3. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension. Handbook of Agricultural Economics. 2007;3:23432378.
4. Sachs JD. From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. The Lancet. 2012;379(9832):2206-2211.
5. Gil JDB, Reidsma P, et al. Sustainable development goal 2: Improved targets and indicators for agriculture and food security. Ambio. 2019;48(7):685-698.
6. Laborde D, Mamun A, Martin W, Pineiro V, Vos R. Agricultural subsidies and global greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Communications. 2021;12(1):2601.
7. Birner R, Davis K, Pender J, Nkonya E, Anandajayasekeram P, Ekboir J, et al. From best practice to best fit: A framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2009;15(4):341-355.
8. Klerkx L, Aarts N, Leeuwis C. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems. 2010;103(6):390-400.
9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
10. Weiss CH. Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives. New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. 1995;1:65-92.
11. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 1983;48(2):147-160.
12. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
13. Ragasa C. Improving gender responsiveness of agricultural extension. IFPRI Discussion Paper. 2014;1407.
14. Davis K, Babu SC. Extension approaches and models in the changing agricultural landscape. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 2019;26(3):7-22.
15. Christoplos I. Mobilizing the Potential of Rural and Agricultural Extension. Rome: FAO; 2010.
16. Sulaiman VR, Davis K. The new extensionist: Roles and capacities to strengthen extension and advisory www.extensionjournal.com services. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 2012;19(1):6-17.
17. Qamar MK. Modernizing national agricultural extension systems: A practical guide for policy-makers of developing countries. Rome: FAO; 2005.
18. Rivera WM, Qamar MK, Crowder LV. Agricultural and rural extension worldwide: Options for institutional reform in the developing countries. Rome: FAO; 2001.
19. Spielman DJ, Ekboir J, Davis K. The art and science of innovation systems inquiry: Applications to subSaharan African agriculture. Technology in Society. 2009;31(4):399-405.