Extension program planning for post-conflict agricultural rehabilitation and rural reconstruction

Introduction

Between 2010 and 2022, armed conflicts displaced over 100 million people globally, with rural agricultural communities bearing a disproportionate share of the damage [1] . Farmland is mined, irrigation systems are destroyed, seed stocks are consumed or lost, and the social networks that underpin collective farming break apart [2] . Rebuilding agriculture after conflict is not simply a matter of distributing seeds and fertilizers it requires rethinking how extension services plan, sequence, and deliver advisory support under conditions of extreme uncertainty. Standard extension planning models assume stable governance, functioning markets, and an existing base of farmer organizations [3] . These assumptions fail in postconflict environments where institutions have collapsed and trust between communities and government agencies is low [4] . Despite growing recognition of this mismatch, few systematic analyses have examined how extension planning frameworks should be adapted for conflict-affected settings [5] . Several agencies have published reconstruction guidelines, but these tend to focus on emergency food aid or broad agricultural investment rather than the specific operational steps that extension services must take to resume meaningful advisory work [6] . The gap between high-level policy frameworks and ground-level extension planning remains wide [7] . Practitioners report having to improvise planning approaches with little guidance on sequencing, stakeholder engagement in divided communities, or managing the transition from relief to development [8] . This research examined extension program plans from four conflict-affected regions to identify common planning gaps and propose a phased planning framework. Three questions guided the investigation: a) What planning approaches are used in post-conflict extension programs, b) Which rehabilitation priorities receive the most attention, and c) What elements are missing from current planning frameworks that would improve post-conflict extension effectiveness.

Theoretical framework

The research adopted the Livelihoods Framework [9] as its primary theoretical lens, which views agricultural recovery not as an isolated technical process but as part of broader livelihood reconstruction. This framework identifies five capital types natural, physical, financial, human, and social all of which are damaged during conflict and must be addressed in extension planning. A second framework used was the relief-to-development continuum model [10] , which argues that post-crisis interventions should not be organized as separate stages but as overlapping and iterative processes. www.extensionjournal.com

These frameworks shaped how planning documents were evaluated and how the proposed four-phase model was constructed.

Material and Methods

Methods

Documents were analyzed using a structured coding framework with 23 criteria organized into four domains: planning process, priority setting, conflict sensitivity, and transition sequencing. Two researchers independently coded 12 documents (25% of the sample) to establish inter-coder reliability (κ = 0.83). Key informant interviews followed a semi-structured guide with 11 questions and were analyzed thematically [11] . Planning priorities were ranked using weighted frequency analysis. Ethical approval was obtained from the Wageningen Social Sciences Ethics Committee (Protocol WUR-SSE-2022-089, December 2022).

Instrument Development and Validation

The Planning Quality Assessment Tool (PQAT) was developed to evaluate post-conflict extension plans. It comprised 23 items across four domains, each scored on a three-point scale (absent = 0, partially present = 1, fully present = 2). Maximum score was 46. Content validity was established through expert review by six post-conflict agricultural specialists from three organizations. Pilot testing on eight planning documents from a separate conflict context (South Sudan) led to revision of four items for clarity. The tool showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.79). Food security restoration dominated planning documents (28.3%), while capacity building of local extension staff received the least attention (7.6%), which informants described as a recurring weakness. www.extensionjournal.com The pie chart shows food security restoration as the dominant priority, together representing half of all planning emphasis when combined with seed supply chain repair. The framework sequences four phases from emergency assessment through long-term development, with crosscutting principles of gender equity, conflict sensitivity, and community participation running throughout. Feedback loops allow adaptive replanning at each transition point.

Results

Discussion

The low average PQAT score (45.2%) confirms that postconflict extension plans are often incomplete, particularly in conflict sensitivity and transition sequencing. This echoes findings by Harvey [6] who noted that agricultural recovery plans tend to focus on immediate input delivery while neglecting the institutional and social rebuilding that sustains gains over time.

The dominance of food security as a planning priority is understandable given the urgency of hunger in post-conflict settings, but the low ranking of local staff capacity building is concerning. Without trained extension personnel, even well-funded rehabilitation programs lose effectiveness once international support withdraws [12] . Informants from all four regions stressed this point, with one Colombian planner noting that "programs collapse within two years if local capacity isn't built alongside service delivery."

The proposed four-phase framework addresses the transition gap identified in 72.9% of plans. By inserting explicit shortterm rehabilitation and medium-term reconstruction phases between emergency response and long-term development, the model provides planners with a sequencing logic that standard extension planning tools lack [3] . The inclusion of conflict-sensitivity checkpoints at each phase boundary responds to evidence that poorly designed interventions can reignite tensions over land, resources, or group membership [13] . Regional differences in PQAT scores reflect varying levels of institutional maturity and international support rather than differences in conflict severity alone.

Limitations

The research relied on written planning documents, which may not capture informal or adaptive planning that occurs in the field.

References

1. UNHCR. Global trends: Forced displacement in 2022. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; 2023.
2. Brück T, d'Errico M. Food security and violent conflict. World Dev. 2019;117:167-181.
3. Swanson BE, Rajalahti R. Strengthening agricultural extension systems. Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 45. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2010.
4. Christoplos I, Hilhorst D, van der Haar G. Linking relief and development. Disasters. 2020;44(2):339-360.
5. Birner R, Anderson JR. How to make agricultural extension demand-driven? World Bank Discussion Paper No. 729. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2007.
6. Harvey P. Towards good humanitarian government. Humanitarian Policy Group Report No.37. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2009.
7. Longley C, Sperling L. Agricultural recovery after conflict. ODI Briefing Paper No. 3. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2002.
8. De Waal A. Mass starvation: The history and future of famine. Glob Food Sec. 2018;17:124-130.
9. Scoones I. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. J Peasant Stud. 2009;36(1):171-196.
10. Buchanan-Smith M, Fabbri P. Linking relief, rehabilitation and development. Tsunami Evaluation Coalition Report No. 2. London; 2005.
11. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101.
12. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension. In: Evenson RE, Pingali P, editors. Handbook of agricultural economics. Vol. 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007. p. 2343-2378.
13. Mvukiyehe E, Samii C. Promoting democracy in fragile states. World Dev. 2017;95:254-267.
14. FAO. The state of food and agriculture 2021. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2021.
15. Pingali P, Alinovi L, Sutton J. Food security in complex emergencies. Food Policy. 2005;30(4):436-450.
16. Jaspars S, Maxwell D. Food security and livelihoods programming in conflict. Humanitarian Practice Network Paper No. 65. London: ODI; 2009.
17. Young H, Osman AM, Dale R. Livelihoods under siege. Medford (MA): Feinstein International Center, Tufts University; 2007.
18. Messer E, Cohen MJ, D'Costa J. Food from peace: Breaking the links between conflict and hunger. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 50. Washington (DC): International Food Policy Research Institute; 1998.
19. Collier P, Hoeffler A. Aid, policy, and growth in postconflict societies. Eur Econ Rev. 2004;48(5):11251145.