This article unpacks the problematic relationship between emerging climate change adaptation norms and changes underway in agricultural extension. It is increasingly recognised that in order to apply new knowledge about climate change in rural development practice a more institutional perspective is needed, but there is no clear consensus on what this implies. This article looks at agricultural extension as an example of a meso-level institution that is frequently assumed to be a major potential implementing partner in climate adaptation efforts, at the same time as it is also often portrayed as a worst-case example of the obstacles encountered in changing the focus of a path dependent bureaucracy. This article contrasts the perspectives of normative climate adaptation frameworks (exemplified by the 2011 World Resources Report) with what is known about prevailing extension trends and realities. It is suggested that long lists of recommended climate adaptation tasks and technologies may distract from an understanding of the institutional change processes underway within meso-level institutions, wherein the climate agenda would need to be merged with other agendas related to pluralistic, pragmatic, accountable, sustainable and market-oriented rural development.
Christoplos, I
Climate advice and extension practice
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal Of Geography