This is Datta Rangnekar from Ahmedabad presently a freelance consultant and associated with some NGOs, a research institute and a veterinary university. While I am basically a vet with specialization in animal nutrition for most of the last five decades I was involved with rural development / livelihood development programmes based on crop - livestock - natural resource development and community mobilizations and the goal was to achieve sustainable development. Most of these programmes were in less developed interior rural areas of western and central India, involving underprivileged families and would fall into category 2 and 3 as described in the conference background document. My contribution will be related to these farmer families. The theme of the conference attracted my attention since most of my efforts were to try to understand the livelihood systems and perceptions and inner realities of the families and wish to exchange experiences, views and learn the latest approaches in agriculture extension. I have gone through contributions of the learned participants and contribution of Dr. Mahesh Chander has attracted my attention and I wish to take further some of the aspects pointed out by him. Let me start by making a provocative statement (based on experience and observations) that to be able to extend benefit to smallholder family farms there is need for a 'paradigm change in extension programmes' and 'change in mindset of policy makers planners of research and extension programmes'. I say that since 'pro-poor and need based approach' and the crucial step of 'testing technologies and recommendations adopting farmer participatory approach' is lacking in planning of most research and extension programmes. Most smallholder producers follow a 'low external input mixed farming system' (more by compulsion than choice) and one of the major concerns is 'avoidance of risks'. Most research programmes are not planned on the basis of a low external input system, these are 'commodity oriented' and there is no intermediary step of testing appropriateness of recommendations or technologies. A 'whole farm approach' is lacking although it is known that change in one subsystem effects other sub-systems - sometimes negatively. Much of extension in crop and livestock sectors is by government departments and fresh graduates get posted as extension officers without any training in extension - in most cases. For these officers, extension means 'transfer of technology (ToT)' done with 'postman-like approach' (without bothering to see the contents and impact of the package delivered). It is not their fault but the system is like that - there are targets for ToT to be achieved. Underprivileged farmer families can benefit in case 'planning of research is need based and output is technically sound, economically beneficial and socially adoptable'. Such an approach is possible only when research and extension teams work hand in hand and the planners and implementers are well oriented and sensitized about resource poor smallholder farmers. Some of the participants in this e-mail conference have suggested use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and such other communication technologies and I wish to caution that while technologies play an important role it is more important and challenging to ‘select an appropriate message’ to be communicated to the underprivileged family. I would eagerly look forward to response of learned participants. Datta Rangnekar Freelance consultant Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. e-mail: Dattavr (at) rediffmail.com [To contribute to this conference, send your message to [log in to unmask] For further information, see http://www.fao.org/nr/research-extension-systems/res-home/news/detail/en/c/264776/ ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the RAS-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=RAS-L&A=1