No, it is a subject that has been debated for some time but rarely has there been a concerted effort to make it a reality like now, with the ERP partnership programme. A FAO publication, Learning and Living - Education for Rural Families in Developing Countries ( 1977) details the complexity of providing such an education response. It notes that there needs to be cohesion between the formal (primary school) program and the non-formal learning arrangements for those out of school. It also highlights the unsolved dilemma concerning the curriculum that does not address the needs of rural population, " and concludes that the emphasis should be on learning versus schooling. What is clear is that providing education for rural people is a complex challenge given the heterogeneous nature of the main stakeholders, the numbers of people involved world-wide, and the particular physical, cultural, and resource problems of rural space.

There are a number of unique elements in play as the 21st century begins which bode well for the success of the attack on rural development and poverty alleviation. Specifically:

• The MDGs focus on poverty reduction and human well-being, thus, on people, versus economic growth, as well as the relationship established among the different dimensions of human well- being which requires increased attention to interdisciplinary efforts.
• A wide ranging emphasis on rural development as distinct from agricultural development
• The World Bank's updated Rural Development Strategy that stresses the importance of basic education for rural development, capacity building, and human capital formation
• The international focus on poverty reduction and the interest of poor countries in developing and implementing Poverty Reduction Strategies that are multi sectoral and multi-disciplinary.
• The continuing march of decentralization and the demand for capacity to plan for and administer development programmes at the local level.
• The realization that basic education is a key to rural development is providing a challenge to those who are concerned about access, quality and curriculum content of rural schools
• The increasing role of private sector and non-governmental agencies in the rural development process.
• The influence of globalization on competitiveness in international markets for farm commodities.
• The importance of non-farm rural employment.
• The availability of promising modern communications that can be harnessed for effective learning

A flagship is defined as a structured set of activities carried out by voluntary partners, under the leadership of one or more UN agency, to address specific challenges in achieving the Education for ALL (EFA) Dakar plan for action.

About 70 per cent of the world's poor live in rural areas. The rural-urban education gap is increasing and is threatening efforts to achieve sustainable development. Illiteracy is a strong correlate of poverty and hunger and is mainly a rural phenomenon which hinders rural development and food security; it threatens productivity and health, limits opportunities to improve livelihoods and promote active citizenship and gender equity, since illiteracy is particularly high among rural girls and women. Ensuring Education for All (EFA) to rural people - which includes primary education, literacy and basic skills for life - is seen as urgent if the world is to achieve sustainable development as well as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of eradication of poverty and hunger (MDG1), universal primary education (MDG 2) and gender equity (MDG 3). There is, however, lack of empirical data/evidence on the interrelation among levels of access to quality education by rural people and poverty reduction and food security, and a consequently low level of awareness among decision makers of the importance of the rural dimensions of education . Moreover weaknesses of basic education services in rural areas are related to the fact that countries lack knowledge, people trained and the experience to plan and deliver effective basic education services to rural people. In addition, coordination mechanisms among Ministries of Education, Ministries of Agriculture and civil society are still to be developed in most developing countries. FAO and UNESCO have been aware of this gap, hence the launching of the ERP global flagship partnership. FAO's leading role and experience in rural development, food security and poverty alleviation as well as in agricultural education at different levels, provided the rationale to assume the leadership of the initiative.

In its relationships to governments and organizations, FAO uses a wide range of ages depending on the specific definition of "youth" used within a particular country or a specific organization. The age range surprisingly goes anywhere from 8 to 40. For global programming purposes, FAO defines the priority age range for rural youth development from 10 to 25. Field experience shows that to bring about important changes in attitude and behaviour, community-based, non-formal educational programmes for young people in rural areas must begin at an early age. This is especially true in areas such as HIV/AIDS education and helping young people gain an appreciation for agriculture and rural life early in life. Research shows that by age 15, a young person has more or less established patterns of behaviour and ways of thinking.

In the Pacific, FAO has it's Sub-regional Office for the Pacific (SAPA) based in Apia, Samoa. In regards your rice example, that office is currently supporting a rice project in Fiji where an FAO-developed Farmer Field School (FFS) strategy is being trialled and promoted quite successfully together with support from the Secretariat of the Pacific Community's Land Resources Division. In general the FFS system uses a farmer participatory approach through which farmer groups and individuals are taught to assess and to solve their own production challenges throughout the rice crop production cycle with technical assistance and support from outsiders (Extension workers, researchers, NGOs, SPC etc).

In Asia, several countries (Philippines, Thailand and now Indonesia) are following an adapted version of an Australian model known as "RiceCheck". Under this model, agricultural research validated technologies (which includes rice variety selection, good nursery production of seedlings, proper field preparation, correct timing of seedling transplanting, pest monitoring, etc) that are critical for successful rice production, referred to as "key checks", are taught to farmers via farmer group training and farmer experimentation following a modified FFS approach.

In both these examples, farmers and farmer groups are actively involved with "learning by doing". Most critical also is having appropriate technology relevant for the location, farmer participatory involvement from needs assessment, training, farmer "experimentation', production, all the way to harvesting and post harvest while also using and collaborating with available external technical support and information.