This paper provides information on the current status of the agricultural extension systems in Central Asia (CA), with special reference to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The report reviews the existing extension strategies, donor- and state-driven initiatives to revitalize the agricultural extension systems, informal linkages that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play in helping a limited number of farmers, and recommendations on ways to further improve the agricultural extension services in CA. The information related to each country was analyzed separately. This is because, after independence, each republic in CA had initiated their  agricultural reforms with specific objectives, and have now established their unique agricultural systems that differ contextually. However, due to having the same history and agricultural system that existed during the Soviet times, these republics have many things in common. This paper (a) starts with a discussion of the modern definitions of the agricultural extension system to set the stage for the analysis framework (to establish a prism through which the existing extension systems within CA can be evaluated); (b) gives a historical perspective to the unified agricultural extension system; and (c) discusses the current status of the agricultural extension system. The report also reviews the current institutional set up and related policies that directly affect the existing agricultural extension systems, and identifies the limitations that need to be overcome in order to make improvements to these agricultural extension systems in these countries. The study shows that:

•           since independence, countries in CA have undergone an economic transition from being centrally planned economies to market-oriented systems, and this did not include the creation of agricultural extension systems;

•           except for some donor activities that were carried out to promote agricultural extension systems in CA, the initiatives were often not coordinated or consolidated;

•           the needs of the three countries in CA (considered in this study) for having improved agricultural extension systems are not similar, but are urgent. There is a clear need that formal extension systems should be revitalized, and the key role in achieving this should be played by the state as mediator, supporter and facilitator;

•           countries in CA have no national policy framework on the development of agricultural extension systems, which could ensure political and financial commitment from the government and other stakeholders;

•           In order to enhance agricultural extension systems, a national policy framework needs to be developed. This framework needs to indicate the priorities of national agricultural development and a viable organizational structure for implementation of these policies. The framework should also include the mechanism of farmers’ involvement to increase their motivation and interest.