Evaluating agricultural weather and climate services in Africa: Evidence, methods, and a learning agenda

Abstract

Weather and climate services (WCS) are expected to improve the capacity of Africa's agricultural sector to manage the risks of climate variability and change. Despite this, a lack of evidence prevents a realistic analysis of whether such services are delivering on their potential. This paper reviews 66 studies that have evaluated outcomes and/or impacts of agricultural WCS in Africa, highlighting areas that have received relatively more attention as well as persistent gaps. While the evaluation of WCS outcomes is relatively straightforward, estimates of the number of people who access and use these services are uneven (covering a small number of communities in 23 of 54 African countries) and highly variable (with access estimates ranging from ~2 to 86%, depending on the service and the population). Meanwhile, 22 documents estimate the impact of WCS with respect to yields and/or income. Developed with a variety of methods, these estimates are also wide ranging and illustrate how impact is conditioned on a number of characteristics of the service, the user, and the context in which both operate. The paper uses lessons developed through this review to develop a “learning agenda,” or evidence‐building roadmap, to establish priorities that can guide work to improve the design, delivery, and impact of agricultural WCS in Africa. Priority learning areas include activities that can strengthen the evidence of access, use, and impacts of WCS, along with those that can advance the use and usability of evidence so as to improve the design and targeting of WCS services. This article is categorized under: Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Evaluating Future Impacts of Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases and Analogies

Food and Earth Systems: Priorities for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation for Agriculture and Food Systems

“…A recent Africa-focused review of published evidence on CIS for farmers found considerable variability in rates of access, but in most cases (with exceptions that include women farmers in Mali, and pastoralists) the majority of farmers who access CIS use it in their decision-making [53]. It highlighted challenges to reliably estimate how the use of CIS translates into agricultural productivity and livelihood benefits.…”

Factors influencing gendered access to climate information services for farming in Senegal

“…Among climate smart approaches, the CIS remains a credible option for boosting productivity and avoiding postharvest losses (FAO, 2013). CIS is referred to as the production, translation, transfer, and use of scientific information for decision-making (Serra & McKune, 2016;Vaughan, Hansen, Roudier, Watkiss, & Carr, 2019). Recent studies by Ouedraogo, Diouf, Ou edraogo, Ndiaye, and Zougmor e (2018) revealed that access and use of climate information helped Senegalese farmers make tactical decisions before, during, and after the farming seasons.…”

“…Recent studies by Ouedraogo, Diouf, Ou edraogo, Ndiaye, and Zougmor e (2018) revealed that access and use of climate information helped Senegalese farmers make tactical decisions before, during, and after the farming seasons. Within SSA, several benefits of CIS in improving agricultural productivity and resource use efficiency are reported (Etwire et al, 2017;Dinesh, 2016;Roudier et al, 2014;Serra & McKune, 2016;Vaughan et al, 2019;Zougmor e & Ndiaye, 2015). However, the gender perspective concerning determinant of access to climate information services is poorly documented (Carr, Fleming, & Kalala, 2016).…”

Estimating the economic value of climate services for strengthening resilience of smallholder farmers to climate risks in Ethiopia: A choice experiment approach

“…Despite significant efforts supported by various organizations to promote availability, access and use of climate services, the economic value of existing or potential climate services is not well understood, particularly for smallholder farmers in Africa (e.g. Clements et al, 2013;WMO, 2015;Vaughan et al, 2018). Because climate services are provided often freely through the mass media as public goods in most countries, market value cannot be used to estimate their economic value (Gunasekera, 2010;Rollins and Shaykewich, 2003).…”