Citation:

Joel Owani. "The Value of Climate Services in Agriculture and Water Sector: Impact Evidences from Smallholder Survey and Stakeholder Engagement in Kenya and Uganda" International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 753-789, 2023.

Abstract:

Climate change has become a new normal and both a cause and consequence to under development, escalating poverty and vulnerability for developing countries and the IGAD region in particular. Climate variability, especially erratic, severe, and occasionally extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and landslides, is already endangering ecosystems and means of subsistence in the IGAD region. In light of these unfolding challenges from climate extremes, many adaptation scholars now have recognized the importance of scaling up the generation, dissemination and utilization of climate services among end-users more especially the smallholder farmers, as part of climate change adaptation responses. The provision of climate-related services has historically been associated with improved decision-making in the production and weathersensitive economic sectors, as well as raised safety and efficiency in the land use, sea, aviation, and transportation sectors. It has also assisted communities in anticipating and responding to severe weather situations. The National Meteorological Services (NMS) have done much to provide climate services. However, the benefits of their efforts related to the provision of such services have not been widely demonstrated at the smallholder level in adaptation literature, making answering value for money to continued investments remain questionable at a time when budget priorities across sectors and funding sustainability, remains a big concern in development cooperation and government programmes in general. In line with this concern, between May- July, IGAD/ICPAC commissioned a household survey in the districts of Taveta, Voi and Mwatate (drought prone) areas of Kenya, covering 188 households. While in Uganda, Bugishu (Mbale and Bulambuli districts, and Teso sub-regions (Soroti district) in Eastern Uganda were selected, historically known hotspots to flooding (land/mudslides) and droughts respectively and suffering recurrent hunger and starvation. A total of 197 households were reached, besides wider consultation with CS providers and end-users in water and agricultural sectors across the two countries. This was aimed at providing evidence on the social economic value of climate services in the ClimSA pilot countries (Kenya and Uganda) and, where possible, applying the results broadly across the region. More specifically, the study aimed to address two objectives: (1) to estimate the economic value of climate services supported by ICPAC through the Intra ACP ClimSA project and (2) to identify the specific effects of climate change, such as those on the water and agriculture sectors. The study adopted computer-aided software (Kobo Data Collect), administered to 385 households in the two countries using Android smartphones and tablets. Data was analyzed using STATA and MS Excel to determine the CS-use and development impacts related to food security outcomes proxy by household Food Consumption Scores (FCS), Dietary Diversity and Resilience Capacity Index (RCI) estimated through Shiny-Resilience Index Measurement Analysis (RIMA-II) methodology developed by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); which provides quantitatively, why some individuals/ households cope easily with shocks and stresses; while others not. Results show that the greatest proportion of the study participants had knowledge of climate services as reported by 183 (97.3%) in Kenya and 167 (84.8%) in Uganda, with higher concentration among women compared to men with Kenya women 131 (71.6%) against men 52 (28.4%); while Uganda women 107 (61.5%) against men 67 (38.5%), explained by greater role of agricultural activities being left to females in smallholder farming system. Future rural development programmes will need to engage more men in agricultural transformation across the two countries. Another notable contrast was that awareness of CIS tended to be more in maleheaded households than female-headed households, reported by 124 (67.8%) for male-headed households compared to 59 (32.2%) in female-headed households in Kenya, while in Uganda, reported by 142 (81.6%) for male-headed households against 32 (18.4%) in female-headed households. Education also matters when it comes to awareness of the existing climate services, with more awareness among people with low educational attainment, explaining that their livelihoods depend mainly on the agricultural sector. The stated average years of experience in CIS use was 3 years in Kenya and Uganda 7 years; and CS impact increases with years in use. A sizeable proportion reported experiencing better /improvement in farming decisions as a result of CIS use. The food security scoring outcome showed about 84 (44.7%) of Kenyans surveyed are living in a “poor food consumption level”; those in “borderline consumption” 44 (23.4%); and “acceptable consumption” level, 60 (31.9%). In Uganda, 34 (17.3%) are in “poor food consumption”, 68 (34.5%) in the “Borderline” and 95 (48.2%) in “acceptable food consumption”. There was a slight reduction in those living in poor food consumption in households which are aware of climate services available and using them in their production decisions. This trend was equally true for CS long-term users compared to recent users revealed in the survey. There was a higher Resilience Capacity Index (RCI) observed among the CS users compared to non-users (users 21.4 versus 6.15). This is more than thrice relative to CS non-users. Therefore, it’s valid to conclude that CS use improves livelihood resilience among smallholder farmers as the survey tools were applied in fairly the same community location, in samples with similar cultures across the two countries piloted. Evidently, the CS users were found to be more likely to have access to /use improved seeds and their animals vaccinated, partly explained by their relatively higher wealth status, e.g. accumulating more livestock and receiving more transfers compared to their counterparts, the nonCS users. The years of CS use in production decisions are also correlated with increased resilience capacity among smallholder farmers. In addition, more years of CS use are also associated with increased household resilience. In the water sector, CS also showed enormous positive outcomes, especially in regulating water level flows in stabilizing hydro-power generation and supply for of electricity for the wider economy. It helps in scheduling and balancing the water levels in the dam to avoid unstable supply, avoids defaulting supply contracts, reduces overreliance on dirty fossil fuel as alternative energy, and reduces power rationing, destabilizing economic activities. In addition, countries are better prepared to avoid flooding associated with heavy rains, therefore reducing the incidences of water borne diseases such as malaria, cholera, dysentery and loss of lives and properties. Despite the challenges CS continues to face at both national, subnational, institutional and farmer levels, therefore overcoming these bottlenecks calls for more rigorous investment, strengthening public-private-donor partnerships, building the capacity of National Meteorological Services (NMS), investing in agricultural extension services for improved communication with farmers, efficient farmer organizations, and social networks. This would significantly improve climate change adaptation and poverty reduction steps in line with Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goal and Agenda 2063 of the African Union, “a prosperous Africa, based on inclusive growth and sustainable development” through modernizing agriculture for increased productivity and production.

References:

[1] Bryan, E., Deressa, T.T., Gbetibouo, G.A., and Ringler, C. (2009). Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environmental Science & Policy 12: 413-426.
[2] Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Okoba, B., Koo, J., Herrero, M., and Silvestri, S. (2013). Can agriculture support climate change adaptation, greenhouse gas mitigation and rural livelihoods? Insights from Kenya. Climatic Change 118: 151–165.
[3] CARE. (2014). Facing uncertainty: the value of climate information for adaptation, risk reduction and resilience in Africa. CARE International.
[4] Coulier, M., Carter, A., Duong, T. M., Le, T. T., Luu, G. T. T., & Madsen, E. J. (2018). Actionability of Climate Services in Southeast Asia: Findings from ACIS baseline surveys in Vietnam, Lao PDR and Cambodia.
[5] F. A. O. (2016). RIMA-II, Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis—II. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.
[6] Gebrehiwot, T., and van der Veen, A. (2013). Farm level adaptation to climate change: the case of farmer’s in the Ethiopian highlands. Environmental Management 52:29–44.
[7] Harvey CA, Rakotobe Z, Rao NS, Dave R, Razafimahatratra H, Rabarijohn RH, Rajaofara H, MacKinnon, J.L. (2014). Extreme vulnerability of smallholder farmers to agricultural risks and climate change in Madagascar. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B369: 1-12.
[8] Hansen, J., Tall, A., & Jay, A. (2013). Scaling Up Climate Services for Farmers in Africa and South Asia Workshop Report. CCAFS Working Paper no. 40.
[9] Hertel TW, Rosch SD. (2010). Climate change, agriculture and poverty. Agriculture and Rural Development Team Policy Research Working Paper 5468. Washington DC: The World Bank Development Research Group.
[10] Hodinnot J and Yohannes, Y (2002) Dietary diversity as a household food security indicator. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA). Academy for Educational Development, Washington DC
[11] IPC. (2021). Technical Manual Version 3.1: Evidence and Standards for Better Food Security and Nutrition Decisions. Report, Integrated Phase Classification Global Partners.
[12] Mudombi, S., and Nhamo, G. (2014). Access to weather forecasting and early warning information by communal farmers in Seke and Murewa districts, Zimbabwe. Journal of Human Ecology 48: 357–366.
[13] Ngugi, R.K., Mureithi, S.M., and Kamande, P.N. (2011). Climate forecast information: the status, needs and expectations among smallholder agropastoralists in Machakos district, Kenya. International Journal of Current Research 3: 6–12.
[14] Phillips, J.G., Makaudze, E., and Unganai, L. (2001). Current and potential use of climate forecasts for resource-poor farmers in Zimbabwe. In: Rosenzweig C, eds. Impacts of El Niño and climate variability in agriculture. USA: American Society of Agronomy Special Publication (63). P. 87– 100.
[15] Patt, A., Suarez, P., and Gwata, C. (2005). Effects of seasonal climate forecasts and participatory workshops among subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. The National Academy of Sciences of the USA 102:12623–12628.
[16] Rakotobe, Z. L., Harvey, C. A., Rao, N. S., Dave, R., Rakotondravelo, J. C., Randrianarisoa, J., Ramanahadray, S., Andriambolantsoa, R., Razafimahatratra, H., Rabarijohn, R.H., Haingo Rajaofara, H., Rameson, H., & MacKinnon, J. L. (2016). Strategies of smallholder farmers for coping with the impacts of cyclones: A case study from Madagascar. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 17, 114-122.
[17] Rasmussen, L.V., Mertz, O., Rasmussen, K., Nieto, H., Ali, A., and Maiga, I. (2014). Weather, climate, and resource information should meet the needs of Sahelian pastoralists. Weather, Climate, and Society 6: 482–494.
[18] Owani, J. (2023). Socio-Economic Assessment of Value for Climate Services Case Study, Uganda and Kenya. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online) Vol.14, No.6, 2023. URL: https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEDS/article/view/60609/62566, https://doi.org/10.7176/jesd/14-6-06
[19] Snow, J.T., Biagini, B., Benchwick, G., George, G., Hoedjes, J., Miller, A., Usher, J. (2016). A new vision for weather and climate services in Africa. New York: UNDP.
[20] Tesfaye, A., Hansen, J., Radeny, M. A., & Solomon, D. (2018). Estimating the economic benefits of alternative options for investing in agricultural climate services in Africa: A review of methodologies.
[21] Vaughan, C., and Dessai, S. (2014). Climate services for society: origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. WIREs Climate Change 5:587–603.
[22] [WMO] World Meteorological Organization. (2016). Climate services for supporting climate change adaptation. WMO-No. 1170. Geneva: WMO.
[23] Wood, S.A., Jina, A.S., Jain, M., Kristjanson, P., and DeFries, R.S. (2014). Smallholder farmer cropping decisions related to climate variability across multiple regions. Global Environmental Change 25: 163–172.

Keywords:

Adaptation, Climate Services, Resilience and Smallholders.