1. Introduction
Weather and climate influence many developmental sectors, including agriculture. Semiarid areas that cover most of Zimbabwe are characterized by high rainfall variability. This variability is likely to increase with climate change (Batisani and Yarnal 2010; Boko et al. 2007). The increasing variability in climate and climate change being experienced in most semiarid climates, including southern Africa (Boko et al. 2007; Wilkinson et al. 2015), is affecting agricultural production. As a result, most economies in developing countries are negatively affected as agriculture is their backbone (OECD/FAO 2016). The sector employs more than half of the total world labor force with developing countries accounting for more than 90% of the world’s agriculture workers (OECD/FAO 2016) while on average, approximately 15% of GDP in sub-Saharan Africa comes from agriculture (OECD/FAO 2016). Approximately 75%–80% of the rural population in developing countries derive their livelihood and income sources from rain-fed agriculture (Gyampoh et al. 2008; World Bank 2019), hence, adverse weather and climate negatively affect them through several ways, including reduced crop yields, crop failure, crop and livestock pest and disease infestation, and livestock deaths.
Weather and climate change information is important for everyday decision-making and planning for adaptation and resilience-building (Wilkinson et al. 2015; Singh et al. 2018). It enhances people’s capacity to deal with the impacts of climate change (Helmuth et al. 2011) and variability. With knowledge of the likely climate or weather, vulnerable communities can take steps to mitigate risks associated with weather and climate variability, climate extremes, and other related events that threaten their livelihoods. Thus, absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capabilities of smallholder farmers in response to climatic variability and change can be improved through, among other strategies, effective use of weather and climate information (WCI).
In most cases, weather and climate change information are underutilized because despite being useful information, it is not usable at local or farmer’s level. Understanding how climate information can be transformed from useful to usable information is a process that starts with establishing challenges and opportunities in accessing, interpreting, and using the information. WCI can be used to adapt to climate variability and change through changing crop and livestock enterprises: adjusting agricultural input levels, implementing new resource management practices, and diversifying farming systems (Hansen et al. 2011; Easterling et al. 2007; Howden et al. 2007; Adger et al. 2003). It is important, however, to note that all these potentials or possibilities hinge on the quality of the information; how it is packaged, framed, and communicated; its temporal and spatial scale; accessibility; and its unambiguity in informing decisions. This then extends the often-assumed notion that accessing, interpreting, and using climate and weather information is only a problem at the farmer level and not for those responsible for information dissemination to the farmers. This maintains and perpetuates the binaries of knowledge as a transaction between source and user.
Whereas climate change information (long-term based) is not readily accessed, interpreted, and considered for decision-making, climate variability information (short-term based) tends to be understood and used better (Singh et al. 2018; Pretty et al. 2011). For example, seasonal climate information such as expected seasonal rainfall amount, has immediate use while climate change, due to its long-term nature, cannot be readily used for immediate response but for long-term planning. This general hypothesis that climate variability information tends to be understood and used better is contingent to proper communication of the WCI. That is, the dissemination process, through which communication takes place, should be interactive and influence “change in people’s thinking and actions” (Rogers et al. 2019). Successful communication of WCI should satisfy the following elements: the information should be clear and precise, and dissemination channels should be well connected and reliable as well as timely to allow for adjustments in action (OECD/FAO 2016). If careful consideration of these is taken in packaging, WCI will be used more, and significant benefits at farmers’ level will be realized.
Taking a step farther and complementary to the identified success factors is the nuanced way of providing climate services through the processes of coproduction and engagement. This process breaks down the knowledge gradient and allows for the creation of interdisciplinary climate knowledge that is acceptable and holistic by both the practitioners and end users (Bojovic et al. 2021; Golding et al. 2017; Hewitt et al. 2017).
There are potential benefits that can be accrued from weather and climate information, particularly if it is generated through coproduction involving the coming together of smallholder agriculture stakeholders who include farmers, agrobased companies such as seed and fertilizer companies, researchers, and extension services departments (private and public). For the main beneficiaries, the farmers, benefits from forecasts can be realized if they address a “real and perceived” need, are accessible, are at an appropriate spatial scale, have an appropriate interpretation, are offered in a timely manner (with sufficient lead time), and are reliable/accurate and clear (Challinor 2009, 2008). In addition, management options such as those addressing the timing of agronomic practices and number of inputs to apply should be part of the forecast package. Ziervogel and Calder (2003) concluded that farmers who participated in training workshops and cocreation of forecast and climate services were more likely to use the forecasts than those who learned about forecasts in nonparticipatory ways, while O’Brien and Vogel (2003) conclude that noninvolvement of farmers or end users of climate information in policy interventions reduces chances of use of the information in decision-making. While climate information services are evolving and spreading in Africa (Makate et al. 2019), various challenges are faced by stakeholders in their endeavor to effectively use the information (Singh et al. 2018; Wilkinson et al. 2015).
Among the many challenges is overreliance on either scientific or indigenous knowledge instead of using both for better outcomes (Gyampoh et al. 2009). In Zimbabwe (the current study country), blended forecasts combining scientific and indigenous forecasts are developed during stakeholder participatory scenario planning preseason meetings in Chiredzi and Mwenezi Districts (authors’ experience). Smallholder farmers, National Meteorological Services personnel, agricultural extensions officers, and veterinary officers are among the stakeholders who participate in such meetings. Chagonda et al. (2013) established some coherence between indigenous and scientific rainfall forecasts in western Zimbabwe. Another challenge is ambiguity in the information or transmission of the information without the accompanying meaning, which leads to different and often ineffective user response and action (Nisbet 2009). Furthermore, the unreliability of the climate and weather information results in remarkably low rates of application and use of the information, even in areas where communities have 100% access to the information (Gyampoh and Asante 2011). In addition, for some cases, the information is too generalized to positively influence decision-making (Gyampoh and Asante 2011), particularly at the individual farmer level of decision-making.
Although many authors have explored communication of climate and weather information (Gyampoh et al. 2009; Gyampoh and Asante 2011; Nerlich et al. 2010; Ockwell et al. 2009; Russill and Nyssa 2009), most are limited to how different disciplines communicate climate change and weather information, potential communication tools and strategies, and politics and risk of climate change communication. There is, however, a gap in understanding the challenges and opportunities in the communication chain, that is, among different stakeholders, for example, from meteorological departments through intermediates to the end users of the information, the farmers. Where this is done, the spatial and temporal scales of these challenges and opportunities are like the effects of climate change itself: context-specific, varied, and ungeneralizable (Gyampoh and Asante 2011). Therefore, the overall objective of this study was to establish challenges and opportunities faced by intermediate stakeholders (those who serve farmers) in smallholder agricultural production in central semiarid Zimbabwe in accessing, interpreting, and using WCI as well as the opportunities thereof. Herein, intermediate stakeholders refer to people who act as “conduits” for the dissemination of information from the meteorological department and other sources to the farmers. This group of people is also important as they are also users of the same information. Specifically, the study sought to identify the type and sources of WCI received by intermediate stakeholders and to identify the use to which WCI was put to and establish constraints and opportunities to access, interpretation, and use of WCI.
2. Method
Selection of respondents
A two-stage sampling technique was used. The Midlands Province has eight districts, and two districts, namely, Gweru and Shurugwi, were purposively selected for easy access to study sites and stakeholders (Fig. 1). The two districts lie in agroecological regions III and IV of Zimbabwe, where the economy and livelihoods of most people are agrobased. Rainfall is generally low (450–800 mm yr−1) and erratic (Manatsa et al. 2020). Semi-intensive to semiextensive production of both crop and livestock are practiced predominantly under rain-fed conditions. A purposive total population sampling of 28 officers, 14 from each of the two selected districts, was done. The interviewed officers were all the members of the Midlands Provincial Drought Relief Committee, representing the two districts. The committee is responsible for coordinating drought response programs and activities in the Midlands Province. This committee was selected because of its diversity, expertise, and unique experience; first, the board consists of public service organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), parastatals (companies or agencies formed by an act of parliament, are mainly funded by government and managed by government appointees, have some political power, and whose activities serve the state, directly and indirectly), and private entities with diverse mandates. Second, its membership occupies a unique position in climate change response and adaptation; they are actively involved as intermediate stakeholders responsible for advising the communities on weather and climate issues. The members have a unique technical and practical experience as they traverse different levels of administration—the national, provincial, district, and farmer level—and the majority are also users of the climate information. Third, they are the group that maps out priority areas for climate change intervention at the district level guided by the WCI. Therefore, the organizations and the committee’s success is partly to entirely dependent on the use or communication of WCI.
Map of Zimbabwe, showing the location of Gweru and Shurugwi Districts.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 15, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0016.1
3. Data collection
Data on sources for WCI, accessing, interpreting, dissemination and use of WCI was collected through a questionnaire survey. A questionnaire was developed for data collection from key respondents from the provincial drought relief committee. The questionnaire was pretested to ensure clarity to respondents and avoid ambiguity of answers. Also, the questionnaire was checked for internal consistency of themes using the standardized Cronbach’s alpha (>0.9 for all themes) before it was administered. The questionnaire covered five major themes (sources of information: access, interpretation, dissemination/communication, and use) and was administered drop and collect after filling in, that is, the respondents were given the questionnaire, and the questionnaire was collected after a week. The research also benefitted from informal conversations during the delivery, and collection, of questionnaires. A 100% response rate was recorded.
4. Data analysis
Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics generated using the SPSS (version 20.0) statistical package.
5. Results and discussion
a. Demographic data
Approximately 79% (22) of the respondents were male, and 21% (6) female and the majority (85.7%) were employed in the public sector (Fig. 2). The high percentage of respondents from the public sector reflects the relative contribution of this sector in the provision of services to smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Although international organizations and parastatals (Fig. 2) play an important role, their services are outweighed by those of the public service in terms of coverage and human capital.
Types of organizations represented by respondents.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 15, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0016.1
Mandates of the organizations represented by the respondents varied, with most organizations dealing with livelihoods, livestock production, and food and nutrition security (Fig. 3). However, some organizations had more than one of the mandates outlined in the figure. In terms of the level of operation, 21.4% (3) of the organizations represented by the respondents operated at the national level while the remainder operated at the district level. Operations of the organizations, and those of the public sector in particular, are decentralized to provincial, district, and ward levels.
Mandates of the organizations represented by the respondents (NRM = natural resources management).
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 15, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0016.1
Approximately 43% of the respondents had been employed by their respective organizations for more than 10 years (Table 1), while approximately 21% had been employed for a period of 1–4 years.
Period of employment of respondents.
b. Time when organizations represented by respondents started climate-related activities
The majority of the respondents indicated that the organizations they represented started embarking on climate-related activities 4–5 years ago (35.7%) and 6–10 years ago (35.7%), while fewer organizations had started to do so recently and more than 10 years ago (Fig. 4). Involvement of the organizations in climate-related activities and recent involvement (1–5 years ago) by a fair majority (42.8%) is evidence that climate issues are increasingly becoming more important for the agriculture and food security sectors in the country.
Start of climate-related activities by organizations represented by the respondents.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 15, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0016.1
Chi-squared tests for association showed significant (P < 0.05) relationships between period of involvement in climate-related activities by the organization and access to WCI as well as between period of involvement and ability to interpret WCI. Respondents from organizations with longer periods of involvement had less challenges in accessing and understanding WCI. However, sources of information were similar, irrespective of duration of involvement of organization in climate-related activities. High staff turnover experienced in both governmental and NGOs is one possible cause for challenges in the understanding and use of WCI as experienced people in the case of government move to different organizations in search of better opportunities. In NGOs, the high turnover is a result of the contract nature of their projects.
c. Weather and climate—Related activities of organizations
Weather and climate-related activities of respondents included communicating information on daily weather forecasts (7.1%), promoting awareness on climate variability and change (71.4%), and training on climate information as well as informing communities on the quality likelihood of the rainfall season (50%). Thus, most of the respondents were involved in awareness of climate variability and change activities, and the fewest respondents were involved in communicating daily weather forecasts (Fig. 5).
Climate-related activities of organizations represented by respondents.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 15, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0016.1
Climate variability and change are affecting livelihood and income sources of communities in Zimbabwe and other African communities; hence communicating information on this subject is vital in influencing coping and adaptation strategies. Respondents who inform smallholder farmers on the quality likelihood of the rainfall season and those who communicate daily forecasts get the relevant information from the Meteorological Services Department (MSD). The MSD holds training workshops every year before the start of the rainfall season to present and explain the seasonal rainfall forecast and engaging intermediary stakeholders in formulating extension messages.
In rare cases, officers undertaking academic studies used climate data for academic research. However, for this purpose, data were only available from the MSD for a fee. Despite a significant proportion of respondents providing awareness on climate change, there was limited evidence of use of this long-term information for decision-making at the organization level. Consistent with this observation, Singh et al. (2018) and Pretty et al. (2011) reported very limited use of long-term climate information for decision-making in Africa and Asia. Respondents in the current study had suggestions on how farmers could adapt to a changing climate (see Table 3).
d. Access to climate information and the type of information accessed
All the respondents acknowledged having access to some form of WCI. WCI accessed by respondents ranged from daily to seasonal weather/climate forecast as well as climate change information (Fig. 6) with the majority having access to seasonal rainfall forecasts. Scientific seasonal rainfall forecasts were accessed by approximately 71% of the respondents while about 21% had access to traditional (indigenous) forecasts. Respondents ascertained that seasonal rainfall forecasts were critical to them as planners; they assisted them to advise farmers on the most appropriate agricultural options such as choice of crops and varieties to grow and when to plant, relative to the expected rainfall pattern, for optimum production. This was particularly so because most of the country’s population derive their livelihoods from rain-fed agriculture.
Weather and climate information accessed by respondents.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 15, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0016.1
Despite the potential use of 10-day forecasts in supporting/guiding within season farming decisions and in providing early warning of extreme weather events, they were not readily available to the respondents as they would normally get these on request, from the MSD.
Challenges and opportunities in accessing information
Approximately 38% of the respondents reported that information was not readily available, while about 31% mentioned that information was not available on time. Shortage of computers was a challenge for 7.1% of the respondents. To enhance use of WCI the information should be readily available, and it should also be available in time for planning purposes. Similar challenges in accessing WCI have been alluded to in other African countries, for example, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Rwanda (Araujo et al. 2016; UMFULA 2016; Zinyengere et al. 2016). However, it should be noted that in the case of forecasts the longer the lead time, the less “accurate” the forecast, hence a balance must be struck between accuracy and timeliness of release of the forecast. To this effect, timely communication or dissemination of the forecasts, once availed, becomes paramount. While information communication technology (ICT) is a modern and convenient tool for communication, some institutions had challenges accessing basic ICT tools such as computers and internet facilities. WCI stakeholders can take advantage of the existence of meteorological services offices (main provider of scientific WCI) in the various provinces and districts to access WCI, better. They also have the opportunity to improve access to the internet given the availability of a number of internet service providers country wide.
e. Sources of information and what the information was used for
Respondents obtained WCI from the MSD, the National Early Warning Unit (NEWU) for food security, the internet, and traditional leaders. The major source was the MSD, and the internet was the least used source (Table 2).
Sources of weather and climate information for the various stakeholders.
The Meteorological Services Department of Zimbabwe is the custodian of the scientific WCI and is a key member of NEWU. NEWU is mandated with the national Food Security Assessment and the unit’s products (bulletins and reports) often contain WCI. Traditional leaders were also an important source of WCI and the main climate information they provided was the seasonal rainfall forecasts/outlooks as purported by traditional local indicators such as behavior of certain animals, fruiting of particular indigenous trees and behavior of wind. Such information was used orally at briefing meetings.
Respondents confirmed that they used weather/climate forecasts, mostly for own (as organizations) planning and for formulating messages for the communities to which they provided services (Fig. 7). Out of the 28 respondents, 10 passed on the information to the farming communities in the form that they received it from the various sources, the MSD in particular, while a minority (14.3%) used the information for developing research and livelihoods grants. The uses herein outlined provide evidence that WCI is of vital use to the stakeholders. However, mere passing on of information as it is to communities may not be best practice as communities may not effectively use the information due to issues of limited understanding, misinterpretation and inadequate knowledge on what they can do to reduce the risks, if any, associated with information. They may also have limited knowledge on how they can capitalize on positive information. Thus, communication rather than mere dissemination of the information is needed. WMO (2015) and Helmuth et al. (2011) suggest that one reason why climate information products are not widely used is lack of communication and familiarization.
Various uses to which weather and climate information was put by the respondents.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 15, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0016.1
Challenges and opportunities in using the information
Several challenges were faced by respondents in using climate/weather forecasts. Approximately 28% of them cited that some of the information was not easy to interpret and therefore, not user friendly. As highlighted by 21.4% of the respondents, late access to information was a challenge as this made it difficult for them to make use of the information in planning. At times information conflicted with indigenous knowledge information (cited by 28% of the respondents), which their clients (smallholder farmers) used in decision-making. About 14% of the respondents mentioned lack of trust in the information by communities as a challenge. Difficulties in interpreting climate/weather forecasts by prospective users of WCI has been highlighted by several authors, for example, Araujo et al. (2016), Zinyengere et al. (2016), Wilkinson et al. (2015), and WMO (2015). It is encouraging to note that the country has a pool of meteorologists and agrometeorologists who can train the various intermediate stakeholders (training of trainers) who in turn will train the end users on interpretation of the forecasts. The MSD was already holding preseason meetings with some of the intermediate stakeholders [e.g., officers from the Agricultural Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) and Veterinary Services Departments] and farmers. Such platforms should continue to be used to explain the meaning of forecasts and the implications thereof. A step forward should aim at more involvement of intermediate stakeholders and the Meteorological Services Department in a participatory process with farmers to colearn and produce shared knowledge.
Similar to findings of this research Araujo et al. (2016) and Zinyengere et al. (2016) pointed out that late access to information made it difficult to make use of WCI in planning. In their findings, Araujo et al. (2016) echoed that the decision window for addressing adaptation was short and advocated for provision of information timely during windows of opportunity. The conflict between traditional forecasts and scientific forecasts posed a real challenge to those respondents whose role included communicating the forecasts to communities who used traditional forecasts in decision-making. Where conflicts exist between the two sources of forecasts, there is need for harmonization/blending of the two to reduce the potential confusion that may be caused to the end users of the forecasts. Meanwhile, Gyampoh et al. (2009) point out that one of the challenges in utilization of climate information is over reliance on scientific information at the expense of the indigenous knowledge of which both have their own challenges and are better used together. In line with this observation, it was encouraging to note that in Zimbabwe, service providers of WCI (NGOs, the MSD, and agricultural extension agencies) were now engaging smallholders farmers in developing hybrid seasonal rainfall forecasts that are formulated from both the scientific and indigenous forecasts [case study of Chiredzi, Mwenezi, Zvishavane, and Mberengwa under the Enhancing Community Resilience and Sustainability (ECRAS) and Enhancing Community Resilience and Inclusive Market Systems (ECRIMS) projects; see also Bojovic et al. (2021), Golding et al. (2017), and Hewitt et al. (2017) for such an approach in different contexts]. Such a practice allows buy-in from farmers and improves usefulness of the seasonal rainfall forecasts. This approach can be extended to farmers in other areas of the country and incorporated in the policy frames to enhance use of weather forecasts.
Lack of trust in the WCI is bound to negatively affect use of the forecasts, as communities tend to adopt technologies and/or information that they trust. As alluded to by Singh et al. (2018), WMO (2015), and Watt et al. (2018), reliable/trustworthy WCI supports effective adaptation and mitigation planning. Thus, the MSD that already has climate experts needs to improve on the accuracy of the forecasts. One way of building trust and improving accuracy is by engaging all stakeholders in the process of development and use of climate services (Golding et al. 2017). This can be experimented by using and evaluating engagement practices such as passive engagement, interactive group activities, focused relationships as proposed by Golding et al. (2017). This represents an opportunity to better understand the appropriate methods for different contexts for researchers as well as intermediate and end users.
f. Methods used by respondents to communicate/disseminate weather and climate information to communities
Respondents used various methods to disseminate information (Fig. 8). AGRITEX was the key actor in getting WCI to the farmers and the major means used was face to face meetings, cited by approximately 64% of the respondents. The other organizations passed the information to communities through the agricultural extension officers. Historically AGRITEX has been used as a technical service to back up NGO-funded projects (Hanyani-Mlambo 2002). The government department plays a pivotal role in mobilizing farmers and in jointly providing extension services with the NGOs and other government departments. Other dissemination pathways included radio, television, and through community leaders (Fig. 8).
Methods used by respondents to disseminate information on weather and climate.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 15, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0016.1
Because of its relatively wide representation at provincial, district, and ward levels, AGRITEX was better placed to reach out to rural farmers. The identified dissemination pathways are indicative of collaborative efforts among stakeholders. However, this could be improved by deliberate setting up of working groups comprising all of the relevant organizations: these would plan together and use resources collectively to foster use of WCI by the smallholder farmers in the face of climate change and increasing climate variability.
g. Ability to interpret weather and climate information received
Approximately 71% of the respondents mentioned that they could understand and/or interpret the information that they received (Fig. 9). Other respondents had limited ability to interpret or understand the information as shown in Fig. 9
Extent to which respondents could interpret weather/climate information they received.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 15, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0016.1
The respondents found the scientific seasonal rainfall forecasts difficult to interpret. In Zimbabwe the forecasts are issued for the first and second half of the rainfall season, namely, October–December and January–March periods, respectively. The forecasts are also done for three broad geographical regions specifically demarcated for rainfall forecasting purposes. The forecasts are given as probabilities of having three categories of rainfall amounts, namely, normal, above normal, and below normal.
Wilkinson et al. (2015) ascertain that climate information products are not well understood and the Zimbabwean situation as revealed in the two study districts is not an exception. Approximately 29% of service providers had limited understanding of the WCI and yet they were expected to pass on the information to the end users. Distortion of information would be the end result, and this has a ripple effect in the sense that farmer-to-farmer dissemination of information was a common phenomenon. This calls for training on various WCI products and their interpretation.
h. Feedback mechanisms used by respondents
Approximately 64% of the respondents held workshops and/or meetings to get feedback from communities, while others relied on reports from collaborating organizations, particularly reports from agricultural extension officers (57%) (Fig. 10). Within the same organization, feedback was also obtained from fellow members working at lower organizational levels, for example, at the ward level.
Methods of feedback to farmers that were used by the various organizations.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 15, 1; 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0016.1
Challenges and opportunities in disseminating weather-climate information
Although dissemination of WCI in Africa is noted to have improved in recent years (Singh et al. 2018), several challenges continue to be experienced in the study areas. Limited human capital (cited by 14.3%), bureaucratic channels (35.7%), lack of appropriate facilities (71.4%), and lack of resources to get feedback (7.1%) were the major impediments to the efforts by the various organizations to disseminate WCI. It was established that limited funding was the major cause of these challenges, save for bureaucratic channels. There is a need to improve dissemination of information and get feedback from users to facilitate use and improvement of the WCI products. AGRITEX is the department with the highest level of decentralization and have personnel at lowest level of engagement. Other stakeholders were reaching out to farmers through this department and perhaps more effort could be directed toward stakeholders pulling together resources to adequately and effectively communicate WCI to farmers and get feedback from them. WCI providers needed to continue to explore the best ways of packaging and disseminating the information through existing radio, telephone, and television channels.
i. Intermediate stakeholders’ suggestions to improve access, dissemination, and use of WCI
Respondents proposed several suggestions for improving access, dissemination, and use/usefulness of WCI, as shown in Table 3. Suggestions for improving access varied from technological to institutional interventions. Technological interventions included improving internet service while institutional interventions included decentralization of information services to village level through establishing information centers. Respondents believed that use of appropriate (local) language in presenting and interpreting WCI and increased frequency of meetings and/updates with communities would improve their understanding of WCI. To improve use of WCI, respondents suggested improved access and dissemination of the information as well as educating the communities on how they can make use of the information either through formal training or through demonstrations. Respondents also provided specific adaptation strategies farmers could adopt in the face of climate change and increasing climate variability. These strategies included choice of crops and crop varieties, choice of animal breeds, and use of WCI, particularly if information was received in good time and updates given regularly. They also advocated for adoption of soil and water conservations strategies. Some advocated for climate-smart agriculture (CSA), a concept that included the strategies already outlined and other strategies such as intercropping and conservation agriculture (not specified by the respondents). Implementing these strategies will likely result in significant strides toward climate resilience.
Establishment of information centers is an idea that has been adopted by countries such as Malawi, where climate information centers are available in a number of districts (UMFULA 2016) and can also be implemented in Zimbabwe.
Stakeholder suggestions to improve access, dissemination, and use of WCI.
6. Conclusions and recommendations
This research sought to identify the type and sources of WCI received by intermediate stakeholders, identify the use to which weather and climate information was put, and establish constraints and opportunities to access, interpretation, and use of WCI as well as the ways for improving communication and dissemination. The research addressed issues dealing with use and communication of WCI from the perspective of service providers/intermediate stakeholders as opposed to that of the usually focused on end users, the farmers.
It was established that the majority of both the private and public sector organizations who offered services to smallholder farmers gets their information from the National Meteorological Services Department with a few organizations getting WCI from the National Early Warning Unit (NEWU) for food security, community leaders, and internet sources. The WCI information they accessed and/or used was largely that used on a short- to medium-term basis (daily, 10 daily, and seasonal weather data/information). WCI information was mainly used for own planning purposes, formulation of extension messages for farmers and development of research and livelihood grants. Some of the information was passed on to farmers as it was received from the source. The major end user of the WCI was the farmer and the major service provider (Department of AGRITEX in the Ministry of Agriculture) reached out to these farmers through face-to-face meetings, while the other organizations reached the farmers via AGRITEX.
Several challenges were being faced by service providers in their endeavors to use, avail and enhance use of WCI by end users. It was worrisome that personnel from some of the organizations had difficulties interpreting the information and had late access to information. Some of their targeted clients (farmers) did not trust the information they passed on to them, while at times, there was conflicting information between scientific and indigenous forecasts (the latter were also used by the farmers in decision-making). Limited human capital, bureaucratic channels, lack of appropriate facilities and lack of resources to get feedback were the major impediments to service providers’ efforts to disseminate WCI. Service providers had a wide array of suggestions to improve access, dissemination, use, and understanding of WCI. These may be categorized into the following: capacity building of institutions (e.g., with provision of ICT tools, training, and increasing manpower), improved interaction and engagement of institutions with both providers (sources) of information and the end users (e.g., having joint preseason workshops for all stakeholders before seasonal forecasts can be utilized, engaging farmers in formulation of response action), creating and/or decentralization of WCI centers, provision of good quality WCI products (e.g., products that are easy to understand, use of local language, provision of information in time, provision of reliable information), and provision of regular updates. For the smallholder farmers who already use indigenous forecast, use of scientific forecasts can be improved by using the two sources together, where possible. This can be adopted from Chiredzi and Mwenezi Districts of the country where hybrid forecasts are produced during multiple stakeholder (including farmers) participatory scenario planning meetings that are held prior to start of the rainfall season. In addition, collaboration and engagement among the various organizations needs to be strengthened. It is also critical to improve use of long-term climate information for decision-making, given the gravity of climate change effects on national economies and food security.
We believe that codeveloped solutions are easier to implement and will most likely give positive results. Thus, the government and the private sector should support service providers at district and lower levels to address the combined (respondents and researchers) identified WCI needs.
Acknowledgments.
The authors are grateful to the personnel from the Midlands Province Drought Relief Committee who devoted their time in providing valuable answers to our research questions. This research was self-funded. No external funds were used to carry out the research.
Data availability statement.
Findings of this study are based on data that were collected using a questionnaire, and these data are available from the corresponding author upon request (makuvarov@staff.msu.ac.zw).
REFERENCES
Adger, W. N., S. Huq, K. Brown, C. Declan, and H. Mike, 2003: Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Prog. Dev. Stud., 3, 179–195, https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993403ps060oa.
Araujo, J., N. Zinyengere, J. H. Marsham, and D. Rowell, 2016: Rwanda country fact sheet: Climate information for an uncertain future. Africa’s climate: Helping decision-makers make sense of climate information, Future Climate for Africa, Climate & Development Knowledge Network, 73–80, https://futureclimateafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/africas-climate-final-report-4nov16.pdf.
Batisani, N., and B. Yarnal, 2010: Rainfall variability and trends in semi-arid Botswana: Implications for climate change adaptation policy. Appl. Geogr., 30, 483–489, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.10.007.
Bojovic, D., A. L. St. Clair, I. Christel, M. Terrado, P. Stanzel, P. Gonzalez, and E. J. Palin, 2021: Engagement, involvement and empowerment: Three realms of a coproduction framework for climate services. Global Environ. Change, 68, 102271, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102271.
Boko, M., and Coauthors, 2007: Africa. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. M. L. Parry et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 433–467, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg2-chapter9-1.pdf.
Chagonda, I., A. Munodawafa, F. T. Mugabe, V. Makuvaro, P. Masere, and C. T. F. Murewi, 2013: Comparative performance of scientific and indigenous knowledge on seasonal climate forecasts: A case study of Lupane, semi-arid Zimbabwe. Int. J. Agron. Agric. Res., 3 (5), 1–9.
Challinor, A., 2008: Towards a science of adaptation that prioritises the poor. IDS Bull., 39, 81–86, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2008.tb00480.x.
Challinor, A., 2009: Towards the development of adaptation options using climate and crop yield forecasting at seasonal to multi-decadal timescales. Environ. Sci. Policy, 12, 453–465, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.09.008.
Easterling, W. E., and Coauthors, 2007: Food, fibre and forest products. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, M. L. Parry et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 273–313, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg2-chapter5-1.pdf.
Golding, N., C. Hewitt, and P. Zhang, 2017: Effective engagement for climate services: Methods in practice in China. Climate Serv., 8, 72–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.11.002.
Gyampoh, B. A., and W. A. Asante, 2011: Mapping and Documenting Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change Adaptation in Ghana. Africa Adaptation Programme, United Nations Development Programme, 139 pp.
Gyampoh, B. A., M. Idinoba, and S. Amisah, 2008: Water scarcity under a changing climate in Ghana: Options for livelihoods adaptation. Development, 51, 415–417, https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2008.46.
Gyampoh, B. A., S. Amisah, M. Idinoba, and J. N. Nkem, 2009: Using traditional knowledge to cope with climate change in rural Ghana. Unasylva, 60, 70–74.
Hansen, J. W., S. J. Mason, L. Sun, and A. Tall, 2011: Review of seasonal climate forecasting for agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Exp. Agric., 47, 205–240, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479710000876.
Hanyani-Mlambo, B. T., 2002: Strengthening the pluralistic agricultural extension system: A Zimbabwean case study. United Nations Food Agriculture Organisation, 50 pp., https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/esw/esw_new/documents/IP/4_AC913E00.pdf.
Helmuth, B., L. Yamane, S. Lalwani, A. Matzelle, A. Tockstein, and N. Gao, 2011: Hidden signals of climate change in intertidal ecosystems: What (not) to expect when you are expecting. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 400, 191–199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2011.02.004.
Hewitt, C. D., R. C. Stone, and A. B. Tait, 2017: Improving the use of climate information in decision-making. Nat. Climate Change, 7, 614–616, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3378.
Howden, S. M., J. F. Soussana, F. N. Tubiello, N. Chhetri, M. Dunlop, and H. Meinke, 2007: Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 19 691–19 696, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701890104.
Makate, C., M. Makate, N. Mango, and S. Siziba, 2019: Increasing resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change through multiple adoption of proven climate-smart agriculture innovations. Lessons from southern Africa. J. Environ. Manage., 231, 858–868, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.069.
Manatsa, D., and Coauthors, 2020: Revision of Zimbabwe’s agro-ecological zones. Zimbabwe National Geospatial and Space Agency, 95 pp.
Nerlich, B., N. Koteyko, and B. Brown, 2010: Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 1, 97–110, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.2.
Nisbet, M., 2009: Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustainable Dev., 51, 12–23, https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23.
O’Brien, K. L., and C. Vogel, 2003: Coping with Climate Variability: The Use of Seasonal Climate Forecasts in Southern Africa. Ashgate, 220 pp.
Ockwell, D., L. Whitmarsh, and S. O’Neill, 2009: Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: Forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement? Sci. Commun., 30, 305–327, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008328969.
OECD/FAO, 2016: Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: Prospects and challenges for the next decade. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016–2025, 59–95, https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2016-5-en.
Pretty, J., C. Toulmin, and S. Williams, 2011: Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability, 9, 5–24, https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0583.
Rogers, E. M., A. Singhal, and M. M. Quinlan, 2019: Diffusion of innovations. An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, 3rd ed. Routledge, 432–448, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203710753-35.
Russill, C., and Z. Nyssa, 2009: The tipping point trend in climate change communication. Global Environ. Change, 19, 336–344, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.04.001.
Singh, C., J. Daron, A. Bazaz, G. Ziervogel, D. Spear, J. Krishnaswamy, M. Zaroug, and E. Kituyi, 2018: The utility of weather and climate information for adaptation decision-making: Current uses and future prospects in Africa and India. Climate Dev., 10, 389–405, https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1318744.
UMFULA, 2016: Africa’s climate: Helping decision-makers make sense of climate information. Future Climate for Africa, Climate & Development Knowledge Network, 112 pp., https://futureclimateafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/africas-climate-final-report-4nov16.pdf.
Watt, S., K. E. McNamara, and H. Nesbitt, 2018: Providing useful climate information to subsistence farmers: The case of Timor-Leste. J. Food Agric. Environ., 16, 64–72.
Wilkinson, E., M. Budimir, A. K. Ahmed, and G. Ouma, 2015: Climate information and services in BRACED countries. Resilience Intel, 20 pp., https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/10128.pdf.
WMO, 2015: Valuing weather and climate: Economic assessment of meteorological and hydrological services. WMO 1153, 308 pp., https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3314.
World Bank, 2019: Zimbabwe—Rapid Impact and Needs Assessment (RINA). World Bank, 105 pp., https://www.gfdrr.org/en/publication/zimbabwe-rapid-impact-needs-assessment-2019.
Ziervogel, G., and R. Calder, 2003: Climate variability and rural livelihoods: Assessing the impact of seasonal climate forecasts in Lesotho. Area, 35, 403–417, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-0894.2003.00190.x.
Zinyengere, N., J. Araujo, J. H. Marsham, and D. Rowell, 2016: Uganda country fact sheet: Current and projected future climate. Africa’s climate: Helping decision-makers make sense of climate information, Future Climate for Africa, Climate & Development Knowledge Network, 92–100, https://futureclimateafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/africas-climate-final-report-4nov16.pdf.
