Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-9 (section)

==== 9.4.5.1 Climate Information and Services ====

<div id="h3-10-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Climate services (CS) broadly include the generation, tailoring and provision of climate information for use in decision making at all levels of society ( [[#Street--2016|Street, 2016]] ; [[#Vaughan--2018|Vaughan et al., 2018]] ). There is a range of climate service providers in Africa, including primarily National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS) and partner institutions, complemented by NGOs, the private sector and research institutions ( [[#Snow--2016|Snow et al., 2016]] ; [[#Harvey--2019|Harvey et al., 2019]] ), which offer the potential for public–private partnerships ( [[#Winrock--2018|Winrock, 2018]] ; [[#Harvey--2019|Harvey et al., 2019]] ).

International development funding has progressed the provision of CS and, together with technological advances and capacity-building initiatives, has increased the reliability of CS across Africa ( [[#Vogel--2019|Vogel et al., 2019]] ). Most CS investments have been towards the agricultural sector, with other focal sectors, including pastoralism, health, water, energy and disaster risk reduction, having only small CS initiatives directed towards them ( [[#Nkiaka--2019|Nkiaka et al., 2019]] ; [[#Carr--2020|Carr et al., 2020]] ). Despite this focus and investment, however, there remains a mismatch between the supply and uptake of CS in Africa as information is often inaccessible, unaffordable, not relevant to context or scale, and is poorly communicated ( [[#Singh--2018|Singh et al., 2018]] ; [[#Antwi-Agyei--2021|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021]] ) (Table 9.4; Sections 9.4.1.5.1 and 9.13.4.1). Observational data required for effective regional CS, including trend analyses, seasonal climate assessment, modelling and model evaluation, is sparse and often of poor quality (Figure 9.11) and usually requires payment which renders it unaffordable ( [[#Winrock--2018|Winrock, 2018]] ).

A number of these challenges can be addressed through the transdisciplinary co-production of CS ( [[#Alexander--2019|Alexander and Dessai, 2019]] ; [[#Vogel--2019|Vogel et al., 2019]] ; [[#Carter--2020|Carter et al., 2020]] ). Co-production of CS involves climate information producers, practitioners and stakeholders, and other knowledge holders participating in equitable partnerships and dialogues to collaboratively identify climate-based risk and develop scale-relevant climate information to address this risk (Table 9.4) ( [[#Vincent--2018|Vincent et al., 2018]] ; [[#Carter--2020|Carter et al., 2020]] ).

'''Table 9.4 |''' Challenges and opportunities for Climate Services in Africa for the supply and uptake of climate services.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Challenges'''

! '''Opportunities/solutions'''

! '''References'''

! '''Examples of programmes that address these challenges''' a

|-
| colspan="4"| '''Supply of Climate Services'''

|-
| Poor infrastructure (e.g., non-functioning observational networks; limited Internet bandwidth; lack of climate modelling capacity; issues of keeping pace with changing technology)

| * International funding for observation networks, data rescue and data sharing
* Regular NMHS budgets from governments
* Public–private partnerships

| [[#Snow--2016|Snow et al. (2016)]] ; [[#World%20Bank%20Group--2016|World Bank Group (2016)]] ; [[#Winrock--2018|Winrock (2018)]] ; [[#Cullmann--2020|Cullmann et al. (2020)]] ; [[#Meque--2021|Meque et al. (2021)]]

| ''East Africa and the West African Sahel (ENACTS programme)''

Working with NMHS to provide enhanced services by overcoming the challenges of data quality, availability and access.

Creating of reliable climate information suitable for national and local decision-making using station observations and satellite data to provide greater accuracy in smaller space and time scales.

|-
| Fragmented delivery of Climate Services

| * Greater collaboration between the NMHS and sector-specific specialists to create a central database of sector-based climate services

| [[#Winrock--2018|Winrock (2018)]] ; [[#Hansen--2019a|Hansen et al. (2019a)]]

| ''Rwanda (RCSA programme)''

Improving CS and agricultural risk management at local and national government levels in the face of a variable and changing climate.

|-
| Mismatch in time scales: short-term information more desirable (e.g., seasonal predictions as opposed to decadal or end of century projections)

| * Co-production of climate service products

| [[#Jones--2015|Jones et al. (2015)]] ; [[#Vincent--2018|Vincent et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Hansen--2019a|Hansen et al. (2019a)]] ; [[#Carr--2020|Carr et al. (2020)]] ; [[#Sultan--2020|Sultan et al. (2020)]]

| ''Burkina Faso (BRACED project)''

Strengthening technical and communication capacities of national meteorological services to enable partners to jointly develop forecasts tailored to support agro-pastoralists.

|-
| Development funding interventions operate on time scales that inhibit or restrict effective adaptation and neglect to build in considerations for sustainability post the funded intervention

| * Co-production of climate service products
* Endogenously driven climate services (services that are developed by regional actors, not by remote, usually developed nation actors)

| [[#Vincent--2018|Vincent et al. (2018)]] ; Vogel et al. (2019) [[#Vincent--2020a|Vincent et al. (2020a)]]

| ''Burkina Faso (BRACED project)''

Actors recognised the need to ensure continuation of CS post-project. Burkina Faso NMHS (ANAM) and National Council for Emergency Assistance and Rehabilitation (CONASUR) budgeted for the continued communication of CS and training of focal weather intermediaries. Local radio stations agreed to continue transmitting CS.

|-
| colspan="4"| '''Use of Climate Services'''

|-
| Insufficient access to usable data, including station data, and information suited to the decision context (including accessibility limitations based on gender and social inequalities)

| * Capacity development initiatives for Climate Services providers, intermediaries (including extension agents, NGO workers and others) and users
* User needs assessments
* Consistent monitoring and evaluation of Climate Services interventions

| [[#Jones--2015|Jones et al. (2015)]] ; [[#Winrock--2018|Winrock (2018)]] ; [[#Hansen--2019a|Hansen et al. (2019a)]] ; [[#Hansen--2019c|Hansen et al. (2019c)]] ; [[#Mercy%20Corps--2019|Mercy Corps (2019)]] ; [[#Nkiaka--2019|Nkiaka et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Carr--2020|Carr et al. (2020)]] ; [[#Cullmann--2020|Cullmann et al. (2020)]] ; [[#Gumucio--2020|Gumucio et al. (2020)]] ; [[#Sultan--2020|Sultan et al. (2020)]]

Figure 9.11

| ''Kenya, Ethiopia, Ghana, Niger and Malawi (ALP Programme)''

Co-production of relevant information for decision making and planning at seasonal time scales. The methods and media for communication and messages differ between different users. Strong emphasis on participation by women.

|-
| Limited capacity of users to understand or request appropriate Climate Services products

| * Co-production of climate service products
* Capacity development

| [[#Snow--2016|Snow et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Singh--2018|Singh et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Vincent--2018|Vincent et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Nkiaka--2019|Nkiaka et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Daniels--2020|Daniels et al. (2020)]]

| ''Cities in Zambia, Namibia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Malawi and South Africa (FRACTAL programme)''

Repeated interactions between each represented sector to learn and more completely understand the different contexts of each represented party and build understanding through an ethic of collaboration for solving climate-related problems in each unique city.

|-
| Lack of user trust in the information

| * Co-production of climate service products
* Combine scientific and Indigenous forecasts
* Demonstrate added value of the climate service

| [[#Vincent--2018|Vincent et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Nkiaka--2019|Nkiaka et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Vaughan--2019|Vaughan et al. (2019)]] ; Vogel et al. (2019); [[#Nyadzi--2021|Nyadzi et al. (2021)]]

| ''Tanzania (ENACTS programme)''

Co-production to inform malaria decisions systematically and change relationships, trust, and demand in a manner that had not been realised through previous singular and siloed approaches.

|-
| Socioeconomic, and institutional barriers (limited professional mandates, financing limitations, institutional cooperation)

| * Regular NMHS budgets from governments
* Public–private partnerships
* Supportive institutions, policy frameworks and individual capacity and agency

| [[#Snow--2016|Snow et al. (2016)]] ; [[#World%20Bank%20Group--2016|World Bank Group (2016)]] ; [[#Winrock--2018|Winrock (2018)]] ; [[#Harvey--2019|Harvey et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Vincent--2020b|Vincent et al. (2020b)]]

|
|}

Notes:

(a) Reproduced from [[#Carter--2020|Carter et al. (2020)]] with permission.

However, the effectiveness of co-production processes are hindered by aspects such as inequitable power relationships between different types of knowledge holders (e.g., scientists and practitioners), inequitable distribution of funding between developed country and African partners that favours developed country partners, an inability to develop sustained trust relationships as a result of short-funding cycles, a lack of flexibility due to product-focused engagements and the scalability of co-production to enable widespread reach across Africa as the process is usually context specific ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Vincent--2018|Vincent et al., 2018]] ; [[#Vogel--2019|Vogel et al., 2019]] ; 2020a).

Despite these challenges, the inclusive nature of co-production has had a positive influence on the uptake of CS into decision making where it has been applied (Table 9.4; Figure 9.12; [[#Vincent--2018|Vincent et al., 2018]] ; [[#Vogel--2019|Vogel et al., 2019]] ; [[#Carter--2020|Carter et al., 2020]] ; [[#Chiputwa--2020|Chiputwa et al., 2020]] ) ( ''medium confidence'' ), through sustained inter/transdisciplinary relationships and capacity development ( [[#Norström--2020|Norström et al., 2020]] ), strategic financial investment, fostering of ownership of resulting products and the combining of scientific and other knowledge systems ( [[#Carter--2020|Carter et al., 2020]] ; [[#Steynor--2020a|Steynor et al., 2020a]] ). There is ''high confidence'' that together with improved institutional capacity building and strategic financial investment, CS can help African stakeholders adapt to projected climate risks (Figure 9.11).

<div id="_idContainer032" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:758f3feab3aac0a315c4b408a80ef5fa IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_9_012.png]]

'''Figure 9.12 |''' '''The inclusive nature of co-production has had a positive influence on the uptake of climate services into decision making in Africa.''' Selected examples of the co-production of climate services and the sectors involved. Icons indicate sectors and numbers show the programmes under which the co-production engagements occurred. Programmes listed are (1) AMMA-2050: Combining Scenario Games, Participatory Modelling and Theatre Forums to Co-produce Climate Information for Medium-term Planning, (2,3) BRACED: Sharing Lessons on Promoting Gender Equality through a ‘Writeshop’, (4) RCSA: Bringing Climate Services to People Living in Rwanda’s Rural Areas, (5) ALP: Participatory Scenario Planning for Local Seasonal Climate Forecasts and Advisories, (6) Climate Risk Narratives: Co-producing Stories of the Future, (7) ENACTS: Developing Climate Services for Malaria Surveillance and Control in Tanzania, (8) FATHUM: Forecast for Anticipatory Humanitarian Action, (9) FRACTAL: Learning Labs, Dialogues and Embedded Researchers in Southern African Cities, (10) FONERWA: Climate Risk Screening Tool, (11) MHEWS: Multi-hazard Early Warning System for Coastal Tanzania, (12) Resilient Transport Strategic Assessment for Dar es Salaam, (13) RRA: Climate Attribution for Extreme Weather Events in Ethiopia and Kenya, (14) UMFULA: Co-producing Climate Information for Medium-term Planning in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus, (15) IRRP: Building Resilience in Tanzania’s Energy Sector Planning, (16) PRISE: Co-exploring Relevant Evidence for Policy Change in Kenya, (17) NMA ENACTS: An Example of a Co-produced Climate Service Fit for Purpose, (18) REACH: Improving Water Security for the Poor in Turkana County, Kenya, (19) DARAJA: Co-designing Weather and Climate Information Services for and with Urban Informal Settlements in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, (20) ForPAc: Co-producing Approaches to Forecast-based Early Action for Drought and Floods in Kenya, (21) HIGHWAY: Co-produced Impact-based Early Warnings and Forecasts to Support Fishing Communities on Lake Victoria, (22) HyCRISTAL: Using Video to Initiate Farmer Dialogue with Local Government in Mukono, Uganda, (23) SCIPEA: Co-produced Seasonal Forecasts for More Effective Management of Hydropower Supply in Kenya, (24) Weather Wise: Co-producing Weather and Climate Radio Content for Farmers, Fishermen and Pastoralists in East Africa. See [[#Carter--2020|Carter et al. (2020)]] for details and outcomes of each engagement. Source: [[#Carter--2020|Carter et al. (2020)]] .

<div id="9.4.5.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="community-perceptions-of-climate-variability-and-change"></span>