A forum-based method, developed by CARE’s Adaptation Learning Programme (ALP) and rolled out in Kenya with the Kenya Meteorological Department and the national agriculture programme ASDSP. Each season, forecasters, local officials, community representatives, NGOs, the private sector and the media meet to read the seasonal forecast together and agree on practical advice for their area.
Map
Participatory Scenario Planning for seasonal climate information
General Information
ISIG
A five-step method in which meteorologists, local officials, community members and other local actors jointly interpret the seasonal forecast and turn it into advisories that people can act on. Partners first design the process locally, then hold a multi-stakeholder forum soon after the national forecast is released. At the forum, participants review the past season, work through the downscaled forecast, build scenarios for the most likely outcome and for alternatives, and agree on actions and advisories for each sector. The advisories are shared through radio, SMS, brochures and community meetings, and a final step collects feedback so that the next forum can be improved. PSP was developed in Kenya, Ghana and Niger and is documented as in use in Ethiopia and Malawi as well. The available evidence is operational and comes from the implementing partners: a county monitoring exercise in Homa Bay for the 2014 March–May season, CARE’s 2016–17 impact assessments of climate information services in five countries, and a practical guide.
Kenya has two main rainy seasons, and a large part of the country is arid or semi-arid. Farmers, pastoralists and fishers face droughts, floods and erratic rainfall, and their decisions on what to plant, where to graze and when to move depend on the weather to come. The Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD) issues national seasonal forecasts, but these are broad, technical and stated in terms of probability. Many local users cannot translate them into decisions, and local officials and service providers often receive them too late or without a clear link to their own work.
Participation Scenario Planning was developed by CARE’s ALP to close this gap. The first Kenyan forum took place in Garissa County in 2011. Since then Kenya has decentralised meteorological services to county level, and the guide reports that KMD made PSP its main way of communicating downscaled seasonal forecasts to counties, calling the forum the County Climate Outlook Forum. The national agriculture programme ASDSP, which sits under the Ministry responsible for agriculture and livestock, also took up PSP to make farm value chains better able to cope with climate variability. The guide states that the approach has been scaled up in all 47 Kenyan counties.
Hazard Type
Geographical Scope - Nuts
Geographical Scope
Population Size
Population Density
Needs Addressed
Seasonal forecasts are produced at national or regional scale, are expressed in probabilities and are rarely translated into advice for a given livelihood and place. As a result, farmers, pastoralists and the officials and NGOs who support them often cannot use them for planning. PSP addresses this by (1) downscaling and interpreting the forecast locally, (2) combining scientific and traditional forecasts, (3) agreeing on what different sectors should consider doing under each scenario, and (4) getting that advice to people in time and in a form they understand.
The approach is aimed at people whose livelihoods depend on the weather: smallholder farmers, pastoralists, fishers and other value-chain actors, with explicit attention to women and to reaching all gender and social groups.
In Kenya the process runs at county level, supported by county directors of meteorology and county government departments under national frameworks, and it is coordinated by a local task force or working group that brings together government, NGOs and community members (for example the Garissa Climate Change Working Group). Elsewhere it has been initiated by NGOs working with the national meteorological service. The method can be led by a public body or by a partnership, depending on the country.
PSP assumes that a national forecasting service exists and that local government and sector departments can take part, but it does not require a full local disaster plan. Where such plans exist, such as county contingency plans, the guide suggests that PSP information can feed into them.
The method needs a national meteorological service able to provide a seasonal forecast and, ideally, downscale it; a venue and a local coordinating group; and at least one channel for sharing advisories (radio, SMS, printed material or community meetings). The guide notes that the lack of weather stations in many places limits local-scale forecasting. The requirements depend on and change with context.
The aim is shared work between forecast providers and forecast users.
Partner organisations design the process together, form a local task force, and run the forum with participants from government, the meteorological service, community groups, NGOs, the private sector, the media and traditional forecasters. Participants jointly produce the consensus forecast, the scenarios and the advisories. A feedback and monitoring step then asks users how the advisories were received and used.
Community representatives and traditional forecasters contribute their knowledge and their needs, and this input shapes the scenarios and the advisories that are issued. The advisories are presented as options that each user can choose from, not as instructions, so decisions on farm and livestock management remain with the users.
The guide includes a training-of-trainers approach, and the forums themselves build understanding of probabilistic forecasts among participants. In Garissa, the county working group that grew out of the first forum was later recognised as technical adviser to the county steering group.
Vulnerable Groups
Governance
Emergency Preparedness
Engagement Level
Empowerment Level
Implementation
- A repeatable seasonal cycle linked to the release of the national forecast, so the advice reflects the latest information.
- Scientific and traditional forecasts are discussed together to reach a shared view of the season.
- Scenarios cover the most likely outcome and alternatives, so uncertainty is made visible, and the advisories are framed as options.
- Advisories are written for each sector and group, and shared through several channels and local languages.
- A built-in feedback step with suggested questions and ratings for monitoring.
- A practical guide with a sample agenda, role descriptions and indicative cost items, written to be applied by other organisations.
The advisories themselves are shared in local languages, and the Homa Bay review recommended translation into Suba for future seasons.
CARE International’s Adaptation Learning Programme (ALP) developed PSP and supported its early rollout. In Kenya it was taken forward together with the Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD), the Agriculture Sector Development Support Programme (ASDSP), county governments and local NGOs. County working groups coordinate the forums.
The method can be led by a national or sub-national meteorological service, a local government department (planning, agriculture, disaster management) or an NGO with a local presence, as long as a meteorological partner provides the forecast and a local group takes on coordination. The guide distinguishes initiating, facilitating and funding partners.
KMD is the national forecasting service and is responsible for providing weather and climate information to different sectors. CARE’s ALP worked on climate adaptation in Ghana, Kenya and Niger from 2010 to 2017, and the guide was written by ALP staff. ASDSP operates in all 47 counties.
An implementer needs a link to forecasting expertise, experience in convening local stakeholders and in facilitation, and the standing to bring government departments to the table. A government body with a climate-information mandate, or an NGO with long local presence and a meteorological partner, can meet these needs.
KMD and county directors of meteorology; county government departments (planning, agriculture, livestock, water, gender and social services); ASDSP and its county working groups; CARE ALP and other NGOs; farmers, pastoralists, fishers and their groups; traditional forecasters; local administration (such as chiefs, who help organise community meetings); radio and other media; and private sector actors such as input suppliers and traders.
- Initiate and design: identify local stakeholders, present the case for PSP, form partnerships and agree roles and cost-sharing.
- Prepare the workshop: agree dates linked to the forecast release, invite participants, prepare information on the past season and the forecast, and brief facilitators.
- Hold the multi-stakeholder forum, normally in five sessions: looking back at the previous season, hearing the downscaled forecast, building scenarios of what each outcome could mean, planning actions, and drafting advisories.
- Communicate the advisories: choose channels and languages for each audience, share through radio, SMS, brochures and community meetings, and follow up with updates during the season.
- Monitor, collect feedback and learn: ask users whether they received, understood and used the advice, and use the findings to improve the next forum.
Beyond these steps the guide covers how to make the process last, through local ownership, integration into county plans and links to national climate-information services.
Meteorological expertise; trained facilitators; a venue and workshop materials; budget for participants’ travel, meals and allowances; a communication budget for radio, printing and translation; and staff time for coordination and monitoring. Funding in the reviewed cases came first from programme donors, with partner contributions such as free airtime or meeting rooms.
The cycle is repeated each rainy season. Each cycle moves through the five steps: design and preparation, a forum soon after the national forecast, communication of advisories during the season, and feedback and learning before the next one. The first Kenyan forum was in 2011, and the process has been repeated since.
Experience of the Implementing Organisation in DRM
Target Audience
Resources Required
Timeframe & Phases
Participation Results
- Start with local partners and give them ownership of the design.
- Time the forum to the release of the national forecast.
- Include traditional forecasters, women and the main groups in the local value chain so that the advisories reflect what different users need.
- Write advisories as options and choose channels and languages to match each audience.
- Build in a feedback step: in Homa Bay it showed which information users valued and where the process fell short.
Forecasts are probabilistic and not always easy to trust, so facilitators explain the limits of the forecast and present the advisories as options. Downscaling is hard where weather stations are few, so the forum combines the meteorological forecast with local observations and traditional forecasts.
In the Homa Bay review, participants reported that advisories reached them late, were mainly about production and did not cover input supply, processing or trading, and would be easier to follow if simplified and translated. The county response was to use the feedback to redesign the next forum. Reach also varies by channel: radio audiences differ by gender and place, and the guide recommends combining radio with community meetings and other channels.
Participation costs, such as allowances for officials and travel, are a burden when PSP is new in an area. The guide expects these to fall as PSP becomes part of government planning.
Risk: the forum takes place but advisories do not reach people in time. Mitigation: hold the forum as soon as the national forecast is out, agree the communication plan during the forum, and track dissemination.
Risk: unequal reach for women, pastoralists and people with limited media access. Mitigation: invite diverse participants, use several channels and local languages, and ask in feedback who received the advice.
Risk: loss of trust if the forecast turns out differently. Mitigation: explain probabilities openly and present scenarios and alternatives.
Risk: the process depends on donor funding and on a few champions. Mitigation: include the forum in county plans and budgets, and give a local working group responsibility for coordination.
Risk: dependence on the meteorological service’s local capacity. Mitigation: involve county directors of meteorology from the design stage and train local facilitators.
Risk & Mitigation Plan
Scalability and Sustainability
Institutionalised governance model. After a donor-supported start, the aim is for the national meteorological service, county government and sector programmes to run and fund the forums as part of their mandates, with a local working group coordinating. NGOs and the private sector may add support, for example free airtime. In Kenya the approach was adopted into KMD’s county forums and ASDSP’s second phase (2017–2021), and in 2024 forums were still being held in nine counties with support from KMD and a research programme (AICCRA).
The method has already been applied in several countries and, according to the guide, in more than six African countries and parts of South East Asia. What scales is the five-step cycle and the guide. What needs local work is the partnership set-up, the choice of sectors and scenarios, the language and the channels. The approach needs a meteorological partner and works best at county or district level rather than for a whole country in one forum.
Mobile phones (SMS), radio and printed materials support the process, but the method is mainly about people meeting to interpret information.
No public information on cost amounts was found in the reviewed sources. The guide lists the items to budget for when setting up PSP in a new area: partner design meetings, stakeholder discussions and training, the first forum (venue, materials, meals, transport and participant allowances), and production of the first advisories. Based on the available information, it can be inferred that set-up costs are modest relative to hardware-based warning systems, because the method relies on an existing forecasting service and on meetings.
No cost figures were found. Recurring items are the seasonal forum, radio airtime, printing and translation of advisories, participant travel and allowances, and monitoring visits. The guide notes that costs for M&E depend on context and that allowances should fall as PSP becomes part of government work. Partners sometimes contribute in kind, for example free airtime or meeting rooms.
PSP lasts where it is attached to existing structures. In Garissa a task force formed after the first forum became a standing working group with a seat in county planning and steering bodies, and PSP was included in county plans. In Kenya, KMD and ASDSP took it into their regular work. The guide reports that Wajir County reserved 2% of its county funds for climate information in a 2017 plan that names PSP as a key activity, and that two districts in northern Ghana budgeted for it.