* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Emma Visman is futures manager at the Humanitarian Futures Programme, King’s College, London. The opinions expressed are her own.
An unforeseen forum for innovation with the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives and livelihoods in some of the most disaster-prone communities in the world is being pioneered in Senegal and Kenya right now.
This two-way exchange initiative is enabling scientists to consider how emerging scientific and technological capacities can better meet weather and climate information needs identified by communities at risk of drought and flooding.
Its overarching goal is to identify, trial and develop new approaches for enabling dialogue between the providers and the users of science.
Transferable innovation and knowledge
Two demonstration exchanges are being pioneered in Senegal and Kenya by Humanitarian Futures Programme (HFP) in collaboration with partners: Christian Aid; the Senegalese Red Cross; national meteorological agencies in Senegal, Kenya and the UK, together with scientists from the Universities of Oxford, Liverpool, Sussex and in the partner countries; with activities funded by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) and AusAid.
The intiative focuses on identifying and sharing learning about how best to support effective dialogue, which can help build resilience in areas where emerging scientific and technological learning can better inform prevention, preparedness and response to a range of future threats.
Indeed, the HFP which has developed the exchange, subsequently received funding from Britain's Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) to identify generic and transferable learning from complementary initiatives seeking to strengthen knowledge exchange concerning a range of potential future crisis drivers such as weather hazards, climate change, earthquakes and volcanoes.
Scientists have as much to gain as to give
It is important to understand that the two-way dialogue approach is a process: it is as much about scientists learning from farmers and affected communities what types of information they want , as it is the users obtaining access to information and developing better understanding of how to apply the range of scientific information available.
However, the exchange has also offered participating scientists an opportunity to identify potential channels to address users needs more effectively.
The exchange has developed the partnerships required to create a proposal for harnessing mobile phone technology to collect weather data, and linkage to support improved information on soil moisture, providing mobile phones to farmers to record information which will be linked with satellite observations.
All partners gain from the engagement. Scientists are able to demonstrate the tangible impact of their work, humanitarian and development policymakers can develop more effective forms of support, and community decision-making has access to relevant sources of expertise.
Integrating expertise
The exchange is about developing an integrated approach to address the multi-hazard environments in which vulnerable communities live.
The exchange efforts to support flood-prone communities in Kaffrine District, Sengal, required input from, amongst others, hydrologists, meteorologists, land mappers and health experts.
It was recognised that weather was just one of the bits of information that informed community decision-making.
Similarly, in Kenya, the Sustainable Agricultural Livelihoods Innovation (SALI) project, in which the exchange is embedded, is supporting the provision of weather and climate information by the KMD alongside the provision of agricultural expertise from Ministry of Agriculture extension workers and project service providers, as well as market information through partnering with the fairtrade development organisation, Traidcraft.
In both cases, the exchange has offered a rare opportunity for experts to overcome siloed efforts and together develop the integrated approaches required to support ‘real’ resilience.
Taking responsibility for making better use of science
Experts taking part in exchange activities have greatly welcomed the opportunity to share their learning with directly-affected communities.
Many have long been looking for a chance to ensure that their learning moves beyond the laboratory and meets the needs of the most vulnerable. For other participating scientists it is a call to rethink their approach and ensure that research meets user needs.
For their part, community members, including farmer group representatives, participating in the forum are repeatedly urged to share their learning within their communities.
It is made clear that if community members are left in the ‘knowledge gap’ to suffer losses that could have been avoided, all will be affected.
Humanitarian and development organisations are also under increasing pressure to ensure that their efforts are informed by the best possible science.
Many such organisations already recognise the importance of affording the resources to strengthen their scientific literacy to engage with and inform emerging scientific and technological learning relevant to current and future vulnerabilities.
Creating and meeting user demand: Channels for communication
The forum has highlighted the need to create demand for a range of services supporting farmers’ and directly affected communities’ understanding of the benefits of accessing a diversity of expertise, as well as creating channels for them to articulate these demands.
There is also a huge need to identify relevant channels for directly affected users to both receive scientific information and to inform the focus of future scientific research. Channels currently used by national met offices, such as radio, the Internet and television, are not generally accessible to vulnerable communities and small-scale farmers.
However, the initiative has shown that both faith networks and humanitarian and development organisations offer excellent existing linkages for channeling weather and climate information. These are also channels which are trusted in many at-risk communities.
Crucially, the exchange initiative is enabling users to directly determine the channels which are most appropriate to the needs of community members. In Senegal, each village in which the exchange pilot is being undertaken came up with unique options to strengthen dissemination of weather information.
These included a climate road show, forecast blackboards, and specific channels for dissemination for women (house-to-house and via the well), men (via mosques) and youth (underneath the ‘talking trees’ where young people congregate).
In Kenya, farmers groups have requested that face-to-face training be followed up by information provided through radio, church, chiefs’ baraza (or meetings), and via SMS directly to farmers’ group representatives for onward dissemination to their members.
On a roll
There is growing interest in learning from this pilot. It feels as if we are on the crest of a wave, just beginning to see the enormous potential from enabling science to better support humanitarian, disaster risk reduction and development planning.
There are a number of efforts underway to collect case studies which demonstrate the tangible benefits of closer science-humanitarian dialogue, and a growing network or community of practice willing to prioritise such efforts.
To name but one, HFP and partners have recently received funding from Britain's Government Office of Science to supporting a series of themed workshops to demonstrate the practical value of engaging in direct science humanitarian dialogue.
Costs
Resources to sustain such important work are always an issue.
There is a need to consider where and how best to channel the resources required, but, if built upon the range of existing extension services, integrated within existing humanitarian and development programmes and projects, and employing faith-based networks, the resources for this and similar dialogue initiatives need not be huge.
They do, however, require coordination and local ownership to ensure the resources and commitment required to facilitate the two-way dialogue that is vital to making science useful to directly affected communities.
