No abstract

Skilful flood forecasts have the potential to inform preparedness actions across scales, from smallholder farmers through to humanitarian actors, but require verification first to ensure such early warning information is robust. However, verification efforts in data‐scarce regions are limited to only a few sparse locations at pre‐existing river gauges. Hence, alternative data sources are urgently needed to enhance flood forecast verification to better guide preparedness actions. In this study, we assess the usefulness of less conventional data such as flood impact data for verifying flood forecasts compared with river‐gauge observations in Uganda and Kenya. The flood impact data contains semi‐quantitative and qualitative information on the location and number of reported flood events derived from five different data repositories (Dartmouth Flood Observatory, DesInventar, Emergency Events Database, GHB, and local) over the 2007–2018 period. In addition, river‐gauge observations from stations located within the affected districts and counties are used as a reference for verification of flood forecasts from the Global Flood Awareness System. Our results reveal both the potential and the challenges of using impact data to improve flood forecast verification in data‐scarce regions. From these, we provide a set of recommendations for using impact data to support anticipatory action planning.

Anticipatory actions are increasingly being taken before an extreme flood event to reduce the impacts on lives and livelihoods. Local contextualised information is required to support real-time local decisions on where and when to act and what anticipatory actions to take. This study defines an impact-based early warning trigger system that integrates flood forecasts with livelihood information, such as crop calendars, to target anticipatory actions better. We demonstrate the application of this trigger system using a flood case study from the Katakwi District in Uganda. First, we integrate information on the local crop cycles with the flood forecasts to define the impact-based trigger system. Second, we verify the impact-based system using historical flood impact information and then compare it with the existing hazard-based system in the context of humanitarian decisions. Study findings show that the impact-based trigger system has an improved probability of flood detection compared to the hazard-based system. The number of missed events are fewer in the impact-based system while the trigger dates are similar in both systems. In a humanitarian context, the two systems trigger anticipatory actions at the same time. However, the impact-based trigger system can be further investigated in a different context (e.g., for livelihood protection) to assess the value of the local information. The impact-based system could also provide a valuable tool to validate the existing hazard-based system, which builds more confidence in its use in informing anticipatory actions. The study findings should therefore open avenues for further dialogue on what the impact-based trigger system could mean within the broader Forecast-based Action landscape towards building the resilience of at-risk communities.

The provision of weather and climate information (WCI) can help the most at-risk communities cope and adapt to the impacts of extreme events. While significant progress has been made in ensuring improved availability of WCI, there remain obstacles that hinder the accessibility and use of this information for adaptation planning. Attention has now focused on the “usability gap” to ensure useful and usable WCI informs practise. Less attention has however been directed on barriers to the active production and use of WCI. In this study, we combine two frameworks through a bottom-up approach to present a more coordinated institutional response that would be required to ensure a better flow of information from information providers to users at community level and vice versa. The bottom-up approach was designed in form of Farmers Agri-Met Village Advisory Clinics (FAMVACs) and Listening Groups (LG) and was initiated by Uganda Meteorological Authority (UNMA) as a way of ensuring connections between the information providers, the disseminators, and the communities to specifically give voice to the communities to provide feedback on the use of WCI in coping with flood risks. This approach is used to identify the barriers and opportunities in the production/provision and use of WCI for flood risk preparedness for a case study in Eastern Uganda. First, a use-case is developed for Katakwi District where smallholder farming communities have recorded their coping practises and barriers to the use of WCI in practise. Second, online interviews with practitioners from disaster management institutions are used to identify barriers to the production and provision of WCI to local farming communities. Findings show that for providers, barriers such as accessibility and completeness of data hinder the production of useful WCI. In situations where useful information is available, technical language used in the format and timeliness in dissemination hinder usability by local farmers. Useful and usable WCI may not be acted on in practise due to factors such as costs or market availability e.g., lack of access to improved seeds. Further, the study highlights possible solutions to bridge the identified gaps and they include capacity building, fostering data collaborations across sectors, data translation to simple advisories, among others. The study also presents the FAMVACs approach which shows the importance of a more coordinated response with a shift of focus from the users of information only, to a more inclusive understanding of the data and information gaps across the wider provider-user landscapes. We argue that this would contribute to more effective disaster management at both the national and local levels.

<p>Forecast-based action within the humanitarian community supports at-risk communities when a forecast indicates a potentially imminent disaster. Within the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement the development of an Early Action Protocol enables access to pre-agreed funds and avoids indecision when faced with an uncertain forecast. To ensure value for money, this protocol must demonstrate that the forecast is good enough for the decisions being made. But how can we be confident that forecasts are good enough if we don’t have any observations? How do we evaluate an impact-based forecast? And how do we communicate these limitations to all stakeholders? In this talk I will discuss some of the challenges we have faced, and some solutions.</p>