Just transformations in climate information services provision: perspectives of farmers in southern Ghana

ABSTRACT

Smallholder farming in Ghana has undergone significant transformation with the advent of digital technologies, enabling numerous information providers to operate at different scales. However, there are significant inequalities as some social groups lack access to climate information services for farming. The extent to which ideas of just and equitable transformations are incorporated into delivering information to households remains largely unknown. The research addressed the knowledge gap by investigating inequalities in accessing climate information services among smallholder farmers in Ghana's coastal savanna region. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with farmers of different ages and genders. Findings reveal that factors like gender norms, household dynamics, and access methods contribute to disparities in information access. The existing mode of agricultural extension delivery contributed to procedural inequalities in information delivery due to the convenient practice of selecting a few farmers as contact persons for workshops and field visits. While climate information is disseminated through various channels, inequalities persist due to the unsuitability of some digital technologies and procedural biases in delivery methods. The findings of this case study reflect societal transformations in the farming sector globally and their occurrence at the micro-level, which do not correspond to the claim for societal justice.

KEYWORDS:

• Social justice
• inequalities
• climate information services
• farming
• Ghana
• gender

1. Introduction

‘Transformation’, the keyword in times of globalizing societal environments, is increasingly promoted in scientific and popular discourses as a solution to the quest for sustainability, while the agricultural sector is at the forefront of respective claims and demands. Facing the environmental threat of climate change, agricultural innovation is to be highlighted relating to the current global agenda for agricultural transformation, as well as particularly for smallholder farmers. In light of the IPCC Report 2018, there is a growing recognition of the need for transformational changes in the fundamental attributes of socio-ecological systems. This mirrors the challenges posed by institutional and socio-cultural environments, as highlighted in the subsequent IPCC Report 2022, particularly in the context of justice and equitable development. These reports emphasize the importance of considering justice and just development in defining and addressing transformative environmental initiatives. Ghana, one of the emerging countries of the African continent, is to be taken as one focal entity of this concern.

Agricultural innovations are of high relevance to the smallholder perspective of the quest and include climate services such as improved seeds, weather and climate forecast, crop insurance, finance, and other relevant resources. In the climate information service (CIS) sector, farmers can receive forecast information to anticipate and respond to changes in climatic and weather conditions (Naab et al., 2019; Owusu, 2021). Climate information services provide useful information for decision-making by individuals and organizations (Hansen et al., 2019; Tall et al., 2018). This involves the timely production, translation, and delivery of climate data, information, and knowledge for climate-smart decision-making and planning in a format that reaches those who can act on it (Vaughan & Dessai, 2014; Vincent et al., 2018; Vogel et al., 2019).

A just and equitable transformation can only be achieved when there is a comprehensive understanding of who is currently or could become vulnerable, or, on the other hand, can adapt to environmental changes in a sustainable and life securing way. Including social justice claims in the provision of CIS will enable adequate consideration of local people's rights, responsibilities, needs, or perspectives. Such an approach reflects a commitment to making CIS not only more ‘usable’ (Lemos et al., 2012) but also more ‘equitable’ (Carr & Onzere, 2018). The literature on just transformation suggests the need for recognition, procedural and distributional justice for sustainable development (Bennett et al., 2019; Tröger, 2021).

Despite the relevance of CIS, challenges associated with communication of uncertainties, language barriers and untimely delivery of information have hindered its distribution and application (Nyadzi et al., 2019). Moreover, the climate service sector initially focused on providing weather and climate predictions, and overlooked important social contexts of users, especially farmers (Carr & Onzere, 2018). Socioeconomic and cultural barriers, which are typically inherent in society, are often not recognized in the provision of CIS, as they are socially constructed and based on societal values, gender-related restrictions, religion and power structures (Carr & Owusu-Daaku, 2016; Ingram et al., 2002; Patt et al., 2005).

In relation to the procedures for CIS production, government agencies, businesses and donor organizations providing climate services including donor and research communities have recognized that neither autonomous nor planned climate services are necessarily materializing in socially just ways with equitable involvement for all (Kalafatis et al., 2019; McNie, 2013).

In Ghana, where this study was carried out, there have been transformations in the CIS sector characterized by research and innovations for farming, and supported by government, business and civil society organization initiatives (Nyadzi et al., 2018; Sarku et al., 2021). Similarly, the growing literature on CIS indicates transformations in various spheres for the smallholder farming sector. In this bourgeoning literature, however, three essential discussions remain relatively underexplored. Firstly, while interest in CIS has proliferated, only minimal literature directly addresses issues of social justice and inequalities compared to the increasing focus on improving technological aspects. Secondly, there is little knowledge about how the distribution of CIS might vary across different household members (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021; Partey et al., 2020). When gender and household access to CIS are considered, they are broadly discussed (Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2019), and research is mainly focused on the northern sector of Ghana (Sarku et al., 2021). Therefore, we considered that the extent to which CIS deliver social equity while also being transformative has not yet been investigated. Despite the growing literature on the CIS provision for farming in Ghana, hidden and under-acknowledged political, social, cultural, religious and psychological barriers are rarely taken into account.

A more nuanced understanding of the types of barriers, why and under which conditions they materialize, who are primarily affected, and how entrenched these barriers are is needed. Such a comprehensive perspective is necessary to address social justice strategically and make efforts to overcome them, especially in situations where emerging or reinforced inequalities create new vulnerabilities (Olsson et al., 2014). This implies that transformations in CIS provision will need to ask questions that recognize how and in what specific ways the provision of forecast information differs, resulting in the exclusion or inclusion of certain groups of people. The focus on procedures of user engagement also raises the question of who and how users are engaged. Hence, the primary question that guides the study is: how are different people, in relation to social differences such as gender, ethnicity, age and occupation, affected by the provision of CIS for farming, and in which way?

The study provides valuable insights on the intricate challenges of adaptation within a dynamic and demanding climatic and socioeconomic environment. It also emphasizes the significance of addressing issues such as structural imbalances, power differentials, gender inequalities and other social disparities that may hinder the sustainable provision of CIS and, on the other hand, facilitate a just transformation, ensuring equitable outcomes for communities and individuals affected by climate change. By providing accurate and timely information on climate patterns, forecasts, and potential risks, CIS empowers vulnerable populations to make informed decisions and adopt adaptive strategies. The application of CIS also contributes to a just transformation by fostering resilience, inclusivity, sustainable development and the protection of vulnerable communities. This approach not only mitigates the impact of climate change but also ensures that the benefits of climate action are distributed fairly, promoting a more equitable and sustainable future.

The following section introduces relevant literature and outlines the analytical approach we applied to structure our research findings. Section 2 delves into the study area and outlines the methodologies for data collection, while Section 3 is dedicated to presenting our findings. Section 4 focuses on the discussion of the main themes that emerged from the study followed by a recommendation.

1.1. The context of transformations in CIS production and dissemination in Ghana

Climate information services (CIS) are essential for farmers to cope with recurring droughts and unpredictable rainfall patterns. CIS is a relatively new agricultural innovation that can provide farmers with various weather condition information, such as rainfall distribution patterns, intensity, frequency and extreme events like droughts. The use of CIS by farmers may result in the application of fewer inputs such as organic manure and fertilizers, ultimately reducing the cost of production. Additionally, it may aid in decreasing the risk of crop failure and increasing income (Ouédraogo et al., 2015; Roudier et al., 2014).

In Ghana, the provision of CIS was initially the sole responsibility of the Ghana Meteorological Agency (Gmet) through various channels such as Ghana Television (GTV) of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation, the Ghana Information Services Department, and the Department of Agricultural Extension Services under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Sarku et al., 2021). Daily weather forecasts were delivered via traditional means like face-to-face interactions, radio, television, telephone and public address systems. However, with the advent of digital technologies and ICTs, numerous businesses and civil society organizations are now providing CIS to farmers through various governance arrangements, leading to transformations in the CIS sector in Ghana (World Bank, 2020; Sarku et al., 2021).

Gmet has leveraged collaborations and digital innovations to use a wider range of data, including weather models, satellite images, and automated and synoptic weather station data to provide CIS (World Bank, 2020). In some regions of Ghana, there are agromet stations, rainfall stations and automated weather stations. The coastal savanna agroecological zone, for instance, has two synoptic weather stations located in the Ada and Akatsi Districts. These stations generate weather data that Gmet utilizes to provide CIS to farmers in about 10 districts.

CIS is currently being delivered by government agencies, businesses and civil society organizations through innovative digital platforms such as call centres, mobile phone Short Message Service (SMS), IVR, weather apps, and social media platforms (Sarku et al., 2021). These platforms enable farmers to manage climate-related risks, as documented by Etwire et al. (2017), Partey et al. (2020) and Sarku et al. (2021). Moreover, there have been changes in the delivery of CIS to farmers, with participatory approaches offered by programmes and organizations like the CGIAR, CARE International, OXFAM, and the Department for International Development (DfID). These changes have been highlighted by Antwi-Agyei et al. (2021), Dorward et al. (2015), Etwire et al. (2017), and Nyamekye et al. (2019) involving the integration of farmers’ needs for crop production, application of local knowledge, and use of digital technologies for the delivery of information and improvement in forecast accuracy.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) also initiated the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) at the World Climate Conference in 2009. Recognizing the vital role of climate services in adaptation, the framework aims to transform scientific climate information into operational services, contributing to sustainability but also raising concerns about climate justice. The current guiding principle of CIS provision is to offer services that are tailored to users’ (farmers) specific context (World Meteorological Organisation, 2012; Hewitt et al., 2012; Graham et al., 2015; Vogel et al., 2019), in line with the ideas of service provisioning put forward by Alexander and Dessai (2019). This includes the following:

• Recognizing the different groups of users, their information needs, and how they will use the information. It is also important to understand the steps users take to apply the information and when they will need the service.

• Identifying appropriate means of distributing CIS by collectively assessing the tools and improving the processes for communicating CIS.

• Following the co-production procedure of information with users and consciously building iterative co-production processes.

1.2. Conceptualizing just and equitable development in climate information service for farming

In the current climate change and food systems agenda, transformation is increasingly promoted as the solution to unsustainable practices. Transformation is distinguished broadly into two perspectives (see, for instance, The IPCC-Report 2018: ‘Global Warming of 1.5°C’). That is, incremental adjustments and transformational responses that takes critical and justice approaches in dealing with inequalities. Incremental transformation involves adaptation methods that maintain the essence and status-quo of a system or process at a given scale. In contrast, transformational adaptation entails fundamental changes in the attributes of a socio-ecological system. To ensure CIS that leads to transformative climate adaptation and food system change, we are of the view that addressing the root causes of inequalities and environmental issues is crucial. This necessitates applying a critical and justice-oriented approaches because actions aimed at shifting socio-ecological systems towards sustainability can have significant social impacts, and potentially exclude certain groups of people from decision-making processes (Whitfield et al., 2021).

The conceptual framework on social justice in this study indicates challenging the current social and political structures rather than merely adapting to change, aiming to identify the underlying issues of unsustainable transformative systems and bring to the fore, discussions on alternative ideas. We opine that achievements of climate adaptation such as CIS towards sustainable transformation should be measured or considered by the extent to which social justice is prioritized likewise. We argue that any endeavours directed at sustainable transformation can yield favourable and adverse social consequences for various groups (Tröger, 2021). It is imperative to focus on comprehending and actualizing social justice in our pursuit of sustainable transformation within the climate change and food systems agenda (Sarku et al., 2023; Temper et al., 2018). These issues are particularly relevant in the discourse on agricultural innovations like CIS, as there is a potential risk that projects, policies, or activities may be unsustainable and unjust, unsustainable but just, or sustainable but unjust (Shackleton et al., 2015).

Drawing from Bennett et al. (2019), we define just and equitable CIS as a deliberate shift in the provision of CIS to farmers, integrating recognitional, distributional and procedural justice and equity ideas. This implies that the provision of CIS requires more than mere changes in socio-technological innovations; it requires engaging with the root causes of inequality in providing CIS (Shackleton et al., 2015). Social justice and equity form the backbone of this definition to ensure that transformation in the provision of CIS benefits those who lack access to resources to adapt to climate change, not just those who already have such access. Applying a social justice lens, we emphasize the need for inclusive innovation design, ensuring accessibility for all categories of farmers while addressing environmental and social concerns. Our approach aims to prevent exacerbating existing inequalities within communities. Operationalizing social just in the CIS sector, helps in shedding light on the current situation. We are able to provide empirical knowledge for integrating social justice into CIS innovations – specifically in scaling methods, delivery, and usage.

Following this notion, three dimensions of justice are to be differentiated and operationalized: (a) recognitional justice, (b) procedural justice and (c) distributional justice following (Bennett et al. 2019).

Recognitional justice and equity involves contextual perspectives (Bennett et al., 2019), such as gender norms, time poverty, individual positions within households, and patriarchal values. In the context of CIS, it may involve recognizing alternative climate services, including input costs, availability of improved seeds, time availability and credit availability, that may promote equality in smallholder farming communities. These resources may be lacking among different geographies, ethnic groups, gender, and age groups, perpetuating inequities and differential vulnerabilities (Bene, 2003; Carr et al., 2016). Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the intersectionality and multifaceted nature of identity in individuals’ stakes (Luna, 2018; Thaler et al., 2018; Whitfield et al., 2021). The selection of recognitional justice in this study is imperative in acknowledging and respecting the diverse worldviews, knowledge, rights, needs, livelihoods, histories, and cultures of various groups involved in climate decision-making processes. This ensures that the transformational response takes into account the existing social structures and values of different communities.

The procedural justice and equity lens, additionally, directs our attention towards the socially defined voices that do or do not speak in decision-making, rather than focus solely on the outcomes of CIS (Kalafatis et al., 2019; Singleton, 2000). Procedural justice and equity involves ensuring that users participate in the production of information and the fair distribution of CIS. In deliberative processes, the power of arguments and ideas can be subordinate to, or co-opted by, powerful elites, patriarchy and wealth (Whitfield et al., 2021). Procedural justice and equity are also associated with transparency, legitimacy, and accountability (Lopes et al., 2021). The CIS sector has promoted many aspects of procedural equality through participatory methods like co-production, citizen science, focus group discussions and interviews. In these arrangements, the intended beneficiaries contribute either during the consultation or implementation stages (Alexander & Dessai, 2019). However, there is a potential that the interests that emerge in different spaces and at different levels may not suit poor and vulnerable groups, such as women (Newell & Taylor, 2018; Tschakert et al., 2016; Whitfield et al., 2021) and members of communities faced with discrimination. Procedural justice applied in this study focuses on the level of participation and inclusiveness in decision-making, emphasizing the quality of governance processes. By prioritizing procedural justice, transformational adaptation with the use of CIS can be more democratic and reflective of the concerns and perspectives of all stakeholders, fostering a sense of collective ownership.

Distributional justice and equity refer to the fairness in distributing information, necessary tools, and communication channels to different groups across space and time. Considering distributional justice and equity, we can evaluate the outcomes of the transformation of CIS in terms of benefits and risks (Glaser & Diele, 2004). Distributional justice and equity advocate against the situation where the most vulnerable groups bear the heaviest burden while receiving the smallest benefits (Outeiro et al., 2019). Distributional justice is important in the study as it addresses the fairness in the distribution of benefits and impacts resulting from decisions and actions related to the provision of CIS. Given that transformations can have significant social impacts, understanding and mitigating the disparities in the distribution of these impacts across diverse groups, both spatially and temporally, become paramount. This idea ensures that the burdens and benefits of transformative innovations like CIS are equitably shared among communities.

2. The study context

The study was conducted in four districts situated in the coastal savanna agroecological zone of the lower Volta Delta in Ghana, namely Ada East, Ada West, South Tongu, and Anloga.

The Ada East District is one of the 21 districts located in the Greater Accra Region. It also comprises wetlands, the Volta estuary and the Songor lagoon. The district is known for rainfed vegetable production, such as tomatoes and peppers, which are supplied to the urban markets in Accra and Tema. In addition, watermelons, tubers and cereals are grown, and livestock rearing and fishing are practiced. Along the coast, groundwater irrigation is carried out, while riverine irrigation is conducted along the tributaries of the Volta River.

The Ada West District is about 76 km from Accra, the capital of Ghana and holds similar agroecological characteristics as the Ada East District. The dominant economic activity is rainfed farming of tomatoes and pepper. During the dry season, people mainly involved in salt mining in the Songhor lagoon. Fishing and livestock rearing also serve as alternative sources of income.

The South Tongu District is located in the Volta Region of Ghana. The northern section of the district lies in the wet semi-equatorial climatic zone, and the southern section is in the dry equatorial climatic zone with a bimodal rainfall season. The main rainy season falls between April and July, and the minor rainy season is between September and November. Rainfed agriculture is predominantly practised, while areas along the tributaries of the Volta River are also practising irrigation. The main crops cultivated are cassava, maize, sugarcane, rice and vegetables. Fishing and livestock rearing are also practised.

The Anloga District, also located in the Volta Region of Ghana, shares similar climatic and agroecological conditions with the other districts. Farming is predominantly carried out using groundwater irrigation, and farmers apply manure to the farmlands because the soil is mostly sandy. Crops such as tomato, okra, and carrot are also cultivated on a seasonal basis, while shallot and onions are cultivated throughout the year. In some sections of the district, intercropping of cassava, maize and pepper is also practiced. Livestock and sugarcane production are noted in some areas of the district.

The districts experiences an average annual rainfall of approximately 750–800 mm. They are renowned for the cultivation of vegetables for the urban market (Addo et al., 2018) but have limited water for farming (DECCMA, 2017; Ofori-Sarpong & Annor, 2001; Teye & Owusu, 2015). Hence, the area provides relevant contexts to examine how social justice and equity are operationalized with the provision of CIS for farming. This perspective is relevant to answer the main research question: How are different people in relation to social differences such as gender, ethnicity, age and occupation affected by the provision of CIS for farming?

2.1. Data collection procedure

The research focused on farming households and agricultural extension agents in selected districts. Initially, the lead researcher conducted a survey to identify agricultural extension agents in different operational areas of the district. The initial conversations led to community visits and interactions with some lead farmers about farming practices, water availability conditions, provision of CIS, and other socio-economic practices. Based on the information generated from the reconnaissance visits, certain communities were selected to conduct semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and field visits.

Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected farmers. Some interviewees (lead farmers) were selected by agricultural extension agents, while others were selected based on their availability during the researchers’ visits to the communities. Consent to conduct the study in the communities was sought from local authorities (Assembly Man or Unit Committee Chairperson), and approval was granted from the agricultural officers in charge of various zones or communities. The interviews were audio-taped, and interviewees consented to participate in the study. The interviews were conducted in the Dangbe or Ewe language and were sometimes assisted by agricultural extension agents to translate certain keywords. The interviews typically lasted between 40 and 90 minutes, and in some rare cases, they lasted up to 120 minutes. A total of 208 semi-structured interviews were conducted across the four study districts, including both men and women (refer to Table 1). At least two interviewees were selected from each community, consisting of an elderly man, elderly woman, young man, or young woman from each household. To ensure a diverse range of interviewees, we selected either the husband, wife, or child above 18 years (son or daughter) from each household. In polygamous households, we selected either the senior wife, a junior wife, or the most senior child above 18 years (son or daughter).

Table 1. Description of interview protocols (208).

Variable/characteristics	Ada East District	Ada West District	South Tongu District	Anloga District
Number of interviewees in each community	52	52	52	52
Monogamous household	41	45	45	50
Polygamous household	11	7	7	2
Male Headed of household	40	37	42	36
Female Headed of household	12	15	10	16

Source: field study, 2021.

The number of interviews conducted with men and women farmers in each district was based on consideration of the following factors: farmers’ willingness to participate in the interview, age, gender, education, and type of farming practices. Although the lead author identified interviewees by visiting the communities, the agricultural extension agents in the study districts also recommended interviewees. Finally, some farmers who participated in the interviews also recommended potential interviewees whom they deemed knowledgeable in providing response to the questions discussed. The interviews were conducted in the selected districts until saturation in information was reached. It is worth noting that in identifying potential interviewees for the study, some farmers preferred to abstain from participating in the research because they were either research-fatigued or they opined that they were related to an initial interviewee; hence, they were likely to provide similar responses. However, the reasons provided by some people in the communities for abstaining from the interviews may be sheer excuses or because they were busy with house chores at the time the lead author visited the communities. This is particular to the main season farming era (May–July) when the study was conducted. In summary, the interviewees selected for the study were categorized as elderly male farmers (52), elderly female farmers (52), young male farmers (52) and young female farmers (52) from the selected districts. We classified farmers interviewed as ‘young farmers’ if they were aged between 18 and 35 years, while farmers aged 36 years and above were classified as older farmers. This approach helped the researcher explore different experiences in the selected communities.

During the interviews, questions were asked about the type of CIS received, the mode of delivery, socio-demographic characteristics, sharing of forecast information among households, and preferences for specific CIS. The interviewees were also asked to rank the effectiveness of information delivery channels and how they distribute forecast and agricultural information in their households and communities. The questions covered a broad range of topics related to household characteristics, general farming activities, agronomic practices, pest and disease management, agricultural extension visits, and available digital technologies, including phones. The semi-structured interviews also focused on detailed livelihood activities, farming decision-making and the use of CIS.

After conducting semi-structured interviews, four focus group discussions (FGDs) for young men, older men, young women and older women were held in each district to obtain in-depth information about the provision of CIS and to validate the findings from the semi-structured interviews. Focus group participants were drawn from various communities in the selected districts (see Table 2). The lead author requested initial interviewees to suggest people in their communities who were not members of their household for the group discussion. Therefore the focus group discussants were different from the interviewees. Also, the lead author identified potential participants from other communities and requested their availability to participate in the group discussions on a scheduled date. Although, about 15–20 potential discussants were initially identified, only few people participated for each gender group meeting (see Table 2), due to time constraints or absence of people in the village at the time of the field visit. The FGDs were centred on questions about the delivery mode and who accessed CIS and agricultural information the most, and the reasons behind it. Participants were also asked to assess the effectiveness of specific CIS and delivery modes after being given a list. A total of 16 FGDs (4 in each district) were conducted, with 5–9 participants in selected communities that differed from where the semi-structured interviews were conducted. The FGDs in each district were conducted according to four groups: young men, older men, young women, and older women, as shown in Table 2. This grouping allowed participants to share their experiences and generate ideas independently without being affected by socio-cultural implications. The FGDs were recorded and lasted between 60–90 minutes.

Table 2. Description of focus group discussions conducted in selected study districts.

Districts	Young men	Young women	Elderly women	Elderly men
Ada East District	Ada Foah (n = 6)	Angorsekope (n = 5)	Toje (n = 5)	Ocanseykope (n = 5)
Ada West District	Lihour (n = 7)	Salom (n = 7)	Segese (n = 9)	Koledour (n = 6)
South Tongu District	Dordoekope (n = 6)	Agave (n = 8)	Sogakope (n = 5)	Hikpo (n = 5)
Anloga District	Xekpa (n = 9)	Veme (n = 6)	Agorve-Atsugbor (n = 5)	Cape Coast Road (n = 7)

Source: Field study, 2021.

Additionally, eight interviews were conducted with male agricultural extension agents, with two interviews conducted in each selected district. The discussions were based on the preliminary findings from farmers’ interviews and FGDs. Some of the topics discussed included the extent and frequency of agricultural extension agents’ visits to communities, the type of information provided to farmers, and the uptake of information for decision-making in farming.

2.2. Data analysis

The audio recordings from the semi-structured interviews and FGDs were transcribed into English, and the field notes and transcripts were read through to derive insights into initial themes. We reviewed relevant literature regarding the theoretical framework to facilitate the development of initial broad themes (codes) such as recognition of context-specific issues, procedures and distribution of CIS using the computer software Atlas.ti version 22. The key questions we asked while applying the broad themes in the coding process include: what are the relevant drivers mentioned by research participants as the causes of the (un)just provision of CIS? How are they triggered? How do they operate and who are those affected? And what are the intended and unintended consequences?

In the second step, we deployed open coding (codes were inductively developed) under each theme and then code groups, examples, types of CIS such as seasonal, weekly and daily forecasts and the innovations attached like its conversation into agro-advisory for farmers were defined. We also coded, actors (who is being referred to and who is setting the agenda) and other subthemes. The second stage of coding was done in a very detailed sentence-by-sentence manner generating new codes and themes in relation to the operationalization of the key concepts (see section 2). Using the Atlas.ti software for coding, we conducted an analysis of the identified prominent or recurring (sub)themes within each broad category. The information from the transcripts and field notes was combined with information from selected literature. To ensure the quality of our analysis, we regularly engaged in discussions among researchers to clarify interpretations of categories and (sub)themes. The detail coding process facilitated a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the data, and the findings are presented in the next section.

3. Findings

3.1. Recognition of context-specific issues affecting just application of CIS for farming

The study found that in the study districts, households were structured in a patrilineal manner, with an elderly man as the head, who allocates communal land. Women access land through their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons. Female farmers mentioned that they rented land arranged by male family members for farming, with the size of the land and the cost changing each season. There is competition for land for farming and for other land uses, leading to year-round cultivation of vegetables, particularly in the coastal communities. Consequently, the practice requires that CIS be available at all times, but forecast information was not readily accessible to support farmers’ decision-making. In an interview with a young male farmer in the Anloga District, he stated,

They mostly provide the weather forecast during the main rainy season, and for the rest of the year, we do not hear any information about the weather, especially the minor season.

In the study districts, women were free to work on their farms or conduct their own businesses. In interviews, 34 women indicated that they owned their farms separately from their husbands and supported them in planting, weeding, harvesting, post-harvest processing, and marketing farm produce. Fifty-eight women were mainly engaged in trading farm produce and agro-processing and only assisted their spouses on the farm, while 12 female household heads’ main task was the cultivation of crops.

The performance of agricultural and household chores affected the use of CIS in several ways. For example, in the Ada East District, young women's FGDs revealed that the burden of household chores, provision of support for their spouse's farm, and their own farm or businesses constrained their access to CIS. Therefore, women who engaged in farming mainly selected crops that do not require much attention and application of CIS, such as okra, pepper, and cassava. However, this description does not apply to all women in the study districts, as some attempted to cultivate tomatoes, paprika, carrot, and watermelon. They also mentioned that they were time-constrained in using weather forecasts for farming.

The findings shows that access to farming inputs influenced the application of CIS in farming. All gender groups relied on household and village-level resources for farming. Women heavily depended on their husbands or male family members to acquire land, plough, weed, spray pesticides, or contact tractor operators. As a result, despite the provision of forecast information regarding onset date, season length, rainfall amount, and other weather indicators, it was not entirely utilized since they could not obtain certain farm resources to apply CIS.

Moreover, despite the seasonal forecast's availability, various farmer groups encountered challenges in accessing suitable seed varieties for the season, leading to delayed sowing. Similarly, CIS did not fulfill the decision-making needs of men and women equally, especially regarding weeding, harvesting, and agro-processing (drying of pepper, cassava, or sorghum leaves). In FGDs conducted in Ada West District, women shared their experiences of how rainfall sometimes disrupted business activities on market days, suggesting that women have identified CIS's need beyond farm production.

Additionally, the study district identified the CIS and modes of delivery, but CIS providers tend to view farmers as a homogenous group, without recognizing their different statuses. Farmers who were knowledgeable about water management practices and the use of forecast information were highly concerned about the cost of implementing new innovations. For example, an older female farmer in the Ada East District mentioned,

The field demonstrations conducted by the extension officer showed us how to use water during drought conditions, but we don't have the funds to put the knowledge into practice.

In contrast, farmers with diverse resources were able to use forecast information to diversify crop production and spread risk. However, none of the farmers had access to crop insurance. While some farmers knew the procedure for obtaining insurance for their farms, they mentioned that no organization offered such services in the study area.

3.2. Issues on procedural justice in the production and delivery of CIS to farmers

In the literature on CIS, involving users in the forecast production and delivery process is necessary to ensure the usability of forecast information. However, in the study districts, we observed that the procedure for forecast information production still followed a top-down approach without involving farmers. An older male farmer in Ada East District pointed out,

Despite all the interviews and workshops, they [referring to experts] assume farmers’ needs and design agricultural information for us, but the solutions do not meet our needs.

Likewise, several interviewees emphasized the importance of collaborating with information providers. As an older woman stated,

If they are providing information for farmers, they should involve us in the process so that we can show them how the weather is affecting our crops and the type of information we need to deal with the weather conditions.

According to some farmers, researchers often visit their communities to gather the opinions of a select few farmers through interviews, focus group discussions and workshops, but they rarely receive feedback or observe any changes in the procedures of delivering CIS. Moreover, sponsored CIS projects usually have a limited lifespan, which means that many farmers are unable to benefit from them, and those who do receive services only get them for a short period. Some projects focus on a specific aspect of CIS and only intervene with a few farmers, resulting in inequalities due to factors such as geographic location, budgeted funding and gender patterns in agriculture.

In addition, agricultural extension services were delivered often through top-down approach where the modules and interventions were delivered based on directives from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture while finance for the delivery of information is delivered by the government through the District Assembly Common Funded and sometimes support from donor agency projects or programmes. As a result, workshops on CIS, climate change, and related knowledge services are conducted based on need basis and the availability of funds, instead of the provision of information through frequent workshop trainings. It has led unequal access to CIS, given the use of the lead farmer approach in disseminating forecast information in order to cater for budget constraints. The limited use of participatory and demand-driven procedures has resulted in low farmer awareness and poor CIS seeking behaviour in the study districts.

According to Bruno Soares et al. (2018), a service requires engagement with the user to provide useful information and feedback. To achieve this, a useful procedure is to impart control onto the user, enabling them to actively select the content and flow of information, customizing the service to their needs and experiences (Williams & Dargel, 2004). As a result, users become empowered as co-producers of CIS (Alexander & Dessai, 2019; Osborne & Strokosch, 2013).

However, farmers rarely have avenues to make requests or provide feedback on forecast information, and they are unable to exercise voice and control over the agenda of CIS delivery. Farmers’ responses to questions about the design choices of CIS were also negative, with one saying,

We are never consulted about the preferred language, timing, mode of delivery, and other issues attached to the information. All we know is that the radio or the television decides to provide the information at their convenient times and use their terminologies. We apply the information that we understand.

Similarly, the distribution of CIS failed to recognize farmers’ decision-making context.

3.3. Distributional justice in the delivery of CIS to farmers

There have been significant changes in the distribution of CIS, including the dissemination of daily weather forecasts, alerts on extreme weather events such as storms or floods, and seasonal climate outlooks. However, according to findings from interviews, farmers mostly have access to the daily weather forecast, which provides information on temperature, sunshine, humidity, and rainfall conditions. In contrast, long-term forecasts are limited to seasonal forecasts. Although some farmers in the Ada Districts received weekly forecasts from a private weather forecaster, the distribution of these forecasts was uneven.

The delivery of CIS was also characterized by distributional inequality, which resulted in some farmers not receiving relevant information that could have supported their farming activities. Examples of such information include alerts on crop pests and diseases, drought monitoring, wind speed, soil moisture and temperature, monthly agro-weather bulletins, actual and potential evaporation, groundwater/surface water availability, new varieties of seeds, market produce prices, fertilizer management, and red-alert tide calendars for coastal communities. The absence of these CIS may be due to the lack of enhanced technologies required to produce such services, as evidenced by the availability of only two synoptic weather stations serving several districts.

In terms of the distribution channels of CIS in the study districts, interviews reveal that farmers in the Ada Districts receive CIS through various methods (refer to Table 3). The most common channels include farmers’ local knowledge, agricultural extension agents, input dealers, radio, and television. The least utilized or available channels were websites (GMet) and social media sources. These channels were only mentioned by young men, particularly in the Ada East District, as they were introduced through projects sponsored by development agents. The older and young women predominantly relied on local knowledge, radio, and their farming family/community. Some interviewees in the South Tongu and Anloga Districts explicitly stated that they have no access to any CIS, except for applying their local knowledge and experiences. Some interviewees in the South Tongu and Anloga Districts explicitly stated that they do not access to any other CIS, except for applying their local knowledge and experiences. The local knowledge are derived based on observation of environmental indicators such as the formation of clouds, intensity of sunshine, flowering of plants appearance of birds, or ants and other indicators to forecast daily weather conditions, the onset of the rainfall season or drought conditions. The indicators were also used to forecast the intensity and amount of rainfall.

Table 3. Modes CIS distribution in the study districts.

Groups	Type of information in Ada East District	Type of information in Ada West District	Type of information in South Tongu District	Type of information in Anloga District
Young men	Agriculture extension agents CIS (provided through combinations of Gmet forecast and agronomic knowledge) Farmer workshops (similar to agricultural extension agents, but delivered at workshops) Radio CIS (provided through the radio, e.g. Radio Ada) Website (daily weather forecast is displayed on GMet's website) Mobile phone SMS Weather app (weather forecast available on smartphones) GMet forecast flyers on social media (posters on weather alerts broadcasted on social media platforms)	Agriculture extension agents Radio (Radio Ada) Website Mobile phone SMS Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge) Weather app GMet forecast flyers on social media	Agriculture extension agents Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge)	Radio (Radio Jubilee) Television Local knowledge
Young women	Radio (Radio Ada) Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge) Workshops Input dealers farming family Peer farmers in the communities	Radio (Radio Ada) Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge) Workshops Input dealers farming family Peer farmers in the communities	Radio (Radio Ada) Television	Radio (Radio Jubilee) Television
Elderly men	Agriculture extension agents Farmer workshops Radio (Radio Ada) Television Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge) Telephone calls to a private weather forecaster (an individual who provide weather forecast to farmers) Input dealers	Agriculture extension agents Farmer workshops Radio (Radio Ada) Television Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge) Telephone calls to a private weather forecaster Input dealers	Agriculture extension agents Radio (Volta Star Radio) Television Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge)	Farmer workshops Radio (Volta Star/Radio Jubilee) Television Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge)
Elderly women	Farmer workshops Radio (Radio Ada) Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge) Farming family peer farmers	Farmer workshops Radio (Radio Ada) Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge) Farmers’ own knowledge and experiences	Radio (Radio Jubilee) Lead farmers or elders in the community (Local knowledge) Farmers’ own knowledge and experiences	Agriculture extension agents Radio (Volta Star/ Radio Jubilee) Farmers’ own knowledge and experiences

Authors’ construct based on field work, 2021.

3.4. Farmers’ assessment of the effectiveness of CIS distribution channels

The preferred mode of disseminating CIS was found to be through agriculture extension agents and workshops, private weather forecasters, lead farmers, input dealers and radio. However, the mention of aforementioned channels as preferred modes of CIS delivery raised questions about the effectiveness of CIS distribution channels in the FGDs.

Although radio was commonly cited as a useful tool, we discovered that it contributed to distributional inequality in the delivery of CIS. This was because the forecast was broadcasted only at specific times with limited explanations and no opportunity for questions and answers. This limitation particularly affected women who did not own a radio or were too busy with household chores to tune in for information. They suggested that the forecast information should be repeated at various times during the day. Moreover, the radio does not provide visuals to illustrate forecasts to non-literate audiences.

In the Ada Districts, both men and women receive the private forecaster's CIS information through Radio Ada. However, some lead farmers in the area contact the forecaster by phone to inquire about weather conditions. Our study revealed that this mode of CIS delivery also contributes to distributional inequality and distributional injustice, as only a few male lead farmers in the Ada East District are willing to call due to the high cost of call-credit charges.

Furthermore, some farmers have criticized the input dealers’ method of delivering CIS, as they only provide limited information to lure farmers into purchasing their products. As a result, women in the area are often unable to access this information, as men typically purchase the seeds. In addition, young men and women have reported that they rarely receive forecast information from lead farmers, due to cultural and personal reasons. Overall, the limited access to CIS for women and young farmers perpetuates inequality and hinders their ability to make informed decisions about their crops.

Agricultural extension agents use various models, such as individual home and farm visits, group training through workshops, field demonstrations, and mass media to provide agricultural information, including CIS. However, the main approach is the use of the lead farmer method where information is delivered through a contact point in a community based on several criterial such as knowledgeable, early adopter of innovation, older persona and level of education. The assumption is that the lead farmer, who gains access to information through a workshop programme, will spread it to other members in the household or the community. However, this objective is not always realized as mentioned by interviewees and focus group discussants. That is, although a homogenous household, each member has his or her own needs and have preferences for the cultivation of specific crops. Results from the interview in the Ada districts for instance, shows that a male household head may choose to cultivate water melon in the main season while his wife or other members of the household may decide to cultivate pepper during the same season. Each of these crop have different weather requirements for growth; hence, different information needs for the season. At the same time, farming households also behave differently, as most men were in control of resources for production. Besides, some interviewees mentioned that there is delay in the dissemination of the information from the lead farmers to other members of the community which has effects on decision-making. Also, it requires having a close relationship or even being a close member in order to access information that has been provided by agricultural extension agents through lead farmers in the communities. This finding resonates with other studies, which indicate that households are complex, heterogeneous and deeply contested arenas within the rural social structure (Carr et al., 2016; Ingram et al., 2002; Roncoli et al., 2011). Within a single household, the husband, wife, and children have different preferences (Bassett, 2002; Doss & Doss, 2001; Truelove, 2011), that results in varied choices for specific CIS innovation to support decision-making in farming. Based on the results on intra-household dynamics, the goal of using a lead farmer approach as a point for CIS delivery by agricultural extension agents, it does not result in equitable distribution of information among farming households.

The Agricultural Extension CIS distribution mode involves workshops with field demonstrations, primarily at the beginning of the farming season. These workshops provide information about onset dates, expected rainfall amounts, season duration, crop selections, and water management strategies. The selection of participants for distributing CIS through workshops is limited to early adopters of innovation (lead farmers), one member per household, or one person per entire community. However, these selection criteria often exclude women from participating in workshops, as they are rarely recognized as lead farmers or ‘early adopters’ of innovations. In cases where women are selected for workshops, the household head's wife is usually invited, excluding young women (daughters, nieces, or daughters-in-law). Additionally, within polygamous households where seniority is respected, the elderly wife is given priority to attend a workshop. This finding demonstrates how gender, seniority and positions within households intersect and shape distributional inequality in the delivery of CIS for farming.

There have been instances where open workshops were organized in community centres with no limitations regarding the number of attendees. However, few women participate in such occasions due to time constraints (burdened with household chores) or cultural barriers that limit their interactions in groups. An agricultural extension agent stated that women are usually not active during workshops because of religious, cultural and personal factors.

3.5. Distribution of Climate information among farming households

During the interviews, farmers described how they distributed and shared CIS with household members and the farming community. In monogamous households, information was mainly distributed among household heads and other male members. Although some interviewees also mentioned sharing information with their spouses, they used phrases like ‘sometimes’, ‘when it is important’, and ‘some days.’ In FGDs with women, a common phrase was ‘sometimes they tell us’ implying that CIS distribution between men and women in the household was not expected. Forecast and agricultural information distribution was mainly among the same gender groups, as they met at different gatherings such as funerals, communal labour, borehole stands, community and market centres.

Responses from FGDs conducted with older and young men showed that women were more involved in agro-processing and trading. As a result, the men did not see the need to share information with them. Responses generated from women's FGDs also indicated that women tend to sharinformation more with their peers than men. Moreover, most agricultural extension agents in the study districts were male, creating barriers for women to interact with them due to cultural or religious prohibitions.

Various gender groups withhold information from each other for different reasons (Shackleton et al., 2015; Tschakert et al., 2013). When access to information and knowledge can grant an individual greater bargaining power to allocate household resources according to their preferences, people with different priorities may restrict each other's access to information (Doss & Doss, 2001; Gengenbach et al., 2018; Ribot & Peluso, 2003; Schroeder, 1999). In the study districts, there is an unequal distribution of bargaining power between husbands and wives and sometimes among members of the same gender group (Bassett, 2002; Carr et al., 2016; Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2019; Nyantakyi-Frimpong & Bezner Kerr, 2017). An interview with a young female farmer reveals:

If a farmer knows about weather conditions, specific seeds, and their distribution within the household or community, this could potentially lead to competition for these resources, and he can withhold the information from us.

Interviews conducted with polygamous households showed a recurring pattern of elder wives also withholding information from their younger counterparts. A study conducted in the Upper West Region examined the network and flow of communication and information sharing in polygamous households with multiple wives, which revealed that communication between ‘senior’ and ‘junior’ wives was rare (Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2019). The study found that elderly wives in the surveyed districts did not share information with younger wives either because they lived separately or their interests did not align (Durán, 2017). Meanwhile, agricultural extension agents assumed that once an elder wife or lead farmer attended a workshop, the information would be distributed among other household members. This assumption contributes to the unequal distribution of communication and information sharing. Tschakert et al. (2016) pointed out that individuals empowered as representatives and agents of change for a community can also perpetuate oppressive elitism in other contexts, such as within the household. Furthermore, some men accused their wives of ‘sitting on the information’ (referring to their refusal to share information) when they requested them to attend workshops on their behalf. The responses imply the existence of intra-household politics where women are also capable of exercising power by keep information for their spouses for personal reasons. It can also be explained that the household representative at the workshop summarizes the information in a succinct way which were interpreted by the household head as ‘withholding relevant information’. These impressions are formulated especially by the household heads as workshops attendance are usually associated with sharing of money, materials or information that are deemed economically relevant. The finding reinforces earlier assertions about how gender intersects with class, religion, ethnicity, age and other indicators of social structure (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021; Carr & Thompson, 2014; Etwire et al., 2017; Partey et al., 2020). This finding highlights the need to identify specific household members who face constraints in accessing communication and information sharing by looking beyond gender and considering intersectional issues.

3.6. Distributional justice in CIS with digital technologies

The findings indicate that most older men and women are not aware of the agricultural information and services provided by digital technologies. Correspondingly, although young farmers have some knowledge of weather apps on smartphones, they do not use the information because they find it unengaging. Young men also commented that understanding some of the messages is difficult because current digital technologies tend to favour those with high technological skills, alienating others. Despite having gained some level of education, young farmers are deterred from using CIS provided through digital technologies due to the use of unfamiliar terminologies and language by service providers.

Affordability issues have exacerbated the unequal distribution of CIS, likewise, as poor farmers cannot afford smartphones. In some poor states, farmers still use simple phones, which affects the readability of information. Additionally, such devices often lack necessary qualities, such as battery life, storage, screen durability, and camera functionality. They are limited to the 2G or 3G internet, which affects farmers’ ability to explore the internet for forecast information.

Low literacy levels present a well-known challenge in agricultural development, creating barriers to the distribution of CIS. Digital literacy, which refers to the skills and knowledge required to use digital technologies and make sense of information, is particularly low among the representatives of older community members. Their abilities are limited to making and receiving calls. Since digital technologies do not match farmers’ level of technological savviness, this results in passive exclusion (McCampbell et al., 2021) from the distribution of CIS. In practice, the widespread use of smartphone-based applications and platforms in the CIS sector (Sarku et al., 2021) gives wealthier or more literate farmers an advantage in accessing fertilizers, hybrid seeds, credit, or other agricultural services at the expense of other farmers.

Finally, poor internet and data connectivity costs have been a significant hindrance to young farmers’ adoption of social media and other digital platforms for the CIS. While electricity is available in larger communities, farmers residing in hinterlands have to travel to charge their mobile phones and use technology, which further discourages their use of digital tools.

4. Discussion

In this section, we identify key themes from the study's findings.

The transformations observed in the CIS sector in Ghana are demonstrated by the diversity of sources through which CIS is delivered, as shown by various studies in the sector (see, for example, Naab et al., 2019; Nyadzi et al., 2018; Clarkson et al., 2019; Owusu et al., 2020; Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021; Baffour-Ata et al., 2021; Sarku et al., 2021). However, our observations indicate that all farmer groups had limited access to information, and the distribution channels were also limited. Furthermore, we noted the absence of digital platforms such as Esoko, Ignitia, AgroCenta, mFarms, or Farmerline, which are commonly cited as providing credible and legitimate CIS to farmers, including weather and farm-related information (Nyamekye et al., 2019). These platforms usually deliver CIS through agricultural development projects funded by development agencies. The absence of these platforms in the study districts could indicate an absence of CIS and agricultural information projects that relied on the services of digital platforms and were funded by development agencies. The findings on the few information distribution modes in the study districts can have implications for the non-application of relevant forecast information.

A primary limitation of relying on development agencies for funding the delivery of CIS to farmers is that project implementers and funders often target specific geographic areas (McNamara et al., 2014; Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2019). As a result, the northern sector of Ghana has become the site of multiple development projects, including ongoing CIS initiatives (Dayamba et al., 2018; Dorward et al., 2015; Etwire et al., 2017; Gbetibouo et al., 2017; Nyadzi et al., 2018; Partey et al., 2020). In addition, there is an active presence of digital CIS platform providers in the northern sector of Ghana (see Naab et al., 2019; Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2019). The CIS provided in the northern sector employs innovative platforms such as SMS, call centres, voice alerts, automatic messages to farmers, interactive voice response services and interactive radio programmes. These platforms provide bundled information that includes weather updates, market prices, and other value chain information. In contrast, the study districts revealed an absence of digital platform providers, including innovative digital platforms and bundled CIS. With this finding, we observed an unequal geographical distribution of CIS innovations in Ghana. We argue that for transformation in the CIS sector to enable a sustainable food system, the government and development agencies must distribute CIS innovations evenly. The study districts lie in the dry climatic region and experience high rainfall variability similar to the northern sector of the country. Paying attention to CIS delivery to all areas, especially those close to major urban centres, can increase food production and curb urban food insecurity.

The findings on the distribution justice in the delivery of CIS highlight significant disparities in access to crucial information among farming communities, raising pertinent questions regarding social justice. The analysis underscores how inequalities in the distribution of CIS perpetuate existing socio-economic disparities and hinder the ability of marginalized groups, particularly women and young farmers, to make informed decisions about their agricultural activities. The unequal distribution of CIS is evident across various channels, from radio broadcasts to digital platforms. Also, access to information is influenced by factors such as gender, age, literacy levels, and socio-economic status, with marginalized groups facing barriers in utilizing these services effectively. For instance, women, burdened with household chores or restricted by cultural norms, often have limited access to radio broadcasts and workshops, crucial channels for disseminating CIS. Moreover, the findings highlight how digital technologies exacerbate existing inequalities. While smartphones and weather apps offer potential benefits, they are often inaccessible to marginalized groups due to affordability issues, low digital literacy, and poor internet connectivity. This further marginalizes vulnerable farmers and reinforces existing power dynamics favouring wealthier and more literate individuals.

The unequal distribution of CIS deprives marginalized groups of essential information and perpetuates intra-household power imbalances. Within households, information sharing is often gendered, with men dominating decision-making processes and withholding information from women and younger members. This dynamic reflects broader societal inequalities and underscores the need for a more inclusive approach to distributing CIS. The study's findings highlight the importance of addressing distributive justice in the delivery of CIS to ensure equitable access for all farming communities. This requires targeted interventions to overcome barriers such as gender discrimination, digital exclusion, and intra-household power dynamics. By promoting inclusive distribution channels and addressing underlying inequalities, CIS can enhance resilience and empower marginalized farmers to adapt to climate change effectively.

Although climate services can provide relevant information to transform farmers’ decision-making, enhance income, food security and resilience to climate change, our findings indicate that this information alone is insufficient to achieve these outcomes. Limited resources such as farming equipment, seeds, tractors, and labour affect the usability of CIS, especially for women. To couple CIS with government subsidy programmes, it is necessary to connect the provision of CIS with other sectoral areas, such as technological innovations like seeds, fertilizer, crop insurance and agronomic information. However, the untimely delivery of some resources, such as seeds and fertilizer, by government outfits can affect the application of CIS, especially during the onset of the season. Care should also be taken to ensure that the legitimacy of the government programme does not affect the uptake of CIS if they are attached to government subsidy programmes (Patt & Gwata, 2002; Meinke et al., 2006; Stone & Meinke, 2007; Lemos et al., 2012).

Our findings suggest that addressing the challenges associated with the low uptake of Climate Information Services (CIS) requires looking beyond digital technologies, scientific methodologies and conceptual approaches such as co-designing or co-production. It is necessary to consider the complex intersectional issues, including age, class, marital status and position in the household (e.g. daughter or daughter-in-law). Informal relationships and the culture of respect for traditional leaders, elders and household heads can also impact how, when, and if information is applied. Similar to other studies conducted in West Africa, some groups of men and women are generally marginalized regarding access to resources, due to education, seniority, wealth, and social status. Therefore, while there are specific gendered needs for CIS, it is essential to consider where other aspects of identity intersect with gender, producing distinct needs among women and men.

The findings also highlights several issues regarding procedural justice in delivering CIS to farmers. The current approach predominantly follows a top-down model, where experts and authorities dictate the production and dissemination of forecast information without adequate involvement of the end-users, the farmers. One of the primary concerns raised is the lack of genuine engagement with farmers in the production process. Despite occasional interviews and workshops, farmers feel sidelined as their needs and experiences are not adequately considered. This disconnect often results in forecast information that fails to meet the practical requirements of the farmers, leading to a lack of usability. Moreover, the delivery of CIS tends to be sporadic and short-lived due to project constraints and limited funding. This results in unequal access to information, favouring certain groups or regions while neglecting others. The top-down delivery approach further exacerbates this inequality, as decisions are made based on bureaucratic directives rather than the actual needs of the farmers.

The absence of participatory and demand-driven procedures means that farmers have little opportunity to provide feedback or make requests regarding the content and delivery of CIS. This undermines their sense of agency and hampers the effectiveness of the services offered. To address these issues, there is a pressing need to shift towards a more participatory approach that empowers farmers as co-producers of CIS. This involves granting them greater control over the design and delivery of information and fostering channels for meaningful engagement and feedback. By acknowledging farmers’ decision-making contexts and actively involving them in the process, CIS can become more tailored, relevant, and accessible to the end-users, thereby promoting procedural justice in its delivery.

The study contributes to the literature on gender and development by demonstrating how struggles over economic autonomy in farming decision-making play out in the context of CIS. The study argues that women are not passive participants who merely follow men's rules or wait for their husbands or men in the farming community to make decisions about what to cultivate at the start of the farming season. Rather, young men and women, in particular, take initiative to secure productive resources for farming by going beyond the household or society's scale. However, it is necessary to note that decision-making is not straightforward because, despite their successes, young men and women still face constraints in accessing resources for farming, such as labour, tractors, seeds, fertilizers, and agrochemicals. Furthermore, young men and women farming are impeded by the community's emphasis on seniority, wealth and social status. As a result, the use of CIS regarding the onset of seasonal rain is limited, particularly by women. Despite these challenges, the findings demonstrate that women have social capital as assets that they can draw on to evaluate agricultural resources (Bassett, 2002). Overall, women could benefit from integrating weather forecasts and climate advisories with seed and market prices and derive other benefits from using CIS.

4.1. Recommendations for the practice

We provide some recommendations on how CIS providers can integrate the societal just and equity lens into the delivery of CIS.

Based on findings from the study regarding men and women’s participation in workshops, we recommend that workshops should be organized separately for different gender groups to enable participants especially women and the youth express their needs and opinion without being hindered by cultural norms. CIS provided by agricultural extension agents and donor organizations should also consider different gender groups’ availability in scheduling workshop. Even though this recommendation is the ideal, the actual implementation can be constrained by funding and time availability for the agricultural extension agents who organize the trainings. It relates also to different gender groups’ availability to attend separate workshops on different dates. For example, in the study Districts, each district has market days where women actively participate in trading activities. Hence, whenever extension agents organize workshops on Tuesdays, or Fridays, only a few women attend, meanwhile, they are may not be available to attend workshop on other days since they may be engaged in other socio-economic activities such as attending funeral. There may be trade-offs when implementing the idea of organizing gender specific works in reality. However, adequate planning and consultations with different groups may yield success.

Instances where there are different gender groups, CIS providers can strategise to reach specific groups. For instance, they may target women who are organized into village savings and loans associations since they are already organized and the information can be channelled through such groups depending on the context. In other instances, it may be easier to use the community radio programmes that are all spread across the country. There are many community information centres with public address systems that can be used to easily reach people who may not have the time to attend agricultural extension workshops or watch the television programmes. Also, CIS providers can also take further steps in setting up demonstration activities where CIS provider can co-learn about the performance of the innovations with the farmers.

CIS providers should prioritize innovation delivery based on the capability to reach every category of farmer. There is need for CIS providers to make sure that the CIS innovation is not going to burden women with the labour. The innovation should be friendly to different gender groups and it should have low cost and low labour implications. It should be readily available for different categories of gender groups to adopt. Also, in the process of the delivery of CIS innovations in the rural communities, CIS providers need to make sure that the approaches that are being used to disseminate the information leads to equitable access of information. For instance, traditional extension system need to pay attention to changes in the use of tools and the modes of information delivery in order to reach vulnerable farmer groups instead of the continual application of ‘business as usual’ format.

Government body such as the Gmet and the agricultural extension agents can play facilitative roles by ensuring that CIS providers do not promote innovations that have outcomes that deepen inequalities. They can also play roles in ensuring that the powerful people in the communities do not co-opt the innovation that is meant for everybody by recommending specific channels that can result to equitable distribution of information in specific communities. We advocate for mainstreaming social justice and equity ideas in CIS innovation development, recognizing the diverse contexts of farmers, distribution methods, and production procedures. Our recommendations focus on creating innovations that benefit all farmers, irrespective of age, gender, or vulnerability.

Although the research results are insightful to inform policy and CIS providers regarding the perspectives of farmers and the intra-household dynamics that may hinder the usability of CIS, we did not integrate the perspectives of the information providers. As a way of enhancing the usability of CIS in farming, we recommend that future research interrogates CIS providers about their awareness of micro-politics and how they address some of these issues. Also, we suggest that future research interrogates CIS providers on their awareness of different CIS needs of male and female farmers. It will be of interest for future research to also identify whether CIS covers the costs, and the trade-offs of considering intra-household needs in the provision of CIS by it providers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst.

Notes on contributors

Rebecca Sarku

Dr Rebecca Sarku is a researcher tackling poverty, food insecurity and environmental challenges and delivers innovative and multidisciplinary result-oriented solutions in complex and marginalized communities. Rebecca’s over ten years of working in academia and international organizations have skilled her in strategic and creative thinking in program design and management, institutional capacity development, and policy analysis and reform. She is an expert in climate adaptation, climate information services, innovative governance arrangement design, adaptive decision-making, and digital technologies for agriculture and sustainable food systems.

Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic

Prof. Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic is an Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering. She has about 27 years of working experience, out of which 23 years in Ghana. She works at the University for Development Studies (UDS), Tamale, Ghana, since 1995. Her main areas of interest include water and ecosystem management, irrigation, climate change and new approaches to tertiary education in developing countries. She has also collaborated with local and international partners, with local and international partners, and she has also collaborated on several projects funded by DFiD, FAO, World Bank, WHO, GEF, etc.

Sabine Tröger

Prof. Dr. Sabine Tröger has been and is directed by paradigms of geographic development research, especially by perspectives of livelihood and vulnerability analyses. Her research focuses on climate change adaptation, sustainability perspectives, and environmental and social justice. She has targeted the practical implementation level and individual actors on the ground, as well as actors at the regional and project level and various development and respective research activities, as well as the university level and academic discourses and international exchange fora.