The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Page 64
forecast information are useful, depending on the
climate-sensitive sector, the region, and the coping strategies
used.
In agriculture, a forecast is useful to the extent that it
permits more advantageous ex ante actions, such as altered choice
of crop species and cultivars and timing of tillage (Mjelde et al.,
1988) or altered composition or allocation of herds (Stafford Smith
and Foran, 1992; Ellis and Swift, 1988). For example, a skillful
forecast may allow a farmer to diversify less and to match cropping
decisions more closely to expected climatic events. A farmer who
can anticipate that rainfall is likely to be unusually ample can
grow seeds that are sensitive to water availability to improve
profits; conversely, a farmer who knows that there is a high
probability that rainfall will be unusually low can conserve on
inputs, use less water-sensitive inputs, or refrain from
application of any unfruitful inputs at all. Forecasts of growing
season length or degree-days may be useful in similar ways.
However, forecasts are helpful only if they arrive before planting
or stocking decisions are made and if the producer is capable of
responding. Some responses, such as changing livestock species, may
require resources available only to the most successful
producers.
Regional conditions affect the usefulness of forecasts. In South
Asia, where models of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
allow for fairly skillful predictions of average temperature and
precipitation several months in advance, it might seem that climate
forecasts would be broadly useful to farmers. But this may not be
so. Forecasts can benefit the 10 to 15 percent of farmers in the
semiarid areas who would lose money by planting in bad-climate
years (Rosenzweig and Binswanger, 1993): they could decide not to
farm. But the majority of farmers, who can expect to profit even in
a dry year, might not benefit from the forecasts. The reason is
that no farming practices can be undertaken prior to the onset of
the monsoon, so that even if a long-range forecast of the monsoon
onset could be made, it would provide no benefit. A prediction of
the magnitude of the monsoon may also provide no benefit to farmers
whose practices would be the same regardless of its magnitude.
Institutional factors may affect the value of forecasts. In the
United States, the usefulness of a climate forecast may depend in
complex ways on whether a farmer is covered by crop insurance. Some
analysts (e.g., Gardner et al., 1984) argue that federally
subsidized crop insurance imposes a ''moral hazard'' by encouraging
farmers to take imprudent risks, for example, by being less
diversified and more dependent on dryland practices in regions of
marginal climate than their uninsured counterparts. Insurance also
decreases the incentive for farmers to change their practices on
the basis of a climate forecast, since they are covered against
disasters.
In water management, distinct kinds of forecast information are
use-