This means the information technically existed, but it never reached those who needed it. In 2018, there was no active dissemination of such long‑range forecasts to the Norwegian agricultural sector.
Barriers to action: From forecast to decision
For a forecast to have value, it must lead to actions that reduce vulnerability. The researchers used James Hansen’s theoretical framework to evaluate five conditions that need to be in place. In 2018, only two were fulfilled:
- high user demand
- and that the forecasts were relevant and accurate
What was missing was:
- Clear communication and dissemination of the forecasts
- Support for interpretation and training
- Real capacity for farmers to act — such as irrigation systems, flexible subsidy schemes, and clear regulations
- Institutional anchoring ensuring that long‑range forecasts are systematically included in planning and preparedness
Both farmers, advisors, and agricultural stakeholders later described that they would have greatly benefited from forecasts extending beyond ten days. Weather conditions are crucial for everything from fertilization and sowing to harvest strategies and resource use, and uncertainty makes planning difficult. Nevertheless, extended‑range forecasts were neither known nor used in agriculture in 2018.
Those who later received training through the study’s user panel interpreted the forecast signals more accurately and understood earlier how serious the situation would become. Experience turned out to be essential for making use of the forecasts.
The gap between knowledge and action
One of the most striking findings in the study is that knowledge of the drought alone would not have been enough for individual farmers. For grain farmers, the biggest limitation was the lack of irrigation systems. In 2018, fewer than 10 percent of grain producers had access to such technology. Without physical infrastructure to counteract water shortages, even the most accurate forecast becomes “theoretically useful but practically unusable.”
Still, the potential at the organizational level was significant. If agricultural organizations and authorities had seen the forecasts in mid‑June, they could have:
- Mobilized crisis groups earlier to coordinate measures
- Clarified subsidy regulations faster, enabling farmers to harvest grain as fodder before its quality was damaged by the drought
- Secured imports of fodder from abroad earlier, before market pressure increased
The road ahead: A proactive model
The study concludes that Norway needs a more proactive approach to climate risk. This requires not only better models but also strengthening of the “physical and institutional infrastructure.”
The researchers point to the Norwegian Agricultural Advisory Service (NLR) as an ideal bridge‑builder. NLR has contact with over 24,000 members and can act as a skilled interpreter, translating complex meteorological data into practical, farm‑level advice.
To truly benefit from long‑range forecasts in the future, we must shift from being reactive — spending billions on compensation after damage has already occurred — to being proactive through investments in irrigation systems and flexible regulations. Forecasting is a powerful tool, but it requires the capacity to act when the alarm goes off.
