Prologue

In April 2024, I conducted a series of interviews with 19 farmers in Sriganganagar, a vital agricultural district in northern Rajasthan. These conversations unfolded against a backdrop of unprecedented cotton crop failure during the Kharif season due to unseasonal rain, followed by unexpectedly high wheat yields in the Rabi season, thanks to an optimally colder-than-normal January. This duality of loss and bounty frame the uncertainty these farmers face daily. These interviews, lasting 45-60 minutes each, sought to understand how farmers make decisions in the face of climate variability and the role trust plays in their adoption of agricultural-meteorological (agri-met) information. The participants, all male and aged 30 to 65, represent medium landholders managing multi-generational farms.

The purpose was to explore how farmers use existing agri-met services, identify gaps in their utility, and understand what a trusted and useful advisory system might look like. Here’s what I learned from these transcripts.

In the agricultural fields of Sriganganagar in northern Rajasthan’s “Wheat Basket,” farming decisions are not just about yields or forecasts; they are deeply social, cultural, and human. For the farmers I interviewed, trust is the key to decision-making, and its source often determines whether they accept or dismiss advice—regardless of the benefits it promises.

In this agriculturally important and climate-vulnerable region, farmers constantly face uncertainty. With climate variability challenging traditional knowledge, one might assume that the forecasts and advisories of the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) would be readily embraced. The reality is more complex.

Social Anchors in Decision-Making

The 19 farmers I interviewed, all male, aged 30 to 65, and rooted in multi-generational farms ranging between 25-125 acres, shared a common perspective. Their decisions rarely extended beyond a single growing season, shaped by factors like labor availability, market dynamics, and family legacy. A common thread in their stories was this: they trust those who share their risks—those with “skin in the game.”

Contrast this with the IMD’s forecasts—technical and centrally disseminated, . These forecasts feel distant, both geographically and socially. Farmers spend much of their downtime at Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMCs), hubs of trade and conversation. Here, advice from brokers, seed retailers, and labor contractors—people who face the same uncertainties—carries more weight than insights from a screen.

Weatherproofing, Not Timing the Weather

These farmers don’t aim to time the weather; they aim to weather-proof their operations. Decisions about crop types, planting density, and harvest timing rely on experience, market trends, and family traditions. For instance, crop choices often reflect soil type, market conditions, and even what their fathers grew decades ago. Expecting farmers to follow advisories as if they were ticking off a checklist ignores the deeply human and intuitive nature of their work. Farming is as much about relationships and experience as it is about precision.

Their risk management methods include planting multiple crops, using varied seed varieties, and adjusting planting densities. Weather and climate information is just one factor in their decision-making. For these farmers, advice must align with their realities, not just theoretical benefits.

Trust Deficits in Climate Services

The IMD’s agri-met services, despite their potential to save farmers billions of rupees, struggle to build trust in this region. With 130 Agro-Met Field Units disseminating nationally run forecasts, the information often lacks the resolution and relevance needed at the village level. Most critically, it lacks a human touch. Farmers seldom interact with these services directly and rarely employ their outputs, further eroding trust.

By contrast, the APMCs—2777 decentralized grain markets regulated by state governments—are more trusted. Farmers see these markets not just as trading hubs but as extensions of their social networks. Here, advice is rooted in shared experiences and bolstered by face-to-face interactions.

Closing the gap: Technical Accuracy and Social Relevance

Trust cannot be built from a distance; it requires physical and relational proximity. Farmers trust seed retailers, brokers, and contractors not because they’re always right but because they’re present. They share risks, face failures together, and celebrate successes side by side.

For agri-met services to succeed, they must integrate into this social fabric. Could forecasts be tied to APMCs? Could local mediators interpret and communicate forecasts in ways that align with farmers’ realities? These are fundamental questions for rethinking knowledge exchange.

Toward Co-Creation

To serve farmers, climate services must shift from a top-down to a co-creative model. Instead of centralized dissemination through distant offices, agricultural services need a presence within APMCs. Imagine a desk and an employee at every APMC, equipped with computational resources to run localized forecasts based on regional data. These employees could provide tailored forecasts, build relationships with farmers, learn their names, understand their needs, and print field-specific forecasts. This proximity and personalization could transform how climate information is used.

This approach also means involving farmers in designing services, ensuring their voices shape outcomes. It acknowledges the socio-cultural context of farming—where decisions are as much about relationships and trust as data. Sriganganagar’s farmers show that trust, not technology, is the cornerstone of resilience. As we modernize agriculture in the face of climate change, we must remember: no forecast, however accurate, can replace the human connections behind decisions.

The challenge is not just improving the accuracy of agri-met services but embedding them in farmers’ lived experiences. Only then can these services become tools of empowerment, turning uncertainty into opportunity—one trusted relationship at a time.