Kenya’s floriculture industry depends on predictable growing conditions, reliable water supplies and efficient production systems. Commercial flower farms operate within demanding supply chains where disruptions to cultivation, harvesting and delivery can affect product quality, operating costs and business performance.

Changing rainfall patterns, temperature variability and other climate hazards introduce uncertainty into these operations. For flower producers, understanding climate exposure is therefore a business planning concern as much as an environmental consideration. Farm managers need to identify potential threats, assess their operational implications and determine which responses are practical within available resources.

This challenge informed an assignment undertaken by Impact Africa Consulting Limited (IACL) for Fairtrade Africa, focusing on Aquila and Sian Flower Farms in Kenya.

Understanding risks within the farming environment

Between April and July 2024, IACL conducted a climate risk assessment and mitigation strategy assignment for the two flower farms. The engagement examined material climate hazards, exposure pathways, institutional vulnerabilities and measures that could strengthen preparedness.

The assessment considered how climate conditions might influence agricultural operations and management decisions. It also examined governance arrangements, existing policies, available climate information, operational responsibilities and the systems used to identify and monitor risks.

A central consideration was that different risks require different responses. Water availability, physical exposure, operational disruption and institutional preparedness cannot necessarily be addressed through a single intervention. The assignment therefore sought to establish priorities grounded in the farms’ operating circumstances.

Examining evidence and operational practices

IACL began by reviewing relevant strategies, policies, operational records, climate information, risk registers and sector guidance. This provided an understanding of existing management arrangements and the evidence available to support climate risk decisions.

The team engaged farm management, technical personnel, operational staff and relevant stakeholders to examine practical concerns and clarify institutional priorities. These consultations complemented the documentary review by connecting climate information with the realities of agricultural production.

The analysis considered climate hazards, exposure, vulnerability, operational implications and existing risk controls. It also identified information gaps that could affect the interpretation of risks or the feasibility of proposed responses.

This process helped distinguish between the identification of potential threats and the management measures required to address them.

Prioritising practical mitigation measures

Following the assessment, IACL developed climate risk findings, prioritisation considerations, mitigation recommendations and implementation guidance relevant to Fairtrade Africa and the participating farms.

The work examined possible response measures against institutional responsibilities, resource considerations and implementation constraints. Recommendations were intended to help management determine which actions required attention and how responsibilities could be assigned.

An important aspect involved connecting technical climate analysis with decisions made by farm managers and operational teams. Risk information becomes more useful when it informs planning, resource allocation, operational procedures and performance monitoring.

The assignment also addressed coordination requirements and follow up actions necessary to maintain attention to identified climate priorities.

Validating recommendations with stakeholders

IACL facilitated the review and validation of emerging findings, incorporating stakeholder comments and refining recommendations for practical application.

This provided an opportunity to consider whether the proposed measures reflected operational realities and available institutional capabilities. It also helped clarify responsibilities and identify issues requiring further attention during implementation.

The resulting outputs included risk assessment findings, mitigation priorities, management guidance and monitoring considerations. Technical conclusions were presented in accessible language and linked to operational processes and future management decisions.

The project documentation confirms these advisory outputs but does not provide verified figures on avoided production losses, water savings or subsequent changes in climate resilience.

Lessons for agricultural enterprises

The experience demonstrates why climate risk assessment should be connected to routine agricultural management rather than treated as a separate technical exercise. Understanding potential hazards is important, but farms also need mechanisms for translating that information into operational priorities.

For commercial producers, effective preparedness requires attention to climate evidence, institutional responsibilities, available resources and the practical feasibility of mitigation measures. Consultation with operational teams can strengthen the relevance of recommendations by identifying constraints that may not be apparent from climate data alone.

The assignment also illustrates the importance of periodically reviewing risk information as conditions, production requirements and institutional capabilities change.

For agricultural enterprises facing climate uncertainty, the value of risk assessment lies in its ability to inform specific management decisions, clarify responsibilities and support more consistent operational preparedness.