Synthesis of Existing Knowledge and Experience on the Provision of ...

to inform their own work <strong>and</strong> help them implement higher quality water development interventionsin pastoralist areas <strong>and</strong> with pastoralist communities in future.It is hoped that in addition to facilitating learning amongst the partners that the findings will alsoinform other actors engaged in water development in pastoral areas, <strong>and</strong> perhaps encourageincreased reflection on current approaches <strong>and</strong> practice leading to more appropriate, <strong>and</strong> it isbelieved ‘successful 7 ’, water development in pastoral areas.The research informing this overview was not restricted to a review <strong>of</strong> the partners own work, butalso mapped out the bigger picture <strong>of</strong> who is involved, where, how, whether <strong>and</strong> how approaches towater development have changed over the last few decades, <strong>and</strong> what some <strong>of</strong> the current majorinterventions are – all within the framework <strong>of</strong> national <strong>and</strong> regional policies, plans, <strong>and</strong> strategies. Italso explores the level <strong>of</strong> coordination between different actors in the field, whether activities buildon existing pastoral natural resource management know-how, <strong>and</strong> lessons learned from previouswater development interventions.Based on an extensive review <strong>of</strong> published <strong>and</strong> unpublished documents, <strong>and</strong> over fifty in-depthinterviews with development practitioners <strong>and</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> government <strong>and</strong> donor agenciesengaged in water development in pastoral regions, this report also highlights ‘good’ <strong>and</strong> poor’practice as identified by interviewees. For the purposes <strong>of</strong> this report, ‘good’ <strong>and</strong> ‘poor’ practice ispresented as: 1) approaches that are unanimously seen to work in the pastoral context, 2)approaches that are seen as problematic, 3) approaches which appear promising but where morefield level research <strong>and</strong> documentation is likely to be necessary.1.3 Scope <strong>and</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> the reportThe partners specifically restricted the content <strong>of</strong> this report to a discussion <strong>of</strong> water developmentfor livestock use (<strong>and</strong> human use 8 ) in arid areas where livestock keeping is the dominant livelihood,<strong>and</strong> where agricultural production is limited due to insufficient <strong>and</strong> unreliable rainfall. Therefore themain thrust <strong>of</strong> this report is on water development for human <strong>and</strong> livestock use in regionspredominantly inhabited by pastoralists (rather than agro-pastoralists or farmers). The areas coveredare those regions or areas where absolute rainfall is low. These areas generally occupy the lowl<strong>and</strong>areas <strong>of</strong> the country. Regions included in this review include Afar, Somali, <strong>and</strong> the arid zones <strong>of</strong>Oromia <strong>and</strong> the Southern Nations, Nationalities <strong>and</strong> Peoples’ Region (SNNPR) (See Figures 1 <strong>and</strong> 2).It was not within the scope <strong>of</strong> this report to include information from other pastoralist areas such asparts <strong>of</strong> Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz <strong>and</strong> Tigray.Figure 1: Rainfall distribution <strong>and</strong> elevation maps, Ethiopia.7 Meant here as developments which will address water shortages <strong>and</strong> meet the dem<strong>and</strong> for water withoutencouraging conflict, the degradation <strong>of</strong> the rangel<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the weakening <strong>of</strong> rangel<strong>and</strong>-dependent livelihoods.8 Since water for human use is also generally water for livestock use in pastoral regions.18