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

Section 3. Water development todayThis section presents an overview <strong>of</strong> stakeholders, policies, plans, strategies, projects <strong>and</strong> programsrelated to water (<strong>and</strong> pastoral) development in Ethiopia’s rangel<strong>and</strong>s, with a discussion to follow inSection 4.3.1 Stakeholders <strong>and</strong> selected interventionsStakeholders engaged in water development in pastoral regions can be grouped into four broadcategories – pastoralists, government, development organizations/NGOs, <strong>and</strong> the private sector.This report primarily focuses on activities by government <strong>and</strong> development organizations/NGOs,including community-based organizations.Donors are also major stakeholders, but play more <strong>of</strong> an influencing role in how practitionersengage in the rangel<strong>and</strong>s. Major donors funding long term development initiatives featuring waterinclude USAID, EU, UNDP <strong>and</strong> the World Bank. Major humanitarian donors include OFDA <strong>and</strong> UN-OCHA. Among donors funding long term development, much more emphasis is placed on effectivelyinvolving communities in the planning <strong>and</strong> management <strong>of</strong> water schemes. Among humanitari<strong>and</strong>onors, emphasis continues to be on short-term emergency interventions, which automaticallytranslates into less focus on the s<strong>of</strong>tware component <strong>of</strong> water schemes (i.e. building local capacity tomanage <strong>and</strong> maintain water points, ensuring fair <strong>and</strong> equitable access, etc). However, a few examples<strong>of</strong> livelihoods based emergency interventions are currently under way in Ethiopia (e.g. USAID’sPastoral Livelihoods Initiative <strong>and</strong> ECHO’s Regional Drought Decision 21 ), suggesting the beginnings <strong>of</strong>a trend among certain donors towards ensuring community resilience to shock rather than simplyproviding emergency relief. It also appears that donor influence is generally stronger on developmentorganizations/NGOs than on government, with the exception <strong>of</strong> a few major government projects(discussed in Section 3.1.2.3).Table 2: Water development under humanitarian response <strong>and</strong> development scenariosDuration Activities Push factors ObservationsEmergencyResponseDevelopmentTypically3-6monthsA year ormoreWater truckingRehabilitation <strong>of</strong>water pointsConstruction <strong>of</strong>water pointsRehabilitation <strong>of</strong>water pointsConstruction <strong>of</strong>water pointsIncreased incidence <strong>of</strong>drought <strong>and</strong> floods <strong>and</strong>weakened capacity tocope, aggravated bypoverty <strong>and</strong> conflict,firmly entrench the needfor reactive emergencyresponse.Increased awareness thatroot causes <strong>of</strong>vulnerability must beaddressed <strong>and</strong> adaptivecapacity increased todecrease the need for,<strong>and</strong> dependence on,emergency response.• Due to the short-termnature <strong>of</strong> interventions,practitioners arecompelled to focus muchmore on hardware <strong>and</strong>technical interventionsthan planning,participation <strong>and</strong>sustainability.• There is littlecommunication orcollaboration betweenemergency response <strong>and</strong>development donors aswell as practitioners. Thisis true even withinorganizations whereemergency response <strong>and</strong>development are h<strong>and</strong>led21 A program which aims to prepare pastoralists across the Horn <strong>of</strong> Africa region for increasinglyunpredictable <strong>and</strong> failing rains.35