Perceptions, practices, principles and policies in provision of livestock water in Africa

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Review

Perceptions, practices, principles and policies in provision of livestock water in Africa R. Trevor Wilson * Bartridge Partners, Umberleigh, North Devon EX37 9AS, United Kingdom

article info

abstract

Article history:

Adequate water supplies are essential to efficient livestock production. In many areas

Accepted 6 March 2007

livestock are in conflict with crops for water and for key areas of use. Both surface and underground sources are exploited by livestock. Conflict arises in the use of water between

Keywords:

different users and uses: extraction for irrigation, for example, can remove ‘‘key resource’’

Livestock drinking water

areas from the annual cycle of livestock keepers. Spacing, location and time of access are

Resource conflict

important considerations in provision of water. Past development has provided water in

Organization and management of

quantities and for periods that have enabled livestock numbers to build up in excess of those

water

that can be maintained by the available feed. More consultation and participation of

Participation

livestock owners than in the past is needed in the future in the provision of livestock

Cost recovery

water. New developments and continuing provision of livestock water must, however, to be contingent on owners making physical and financial contributions. These contributions can include supply of labour and draught power for well or pond development and cost recovery of capital investment and recurrent expenditure, either in full or in part. Policies related to water for livestock need to be broad based and in accordance with education, health and social provisions. # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water resources and their exploitation by livestock Spacing and location of water points . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Crops versus livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Livestock and their feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Environmental impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Water and control of resource use . . . . . . . . . Supply of water to livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Indicative gross water needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Relative importance of use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. Development initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. Density and capacity of water sources . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

* Tel.: +44 1769 560244; fax: +44 1769 560601. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0378-3774/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2007.03.003

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6

2

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

6.

7. 8.

9.

1.

Organization and management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Improvement of existing supplies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Provision of new supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4. Increasing the efficiency of water use by livestock . 6.5. Producer involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6. Environmental assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicative development strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Possible development scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1. Full cost recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2. Partial recovery of capital costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3. Partial recovery of capital and operating costs . . . . . 8.4. Consolidated, devolved and subsidized water funds Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction

Water of adequate quality and amount must be available if output of live animals and animal products is not to be reduced. It is seldom physically possible and often not economically feasible to provide water in every place that there is a perception of need. In many areas water will always be scarce. Its most effective use for livestock can be ensured only through good organization and management (Sandford, 1983; Getachew Abdi Zerefu, 2002). Water provided for livestock can be a force for evil as well as for good. Whereas scarcity is a constraint to animal production this very scarcity can be used as a management instrument (French, 1956). The objectives of providing water for livestock should not only be to alleviate thirst but also to ensure efficient production and productivity, equity and environmental sustainability. Development projects in the second half of the twentieth century absorbed vast amounts of money. Much of this was directed to drier areas and in many interventions providing potable water for people and livestock was the major cost. It might be expected that such expenditure would improve the quality of life of man and his animals in ‘‘normal’’ years and better chances of survival in times of drought. The evidence suggests that this has rarely been the case. The overall cost of provision of water for livestock in physical and financial terms is seldom considered and even more rarely calculated. It is possible, however, to make some rough estimates. A zebu steer that turns over 140 ml/(l day) of the 65–70% of its mass, that is water, may weigh 400 kg at 4 years of age. This animal would by then have consumed 28 000 l of water (King, 1983). This already impressive number takes no account of the water needed to grow the feed the animal eats, estimated at 150–250 kg to produce 1 kg of dry matter of feed. An estimate of the total water required to provide 1 kg of meat is 110 000 kg and to provide 1 kg of wool is 1 000 000 kg (McMillan, 1965). These data emphasise that it is not sufficient to regard water used by animals in isolation to their general metabolism nor water development to the exclusion of the overall environment. It is therefore unfortunate that much of the money spent on livestock water has resulted in severe degradation of

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11

natural resources. Water is essential to life and to the livelihoods of livestock keepers but its development should not prejudice activities other than animal production but to which animal production is integral. As a consequence livestock water development must be considered holistically and take into account benefits to every aspect of the environment. In spite of this need, recent texts on agricultural water management and even the broader management and use of water make no mention of livestock (Rachel et al., 1996, 1997; Saleth and Dinar, 2004). In the overall summing-up of the 2004 Stockholm Water Symposium there is no mention of livestock water (SIWI, 2004). In 2006 there was belated recognition of the problem when it was stated that ‘‘this issue has been largely ignored in 50 years of research on both livestock and water management’’ and ‘‘experts recommend factoring of water requirements for livestock and feed production into mainstream water planning, management and development (ILRI, 2006). This paper describes the various types of water resources available to and their use by livestock and at the spacing of water resources in varying agroclimatic and ecological zones. It then goes on to discuss the conflicts inherent in the use of water by livestock with regard to competition between crops and livestock, the effects of water/livestock interactions on the natural environment and how water can be used (but perhaps seldom is) as a tool for the management of other natural resources. The supply of water to livestock is next considered before several aspects of organization and management including considerations of policy and producer involvement in decision making are examined. Indicative development strategies are then discussed before a series of scenarios for producer involvement and cost recovery are provided. The goal of this paper is to provide the background for future development of water for livestock.

2. Water resources and their exploitation by livestock Livestock usually exploit surface water directly. Allowing unimpeded access can, however, lead to contamination and negative effects on quality. Access should therefore be

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

3

controlled by ‘‘exclosing’’ the source and providing a trough fed by a pipe or dug channel. If access to surface sources is controlled it should be possible to use them to provide safe or at least relatively safe water for human consumption. It is unusual for only one source or type (TAMU, 1976) of source to be exploited permanently. Owners may prefer or be forced to water stock at a variety of sources that include surface and subsurface options. The types of source may or may not be closely correlated to climatic conditions as it is usual to find several types of source in various environments. Some classes of stock are provided with water at their base rather than being trekked to the source. In addition to young stock of most species many dairy cattle in periurban and urban systems have water brought to them. An alternative to this is to connect the dairy unit (or sometimes a fattening unit) to the reticulated urban water supply.

important as it largely governs the time, energy and body water that stock (and their herdsmen) spend in travelling to water. The extraction method determines the labour needed to ensure that animals actually get to drink water. Many small sources ensure that high value and potentially high output stock expend little effort in obtaining water so that energy can be used for main production functions. Water development can be used to reduce the risk of disease (by ensuring that stock of different owners do not mix) and to reduce erosion and compaction at water points (Graetz and Ludwig, 1978; Brits et al., 2002). Care should be taken in traditional production areas that new water points do not become the personal fief of influential people whether they be indigenous or endogenous to the area. This has happened in Botswana (Perkins, 1996) and is a potential dangerous trap elsewhere.

3.

4.

Spacing and location of water points

The choice of spacing and location of water points depends on several factors that need to be considered in combination. Among these are enterprise objectives, level of output expected or required, availability of surface or ground water, distance to and quantity and quality of feed resources and the way in which these are fed to the animals. It is not always ecologically desirable nor economically viable to bring all potential grazing land within reach of permanent water. Water supply is of dominant importance in determining grazing distribution on homogenous landscapes but forage palatability, terrain and tree density are also important in heterogeneous landscapes. The integrated response to these factors determines which parts of the landscape are more heavily grazed than others. It is the heavily grazed parts on which range resources and land management should focus (Thomas and Allison, 1993). Special considerations apply to different agroecological zones, production systems and livestock species. In arid mulga woodlands in Australia, for example, one water point is installed for sheep on every 4000 ha (one for every 40 km2) whereas cattle are provided with a source for every 10 000 ha (one for every 100 km2 (Harrington et al., 1984). These densities imply sources spaced about 6 km apart for sheep and 10 km apart for cattle. East African experience in the 1960s indicated that on ‘‘normal’’ terrain 4 km from water is the farthest an animal should graze for satisfactory growth (Pratt and Gwynne, 1977). This would supply water to about 5000 ha or about 1250 head of stock. If it were assumed that 4 ha provides sufficient grazing for one beast and each needs 25 l of water a day the source daily output would need to be 32 000 l. In drier areas where more than 12 ha is needed to support one livestock unit water requirement per unit area (calculated as litres per hectare per day for the ‘‘normal’’ terrain) would at least be halved. In these areas ‘‘great care is needed not to supply water in over abundance’’. In dry areas it is important that sources be reliable at times of shortage, are located within trekking distance of adequate feed supplies and that the extraction process is not too difficult. Reliability determines the period that livestock can be kept in one area. Location in relation to feed resources is

Resource conflict

A major factor in both livestock and crop production is incompatibility between rapid population growth and a declining resource base. Such incompatibility is exacerbated by unfavourable climatic events. Rapid population growth in the second half of the twentieth century placed unprecedented pressure on natural resources and in many areas led to resource and land degradation and to reduced food security (Ormerod, 1978).

4.1.

Crops versus livestock

Most common crops do not yield well at annual rainfalls of less than 500–600 mm. Isohyets around this magnitude usually mark the natural limit between animal and crop production in much of Africa and other semiarid areas of the world. In higher rainfall areas crops have dominated agricultural activity whereas with lower rainfall livestock production is predominant. In the intermediate belt mixed farming of crops and livestock is the norm. Increasing population pressure on finite land resources and declines in soil fertility with resultant lowered crop yields have resulted in conventional arable areas being unable to provide basic food needs. This has forced expansion of cultivation into formerly livestock areas and mainly into those with slightly higher rainfall, better quality soils and easier access to water. These take over activities (often supported by administrative indifference or direct encouragement) of ‘‘key resource’’ areas have marginalized livestock producers yet further, displacing them into areas even less suitable for sustainable livestock production. Part of the response of livestock owners has been to start producing crops. As they have no experience of this and as the areas used are mostly unsuitable they are often faced with crop failure in addition to stock losses from malnutrition and disease. An aspect of competition between crops and livestock for key fodder and water resources is irrigated cropping. Governments have usually not been indifferent in this area and have actively and even forcefully promoted crop production. It is understandable in countries with a human food shortage that administrations wish to maximize output of arable land. It is

4

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

rare, however, for irrigated areas to be used for subsistence (the Mali ‘‘Office du Niger’’ with its smallholder rice production is an exception (Wilson et al., 1982)) but for cash crops such as cotton and sugar cane. A few thousand hectares taken out of livestock production is small compared to the total land available. It is just these areas, however, with dry season water availability and abundant livestock feed that really are key resources for pastoralists. Examples of uncompensated appropriation that deprive pastoralists of water and feed abound. In the 1950s the Wagogo were forcibly evicted from the Kongwa area of central Tanganyika (Tanzania) with its valuable ‘mbuga’ (swamp) grazing to make way for the large scale cultivation of groundnuts (Wood, 1950). In the ‘‘central rainlands’’ in the 1970s mechanized farming schemes meant to enhance Sudan’s position as the breadbasket of the Arab world were planted across the traditional migration routes of camel and cattle nomads (Davies, 1991). Again in the 1970s the state farms of Socialist Ethiopia meant to produce grain with which to purchase arms robbed livestock owners of access to water and grazing (Blench, 1997). Many schemes are remembered for their lack of success but in some countries enthusiasm for such initiatives has hardly waned. Governments, with few exceptions such as Mauritania and Somalia, usually comprise people with little to no experience, expertise or even interest in livestock production. Projects designed to dam rivers and bring large areas of land under irrigation for crop production almost invariably remove strategic water and grazing resources from livestock. They often have adverse effects on downstream ecology and on the livelihoods of the people living there. Even proposals for ‘‘small’’ irrigation schemes can have similar detrimental effects on livestock and local ecology.

4.2.

Livestock and their feed

Bush encroachment and invasion of feeding areas by unpalatable and weedy species are major problems where, because water has been provided where there previously was none, grazing pressure intensifies for prolonged periods. Any form of land use can contribute to ‘‘degradation’’ but lack of control of livestock numbers and the periods at which they use feed resources are major factors in reduced range or grassland production. In some formerly productive parts of Ethiopia bush encroachment covers 40% of the area of use (Gofu Oba, 1998). Many unwanted shrubs invade grassland as a result of over or excessive use (Coppock, 1994). Among important invaders in drier areas are Commiphora africana and several Acacia species. Acacia drepanolobium can also be a major invading species. This thorny shrub is easily controlled by burning but if the under storey ‘‘fuel’’ (=grass) for hot fires is depleted by excessive use the tree proliferates (Pratt and Gwynne, 1977). Some invading species such as A. nilotica and A. seyal have some feed value and yet others have economic value as A. senegal for gum.

4.3.

Environmental impact

Unconsidered provision of water for livestock often – one is tempted to say almost always – leads to overgrazing. Whilst this may have been implicitly understood for a very long time,

formal fears of overgrazing and overcultivation were perhaps first expressed in western Sudan in the 1930s (Sudan Government, 1944). Overgrazing usually occurs first and most severely in proximity to water. The phenomenon of concentric rings around a water point is described as a ‘‘piosphere’’ (Lange, 1969). The circle of grazing or piosphere influence is up to 3 km radius for cattle under good range conditions, up to 4 km in areas of moderate range condition and as much as 8 km in areas of poor range condition. Piospheres created by sheep range in radius from 1.5 to 5.0 km. Piosphere effects are greatest near the water point and decrease with distance (Graetz and Ludwig, 1978; Brits et al., 2002). The innermost zone – the ‘‘sacrifice area’’ – is greatly affected by trampling (Thrash and Derry, 1999) but five zones are recognizable. The sacrifice area is trampled to dust for up to 100 m from the centre. A second zone is grazed exceedingly short and also severely trampled and extends up to a radius of 1 km. The third zone to 5 km is moderately grazed and the fourth to 8 km is lightly but selectively grazed. The fifth zone beyond 8 km is little and even more selectively used and there is usually accumulation of unpalatable material. Degradation in the first two rings occurs not only from trampling and grazing but also by soil nutrient enrichment to the point of toxicity via dung deposition and is often irreversible.

4.4.

Water and control of resource use

In many areas of better rainfall and some mixed farming areas population densities of both people and animals are high. Water sources are so common that little attempt is made to improve them. It is sometimes difficult to envisage water as a tool in natural resource management but increasing pressure on land and on water itself can lead to more efficient use for people, livestock and crops. Amongst factors that lead to better use of water and incidentally to conservation of other resources are secure land tenure whether this be communal or individual or traditional or modern (Turton and Bottrall, 1997). In arid and semiarid areas much lower population densities and the mobility of livestock and people contribute to difficulties in siting of water sources and of their integration with infrastructure for health and education. In addition, rehabilitation of old or provision of new water sources in these fragile areas have the potential seriously to disturb the delicate balance and the dynamic equilibrium among livestock feed, water and other natural resources. Many examples show how thoughtless provision of water has led to degradation and social conflict. The spacing and location of water points can clearly be used to control grazing pressure in both time and space as discussed under the piosphere effect. The greater an area covered by one water point the less should be the overall grazing pressure. This is not always the case, however, because stock numbers are frequently not controlled. In Botswana between 1965 and 1976 the area accessible to livestock doubled as a consequence of public and private investment in boreholes but livestock numbers increased by 76% (Sandford, 1977). In Sudan the number of livestock water facilities increased four-fold between 1957 and 1968 through construction of more than 1000 ‘‘water yards’’ equipped with boreholes, storage tanks and troughs (NCR, 1976) allowing not only improved access to what was then

5

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

undoubtedly under-used feed resources but also encouraging a great increase in livestock numbers. In general livestock impact on vegetation is greater where stock movement is restricted. There may therefore be some merit in operating an ‘‘open range’’ system to allow year-round freedom of movement. ‘‘High impact zones’’ around water are relatively small but proliferation of water sources has the effect of intensifying grazing and thus putting even greater pressure around such sources. The best management option would be a more appropriate distribution of sources coupled to a highly flexible and adaptive grazing regime (Leggett et al., 2003). New problems experienced by pastoralists in the Borana lowlands of Ethiopia as a result of indiscriminate provision of water included a decline in rangeland area due to expansion of cropping, bush encroachment on to formerly grassy areas, overgrazing, loss of the better grass species, seasonal overstocking and uncertainties about pastoral land tenure and policy (BLPDP, 1998a). Under well managed ranching conditions in both the developed and developing world spacing and location help to control grazing pressure as does the timing at which water is available. Thus in Australia where pastures are fenced into paddocks excluding stock is perfectly feasible. Exclusion, in theory at least, is also possible in Botswana under the ‘‘cattle post’’ system (Perkins, 1996). Even under some traditional systems water is used to control access to pastures as in the Boran ‘warra’ and ‘forra’ system in southern Ethiopia (Donaldson, 1983). It is difficult in traditional societies, however, to control water once it is installed as it can lead to the breakdown of traditional management strategies. This is the case for the Boran (Coppock, 1994; Bassi, 1997; Helland, 1997; Hogg, 1997; BLPDP, 1998b; Gofu Oba, 1998) where easy access has reduced the labour need for watering animals and therefore rendered useless an age old limitation on individual and regional herd sizes. Similar situations have arisen in Sudan among the Kababish camel nomads (Asad, 1964) of Kordofan and the Baqqara cattle transhumants (Wilson and Clarke, 1975) of Darfur as a result of provision of ‘hafir’ (mechanically dug water ponds) and boreholes and deep wells. In the 1940s and 1950s most northern Sudan developments were ‘hafir’. During the 1960s to 1980s emphasis shifted to groundwater with drilling of 5655 bores (1966–1985), construction of 6045 wells (1966–1980) and digging of a further 295

‘hafir’ (1966–1984) mostly on sandy ‘qoz’ which was formerly waterless in the dry season (Davies, 1991). This perception of ‘‘development’’ has led to huge areas being overgrazed in spite of many bores failing (they did not strike water) or quickly becoming unserviceable. In one area of Southern Darfur 28 of 145 bores drilled in the 1970s quickly broke down and 44 were never equipped with engines and pumps. In principle, bores were to be pumped for only a limited time per day and a limited number of weeks in the year but livestock owners with Kalashnikovs can be very persuasive in the face of poorly paid low level Government employees.

5.

Supply of water to livestock

5.1.

Indicative gross water needs

Each species and class of stock has a basic daily water need. Animals with varying degrees of adaptation, performing various tasks or output functions, in varying physiological states, under various conditions of climatic stress, under unequal conditions of feed supply and availability and under various watering regimes also have differing needs (Table 1). As almost all these variables are unknown or cannot be measured with certainty, it is impossible to define livestock water needs precisely. It therefore seems prudent to adopt a value for drinking of 20 l per TLU (Tropical Livestock Unit of a nominal 250-kg live weight) per day. There is no foreseeable reason why this amount should change over time so that future increases (or decreases) in animal numbers are the main variable in the demand equation. The exception might be crossbred and upgraded dairy cows under rather improved management in urban and periurban areas. It is reasonable to suppose that in most tropical areas they would use 50 l per head per day for drinking and for washing of utensils and buildings in 2005. This may increase to 80 l per head per day by 2025 as milk yields increase and as more stringent hygiene regulations are imposed.

5.2.

Relative importance of use

The case of Ethiopia may serve as a proxy for general principles. Ethiopia’s Water Sector Development Program

Table 1 – Estimated daily water intake (litres) of domestic livestock species under various production and management scenarios Species and scenarioa

Source of water Zebu cattle

Small goat

Donkey

Camel

Daily watering

2-day watering

3-day watering

Daily watering

Carrying water once every 2 days

Settlement 5 km from water

Drinking Feed supply Metabolic oxidation Respiratory/cutaneous

27.7 0.9 l.5 3.6

24.2 0.7 1.2 3.1

17.3 0.4 0.7 2.2

2.40 0.88 0.23 0.42

12.4 0.4 0.5 1.6

25.1 5.2 2.2 3.9

14.3 21.0 1.9 4.5

Total

33.7

29.2

20.6

3.93

14.9

36.4

41.7

Source: Adapted from King (1983). Except for donkeys all data relate to lactating females.

a

Mobile herd

6

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

(WWDSE, 2001) assigns priorities to different facets of water development based on ‘‘water policy’’ as:

SORDU constructed ‘‘hundreds of stock ponds with millions of cubic metres of capacity distributed all over the Borana plateau although in spite of this development the famous deep wells of the Borana are the most reliable sources of water during dry and drought years’’ (Solomon Desta, 2000; Mesfin, 2000). A more realistic indication of SORDU’s pond provision is that 130 large mechanically excavated ponds, most of more than 50 000 m3 (200 000–250 000 livestock unit drinking days), had been constructed by 1998 (BLPDP, 1998b). In theory pond siting and size was based on livestock numbers alone (at a volume of water per livestock day based on Australian data) with no consideration of range ecology and no consultation with local people. Many ponds are already silted up or have been destroyed by floods but SORDU – institutionalized in the public service since donor financing ceased at the end of the ‘‘project life’’ but receiving only token funding from Government – has no funds for maintenance and repairs. Even so its perception of the way forward is that it should continue construction in its experience domain and created four new ponds in 2001. To compound the damage already done to the grazing lands by SORDU’s ponds the Lutheran World Federation also constructed large dams with one of 500 000 m3 capacity (equivalent to 2.5 million livestock unit drinking days although apparently also intended for irrigation) built in 1998. In addition to surface sources many groundwater facilities have been developed. These include boreholes with engines and pumps, deeper wells with hand pumps and shallower handdug wells with hand pumps or manual lifting devices. Many of these sources are problem-prone including collapsing of wells, sand infiltration and mechanical breakdown. In general the more technologically advanced the equipment the more likely it is to fail. In 1974 in one part of southeast Ethiopia only 9 of 17 boreholes recently drilled were functional (LMB, 1974). There is no evidence that the situation has since improved.

 providing water to the large portion of both urban and rural population, including water for sanitation;  making water available for livestock particularly in critical areas such as nomadic regions and drought prone areas; and  providing water for industrial developments. Under this scenario water for livestock is second in three major priorities. The Program also believes that water for livestock in mixed farming areas should be considered together with provision for human use whereas in the lowlands, and particularly the nomadic regions where sources are ponds, separate arrangements are needed for domestic and livestock water.

5.3.

Development initiatives

Taking Ethiopia once again as the example, there have been many initiatives for livestock water. The sole objectives of the Boran Range Improvement Pilot Project of the 1950s sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) were pond construction and range improvement. In the Awash Valley Development Project water development and range management were again major features. By the early 1970s there had already been increases in human and livestock numbers in response to pond development in the Borana Zone of southern Ethiopia which had led to woody encroachment on grazing lands (AGROTEC/ CRG/SEDES, 1974). Other initiatives including the Second (1972) and Third (1976) Livestock Development Projects – financed by the Ethiopian Government, World Bank and African Development Bank (ADB) – also promoted water development as part of range improvement activities (Holt and Buh, 1995). The Southeast Rangelands Development Project (SORDU) begun in 1990 (but continuing similar earlier projects dating from the early 1960s) with assistance from ADB promoted water activities as part of its natural resources management component. The Smallholder Dairy Development Project (SDDP) financed by Finland with a grant of US$ 5.7 million and planned to run from 1995 to 1998, but subsequently extended, had forage and water development as two of its major activities.

5.4.

Density and capacity of water sources

Large parts of Ethiopia have good surface water resources in the form of lakes, rivers and streams. Water as well as soil has, however, been seriously degraded by human activity over many hundreds of years. Much of the surface water draining the highlands is turbid as a result of heavy sediment loading

Table 2 – Density and number of water sources in the central highlands of Ethiopia in the 1972/1973 dry season Location

Area (km2)

Type of source, density/km2 and estimated number Flowing river

Well

Spring

Riverine pool

Density Number Density Number Density Number Density Number Main area Debre Berhan subarea Debre Marcos subarea Debre Tabor subarea Socota subarea

Dam Density

80 917 7 550

0.50 0.61

41 317 4 627

0.06 0.10

5111 714

0.12 0.26

9887 1949

0.09 0.10

7695 723

4 210

1.80

7 583

0.02

82

0.28

1184

0.12

495

0

0

3 467

1.09

3 771

0.13

463

0.51

1777

0.07

230

0

0

5 178

0.16

850

0.15

782

0.03

138

0.08

411

0

0

Source: Watson et al. (1973c).

0.0002 0

Number 152 0

7

1172 4074 1172 0.04 0.14 0.04 1465 1045 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.036 0.06 293 52 0.0 0.0 0.001 0.01 0.002 0.008 14 064 2 741 0.15 0.002 0.15 0.33 0.092 0.36

Number Density (not in use) Density (in use) Number Density (not in use) Density (in use) Number Density (not in use)

Seasonally flowing river Seasonally flooded areas and swamps

Type of source, density/km2 and estimated number

Density

Well

Source: Watson et al. (1973b).

There is a clear need for enunciation but above all for application of coherent and coordinated livestock water policies (Dhas et al., 2006). Policies must, however, be all embracing not only covering ‘‘rural’’ livestock, crops and possibly forestry but also broader issues of education, health and social security. These tenets are partly incorporated in the Ethiopian Livestock Water Supply Policy (MOWR, 2000) but have general application. They are to:

September 1972 January 1973 May 1973

Policy

Density (in use)

6.1.

Seasonal riverine pool and pan

Organization and management

Time of survey

6.

Table 3 – Density and number of water sources in an area of 29 103 km2 in the northeast rangelands of Ethiopia in the 1972/1973 dry season

from soil erosion, has a high biological oxygen demand (BOD), has very high coliform levels from both faecal and animal contamination and has high concentrations of nitrates and phosphates. Industrial pollution from tanneries, abattoirs and a wide range of petrochemical industries introduces various toxic waste into surface waters. All these constituents seriously degrade water as a source for drinking and some of the constituents are detrimental to indigenous fish species. Aerial surveys flown during the early 1970s (Watson et al., 1973a,b,c) indicated high numbers and densities of natural water sources in many areas of Ethiopia and particularly in parts of the highlands (Table 2). In the lowlands the situation was more critical with somewhat fewer but still a surprisingly high number of sources per unit area (Table 3). In the highlands, springs and flowing stretches of rivers and streams were the most important sources and ‘‘so abundant are these natural sources (even at the height of an exceptionally dry dryseason [i.e. March/April 1973]) over most of the region, that it is not surprising that few improved or man made sources were recorded’’. Subjective surveys by the author in 2002 (there are no more recent quantitative data than those of Watson referred to above) provided the impression that there were still a great number and various types of water sources available to livestock. By 2002, however, many of the highland sources had been ‘‘improved’’ to separate livestock from people by means of construction of troughs for the former (Wilson, 2002). Most wells in the northeastern pastoral areas were temporary affairs dug in dry river beds whose density increased more than three-fold as the dry season progressed and as other sources dried up, only to be reduced again as rivers flowed during the next rainy season. Translating the densities in Table 3 into number of points per square kilometre indicates a minimum of one source for every 2 km2 (one to 200 ha) over much of the central highlands. In some areas there are almost two sources per square kilometre (one to every 50 ha). The aerial survey data are supported by ground observations made in many parts of Ethiopia in 2002 (personal observation). In East Showa, for example, along a 10-km stretch of road there were more than 50 handdug wells within 50 m of the road. In northern Borana and southern Bale where the rainfall pattern is bimodal there are large stretches of grazing land with permanent surface water or with ground water at very shallow depth. In the northeast rangelands – an area noted for its dryness – even at the height of the dry season in January 1973 aerial survey estimations were one water source to every 3.7 km2 (370 ha).

Number

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

8

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

 recognize that livestock water supply is an integral part of the overall water sector and incorporate its development plans with comprehensive water resources management undertakings;  promote the availability of water nearer to pastoralists as much as possible by providing livestock water supply to all regions, particularly to the lowland areas;  foster efficient and sustainable development, operation and maintenance of livestock water supply systems; and  harmonize and promote the ‘‘user pays’’ principle with the willingness and ability to pay for livestock water supply.

 calculating the capacity of permanent and temporary sources together so that the local vegetation can provide animals with feed on a sustainable (but intermittent) basis;  locating sources in areas where vegetation is of various types (browse and grazing) to provide for the nutritional needs of as many species and classes of stock as possible; and  making use of existing social organizations such as kinship groups or clans and the territorial and organizational structure of some ethnic groups in order to limit or avoid conflict.

The objective of the policy is to ‘‘secure the basis for the provision of sustainable, efficient, reliable, affordable and user acceptable water supply and sanitation facilities to the Ethiopian people, including livestock watering [this author’s emphasis], in line with the goals and objectives of the relevant national and regional development policies’’ (MOWR, 2001). Among the main elements of water supply strategies for livestock are the:

Provision of water is a powerful yet simple way of controlling land use. Livestock water is often a major political issue – pastoral peoples put pressure on governments to provide water because of the perception that they have been neglected in other aspects of development – but political considerations should be a part only of the development cycle and not be allowed to become completely dominant.

 development and enforcement of standards and guidelines for maintaining water quality in all recognized water uses; e.g. water supply (domestic, industrial, livestock, others, etc.) and sewerage and sanitation;  development of appropriate central and provincial institutional arrangements to cater to the specific needs of livestock watering;  conduct of studies on traditional and customary livestock watering practices in order to assist in developing standards and designs for source selection, provision of facilities and operation and maintenance of livestock water supplies; and  examination of alternative arrangements for providing water which may enable grazing of the land but should not promote ‘‘overgrazing’’.

A study (ILRI, 2006) indicates that livestock production has high potential for effective, productive and profitable use of water in agriculture. ‘‘Animal production, particularly production of grain feeds and forages, is one of the world’s largest uses of agricultural water. If properly targeted for reform, this sub-sector may well hold the key to improved water productivity in agriculture. Livestock scientists are arguing that by reviewing the sourcing of livestock feed, increasing animal productivity, and improving grazing and watering practices, water productivity in agriculture could increase dramatically. In Africa we could double water productivity of livestock with little difficulty—may be increase it four times’’. Factors to be addressed in improving animal productivity are well known in the animal sciences but rarely considered as relevant to development of water resources. These factors include improved herd size and composition, health, nutrition, husbandry and watering and feeding practices (Peden, personal communication).

6.2.

Improvement of existing supplies

Among rural water problems are the time spent fetching water, actual or potential pollution and unreliability of supplies. Possible improvements include enclosing and capping springs, providing taps for humans and troughs for livestock and fencing off handdug wells and ponds. High rates of evaporation, heavy siltation and pollution are major problems associated with open sources (HTS, 1976).

6.3.

Provision of new supplies

Basic principles to be considered in planning for and providing additional stock water facilities especially in the drier areas should include:  integrating siting of sources with other forms of land use including urban areas, cropping, forestry and wildlife needs;  not installing large permanent sources whether of surface or ground water closer to each other than 20–25 km;  providing temporary sources of limited capacity to fill gaps between large permanent sources;

6.4.

6.5.

Increasing the efficiency of water use by livestock

Producer involvement

Land reform providing individual tenure and a legal title, especially in smallholder mixed farming areas, can inculcate a sense of ownership and responsibility in farmers for the improvement of their land. Such reforms should also be beneficial for the conservation and more rational use of natural resources, including water. In many pastoral areas community usufruct rights developed over thousands of years still prevail. Pastoralists recognize ‘‘their’’ land and ‘‘their’’ water points and share the benefits under traditional custom. Until very recently this type of ‘‘communal ownership’’ (with limited and clearly defined sharing of resources) has been very successful in conserving natural resources. Traditional owners employ discretion in allowing less fortunate neighbours – those deprived of water and grazing – use of their resources with the implicit understanding that such acts are reciprocated. This adapted system has broken

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

down under increased human and livestock populations and much rangeland has become ‘‘open access’’ (involving a freefor-all attitude with attendant risks of conflict). ‘‘Participation’’ is now entrenched in the jargon of rural development. Local communities are often ‘‘consulted’’ but participation is more often rhetorical than real. Real participation must not remain at the intellectual level but must operate at the physical and financial ones. Communities should be encouraged – even required – to contribute to water development activities in cash or kind to lead to a sense of ownership and add to the motivation to manage and maintain new infrastructure. Part of the new development paradigm involves discussion on the ability and ‘‘willingness’’ of livestock owners to pay for services. In this regard there should be no ambiguity. Pastoral peoples certainly and agropastoral groups probably can well afford to pay for water. Willingness may be more contentious but apparent unwillingness should not be allowed to block payment. Most water for livestock is already paid for to some extent through labour activities in digging wells and providing animals with water. Other forms of payment are a matter of degree. The capacity of user communities should be improved via training so they can assume both technical and financial management of water sources. Women are usually responsible for supplying water to the household and often to small animals and young stock. They should never be excluded from and should be the main target group for some forms of training and for maintenance of many types of equipment. The difficulties in making women the focal point for operation and maintenance activities in traditionally male dominated societies should not be underestimated but should be overcome. The attitude has been neatly put in perspective in Ethiopia in the statement that ‘‘in Marsabit District of the neighbouring Northern Kenya, even [this author’s emphasis] pastoralist women have been successfully trained as handpump attendants’’ (BLPDP, 1998b). Women could be more consequential in ensuring the operation and maintenance of water supplies because they have a more vested interest in continuity of supply. Were supply systems to become simpler and more reliable there would be less need for reliance on outside maintenance. The principle also applies to spare parts which should be able to be manufactured locally and be widely available. It is not realistic, however, to expect that maintenance and repair of engine and pump sets can be devolved immediately to a traditional community. Where such equipment is installed a properly trained operator should be employed and receive regular support from the equipment’s supplier as part of the sale conditions. In sum, communities should be encouraged in the principle of ownership. They should operate under the perception that the water supply belongs to them rather than to ‘‘the Government’’ or ‘‘[an international Non Governmental Organization]’’. Concepts of ownership contribute to reduced vandalism arising from frustration if equipment does break down. One study of water supply schemes in seven African countries showed that a few only of all projects had responsibility mandated to village communities but these had a much reduced frequency and length of breakdowns (Miller, 1979).

9

Monitoring and evaluation is an important aspect of technical and financial performance. This contributes to an assessment of the true costs and an appreciation of the criteria that determine success or failure. Knowledge gained allows past mistakes to be avoided in the future and provides an essential adjunct to optimum use and management of water resources in the long term. The views of livestock owners and other stakeholders should not be ignored in monitoring and evaluation activities. Lessons learnt can be transferred to future developments. Among items to be monitored are:  numbers of animals and people benefiting from the installation and equitability of access;  types of animals having access;  effects on pollution;  effects on animal and human health;  effects on livestock production and productivity;  effects on the environment;  management effectiveness, maintenance and sustainability; and  an analysis of costs in relation to benefits.

6.6.

Environmental assessment

A full environmental impact assessment (EIA) should be made before new development is undertaken. In addition to standard EIA requirements additional information is needed on:  location of existing sources in a defined area and their type, capacity and serviceability;  local vegetation types and condition (and trend if possible);  local soil types and erodibility;  spatial pattern of cultivated and grazing land;  social and political information including land ownership or tenure arrangements (e.g. kin groups, clan structure and territorial organization); and  local husbandry practices including traditional grazing and watering strategies.

7.

Indicative development strategies

The descriptive narrative has indicated some of the strategies adopted by livestock owners in providing water to their animals, range management techniques, some developments that have already taken place and the existing situation regarding sources and use of water. It has further provided a glimpse of policy and the perceptions related to livestock water and the possibilities of improving existing supplies, the precautions to be taken in providing new sources, the need for close involvement of producers in planning and operating supplies and the need for a full environmental inventory or impact assessment before development proceeds. It seems reasonable to conclude that in many mixed farming areas there is sufficient water certainly for most of the year within a short distance of the places that livestock are found. In much of the pastoral areas there may also be an

10

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

apparent relatively high density of water points for some of the year. In reality, however, sources are clustered along perennial or seasonal water courses so distribution is patchy. Many pastoral areas thus lack an adequate spread of water sources and may have insufficient capacity at some times of the year. The converse is true, however, with some areas having too many sources and over capacity for the available feed resources. Much of the past development of water sources in pastoral areas has been uncoordinated. Producers have seldom been adequately involved in planning and execution and it is rare for them to be able to maintain the developments using their own resources. Many new sources have been too large or placed too close together to allow the feed resources to be used in a sustainable way and have had a negative effect on traditional social structures and practices based on indigenous knowledge. Lessons learned from the past should be used to guide future development. In mixed farming areas there is generally little need for intensive or massive development of sources of water for livestock. Animals are closely integrated in the fabric of agriculture and close to permanently settled people and their crops. Individual livestock holdings are small. The strategy here should be to incorporate facilities for livestock with those for people. Additional investment costs for animals over the needs of people are therefore small and in most cases will be limited to providing a few metres of piping and a concrete trough. The principal of participation in or assuming whole responsibility for investment costs (by means of contributions of labour and provision of credit if required) and of full cost recovery where actual costs of normal use are incurred should apply in all cases. In periurban and urban systems development should be the responsibility of individuals or a small group of owners. Credit should have the proviso that developments are fully compliant with urban bye laws or other legal instruments relating to environmental health, water supply, sanitation and liquid and solid waste disposal. Future development activities in pastoral areas should be more focussed than in the past. There must be producer involvement, demonstration of real need in relation to existing resources and a full prior EIA must be undertaken. These considerations being satisfied, development could be of surface or ground water sources as appropriate. An important strategic consideration would be that sources – over or under ground – would be limited in size to ensure that the number of animals accommodated and the period when water would be available to them before it became exhausted were related to the feed supply and sustainable use of resources. The principles expressed for mixed farming areas in terms of participation in capital development and in cost recovery for recurrent expenditure should apply.

8.

Possible development scenarios

Developments should always include some form of cost recovery. There should be no exception in any initiative to the principle of producer participation in site choice and source type, nor of the need for a full independent EIA before

development takes place. The EIA panel should include members from a range of stakeholders and must include representatives of producers or producer groups.

8.1.

Full cost recovery

To facilitate development a livestock water fund could be set up to operate as a revolving fund. Repayment of capital (and interest) by beneficiaries would revert to the fund for further use. Allocation to communities or groups would be by competitive bidding or by ‘‘auction’’ with beneficiaries proving the need for water and able to satisfy the EIA criteria. Because of the need to limit numbers to available feed resources in both time and space the initial fund value would be such as to provide water on a year round basis to the equivalent of 10% of the TLUs in a given area (or, in other words, to all animals for 36.5 days which would presumably be taken up at the most critical period of water shortage). The amount of water made available at a single source should be limited to that required to provide 4000 TLU equivalents with a supply sufficient for 50 days of use in order to prevent local overgrazing. An amount of 5000 m3 would probably satisfy the criteria of animal numbers and number of grazing days (including an allowance for 25% loss from the sources). In a hypothetical case a cost estimate for a deep (70 m) borehole including drilling, equipping with engine and pump and providing short distance reticulation plus troughs and perimeter fencing or of a large water is an average of 200 000 units of the local currency. There would be considerable variation in costs even of the same type of facility depending on depth of borehole or soil type at the location of a proposed surface water installation. Under this scenario it would not be possible (nor desirable) to be precise on locations or types of facilities provided. These elements would be decided as a result of needs assessment, competitive bidding and the EIAs. In respect of participation, excavating a 5000 m3 pond with draught animals and locally made scoops at a rate of 8 m3 per traction unit per day (Abiye et al., 1986) would occupy 625 unit days. Assuming that 4000 TLUs using the source belonged to 80 families (=50 head per herd) each family would need to provide less than eight traction days to complete the facility. Repayment of capital costs should be over the medium term (5–7 years). A value of 500 currency units per mature head of cattle would mean that 400 head would be needed to pay off the capital value (excluding any interest) of a full 200 000 unit currency facility. This is equal to a one time herd offtake of 10% of animals using the source or 2% annual offtake over 5 years and is equivalent to only one animal per year for the 50-head household. There is no ambiguity about the ability to pay!

8.2.

Partial recovery of capital costs

A second scenario could be a fund with partial cost recovery for initial development but with full cost recovery for use. Partial cost recovery could be considered under a set of subscenarios including:  where because of technical reasons the initial cost of installing the facility is very high (for example, water at great

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

depth or pond location very isolated and requiring considerable sums in placement costs for equipment);  where there is overwhelming evidence that the potential user group does not have the ability to pay the full financial cost; and  where there are social reasons for not requiring or imposing the full cost of development.

8.3.

Partial recovery of capital and operating costs

A third scenario could be a fund with partial cost recovery for both initial development and for costs of water use. Partial cost recovery could be considered under the same set of subscenarios as in the preceding case but in addition where the actual cost of providing water to animals is high. Some of the factors leading to high recurrent costs may include:  very deep bores involving high lifts;  very low discharge rates and long pumping hours (and consequential high fuel and spare part costs); and  installations where salinity or other corrosive factors cause excessive wear and rapid turnover of equipment.

8.4.

Consolidated, devolved and subsidized water funds

A fourth scenario would have a fund held at central level with all agroecological zones and all production systems gaining access on the basis of the competitive bidding process described under the first scenario. It might be considered in some countries with both mixed farming and pastoral areas to be more equitable to make the fund available on a pro rata basis. Under this fifth scenario portions or slices of the fund could be allocated by relative importance of agroecological zone or production system. The livestock water fund could be subsidized in a general way from additional sources. Under this sixth scenario the central or regional/provincial governments could provide additional funding derived from third parties. Possible third party sources could include:  Government or Regional/Provincial general revenue;  fines from industrial activities for polluting water sources (‘‘polluter pays’’ principle); and  restricted use grants for livestock water from bilateral or multilateral sources.

9.

Conclusions

Livestock need water for survival and production but its provision is often an emotive and political issue. Water can be used as a tool to control and manage the use of livestock feed resources which are often found in fragile environments. Where water is provided care should be taken to ensure the it serves environmental as well livestock needs and that its availability is designed to ensure that the number of livestock benefiting from it does not exceed ability of the feed resources to ensure good nutritional status for the animals and that the feed resources can only be used at appropriate times of the year. Livestock owners should be consulted in the location of

11

new water supplies but should also be required to pay at least a part of the cost, both of which engender a sense of ownership and of responsibility.

references

Abiye, A., Bunning, S., Anderson, F., 1986. Building Ponds with Animal Power in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Manual. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. AGROTEC/CRG/SEDES, 1974. Southern Rangelands Livestock Development Project. Part II. Studies and surveys. vol. 1: Range Ecology; vol. 4: Surface Hydrology and Geohydrology; Appendix: Statistics, Agrotec, Rome. Asad, T., 1964. The Kababish Arabs: Power, Authority and Consent in a Nomadic Tribe. C. Hurst and Co., London, UK. Bassi, M., 1997. Returnees in Moyale District, southern Ethiopia: new means for an inter-ethnic game. In: Hogg, R. (Ed.), Pastoralists, Ethnicity and the State in Ethiopia. Haan Publishing, London, UK, pp. 23–54. Blench, R., 1997. Aspects of Resource Conflict in Semi-Arid Africa (Natural Resource Perspectives Number 16). Overseas Development Institute, London, UK. BLPDP, 1998a. Pastoral oriented development and extension concept (PODEC) for Boorana Zone. In: Proceedings of the PODEC Workshop. Boorana Lowland Pastoral Development Programme. Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Zusammen Arbeit. Eschborn, Germany. BLPDP, 1998b. Assessment of water resources and water development in the Boorana rangelands. In: Boorana Lowland Pastoral Development Programme. Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Zusammen Arbeit. Eschborn, Germany. Brits, J., van Rooyen, M.W., van Rooyen, N., 2002. Ecological impact of large herbivores on the woody vegetation at selected watering points on the eastern basaltic soils in the Kruger National Park. Afric. J. Ecol. 40, 53–60. Coppock, D.L., 1994. The Borana Plateau of Southern Ethiopia: Synthesis of Pastoral Research, Development and Change, 1980–1991 (ILCA Systems Study 5). International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Davies, H.R.J., 1991. Development programmes in non-irrigated rainland areas. In: Craig, G.M. (Ed.), The Agriculture of the Sudan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 308–338. Dhas, M., Vivek, K., Phansalkar, S., 2006. Water for migrant livestock: issues, concerns and policy. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 18, Article 135. Retrieved 6 November 2006 from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd18/9/ madh18135.htm. Donaldson, T.J., 1983. The Borana wells: an introductory description and preliminary information of selected Borana wells in the southern rangelands development area (Joint Ethiopian Pastoral Systems Study, Research Report 2). International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. [ILRI Accession S-8, N.2]. French, M.H., 1956. The importance of water in the management of cattle. East Afric. Agric. J. 21, 171–181. Getachew Abdi Zerefu, 2002. Management aspects of rural water supply sustainability in Ethiopia. M.Sc. Dissertation. International Institute for Infrastructural, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands. Gofu Oba, 1998. Assessment of indigenous range management knowledge of the Boran pastoralists of southern Ethiopia. In: Boorana Lowland Pastoral Development Programme. Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Zusammen Arbeit. Eschborn, Germany.

12

agricultural water management 90 (2007) 1–12

Graetz, R.D., Ludwig, J.A., 1978. A method for the analysis of piosphere data applicable to range assessment. Austr. Rangeland J. 1, 117–125. Harrington, G.N., Wilson, A.D., Young, M.D., 1984. Management of Australia’s Rangelands. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, East Melbourne, Australia. Helland, J., 1997. Development interventions and pastoral dynamics in southern Ethiopia. In: Hogg, R. (Ed.), Pastoralists, Ethnicity and the State in Ethiopia. Haan Publishing, London, UK, pp. 55–80. Hogg, R. (Ed.), 1997. Pastoralists, Ethnicity and the State in Ethiopia. Haan Publishing, London, UK. Holt, R.M., Buh, B.B., 1995. Pastoral water supply organisation and management (SERP Technical Report No. 23). South East Rangelands Project, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. HTS, 1976. Rural Development Study, Central Tigre, Ethiopia: Phase Two Main Report. Hunting Technical Services, Borehamwood, UK. ILRI, 2006. Livestock water an effective use of water in developing countries. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.ilri.cgiar.org/enews/ view/default.htm. King, J.M., 1983. Livestock water needs in pastoral Africa in relation to climate and forage (ILCA Research Report 7). International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Lange, R.T., 1969. The piosphere, sheep track and dung patterns. J. Range Manage. 22, 396–400. Leggett, K., Fennessy, J., Schneider, S., 2003. Does land use matter in an arid environment? A case study from the Hoanib River catchment, north-western Namibia. J. Arid Environ. 53, 529–543. LMB, 1974. Jijigga livestock project. Livestock and Meat Board, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. (Mimeograph report). [ILRI Accession 636:338.984 LIV ET-LMB-04040]. McMillan, J.R.A., 1965. Water, agricultural production and world population. Austr. J. Sci. 28, 135–147. Mesfin, A., 2000. The need and challenges of water resources development in pastoral areas: experience from Southeastern Rangelands Project. In: Pastoralism and Agropastoralism: Which Way Forward? Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 24–26, 2000. Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 44–47. Miller, D., 1979. Self-help and Popular Participation in Rural Water Systems. Development Centre, Organization for Economic and Community Development, Paris, France. MOWR, 2000. Comprehensive and integrated water resources management: Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy, August 2000. Ministry of Water Resources, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. MOWR, 2001. National water strategy, November 2001. Ministry of Water Resources, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. NCR, 1976. Sudan’s Desert Encroachment Control Programme. National Council for Research, Khartoum, Sudan. Ormerod, W.E., 1978. The relationship between economic development and ecological degradation: how degradation has occurred in West Africa and how its progress might be halted. J. Arid Environ. 1, 357–379. Perkins, J.S., 1996. Botswana: fencing out the equity issue. Cattleposts and cattle ranching in the Kalahari Desert. J. Arid Environ. 33, 503–517. Pratt, D.J., Gwynne, M.D., 1977. Range Management and Ecology in East Africa. Hodder and Stoughton, London, UK. Rachel, E., Rathgeber, E., Brook, D. (Eds.), 1996. Water Management in Africa and the Middle East: Challenges and

Opportunities. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. Rachel, E., Rathgeber, E., Brook, D. (Eds.), 1997. Water Demands in Africa and the Middle East: Current Practices and Future Trends. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. Sandford, S., 1977. Dealing with drought and livestock in Botswana. The World Bank, Washington, DC. (Mimeograph report). [ILRI Accession 551.577 SAN 10907]. Sandford, S., 1983. Organisation and management of water supplies in tropical Africa (ILCA Research Report 8). International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Saleth, R.M., Dinar, A., 2004. The Institutional Economics of Water: A Cross-Country Analysis of Institutions and Performance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. SIWI, 2004.In: Overarching Conclusions and Comments from the 2004 Stockholm Water Symposium, Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, In: http:// www.sisw.org/press/presrel_04_sws%20conclusions.htm. Solomon Desta, 2000. Pastoralism and natural resource management: the case of the pastoral Borana in southern Ethiopia. In: Pastoralism and Agropastoralism: Which Way Forward? Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 24–26, 2000. Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 17–28. Sudan Government, 1944. Report of the Soil Conservation Committee. McCorquodale and Co. (Sudan) Ltd., Khartoum, Sudan. TAMU, 1976. Tanzania livestock-meat sector report. Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, San Antonio, USA. Thomas, D.S.G., Allison, R.J. (Eds.), 1993. Landscape Sensitivity. John Wiley, London, UK. Thrash, I., Derry, J.F., 1999. The nature and modelling of piospheres: a review. Koedoe 42, 73–94. Turton, T., Bottrall, A., 1997. Water Resource Development in the Drought Prone Uplands (Natural Resource Perspectives Number 18). Overseas Development Institute, London, UK. Watson, R.M., Tippett, C.I., Tippett, M.J., 1973a. Aerial Livestock and Landuse Surveys of the Gigigga area, Ethiopia. Resource Management and Research, Nairobi, Kenya. Watson, R.M., Tippett, C.I., Tippett, M.J., 1973b. Aerial Livestock and Landuse Surveys of the Northeast Rangelands of Ethiopia. Resource Management and Research, Nairobi, Kenya. Watson, R.M., Tippett, C.I., Tippett, M.J., 1973c. Aerial Livestock, Landuse and Land Potential Surveys for the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Resource Management and Research, Nairobi, Kenya. Wilson, R.T., 2002. Livestock and their feed supplies in Bugna wereda (Annex to Environmental Support Project, Component 2: Land Use Plan for North Wollo Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia). DHV Consultants BV, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. Wilson, R.T., Clarke, S.E., 1975. Studies on the livestock of Southern Darfur, Sudan. I. The livestock resources and ecology of the area. Trop. Anim. Health Product. 7, 167–185. Wilson, R.T., de Leeuw, P.N., de Haan. C., 1982. Recherches sur les syste´mes des zones arides du Mali: re´sultats pre´liminaires (Rapport de recherche No. 5). International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Wood, A., 1950. The Groundnut Affair. The Bodley Head, London, England. WWDSE, 2001. Water Sector Development Program (Project ETH/98/001): Draft Final Report (December 2001). Water Works Design and Supervision Enterprise, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.