Jul 2025 – Rural Water Supply Network

Dr Kerstin Danert, Ask for Water Ltd, Scotland, UK

We have made it to the 7^th monthly blog in this series on Pastoralists and Water. It has become a great team effort (notably without any artificial intelligence used). Here is a synopsis of where we are so far:

I started in blog 1 by reflecting on my early encounters with the term “Pastoralist” and my uncomfortable feelings in relation to the stigma towards pastoralists in Uganda, and later in Chad.
Blog 2 unpacked what pastoralism actually is – both an economic activity and cultural identity and introduced rangelands as places where livestock graze and pastoralists live. I shared my realisation of the importance of pastoralism in the global food system and that herd mobility has value! I concluded that while pastoralism is largely misunderstood, more pastoralists are gaining voice.
Maryam Niamir-Fuller and I explained how pastoralists specialise in making use of highly variable environments to produce food moving with their livestock, shared the link to this beautiful short film, alongside emphasising that rangelands cover 54% of the earth’s land surface, with much diversity in blog 3.
In blog 4 supported by their recent policy brief, Jackson Wachira, Masresha Taye, Hussein Wario and Nancy Balfour challenged us as to whether new water supplies in the Horn of Africa drylands are the solution for pastoralists resilience or part of the problem. I will return to this question later.
We introduced green water in the 5th blog, a team effort involving Klas Sandström, Aida Bargués Tobella, Malin Lundberg Ingemarsson, Chris Magero, and Adrian Cullis, emphasising the importance of healthy soils and highlighting that green water really matters for blue water. If you are confused – I recommend that you read the blog!
In June 2025, for the 6^th blog Adrian Cullis took us to Karamoja, reflecting upon experiences in the mid 1990s up to today and with respect to pastoralists, water and management – particularly noting pastoralist being pushed out, not by an explicit excision policy or violence, but by land use practices and the quiet erosion of land access.

And so that takes us to this, our seventh blog in the series. Here I am introducing you, as readers to The First Call to Action by the IYRP Working Group on Pastoralists and Water. It is called “Sustainable Water Development in the Pastoral Rangelands”.

The call is to stakeholders – including the financiers, planners, community workers, engineers, hydrogeologists and hydrologists who deal with rural water supply services.

Personally, while I support it, I feel that it does not make for entirely comfortable reading. I feel challenged by it. I argue that parts of the call challenges norms, ingrained ways of working, or assumptions widely held within the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector. The main one, is that, if well sited, constructed and properly managed and as long as people benefit, that a new, or rehabilitated permanent water source, is almost always a good thing to support.

And so, with this introduction, I hope to spark some reflection, much-needed dialogue, and ultimately even changes in practice.

I am not going to try to summarise the whole call – at five pages it is short enough in its own right! Rather I would like to draw your attention to the second point in the call, and seek your opinions, whether as responses in the comments below, through email or LinkedIn exchange, or through discussions with members of the IYRP Pastoralists and Water working group either online or face to face, or even through joining the group.

So, … after all of this build up, what is the second point in this Call to Action? As a clue, it echo’s the questions raised in the 5^th blog which focussed on the Horn of Africa, asking whether new water supplies in the drylands are the solution for pastoralists resilience or part of the problem?

The Call to Action – Point two is

“reduce and reverse rangeland conversion:

Discontinue the development of new water infrastructure that enables the appropriation of rangelands by external investors or elite pastoralists for private benefit – such as commercial agriculture, mining, or renewable energy projects – or that would result in new settlements and year-round grazing, as both degrade pastoral rangelands and undermine pastoral livelihoods. Instead, support pastoralist communities working to reclaim and restore control over their traditional rangelands. “

What do you think of this? Do you agree? Can this statement be applied universally or is it unique to some places, such as parts of East Africa? Do you, or does your organisations work in rangelands? How would taking this into account affect the way in which you work or what you fund? Is this something that needs more space within the WASH sector.

And what are the counter arguments? Is there need to diversifying livelihoods in pastoralist systems; what to the pastoral youth want? It is possible for a win-win with investment in rangelands, including water development, which provides new opportunities while allowing pastoralists to continue to use the rangeland sustainably?

This is part of our blog series on pastoralists and water within the 2026 International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists.

Dr Kerstin Danert is a Water Specialist, Researcher and Facilitator and together with Adrian Cullis, co-facilitates the IYRP Pastoralists and Water Working Group. Both Adrian Cullis and Nancy Balfour reviewed and provided inputs to this blog.

From the drilling contractor’s side – overseeing drilling operations

I was fortunate to work with a drilling firm that prioritized quality, accountability, and training. The work culture encouraged flexibility, allowing us to try out different drilling methodologies. One of the most valuable aspects was the emphasis on real-time logging and decision-making based on live site observations. As the overseer of the drilling operations, I had to be physically present in the field, equipped with a laptop, drilling logs, a handheld GPS, a tape measure, a V-notch Weir, a dip meter, an E.C & a pH meter, and a camera, to support real time supervision and technical decisions as drilling progressed.

There was no remote oversight; everything was site-based and collaborative. Communication within the team was strong both for daily updates and for collectively addressing any issues that had financial or technical implications.

Figure 2 (above) Sample box containing drill cuttings (Source: Ayebale Ared)

However, there were limitations.

At the time, our machinery could not compete for larger contracts, particularly those requiring the drilling of production boreholes with casing diameters larger than 5″ internal diameter (ID). While we successfully drilled several open-hole design boreholes, which are suitable for handpumps these cannot be upgraded to accommodate technologies such as solar-powered water systems (SPWS) due to initial design constraints.

Figure 3 (above) Water Sampling during borehole development showing decreasing turbidity (Source: Ayebale Ared)

From the Client’s Side (INGO) – supervising drilling

Switching to the client’s side offered me the opportunity to work with a range of drilling firms year after year. By then, I had completed the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) Professional Drilling and Borehole Management course (2019), and I was actively applying the knowledge in the field. I have worked with drillers with different equipment, resulting in more efficient drilling, constructing cased, rather than open holes. I also have had the chance to mentor and train new supervisors in professional supervision practices, proper borehole logging, and how to make sound real-time decisions at the site.

However, not all experiences have been positive

Remote, or part time supervision is common with a bigger percentage of the drilling firms I have worked with, often resulting in decisions made by drillers to minimize cost rather than address real-time field conditions which are not supervised in the field by the client. Some drilling firms opt for untrained, inexpensive overseers, which undermines the quality of work. As an example, many have no idea what real time logging is but just write a number of pipes and send short video clips to their bosses in office who make remote decisions. This usually becomes a challenge with the client’s supervisor ends up being painted bad as “a bad guy”. Without a qualified client supervisor on-site, the narrative of events can shift dramatically. I’ve observed poor siting practices, with boreholes positioned near anthills or trees leading to complex drilling challenges and post-installation issues such as silting, root intrusion, and compromised water quality. This has been subsequently verified through borehole video inspections and microbial tests. Additionally, poor gravel packing techniques have led to bridging, and inadequate borehole development has left screens poorly cleaned and functioning below standard.

Figure 4 (above) Measuring drill pipe lengths (Source: Ayebale Ared)

These reflections underline the critical importance of professional supervision, well-trained personnel, good oversight by the drilling contractor, and appropriate on-site decision-making throughout the drilling process.

I hope these insights are helpful as we continue to improve and uphold quality in our water supply interventions.

Ayebale Ared has over 10 years of experience in the water sector, specializing in WASH programs, borehole drilling, and rehabilitation in Uganda. He has worked on both the contractor and client sides, gaining a well-rounded perspective on best and worst drilling supervision experiences and practices