Category: Uncategorized

African Women Shaping Africa’s Water Future: Leadership, Governance, Financing, and Partnerships for the Africa Water Vision 2063

DIALOGUE BRIEF | WRITTEN BY EUPHRESIA LUSEKA

Africa’s water challenge is no longer simply an infrastructure gap. It is a leadership and institutional challenge: who makes decisions, who controls capital, who governs water systems and who has influence over the agreements that determine how Africa’s water resources are managed. In recognition of Africa Women’s Day 2026, this Strategic Leadership Dialogue brought together African women leaders and experts to address a central question: what will it take to position African women as decision-makers shaping the continent’s water future, rather than primarily as beneficiaries of water systems? Convened by African Women in Trade, the Pan-African Women’s Organization (PAWO) a specialised agency of the African Union (AU), the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN), the African Water and Sanitation Association (AFWASA) and other partners, the dialogue was led by Euphresia Luseka, with contributions from Dr Pedi Obani, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Bradford; Bethlehem Mengistu, Executive Director of Agenda for Change; and Ndeye Kebe, President of WIIS Senegal. The discussion focused on four levers that will determine Africa’s water future: leadership, governance, capital and partnerships. The strategic opportunity is to ensure that African women have meaningful influence across each of these levers, from policy and utility governance to investment decisions and transboundary diplomacy. This is critical to delivering the Africa Water Vision 2063. The ambition must be not simply to improve women’s access to water, but to increase women’s influence over the decisions, institutions and capital that determine Africa’s water future.

The Opening Perspective

Euphresia (Moderator):

Welcome to our Leadership Dialogue: African Women Shaping Africa’s Water Future: Leadership, Governance, Financing, and Partnerships for the Africa Water Vision 2063.

Earlier this year, African Heads of State adopted the Africa Water Vision 2063, recognising that gender equity is a prerequisite for water security. Yet according to UN Water, Sub-Saharan Africa faces an estimated $30 billion annual water investment gap, while women and girls spend 250 million hours every day collecting water.

So, today’s conversation is about a fundamental shift: How do we move African women from being disproportionately affected by water insecurity to becoming the leaders shaping Africa’s water economy?

Foundational Context

Euphresia (Moderator):

I want to anchor us in the powerful framing shared by Ndeye Kebe, President of WIIS Senegal.

She reminded us of Ole, 12-year-old girl who dreamt to be a doctor but never returned home after setting out to fetch water. Ole did not die because of war or disease but water access. Behind every statistic on water insecurity is a life constrained.

Imagine what Africa could achieve if those 250 million hours were redirected toward education, entrepreneurship, research, innovation and infrastructure? Water scarcity threatens livelihoods, intensifies resources competition, conflict vulnerability in communities, displacement, and gender-based violence.

However, transboundary cooperation demonstrates that shared water resources can become platforms for collaboration rather than confrontation.

Therefore, there will be no Agenda 2063 without water security, and there will be no water security without women.

She challenged us to position African women as negotiators, investors, and decision-makers. When women participate in mediation and natural resource governance, peace agreements become more durable and communities more resilient.  The ambition she set before us is; ensuring that by 2030, women hold at least 30% of decision-making roles in water governance and transboundary negotiations.

From Representation to Institutional Power

Euphresia (Moderator):

Ndeye’s challenge brings us directly to the first question: if women are to hold greater influence in water governance, what needs to change inside the institutions where decisions are made?

Bethlehem, across Africa, many policies already recognise gender inclusion. However, women remain significantly underrepresented in executive positions. What is the single most important leadership decision African governments and institutions must make today to move women move women from representation to real decision-making power in Africa’s water sector?

Bethlehem:

Across our continent, women already manage water daily in households, agriculture, healthcare systems and communities. They understand the realities of water insecurity deeply. Yet they remain underrepresented in the rooms where policies are designed, budgets are allocated and investments are prioritised.

We cannot build Africa’s water future while excluding the people who understand the challenge most directly. But this is not simply about inviting more women into existing structures. Leadership is not about participation alone but about sharing power.

Women should be intentionally placed in positions where they can influence policy decisions, investment priorities and institutional reform. Representation alone is not enough. We need women to have authority, resources and accountability. The strongest reforms I have seen happen when leadership is collaborative and locally driven. When different perspectives shape decisions, institutions become stronger, more responsive and more resilient.

The Africa Water Vision 2063 will not be achieved through infrastructure alone. It will be achieved through leadership that reflects the diversity, talent and ambition of Africa’s people. The question is no longer whether women are ready to lead; it is whether our institutions are ready to give women the authority to lead.

Euphresia (Moderator):

Thank you, Bethlehem. That distinction is key. This is not simply about increasing the number of women in leadership positions.

Representation without authority and decision-making power does not transform institutions.

Dr. Pedi, let me bring you into the conversation. You have written and lectured extensively on law, climate justice, and governance. What needs to change in how we frame women’s participation in water governance?

Dr. Pedi:

I think one of the most important shifts we need is how we frame vulnerability. Most conversations around water begin with the image of women walking long distances, carrying water, and providing care. Those realities are important, but when they become the dominant narrative, they limit how we see women’s potential. African women are often framed through what we lack rather than what we bring.

We need to move from a vulnerability-based approach to an agency-based approach. Women are not inherently vulnerable. Vulnerability is created by the systems within which people operate, systems that restrict access to resources, decision-making spaces, finance, and legal protections.

“If you think about a fish taken out of water, that fish becomes vulnerable because the environment does not support it. The issue is not the fish itself; it is the system around it.”

The same applies to how we understand women’s leadership. African women are not one single category. Women differ by age, education, income level, geography, and experience. So, policy responses cannot simply be about ’empowering vulnerable women’. We must ask: how do we remove the structural barriers preventing women from exercising their agency?

Moving forward, water governance must recognise women not only as beneficiaries of services, but as experts, professionals, entrepreneurs, regulators, and leaders.

Euphresia (Moderator):

Thank you, Dr. Pedi. Both of you have brought us to a central point: the challenge is not a lack of women’s capacity but whether institutions are designed to recognise, enable and use that capacity.

Moving women from carrying water to governing water requires a shift in mindset, but also a shift in systems. It requires changing who has decision-making authority, who controls resources, and whose expertise shapes outcomes.

Continue reading “African Women Shaping Africa’s Water Future: Leadership, Governance, Financing, and Partnerships for the Africa Water Vision 2063”

How Women Are Turning Africa’s Water Crisis into an Economic Engine

By Euphresia Luseka In Celebration of Africa Women’s Day 2026
KENYA, JULY 31, 2026

Featured photo: Gilda Giza Rede an Angolan Electromechanical maintenance technician. Rede also represents a new generation of women entering highly technical engineering roles in large-scale water infrastructure. Source, African Development Bank (AfDB).

As the African Union declares 2026 the Year of Water and Sanitation, the continent’s most persistent social burden is being reframed as a productive economic asset; driven by policy innovation, institutional partnerships, and female-led advances in infrastructure, science, and enterprise.

For decades, global development policy viewed African water through the lens of charity and endurance; measuring the billions of unpaid hours women spent carrying water rather than the economic value lost through reduced productivity, constrained livelihoods, and foregone opportunity[i].

As the African Union declares 2026 the Year of Water and Sanitation, that narrative is beginning to shift[ii]. Governments, investors, and Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) are increasingly recognising what many African women leaders have long understood: water is not simply a welfare issue. It is productive infrastructure that underpins agriculture, manufacturing, energy security, public health, and, ultimately, economic growth.

This structural transition is reshaping the sector. The traditional model, centred on public expenditure and development assistance, is giving way to a diversified water economy in which governments, DFIs, commercial investors, technology firms, utilities, and local enterprises collectively finance, deliver, and scale water solutions as illustrated on the figure below.[iii] Within this emerging ecosystem, women are no longer positioned primarily as beneficiaries of water services but as scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, utility leaders, policymakers, and investors shaping how water is governed, financed, and deployed.

Figure Showing The AU 2026 Shift: How Female Leadership and Blended Finance are Transforming Africa’s Water Economy.

The implications extend well beyond the water sector. Reliable water systems determine agricultural productivity, industrial competitiveness, urban resilience, and countries’ capacity to adapt to climate change.[iv] Investment in water is therefore increasingly recognised not only as a social imperative but as a strategic economic investment.

The women shaping this transition are helping to build a new African water economy where science, policy, entrepreneurship, and finance converge to transform water from a development necessity into a catalyst for inclusive growth.

Some of the Women Building Africa’s Water Economy

This transformation is already visible across the continent through a new generation of scientists, entrepreneurs, and institutional leaders who are changing how water resources are measured, governed, financed, and delivered. As profiled in the 1st African Women in Water and Sanitation Compendium,[v] their work demonstrates that the future of Africa’s water economy will depend not only on physical infrastructure, but on the systems of knowledge, innovation, and governance that make investment possible.[vi]

From satellite-based groundwater mapping in the Sahel to community-led watershed management in The Gambia, circular sanitation enterprises in Senegal, and digital water distribution models in Rwanda, women are building the capabilities required to convert water and sanitation challenges into economic opportunities as elaborated below:

1. Science: Turning Uncertainty into Investable Assets:

      Investment follows information. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Sahel, where advances in satellite hydrology are transforming how groundwater resources are identified, valued, and managed. Among the pioneers is Dr. Fadji Zaouna Maina, a Nigerien Earth scientist and hydrologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Using satellite remote sensing, artificial intelligence, and high-performance computing, she maps deep aquifers across one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable regions. Her work enables governments, utilities, and investors to make more informed decisions on irrigation, water infrastructure, and long-term resource management.

      Continue reading “How Women Are Turning Africa’s Water Crisis into an Economic Engine”

      Pastoralists and Water 11 – Pastoralism and customary water tenure

      By Barbara van Koppen,
      Scientist Emerita at the International Water Management Institute

      The earlier RWSN webinars and blogs about pastoralists’ water governance highlight how these communities have found solutions for survival and wellbeing in fragile environments, based on in-depth ecological knowledge . The blogs also expose the risks and threats when external agencies, such as government, NGOs, and private sector intervene, even with the best intentions of providing support. It underlines, again, the vital importance for external agencies to listen to everybody, leaving no one behind, from the very first phases of planning action.  

      This blog, by Barbara van Koppen explores whether and how these insights can apply more widely. Do the various ways in which pastoralists generate solutions and receive external support or face threats also apply to smallholders and mixed farmers as well as fisherfolks in low-income rural areas in general? When we read ‘pastoralist’, can we interpret this more generally as ‘marginalized rural water user’, or in many cases even ‘humankind’? If such overlap exist, would more cross-fertilisation strengthen general calls for community-led planning and for a recognition of customary water tenure in policy and law? Let us explore, starting with pastoralists’ integrated water management.

      Multiple uses

      For pastoralists, water is life in many ways. Humans and animals need water daily and year-round for drinking. Every human also daily depends on water for domestic uses. Further, seasonal or year-round water enables vegetation growth for immediate use or storage for human livelihoods: nature’s grass, shrubs, and trees, or cultivated animal feed, or crops or fruits for own consumption or sale. Water is also needed for other livelihood activities, for example, the trade of milk. For humans, silos don’t exist; one use cannot without the other. When access to water is limited and prioritization inevitable, during seasonal droughts, pastoralists set a lower priority on their own drinking and other domestic uses above absolute minimum quantities than drinking by their animals. Together, the multiple water uses bring health and wealth and vice-versa.

      Afar de facto multi-purpose infrastructure, Ethiopia (Source: Barbara van Koppen)
      Moving to nature’s multiple, variable, unpredictable water sources

      This life dependency on variable, only partly predictable and land-bound water resources, underpins age-old knowledge of the local integrated hydrological cycle of multiple sources: precipitation, surface water bodies, run-off, soil moisture (green water), wetlands, and groundwater. Without Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) to combine multiple sources, survival is impossible. This shapes pastoralists’ mobility to the sites of their seasonal and year-round uses: in dry seasons the (usually male) herders move their cattle to grazing areas and permanent water sources, for example up in the mountains. Even homes can remain mobile. Depending on seasons, part of mixed farming communities, may move their herds out and live in temporary houses.  

      Making water move to sites of use: soil and water conservation and multi-purpose infrastructure

      Pastoralists also make water move to, or stay in the favourite sites of use for themselves and their animals. Soil and water conservation in the rainy season feeds grasses, shrubs and trees for grazing or improves the cultivation of feed and crops. Construction, operation and maintenance of storage and conveyance infrastructure bring water seasonally or year-round to homesteads, distant grazing or cropping areas or other preferred sites. Dug ponds, tanks and drums store water. Groundwater is storage that is recharged. Buckets to lift or carry water, wheel burrows, canals, pipes, and trucks transport water.

      Afar livestock trough Ethiopia (Source: Barbara van Koppen)

      The (usually male) individuals or self-organized groups who invest in the infrastructure typically have the strongest claims to the water stored and conveyed for their multiple needs, but other people and animals may be attracted. Access rights are even more open for infrastructure installed by government or NGOs.

      In sum, at community-level, pastoralists combine multiple local surface and groundwater sources, with various infrastructures to access water for multiple uses at multiple sites Sharing of water that flows over or under these lands shapes internal and external relationships. As the Boran say: “Water is either a source that you ‘share in’ as a member of a descent-based collectivity, or one that you ‘share out’ to signify respect” (Dahl and Megerssa 1990*). These insights and arrangements are mainly orally shared, also through culture and rituals.

      All the above – multiple uses, sources, infrastructures and sharing – may sound complex, but communities can draw a map (on the ground or on paper) of this core of their livelihoods and culture in a few hours.

      However, the most severe threats to pastoralists’ access to water are in the ‘sharing out’ of water with foreign and national powerful third parties, grabbing land and water and polluting for profit- and export-oriented large-scale cereal farms, plantations, mining, or tourists and game parks.

      Implications for support agencies

      What do you think? Don’t these features fit more settled rural communities as well? And fishers? They fit FAO’s general definition of water tenure: “Relations, customarily or formally/legally defined, between people, as individuals or groups, with regard to water” (FAO 2020**). In FAO’s Global Water Tenure Dialogue, pastoralism is a clear example of a broader growing recognition of customary, or community-based, or indigenous, water tenure.

      Joining forces, the following two implications for governments and other external agencies seem equally important for pastoralists and more settled rural communities or fisherfolks.

      First, any external support for improved water management should start with the above-mentioned diagnostic of a resource map. Different parts of the community (men, women, young, old, different livelihood strategies) will indicate their current situation. On this basis they will identify their problems and envision and prioritise actions, while cost-effectively indicating required support.

      Participatory resource mapping Zambia (Source: Barbara van Koppen)
      Participatory design in Ga Moela, South Africa (Source: Barbara van Koppen)

      This diagnostic resource mapping is the moment to ensure everyone’s voices are heard, so that those who need most can prioritise action. External agencies’ mandates of support on offer should be transparent and as open as possible. Too restrictive mandates can fail to align with local priorities or ignore pastoralists and fisherfolks altogether. This may even be the case in broad approaches such as the food-energy-water nexus (which tend to ignore domestic water uses) and humanitarian aid (which may ignore animals’ and other productive needs). When broader needs than the support on offer emerge, other expertise and funding sources need to be mobilised.

      Second, when water is scarce during dry seasons and droughts, prioritization is inevitable. The following prioritisation proposed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to water*** provides excellent guidance for decolonized prioritisation that may well align with communities’ own prioritisation.

      • 1. Water for life (domestic uses, productive uses, aquatic life);
      • 2. Water for general interest;
      • 3. Water for economic uses and profit making. 
      References

      *Dahl, G.; Megerssa, G. 1990. The sources of life: Boran conceptions of wells and water. In: Palsson, G. (ed.) From water to world-making. African models and arid lands. Uppsala, Sweden: The Scandinavia Institute of African Studies. pp.21–38.

      **FAO. 2020. Unpacking water tenure for improved food security and sustainable development. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 40p. (Land and Water Discussion Paper 15). https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1230en

      ***UN (United Nations) 2024. Water and economy nexus: managing water for productive uses from a human rights perspective. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation Pedro Arrojo Agudo. Fifty-seventh session 9 September–9 October 2024. Agenda item 3. Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. A/HRC/57/48. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5748-water-andeconomy-nexus-managing-water-productive-uses-human

      Pastoralists and Water 10 – Finding common ground between pastoralism and conservation

      By Karl Wagner[1], Jennifer Gooden[2], Magnus Sylvén[3], Adrian Cullis[4]

      This month, its over to Karl, Jennifer, Magnus and Adrain on our ongoing blog series which, this month, reflects on pastoralism and conservation!

      Searching for common ground

      Progress toward big challenges, like protecting rangelands and the pastoralists who use them, can be strengthened by finding partners who share common ground. We think this is the case with the pastoralism and conservation communities. In essence these communities have much in common, but in practice they have remained separate and therefore unable to achieve the protection of large, unfragmented landscapes. This is exacerbated by short-sighted perceptions:

      • Conservation practitioners tend to see domestic livestock, especially in managed herds, as an intrusion into the natural ecosystem. Sadly, many conservation practitioners would rather see a grassland absent of all large herbivores than a grassland grazed by pastoralists’ herds.
      • Pastoralists – for cultural and subsistence reasons – prize a “bigger is better” approach to herds, seeking to maximize the animal numbers to enhance livelihood stability in fragile environments. This can result in oversized populations of domesticated animals and add another driver of land degradation.  
      Finding balance

      In reality, it’s not either-or but rather a matter of finding an optimal balance of multiple land uses. This includes recognizing that livestock can cover some, perhaps many (but not all!), of the ecological functions of wild animals. For example, cattle and bison are both bovines and both increase the bioavailability of soil nitrogen for microorganisms and plants through excretion of dung and urine.

      However, wild bison must face predators, extreme weather, and food shortages, which keeps their population numbers within the ecosystem’s carrying capacity. Managed herds of cattle don’t face these risks to the same degree, and are also more selective in their grazing, resulting in a loss of rangeland biodiversity over time. Furthermore, when pastoralists and ranchers manage cattle herds more commercially, there’s often an increased risk of poorer grazing practices and accelerated rangeland degradation.

      Where we agree

      If we can zoom out and look at grasslands as socioecological systems, there are many things we might agree on:

      • Human civilization has seriously degraded earth’s ecosystems, leaving less than 3% that could be considered fully functional.
      • The more functional an ecosystem, the greater its ability to provide the goods and services that rural and urban communities need for their survival, wellbeing and prosperity – provided they are given access.
      • The human population stands at 8 billion and counting, growing in numbers as well as in demand for natural resources.Yet we live on a finite planet, and natural resources are limited.
      • We are in a systemic crisis, and we must identify and implement systemic solutions. This requires systemic, holistic thinking. Problems can no longer be seen or solved in isolated silos.
      • As a pragmatic consequence, natural resource management must pursue multifaceted objectives. It needs to address not only harvests but also the functionality and long-term resilience of ecosystems.
      What wild animals can do

      There’s one more unifying but lesser-known fact: wild animals can repair and enhance an ecosystem’s functionality. Wild animal impacts on ecosystem processes benefit pastoralists, too. Left wild, they can help with nutrient cycling, carbon capture, invasive species control, flood control, and water purification. One can think of non-management of wildlife as a management tool for grazing.

      Wild animals are not mere bystanders in the face of environmental change. Like climatic factors, such as temperature, precipitation, and ocean currents, wild animals affect the web of life, actively shaping the spaces in which they live.

      The role all animals play

      Animals large and small, wild or domestic, have been found to both directly and indirectly play an intricate role in the water regulation on rangelands, the ecohydrology, ranging from micro-perturbations to the macro-perturbation commonly described as ecosystem engineering. Examples of large mammals having a positive impact on wetlands in rangelands include:

      • Wild species: elephants, hippos, African buffalo, tapirs, beavers, muskrats, and geese
      • Domestic species: water buffalo, cattle, and horses

      All these species spend time both on land and in water, connecting terrestrial with aquatic ecosystems, affecting particularly the supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, ecosystem productivity, sediment/soil formation, seed dispersal, biodiversity, food webs and trophic cascading, water distribution and flow, as well as ecosystem heterogeneity. More detailed information is provided in the following two publications “Taking animals into Account: The Critical Role of Wild Animals in Shaping Wetland Ecosystems and the Services they Provide, A Report to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands – global outlook (February 2025) and Africa Special Report (July 2025).

      What wild animals need
      1. Space: In the face of rapid population declines, wildlife needs recovery areas sufficiently large for populations to flourish.
      2. Complete food webs: Functional ecosystems require a complete food web, including predators.
      3. Ecosystem engineers: Some species significantly modify their environments, creating space for many other species to flourish. Animals like beavers, elephants, and prairie dogs all play outsized roles in positively shaping the land and water around them.
      Adapting pastoralist practices

      The good news is with a few adaptations, pastoralist practices can be tools for land restoration. Holistic and regenerative grazing practices can build soil organic matter, increase water retention, sequester carbon, conserve biodiversity, and reduce the spread of invasive species. Similarly, community wildlife conservancies in Africa are another example of management practices that have resulted in a significant comeback of wildlife across large areas of Africa at the same time as providing new economic opportunities for people.

      Let’s join the forces of the pastoralism and conservation communities to protect the large landscapes through which abundant wildlife and nomadic pastoralists have migrated since time immemorial.

      About the authors

      [1] Director, Campaigns, Global Rewilding Alliance

      [2] President/CEO, Biophilia Foundation

      [3] Director, Science-Policy-Practice, Global Rewilding Alliance

      [4] Co-Chair, IYRP 2026, Pastoralists and Water Working Group

      Pastoralists and Water 9 – Reflecting on very rapid land degradation

      With our 9th blog on Pastoralists on Water in this series, let me give the floor to Patrick Worms, Senior Science Policy Adviser for the Nairobi-based World Agroforestry Centre, with his reflections on very rapid land degradation. And if you are wondering how this relates to water, do check out our 5th blog – A brief introduction to green water.

      By Patrick Worms

      “Last month, I gave keynotes on grazing management and agroforestry at a conference on climate and health I was kindly invited to by Nightingale Wakigera, Maison Ole Kipila and Nathan Uchtmann at Maasai Mara University in Narok, Kenya. I focussed on the very rapid land degradation that typically follows the spread of fencing across the savanna, be it for livestock grazing or to keep wildlife penned into too-small conservation areas.

      Maasai Mara may be one of the better places in East Africa to contrast the results of good and bad grazing management: on one side of the fence, you have the vast Serengeti-Maasai Mara ecosystem, where a million-strong wildebeest herd follows the rains and new grass in their massive migration, one of the last ones on the planet; on the other, the creeping fences are privatising the savanna into small enclosures. The resulting contrast couldn’t be greater: swaying, thick grasses on one side; degraded, bare ground and thorny bushes on the other. 

      Desertifying, bush-encroached paddock near Narok, Kenya (Source: Patrick Worms)

      From the perspective of soil and rangeland health, it doesn’t much matter if your grazers are cows or wildebeest. What matters is the way the grazing is done. An intense, short period of grazing followed by a long rest period is best​. That’s the management style pioneered by lions chivvying migrating herds along in tight bunches in the Serengeti.

      Anything else sets the stage for land to degrade, either drying into desert or choking under invasive bush. That is the trouble of most pastures across the world’s semi-arid zones, of many of the smaller African national parks, and of the fenced grazing lands that fringe Kenya’s Mara reserve. Why? When livestock are not moved, they repeatedly graze the ​tastiest plants, manuring the thorny, toxic ones while doing so. The grass doesn’t get rested, and eventually dies from overgrazing.

      Heavy bush encroachment on overgrazed paddock near Maasai Mara, Kenya
      (Source: Patrick Worms)

      But don’t think that removing animals altogether does the trick: grasses evolved to be grazed (they are by far the biggest group of plants that grow from their base, not from their tips). When they’re undergrazed, they eventually die and form a thick thatch that prevents new grass growth from emerging.

      Overgrazing and ​u​ndergrazing is killing grasslands around the world, whether​ they’re rangelands geared to livestock production, too-small conservation areas geared to preserving iconic wildlife, or indeed mountain and hillside pastures in temperate areas. Everywhere, bare ground and woody bushland is spreading.

      But this is not fate. It’s a choice.

      The good news is that managing grasslands well does not require capital, but skill – and a nerdish attention to the health of the soil and rangeland. With livestock, the tools can be as simple as competent herders or cheap, mobile electric fences (if there are lions around, things get more complicated, but still manageable – lions can be scared off by guard dogs, and livestock made invisible in a night enclosure). With wildlife, the tools are salt/mineral licks and boreholes that can be turned on and off.

      Pasture enclosed less than 10 years ago, encroachment progressing
      (Source: Patrick Worms)

      The goals are the same: to ensure high animal impact for very short periods, by imitating the Maasai Mara’s migrating wildebeest herds allowing the savannahs to rest and regrow before being grazing again, typically after the next rains. 

      This is how we can regenerate grasslands around the world, by learning the lessons of the Maasai Mara”.

      Kettle market in Ewaso Ngiro, Kenya (Source: Patrick Worms=

      This is an adaptation of a LinkedIn post by Patrick Worms in August 2025.

      Pastoralists and Water 7 – Introducing the first Call to Action: Sustainable Water Development in the Pastoral Rangelands

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

      We have made it to the 7th 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 6th 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 5th 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 overseeing drilling operations to supervising them for the client: field realities from Uganda

      By Ayebale Ared (Welthungerhilfe)

      With this blog, I would like to share a few short reflections from my experiences overseeing and supervising drilling activities over the past ten years, both from the contractor’s and the INGO/client’s perspectives.

      Figure 1: Ayebale Ared on the field (Welthungerhilfe)

      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

      Pastoralists and Water 6 – Karamoja Then and Now – Pastoralists, Water and Management

      By Adrian Cullis

      In her January 2025 blog – the first in a 24-part series, of which this is the sixth – Kerstin recalled looking out from Kaproron’s cliffs on the slopes of Mt. Elgon, across the dry plains of Karamoja, and reflecting on the derogatory language so often used to describe these pastoralists in Uganda’s extreme north-east.

      What I hadn’t recognised until reading her blog was that, while she was looking north, we were often passing Mt. Elgon on our way to Kampala from our home in Moroto. At that time I was working with the Karamoja Agro-Pastoral Development Project (KADP) under the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). LWF had established its base in Moroto in the early 1980s, responding to the humanitarian crisis that followed 1979-80 when cattle raiding, livestock disease, and general instability had pushed the region to the brink of famine.

      By the time I joined LWF in Moroto in the mid-1990s, their emergency response had evolved into a more integrated development program, with components on water development, agriculture, women’s empowerment, and peacebuilding.

      At the heart of the water programme was Tom O., a quiet, gifted engineer from West Nile. Tom and his team brought more than groundwater to the surface – they established trust through the hundreds of boreholes that they drilled from Kaabong in the north to Namalu in the south.  During a 2024 return to Karamoja, I met a pump mechanic trained by Tom nearly 30 years ago, who proudly showed me still-functioning boreholes drilled by Tom and his team that he’d maintained over the years.

      There are however inevitable catches.

      On that same 2024 visit, in the very next village from the pump mechanic’s home, we encountered a very different scenario: a cluster of seven failed boreholes. The Tufts University team I was working with was initially sceptical – seven? really? – until the story emerged: a well-connected sub-county official had repeatedly redirected drilling rigs toward his land, each time hoping the new rig would succeed where others had failed. He, of course, hadn’t shared the stories of those previous failures.

      This kind of manipulation would, one hopes, be harder to pull off today. Uganda’s district-level computing and data capacity has grown exponentially, so in theory at least planners and engineers have ready access to every dataset they might need: hydrogeology, settlement patterns, borehole histories, yields, maintenance logs. In theory. In practice of course, data often exist in silos, are scattered, outdated, or sitting unread on a hard drive few can access and even fewer think of updating.

      But I think more troubling than the data challenges is a conceptual one – especially in how water development is approached in pastoralist regions like Karamoja, where people move with their livestock. The prevailing logic goes something like this: pastoralists are but one of several vulnerable groups, and so with other vulnerable groups they should share water points. In principle, this sounds inclusive. In practice, it’s exclusion by dilution. Why? Because these pastoralists move. Their seasonal mobility means they’re often absent when decisions about ‘shared’ water points are made and, over time, these absences become a disadvantage. Eventually, ‘shared’ water becomes ‘our’ water, typically, more sedentary households who then transform the surrounding rangelands into fields, settlements, and year-round grazing areas that do far more damage than drought ever could.

      And just like that, pastoralists are pushed out – not by an explicit exclusion policy, but by land use practices. Not by violence, but by the quiet erosion of access.

      The apparent absence of people or livestock from a landscape is not a void to be filled. It’s a pastoral system at rest – regenerating, recovering, and waiting for the seasonal return of the pastoralists it supports.

      If we want water development to work for pastoralists, it must not only support access during seasons of use but also prevent access during seasons of rest. That may sound counterintuitive – even paradoxical – but that’s exactly the point. If then you’re a water engineer, planner or policymaker, please don’t misread seasonal rangeland emptiness as under-utilisation – or worse, as opportunity. It’s not. It’s someone else’s functional rangeland – resting for now.

      As the 2026 International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists approaches, those of us working in water resource development would do well to shift not just our technologies, but also our thinking. Sometimes, the most responsible form of water development is not to drill at all.

      This is part of our blog series on pastoralists and water.

      Pastoralists and Water 5 – A brief introduction to green water

      by Dr Kerstin Danert (1), Dr Klas Sandström(2), Dr Aida Bargués Tobella (3) , Dr Malin Lundberg Ingemarsson (4), Chris Magero (5) and Adrian Cullis (6)

      In support of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP 2026) this is the fifth blog on Pastoralists and Water published through RWSN. We are going to provide you with a brief introduction to green water – a subject that is important when considering rangelands, pastoralism and pastoralists in many parts of the world (some may even argue everywhere). Before we move on, in case you have missed any of the other blogs on this topic, you can reach them here. 

      Some of us were given an opportunity to reflect and write on green water as members of the team preparing the 2023 Somalia Economic Update, entitled ‘Integrating Climate Change with Somalia’s Development: The Case for Water’ while others are researching this topic. In this blog, we don’t intend to summarise the report, which is in the public domain, but rather we want to help you understand, and perhaps think more about green water. 

      So, let’s get started – what on earth is green water? And why is it important? Ok, we shall get there via the term blue water.

      Blue water

      For many of us working on water supplies, water services, or irrigation, we make a living through the provision, or advice in relation to blue water. Blue water refers to the water that you see in rivers, lakes and dams, or that is abstracted from aquifers (groundwater). Blue water is what you see being used in irrigated agriculture or what livestock and humans drink. Generally, small amounts of blue water are required for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) needs and to water livestock. In contrast, irrigated agriculture (as well as some industry) uses larger quantities of blue water. Further, downstream users often benefit from upstream (blue water) runoff – which is not always aligned with the interests of the upstream communities!

      Green water

      In contrast, green water is water in soil. It accumulates there from rainfall (or other forms of precipitation) and subsequent infiltration. You can feel (and see) green water in how it makes soil damp or wet. Green water will either evaporate, be consumed by plants through the process of transpiration, or may percolate to recharge groundwater. Green water is what rainfed agriculture and rainfed ecosystems rely on. Pastoralists raise domesticated grazing animals – cattle, camelids, equines, sheep, goats, yaks, reindeer, pigs and even a variety of poultry (chickens, ducks and others). Rangeland vegetation, including grass, forbes, trees and shrubs, which are essential for this pastoral livestock all depend on green water. 

      Whether we are already familiar with the terms blue and green water or not, these definitions may not sound particularly exciting, but let’s continue. They link to a key aspect of many water scarce areas of the globe and how food and water security can improve.  

      Healthy soils: The key to green water replenishment

      Water at the soil surface enters through a process called infiltration. Healthy soils have good physical, chemical and biological properties and therefore can absorb more water: they have what is known as a higher infiltration capacity. 

      In contrast, soil degradation results in surface compaction, crusting and sealing, which means less water can enter the soil, leading instead to surface runoff and an increased potential for erosion. This can also lead to agricultural, pastoral  or ecological droughts: a deficiency of soil water that is not necessarily linked to a deficiency of rainfall (meteorological drought) but mostly to a poor soil health and infiltration capacity also known as hydrological functioning. It rains, but much of this rain never becomes essential green water.

      Erosion in West Pokot, Kenya (Source: Aida Bargués-Tobella)

      However, agricultural, pastoral and ecological drought can actually be arrested and reversed through sustainable rangeland management and restoration. In other words, the replenishment of green water can be enhanced through practices that improve soil structure and through vegetative and structural measures that collect surface runoff and enable it to infiltrate. Half moons and a wide range of other rainwater harvesting structures are examples. More soil water supports plant growth, which in turn improves soil structure, enhances infiltration rates and results in improved hydrological functioning. 

      Half moons in Turkana, Kenya (Source: Aida Bargués-Tobella)
      What about evaporation?

      As we learned in the water cycle, water moves from the atmosphere to the ground, from mountains to the sea, across land, along rivers, underground and through pipes. These are flows that we can observe or measure.

      Transpiration and evaporation return some precipitation to the atmosphere. Transpiration is linked to plant growth, but evaporation, which is vast and invisible arguably remains largely overlooked and is poorly managed. Locally, transpiration contributes to the production of food, fuel, and fodder. In contrast, evaporation does not contribute locally, bit will rather condense and become rainfall (or snow, hail, sleet or fog) elsewhere. Evaporation is very important, because on a farmer’s field or in a small catchment, much of the rainfall that reaches the ground can evaporate. 

      Reducing evaporation and harnessing more rainfall for productive transpiration may not be easy, but well-established knowledge about it does exist. Effective land management will capture rainwater, promote infiltration, reduce evaporation, thus providing more green water, which still returns to the atmosphere as plant transpiration. That lead us to our next point.

      Rangeland management – the key to more water for food, fuel, fodder and services

      Rangeland management controls two critical hydrological processes – infiltration and evaporation. It also controls the extent that rainfall is converted into green water and hence is available for transpiration (i.e. for food, fuel and fodder).  

      When landscapes and watersheds are better managed, they more effectively catch rainfall, reduce and control runoff, and enable water to infiltrate the soil. This enables soil to absorb more rainfall and increase levels of green water, contributing to the productivity of grasses, shrubs, trees and crops and reducing evaporation. More green water can support more livestock, crops and forests with reduced ecological damage, ultimately contributing to healthier communities and stronger local economies.

      Why does green water matter for blue water?

      Better rangeland management, including using rainfall in upstream areas and promoting rainfed agriculture (including pastoral livestock), generates and harnesses more green water.  This can enable savings to be made on blue water, which can therefore be used more productively for domestic use, watering livestock and even for high-value (export) crops.

      A planetary boundary for freshwater that includes green water
      Let’s put green water in a larger context. In 2009, Johan Rockström and Stockholm Resilience Centre published the Planetary Boundaries (PBs) concept, presenting a set of nine planetary boundaries which are essential for present and future humanity to develop and thrive. One of the original boundaries is “freshwater use”. In 2022, they published a study on a planetary boundary for green water in which they explain how green water links the freshwater boundary to other planetary boundaries such as land use, biodiversity and climate. Based on global changes to soil moisture, the study concludes that the green water planetary boundary has already been transgressed – highlighting the urgency in giving more attention to this aspect within the hydrological cycle.

      The earlier mentioned 2023 Somalia Economic Update report is not only relevant for Somalia, but for other dryland countries whose economic and human well-being depends on how their water resources are managed. We argue that a critical entry point in such contexts is recognising the role of evaporation—the often overlooked, invisible flow of water, which could be better harnessed to support food and water security, and which is closely linked to both green and blue water resources.  What do you think

      Let us stop here for now. We hope that some of you may share your thoughts, and we look forward to hearing your reflections as this blog series on pastoralists and water continues.

      1.  Ask for Water Ltd, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
      2. Independent Consultant, Sweden
      3. AGROTECNIO-CERCA Center, Lleida, Spain
      4. Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), Stockholm, Sweden
      5. Independent Consultant, Germany
      6. Independent Consultant, United Kingdom

      Pastoralists and Water 3 – Learning about rangelands and pastoral mobility 

      Dr Kerstin Danert [1] with Dr Maryam Niamir-Fuller [2]

      In support of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP2026) and linkages with water in particular, this is my third in a series of blogs. Here, I start to draw out my highlights from the 2022 webinar on Pastoralists and Water, hosted by RWSN. If you want an introduction to pastoralists, check out my second blog. 

      In contrast to some of the derogatory comments about pastoralists that I heard in my early working life (see Blog 1), pastoralism is not actually an outmoded way of living from the past at all! In fact, there are strong arguments that it is the solution for a sustainable future. Can this really be true, I ask myself?

      In fact, it starts to make sense when you realise that pastoralists specialise in making use of highly variable environments to produce food. By moving with their livestock, they manage continuously changing opportunities for grazing in their landscape. You can learn more in this film, which I find fascinating. It turned some of my perceptions on their head.

      In the 2022 RWSN Webinar, Maryam Niamir-Fuller, then vice chair of the International Support Group for the IYRP2026, explained that “rangelands” is a term used for grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, tundra as well as cold or hot deserts that are grazed by domesticated or wild animals. I was surprised to learn that it is estimated that rangelands actually cover 54% of the earth’s land surface. It makes me wonder why I have heard so little about them? And further, rangelands exist beyond drylands. As Maryam gives you a taste for in her picture gallery (Figure 1), there is much diversity in rangelands. 

      Figure 1 Picture gallery of rangelands (prepared by IYRP2026 Global Alliance)

      It perturbed me to learn from Maryam that, although rangelands cover more than half of the earth’s land mass, they are the least known and valued ecosystem in the world. What also seems not to be widely known is that an estimated one billion people directly benefit from or have their livelihoods linked to rangelands. Further, another two million people benefit along the value chain, including processing products, gathering pharmaceuticals and making medicines. 

      There are other nuggets of information that I would like to share with you. For example:

      • that pastoral milk and meat are very important sources of vital proteins that are not found in plants
      • that pastoral livestock has high genetic diversity – in stark contrast to livestock on monocultural farming and industrial systems
      • rangelands are extremely important for Planet Earth’s biodiversity

      Maryam also explained that, while evidence is still emerging, research is showing that a well-managed pastoral system can be net carbon neutral or can ever sequester (store) carbon. That is something else that I would like to know more about on this journey. In summary, it seems that a lot is going on in rangelands, but this is not well known.

      Let me move on to pastoral mobility (pun intended). As I mentioned above, this is not outmoded at all, despite prevailing attitudes. In the 2022 RWSN webinar, Maryam lucidly explained that mobility is a key factor in the stewardship of these ecosystems. Pastoralists have adapted to and managed natural variability through mobility of their animals. 

      According to many studies, and as presented by Maryam Niamir-Fuller, one of the main reasons for rangeland degradation is because not all pastoralists are able to exercise their required mobility. Traditional movement routes have been blocked, and some rangelands have been converted to be used for cropping. The result is that animals are being confined into smaller and smaller spaces. Scientists are learning that the more the livestock keep moving, the less the degradation and the better are the chances for maintaining healthy rangelands.

      12ThemesGraphic[09-12-22]Download

      Figure 2 The provisional 12 themes of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralism

      These issues and others are recognised through the 12 themes of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP2026). The issue of water (and my own specialism) is directly included in two themes of the IYRP: 

      • Theme 3 looks at access to services and resources for pastoralists – advocating for safe and accessible water for pastoralists and their animals.
      • Theme 6 looks at water in the context of soils and land management – including waste management, the impact of droughts, aquifer recharge and watershed management.

      However, water can be linked to all of the 12 themes of the IYRP – something that will be explored in the build-up to and during IYRP2026. The IYRP sets out to value the contribution of rangelands and pastoralists, break myths and influence informed, science-based policies throughout the world.

      If you would like to find out more about IYRP2026, or even join the global or regional support groups or thematic working groups, check out this website or contact iyrp2026@gmail.com

      Sources of information

      RWSN (2022) Pastoralists and Water, Webinar, Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN).

      IYRP LDN Working Group (2024) “Global Actions for Sustainable Rangelands and Pastoralism to achieve Land Degradation Neutrality: A Science-to-Policy Review with recommendations for the UNCCD Conference of Parties”.  https://iyrp.info/

      [1] Director, Ask for Water Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland

      [2] Senior Advisor to IYRP2026 Global Alliance, based in USA