Challenges and way forward
The process of developing a mix-method approach and the extensive field experience open up reflections on a range of challenges and opportunities related to a) the ideal balance between data-driven, top-down biophysical analysis and qualitative participatory research, b) the usefulness and necessity of participatory work beyond the best-siting phase and finally c) a more generic reflection on the fit and implications of sand dams development for frugal, semi-nomadic pastoralists.
Knowledge integration
A critical part of the methodological process was identifying the level of integration between the biophysical assessment and the participatory phase. The criteria for the biophysical analysis were kept to a minimum set of variables, which rendered a coarse first identification of points. Many of these points are likely not overall suitable given the further biophysical requirement that were not accounted in this work for lack of good quality data, but which could be integrated in future analysis. For example, with a higher resolution DEM (i.e.5m or less) it would be possible to estimate the riverbanks height and slope and the throwback area. However, over-reliance on top-down MCDA could lead to downgrading the role of participatory analysis, which should remain central to guarantee a proper inclusion of local stakeholders in the study and the follow up decision process on the implementation (Kallis et al., 2006). Thus, a methodological dilemma remains: Is it more appropriate to include coarse quantitative estimates of biophysical variables or rely on less uncertain estimates from fieldwork? The advantage of the first option is to provide a quick and inexpensive set of suitable points for guiding a more focused in-field inspection. However, the accuracy of the findings might be lower compared to a more extensive in-field participatory phase. The balance between these two approaches is a common struggle that require a good knowledge of the place and careful planning. We suggest tuning the balance between the two research phases depending on spatial data availability, knowledge of the place and level of community engagement.
Participatory research beyond best-siting of sand dams
Beyond the scope of sand dam siting, the participatory engagement helped convening local communities to raise awareness, debate about their needs and experiences and uncover essential matters to take into account for water resources development projects. In this sense, the participatory research approach described here can be useful to a wider research community, since small scale interventions that engage communities have better chances to achieve more engagement in the construction process, ownership of the outcomes, and even foster diffusion of innovations (Mansuri and Rao, 2004; Mulligan et al., 2011). Furthermore, the discussions on why some water points and structures fail or are vandalised was valuable to debate about the importance of maintenance of infrastructure and care within beneficial communities. The focus group discussions promoted a debate on technical matters that helps changing the focus from covering immediate water security needs to developing a longer-term view from the communities, with more emphasis on medium and longer-term needs and more debate on operation and maintenance of the introduced infrastructures (Garfias Royo et al., 2018). More generally, these engagements, facilitated by NGOs, can promote the creation of Water and Sanitation Groups (Grupos de Água e Saneamento), which are local consumer associations or councils, and the implementation of more or less organized models of community water management like the MOGECA model, which is active in some rural municipalities of Angola, but not enough widespread in the south (Baptista and Rall, 2021). A lesson learnt in this work, and highly recommended in other water resources development projects in similar contexts, is the need to guide communities towards a deep understanding of the long term sustainability approach of water harvesting infrastructure and shift the focus from short-term to long term benefits, with the corresponding change in expectations, approach and mentality.
Fixed water resources for mobile pastoralists
A final reflection concerns the epistemological approach to water resources development. It is clear that climate change is increasing resources variability and uncertainty, with negative consequences on local communities. Nonetheless, the solutions proposed by outsiders development projects must acknowledge the diverse universe of point of views and approaches to face such changes and support a really sustainable development (Pisor et al., 2022). The model, although generally positive, of increasing water points and introduce effective water harvesting infrastructure learning from elsewhere experience, should critically reflect on the compatibility with existing mechanism used by local communities, even outside of the scientific literature and debate. Some recent studies on pastoralism and vulnerability suggest mobility as an adaptation of pastoralist to uncertainty and variability, which constitute the very nature of dryland livelihoods. Mobility is seen as an adaptation strategy, which make pastoralists resilient to climatic and other changes (Turner et al., 2014). Under this point of view, supporting such communities with fixed water points might introduce a factor of disturbance in pastural mobility, with the possible consequence of fixing communities because of the initial benefit in availability and accessibility of water, but which might disrupt the mobile arrangement leading to a long term reduction in resilience (Scoons, 1995). These dynamics needs to be further investigated in relation to water harvesting development projects, requiring a dedicated data collection and participatory engagement.