CRITERIA FOR SELECTING SITES FOR NEW WATER YARDS

 

Land Use Planning Note AAH/5/88

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 LUP Section, ADD, Involvement

2 ACTION TAKEN

2.1 Sub-committee

2.2 Out-put of the Sub-committee

3 PROFORMAS PRODUCED

3.1 General

3.2 Application Form

3.3 Site Assessment

3.3.1 General

3.3.2 Location and Population

3.3.3 Natural Resources

3.3.4 Vegetation and Land Use

4 PRINCIPLES FOR THE LAND USE COMMITTEE

5 OTHER FACTORS

6 CONCLUSIONS

 

APPENDICES

 __________________________________________________________________________________________

1 INTRODUCTION

As background to this LUP Note the paper compiled by the Head of the ADD on 15 February 1988 is reproduced below.

1.1 Background

In 1986, with the prospect of revival of the NWC drilling programme after a lapse of some 10 years, concern was expressed by the Head of the ADD at a joint meeting of WSDC/IDA/ODA regarding the prospect of water resources being developed without reference to WSDC or co-ordination with land utilisation plans.

This was taken up by IDA/ODA in an aide memoir dated May 1987 where it was stated that the ADD should examine the proposed drilling programme with reference to environmental issues, in collaboration with the Soil Conservation, Land Use and Water Programming Department (SCLUWP).

It was pointed out that interference was probably neither necessary nor practicable in the case of water supplies to existing communities and that efforts should concentrate on any new water yard programme, but that little could probably be done until October 1987 at the earliest.

Meanwhile, the question of resources required and collaboration with SCLUWP was raised in two memoranda addressed to the Director General (WSDC?) in August 1987, and a paper written by the Range and Pasture Specialist (ADD, WSDC) highlighted the issue but did little to forward any practical approach.

In October 1987 a committee, under the chairmanship of the Head of the MED, WSDC was formed to consider the matter, but the situation remained confused and in January 1988 the Director General decided that the committee should be wound up and re-constituted under the chairmanship of the Head of the ADD.

The minutes of the meeting of 5 January 1988 also refer to review of water yards to be rehabilitated, but as these concern existing communities lack of rehabilitation would be difficult to justify, and could give rise to major social and political problems. Discussion below relates to the new drilling programme only.

Areas of confusion, referred to above, included the relationship between NWC and Islamic Bank programmes, drilling capacities, the actual programme and current position.

The overall programme involves drilling 91 new boreholes, not including boreholes for new settlements and 5 boreholes at Ed Da'ein already completed.

The 91 boreholes are divided as follows:

Category

NWC

 

Islamic Bank

New

29

 

24

Replacement

13

 

19

Twinning

5

 

1

Sub-totals

47

 

44

TOTAL

 

91

 

Actual drilling capacity to June 1988 is approximately:

NWC 20

Islamic Bank 40

However this capacity is obviously subject to many possible constraints.

The Islamic bank programme is currently held up by parts supply problems and NWC is proposing to borrow a rig from the Bank to accelerate their own programme and enable a start to be made with two teams working from East to West and West to East respectively. The Islamic Bank programme is unlikely to start until mid-March, when the borrowed rig will be returned.

The following steps are therefor being taken:

  1. Identify new sites in probable drilling sequence
  2. Revise SCLUWP current assessment criteria
  3. Determine the possibility of forming two survey teams of SCLUWP personnel. (Major constraints; fuel/transport)
  4. Study proposals according to the revised criteria in probable sequence of drilling.
  5. Establish a revised Land Use Committee, which would review the studies of the survey teams and make recommendations.

The WSD Land Use Planner (LUP) will chair a sub-committee to revise the assessment criteria (2 above) and will establish review principles and procedures to be applied by the Land Use Committee (5 above - part).

Remaining issues include:

Results of the monitoring exercise would be applied as appropriate to refine assessment and review criteria for future drilling programmes.

1.2 LUP Contribution

As stated in 1.1 above the LUP was asked to look at two issues:

2 ACTION TAKEN

2.1 Sub-committee

A sub-committee was formed and the following parties invited to participate:

Staff of SCLUWP gave valuable assistance from supplying copies of pro-formas currently in use and in helping to design new pro-formas. Range and Pasture Section assistance was in the form of constructive criticism and comment on the new pro-formas. The NWC Adviser did not attend the meetings as, at that stage, the NWA contribution was not considered important. Also, at the time the NWC/WSDC Co-ordinator was not available.

2.2 Out-put of the Sub-committee

The final output of the sub-committee was a set of new proformas and these are discussed in Section 3 and presented in the Appendices.

It must be pointed out that the staff of SCLUWP are a little worried about the moves we (WSDC) seem to be making on this subject. The staff were unwilling to have the name of their department put on any of the pro-formas prepared because their organisation already has forms and that any changes would have to be sanctioned by their headquarters in Khartoum. Also, it is obvious that the SCLUWP staff feel that any assessment of sites is rightly the prerogative of their organisation. These facts should be borne in mind if there is to be any WSDC involvement in site assessment or changes in the way data collection and site surveys are carried out.

3 PRO-FORMAS PRODUCED

3.1 General

The forms fall into 3 categories:

- Application form

- Site assessment

- Principles for the Land Use Committee

3.2 Application Form

This form is based on the form used and supplied by the SCLUWP Department but has been revised and should supply a few more details of the proposed site. More importantly this form would also supply some data on exactly who, from the community, supports the application and who might be on the water yard management committee.

The reasons why the community is making the application are asked and, also, the applicants are requested to give an indication of the community's plans for the area as regards water and land use. The existing water resources within reach of the proposed site would also be detailed with some comment on the condition, or status, of these resources.

If the data supplied in the Application indicate that the community is making a genuine request for valid reasons then the Application would be accepted and the investigative procedures (surveys etc) initiated. All the information supplied in the Application form would be checked in the course of the surveys whilst additional data was being gathered. The form proposed for use is presented below.

3.3 Site Assessment

3.3.1 General

Again this form is based on the SCLUWP Department form but is re-designed to gather only data that is considered necessary to enable a reasonable assessment to be made without gathering too much detail. Much of the data could be compiled from existing maps (ODA/HTS, 1986) and SPOT Imagery (assuming imagery was held for the specific location in question).

There are 3 sections to this aspect of the data gathering:

3.3.2 Location and Population

This section gathers together locational and social data to try and establish the need for a water yard or well.

The officer or agency carrying out the investigations would have to draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the data gathered. If the conclusions supported the original application then the next phase of the investigations could commence.

The form proposed for use is presented as Appendix A.

3.3.3 Natural Resources

This section gathers data on the natural resources and basically presents data on the major land systems, soils and the existing water resources. These data should help establish what exists in the area.

The present SCLUWP Department procedure is to carry out what amounts to almost a semi-detailed, at least a reconnaissance, soil survey and it is considered (by the author) that too much data is gathered and too much time is spent doing so. The data detailed in the new form could be assembled quite quickly without too much field input.

The form proposed for use is presented as Appendix B.

3.3.4 Vegetation and Land Use

This section would detail data on present land use, including grazing, and would build up a picture of what now happens in the area and, more importantly, might give some indication of the community's ability to pay for water if a water yard was set up.

Once the base data on soils, vegetation and land use were compiled they could be related to some of the studies suggested for inclusion in the 1988/89 work-programme and the potential of the various soils within the area could be estimated. Hopefully, during 1988/89 the variations in Qoz soils and relationships with indicator vegetation species might be established to aid estimating potential.

The form proposed for use is presented as Appendix C.

4 PRINCIPLES FOR THE LAND USE COMMITTEE

A pro-forma has been prepared to try and help concentrate the Land Use Committee's thoughts on the main issues that would help them reach a decision as to whether a water yard (or well) should be opened (or drilled). Basically the Land Use Committee has to decide:

The pro-forma proposed for use is presented as Appendix D.

5 OTHER FACTORS

Once the Land Use Committee decides, from the data available, that a new water yard is justified there are several other factors to be considered, these factors have not been considered in this presentation but are mentioned below.

5.1 Could the Community Meet the Running Costs?

If the answer was no the Land Use Committee would have to consider some of the following options:

5.2 Are the Main Beneficiaries to be Domestic Users?

If the answer is yes then the total demand has to be estimated and the most realistic solution proposed. This might be:

5.3 Are the Main Beneficiaries to be Arable Farmers?

If the answer is yes then several further questions need answering:

5.4 Are the Main Beneficiaries to be Sedentary Herders?

If the answer is yes:

5.5 Are the Beneficiaries to be Nomadic Herders?

If the answer is yes

6 CONCLUSIONS

To come up with more positive action or recommendations on this topic much more time and effort would need to be devoted to it. For example, what are the locally recognised requirements for water for people and livestock? We probably need to know much more about the carrying capacity of the various categories of rangeland that exist on the various soil types in the different land systems. Once such data were available it might be possible to properly estimate the optimum size of herd and what water supply would be required for any specific area.

The full extent of the size and characteristics of the aquifer that may, or may not exist, must be established before any soundly based overall plan for any area can be drawn up. This would require the services of hydrologists and geo-hydrologists, though the WADS study could supply some of the answers.

The social aspects of opening new wells or water yards must be fully considered before any action is taken as this leads into the question of Land Tenure and the inter-actions between Sedentary and Nomadic communities.

The present suite of pro-formas will go some way towards documenting what resources now exist and what the local community aspires to try and do and if that community could afford to run, and be able to manage, a facility supplying water. But, as was said in Section 2.2, the SCLUWP Department feel much of this work is their prerogative and this fact must be borne in mind and WSDC should not be seen to be making a take-over bid.

In short, should WSDC be getting involved, do we know enough about the resources to make balanced judgements and do we have the resources and necessary expertise to get fully involved. Perhaps as far as we can go at present is to continue discussions with SCLUWP on the revisions that have been made to their forms and see if they will eventually adopt them.

 

A.A.Hutcheon

May 1988

APPENDIX A

NEW WATER YARDS - SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

A. LOCATION AND POPULATION

Name of village or site:

 

A.1 Location

Map Sheet No:

 

SPOT sheet No:

 

Co-ordinates:

E N

(Attach copy of relevant part of map with site marked)

A.2 Councils

Provincial:

 

District:

 

Rural:

 

Village:

 

 

A.3 Population

 No. of households:

 

 

 

 

Type of construction:

Grass

Mud

Brick

Other

Numbers:

 

 

 

 

Domestic water supply type:

 

 

 

 

 

A.4 Other Villages.

Name

Distance (km)

Bearing

Population

 

 

E N

 

 

 

E N

 

 

 

E N

 

 

 

E N

 

 

 

E N

 

 

A.5 Livestock

A.5.1 Numbers

 

New Site

Other Villages - Name (within 15km radius)

Total Livestock Units (LUs *)

Cattle

 

 

 

Camel

 

 

 

Sheep

 

 

 

Goat

 

 

 

Donkey

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

Total Livestock Units:

 

One Livestock Unit (LU) Equivalent to:

1 Cow

2 Cows < 1 year old

7 Sheep

7 Goats

1 Donkey

1 Camel

 

A.5.2 Are Livestock Numbers Changing?

Type

Increasing

Decreasing

Cattle

 

 

Sheep

 

 

Goats

 

 

Donkeys

 

 

Camels

 

 

 

A.5.3 Nomadic Livestock.

Tribe:

 

 

 

 

Type of herd:

 

 

 

 

Size of herd:

 

 

 

 

 

A.6 Offices and Services (existing)

A.6.1 Government offices

Name

Number of Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.6.2 Other Agencies

Name

Number of Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.6.3 Services

Type

Number (Total)

No of Staff / Pupils

Type

Primary health centre

 

 

 

Schools

 

 

 

Police posts

 

 

 

Flour mills

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

A.6.4 Markets

Name

Market Day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.7 Reason for Request for New Well / Water yard.

Why is a new well or water yard required?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Who will be the main users ?

Type

Wet season

Dry season

Domestic users

 

 

Arable farmers

 

 

Sedentary herds

 

 

Nomadic herds

 

 

Other

 

 

Present Household water consumption in dry season? .....Tins (4 gallon) per day.

 

A.8 Approximate Area to be Served.

square kilometres

Delineate approximate area on map

 

A.9 General Conclusions and Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

 

Data compiled by ...............(name) of................(dept)

Date....................

 

APPENDIX B

B NATURAL RESOURCES

B.1 Land System

Is map available?..........If so which..................(ODA/HTS Maps 1986)

(Copy of relevant part of map, with site marked, to be attached)

B.2 Dominant Soil

Type

Approximate Extent Km2 /Ha / Dunnums

% of Area

Qoz

 

 

Amud

 

 

Atmur

 

 

Qoz/Alluv

 

 

Nagaa

 

 

Gardud

 

 

Buta

 

 

Basement

 

 

Volcanic

 

 

Tartura

 

 

Other

 

 

B.3 Climate

Rainfall

Annual Average at present

mm

Wet season

From:

To:

 

B.4 Other Problems

Type

Estimate of Severity

Details (Cause?)

Salinity

 

 

Toxicity

 

 

Droughtiness

 

 

Other

 

 

 

B.5 Existing Water Resources.

B.5.1 Haffirs / Dams

Name

Distance (km)

Rehabilitated (Date)

Capacity (m3)

Utilisation Months/year

Status / Condition (With reason )

1

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

Dominant users are:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

B.5.2 Shallow Wells

Name

Distance (Km)

Depth (m)

Water Months/Year

Main Users

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

B.5.3 Water yards

No/Name

Location E N

Drilled

(Date)

Operation Months / Year

Main Users

L.U. day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes: L.U. = Livestock Units (Refer Section A 5.1)

 

B.5.4 Other Surface Water

Type

Location E N

Operation Months / Year

Main Users

L.U. day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.6 General Conclusions and Recommendations.

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

Data compiled by______________________________________(name)

Of___________________________________(Dept)on ____________________________(Date)

 

 

APPENDIX C

C VEGETATION and LAND USE

 

C.1 Present Category

Broad Category

% of Area

Bush

 

Cultivated

 

Fallow

 

Abandoned

 

Not used

 

Estimate areas from SPOT / LANDSAT imagery.

Notes:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

C.2 Base line Data for Monitoring Change and Condition.

C.2.1 Vegetative Cover

Trees

Shrubs

Grasses / Herbs

Species

Density

Species

Density

Species

Density

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C.2.2 Land Use

Category

% of Area *

Main Crops / Species

Arable Cultivation

 

 

Fallow

 

 

Abandoned

 

 

Grazing

 

 

Forestry

 

 

Game Reserve

 

 

Other

 

 

Note: * Estimate from SPOT/LANDSAT imagery.

Notes:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C.3 Off-Farm Employment

Type

Where

When

% of Farmers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Could indicate ability to pay for water services

Notes:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

C.4 Grazing

Type of herd*

Distance to Morheel (km)

Type of Grazing

Sedentary

 

Dry season

Nomadic

 

Wet season

 

 

other

Note: * Type of herd presently using the area

Notes:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

C.5 Status of Pasture

Usage

Incidence of Fire

Time of Year

Fire Lines

Unused

 

 

 

Under-used

Never

 

 

Moderate use

Seldom

 

 

Over-used

Regular

 

 

Degraded

Too Often

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes: If annual, give usual time of year (months) below:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* Fire-lines. Fire lines to be shown on map. Also include natural fire lines such as roads, wadis and rocky ridges

C.6 Gum Arabic Production.

Name of Village

Production Increasing

Production Decreasing

Present Production (Sacks / Annum)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total sacks/year

 

Notes:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C.7 General Conclusions and Recommendations

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Data compiled by _____________________________ (name)of __________________(Dept)

Date ______________________

APPENDIX D

D PRINCIPLES and PROCEDURES for LAND USE COMMITTEE TO FOLLOW

D.1 Who requested the well / water yard?

Politician

 

Omda

 

Development Agency

 

Other

 

 

D.2 Why is a (new) well requested?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Refer to survey details)

D.3 Beneficiaries

Proposed number of families to be served?

 

Are they all local people?

 

Are they all from the same tribe?

 

Are there any known tribal disputes in the area?

 

(Some of above are for security aspects)

 

 

D.4 Is there a real need by the existing population for a new well/ water yard

Yes

No

Unsure

Refer to survey details)

 

D.5 Community contributions to the management / costs of the water yard?

Committee

Fencing

Fuel

Guards

Other

 

D.6 Will the community be able to pay the costs of running the water yard?

Yes

No

Unsure

(Refer to survey data - farm /herd size - off-farm employment etc)

 

D.7 Is the location in a traditional wet season grazing area?

Yes

No

Unsure

If yes, has the matter been discussed with relevant migratory livestock owners?

Notes:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

D.8 Would the water yard be open all the year round? Or only for a few months per year?

State the exact planned intention.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

D.9 What is the present daily water consumption per household?

Tins per day

Gallons per day

Cubic m per day

(Refer to survey data)

 

D.10 If the water yard is for nomadic herds

Is the site on a traditional stock route (morheel)?

Yes

No

Unsure

If yes, has the route fallen into disuse?

Yes

No

Unsure

If yes, why?

No water

Area now arable

Other

 

D.11 Do the local, settled farmers, want the nomadic herd to come back again ?

Yes

No

Not established

If yes, why? ___________________________________________________________________

If no, why? ____________________________________________________________________

 

D.12 Attitude of Previous Traditional Herders

Do the traditional herders who used to use this morheel want to use this route again?

Yes

No

Not established

If yes, why? ___________________________________________________________________

If no, why? ____________________________________________________________________

 

D.13 Nearest alternative water

How far from the proposed site to the nearest water yard or (permanent) shallow well ?

Water Yard

km

direction

Name

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

Shallow Well

km

direction

Name

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

D.14 Planned development

Is the proposed water yard in a site likely to become an important market / urban centre?

If yes, why? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

D.15 Has the site already got a permanent market?

Yes

No

D.16 Other Sources of Water

What is the distance and direction to the nearest other sources of water?

Regeba

km

direction

Rahad

km

Direction

Idd

km

Direction

Hafir

km

Direction

Water Yard

km

direction

 

D.17 Findings

Real need for new facility

Yes

No

Ability to organise

Yes

No

Ability to pay

Yes

No

Could there be conflicts

Yes

No

Does site fit into overall plan

Yes

No

Will community grow commercially

Yes

No

 

D.18 Recommendations