Represas de arena en Kenia: traduciendo éxitos pasados para abordar desafíos futuros

[Articulos individuales de la edicion de Intersecciones de Primavera 2020 se publican en este blog cada semana. La edicion completa puede ser encontrada en MCC’s website.]

En la comunidad Nzamba de la región semiárida de Ukambani de Kenia se encuentra un muro de roca y mortero de cien años construido a través de un canal seco. La arena se ha apresado detrás de esta represa de roca, que acumula agua de las tormentas de la temporada de lluvias. Meses después, en la estación seca, las personas residentes que recolectan agua para el hogar, ganado y cultivos frecuentan los agujeros tipo pozos alrededor de la presa. Esta represa de arena fue la más antigua visitada en una evaluación reciente de represas de arena, realizada por el CCM con sus dos organizaciones asociadas kenianas, la Fundación de Soluciones Sahelianas y la Organización para el Desarrollo de Utooni. Se han construido miles de represas de arena en Ukambani desde la era colonial, lo que demuestra su potencial como una solución elegante al desafío fundamental del suministro de agua. Por lo tanto, las represas de arena tienen una aparente permanencia en el paisaje local, tanto en la durabilidad de las estructuras como en su atractivo duradero para las comunidades. Sin embargo, se han producido cambios drásticos en la región, e incluso se esperan cambios climáticos y sociales aún mayores en los próximos años. A medida que el CCM y sus organizaciones asociadas locales recuerdan su papel instrumental en varias décadas de promoción de represas de arena, estas preguntas duales pueden informar qué lecciones sacamos de estos proyectos: ¿Qué explica el poder de permanencia de esta solución comunitaria para proporcionar agua? ¿ Y cómo podrían proyectos como este mirar hacia el futuro frente a los cambios acelerados en el clima y estructuras sociales?

Nanteya Mamayio (suéter verde) y otros Maasai obtienen agua de la represa de arena apoyada por el CCM construida por MIDI y personas aldeanas de Singiraine, Kenia. La fuente de agua proporciona agua a 3,000 familias (20,000 personas) en un radio de 15 millas/25 kilómetros para cocinar, bañarse y lavar la ropa. (Foto del CCM/Matthew Lester)

El poder de permanencia de las represas de arena no era evidente desde el principio, ya que no fueron aceptadas universalmente en su introducción inicial. La represa en Nzamba es característica de este escepticismo y resistencia iniciales: los miembros de la comunidad (especialmente las mujeres) que construyeron la represa de Nzamba se vieron obligados por la “ley del cacique”colonial a caminar muchos días a través del monte hasta llegar a la vía férrea para obtener suministros para la represa. Es comprensible que la gente local de Kamba asocie las represas de arena con la represión colonial: la resistencia a la represa de arena no fue principalmente una objeción a la tecnología, sino la forma en que se le impuso a la comunidad.

Para la recepción de represas de arena por parte del público en Kenia, la situación cambió durante una sequía paralizante en la década de 1970, cuando un respetado ingeniero de Kamba sugirió que las represas de arena podrían aliviar la crisis. La resultante represa de arena de prueba fue tan obviamente efectiva en el suministro de agua que las comunidades vecinas comenzaron a replicar el éxito. Igualmente importante fue enmarcar las represas de arena más como una actividad comunitaria, en lugar de solo como una nueva tecnología. Las represas de arena fueron iniciadas y construidas por las propias comunidades dentro del mecanismo tradicional de mwethya, un sistema de trabajo compartido y beneficio mutuo. Los “grupos de autoayuda” comunitarios que surgieron de mwethya ahora forman la columna vertebral para implementar las represas de arena. La lección fundamental del éxito de las represas de arena anteriores es la importancia de adaptar la tecnología de las represas de arena al contexto local e introducirla utilizando los mecanismos tradicionales, esto fue vital para su adopción generalizada. Solo cuando las comunidades pudieron implementar represas de arena bajo sus propios términos, dentro de la tradición mwethya, fue que se lograron los beneficios de las represas de arena.

Ninguna solución de desarrollo es estática, ya que los cambios culturales y ambientales alteran el contexto en el que se implementa una solución. ¿Qué ajustes fueron críticos en el pasado? ¿Están equipadas las represas de arenas para enfrentar cambios futuros? Algunos ajustes a las represas de arena han evolucionado naturalmente. Por ejemplo, las comunidades que construyen represas de arena se dieron cuenta temprano en su labor que el sedimento en las represas reduce drásticamente su capacidad de almacenar agua. En respuesta, los proyectos de represas de arena comenzaron a incluir terrazas a lo largo de los bordes de las represas, capturando así el sedimento. Este ajuste no solo mejoró el almacenamiento de agua, sino que también proporcionó mejores condiciones para sembrar cultivos cerca de las represas. Las comunidades también descubrieron que la construcción de represas de arena combinaba bien con la realización de una serie de actividades asociadas, como la fabricación de ladrillos y la apicultura. Las organizaciones kenianas que promueven represas de arena comenzaron a hacerlo dentro de un modelo integrado de desarrollo que incluía componentes de generación de ingresos y medios de vida. La inclusión intencional de tales actividades amplió la gama de beneficios potenciales para las comunidades, pero también requirió un grado más sólido de organización comunitaria y apoyo continuo. La reciente evaluación del CCM de las represas de arena encontró que la mayoría de las represas de arena tienen agua en la estación seca, pero que este recurso está en gran medida subutilizado en muchas represas-iniciativas de medios de vida que podrían aprovechar este recurso no han sido tan ampliamente adoptadas como se esperaba.

Las represas de arena fueron iniciadas y construidas por las propias comunidades dentro del mecanismo tradicional de mwethya, un sistema de trabajo compartido y beneficio mutuo.

Varios estudios de evaluación han cuantificado los beneficios y desafíos de las represas de arena, aumentando así la conciencia de dónde las represas de arena no han estado a la altura de las expectativas. Así, por ejemplo, las evaluaciones han demostrado que las represas de arena no se han traducido en mejoras a gran escala en la seguridad alimentaria y que el agua extraída de las represas de arena presenta un riesgo para la salud debido a la contaminación bacteriana. Al cuadrar estos hallazgos con los claros relatos anecdóticos de la efectividad de las represas de arena y su obvia popularidad entre las comunidades, sigue siendo un tema de investigación continuo. Los intentos de dar sentido a conclusiones conflictivas, a menudo, pierden un componente cultural, ya que las evaluaciones se centran en los valores occidentales de cuantificación y objetividad, que pueden estar en desacuerdo con las narrativas africanas tradicionales y los estilos relacionales.

Para el futuro de los proyectos de desarrollo, como las represas de arena, es fundamental su capacidad para responder a la crisis climática mundial, que está cambiando el entorno en el que se adaptan la cultura y las prácticas de Kamba. Aunque no se desarrollaron teniendo en cuenta el cambio climático, las represas de arena representan fortuitamente una respuesta resiliente a la crisis climática. Las represas de arena tienen el potencial de amortiguar las crisis causadas por los cambios en los patrones de lluvia al aumentar las oportunidades de recolectar agua cuando llueve.

Menos seguro es cómo las represas de arena se ajustan a cambios sociales igualmente dramáticos. La promoción de represas de arena se mantiene dentro de un modelo comunitario y apoyado por ONG. Los esfuerzos para incorporar las represas de arena en el mandato de los gobiernos locales han fracasado en gran medida; en su mayor parte, las represas de arena no se han extendido espontáneamente en el sector privado o por financiamiento comunitario, como se esperaba. Frente a los cambios culturales globales, como el avance hacia la privatización y el distanciamiento de las tradiciones comunitarias, ¿tendrán, los grupos de autoayuda, poder de permanencia o hay otro modelo efectivo de promoción de represas de arena que aún no se conoce? Aquí es quizás donde las observaciones de las propias comunidades con represas de arena convergen con las evaluaciones a nivel de desarrollo: apoyar las estructuras comunitarias subyacentes es tan importante como la tecnología de las represas de arena en sí.

En parte debido a su popularidad en Kenia, las represas de arena ahora se implementan en otros países como Mozambique, Etiopía y Chad. Aún está por verse el grado en que las represas de arena se pueden ampliar aún más, pero la durabilidad de la represa de un siglo en Nzamba sugiere que estas estructuras recogerán agua en décadas por venir.

Doug Graber Neufeld dirige el Centro de Soluciones Climáticas Sostenibles en la Eastern Mennonite University. James Kanyari es funcionario de campo de seguridad alimentaria del CCM Kenia.

---

Aprende más

Ertsen, Maurits and Rolf Hut. “Two Waterfalls Do Not Hear Each Other: Sand-Storage Dams, Science and Sustainable Development in Kenya.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. 34/1-2 (2009): 14-22. Resumen disponible en: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474706508000661.

Graber Neufeld, Doug. “Sand Dams: Providing Clean Water?” lntersections: MCC Theory and Practice Quarterly. 7/1 (Winter 2019): 14-16. Disponible en: https://mccintersections.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/sand­dams-providing-clean-water/.

Graber Neufeld, Doug. “Food Security Strategies in Kenya.” lntersections: MCC Theory and Practice Quarterly. 4/2 (2016): 8-9. Disponible en: https://mccintersections.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/food-security­strategies-in-kenya/.

Kamuya, Kevin M. and Rand Carpenter. “Drought Mitigation in Kenya.” lntersections: MCC Theory and Practice Quarterly. 2/4 (Fall 2014): 4-5. https://mccintersections.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/drought­mitigation-in-kenya/.

Ryan, Catherine and Paul Elsner. “The Potential for Sand Dams to lncrease the Adaptive Capacity of East African Drylands to Climate Change.” Regional Environmental Change. 16/7 (2016): 2087-2096. Disponible en: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-016-0938-y.

Sand dams in Kenya: translating past successes to address future challenges

[Individual articles from the Spring 2020 issue of Intersections will be posted on this blog each week. The full issue can be found on MCC’s website.]

In the Nzamba community of the semi-arid Ukambani region of Kenya stands a one-hundred-year-old rock-and-mortar wall built across a dry waterway. Sand has filled in behind this rock dam, which accumulates water from the rainy season’s storms. Months later in the dry season, scoop holes around the dam are frequented by residents who collect water for the household, livestock and crops. This sand dam was the oldest visited in a recent evaluation of sand dams, undertaken by MCC with its two Kenyan partners, Sahelian Solutions Foundation and Utooni Development Organization. Thousands of sand dams have been built in Ukambani since the colonial era, attesting to their potential as an elegant solution to the fundamental challenge of water supply. Thus, sand dams have a seeming permanence in the local landscape, both in the durability of the structures and in their enduring appeal to communities. However, dramatic changes have occurred in the region, and even greater climate and social changes are poised to occur over the coming years. As MCC and its local partners look back on their instrumental role in several decades of promoting sand dams, these dual questions can inform what lessons we take from these projects: What accounts for the staying power of this community-based solution to providing water? And how might projects like this stay forward-looking in the face of the accelerating shifts in climate and social structures?

The staying power of sand dams was not evident early on, as they were not universally embraced upon their initial introduction. The dam at Nzamba is characteristic of this initial skepticism and resistance: community members (especially women) who built the Nzamba dam were forced under colonial “chief’s law” to trek many days through the bush to a railhead for dam supplies. Understandably, the local Kamba people associated sand dams with colonial repression: the resistance to the sand dam was not a principled objection to the technology, but the manner in which it was imposed on the community.

Nanteya Mamayio (green sweater) and other Maasai get water from the MCC-supported sand dam constructed by MIDI and the villagers of Singiraine, Kenya. The water source provides 3,000 families (20,000 people) from a 15-mile/25 kilometer radius with water for cooking, bathing and laundry. (MCC photo/ Matthew Lester)

For the Kenyan public’s reception of sand dams, the tide turned during a crippling drought in the 1970s, when a respected Kamba engineer suggested sand dams might alleviate the crisis. The resulting trial sand dam was so obviously effective at providing water that neighboring communities started replicating the success. Equally important was framing sand dams more as a communal activity, rather than only as a new technology. Sand dams were initiated and built by the communities themselves within the traditional mechanism of mwethya, a system of shared labor and mutual benefit. Community “self-help groups” which grew out of mwethya now form the backbone for implementing sand dams. The overarching key lesson from past sand dam success is how important adapting sand dam technology to the local context and introducing it using traditional mechanisms were vital to its widespread adoption. Only when communities were able to implement sand dams under their own terms, within the mwethya tradition, were the benefits of sand dams realized.

No development solution is static, as cultural and environmental changes alter the context in which a solution is implemented. What adjustments were critical in the past? Are sand dams equipped to meet future changes? Some adjustments to sand dams have naturally evolved. For example, communities building sand dams recognized early on that the silting of dams dramatically reduces water storage capacity. In response, sand dam projects started including terracing along the edges of the dams, thus capturing the silt. This adjustment not only improved water storage, but also provided better conditions for growing crops near the dams. Communities also discovered that building sand dams paired well with carrying out a range of associated activities, such as brickmaking and beekeeping. Kenyan organizations promoting sand dams began to do so within an integrated model of development that included income generation and livelihoods components. Intentionally including such activities expanded the range of potential benefits to communities, yet it also required a more robust degree of community organization and ongoing support. The recent MCC evaluation of sand dams found that most sand dams have water in the dry season, but that this resource is largely underutilized at many dams—livelihoods initiatives that could take advantage of this resource have not been as widely adopted as expected.

Sand dams were initiated and built by the communities themselves within the traditional mechanism of mwethya, a system of shared labor and mutual benefit.

Several assessment studies have quantified the benefits and challenges of sand dams, thus raising awareness of where sand dams have fallen short of expectations. So, for example, assessments have found that sand dams have not translated into large-scale improvements in food security and that water extracted from sand dams presents a health risk due to bacterial contamination. Squaring these findings with the clear anecdotal accounts of sand dam effectiveness, and their obvious popularity with communities, remains an ongoing point of investigation. Attempts to make sense of conflicting conclusions often miss a cultural component, as assessments center around Western values of quantification and objectivity, which can be at odds with traditional African narratives and relational styles.

Central to the future of development projects such as sand dams is their ability to respond to the global climate crisis, which is shifting the very environment upon which Kamba culture and practices are adapted. Although not developed with climate change in mind, sand dams fortuitously represent a resilient response to the climate crisis. Sand dams have the potential to buffer shocks caused by shifts in rainfall patterns by increasing opportunities to collect rain when it does fall.

Less certain is how sand dams adjust to equally dramatic social changes. Sand dam promotion remains within a community-based, NGO-supported model. Efforts to incorporate sand dams into the mandate of local governments have largely failed; for the most part sand dams have not spread spontaneously in the private sector or by community financing, as was hoped. In the face of global cultural changes like moving towards privatization and away from community traditions, do self-help groups themselves have staying power, or is there another effective model of sand dam promotion as yet unrecognized? This is perhaps where observations by the sand dam communities themselves converge with development-level assessments: supporting the underlying community structures is just as important as the sand dam technology itself.

In part because of their popularity in Kenya, sand dams are now implemented in other countries such as Mozambique, Ethiopia and Chad. The degree to which sand dams can scale-up further remains to be seen, but the century-long durability of the dam at Nzamba suggests that these structures will be collecting water for decades to come.

Doug Graber Neufeld directs the Center for Sustainable Climate Solutions at Eastern Mennonite University. James Kanyari is food security field officer for MCC Kenya.

---

Learn more

Ertsen, Maurits and Rolf Hut. “Two Waterfalls Do Not Hear Each Other: Sand-Storage
Dams, Science and Sustainable Development in Kenya.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. 34/1-2 (2009): 14-22. Abstract available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474706508000661.

Graber Neufeld, Doug. “Sand Dams: Providing Clean Water?” Intersections: MCC Theory and Practice Quarterly. 7/1 (Winter 2019): 14-16. Available at https://mccintersections.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/sand-damsproviding-clean-water/.

Graber Neufeld, Doug. “Food Security Strategies in Kenya.” Intersections: MCC Theory
and Practice Quarterly. 4/2 (2016): 8-9. Available at https://mccintersections.wordpress.
com/2016/05/02/food-securitystrategies-in-kenya/.

Kamuya, Kevin M. and Rand Carpenter. “Drought Mitigation in Kenya.” Intersections: MCC Theory and Practice Quarterly. 2/4 (Fall 2014): 4-5. https://mccintersections.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/droughtmitigation-in-kenya/.

Ryan, Catherine and Paul Elsner. “The Potential for Sand Dams to Increase the Adaptive Capacity of East African Drylands to Climate Change.” Regional Environmental Change. 16/7 (2016): 2087-2096. Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-016-
0938-y.

Food security strategies in Kenya

In the semi-arid region of Machakos County, Kenya, poor soil quality, population growth and shifting climate patterns make managing natural resources for food security a continual challenge. Kenyan organizations such as Utooni Development Organization (UDO), an MCC partner, are dedicated to promoting strategies for sustainable livelihoods under these conditions. UDO is known for promoting sand dams as a method of water harvesting, but also implements a range of programs designed to improve food security. MCC and Canadian Foodgrains Bank (CFGB) recently partnered with UDO on an extensive review of its programming to assess program impact and to identify factors associated with the successful adoption of strategies promoted by UDO. Building on the findings of that review, this article will argue that farmer ownership (or lack thereof) was the key factor in the success or failure of specific food security strategies promoted by UDO.

The UDO evaluation analyzed six food security strategies promoted by UDO: water harvesting through sand dams and terraces, drought-tolerant grain crops, agroforestry, livestock production and irrigation. The review affirmed the overall impact that UDO’s community-based approach has had on local communities and identified clear successes. For instance, villagers on average reported an increase in food security by 2.7 months due to UDO activities. Joyce Musyoka of the Kulunga Self Help Group tells a typical story illustrating the impact of sand dams on food security and gender roles: “before [the sand dam] I had to travel four hours every day to fetch water, and the amount I was able to fetch was not enough to cover our family needs.” Of course, the review also found that some UDO strategies, such as terracing and drought-tolerant crops, did not result in wide-spread adoption.

The review identified interesting variations in how a sense of ownership plays a key role in the successful adoption and impact of these different food security strategies. For example, the review found that in some cases projects that did not include the free distribution of external inputs (e.g. seeds) experienced greater success than projects that did distribute such inputs. This lesson was exemplified by the difference between the clearer successes of agroforestry strategies and the more ambiguous results of drought-tolerant crops and terracing. Communities spontaneously adopted a strategy of planting fruit trees and reforestation, despite very limited inputs. Indeed, the review found encouraging evidence of a high level of seed collection, seedling production, tree grafting and the establishment of orchards thanks to UDO activities. Planting of drought-tolerant crops, on the other hand, relied on a greater input strategy. Most farmers depended on free seed from UDO, rather than planting saved seed or purchasing new seed, and were not passionate about continuing to grow these crops. Likewise, with improved terracing practices, farmers readily improved terraces as part of food-for-work programs, but farmer enthusiasm did not continue once these food-for-work efforts ceased, and terraces often later fell into disrepair. Interestingly, farmers readily acknowledged that terraces improved yields and yet were not invested in continuing the practice in the absence of external inputs. Clearly the success of particular technologies was related to how motivated farmers were to personally invest in the practice. While I argue here that farmer investment can sometimes be adversely affected by input-intensive strategies, further study is required to explore other possible factors including farmer seed preferences, extension practices, household labour, market availability of seed and purchasing power.

Sand dam projects present a different strategy for encouraging a sense of ownership. Although UDO provides materials for sand dam construction, along with technical guidance on siting and design, communities must organize the construction event, provide the labor for dam construction, and together establish the guidelines for the sand dam’s use. Communities thus feel ownership of the dams and are motivated to use the dams to improve their livelihoods. For instance, farmers experiment on ways to take advantage of increased groundwater for cropping along the banks. Thus, sand dams are “adopted” in the sense that they are heavily utilized, a result which derives from the particular way they are implemented through a process of group investment. The review therefore noted a crucial difference among UDO projects with regards to inputs, but a common strategy with regard to promoting a sense of ownership. Whereas a practice like agro-forestry can be self-sustaining without external inputs, this is unlikely to happen with sand dams, which have high upfront costs.

Encouraging a sense of ownership can heighten certain challenges associated with communal resource management. For instance, because sand dams are communal endeavors, they are susceptible to conflicts or mismanagement of a limited resource (water from the dams will run out if overused). Communities must manage water resources in such a way as to avoid a “tragedy of the commons,” wherein individuals maximizing use of resources for themselves might compromise the long-term sustainability of the resource itself. For instance, a farmer’s livestock also benefits from water availability at sand dams, but the presence of livestock (and in particular their waste) can easily contaminate water supplies that impact the entire community.

A further challenge is that resource management conflicts can be heightened by the fact that available water benefits both users who invested time and labor in sand dam construction and users who did not help. As a result, users sometimes feel that the benefits are not equitably distributed according to the effort invested in the project. Conflict over ownership of the resource also occurs external to the community, most notably as the region is the primary source for sand needed to make concrete for the booming construction industry of nearby Nairobi. Sand dams are easy sources for trucks to harvest sand, with unscrupulous actors either taking the sand without consulting the community or negotiating with some (but usually not all) members of the community to extract this resource. In all these situations, an increased sense of ownership has the potential to heighten tensions over natural resources.

Climate change is already a reality in Machakos, as farmers are quick to explain how long-term rainfall patterns have changed, disrupting their farming practices. Evaluations such as the review of UDO’s efforts become all the more important as a means to pause and take stock of what strategies will effectively increase the resilience of communities to changing circumstances.

Doug Graber Neufeld is a water and livelihoods advisor with MCC in Nairobi, Kenya.

Learn more:

Canadian Foodgrains Bank. Video: “Dancing on Water: Sand Dams in Kenya.” (2011). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZhG_vxLCR8

Cruickshank, Abby. “These Are Our Water Pipes, Sand Dams, Women and Donkeys—Dealing with Water Scarcity in Kenya’s Arid and Semi-Arid Lands.” (2010) Available at: http://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/13781/Abby_Cruickshank_MRP.pdf?sequence=1

Ertsen, M., and Hut, R. “Two Waterfalls Do Not Hear Each Other: Sand-Storage Dams, Science and Sustainable Development in Kenya.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 34 (2009): 14–22.

Teel, Wayne. “The Impact of Sand Dams on Community Development in Semi-Arid Agricultural Areas in Kenya.” Utooni Development Organization (2011). Available at: http://www.utoonidevelopment.org/resources/research/teel-wayne-s-2011-aug-31/