1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 50, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 265, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': "INERA Institut de l'environnement et de recherches agricoles (INERA Institut de l'environnement et de recherches agricoles) - Burkina Faso", 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A modern hydraulic complex in the centre of the Sahelian region of Burkina Faso for watering livestock in the dry season.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The well called 'Forage Christine' was constructed in 1971 by a French engineer, which named it after his wife, and opened it for the first time in 1972. Due to conflicts between Burkina and Mali it was ruined in 1976, and then again in 1985. In 1996 the National Office for Wells and Boreholes (ONFP), a government agency, rehabilitated the well and made two supplementary boreholes. The complex consists of a main well with an operating flow rate of 120 m3/h, having a submersible pump of brand KSB, type OPA 150s-65/8, and a pump capacity of 60 m3/h. Next to the main well there is a secondary well, which is equipped with a hand-operated pump with a capacity of 18 m3/h.
The energy for pumping water from the wells is provided by a generator with an engine of brand DEUTZ (type: F3 - 6L 912) and a switch of brand LEROY SOMER – Type LSA 42.1 L8L C1/4, a voltage of 400 V and continuous power of 50 kW. The generator has a switch and a battery. A diesel tank with a volume of approximately 9 m3 was installed for the power supply to the generator. The pumped water is stored in an elevated water tank, which is located at a distance of about 200 m from the well, and has a volume of 50 m3. The water from the elevated water tank is distributed to four artificial ponds with a dimension of 50 m x 50 m x 1.5 m at equal distances on all sides of the central reservoir. The water is conducted to the artificial ponds through PVC piping, which is buried underground over a distance of 8 km, or 2 km for each pond. The water flow is controlled by nine valves of type Nr. 4000, Reg. Nr. W 1.129, installed on the pipes. The hydraulic complex was installed in 1996 by the National Agency for Water and Sanitation (ONEA). The complex is managed by the livestock keepers through the User Association of 'Forage Christine' (AUFC). The statutes of this organisation were adopted on 2 May 2014. The well is managed according to a set of requirements which specify the terms for access to water: date of opening and closure of the well, the amount to be paid per animal and the management of the cash money provided.
'Forage Christine' is a major water infrastructure, established in the northern part of the Sahel region in Burkina Faso between longitude 0°45’W and latitude 14°48’N, providing drinking water to herds within an area of 100 to 300 km from its central location between Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. It was established in 1971 in the context of major droughts that had affected the Sahel, and it was opened for the first time in 1972. It is located in the middle of the Sahel region of Burkina Faso, at two km from the pond of Tin-Arkachen in the department of Déou, at approximately 45 km from the capital of the department, and 85 km from Gorom-Gorom. At the sub-regional level, the well is a around ten km from the border with Mali, and at 100 km from the border with Niger. The climate is of Sahelian type, and has a rainy season of 3 to 4 months (from June-July to September), which is subject to strong temporal and spatial variations in precipitation, and a dry season of 8 to 9 months. The climatic conditions are characterized by highly irregular winds, precipitation, evapotranspiration and moisture due to fluctuations in atmospheric circulation patterns. Annual precipitation is around 500 mm on average, with roughly 30 rainy days, and is marked by significant inter-annual variations. The stream network of the region consists of several streams, with one permanent river: Béli. To this river, ponds and many depressions are connected, which disappear after the month of January. The soils are very diverse in general, and mostly of sandy texture. They do not provide a good medium for plant growth due to the low permeability, which reduces water infiltration. Therefore water availability appears to be one of the major limitations for rainfed agriculture, in addition to the limited retention and availability of nutrients. According to the phytogeographic division of Burkina Faso (Fontes and Guinko, 1995), the area of 'Forage Christine' is situated in the northern or strict Sahelian phytogeographic sector. This sector is characterized by a set of typical Saharan and Sahelian vegetation species which mainly occur in shrub and woody steppes (48.85%) and grassy steppes (24.37%), which form the larger part of the rangelands (***). This vegetation provides the most important natural grazing land to livestock.
With regard to the human environment, the last General Population and Housing Census mentions a population of 25321 inhabitants for the municipality of Déou. Yet this number varies significantly due to the seasonal migration of people from other regions to use water and forage resources. The ethnic groups in the region are mainly Fulbé, Kurumba, Songhai, Tuareg, Mossi and Hausa people.
Economic activities in the region are livestock keeping, farming, craftmanship, fishing, trade, tourism and hunting. Several socio-economic groups are guiding these activities. Some 60 farmer groups, 53 groups of livestock keepers, six of which for female livestock keepers, and three organisations for environmental protection. With regard to infrastructure for education, sanitation and socio-economical conditions, the municipality of Déou has three markets, 18 schools, one middle school, 47 permanent functional literacy centers (CPAF), one recreation center, six cereal banks, three healthcare and welfare centers (CSPS), three medical stores, one tourist camp and one financial institution.
Farming and livestock keeping continue to be the most important socio-economic activities. The agricultural crops produced include millet, sorghum, maize, cowpea, rice and groundnut. In 2009, a total area of 345.5 ha was sown for these crops. The Sahel region in Burkina Faso has excellent conditions for livestock keeping. The animal species found in the region are mainly cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, camels, donkeys and horses and poultry. Several facilities and installations for water supply to pastoral areas are available in the region, as well as storage facilities for agricultural and agro-industrial by-products (SPAI) and infrastructure for trade and animal health care. The municipality of Déou disposes of one reservoir, five artificial ponds, 43 firm wells, ten vaccination centers, one store for agricultural and agro-industrial by-products (SPAI), one animal shelter, a facility for slaughtering and a livestock market.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

1971

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

A French aid worker introduced the technology with support from the government of Burkina Faso, through the National Agency for Water and Sanitation (ONEA).

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

Comments:

In addition to livestock keeping, subsistence farming is practiced. The main crops are sorghum, millet, groundnut and cowpea. The size of the fields varies between 0.5 and 3 ha. The farm type is family-based.
Animal species: cattle, sheep, camels, donkeys and goats.

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• ground water management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

The technology aims to remediate water scarcity for livestock during the dry season.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

FCFA

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

550.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Main well
2.	Elevated water storage tank
3.	Artificial ponds

Comments:

Not evaluated.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Not applicable.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Use of diesel	year
2.	Use of oil and filters	year
3.	Periodic maintenance of the generator	year
4.	Fuel delivery	year
5.	Transport costs of the maintenance operator	year
6.	Wage of the guard	year
7.	Compensation of the manager of the generator	year
8.	Charges for accounting	year

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Periodic maintenance of the generator	season	1.0	150000.0	150000.0
Labour	Compensation of the GE manager	person-month	12.0	37500.0	450000.0
Labour	Charges for accounting	person-month	12.0	175.0	2100.0
Labour	Wage of the guard	person-month	12.0	50000.0	600000.0
Other	Use of diesel	season	1.0	2921000.0	2921000.0
Other	Use of oil, filters	season	1.0	68000.0	68000.0
Other	Reparations to the hydraulic complex	season
Other	Fuel delivery	season	1.0	125000.0	125000.0
Other	Transport costs of maintenance operator	season	1.0	60000.0	60000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					4376100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					7956.55

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The municipality, the management committee and the NGOs operating in the area (SNV).

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

1. Availability of fuel for the generator.
2. Failures in the functioning of the generator to fill the storage tanks.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

The soils are very diverse in general, and mostly of sandy texture. They do not provide a good medium for plant growth due to the low permeability, which reduces water infiltration.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Limited water availability appears to be one of the major limitations for rainfed agriculture, in addition to the low retention and availability of nutrients.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The area around the 'Forage Christine' is characterized by a variety of typical Saharan and Sahelian vegetation units which mainly occur in shrub and woody steppes (48.85%) and grassy steppes (24.37%), and which form the larger part of the rangelands.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Several socio-economic groups are guiding the activities of land users. These include 60 farmer groups, 53 groups of livestock keepers, six of which for female livestock keepers, and three organisations for environmental protection.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• state
• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	very well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

Comments:

Not applicable

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Existence of a temporary coordinating committee on the site of the well, acting as an interface between the authorities and the livestock keepers using the well.
The arrangement of the use of the artificial ponds according to the terms set by the authorities and the technical services.
Monitoring of animal health and informing the livestock keeping service in case of suspected infectious diseases.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Water availability and access to water for users when the well is operational; potential users are willing to contribute to the operation of the well.
Water availability for livestock.
Strong involvement of the authorities and the technical services in issues relating to 'Forage Christine'.
Implementation of several methods to solve management problems.
Good organisation of the management of the water source.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of transparency in the use and management of contributions intended to cover the functioning and the maintenance of the generator and the wage of the guard, who also operates the generator and supervises the related installations.	Good functioning of the management committee and committee meetings will enable to overcome this disadvantage.
A low level of representation of the different population groups in the management committee (only the Djelgobé of Gandéfabou are members; these people settled in the area in Boula and claim to be the indigenous people in the area).	Involving all groups using the well more closely in order to have an appropriate representative in the management committee.
Lack of consultation between the management committee and the livestock keepers having their residence in the area.	Stimulating the management committee to communicate more closely with the neighboring livestock keepers through a framework for consultation on the way in which they manage the infrastructure of the 'Forage Christine'.
Insufficient awareness of the roles and responsibilities of the management committee by the livestock keepers (only the role of the guard is known to the livestock keepers).
The undemocratic establishment of the management committee (self-appointed members), which explains why livestock keepers consider the committee as an imposed structure.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The non-involvement of livestock keepers (potential users) in the management of the well in some management methods (concession to RMC); their weak involvement in the management of the well, and their continued low representation in the committees (2 to 3 persons).	Involving livestock keepers more closely in the management committees and in the decision-making bodies related to 'Forage Christine'. Increasing the number of representatives of livestock keepers in the management bodies of the well.
The failure to address the concerns of livestock keepers in the implementation of the management methods.	Ensuring that the livestock keepers are considered by the management committee, and that they can effectively participate in the committee.
The inappropriate use of contributions from users of the well for operating the facilities of the well in a sustainable way.	Ensuring that the funds generated by the well are managed properly by the management committee.
Competition for water between humans and animals.	Providing wells or pumps for human consumption of water.
Huge inflow of animals which overgraze the area, thereby threatening the environment.	Raising awareness among livestock keepers and herders on the need to manage the natural resources properly in the area influenced by 'Forage Christine', with the aim to mitigate the environmental degradation that could result from overgrazing.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Boundaoné et al., 2015. Textes fondamentaux et outils de gestion du forage Christine, PGP-FC/GRP, SVN, 60 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

SNV, 2011. Etude pour la sécurisation des ressources foncières pastorales autour du Forage Christine dans la province de l’Oudalan. Final report, 142 p.

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

News paper article: Elevage dans le Sahel : "Christine" ou le symbole de l’hydraulique pastorale.

URL:

http://lefaso.net/spip.php?article31821