All too often, decision-makers make decisions without taking into account all the risks that are attached to the investments being made. As a result, many projects either fail or end up costing far more than anticipated. In 2012, the World Agroforestry Centre began work on developing a new intervention decision model to assess risks around the development of groundwater resources. The Wajir pipeline project in northern Kenya was taken as a case study to assess the value of this new approach.

“The research we carry out at the World Agroforestry Centre is supposed to inform and influence decision-makers, but it is often disconnected from the decision-making process,” says drylands scientist, Jan de Leeuw. “In this case, we are hoping to ensure that research becomes a key part of the decision-making process.”

Water scarcity in Wajir County, Kenya, is a serious problem. Women literally kick jerrycans as a form of transporation for this precious liquid that the ARIGA-UPGRO project studied in the past two years

During recent years, the population of Wajir has risen rapidly, placing ever-increasing pressure on the shallow aquifer that provides the town with water. To ensure a reliable supply of fresh water, plans have been made to construct a 110-km pipeline linking the town with the Merti aquifer at Habaswein. A Dutch donor, ORIO, agreed in principle to provide €35 million of financial support, and in 2012, it provided a €1 million grant to undertake feasibility studies. In 2013, researchers from the World Agroforestry Centre began to look at the hydrological, social and financial risks involved in the water supply project. “We found two broad areas of risk,” explains Jan. “First, there was a significant risk that the boreholes in Habaswein would suffer from over-extraction and could eventually run dry. Second, we identified significant financial risks, not least because the water will have to be pumped uphill from the Merti aquifer to Wajir. There is a high probability that the water company which will need to be established in Wajir could suffer negative returns.”

These findings were presented at a workshop held in Nairobi in November 2013. This was attended by representatives of both communities in an atmosphere described as “tense but polite”. The Governor of Wajir acknowledged that there was need to consult more closely with the local communities and provide them with information about the project’s intentions. He also thanked the World Agroforestry Centre for acting as a neutral player in the decision-making process.

Following the workshop, researchers from the World Agroforestry Centre and the Centre for Training in Integrated Research in ASAL Development (CETRAD), an organization with its headquarters in Nanyuki, conductedinterviews with households in and around Habaswein and in Wajir. The vast majority said they had received little or no information about the project; most of what they knew came from rumours and hearsay. Some were keenly in favour of the project, while others were opposed to it. Most agreed that they would appreciate the opportunity for a dialogue between those in favour and those against.

The findings of the social surveys were presented at a second workshop in Nairobi, held in May 2014. “One thing we found was that the lack of information led to much of the opposition to project,” says Jan. “Even in Wajir, where people stand to benefit, people want more information, especially about the cost of the project.” The chairman of the Northern Water Board told the workshops that those responsible for getting the project off the ground had only been considering the positives; they had not been thinking about the risks. “Now we need to focus on the risks and see what we can do to mitigate them,” he said.

So does this sort of research provide a model for the future? “We don’t know the outcome yet – as no decision has been made about the pipeline – but it is very rewarding to do this sort of risk management study alongside the decision-makers and other stakeholders,” says Jan. “The research has helped to change the opinions of various stakeholders, in that they now have a much better understanding of the risks involved.”