沙漠研究 19-1, 1- 3 (2009 )Journal of Arid Land Studies“Desert Technology IX ”
Refereed Paper

Learning from the Desert
Mary SEELY1, Patrik KLINTENBERG2, Johannes HENSCHEL3
Abstract: Many lessons can be learned from research in deserts whether they concern earth
history, arid ecology, human adaptations, changing environments or application of technologies.
Several key lessons stand out. These include the essential role of a communication platform
to enhance understanding and knowledge exchange among scientists, communities living in thedeserts and policy makers influencing implementation. Another key lesson to be learned froma variable environment is that identifying technology applications is easy, while ensuring
acceptance and appropriate management is the challenge.
Keywords: Appropriate management, Communication platform, Variable environment

1. Introduction
Deserts have attracted scientists for centuries. They followed in the footsteps of the many people
who lived in and around deserts for millennia. The earliest inhabitants in deserts used resources in amanner that is now known as hunting and gathering. This meant that they had the essential knowledge
and were well attuned to variable rainfall and the resultant growth patterns of plants and animals as well as
ephemeral sources of water (Seely, 2006).
Today, instead of being mobile hunters and gatherers, most desert dwellers are either semi-nomadicor sedentary, occupying localities for shorter or longer periods of time where water and other necessary
resources are available if not abundant. With growing populations, this has meant introduction of avariety of management approaches and innovative technologies to sustain livelihoods. This review
provides several examples of innovative management and technology developments introduced in deserts
and the lessons they have taught those supporting or using them.
2. Materials and Methods
This keynote paper presents an overview of a variety of experiences of learning from deserts in
Namibia and surrounding countries. The methodologies are presented in detail in the publications cited(Henschel, 2007; Klintenberg et al., 2007; Manning and Seely, 2005; Mtuleni et al., 1998; Seely, 2006;
Seely et al., 2008; Stringer et al., 2007).
A common element in all methodologies was the involvement of local communities in all stages ofresearch and technology application activities ranging from problem identification, planning the objectivesof the research and technology applications to gathering of data, monitoring, discussion and interpretationof the results and outcomes. The commonalities of these diverse research and application activities
include:- investigations of the existing biophysical and socio-economic situation, technical designs,
technology options and experiences of technology applications in similar situations,- mobilization of communities for introductory discussions and planning of research andtechnology implementation,- in-depth discussions and planning with user communities concerning, inter alia as appropriate:
community organization and institutions, management, ownership, benefits, monitoring andevaluation, support systems, location, construction, maintenance, usage, job opportunities, costand funding sources, security,- ongoing documentation from community, research and technology application perspectives formonitoring, evaluation and adjustment, and- ongoing focus to integrate policy and decision makers at all levels of research and technology
application.
1DRFN Associate, P O Box 20232, Windhoek, Namibia, E-mail: mary.seely@drfn.org.naDRFN, P O Box 20232, Windhoek, Namibia, E-mail: patrik.klintenberg@drfn.org.na
3
Gobabeb Training and Research Centre, P O Box 953, Walvis Bay, Namibia, E-mail: joh.henschel@gobabeb.org
22

3. Results and Discussion
Two pivotal management approaches have been introduced to local rural communities in Namibia,
the Forum for Integrated Resource Management (FIRM) and local, farmer driven monitoring of theenvironment (LLM). FIRM was developed to strengthen community-based organisations’ abilities toplan and make informed decisions together with their service providers. In terms of rangeland and watermanagement, the Forum for Integrated Resource Management (FIRM) has been tested with six
communities and an estimated 500 people and 20 different service organizations (Klintenberg et al., 2007).
The result of this intervention has enhanced these communities’ capacity to take the lead in theirdevelopment, although with variable success. Five of these communities and approximately 80 people
have used the local level monitoring approach. The LLM system used is based on measurements andobservations of rainfall, livestock condition, rangeland condition and bush encroachment as indicators ofrangeland productivity. Application of these management and monitoring approaches to rangeland andwater resource use in arid areas has been shown to contribute to enhanced livelihoods and environmental
sustainability (Klintenberg et al., 2007).
As part of an ongoing project to support Integrated Water Resource Management in central northernNamibia, aimed at improving supply of fresh water to selected farming communities, a review ofdesalination experiences was undertaken (von Oertzen and Schultz, 2008). Based on information fromnine different large and small-scale desalination plants operated in southern Africa, a number of key
lessons were learned. To successfully introduce village-level desalination, six key issues requiringconsideration were identified.
· For future village-scale plants situated in remote areas, the question of who owns the plant and isresponsible for its operation and upkeep needs to be addressed in the early planning. The example ofwater point committees formed to manage rural water points could be followed. Roles andresponsibilities must be clarified amongst service providers and users and the degree ofdecentralization established· User needs and expectations require attention. Affordability and willingness to pay depend on theuser’s priorities and long-term acceptance of the technology.
· Managerial, technical and operational capacity to support the technology is essential. Retention oftrained staff is difficult and absence of local capacity results in dependence on service providers.
· Ongoing maintenance is also dependent on capacity but also access to spare parts, tools and know how.
Support from service providers should be at a level affordable to the community while maintaining
plant operation.
· Energy requirements are an important consideration whether on or off grid. Theft of off grid energy
sources, especially solar panels, is a key consideration together with maintenance capacity.
· Upfront and long-term costs are a key consideration when technology is used in deserts and other arid
environments. If the cost of water from sophisticated desalination plants is higher than people areused to, subsidies or cross-subsidies must be considered.
With respect to fog water harvesting in the Namib desert, at a series of sites situated up toapproximately 70 km from the coast, it was found that on average, throughout the year, 1 litre per square
meter per day of fog water can be collected. The maximum amount in one day was over 15 litres persquare meter of fog screen (Henschel, 2007; Mtuleni et al., 1998). These quantities of fog water far
exceed the amount of rainfall received in this area, which is less than 20 mm per annum. It was foundthat several fog-collecting screens of 50 m2 each connected to a reservoir would provide as much as 50%of the water needs of the small rural settlements living in the desert, each with approximately 30 residents.
The availability of fog varies seasonally, however, and fog can only serve as part of a water supply hybrid
system in which groundwater sources are continuing to play a central role. Experience has shown that fog
water supply systems require relatively simple technology and low-cost materials, but require constantattention by a resident caretaker. Community members are capable of taking care of the daily operation
but wear and tear of the infrastructure due to frequent sandstorms turned out to be very challenging.
Although the quantity of water available is sufficient for domestic use, the quality of water requires furthermanagement or sophisticated technology applications. For instance, the variable salinity of the fog water
washed from the fog screens requires further treatment to ensure potability. In combination with the3difficulties experienced with durability of materials, the need to treat the water placed this technology
beyond the managerial and financial capability of the rural community.
4. Conclusions
Extensive experience with community mobilization and integration of service providers to enhance
rangeland management indicates that the more coherent the community organization is the greater thecapacity available to take up innovations, whether they be management oriented or technology based(Klintenberg et al., 2007; Manning and Seely, 2005; von Oertzen and Schultz, 2008). This coherency
also provides the platform upon which communication with researchers or providers of innovations andwith relevant policy makers is carried out (Seely and Klintenberg, 2006; Seely et al., 2008). Community
based formulation of management plans and indicators to be used to track implementation of innovations
and learning outcomes is also an essential element (Klintenberg and Seely, 2005; Klintenberg et al., 2007).
Similarly, experience with fog harvesting and introduction of technology into the community revealed
that development and elaboration of the technology is not the obstacle (Henschel, 2007). Instead, themain hindrance to implementation is the involvement of the community to ensure potable water. This
research indicated that either a highly sophisticated technology is required so that little or no management
is required by the beneficiary community or enhanced, hands-on management is required that does notnecessarily fit into the current livelihoods of the community.
The challenges experienced with these technologies are being addressed with further studies andfurther analyses of the technology – community interface. It is clear, however, that identifying
appropriate technologies for application in deserts together with the beneficiaries is comparatively easy
while ensuring their acceptance and appropriate management is the key challenge.
References
Henschel J.R. (2007): Experiences and lessons learnt from ICS and long term environmental monitoring: pp 54-69. In Enne G.,
Yeroyanni M. eds., AIDCCD- Active exchange of experience on indicators and development of perspectives in the context of UNCCD;
Role of information circulation systems in scientific and practical approaches to combat desertification, Centro Interdipartimentale
di Ateneo Nucleo Ricerca Desertificazione, Sassari, Italy, 277 pp.
Klintenberg P., Kruger A.S., Seely M. (2007): Community driven local level monitoring: recording environmental change to support
multi-level decision-making in Namibia. Sécheresse, 18(4): 336-341.
Klintenberg P., Seely M. (2005): State of the art on existing indicators and their use for desertification monitoring and CCD implementation
in southern Africa, pp 95-139. In Enne G., Yeroyanni M. eds., AIDCCD- Active exchange of experience on indicators anddevelopment of perspectives in the context of UNCCD. Centro Interdipartimentale di Ateneo Nucleo Ricerca Desertificazione, Sassari,Italy, 350 pp.
Manning N., Seely M.K. (2005): Forum for Integrated Resource Management (FIRM) in Ephemeral Basins: Putting communities atthe centre of the basin management process. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 30: 886-893.
Mtuleni V., Henschel J.R., Seely, M.K. (1998): Evaluation of fog-harvesting potential in Namibia. pp 179-182. In Schemenauer R.S.,
Bridgman H. eds., Science, Sustainable Forestry, Development, Vancouver, Canada. International Development Research Centre(IDRC). 492 pp
Seely M. (2006): People and deserts, pp 27-47. In Ezcurra E. ed., Global Deserts Outlook. United Nations Environment Programme,Nairobi, 148 pp.
Seely M., Dirkx E., Hager C., Klintenberg P., Roberts C., von Oertzen D. (2008): Advances in desertification and climate change
research: Are they accessible for application to enhance adaptive capacity? Global and Planetary Change, 64: 236-243.
Seely M., Klintenberg P. (2007): Can information circulation contribute to combating desertification? pp 13-23. In Enne G., YeroyanniM. eds., AIDCCD- Active exchange of experience on indicators and development of perspectives in the context of UNCCD; Role ofinformation circulation systems in scientific and practical approaches to combat desertification. Centro Interdipartimentale diAteneo Nucleo Ricerca Desertificazione, Sassari, Italy, 277 pp.
Seely M., Klintenberg P., Kruger A.S. (2008): The unmet challenge of connecting scientific research with community action, pp 687697. In Lee C., Schaaf T. eds., The Future of Drylands. UNESCO, Springer, The Netherlands, 855 pp.
Stringer L.C., Reed M.S., Dougill A.J., Seely M.K., Rokitzki M. (2007): Implementing the UNCCD: participatory challenges. NaturalResource Forum, 31: 198-211.
von Oertzen D., Schultz R. (2008): Village-scale and solar desalination technology experience in Namibia. CuveWaters Workshop on
Village-level Solar-powered Desalination, DRFN, Windhoek, Namibia, 25 April 2008.