Conventionally, men are seen to be responsible for productive work, and women essentially are responsible for non-productive work. In the context of irrigation, as a result, men are seen as the best representation of water-related interests and needs of the household at the community level. However, this idea is based on a model that completely separate household activities into the public and the private. While in reality, women work as 'co-farmers' helping with irrigation of main crops as well as watering livestock, irrigating the homestead and using water for cooking, health and sanitation. (Meizen-Dick and Zwarteveen, 1998)
It is important to recognize women as important users of water. However, it is very common for women to be excluded in water management projects across all levels. (Guerquin et al., 2003) Women's lack of participation in water management projects compared to men may lead to different priorities for public investments whereby topics such as irrigation will be better represented and more knowledgeably discussed in community meetings. (Crow and Sultanan, 2002)
Women's lack of participation is due to various reasons: here are some examples:
1) the lack of suitable timing for community meetings. For example, some community meetings are at night time whereby it is unsafe/unsuitable for women to go out.
2) the need to engage in other productive work.
3) illiteracy impedes them from participating.
4) common norms whereby men are traditionally engaged in public activities while women are confined to their homestead.
5) negotiations are commonly held between landowners (resource owners, head of households) which is predominantly held by men. In cases of men
However, research has shown that women's participation in water supply projects will significantly increase the effectiveness and sustainability of the projects. (Nishimoto, 2003). The exclusion of women in the projects will not only delay the delivery of the benefits but also negatively affect equity and institutional efficiency. (Meizen-Dick and Zwarteveen, 1997).
In the Maimur project in Kenya, women participated in the water management project informed by holding informal meetings at various springs as they drew water. These women argued for improved water supply by separating water points for livestock and human use. Later on, they also urged their husbands to protect the spring head and water pumps. They helped raise registration fees and funds. Women were requested to volunteer where they would prepare meals, and would undertake duties if their husbands were absent such as digging, trenching. These women were not formal members of the negotiation process, but all men in the projects recognised the importance of women's participation in the project. Due to women's involvement, they improved the speed and efficiency of the implementation process. (Were et al. 2008)
Reference:
Crow, Ben, and Farhana Sultana. 'Gender, Class, And Access To Water: Three Cases In A Poor And Crowded Delta'. Society & Natural Resources 15.8 (2002): 709-724. Web.
Guerquin, François. World Water Actions : Making Water Flow For All. London [etc.]: Earthscan [etc.], 2003. Print.
Meinzen-Dick, R, and M Zwarteveen. 'Gendered Participation In Water Management: Issues And Illustrations From Water Users’ Associations In South Asia.'. Paper prepared for Women and WaterWorkshop International Irrigation Management Institute (1997): n. pag. Print.
Were, Elizabeth, Jessica Roy, and Brent Swallow. 'Local Organisation And Gender In Water Management: A Case Study From The Kenya Highlands'. Journal of International Development 20.1 (2008): 69-81. Web.
Link:
Were et al. 2008
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/doi/10.1002/jid.1428/epdf
This is a great set of blog posts – very nuanced discussions, and you have done a excellent job supporting your arguments with complementary, and well-referenced literature. You have made an excellent and clear point at the beginning that gender inequalities are more complex that differentiated access to water resources, including things such as productive/reproductive labor roles, and access to resources such as land / tenure.
ReplyDeleteFrancis Cleaver (cited in your first blog) has written extensively on some of these more ‘informal’ or intangible social norms, and how that continues to perpetuate inequalities in natural resource management even when ‘on paper’ gender inclusion has been achieved by trying to address some of the challenges addressed in your third blog, including the proper timing of meetings, or inviting women to project design meetings. It might be interesting for you to explore this angle further as you continue...