Exploring the water-gender interface: do domestic water projects really empower women?

Development agencies routinely assert that community water projects have positive gender outcomes. Does the claim stand up? Is water sector policy based on assumptions or on evidence? Why do gender theorists and water sector practitioners not see eye to eye? How should we evaluate women’s empowerment and involvement in water projects?

Reports from research at the University of Southampton’s Institute of Irrigation and Development Studies (IIDS), and a workshop which brought together specialists to explore the complex links between water and gender, argue that the domestic water sector has a poor understanding of the concept of gender. The sector’s interpretation of gender does not stand up to examination against gender theory or assessment of gender inequality in reality. Gender is often in the plans but disappears in the details. Claims of gender success inthat water projects empower women may keep donors happy, but are rarely grounded in fact. The reports argue that agencies do not analyse how caste, class, religion and other aspects of social difference determine the extent of heterogeneity amongst women and men. Gender issues in water projects are rarely analysed or addressed beyond the community of water-users. It is assumed that water organisations are either gender-neutral or inherently gender-aware. There is little gender analys

Evidence from India and Nepal suggests that agencies often define participation as involvement in externally conceived projects via contributions and benefits. Roles assigned to women are not usually empowering and are only rarely sustained when external support is withdrawn.

The reports argue that agencies do not analyse how caste, class, religion and other aspects of social difference determine the extent to which women can participate or are excluded from water projects. Solely directing hygiene education at women may perpetuate inequality and reinforce perceptions that their ‘natural’ role is as home caretakers. Few schemes bother to tackle the social barriers which cause unequal access to and control of resources and responsibilities between women and menlk with men on the need to allow women to get involved.. The onus is on women to break the barriers of culture and tradition.

The argument that water schemes free up women to engage in productive enterprises is refuted. There is inadequate evidence from the field thatAny time is actually saved or that this can be converted into achieving sustained economic gains.is usually spent in attending meetings, cleaning and maintaining standposts, collecting user fees or otherwise doing unpaid labour to achieve planners’ desires to drive down project costs. Despite the multiple household needs for water, water schemes are often designed solely to deliver ‘safe drinking water’. Projects do not take account of the time spent by women in attending meetings, cleaning and maintaining standposts, collecting user fees or otherwise doing unpaid work to achieve planners’ desires to drive down project costs.

Other key points which emerge include:

• The World Bank and other adherents of the rhetoric of demand- driven provision does not adequately capture the complex reality of demand, and thus does not appropriately address household water needs.have not realised that t The focus on water as an economic good, and emphasis on cost recovery, risks, excludinges the poorest women.
• Mmeasurement of the success of water provision continues to focus on technical performance.
• There is a serious lack of field level data that captures the realities of gender and poverty relations with water needs and uses.available to the water sector.
• There has been inadequate analysis of gender issues in water organisations and water-related policies.
• It is simplistic to assume that hygiene education and improved supply and quality of water will necessarily result in improvements in health.

Agencies and donors in the water sector are urged to:

• realise there is no such thing as gender-neutral service provision
• be aware that women bear an unequal share of water-related burdens at home and have little authority over design and management of water schemes, and yet, on their own, they are unable to make meaningful changes in these roles and responsibilities
• be equally aware of the social realities in the communities in which they are working and understand that the community is not a homogeneous unit and that certain women and men are moreendeavour to bring about real changes in the lives of both marginalisedmarginalised than others men and women
• analyse the inequalities, inequities, and assumptions in their own agency’s values, principles, structures and practices
• be realistic in setting targets and goals: in the short 3-4 year life span of water projects can social attitudes be radically transformed?
• consider the amenity value of water: taste, temperature and smell can influence choice of which source to useconsider whether the technology they are introducing can realistically be managed and maintained by communities, if the emphasis is on handing over operation and maintenance to users..

Source(s):
‘Water projects and women’s empowerment’ by Deepa Joshi and Ben Fawcett. Paper presented at the 27th WEDC Conference, Lusaka, Zambia, August 2001 Full document.
‘Report of a workshop on water and gender’ by Tina Wallace. Workshop held in Oxford, UK, 4 October 2001. Unpublished.

Funded by: DFID (IUDD)

id21 Research Highlight: 28 June 2002

Further Information:
Ben Fawcett and Deepa Joshi
Institute of Irrigation and Development Studies
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Southampton
Highfield
Southampton SO17 1BJ
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 23 80 592793
Fax: +44 (0) 23 80 677519
Contact the contributor: bnf@soton.ac.uk

Contact the contributor: D.joshi@soton.ac.uk

IIDS, University of Southampton, UK

Other related links:
'It just won’t wash - why hygiene education for women fails'

'Much to be done: can water supply and sanitation targets be met?'

'Why do water projects go wrong? Lessons from Africa'

WELL is a resource centre promoting environmental health and well-being

UNICEF focuses on Water, the Environment and Sanitation

IWMI supports better management of water resources

IRC features research on low-cost water supply and gender equity