Men, women and water – how can a community improve their water supply?

Improvements to rural water supplies benefit health and economies. However, despite the availability of simple technology, many rural communities have not made changes to their water infrastructure. Social organisation is more complex than technology: negotiating water and land rights, budgeting for improvements and collectively managing a project require effective communication and skills within a community.

In western Kenya, more than half of community waterprojects fail. The past twenty years have seen little government involvement inrural water projects. The Water Act of 2002 aimed to give more attention tothis issue, but focused on encouraging private sector involvement in waterservices. It is rarely profitable for the private sector to invest in creatingnew infrastructure in rural areas, however, so this had little impact on reachingremote rural communities. For many rural communities, the only practical way toimprove the quality, quantity and seasonal availability of water is by forminga community water association (CWA).

Technologyfor rainfall collection, spring protection and for pipes to carry water is nowwidely available; why do so few communities succeed in installing them? Research from the University of California – Santa Cruz,USA, and theWorld Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) examineseight communitiesacross in WesternKenya.  Research initiated by the late Jessica Roy indicates thefollowing:

• The differences between gender roles are important. Womencollect water, so benefit most from piped water supplies, but men organise CWAs and plan infrastructure improvements, so do not alwaysconsider the needs of women.
• Women save an average of 3.5hours per week when water is piped to their homesteads. Women reportmany alternative uses for this time, including collective and individualactivities(such as activities and meetings of new women’s groups,and sellingvegetables at the market).In many cases, they use this time to grow cashcrops, which significantly increases household incomes. However, men valueprofitable activities and many do not see women’s time as profitable.
• Households with piped water intheir homesteads use about three times as much water ashouseholds who fetch water from communal springs.  Extra water is used for washingclothes and dishes, watering cattle, growing local vegetables and raising treeseedlings.
• A lack of land rights often discourages groups from investingin water supplies. Where land is government-owned, long-term access can beinsecure. Groups also have to negotiate with private landowners, when a springis on private land or pipes have to be laid across it.
• Previous negative experience of collective action, whereprojects have failed because of ineffective management and low community involvement,discourages people from creating CWAs.

Despitethese problems, successful CWAs can yield majorbenefits for still benefit a community. Where CWAs are successful, members report improved health (suchas a reduction in typhoid), saved time, greater income generation  (which is often used for otherincome generating activities), and improved community cooperationin other aspects of life. In other places, men are taking on some responsibilityfor collecting water and women are earning an income. This is helping to reducegender inequalities.

With clearbenefits from CWAs, they are worth pursuing as a watermanagement tool. The research identifies four factors necessary for successful CWAs:

• A reliable source of good quality water that is accessible tothe community, including strong and enforceable access rights to both land andwater.
• Organisational skills within a community to manage a projectand its finances, in ways that benefit the whole community, not justindividuals.
• Good access to markets and fair prices paid for cropsproduced by women.
• The ability of both men and women to negotiate their activitiesand value each other’s roles in supplying water.