Water planners ignore gender issues in Nepal

Women play a central role in the management, storage and use of water. Water sector agencies need to move beyond rhetorical commitments to positive action and address gender issues in everything they do. Water projects without strategic plans to overcome gender inequalities can reinforce existing power relations.

Researchers from ActionAid Nepal assessed rural water projects implemented bya bilateral project, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and the government.In Nepal, women have lower status, heavier workloads, a poorer diet and feweropportunities for education than men. The researchers highlight the need foragencies to promote gender mainstreaming – the integration of gender analysesin all policies, planning and organisational practices.

Although the NGO wasmore gender sensitive than the others, patriarchal values were found in allagencies. Male staff believe they can represent womenand their needs. Predominantly male recruitment panels interview the few womenwho apply for jobs. Hardly any women are employed as technicians or engineers.Female staff receive no childcare support during fieldvisits. In the absence of procedures, individual female staffhave to negotiate time off for breastfeeding or fulfilling household andcommunity responsibilities

Water sectorprofessionals do not understand or welcome the prospect of introducing genderanalysis into their work. They recognise rural women’s participation isimportant, because they can provide labour during construction, play a role inmaintenance and promote improved hygiene. However, few see opportunities toempower women through water projects.

Agencies expresscommitment to ‘the community’ and ‘users’ but fail to differentiate needs andpower of men and women. As a result, men get more benefits and women’sworkloads sometimes increase. Projects fail to improve the status, confidenceand profile of women or challenge stereotypical gender roles. Women’s voicesare barely heard and their needs and views do not shape policies or practice.Pressure from external funders is inconsistent asthey do not systematically prioritise gender.

The author showsthat:

• All theagencies required significant numbers of community members to formally requestprojects, but were not concerned that all the applicants were male.
• In thebilateral and government projects, there were only one or two women – butaround 12 men – working on community water user committees.
• Becausewomen were not involved, facilities were often badly sited: women had to carrywater home for private washing from inappropriately sited, exposed sources.
• Poorwomen were forced to go back to using traditional, unhygienic and distant watersources.

A betterunderstanding of the social context of water use is vital. Institutions workingin the water sector, including donors and governments, must:

• reviewtheir recruitment and employment procedures
• abandonthe assumption that water is a technical sector and that men are thereforebetter equipped than women to implement projects
• positivelydiscriminate in favour of women employees and provide them with better workingconditions, on-the-job training and scholarships
• tackleculturally-entrenched male dominance by gender awareness campaigns with bothsexes
• ensure thatprojects identify, and then attempt to address, the traditional gender divisionof labour.