Message 30: Dorothy Hamada

All the earlier contributions are a wealth of information from a wealth of resources one wonders why gender remains an issue. Permit me to 'cast my vote':

1. Why it is important to mainstream gender in water management:

1.1. If water is considered as a resource to be shared, then productive, reproductive, social sectors have to be addressed. There have already been several examples of the gender divide as well as gender similarities regarding roles in each of these sectors (men, women, children's roles in productive, reproductive, social sectors). Thus the need to consult, inform, obtain agreement from all sexes of different ages, cultures, etc.

Quoting numbers (what % of labor force, particularly unpaid labour, what % of food production, percent of rural population ....are women should be a strong and convincing argument but from my experience it is sometimes seen as a feminist advocacy tool - something like 'women are half-the-world' or the recent more aggressive form: ' population statistics show women are increasingly becoming more than half-the-world' raise shackles and barriers. We also need to think of delivering the message in a less threatening way...perhaps quoting statistics in a footnote instead of directly at the beginning of the narration?

1.2. Regarding gender in water management for agriculture, here gender roles are a direct issue and one of efficiency. One addresses who does what and makes decisions about who does what and who benefits from what. We all know the falacy of the 'trickle down theory' of men, women, children passing on to the rest what they hear, learn, decide upon. We are also familiar about the % of what one is taught one retains. If that limited percentage is passed on, the second rang of recepients retains even less. Thus the need to mainstream to understand and address similar, different, reciprocal gender roles and relationships (and not miss out).

1.3. Why not really. It's the same for many issues as J. Hoogesteger (message 13) calls "water management impacts on social interactions and structures' - the key word being social. As pointed out by many of the earlier contributors, physical science specialists think of water management as a physical issue often forgetting it's water's management that is being considered, not water per se. Therefore arguing for gender mainstreaming is like arguing the issue of north versus south, poor versus wealthy, developed versus underdeveloped, this versus that culture, this versus that religion.

2. What are the real gender issues in water management in agriculture?

2.1. This too has been well argued before me. K. Mishra (message 17) terms women's agricultural sphere as" that of small-scale, subsidiary occupations around homes". Others point to the fact that women are a very ' high percentage of the unpaid labour force in agriculture', 'grow a large % of household food requirements'. In other words, women's sphere in agriculture is the non-monitarized, non-commercial, unpaid thus need not be part of accounting or accountability, are a 'natural aspect of membership in a household (often included in the category known as domestic/ reproductive chores). Being unmonitarized, non-accountable for, women's roles in agriculture are invisible. Like the air we breathe - ' simply there naturally'.

2.2. Women's representation in almost everything, including water management, is not in the areas of power, e.g. as heads-of-households, community seats of power including councils, boards, governments (instead of cooks for meetings, arrangers of ambiance), resource owners/decision-makers, even members of water users associations, farmers. Women come in handy when there is a need to increase the size of the recepient or beneficiary population such as in 'size of households, size of domestic demand for water/food/production. Therefore, if we persist on using 'areas of power' as our basis for assessing or addressing water management, we will continue to be the sin of all sins - gender neutral.

2.3. We are a part of the real gender issues - We persist in maintaining the divides (and the language/terminology/meaning) that come with these divides - (2.1 and 2.2). We persist in dividing the sexes into the small-scale/large scale, economic-commercial versus the subsistence-production for household consumption, domestic versus productive roles, heads-of-households versus members-of-households, community/organization seats of power versus general membership, (male) farmers versus housewives (no househusbands). We continue to appeal for recognition of women from the point of subordination/ illiteracy/weaker sex, unpaid labour, not only % of population. Why not insist on use the monetary value of women's majority labour contribution to production instead of always considering this 'unpaid'.

2.4. The CASYN assessment, and in particular the chapter on rainfed agriculture raises powerful issues - focus on irrigated agriculture at the expense of rainfed agriculture in the past, the fact that the rainfed sector is populated by majority of the world's population and its' poor specifically, rainfed agriculture's potential as reflected in it's share of land/underdeveloped resources, etc. These arguments read like one which is written as 'women's agricultural domain' - swedden farms, small-scale and home/backyard gardens, diversified low -external input gardens, gardens for household diversified requirements. As such we also seldom hear of 'backyard water users associations' for which dues/schedules of tasks have to be organized/trained for.

3. Why is gender not mainstreamed?

3.1. Like previous contributors say: gender and worst - gender mainstreaming - remain an afterthought and not flagged as a 'funder's requirement'. As others say: 'we don't start talking/understanding gender early' - at home and as importantly in school. And not as a subject called : 'word meanings or appropriate language' shunted along with grammar or languages in a physical science course such as agriculture. Gender mainstreamed in all subjects - as much in zoology as in agronomy. We 'learn' that gender is not as equally important as the other core agricultural subjects since it is missed out in the curriculum. or we can be excused for speaking 'agricultural English' (alternately - knowing gender issues) for all it's worth in insuring the production of a good crop of beans. As an afterthought it remains just that...not internalized, not part of the standard, not lenses we look through always.

3.2. Often, gender mainstreaming is negotiated, bargained, accepted for piloting. If gender mainstreaming were as mandatory as detailed budgets/ logframes/ quantified outputs, and as specifically spelled out instead of just reflected in the narratives of introductions/backgrounds, then will require more serious assessment, definition, planning and accounting. In areas such as representation and decision-making, 'token' numbers/% on the excuse that men or women are illiterate, need time to learn to do the job should not be an excuse. If there is an imbalance in capacities, it should be part of the project's human development task to correct the imbalance in order for the 'body' to operate balanced. This is because with token representation often comes the string of apologies as 'men/women need time to learn, adults are harder to teach than children, there is not enough time to learn (fast enough). We should believe there is no sex-difference in brain-capacity to learn, it is more often a socially learned fact.

3.3. We persist on saying and believing gender mainstreaming is difficult and proceed to bed time to do so. If we've gotten past the issue of looking at agriculture as a partnership or relationship between people and crops/livestock/forest products/fisheries/ resources and now beautifully advocate participatory involvement of all stakeholders throughout the project cycle, why should it be so difficult to go the extra step of advocating engendered participation?

Dorothy Hamada