Message 7: Violet's response

Dear All,

Below are some thoughts on the Whys. All the best.

The Whys?

1. Why is it important to mainstream a gender perspective in agricultural water management? (A maximum of 3 points preferably with supporting cases or examples)

• One of the main reasons why it is important to mainstream gender in agricultural water management is that the use and management of water, for domestic, agriculture, livestock production is done around already defined roles, depending on one’s gender. Therefore, in some cultures since it is the responsibility of women and girls to look after the young animals, it is also their responsibility to look for water for these animals. Conversely, it is the responsibility of men to look after the adult livestock, and hence they will travel with them to far distances in search of water and pasture. Domestic chaos, such as cooking and washing are often the responsibility of women and girls. Therefore, they are the ones who search for water for domestic use. In agriculture, although in many cases women do not control the means of production, such as land, they provide essential labour.
• It is important to consider gender perspectives in agricultural water management because failure to do so may result in one gender suffering. In one donor-funded project, failure to consider the needs of women and men resulted in women being unable to draw water for domestic purposes because they had to wait until all the livestock had been watered; which is a man’s responsibility. By providing separate troughs, for watering livestock and for drawing water for domestic use, the project was able to address the needs of both men and women simultaneously.

1. What are the real issues that challenge the integration of gender concerns into water management and agriculture? (3 points with evidence-supporting cases and examples)

• One of the key issue with integrating gender concerns into water management and agriculture is understanding exactly what gender mainstreaming entails; does it entail assisting men and women to perform their already existing roles better or does it entail making fundamental changes in these roles (social engineering). The question then arises, as to who should decide that there’s need to change these roles. Examples that involve assisting women fulfil their roles better include those that bring piped water nearer to homesteads, which then makes it easier for women to access it. Variations of this include where women are trained to manage the water dispensing points and to even charge for the water – which then changes their roles within the home and community. Some projects have women do the construction of the water systems; a role that is traditionally fulfilled by men. Unfortunately, in some cases, by getting women to perform roles that were traditionally performed by men, without any reduction in their own household duties results in the over-burdening of women, while men may abdicate their traditional role of providing for the family.
• New projects introduce new roles and responsibilities over and above those traditionally performed by men and women in a community. Men and women react differently to these new roles; for example, the introduction of a new pumping machine may result in the men, who have no more knowledge about the machine than the women, being eager to learn how to operate it, with the women taking a more hesitant approach to the new technology. In some cases, gender practitioners find it politically incorrect to state that men are more adept at dealing with technology, and therefore building upon this strength for the sake of the community. Therefore, there are several projects that have collapsed after the women were trained to maintain the machinery, in order to empower them to manage the project, because the men failed to help in its maintenance. New projects change the balance of power between men and women. Therefore, although the initial gender analysis may indicate one pattern of resource use and control, the mere fact that the project has been introduced will result in changes to this pattern. The constantly changing power relations are complex and not easy to keep track of.
• This brings us to one of the main challenges which is what is the reason for integrating gender consideration into water and agricultural projects? What do the practitioners, the gender activists and researchers hope to achieve? There are different reasons why practitioners bring in gender perspectives into the projects. One of the main reasons is to enhance the success of their projects. One community representative commented that if an NGO or government agency wants their project to succeed, with minimal financial input, then they are better off working with women. The reason he gave is that men “do not work for free”. However, women tend to have more commitment to a project, once they’ve become involved in it, they find it difficult to abandon it; sometimes although it is actually costing them, in terms of time and even money. Another scenario is when a donor insists on gender mainstreaming of a project. Then the interpretation is left to the practitioner, and may include having a few women in the committee and then its business as usual. Therefore, it is important for the different stakeholders to have a clear understanding of the reasons why they want to integrate gender into a project.

1. Why is gender not mainstreamed in water management in agriculture? (3 points with evidence)

• In many cases, when irrigation projects are being designed, the discussions are often considered too technical for women to understand. Hence, they are usually conducted among men. In other cases, water issues are highly politicised. For example, in one community, when we asked why women were not selected to serve on the water committee; the men said that the women were afraid of the politics that comes with water projects, while the women asked why the men did not cast their votes for them. In some cases, therefore, assumptions on both sides results in limited representation of women in decision-making structures.
• Gender is not mainstreamed also because there are a lot of people who wonder “what the fuss is all about”. They genuinely are not convinced that gender considerations are all that important, especially since they are more product/output oriented. As long as they can show that they have implemented the necessary infrastructure and its working, why do they need to deal with issues such as gender relations. Further, sometimes the gender activists are not very convincing in their arguments of why its important to mainstream gender into water management projects.
• Sometimes gender is not mainstreamed because gender activists are more often perceived as women activists. Therefore, in most or all of their arguments, they only show the negative impacts of gender relations on women. Unfortunately, because it is often women who are more marginalised, it is usually true that negative impacts of gender relations fall disproportionately on women. However, using a gender approach would entail also involving men in finding solutions to the empowerment of women. In some cases, men accuse gender activists of treating all men like the enemies, while there are some who are progressive and could make a greater contribution to the empowerment of women. During an evaluation of the gender aspects of an international NGO, one men commented that in the organisation, gender is perceived as a “we (the women) versus them (the men)” and that they are rarely consulted to assist in designing programmes and policies that could empower women.

Ms. Violet Matiru
Acting Executive Director
Environment Liaison Centre International (ELCI)
P.O. Box 72461-00200
Nairobi , Kenya
Tel: 254-20-3876114, 3876119 or 3876154
Fax: 254-20-3876125
Email: violetm@elci.org
website: http://www.elci.org