Message 9: Ruth Meinzen Dick

Responses by Ruth Meinzen-Dick can be found here. Ruth mentions that it is important to mainstream gender in order to look at the “water-related needs” of both men and women. She also links it to the distribution and access to water, as an asset and a resource. The barriers to gender mainstreaming arise due to a more narrow sectoral or discipline-based approach to water management and agriculture, and also the perception of agriculture as a male domain.

My quick reactions to the first questions:

Why is it important to mainstream gender in agricultural water management?

To take into account the different water-related needs and priorities of men and women, to ensure an equitable distribution of water and its benefits.

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

Obviously, as all gender issues, they are context-specific, but include the quantities and timing of water available for field irrigation (e.g. night irrigation is more difficult for women) as well as for household gardens; impact of water quality on health (e.g. impact of agrochemicals through exposure to the water, including from bathing in canals); impact of agricultural water use on domestic supplies; gender and participation in decision-making.

Why is gender not mainstreamed in practice?

First, putting up these sectoral barriers creates blinders that often prevent people from seeing the gender issues. Too often water management in agriculture is seen as male domain, and domestic water is female. From what I’ve seen, men and women both use water for productive and reproductive uses, but these multiple uses are too often “invisible.” I hope the definition of this email discussion doesn’t perpetuate that!

Ruth Meinzen-Dick