Gender based Violence and WaSH

This week I focus specifically on how the intersection of WaSH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) and gender based violence impacts the lives of women in informal urban communities in Sub-Saharan Africa. I'll be going over some of the institutional and social factors that contribute to the heightened risk faced by women, the tactics they employ to ameliorate said risk, and how these tactics impinge on their social, mental, physical and economic well-being. 

Water carriage is associated with pain, fatigue and violence against vulnerable people (Link)

The causes of Gender Based Violence (GBV) are both infrastructural and social. The former, covered extensively in academic literature and to an extent in this blog, is the contribution of poorly maintained infrastructure to the collection of water (often women as we learned in blog post 2) or use of facilities at times or under conditions that leave them vulnerable to violence. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that the nuanced experiences of women and girls are not sought out in the design of WaSH facilities and because informal settlements are rendered invisible by town planning authorities and therefore go unserviced and neglected by local government (Amnesty International, 2010). 

It was noted by one female focus group in Mukono, Uganda that it is generally accepted that women collecting water alone at certain times will be raped. They said:

"It is a good time to take advantage of women who are going to water sources to carry water home, especially peak hours, early in the morning or the wee hours of the morning and late in the evening [...] it is generally accepted practice of the community, they will be raped." - (Pommells et al, 2018) 

A male focus group from the same study described how the long duration and predictability of women's water collection routines "afforded assailants the opportunity to attack women who were isolated, alone, and ultimately overtly vulnerable". 

It seems that the social causes of WaSH related GBV rest on a calcification of gender roles that make women responsible for collecting water, makes many men feel as though they have a right to women's bodies feeling that violence is justified if their partner does not execute their domestic 'duties'. The increased risk of GBV faced by women is also created by sociocultural taboos such as heightened attributions of shame to women seen urinating or defecating as compared to men. Given this, many women are forced to walk long distances at night to use WaSH facilities where men may just step outside their own home (Sommer, et al, 2015). 

Ameliorative Action and its Effects

Women employ many techniques to avoid instances of GBV. These include using alternative community toilets, showering or using latrines in groups, asking male family members to accompany them to latrines at night and simply not using these facilities after a certain time or at all. One woman in Kibera, Nairobi noted these techniques have further reaching impacts on the lives of women: 

“We have to suffer shame and indignity when using our [mostly one-roomed] houses as every time we have to shower you need to tell the kids or adults to leave the house…At times this is not possible – kids or adults leaving the house…So you have to contend with the reality that you have to shower in their presence. Our moral values and culture do not allow this – showering in front of people especially one’s own children.”  - (Amnesty International, 2010)

Some alternative community toilets are generally better maintained and leave women using them less vulnerable do exist, however they are often not open during the night and their upkeep relies on paying to use the facility. Using these toilets becomes prohibitive when accounting for children and dependents too. So even where safe WaSH facilities are available, they are not necessarily accessible. The need to save money is compounded by the fact that many women who operate businesses must close for the day so that they have time to use sanitation facilities before night falls.

Conclusions and Solutions

Three main issues perpetuating inadequate WaSH facilities and GBV continued to crop up as I explore this blog topic. The widespread neglect of informal settlements by governments and urban planning authorities, the apparent reticence toward engaging women and girls in design WaSH interventions such that GBV can be understood and acted against, and the requirement  for more quantifiable evidence in support of effective interventions. The latter can be seen as what McFarlane and Silver (2015) might call 'auditing', or speaking to city planning authorities in their language. We know that data and exemplification have yielded some positive responses from state institutions. 

Design considerations when building wash facilities include (Somner et al, 2015): 

• assuring that gender specific latrines and bathing facilities are located at a distance from each other as agreed with the users
• Adding strong doors and locks
• Improving the lighting in latrines
• Where possible building family latrines or latrines shared among a few families

Socio-cultural phenomena pose more stubborn and perhaps insidious threats to women's health and show even less evidence of effective solutions. Perhaps this is where interventions should start? Might issues of inadequate infrastructure be diminished if people who menstruate, women and girls could wash, urinate, defecate and attend to issues of menstrual hygiene with the low levels of scrutiny and shame experienced by men?