Gendered Politics of Water Governance

Many of the interventions talked about so far in this blog have been addressing specific issues, or at least pertaining to a group of issues that have a common thread. This week I will outline the gendered politics of water governance, an issue that is considered to be diminishing the positive impacts of many of the interventions I've mentioned so far. By the gendered politics of water governance I mean the political and socio-cultural philosophies, policies and practices that often impede the engagement of women in decision making processes where system design and management of water and sanitation services are concerned. 

On a community level this may mean that focusing on agricultural irrigation ignores the needs of women carrying out their domestic 'duties', resulting in longer walks for water collection, which as I've discussed leaves them vulnerable to harassment and violence, or may even end up compromising water sources if they're used for washing clothes or people (Shah, 2002). On a household level these naturalised power dynamics can have negative impacts on women's use of water resources. In Makondo Parish (rural Uganda) for example, it was found that even where 'improved' water sources were available they often went unused by women because they have inadequate access to money and men are disinclined to pay maintenance fees for 'improved' sources. This means that, in many cases, they cannot choose to use 'improved' sources even if they desire to. 

The need for the involvement of women in the leadership of water management is well documented. The Dublin Principles stand out as a very prominent example. The International Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE) held in 1992 in Dublin, recognised that playing a pivotal role in the provision, use and guardianship of water meant women should be playing a pivotal role in WaSH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) decision making. Little progress seems to have been made though. This is likely because of inured socio-cultural beliefs that are difficult to change quickly. In this post I'll use a case study from Lilongwe, Malawi to outline the issues that prevent women from partaking in many decision making processes. 

Water Use Associations in Lilongwe, Malawi

Map of Malawi

A combination of socio-cultural practices, micro-politics and power relations impair women's participation. A study into gendered power dynamics in Water User Associations (WUAs) of urban informal settlements in Lilongwe, the capital of Malawi, found that there were distinctly gendered divisions of labour that present obvious problems for the inclusion of women in decision making. 6 WUAs were studied, only one woman served on a board and almost all water kiosk attendants (a job with no decision making power) and field inspectors (the most laborious job and also without decision making power) were women. A host of sociocultural barriers and inscribed norms were reported as preventing women from obtaining decision making positions in the WUAs studied. Amongst them were:

• Many women believing they were not sufficiently educated when all they required was a primary school certificate, which many of them had.

• The time committed by women to household 'duties'. Political activity can be seen as a 'distraction' from these (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013)

• In one WUA bylaws stipulate that in order to apply for an executive committee one must have time to campaign before elections, have lived in the community for 10 years, own land, own a house and have time to campaign for votes before an election. This excludes women by virtue of their broad exclusion from land ownership in Malawi and their time poverty (mentioned in blog 2).

• Cultural beliefs meaning many men cannot allow their wives to take part in public activities.

• Internalised feelings of inferiority amongst some women.

• Men feeling as though the employment as a water kiosk attendant constituted the empowerment of women, saying they would otherwise be jobless and therefore forced to remain at home where they would be reinforcing patriarchal gender roles. 

Micro-politics also reinforce gendered decision making. Landowners, who provide land for water kiosks and are most often men, have considerable influence over WUAs' decision making. They often expect free water and for their family members to be given first priority over kiosk attendant jobs. One landowner in Chinsapo recalled another landowner closing down the kiosk on his land because he did not receive sufficient benefits from the WUA. 

Concluding Thoughts

So far we've discussed the infrastructural and socio-cultural causes of gendered violence, period poverty and the gendered division of household labour. Here we've discussed how socio-cultural ideas born of the same gendered ontologies are also impeding broader attempts to make WaSH interventions in the name of equality.