Module 3
Module 3: Gender, Water, and Meaningful
Participation in Decision-making Processes
Part 2: Why gender equality and social inclusion matter
in participatory approaches to IWRM
In the previous part we raised examples of poor/bad approaches to participation. We mentioned
that if participation only serves as a box- ticking exercise it may exclude the people who will be
impacted by the interventions being discussed in the process and this may have a negative impact
on people’s support of the project, and hence its subsequent success. It could also harm the
people who are living in the water catchment or around the water resource and may turn them
against future projects in the area.
In order to avoid negative impacts on both the people and the project it is important to understand
that inclusion means different things to different people. Furthermore, when speaking about
gender equality and social inclusion, it is important to recognise that simple binary understanding
of gender, with all women seen as homogenous group, and all men as another homogenous
group, is not only limiting, but no longer acceptable in the context of development and IWRM
interventions. Since 1989, the concept of intersectionality has been introduced that helps us deal
with the challenges of diversity within gender and other social categories.
Intersectionality and its role in ensuring meaningful
participation in IWRM
The concept of intersectionality has been addressed in Module 2. As stated there, it refers to the
way in which the interconnected nature of multiple identities such as class, dis/ability, ethnicity,
geographic location, gender, sexual orientation and age interact to create specific disadvantages
and positionalities.
In the context of integrated water resources management and related participatory processes,
intersectionality matters as it addresses the issue of diversity of stakeholders at all levels. If we
take an example of a local water committee that is created to support community management
of a catchment area, the participation of the rural population is often limited and plays a lesser
role compared to representatives from the different government institutions. Often the rural
population may be represented by just one or two people, at best, one man and one woman, to
ensure the gender balance. However, when we take the intersectionality lens, we see that rural
populations are very stratified within what may seem a homogenous group to an outsider. If we
do not carry out a gender analysis using the intersectionality lens before creating participant lists
for community engagement, we may omit vulnerable groups, such as youth (or in some cases
elders), people from particular social categories (cast, religion etc) and proposed interventions
may end up exacerbating existing inequalities.
1
Module 3
An example of this type of exclusion could be a decision to put up a water pump in one part of the
neighbourhood where the elite population lives but where people from a lower caste in that
community are not allowed to enter or fetch water. Similarly, if only able-bodied members of the
community participate in the process, they may not take into the account the special needs of
disabled members of the community when it comes to creating access to a water point.
Access the link below and spend 15 minutes reading and analysing the case study from
researchers in wetlands management at the International Water Management Institute. Assess
the activity critically and try to draw lessons from the case study for your own work.
[Link]
gender-equality-and-inclusion/
Socio-cultural obstacles to women’s participation in IWRM and
other participatory processes in management of natural
resources
The case study ‘Woman WASH: Innovating and transforming my community from within’, at
[Link] which addresses women’s
participation in IWRM and WASH and the burden of mental load, focuses on a protected area in
rural Colombia. It is a place where historically balanced natural processes, including the natural
water cycle mechanisms, have undergone substantial change in recent years. Due to several
factors this area became occupied by people that established an unauthorised settlement. Among
those factors are socio-economic inequality, gender-based violence, corruption, armed conflict,
and lately internal displacement due to climate change.
The natural landscape became transformed due to human interventions and the natural
processes were disrupted and gave place to new social, environmental, and sanitary dynamics. All
these dynamics have a gender aspect to them. In this specific context women get affected
differently by those dynamics. The sanitary conditions of the community have a higher impact on
women because they remain in their community for longer periods in comparison with men and
children who leave the community on daily basis as they attend work or school. Women decided
to act and take sanitation management into their hands. The first sanitation project targeted solid
waste management, but the women’s community also wanted to approach wastewater treatment
as it was severely impacting their daily lives.
Cindy Osipina Gallego, a researcher and development practitioner who supported the community
in this process argues that to make the change happen we should apply a complete gender-
mainstreaming approach within the project including the analysis of gendered outcomes,
otherwise we would be instrumentalising women for the success of our water projects and
disempowering women as a consequence. Osipina Gallego bases her approach on the research
of Dery at al 2002, who wrote that “participation is only one dimension of empowerment and it
doesn’t guarantee gender equity. Empowerment dimensions in WASH: access to information,
participation, capacity building, leadership and accountability, and decision-making.”
2
Module 3
When observing women’s participation in the decision-making processes at community level and
in interaction with the local government, Cindy noted that women often struggle with several
layers of mental load due to all the different obligations and social pressures that burden them.
Look at the visual above and consider the challenges that a woman may face when participating
in a public discussion, workshop, or any participatory event. Here are some of the challenges:
▪ Finding reliable free childcare to attend an event. Most IWRM committee meetings and
workshops do not organise childcare nor are women encourage to bring children to the
meeting. A woman who attends an event with a crying baby is often seen as a distraction
and is asked to leave the meeting room. This adds to the marginalisation of the women.
▪ Fear of public speaking related to lack of experience, fear of social repercussions for
speaking in front of men, sense of shame.
▪ Fear of expressing disagreement with men in the meeting – women’s understanding, and
experience of water resources are often different from that of men, as women are primary
water users at domestic level, while men may more often be familiar with water for
agriculture and other forms of production.
▪ In certain cultures, women are not allowed to travel to a location away from their home
unless accompanied by a male relative. In the case of Oromo region in Ethiopia, a team of
researchers from IWMI, ILRI, and FAO who were studying women’s empowerment through
participation in agricultural associations found out that women who attended such
meetings exposed themselves to reputational risks, especially if the meeting required
them to spend the night in town unchaperoned. Many women therefore opted out of
participating in the project- related training due to these challenges.
▪ Women may have more difficulty than men arranging safe travel to the workshop, if an
event is taking place outside their home community. They may choose not to expose
themselves to risks and costs of travel.