This work was funded with the generous support of the American people through the Leader with Associates Cooperative Agreement No.EPP-A-00-06-00014-00 for implementation of the TransLinks project. The contents of this report are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States .

No. 6; August 2007

G ENDER AND S HIFTING G OVERNANCE: Differential Effects of Privatization, , and Democratization Leila M. Harris and Whitney Gantt: University of Wisconsin-Madison

Trends in water governance emphasize devolution to local users and -oriented policies. These trends influence how donors, policymakers, and international lending institutions approach water management. This LTC Brief reviews current knowledge of the consequences for gender equity, summarizes how the trends have played out in various locales, and identifies gaps in our understanding.

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION of the 1992 agendas of the , International “Dublin Principles,” along with a number Monetary Fund, and other organizations as of other key international agreements, conditions for loans or financial assistance. there have been notable shifts in water This brief reviews the research on these trends management, such as: and offers recommendations for future studies. ƒ engaging users more fully; for example, Democratization and devolution devolving irrigation management to With respect to water, efforts to involve local farmers populations and resource users in governance ƒ increasing focus on women as water most often focus on the transfer of users and managers responsibility for water management to “water ƒ instituting market reforms in water user groups,” “irrigation associations,” or management, particularly privatizing similar local-scale organizations. Many authors and/or commodifying water governance. argue that decentralized management is It is difficult to chart exactly how essential if communities are to benefit from extensive or deep these shifts are, yet they water resources. Some suggest that community are occurring across different regional management is necessary to ensure long-term contexts and are becoming central to the sustainability of resources, as it is assumed that local users will be more likely to maintain the

Gender and shifting water governance—1 resource over time, invest in maintenance, or project design. Women may also have greater more effectively incorporate local knowledge incentives to address water problems and into management decisions. maintain infrastructure (Bennett 1995). Meanwhile, financial concerns are often Given these connections, the failure to include among the motives for transferring governance women is likely to undermine the success and to local communities, as this is viewed as a sustainability of water management efforts. means to reduce centralized ’ Excluding women from project design in India costs and expenditures, particularly when the led to serious flaws, such as hand pumps that infrastructure is aging and becoming more were too heavy for women to operate (Prokopy costly to maintain. 2005). Researchers in rural Egypt noted that Despite general trends to involve communities women had more knowledge about water more fully in resource governance, women supply and pollution issues. Although these often continue to be excluded from community women raised the issue of pollution to their water governance mechanisms (Harris 2005). husbands, male leaders failed to address the Much of the “gender and water” literature problem (Assaad et al. 1994). argues that including women more In irrigation, studies suggest that including meaningfully in water management will serve women in decision-making promotes a number of interests, from resource sustainability by ensuring that the concerns sustainability to gender equity. and capacities of all users are recognized. In Much of this literature also documents the Andes, women are increasingly responsible obstacles to women’s participation and for irrigating fields as male migration particular steps that can be taken to include increases. Women and men have different women more fully. Suggestions include preferences for water access and use, with introducing quotas for female participation, women generally preferring to use irrigation holding all-women meetings, scheduling water for multiple purposes such as bathing meeting times and locations to fit with and laundry, preferring to avoid night women’s schedules and cultural norms, or irrigation turns, or preferring to locate canals hiring female community organizers. closer to their homes. According to Boelens and Zwarteveen (2002), when these The following themes capture many of the preferences are ignored water efficiency implied benefits of enhanced women’s objectives may suffer. Another dimension that involvement in water governance. relates to sustainability is the degree to which Promotes environmental and programmatic involvement of all community members sustainability. Some research suggests that contributes to more effective buy-in, women’s participation promotes monitoring, and adherence to regulations. “sustainability,” whether through improved Improves women’s status and boosts gender knowledge of the resource, designing systems equity. As water management and planning to better account for varied resource uses, often determine resource access, and women better regulatory enforcement or greater have key roles with respect to familial and community buy-in to governance rules. productive water needs, women’s participation in Related to this argument, some suggest that management mechanisms is considered essential. because women are responsible for family Some studies suggest that women are empowered health and the time-consuming task of through their participation, leading to improved collecting water, they possess extensive confidence and enhanced self-reliance. knowledge about , reliability, and availability. This knowledge can contribute to

Gender and shifting water governance—2 Others suggest that participation opens may be more likely at the community level, opportunities for women to use water to potentially aggravating socio-economic generate income, in turn improving women’s inequalities (Agrawal and Gibson 2001, and bargaining position in the household and Ribot 1999, 2006). Case studies from southeast community. In India, women’s increased Asia show wealthy elites using their greater access to water supply allowed them to expand ability to attend community meetings and their involvement in dairy cooperatives, access information to enhance their control over increasing their income and improving natural resources (Dupar and Badenoch 2002). household bargaining position (Upadhyay Despite the frequent assertion that involvement 2004). In , increasing women’s of women will improve project success, there access to water for agriculture helped support is very little empirical evidence of these food security for poor women excluded from benefits. For example, a study in India found the formal economy (Schreiner 2004). that the project outcomes of water supply Opens possibilities for women to participate projects with greater women’s participation did in democratic governance. Another provocative not differ from those with low participation, line of argument is that increasing women’s although the author concluded that greater role in resource management may also open participation did support women’s opportunities for women to participate more empowerment (Prokopy 2005). fully in other aspects of community life and Another study from India found that women’s the democratic process. Although there is little participation did not improve project documentation of these connections, one study outcomes, instead further deterioration of in Mexico suggests that women’s participation water infrastructure occurred, albeit due to in water management opened opportunities for missing parts (Singh et al. 2006). Whether with women to participate in other political realms respect to community participation in general, (Ennis-McMillan 2005). However, research in or women’s participation in particular, there is India found little evidence to support this a need for caution as to what types of claims outcome (Prokopy 2005). are made, as well as a need to more critically evaluate whether, and how, local-scale or Reasons for caution participatory management mechanisms actually Most scholars and practitioners argue that to improved outcomes. greater inclusion of women is beneficial, yet Also, greater precision is called for in several works note possible risks of involving evaluations of how different members of women more fully. These may include over- community are differently involved in, and extension with respect to expectations for affected by, community management women’s labor, or risks to women if they mechanisms. As one example among many, an overstep social and cultural norms. In sum, it evaluation of decentralization projects in appears that devolution of resource southeast Asia showed that certain groups management to local communities, in general, were not well represented in natural resources and the increased involvement of women in governance and received fewer benefits from particular, may have mixed and even projects—particularly women, the poor, and contradictory outcomes. members of certain ethnic minorities (Dupar These works suggest that, in addition, and Badenoch 2002). increased community and local-scale Other authors caution that devolution of governance does not necessarily lead to resource governance generally poses particular improved management or to improved social risks for women, as it is often at the local scale equity. For instance, corruption or elite capture

Gender and shifting water governance—3 where women have the least access to communities, or to women in particular, may decision-making mechanisms. Furthermore, be destined to fail. In southern Africa, national while decentralization may give voice to some governments handed off to communities women, the poorest women, or women of a irrigation infrastructure that was in a state of certain caste or ethnic group may not benefit near total collapse. In Sierra Leone, equally. For example, in a community in India, communities lacked funds and capacity to women were more concerned with securing maintain hand-pump systems, leading to access to water for other members of their own situations where the benefits of devolved caste than they were with ensuring equitable resource management were not realized access for all women (Singh et al. 2006). (Ferguson and Mulwafu 2004, and Magrath It is also necessary to examine the 2006). These examples further demonstrate a consequences of enrolling women’s need for caution, as local actors are participation and labor in resource governance. increasingly given responsibility without the Given women’s labor requirements in the power, resources, or tools necessary for home, in agriculture, or in other reproductive effective management. and productive tasks, these additional Clearly shifts from state or centralized responsibilities may be significant. management to communities, and the Likewise, simply including women in resource increased participation of women in particular, governance is unlikely to be enough; policies may provide new opportunities and benefits. must take into account capacities to assume However, there also are significant reasons for resource governance roles. Specifically, caution, as these shifts might increase burdens initiatives that involve women in resource on community resources, women’s labor and management but fail to provide the tools, time, and so forth. Policymakers and donors resources, or knowledge to enable them to must therefore be cautious about assuming that fulfill new responsibilities are unlikely to communities, women, and the poor will have empower women at all. Further, because the responsibility, time, and capacity to women frequently have lower education levels, manage resources. often are poorer than men, and may face Therefore, it is not only imperative to think cultural taboos that discourage or prohibit their about how to extend participation possibilities speaking in public, forced participation can be to women and other marginalized members of highly problematic. When women attended communities, but also to be more attentive to irrigation association meetings in the Andes, why this is considered preferable, and to the community members questioned their moral broader context and implications of these shifts. integrity as they were seen to be challenging While devolution and democratization may gender norms (Boelens and Zwarteveen 2002). provide benefits for social equity or Even when women were included in water environmental sustainability, enhanced management they were often assigned tasks community participation does not necessarily that provided little opportunity to exert lead to poverty alleviation, equity, or influence over project design or management. sustainability. While we find many interesting With respect to capacity and resource issues, examples in the broader literature on gender, this is particularly important given that it is devolution, and democratization, we also find often precisely lack of financial resources, that research is scarce with respect to precisely aging infrastructure, or environmental how and why specific beneficial outcomes are degradation that spurs the transfer of achievable in certain cases, or not in others, responsibilities to communities in the first highlighting this as a crucial need for further place. In such cases, governance transfer to research.

Gender and shifting water governance—4 Market-oriented policies Recoding of water: rights, needs, and Water experts highlight the need to distinguish . The focus on water as a between commodification (use of market represents a shift from the idea of mechanisms used for water management, water as a , and, with it, a critical either by a public or private entity) and shift in viewing the public as citizens, or privatization (the shift from public to private recipients of services, to consumers (see, for entities). One reason why market-oriented example, Bakker 2003). These shifts are policies are viewed as advantageous is the idea significant, particularly as debates continue as that pricing water will ensure that water flows to whether water should be viewed as a human to its most productive uses, minimizing waste right, a position seemingly at odds with and ensuring efficiency. To engage market commodification trends. instruments, water management initiatives Women’s access and further marginalization. increasingly emphasize full-cost recovery for Water policy reforms related to two of the water services. Another increasingly common Dublin principles—those highlighting women mechanism is the creation of water markets, as water managers and users, and focusing on which allow individuals to buy and sell water water as an economic good—suggest a rights, again with the idea that certain possible tension. Focusing on water as an efficiencies will be realized with the shift from economic good highlights water’s “productive” low to high uses. These types of market uses, further marginalizing domestic or other instruments are referred to as the non-market uses that are typically important commodification of water governance. for women’s livelihoods and responsibilities. Concurrent efforts are also underway to The emphasis on cost recovery, and the privatize water services. Advocates argue that implicit endorsement of industrial, agricultural, private control of water, for instance or other “productive” uses thus highlights the management and delivery by companies such need for caution as this could further as Vivendi and Suez, will increase efficiency marginalize domestic drinking water and other by avoiding costly and bureaucratic state “non-productive” uses critical for health and management. Privatization is simultaneously similar concerns. This also suggests a critique envisioned as a remedy for the state’s of authors who suggest that women’s uses historical mismanagement and poor service should also emphasize income generating and provision, and for financial challenges productive uses to improve women’s income associated with dwindling state resources. or status (Manase, Ndamba, and Makoni 2003). States, often in response to donor and lender In short, unequal gendered access to resources conditionalities that reinforce commodification may be perpetuated and legitimated by and privatization trends, have decreased water introducing market mechanisms into the water services provision, reduced water subsidies, sector. In Zimbabwe, water permits beyond and even separated off “profitable” urban basic needs were issued according to the sectors from “unprofitable” rural water “productive potential” of proposed uses. This provision in order to pave the way for private criterion favored white commercial farmers. takeover of the profitable elements. This was all the more important as the national To date there has been relatively little research water policy did not include any mechanism to specifically highlighting the gender and equity ensure permits for poor black women or other dimensions of these shifts, yet some works historically disadvantaged groups (Manase, provide insights into several primary themes. Ndamba, and Makoni 2003). There is also concern that when water is established as an economic good, market

Gender and shifting water governance—5 mechanisms tend to dominate policy received by males. This evidence suggests the frameworks, at times resulting in little regard risks associated with individuated rights for context specificities. Others argue that mechanisms. To the degree that rights can be because women make up a greater percentage bought and sold, poor or vulnerable users can of impoverished populations, often have less readily lose access. access to money than men, and the income Given this, communal and “rights”-based they do have is more likely to be earmarked for mechanisms might be more secure over time, specific uses, there may be disproportionate especially in difficult and financially uncertain effects of water pricing for women and times. Thus, there is a need to revisit children. In South Africa, poor women chose arguments related to the need to grant women to spend hours searching for free (and polluted) individuated land and water rights (Agarwal water rather than pay a minimal fee for clean 1995), as this represents an implicit endorsement of market-rights approaches. Instead, the opportunities and constraints of Box 1. Gender and water rights in Mexico communal access, non-tradeable rights, or informal access mechanisms should be The 1992 National Water Act in Mexico is consistent explored (Harris, under review). with a neoliberal framework, demanding decentralization of resource management, Loss of customary or informal access. Other increased participation by stakeholders, and greater research studies have noted that because many reliance on pricing and other mechanisms to value women often have traditionally secured water as an economic good. resources through informal or customary arrangements, traditional modes of access may Ahlers (2002, 2005) analyzes what happened be lost with privatization and commodification following the Act, when communal ejido land was shifts (Lastarria-Cornhiel 1997). A focus on privatized and public irrigation systems were private property rights, cash cropping, and transferred to users. Because the new land and other changes that increase land value may water tenure system enabled rights to be bought mean that men or community elites are more and sold, and given the high uncertainty related to likely to assert their rights rather than continue agricultural livelihoods, many poor farmers, and to meet the needs of women, children, or women, sold off their rights in relatively short order. others, as is typically expected under Women, in particular, often earned less for sale of customary systems. Work from Gambia their rights than male counterparts. illustrates this, as agroforestry projects and new irrigation schemes led to gender conflicts and loss of women’s access as men tried to water. Kasrils (2001) takes this evidence to enforce their land rights and control over suggest that basic needs should not be included household labor in the face of new income in cost recovery efforts, as only 1-2% of the opportunities available through tree planting or country’s water went for these purposes, with irrigated cash cropping (Schroeder 1999 and little impact on conservation goals. Carney 1993). Even in cases when women and impoverished Protest and social mobilization. A number of populations are granted formal and legal water studies have documented women’s increasing rights, this does not necessarily translate into roles at the forefront of protest movements, the ability to maintain those rights over time. particularly resistance to privatization and In Mexico (see box 1), instability and poverty commodification related trends (see box 2, eventually led women to sell off their land and next page). Women’s active role in protest is water rights, often for lower than that perhaps due to the differential impact of

Gender and shifting water governance—6 privatization and commodification on men and crucial for equity and sustainability, bring women, and the different roles men and benefits to women and other marginalized women have with respect to water needs in populations. Too often, assertions are made households and communities. For instance, without adequate evidence. There is, to date, women were among the leaders in resistance little empirical basis to evaluate the trends in movements against in water governance as either positive or negative Argentina as well as in the “Water War” of (see box 3, next page). Cochabamba, Bolivia. Distinguish between participation, devolution, privatization and marketization objectives to Research recommendations assess differential impacts on populations. Most gender analyses of water governance These shifts and goals cannot be considered a focus on participation issues, with clear unified ensemble, and may be working at cross implications for democratization and devolution-related trends. In general, these analyses argue for enhanced participation of Box 2. Women and water-related protest women. Fewer studies have considered Bennett, Dávila-Poblete, and Rico (2005) detail gender dimensions of privatization and women’s role in Latin America in protest related to commodification shifts. water quality, service delivery, and pricing. The A critical direction for future work relates to authors argue that women’s involvement in protest what it means to have devolution and draws on notions of femininity, including notions of privatization shifts occurring simultaneously, nurturing and motherhood, to argue for affordable particularly with respect to the implications and safe access to drinking water. for diverse populations across contexts. Others note that women’s engagement in protests Further attention is needed to account for serves to modify notions of citizenship, embolden the risks and contradictory outcomes that citizens, shift state-society relations, and alter gender may accompany any benefits associated expectations. Women’s protests also highlight the with recent trends in water governance. increase in women’s civic responsibility and work There could be more attention to the burden. Bennett (1995, p. 78) notes that, “the specific institutions, contexts, and pathways workload of poor urban women now includes public wherein devolution and participatory protest, which has become more and more management might be more consistent with necessary as essential public services deteriorate or goals of democratic governance, equity, or fail to be provided at all.” resource sustainability. More work needs to be done on the possible risks and contradictory tendencies with purposes. For instance, while greater respect to privatization and commodification of democratic participation may create new water, particularly with attention to socio- opportunities for women, or landless economic and cultural differences, including populations, if this occurs concurrent with gender and other inequalities. Areas of needed privatization shifts that create other research include the following. difficulties, how do we account for the Evaluate how shifts in water governance and tensions and contradictions? contemporary policies relate to gender and Consider historical and geographical social equity concerns. We need more contexts. International financial institutions evidence, and comparative evaluation, of how often require devolution and privatization of participation, tenure rights, and other issues water governance, which may aggravate

Gender and shifting water governance—7 situations of indebtedness and impoverishment. mechanisms that might be more resilient in Contextual factors and particular histories times of difficulty (Harris, under review). (colonialism, indebtedness, trade relations, Policy must be more precise in detailing etc.) are likely to be critical to understand the specifically why water rights, specifically implications of ongoing water governance trends. individuated water rights, constitute a solution. Be explicit and reflexive in assumptions and Consider and develop alternatives. There prescriptions. It is common in the literature to needs to be continuing discussion in the search argue that women be granted individuated land for solutions. Research, policy and activism and water rights. However, vulnerabilities and together need to work to better understand the market factors might lead to loss of these rights. implications of different policy instruments It may be the case that focus on individuated across contexts, and also to continue to enliven rights for women or poor farmers implicitly discussions of alternatives. endorses a market model, foreclosing historic, informal, or communal access-rights

Box 3. Threat or opportunity? Zwarteveen (1998) considers recent shifts related to water management from a gender perspective, specifically devolution and irrigation management transfer. She analyzes a number of the theoretical arguments from feminist economics; for instance, risks associated with the idea that certain policies do not assume women to be water users, or that planners may assume an equal ability to pay among different populations. She notes that women’s unpaid contributions to the economy, and other non-market activity, may challenge notions of efficiency and other key assumptions that underwrite contemporary shifts in water management. She considers the empirical data related to these shifts to be inconclusive. Specifically, questions of social equity are generally not asked in evaluations of these shifts, so there is insufficient basis to actually know which of these theoretical concerns are borne out. She concludes that there is “not enough empirical data available to assess whether irrigation management transfer programs are a threat or an opportunity to gender equity” (p. 309).

Rico, pp. 53-71. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Further Reading Pittsburgh Press. Agarwal, B. 1995. Gender, Property and Land Ahlers, R. 2002. “Moving in or Staying out: Gender Rights: bridging a critical gap in economic Dimensions of Water Markets.” In Protecting a analysis and policy, in Out of the Margin, edited Sacred Gift: Water and Social Change in Mexico, by E. Kuiper and J. Sap. Routledge. edited by Scott Whiteford and Roberto Melville, Agrawal, A., and C. Gibson, editors. 2001. pp.65-86. San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexico Communities and the Environment, Ethnicity, Studies at UC-San Diego. Gender, and the State in Community Based Assaad, M., et al. 1994. “Involving Women in Conservation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers. Water and Initiatives: An Ahlers, R. 2005. “Gender Dimensions of Neoliberal Action/Research Project in an Egyptian Village.” Water Policy in Mexico and Bolivia. Empowering Water International 19(3): 113-20. or Disempowering?” In Opposing Currents: the Bakker, K.J. 2003. “A Political Ecology of Water Politics of Water and Gender in Latin America, Privatization.” Studies in Political Economy 70: 35-58. edited by V. Bennett, S. Dávila-Poblete, and N.

Gender and shifting water governance—8 Bennett, V. 1995. “Gender, Class, and Water: Kasrils, R. 2001. “The Value and of Water Women and the Politics of Water Service in (The women of Lutsheko).” Water Science and Monterrey, Mexico.” Latin American Technology 43(4): 51-55. Perspectives 22(85): 76-99. Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. 1997. “Impact of Privatization Bennett, V., S. Dávila-Poblete, and N. Rico, on Gender and Property Rights in Africa.” World editors. 2005. Opposing Currents: The Politics of Development 25(8): 1317-33. Water and Gender in Latin America. Pittsburgh, Magrath, J. 2006. “Towards Sustainable Water- PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Supply Solutions in Rural Sierra Leone.” OXFAM Boelens, R. and M. Zwarteveen. 2002. “Gender Research Report. OXFAM and WaterAid. Dimensions of Water Control in Andean Manase, G., J. Ndamba, and F. Makoni, . 2003. Irrigation.” In Water Rights and Empowerment, “Mainstreaming Gender in Integrated Water edited by R. Boelens and P. Hoogendam, pp. 75- Resources Management: The Case of Zimbabwe.” 105. Koninklijke, Van Gorcum. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 28 (20-27): 967-71. Carney, J. 1993. “Converting the Wetlands, Prokopy, L.S. 2005. “The Relationship between Engendering the Environment: the Intersection of Participation and Project Outcomes: Evidence from Gender with Agrarian Change in the Gambia.” Rural Water Supply Projects in India.” World Economic Geography 69(4): 329-48. Development 33(11): 1801-19. Dupar, M. and N. Badenoch. 2002. Environment, Ribot, J. 1999. “Decentralisation, Participation and Livelihoods, and Local Institutions: Accountability in Sahelian Forestry: Legal Decentralization in Mainland Southeast Asia. Instruments of Political Administrative Control. World Resources Institute. Africa 69(1): 23-65. Ennis-McMillan. 2005. “Women Equity and Ribot, J. 2006. “Choose Democracy: Household Water Management in the Valley of Environmentalists’ Socio-political Responsibility.” Mexico.” In Opposing Currents: The Politics of Global Environmental Change 16(2): 115-19. Water and Gender in Latin America, edited by V. Schreiner, B., et al. 2004. “Washing Away Poverty: Bennett, S. Dávila-Poblete, and N. Rico, pp. 137- Water, Democracy and Gendered Poverty 53. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Eradication in South Africa.” Natural Resources Ferguson, A.E. and W.O. Mulwafu. 2004. Forum 28(3): 171-78. “Decentralization, Participation and Access to Schroeder, R. 1999. Shady Practices: Agroforestry, Water Resources in Malawi.” Development Gender Politics in the Gambia. Berkeley: Experience Clearinghouse. www.eldis.org. University of California Press. Harris, L. (Under review.) “Gender and Emergent Singh, N., G. Jacks, P. Bhattacharya and J.-E. Water Governance: Comparative Overview of Gustafsson. 2006. “Gender and Water Neoliberalized Natures and Gender Dimensions Management: Some Policy Reflections.” Water of Privatization, Devolution, and Marketization.” Policy 8(2): 183-200. Harris, L.M. 2005. “Negotiating Inequalities: Upadhyay, B. 2004. “Gender Roles and Multiple Democracy, Gender, and Politics of Difference in Uses of Water in North Gujarat.” Working Paper Water User Groups in Southeastern Turkey. In 70. Gujarat India, International Water Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy Management Institute. and Development? edited by F. Adaman and M. Arsel, pp. 185-200. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Zwarteveen, M.Z. 1998. “Identifying Gender Aspects of New Irrigation Management Policies.” Agriculture and Human Values 15(4): 301-12. ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ Published by the Land Tenure Center. Comments encouraged: Land Tenure Center, Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA [email protected]; tel: +608-262-8029; fax: +608-262-0014 http://www.ies.wisc.edu/ltc

Gender and shifting water governance—9