A WaterAid Briefing Paper

A Gender and Development Approach to

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Programmes

Sue Coates, WEDC

September 1999
1:0 Introduction

This paper considers the concept of gender in the context of water supply, sanitation and
hygiene development.

It begins with a discussion of the location of gender in the broader framework of

international development thinking, practice and policy approaches. The paper then
focuses on gender issues in relation to water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion,
and considers the Institutional and organisational issues involved in mainstreaming
gender. Finally, some of the options and implications for those intending to meet the
challenge of enabling change are outlined.

1:1 Defining gender and context

The term ‘gender’ describes the social relations between and characteristics of women
and men. It concerns men’s and women’s participation in the determination of their lives
including access to rights, power and control over resources. Gender is understood to
mean that ‘people are born female and male, but learn to be girls and boys who grow into
women and men. They are taught what the appropriate behaviour and attitudes, roles
and activities are for them, and how they should relate to other people’ (Williams, Seed
and Mwau 1994).

Men and women fulfil a number of concurrent social roles and social relations1 that are
influenced by other people.

Race, ethnicity, age, culture, tradition, religion and an individual’s ‘position’ (wealth,
status) also assist to differentiate the experience of being a man or a woman within a
particular society. Therefore gender identity and gender roles are the result of learned
behaviour and, given the right impetus and motivation, can change.

The crux of the issue here, is that in developing countries, men’s and women’s gender
roles determine their access to, power and control over adequate water supply,
sanitation facilities and hygiene. Unchallenged these roles have a number of direct
effects on communities, households and individuals, in particular women and children.

2:0 Locating Gender in Development

The need to consider matters of gender in the provision of water supply and the
promotion of sanitation and hygiene in developing countries does not exist in a vacuum.
For many years after the Second World War the dominant role of actors in development2
was one where the ‘rich’ countries in the North provided infrastructure, capital
investments and technical ‘expertise’ to those poorer, ‘developing’ and emergent nations
in the South. Activity concentrated on encouraging ‘developing’ countries to embrace the
values of industrialisation in the belief that this was a way of addressing poverty. The
social side of development was largely ignored. Indeed efforts to acknowledge them
resulted in a development culture that viewed people as the passive recipients of aid and
‘good change’, planned and implemented by ‘outsiders’ (Cleves Mosse 1997). However,
belief in the existence of a development ‘blueprint’ was to be challenged by the emerging

1Social roles are defined here as who does what, has what and so on. Roles for women
also extend to being a mother, wife, sister, daughter-in-law and so on. Equally men fulfil a
number of concurrent roles, husband, father, son, brother. Social relations are defined
here as how people relate to each other: their power, degree of self-interest and so on.
2 At this time the principle actors were the World Bank, Northern Governments and United

Nations Agencies.

2
voice of those marginalised by such action in the South. They were supported by non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) and agencies that championed a new approach
focusing on the role and participation of communities, and especially women in the
development process.

The articulation of a Women’s agenda was most notably accelerated during the United
Nations Decade for Women and Development (1976-1985) and the contributions of the
UN’s conferences on women - Mexico 1975, Copenhagen 1980, Nairobi 1985 and
Beijing 1995 (see Box 1). The Decade’s early themes of equality, development and peace
signalled the way for international debate that encompassed the broad spectrum of
development issues3.

Over the Decade, women from the South were able to influence and exchange ideas with
those from the North, a process that assisted consensus building. These dialogues
recognised the different perspectives held by each, their interests and areas of central
concern while also establishing common ground, the basis for partnership. The United
Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (UN CEDAW),
which entered into force in 1981, reaffirmed the UN Charter’s fundamental faith in ‘the
dignity and worth of the human person and in equal rights of men and women’ (CEDAW
1981). CEDAW proved to be a major step forward in fostering debate and setting
international standards of gender equality4. It is against this background that gender
gained prominence in the water and sanitation development arena.

Box 1: World Conference on Women

The United Nations 4th World Conference on Women (Beijing 1995) made significant
commitments to gender equality and women’s empowerment. In the context of
development co-operation, commitment to the Conference’s ‘Declaration and Platform
for Action’ is demonstrated in the Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) ‘Gender
Guidelines’, which endorse gender equality as ‘an overall strategic objective for
promoting the role of women and therefore sustainable, people-centred development.’
This perspective, seeing gender equality as a precondition for effective and sustainable
human development, builds upon previous United Nations conferences spanning
education, environment, human rights, population and social development. Furthermore
DAC maintains that such development is based on partnership models that emphasise
local leadership and locally owned strategies (DAC 1997).

3:0 Policy Approaches

Since gender became a development issue two major ‘streams of theory and practice’
have existed; ‘women-in-development’ (WID) and ‘gender-and-development’ (GAD)
(Humble cited Guijt and Kaul Shah 1998:35). Before discussing WID and GAD some key
principles are outlined in Box 2 and Table 1.

3 Women’s Agenda includes core issues related to Rights, Entitlement, Investment, Voice,
Poverty, reproductive Labour, Security and Empowerment (Jahan 1997:5).
4 About a quarter of the world’s states are still to either ratify CEDAW or have done so

with some reservations (Jahan 1997:4)

3
Box 2: Women’s Triple Role and ‘Practical and Strategic’ Gender Needs
Just as gender roles differ from society to society different values are ascribed to what
determines the division of labour between men and women. Typically, women in low-
income countries undertake a ‘triple role’ in society, that is reproductive, productive and
community roles (see Table 1). Because women and men have different roles and
exercise different levels of control and power over resources they often have different
needs. How work is valued in any given context affects the way women and men
determine priorities when it comes to planning a project and likewise their capacity to
participate in it. Analysis of the interests of women and men in the development process
has evolved into the notion of ‘practical’ and ‘strategic’ needs (Moser 1989).

Practical gender needs (PGNs) are linked to the ‘condition’ of women’s lives, their
immediate environment, workload and responsibilities that exist in the society of which
they are part. Practical in nature, they are often linked directly to inadequacies in living
conditions such as inadequate access and availability of drinking water. Meeting PGNs is
relatively straightforward but their existence alone is unlikely to change (and in fact may
worsen) the inequalities that exist relative to the condition.

Strategic gender needs (SGNs) refer to improvements in women’s disadvantaged

‘position’ in society relative to men in terms of labour, power and control. SGNs are not as
readily identifiable as PGNs and vary according to particular contexts (Moser 1993:39).
For example, in water scarce situations where there are competing demands for water
use, women’s efforts to protect this resource for drinking may be undermined in favour of
other uses usually determined by men. Strategic needs cannot be met by ‘outsiders’,
rather the men and women concerned have to address SGNs themselves, typically
through collective action, increased self-confidence, consciousness-raising and
strengthening women’s and community based organisations (CBOs) (Ebba Augustin, cited
GTZ 1995).

Practical and strategic gender needs cannot be neatly separated. Longwe (cited March,
Smyth and Mukhopadhyay 1999:20) maintains that every practical intervention has an
effect on ‘strategic’ areas of life (power relations and control), whether it is intended or
not. An extension of this is the concept of ‘redistributive’ potential (Young 1987, cited
March, Smyth and Mukhopadhyay 1999:20) that considers how practical needs can be
met in a way that assists women in challenging gender inequalities in relation to the
need, thus contributing to women’s empowerment.

Table 1: Women’s Triple Role

Role Role Composition

Reproductive Childbearing/rearing responsibilities and domestic tasks undertaken
by women, including the care and maintenance of the workforce
(husband and working children) and the future workforce (infants and
school-going children).
Productive Work done by men and women for payment in cash or kind. Includes
both market production with an exchange value and
subsistence/home production for actual use/potential exchange value.
Community Activities undertaken primarily by women at the community level as an
extension of their reproductive role. Includes provision and
maintenance of collective resources; water, health and education.
Work is voluntary unpaid and undertaken in addition to the other roles.
It rarely includes levels of decision making and formal community
politics - this is often the role of men who get paid in cash, status or
power.
(source Moser 1995:27-36)

4
3:1 WID

In the early 1980’s in an attempt to meet the demands of the women’s movement and
the Decade for Women, donors and NGOs rapidly adopted the women in development
(WID) approach.

In light of the criticism levelled at past donor policies WID appeared to provide a
manageable ‘add-on’ solution to the issue of women being ‘left out’ of development.
This approach views women in isolation, making resources more directly available to
them as a means facilitating their involvement. The underlying rationale being that
development activity would proceed better if women were integrated into the process
and thus as an untapped resource able to provide an economic contribution to
development (Moser 1995:3).

Rather than challenging male bias WID operates within the environment where it prevails
and so largely ignores the real problem of women’s unequal position to men.

WID does not represent a monolith of thought, and five policy approaches are further
classified. These approaches differ in terms of the roles recognised and the type of
gender need that is met. Outlined in Table 2 these are: Welfare, Equity, Anti-poverty,
Efficiency and Empowerment (Moser 1998 citing Moser 1998 and Buvinic 1983, 1986).

3:2 GAD

Gender and development (GAD) offers an alternative and potentially more powerful
position shifting away from the WID approach and the marginalisation of women-only
programmes.

GAD starts from the premise that women have always participated in development but
from an unequal and unacknowledged position.

What constrain women are the social structures that favour male domination and female
subordination (Humble cited Guijt and Kaul Shah 1998:35).

In adopting a GAD perspective the motivation for intervention is to work toward equity
and respect for the human rights of all people

(Williams, Seed and Mwau 1994:7). Inequalities are addressed through an

understanding of the roles of men and women in relation to situation specific
development goals, for example water supply. GAD theory asserts that women improve
their position relative to men in ways that will benefit the whole community. GAD seeks to
ensure that all decisions concerning development be reached through the local,
equitable participation of women and men in the development process.

GAD asserts that gender is a cross-sectoral and social concern. Its approaches and
principles underpin typical water and sanitation development objectives related to
efficiency, effectiveness and equity.

5
Table 2: Policy Approaches
PGN = Practical Gender Needs SGN = Strategic Gender Needs (Table adapted from
Moser 1995:56-7)
Approach Purpose Needs of women Comment
met and roles
recognised
Pre WID: Welfare – To bring women into To meet PGN in Women seen as
the earliest development as reproductive role, passive
approach better mothers: this relating particularly beneficiaries of
concerned with is seen as their to food aid, development: a
women in most important role malnutrition and non challenging
developing in development. family planning. and therefore
countries popular with
government.
WID: Equity – the To gain equity for To meet SGN in Challenging – in
original WID women in the terms of the triple identifying
approach development role – through state women’s
process: women down intervention, subordination in
seen as active giving political and terms of
participants in economic autonomy relationship to
development. by reducing men, considered
inequality with men. threatening/not
popular with
governments.
WID: Anti-poverty – To ensure poor To meet PGN in Poor women
the second WID women increase productive role, to isolated as
approach their productivity, earn an income, separate category
poverty seen as a often small-scale with tendency only
problem of income generating to recognise
underdevelopment projects. productive role.
not of
subordination.
WID: Efficiency – To ensure To meet PGN in Women seen in
the third and development is context of declining terms of delivery
predominant WID more efficient and social services by capacity and
approach more effective: relying on women’s ability to extend
women’s economic triple role and working day; post
participation seen elasticity of their 1980s popular
as associated with time. approach.
equity.
From WID toward To empower women To reach SGN in Potentially
GAD: Empowerment through greater self- terms of triple role – challenging with
– the most recent reliance: women’s indirectly bottom up emphasis on Third
approach subordination seen mobilisation around World and
articulated by not only as a PGN as means to women’s self
women from the problem of men but confront oppression reliance: popular
South also of colonial and but largely
neo-colonial unsupported by
oppression. governments.

6
4:0 Gender Issues in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

4:1 Locating Gender in the International Water and Sanitation Arena

‘Those interested in participation have much in common with those interested in gender.
The exploitation which millions of women suffer in developing countries should be of
particular concern to those interested in implementing or promoting more participatory
projects. Development interventions have been shown to be more sustainable when
women are involved as equal partners’

(Blackburn and Holland 1998:5)

In 1977 a major UN gathering, ‘the World Water Conference’ in Mar del Plata, Argentina,
declared that the 1980s were to become the International Drinking Water and Sanitation
Decade. Realisation of the Decade slogan ‘water and sanitation for all’ would demand a
radical overhaul of the way water and sanitation development was implemented. This
included a vision for reaching the needs of the poor and marginalised and in this context
gender equality and women’s participation began to be acknowledged as key themes.

Following the Decade and the preparation of the Earth Summit’s Agenda 21 Document,
(specifically Chapter 18) (UNCED 1992), a set of agreed principles (most commonly
known as the ‘Dublin Principles’5) provided the basis for policy discussion in the water
and sanitation sector. A key feature was recognition of water as an economic commodity,
a factor which demanded that attention should be focused on the value water has to its
users, including women and how such value translates into demand for services.

The need for a holistic, participatory and integrated approach in the management of
scarce water resources and the environment was also seen as key and the importance of
the role of women was clearly stated in Principle 3, below.

Principle 3, The Dublin Statement, January 1992

Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water and
goes on to state that:

The pivotal role of women as providers and users of water and guardians of the living
environment has seldom been reflected in institutional arrangements for the
development and management of water resources. Acceptance and implementation of
this principle requires positive policies to address women’s specific needs and to equip
and empower women to participate at all levels in water resources programmes,
including decision making and implementation, in ways defined by them.

Key international bodies have been established to maintain the impetus of the Decade
and related initiatives. They include the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative
Council (WSSCC)6 which endorses gender as a specific focal area and the ‘Global Water

5 These four guiding principles for water related activity, result from the International
Conference on Water and the Environment (1992)
6 Agreement was reached to set up the WSSCC in 1987 during a review of the Decade

that involved donors, developing country partners and NGOs . The purpose of the WSSCC

7
Partnership’ (1996) that recognises the commitment to support the management of
water based on equity and demand. This objective is strengthened by the World Water
Council’s recent task of developing a long-term vision for water and water issues that
includes the promotion of integrated approaches consistent with the UNCED and Dublin
principles.

4:2 Existing Gender Roles and Relations

Development goals in the water and sanitation sector typically address issues of access
to and the availability of adequate and safe supply and services, poverty alleviation and
health and well being.

Development goals in water and sanitation converge with gender issues because women
play a central role in the provision, management and safeguarding of water-related
resources and facilities, while men are often key investment decision-makers but do not
always account for women’s needs.

The whole community, women, men and children experience the negative effects of
inadequate supply and service through poor health, nutrition and the emotional and
physical devastation of recurrent water and waste related disease. However,
‘participation of women alongside men in planning, design, maintenance and
management has brought distinct benefits to the functioning and use of (water) systems
and created more equal chances for training and functions of women and men’ (van Wijk-
Sijbesma 1998).

Approaching water, sanitation and hygiene from a gender and development perspective
is crucial to ensure balanced control of the resource and facilities in order to facilitate
‘successful’7 projects. Box 3 and Table 3 highlight the tools and methods used to analyse
gender considerations in development projects.

is to provide an international forum for the exchange of views, ideas and practices.
Focusing its activity through the establishment of tasked ‘working groups’ gender is
addressed as a key issue.
7 The key elements for success are strengthened through the full participation of women

and men. The Environmental Health Project (EHP, formally WASH/USAID), has identified 8
indicators of success in water and sanitation projects that have reduction of childhood
diarrhoeal disease as the ultimate goal. They are health impact, water quantity, hand
washing, latrine use, water access, latrine access, cost recovery and community
maintenance (Billig 1998).

8
Box 3

Tools, Methods and Frameworks

A variety of tools and methods have been developed and used for integrating gender
considerations into development projects. As with Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA),
many of these techniques were initially developed in the agriculture sector. Adaptations
need to be made for application in the water and sanitation sector. Indeed, many of the
designers of the gender analysis methods or frameworks expect them to be applied
flexibly to suit the local context and programme.

Frameworks are practical tools to help users integrate gender analysis in to social and
infrastructure planning. Some of the main gender analysis frameworks are listed below,
many of which contain a series of inter-linked tools.

Harvard Analytical Framework (including a checklist) and People-Orientated Planning

Moser Framework
Gender Analysis Matrix (GAM)
Capacities and Vulnerabilities Analysis Framework
Women’s Empowerment (Longwe) Framework
Social Relations Approach

See March, Smyth and Mukhopadhyay (1999) for a description of the key aims, concepts,
uses, benefits and limitations of each framework. The checklist developed as part of the
Harvard Analysis Framework is set out in Appendix 1. If it were to be used for a water
supply and sanitation programme, it would need to be adapted to suit the local context.

An example of a GAM used in a drinking water supply project in Ouled Hamouda in

Tunisia is given below in table 3. Prior to project implementation women had to walk
2km twice a day to collect water and women rated this as their biggest problem. The
men, who never fetch water, rated this problem as their fifth priority. The use of the
matrix enabled the men to understand the potential impact of addressing this problem.
After completing the matrix, both women and men classified the water project as their
first priority.

The table represents the combined views of both men and women in Ouled Harmouda. It
represents their expectations of the impact of the proposed water project. It enabled
men to become more aware of the burden of women’s labour and after the project men
also began to collect water. Thus emphasising the potential for gender aware learning of
such a method. This technique and others that are equally adaptable can be easily used
in conjunction with participatory assessment and evaluation techniques. While this
scenario seems ideal, its potential benefits are clear.

9
Table 3
Using the GAM: Potential project impacts in Ouled Hamouda
Labour: Time: Resources: Culture:
Women + Don’t need to carry + Saves a lot of time - Must pay for - Responsibility of
big cans of water + Have more time water paying for water
+ No fears about with children + Can have home + Opportunity to
personal security garden or other participate in
small projects community project

Men - A lot of difficult - Takes more time to + potable water is + Don’t have to worry
construction work build available as much about the
+ learn new skills for + Can stay home with + Improved family when away
work outside the family while working nutrition
community
Household + women feel more + Women given more + Improved access + New activity for
secure when fetching time for child care to water children – they can
water + improved help their mother
+ New activity for nutrition and better
entire family health
Community +Establish committee - Many more + More potable + Clean environment
for potable water community meetings water available for + Prestige of the
+ Learn about govt to attend all community
services

4:3 Gender Issues in Water Supply

Water is a limited resource and its supply is increasingly being met in ‘demand-
responsive’ terms through the facilitation of integrated programmes8. Focus is also given
to the management and efficiency of use of the resource and the impact of its use on the
environment.

Demand responsive approaches should enable women and men in different socio-
economic groups and communities to express their social, economic and environmental
demands and incentives relative to water, and value and honour them in a balanced way
(van Wijk-Sijbesma 1998). However,

it often still happens that while women ‘are involved’, the nature of this involvement
relative to that of men is biased toward voluntary physical work, such as cleaning and
greasing hand pumps and collecting payments. Men handle the management decisions,
such as the use of collected payments
(Dayal and van Wijk 1999).

The changing role of government from provider to facilitator places greater emphases on
community, household and individual capacity to express demand and undertake
sustainable management options. Capacity building activities should equally benefit
women and men to ensure efficient, effective and equitable demand. However in many
situations the communication and political processes that exist between the community
and local government, particularly through Community Based Organisations (CBOs) are
dominated by one sex.

Targeting dominant people, or traditionally ‘accepted’ groups of either women or men for
specific training (e.g. community cost recovery and financial management techniques) or
tasks (e.g. participation in labour in kind) risks reinforcing existing inequalities in
provision, access and availability of supply. Women’s roles in particular are often

8Integrated programme approaches increasingly encompass all aspects of water supply,

environmental sanitation and hygiene promotion.

10
undervalued, underexposed and underrated. Therefore, ‘greater participation of women
in management should not lead to more work and responsibilities for women and exempt
or bypass men, but equitably distribute benefits and burdens between the sexes’ (van
Wijk-Sijbesma 1998:18).

The integrated approach to water and resource management and the associated inter-
sectoral activities favoured by many decentralising governments can tend to see gender
in terms of including ‘women’s’ and ‘community’ needs in project planning, technology
choice and so on. Although obviously important also

there is a fundamental need to understand demand related to type of user,

user, recognising
that a ‘community’ or a ‘household’ is not a homogeneous unit, just as ‘women’ and
‘men’ are not.

This perspective recognises the need to respond adequately and appropriately to user
demand.

Gender issues influence project development and design throughout the project cycle
(see Appendix 1: Checklist for Gender Issues in Project Identification and Design). Gender
aspects of demand and incentive for improved water supply are far reaching and analysis
of these from both women and men’s perspectives are vitally important at the beginning
of the project cycle.

The results of gender analysis and gender-differentiated target group analysis9 are
specific to each community and include the identification of issues concerning existing
and potential resource management and environmental demand. However there are
‘typical’ gender issues related to the availability of, and access to water supply. In relation
to rural water supply project development, these frequently include:

Project activity: Gender issues:

• Siting of Water Points Impacts on women’s time and health in

collecting/transporting water over long distances; lost
energy/time to undertake other roles, for example
supplementing household nutrition through traditional
productive roles such as vegetable growing. Girl-children
often undertakes collection to help women – impacts on their

9Gender analysis explores the relationships of men and women in the community.

Through a process involving the triangulation of information it highlights the inequalities

in those relationships by asking:- Who does what? Who has what? Who decides? How?
Who gains? Who loses? Which men? Which women? Which children?

Gender-differentiated target group analysis is required to overcome the problems of

analysing gender in too unspecific groups. For example defining women as a group on
their own does not reflect the different roles that they fulfil as farmers or micro-
entrepreneurs, growing specific crops or making and selling certain products. Nor does it
account for the different levels of privilege that women experience from different socio-
economic and socio-cultural settings.

Frameworks, tools and methods to facilitate such analysis encompass visualisation,

collective planning, communication, context-specific analysis and monitoring and
evaluation (March, Smyth, Mukhopadhyay 1999:18) to inform gender aware project
planning and design processes.

11
 health and access to education.

• Consultation and In many communities it is mainly men who make decisions

Decision Making related to water and finance. Women often do not have
access to information, knowledge, management options,
choice and critically ownership. Also men may not have the
same incentive as women to invest in improved water supply.

• Construction Men participate in technical and hardware related

construction tasks while women often provide physical labour
and food/lodgings to siting teams. This impacts on their time,
health and ability to undertake existing and demanding triple
roles.

• Operation and Women often have the greatest interest in timely and
Maintenance (O&M) adequate O&M, yet they often do not have sufficient
influence on Water Point Committees (WPCs) etc. to bring this
about. For example women often deal with the detrimental
effects of poor water source protection, vandalism and poor
construction during water collection (e.g. broken windlass,
stolen bucket, cracked aprons and stagnant waste-water).
Women are also often excluded from undertaking O&M tasks
that are often neglected. Women’s inclusion could potentially
lighten their collective workload.

• Community The absence of women and women’s voices on WPCs

Management impacts on knowledge of the problems experienced by users,
for example WPC ‘rules’ for payment (cost recovery) and
access (amount and frequency) may disregard the needs of
poorer female and child headed households. Ownership and
control of the resource is often linked directly to individuals
on the village councils – again women are marginalised.

4:4 Gender Issues in Sanitation

Existing knowledge of gender issues in sanitation tends to be related to the on-site

disposal of excreta. However there is a need to understand the implications of gender in
the broader definition of sanitation10. It is also critical to understand that different groups
of women and different groups of men favour different behaviours and practices that can
exacerbate the exclusion of some in favour of others. This is because

sanitation can reinforce other inequitable social practices that most often undermine the
position of women, for example preferential access to education for boys over girls.

10 The WSSCC Working Group on Sanitation Promotion (WHO 1998) defines sanitation as:
‘interventions to reduce people’s exposure to diseases by providing a clean environment
in which to live; measures to break the cycle of disease. This usually includes disposing
of or hygienic management of human and animal excreta, refuse, and wastewater, the
control of disease vectors and the provision of washing facilities for personal and
domestic hygiene. Sanitation involves both behaviours and facilities which work together
to form a hygienic environment.’

12
As sanitation projects look toward being ‘demand responsive’ understanding what
motivates and raises demand is crucial. As in water projects, gender analysis at the
beginning of a project is vital. Reluctance to discuss excreta disposal practices and
hygiene behaviours due to cultural and gender boundaries might mean that this is more
difficult, however such problems can be overcome11. Men and women approach
environmental sanitation and excreta disposal from very different perspectives. They also
display different levels of willingness to discuss the issues. For example women together
are more willing to discuss reasons for latrine building than a group of men and women,
or only men.

Women and girl children in particular face severe and detrimental problems of personal
safety, hygiene, privacy and health in relation to the use of latrines, at home and school
and traditional places for excreta disposal, for example defecation fields. A particular
problem is related to the fact that women often have to wait until darkness to defecate
and pass urine. This has a number of detrimental effects including security in terms of
fear of rape and harassment and health in terms of diet and the risks of infections that
may effect future fertility. Equally invasive are issues of privacy and personal hygiene
related to menstruation, washing and bathing. At school there are often no facilities for
menstruating girls and where latrines exist they are often expected to share facilities with
boys. Such problems are compounded where there is also a lack of water for hygiene and
sanitation purposes.

A demand responsive approach also means understanding the different technology and
design requirements of men, women and children. The cultural behaviour of women as
mothers, sisters, daughters-in-law, wives and daughters, relative to men as sons,
husbands and fathers impacts on access to sanitation facilities. For example in some
societies pregnant women are prohibited from using a latrine. In others daughters may
not use the same latrine as their fathers and fathers-in-law. The social seclusion of
women in many societies also prevents them from having access to public and
communal facilities.

While women may be motivated to improve household sanitation, as with water it is men
who often make decisions regarding investment, finances and access to credit. Once
again a gender approach to the promotion of sanitation as a benefit and right for all is
needed.

4:5 Gender Issues Relative to Hygiene

As hygiene education programmes give way to more innovative hygiene and sanitation
promotion approaches,12 hygiene need not remain an issue directed solely toward
women.

A gender approach to hygiene offers men and women a role in the promotional work and
division of responsibilities for family hygiene practices. It ‘encourages shared decision
making about resources and the needs of men and women are addressed relative to
their own areas of skill, authority and responsibility’ (van Wijk-Sijbesma 1998).

11 A number of participatory tools exist for the specific purpose of enabling people to ‘talk
excreta’, for example the ‘sanitation ladder’, the ‘diarrhoea doll’ used widely in Southern
and Eastern Africa.
12 See Curtis V et al. (1998) ‘Happy, Healthy and Hygienic’, UNICEF and the London

School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, WSSCC (1998) Sanitation Promotion, WHO for
such examples.

13
A gender approach is important in terms of sharing responsibility for reducing the risk,
occurrence and burden of ill health that causes loss of production particularly among
women. Women also bear much of the physical cost of child mortality and morbidity due
to water and sanitation related diseases. Given the gender dimensions that affect
decisions to invest in sanitation and improved water supply, it would seem appropriate to
target men in messages that link the cost effectiveness of infrastructure investments
with the health and well being of its users.

Advocating the involvement of men and boys in hygiene promotion demands a wider
focus on issues in addition to health messages. It should also include ‘traditional’ male
interests such as cost effectiveness, status, house construction, influencing local
government. Additionally the need for community role models in practices such as hand
washing, the disposal of human faeces, consumption of safe water and food and
protection from mosquitoes is a role that men can equally undertake. However this
should not preclude acknowledgement and action that demonstrates women too have
these interests.

The basic message is that if hygiene promotion is to have any impact at all on the health
and well-being of a community, men not just women and children need to change their
existing hygiene and sanitation behaviour and practices. In many respects this is
currently the biggest challenge for the water supply and sanitation sector. Hygiene and
sanitation promotion is ripe for the facilitation of new approaches centred on gender (van
Wijk 1998).

5:0 Mainstreaming Gender

If understanding the concept of gender relative to water supply, sanitation and hygiene
promotion is the first step, ensuring commitment to the process that results in the
mainstreaming of gender is the second. Here mainstreaming is considered in the context
of gender and development principles and approaches.

‘Mainstreaming gender’ is both a technical and a political process which requires shifts
in organisational culture and ways of thinking, as well as in the goals, structures and the
resource allocation of international agencies, governments and NGOs

(Kardam cited Baden and Masika 1997). Without the presence of ‘changing’ institutions
gender approaches will remain a ‘fringe’ activity carried out by a group of enthusiasts
(MacDonald, Sprenger and Dubel 1997:106). Change in such institutions hinges on a
process of ‘learning’ (and ‘unlearning’) to adapt attitudes, practices, beliefs and
procedures.

5:1 ‘Gender Readiness’

Moving gender from the periphery to the heart of development activity is about owning
and understanding the process of change. Organisational ‘gender readiness’ involves
more than knowledge of the issues embedded in international development opinion. It is
often the case that secondary stakeholders13 think that they are ‘doing gender’ yet this
self perpetuating belief may translate in practice to be little more than the uncoordinated
effort of a few ‘enlightened’ field based staff. This notion of ‘doing gender’ is often far
removed from reality and is led from the ‘top’ leaving field based staff with inadequate
support, direction, resources, expertise and knowledge.

13Government officials and staff, development agencies and their supporters and
advocators.

14
Unless gender is given the same legitimate consideration as other aspects of
development dialogue, planning and design it is neither a panacea nor helpful
portmanteau. ‘Doing gender’ may convey the right political image but is this leading to
effectiveness, efficiency or equity?

5:2 Institutional Issues in Mainstreaming

In part, institutionalising gender is about exposing the gender side of the organisation’s
own principles and enabling action based on them. It is about changing institutions in the
interests of women so that women can benefit equally with men from the development
process. It is fundamentally about ownership of change.

Just as there is a tendency to seek practicable gender policies, so too is there a desire to
find a good institutional model. In the water and sanitation sector such a model has to
combine the needs of software and hardware while recognising the realities of the gender
differences that operate in all its areas of interest (van Wijk-Sijbesma 1998).

The act of mainstreaming gender presents challenges for a diverse range of institutional
functions, behaviours and attitudes, including policy making, planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation, agenda setting and benchmarking. The challenge can only be
met through the involvement of all staff and the pro-active use of operational strategies
including; research, advocacy, lobbying, training and education, procedures and
guidelines. The diversification in recruitment and selection, the deployment of analytical
tools and imaginative country programming and partner based dialogue.

The process of institutionalising gender requires the development of a number of

procedures relating to gender responsibility, accountability, co-ordination, monitoring,
evaluation and personnel policy.

Empirical evidence suggests that while some development agencies have used a number
of measures that have succeeded in institutionalising aspects of gender and
development, a gap remains between formal institutionalisation and practice. Co-
ordination is often absent, as is dissemination of ideas, while monitoring remains weak
(Jahan 1997).

One recurrent problem in attempting to institutionalise gender is that the very concept
remains elusive despite efforts to embed its principles. This has a lot to do with the fact
that new ideas are imposed upon ‘built in disparities’ in the gender relations that impact
upon how the institution already functions and behaves. This may seem obvious but it is
worth considering in light of the re-structuring that is already taking place in water and
sanitation related institutions around the globe. Consider, for example, the demands for
government institutions to be more accountable, decentralised, transparent, efficient and
responsive: facilitators rather than a providers. This has far reaching implication for the
institutionalisation of gender if responsibility of government is to be truly shared between
the sectors and stakeholders (Jahan 1997).

‘Mainstreaming gender is a process, rather than a goal’ (Sandler 1997) and therefore is
not an end in itself. It should be seen not simply in increasing women’s participation in
water and sanitation related development. Rather it should concentrate on the terms,
conditions and position of women’s participation, the actual substance of their
participation relative to men and the process of fostering change.

Mainstreaming is also about how gender inequalities impact upon the effectiveness of
other policy approaches, for example community management, demand responsive
approaches, cost recovery, the setting of tariffs and groundwater management.

15
Mainstreaming is a collaborative effort that is wholly dependent on coalitions, partnership
and the participation of actors from the wide range of water and sanitation interested
groups. This concurs with the multi-sectoral approach that is being increasingly favoured
in water sanitation and hygiene promotion in the rural water and sanitation sector in
many African contexts. An opportunity exists to capitalise on the lessons learned about
working together on mutually shared goals. Above all the institutionalisation process
requires sustained pressure and commitment over a prolonged period of time.

Mainstreaming also requires women, not only in terms of their token roles (as gender
advisor, women’s officer) but as an empowered group of advocates and champions for
change (Sandler 1997). It also requires men who are willing to listen, adapt and
contribute.

6:0 Determining Strategy

In the water supply and sanitation sector a number of strategies prevail: integrated
approaches, community management, demand responsive approaches, participation and
so on. It is within this context that gender sensitive approaches are implemented. The
challenge is to develop a strategy that optimises the gender benefits of these policy
trends in situation specific terms.

Those wishing to do this are not starting with a ‘clean slate’. Gender policies and
approaches are already being practised particularly at local levels, and the picture can be
confusing. For example, ‘equity’, ‘efficiency’, ‘empowerment’ and GAD approaches are
described in historical terms but actually ‘coexist, either as single policies of a particular
government or agency, or mix-and-matched within one organisation, in the hope that they
will form a coherent whole’ (Anderson 1992 cited March, Smyth and Mukhopadhyay
1999:9). Furthermore, the knowledge required to meet practical gender needs has
developed with some degree of confidence while meeting strategic needs and facilitating
strategic change is new to many.

A commitment to carry forward GAD principles and approaches provides a considered

and constructive start. This commitment needs to be framed in relation to the following:

• conceptual clarity and agreement in terms of overall development goals, e.g.

efficiency, effectiveness and equity - knowing where the organisation is, where it
wants to go and how it intends to get there,

• awareness of and respect for partners and their position,

• understanding gender concepts relative to water and sanitation – the sector’s

policies and the gender side of its guiding principles,

• an understanding of gender in the wider development arena,

• a commitment to the development of situation-specific strategies and approaches.

From this position a strategy can be developed that takes account of existing practices
and builds upon successful experiences.

A number of options can be considered based upon an open debate of the issues across
a broad range of stakeholders and consensus about the way forward. For example,

16
• the operationalisation of gender approaches throughout the ‘parent’ organisation
(through gender awareness raising, training and organisational mainstreaming) –
aiming toward a ‘gendered’ organisation before expanding to partner organisations
and other stakeholders

• the advocacy of GAD approaches in partner organisations (for example Southern

NGOs) (through the sharing of experiences, gender awareness raising, training and
the encouragement of organisational mainstreaming)

• a staged/multi-level approach to integrating gender across the parent organisation,

partner organisations and project planning, design and implementation processes
(through pilot projects, lessons learned and considered scaling-up)

• the opening of dialogue and commitment to support two-way informal

implementation with efforts to develop structures and monitoring mechanisms
(coming simultaneously from the field, the country office and the headquarter).

Such strategies will also need to consider the availability of resources including time and
human energy against existing demands. In short the strategy must be SMART (Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely).

7:0 Implications

So where does this leave those who wish to rise to the challenge of institutionalising and
mainstreaming gender? There are a number of pertinent implications.

7:1 Organisational Headquarters

• Gender is already an issue in the field. It may or may not be a supported issue in the
wider organisation. If the gap is to be bridged between the field and ‘the
organisation’, open, honest and informed dialogue must underpin initiatives for
change.

• New strategies and policy commitment require flexible change agents, ‘champions’
and leadership. Importantly use should be made of staff enthusiasm.

• Analysis of how an organisation is willing and able to adopt gender based strategies
must take into consideration the nature and culture of the organisation, its
relationship to its partners, their agenda and its own sphere of influence. It must also
consider the degree of diversity within the organisation and its ability to translate
theory and rhetoric into practice. The presence of a clear gender perspective is a
critical precondition for the implementation of gender based objectives (Macdonald,
Sprenger and Dubel 1997:10).

• Realistic objectives and expectations need to be communicated throughout the

organisation. This will serve to ensure that staff aims are modest yet combined with
ambition and that they are clear about the expectations and limitations of their role.

• Gender cannot be simply ‘bolted-on’ to existing agency values, beliefs, attitudes or

practice. Rather a critical examination is required to expose and positively capture
the nature of the gender relations that already exist in the organisation, so that they
may be harnessed in the strategic direction.

• Project staff throughout the implementation structure will need to be open to

mechanisms (training, advocacy, dialogue and resource allocation) that ensure they

17
 are knowledgeable, and adequately and appropriately skilled in gender approaches.
This is more likely to be adopted if a ‘critical mass’ of gender aware people exist in
the organisation, recognising that they are part of the overall development mission.

• Approaches, strategies, tools, mechanisms and capabilities must be flexible to the

needs of each situation based on a diagnosis of the issues, attitudes and belief
systems that prevail. A corporate approach to gender across such diverse situations
as those found in developing countries will be problematic.

• Mechanisms will be required to determine the strengths and weaknesses of gender

approaches throughout the organisation’s sphere of influence and the dissemination
of lessons learned.

7:2 National and Country Offices

• Gender is a highly emotive and political concept. It can capture the imagination and
equally alienate. Advocacy is key to the process of ‘selling’ gender to policy and
decision-makers. The messages and strategies used to do this must take in to
account the gender identities that exist in those potentially willing to champion the
cause.

• Dialogue with government and interested parties in the water and sanitation sector
has to be carefully developed to take account of policy trends and the influence of
donors, lobbyists, political will and so on.

• Agencies can be opportunistic, making gender interventions as and when a common

understanding and/or partnership evolves.

• Partnership and multi-sectoral approaches will be essential to avoid isolated or

duplicated and uncoordinated initiatives.

• Additional resources (including time and expertise) will be required to support

national and project level initiatives.

• Mechanisms will need to be developed to monitor impact.

7:3 Field Based Projects

• Gender concepts are more likely to be embraced if local champions are identified.

• Strategic alliances at a local level will help the facilitation of locally developed
approaches.

• Transparent communication will be required to avoid mistrust and alienation.

• All project implementers will require patience, realism, flexibility and a sense of pace.

• Resources including expertise and training capacity will be needed to activate interest
and commitment to gender approaches.

• Project log-frames and project cycles will need to be considered in gender terms.

• Mechanisms will need to be put in place to monitor impact.

18
Bibliography

Afshar H (ed.) (1998) ‘Women and Empowerment - Illustrations from the Third World’, Women’s
Studies at York, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Baden S and Masika R (eds.) (1997) ‘Issue 5: Approaches to Institutionalising Gender’, BRIDGE –
‘raising gender awareness among policy makers and practitioners’, IDS, Sussex

Black M (1998) ‘Learning What Works – A 20 Year Retrospective View on International Water and
Sanitation Co-operation - 1978-1998’ UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme,
Washington

Blackburn J and Holland J (eds.) (1998) ‘Who Changes?’, Intermediate Technology Publications

DAC (1997a) ‘DAC Guidelines on Gender equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development
Co-operation,’ DAC Expert Groups on Women in Development, DCD/DAC/WID (97) 25,
Development Assistance Committee, OEDC, Paris

Dayal R and van Wijk C (1999) ‘Note to DRA Electronic Conference’, WEDC

DFID (1998) ‘Breaking the Barriers – Women and the Elimination of World Poverty’, DFID
Information Department, DFID

Goetz A 1995 (ed.) ‘Getting Institutions Right for Women’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 3, IDS, Sussex

Guijt I and Kaul Shah M (eds.) (1998) ‘The Myth of Community - Gender Issues in Participatory
Development’, Intermediate Technology Publications

Jahan R (1997) ‘The Elusive Agenda - Mainstreaming Women in Development’, University Press
Ltd. Dhaka and ZED Books

Kerstan B (1995) ‘ Gender Sensitive Participatory Approaches in Technical Co-operation, Trainers’

Manual for Local Experts’, GTZ, Eschborn

Macdonald M, Spenger E and Dubel I (1997) ‘Gender and Organisational Change - Bridging the
Gap Between Policy and Practice’, Royal Tropical Institute, The Netherlands

March C, Smyth I and Mukhopadhyay M (1999) ‘A Guide to Gender-Analysis Frameworks’, Oxfam

Publications (GB)

Moser C.O.N (1989) ‘Gender Planning in the Third World: meeting practical and strategic gender
needs’, World Development 17; 11

Moser C.O.N (1995) ‘Gender Planning and Development - Theory, Practice and Training’,
Routledge

Sandler J (1997) ‘UNIFEM’s Experiences In Mainstreaming For Gender Equality’, Presented to

UNICEF Meeting of Gender Focal Points, May 1997

Valadez J, and Bamberger M (eds). 1994. Monitoring and Evaluating Social Programs in
Developing Countries, A Handbook for Policy makers, Managers, and Researchers. Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank, EDI Development Series.

van Wijk-Sijbesma C (1998) ‘Gender in Water Resources Management, Water Supply and
Sanitation - Roles and Realities Revisited’, International Water and Sanitation Centre, The Hague,
Netherlands

Williams S, Seed J and Mwau A (1994) ‘The Oxfam Gender Training Maunal’, Oxfam (UK and
Ireland)

19
Appendix 1: Checklist for gender issues in project identification and design

Assessing women’s needs:

What needs and opportunities exist for increasing women's productivity and/or production?

What needs and opportunities exist for increasing women's access to and control of resources?

What needs and opportunities exist for increasing women's access to and control of benefits?

How do these needs and opportunities relate to the country's other general and sectoral development needs
and opportunities?

Have women been directly consulted in identifying such needs and opportunities?

Defining general project objectives

Are project objectives explicitly related to women's needs?

Do these objectives adequately reflect women's needs?

Have women participated in setting those objectives?

Have there been any earlier efforts?

How has the present proposal built on earlier efforts?

Identifying possible negative effects

Might the project reduce women's access to, or control of, resources and benefits?

Might it adversely affect women's situation in some other way?

What will be the effects on women in the short and longer run?

Women’s dimension in project design:

Project impact on women’s activities

Which of these activities (production, reproduction and maintenance, sociopolitical) does the project affect?

Is the planned component consistent with the current gender denomination for the activity?

If it plans to change the women's performance of that activity (locus of the activity, remunerative mode,
technology, mode of activity), is this feasible, and what positive or negative effects would it have on women?

If there is no change, is this a missed opportunity for women's roles in the development process?

How can the project design be adjusted to increase the above-mentioned positive effects, and reduce or
eliminate the negative ones?

Project impact on women’s access and control

How will each of the project's components affect women's access to and control of the resources and
benefits engaged in and stemming from the production of goods and services?

How will each of the project's components affect women's access to and control of the resources and
benefits engaged in and stemming from the reproduction and maintenance of the human resources?

How will each of the project's components affect women's access to and control of the resources and
benefits engaged in and stemming from the sociopolitical functions?
What forces have been set into motion to induce further exploration of constraints and possible
improvements?
How can the project design be adjusted to increase women's access to and control of resources and
benefits?
Source: Joseph Valadez and Michael Bamberger, 1994.

20