The document describes the development and piloting of a Gender in Irrigation Learning and Improvement Tool (GILIT). The tool was developed based on research evidence and peer reviewed. It was then piloted in irrigation schemes in Malawi and Uzbekistan. The piloting revealed that while national policies aim to improve gender equality, local social and cultural contexts still influence scheme management and outcomes. The tool was found to facilitate discussion about gender issues, but may need simplification for ease of use. Further refinement of the tool could help it continue contributing lessons learned at the policy and program level.
Pulmonary drug delivery system M.pharm -2nd sem P'ceutics
Improving learning in irrigation: What approaches can improve participation and benefits for women?
1. Improving learning in irrigation:
What approaches can improve participation
and benefits for women?
Nicole Lefore, Elizabeth Weight, Nozilakhon Mukhamedova
13 March 2018
Webinar
2. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Demand from donors and governments:
Project/scheme level learning tool for gender
equitability in irrigation
How can we…
assess, report and improve gender equitability on
irrigation projects?
assess across geographical areas and types of irrigation
schemes?
use a tool across different institutions and with different
expertise/capabilities?
focus on what is in the project scope of control?
3. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Gender in Irrigation Learning and
Improvement Tool - GILIT
PROCESS TO DEVELOP TOOL
1. Based on research evidence
2. Peer reviewed
3. Piloted
4. Edited/adapted with partner organizations
4. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Modules, questions and scoring built on
evidence
Levels of equitability in 3 areas across project cycle
1. Access to scheme resources: information, land,
water, inputs)
2. Participation in scheme management: membership,
leadership, decision-making
3. Access to scheme benefits: market
information/support, services, revenue
5. sustainable solutions for people and societies
GILIT Tool: 5 Components
Section A:
Access to
Scheme
Resources
Section B:
Participation
in Scheme
Governance
Section C:
Benefits
from the
Scheme
Component 5:
Action Questions
Component 1: Context
6. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Component 1
• National and sub-national environment
• Data: Policy documents, budget
allocations, etc.
• Not scored
GILIT Tool: Component 1
Component 1: Context
7. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Section A:
Access to
Scheme
Resources
Section B:
Participation
in Scheme
Governance
Section C:
Benefits
from the
Scheme
Component 1: Context
• Access to land, water, and inputs
• Data: Discussions with women and men
• Score: Compare to “optimal”
GILIT Tool: Component 2 (Section A)
8. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Section A:
Access to
Scheme
Resources
Section B:
Participation
in Scheme
Governance
Section C:
Benefits
from the
Scheme
Component 1: Context
• Participation in
governance
• Data: Discussions
• Score: Compare to
“optimal”
GILIT Tool: Component 3 (Section B)
9. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Section A:
Access to
Scheme
Resources
Section B:
Participation
in Scheme
Governance
Section C:
Benefits
from the
Scheme
Component 1: Context
• Benefits
• Data:
Discussions
• Score: Compare
to “optimal”
GILIT Tool: Component 4 (Section C)
10. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Section A:
Access to
Scheme
Resources
Section B:
Participation
in Scheme
Governance
Section C:
Benefits
from the
Scheme
Component 5:
Action Questions
GILIT Tool: Component 5
Component 1: Context
• Ideas for
improvement
• Data:
Discussions
• Not Scored
11. sustainable solutions for people and societies
GILIT Tool: Scoring
Sections A, B and C scored
Higher score = greater
gender equality
Weighted scoring for
Section B (Governance)
and Section C (Benefits)
Quantitative scores enable
comparisons
12. sustainable solutions for people and societies
GILIT Tool: Key Considerations
1. Adaptable
2. Snapshot in time
3. Supports reflection and analysis
4. Gender equality is complex
14. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Piloting methodology
Where: Malawi
How: Interviews and discussion groups
Timeframe: 1.5 to 3 hours (all sections/modules)
Where: On scheme/in field
When: Usual time to be on farm
Who: Scheme participants, project managers, local
NGOs, local extension (100+ respondents)
16. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Pilot Results: Access to scheme resources
Kaziputa Lufilya
Self score: 27 of 33
Constraints:
Domestic water needs not
considered: washing, livestock
Lack of access to inputs so
women have fewer plots
Suggestions to improve:
new arrangements for fines for
improper water use
Self score: NA, > Qs on planning
Constraints:
Domestic water needs not
considered: washing, livestock
Land in name of male head of
household
Polygamy splits subsidies and
inputs if given by household
Suggestions to improve:
Beyond scope of scheme
manager (change culture)
17. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Pilot Results: Participation in scheme
management
Kaziputa Lufilya
Self score: 23 of 24
Constraints:
No formal constraints to be
member, vote, stand for
positions, speak/be heard,
attend trainings
Women do not take executive
positions – meetings too far
Club leadership has ‘changed’
the women
Suggestions to improve:
Bicycles to get to meetings
Self score: 19 of 24
Constraints:
Women are “strangers”; members
must be land owners
Many constraints to go to meetings,
vote, be heard
NGOs work for more equality
through gender mainstreaming, but
only work with the women
Suggestions to improve:
Women to have cell phones;
scheme formally communicates to
women on meetings, elections,
trainings and their rights
Civic education to change culture
18. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Pilot Results: Access to benefits
Kaziputa Lufilya
Self score: 16.4 of 21
Constraints:
Women and men do not access
information equally: transportation to
field days, radio owned by men
Men control marketing of produce, but
now have committee including women
Suggestions to improve:
Extension wants more access for
women to learning events
Scheme execs need bicycles
Self score: 11.85 of 21
Constraints:
Women cannot ‘sit on same chair’
as men; re: face to face extension
Women don’t speak in front of in-
laws
Men control marketing and no
transparency in revenue
Suggestions to improve:
Women-owned businesses could
trade with the scheme
Men: NGO provides enough to
women and scheme does not need
to do more
22. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Results: Access to scheme resources
WCA management & Large scale
farmers
Households
Self score: 18 of 33
Constraints:
Women were excluded from
scheme planning and decision
making processes
Only large farm needs were
included into the main
beneficiaries
Standardized irrigations schemes
(absence of context)
Self score: 8 of 33
Constraints:
Not aware about the existence of the
scheme and their rights to participate
Domestic water needs not considered:
washing, livestock
24. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Self score: 16 of 24
Constraints:
Only large farms (male) are invited
to the meetings of WCA
Women consider that they will not
be heard.
Self score: 4 of 24
Constraints:
Lack of formal representation of
households in the WCAs
absence of formal mechanisms
requiring WCAs to consider irrigation
needs for household production
significant and negative impact on
women’s ability to produce food for
their families.
WCA management & Large scale
farmers
Households
Results: Participation in scheme management
26. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Results: Access to benefits
Self score: 13 of 21
Constraints:
Irrigation scheme accounts only
crop water requirements and
irrigated area to create irrigation
schedule
State-order crops and irrigation
preferences
WCA manages water, but does
not provide training or any other
services.
Self score: 5 of 21
Constraints:
Tail-end households receive
insufficient water or services,
although they make all the
payments to the scheme.
Water conflicts between large
farmers and household producers.
No schedule or clarity regarding
water to households.
WCA management & Large scale
farmers
Households
27. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Summary of piloting in
Uzbekistan
• Lack of formal representation of
households in WCA
• Absence of formal mechanisms
requiring WCAs to consider
irrigation needs for household
production
• Mismatch + gender-biased
approaches= negatively impact
small scale, female producers
29. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Pilot Results: Improving gender equitability
on irrigation schemes
1. National policy/guidelines do not change local social and
cultural context (reflected in scheme management and
equity outcomes)
2. Equity in access to resources and participation in
management, but not equity in benefits
3. Separate planning for domestic and irrigation remains an
issue; increases potential for conflict later
4. Land access arrangements affect participation, but not
always as expected (seasonal access, titles/tenure)
5. State, NGOs and project managers play different roles in
gender on scheme (NGO mainstream gender, scheme can
take gender specific actions)
30. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Pilot Results: Tool assessment and refining
1. Little difference in scoring (men and women)
2. Explanations and suggestions differed by gender
3. Discussions more important than scores to participants
4. Solutions offered not all implementable
5. Women more likely to offer solutions where equitability is
already higher.
6. Requires simplification and clear instructions; useful to
develop localized fact sheets
Is there still the need for the tool to contribute lessons at
policy, programs level?
31. sustainable solutions for people and societies
Gender in Irrigation: Learning and Improvement Tool
(GILIT)
• Addresses demand,
specific needs
• Research-based
• Participatory, self-
assessment
• Weighted scoring
• Focus on scheme level
solutions
Photo credit: Timothy Adei/Team 1000 Words
Does scheme’s mission/goals align with these national and sub-national goals?
Section A has 8 questions
Sample questions: options for scheme siting and design; women and men’s different crop choices and different water needs for both domestic and agricultural use.
Data: Interview a range of stakeholder (management, producers, extension agents). Gather data from men and women, marginalized, poorer, management = score across all of these stakeholder groups
More points are given if, for example, information was gathered from women and men re: their water needs
Section B: Participation in scheme governance (8 questions)
Sample questions: women and men can join a scheme, become member of the user association, hold positions of leadership
More points are given when the by-laws note that women and men are eligible (i.e. no barriers to membership); when women contributed to scheme by-laws; and when women and men have equal voting rights in scheme
Section C: Benefits (7 questions)
More points are given when women and men receive the amount of water they need throughout the year; decisions re: water restrictions do not discriminate; trainings are held at times and locations that are convenient to women and men
Action Questions = Suggestions for improvement.
Each section includes area for writing “Key Issues and Lessons” and “Feedback for Suggested Actions” (show a scoring page in the PPT)
Action questions are important qualitative feedback: responses to these questions provides tangible actions for investment of resources to strengthen gender equity
Sections B and C are more difficult to achieve, so score more highly if these goals are met achieved.
Quantitative scores support comparison across schemes, contexts, and over time.
1. Examples of how the tool can be adapted to the context, scheme, etc.
2. Snapshot in time – useful as a baseline and for understanding changes over time, with a particular intervention
3. Supports and encourages thinking/reflection. It is a meaningful tool when used by a project team to reflect on deeper issues of gender equality.
4. No tool will spit out a single number that communicates the nuanced complexities of gender equality.
- Given the range of people interviewed using this tool (e.g. scheme management as well as poorer women in the scheme), it is possible to have varying scores and different suggestions for improvement. So depending on the variance of scores, it may not be useful to average all scores received across all groups. Instead, the scores and feedback provide valuable information as the basis for understanding the nuances of each situation, different perspectives, etc.
70% of farmers are women, but Malawi ranks relatively low on gender equality index (131 out of 187), significant education and income differences between men and women. Held 10 group discussions and over 20 interviews and literature review (cross check/triangulate); reached over 120 respondents at different levels; apart from self scores, the responses on questions were coded and analyzed to help with assessing participatory tool
Different types of schemes: state vs farmer led, 1970s vs 1980s/90s, commercial rice vs maize and vegetables, socio-culture contexts
We piloted the tool also in Central Asian region - in Uzbekistan.
The first challenge of using the tool was to identify the unit of Irrigation scheme which we then identified as Water Consumer’s Associations”. These schemes were introduced by International organizations and supported by the state through legal acts.
The second challenge was to identify the target groups. We included the staff and Members of the WCAs who are the registered farm owners. However there were very few women that were officially registered as farmers, although many women participate in agricultural production through kitchen gardens.
Therefore we chose our target groups participating in the scheme as farmers (members of WCA) and households.
In total we had 112 respondents from which:
WCA management and operations staff and WCA members (91% male),
Households (96% female)
NGOs, IOs
Our methods included Interviews and focus group discussions
Timeframe: 1.5 to 3 hours (all sections/modules)
Where: Uzbekistan (7 irrigation schemes in 4 locations )
The interviews were conducted : On scheme/in field/households
When: During or after the work on the farm was over
If community interests had been considered during the WCA establishment, households would have received water in their backyards and there would be no problems or water conflicts now.” (Alisher Navoi-Suv WCA)
Suggestions to improve:
Including all water users into the scheme and understanding their needs
Suggestions to improve:
Informing people about the scheme
Providing solution for water distribution and allocation in an equitable manner.
Suggestions to improve:
Both men and women within the scheme should be provided with information and trainings on joint management and importance of incorporating of all users and uses.
Suggestions to improve:
Including households among the members of the scheme
Equitable allocation of membership shares for households to have proper voting power.
Suggestions to improve:
Both men and women within the scheme should be provided with information and trainings on joint management and importance of incorporating of all users and uses.
Suggestions to improve:
Including households among the members of the scheme
Equitable allocation of membership shares for households to have proper voting power.
Suggestions to improve:
To account the water needs within kitchen gardens and to negotiate water rotation with large farmers and local government authorities
Suggestions to improve:
The neighborhood representative should interact and with WCA to solve the problems
Canals should be lined to reduce water loss
WCA should develop a water delivery schedule
To summarize: Application of the GILIT suggests that, in locations and/or times of inadequate water, the lack of formal representation of households in the WCAs and the absence of formal mechanisms requiring WCAs to consider irrigation needs for household production can significantly and negatively impact women’s ability to produce food for their families.
At present, there is a mismatch between the fixed irrigation infrastructure and the country’s irrigation requirements, particularly for small-plot producers. This mismatch, together with gender-biased approaches to water allocation decision making, may negatively impact small-scale, female producers.