In this chapter, I have reviewed literature on gender and water governance. As noted by Franks and Cleaver, Rogers and Hall and other theorists, water governance is indeed intricate, composed of ‘systems’, or an interplay of water resources, mechanisms of access, outcomes, management processes and actors. In all these systems, power is exercised through ‘rules’ and socio-cultural practices that impact on women and men differently. The literature has demonstrated that access to water in developing communities is multifaceted, and is composed of the following key interrelated factors: a) water technology, or “improved” and “unimproved” water sources; b) water rights or ‘rules’, determined by formal and informal institutions; c) ‘neoliberal’ institutions, such as commodification or water pricing; d) social relations between different individuals and groups, which also determine who collects water; and e) participation in water management, as a process of negotiation and decision-making.
Whereas Crow (2001) and Franks and Cleaver (2007) for example have pointed out the gendered nature of access to water, the literature indicates that not much is known about the gender dynamics across most of the mechanisms of access in rural developing communities, especially in SSA. This is despite the known fact that water is gendered in every society (Coles and Wallace 2005), and that gender shapes how men and women access or benefit from scarce water resources (Crow and Sultana 2002:712; Cleaver and Hamada 2010). Most of the studies on water collection address the effects of distance and time on women and girl children as the main water fetchers. There is little on men and boy children, or on other social and contextual determinants of the burden of water collection. Regarding participation and decision-making, studies show that disadvantaged groups are often excluded, and that the local ‘water world’ (UN 2004) is dominated by men and more privileged groups, who seem to be more represented in, for example formal water institutions. However, not much is known about the more ‘transformative’ modes of participation in water governance, such as representation in all processes of decision- making, membership in water institutions, voices, needs and interests from a gender perspective.
Uganda’s water policy and institutional framework recognises and attempts to incorporate gender in rural water governance by outlining a number of water institutions at various geo- political levels. However, the implementation of the gender provisions in these policies and frameworks is still a challenge, as we shall also see in Chapters Five and Seven. There is also limited evidence on gender and access to water and water collection in rural areas as, like in other rural developing communities, studies on the former have centred on distances moved, time spent, and to some extent, operation and maintenance. There has been little focus on the gender dynamics in for example water (resource) technologies and tools, formal institutions and repair fees or ‘payment arrangements’ as described by theorists such as Ribot and Peluso (2003) and Franks and Cleaver (2007). Again, not much is known on the participation of men and women in water-related decision-making processes, as most studies have narrowly focussed on membership in WUCs, ignoring other critical aspects of participatory governance, such as the entire array of activities that characterise the establishment and maintenance of “improved” water sources. Therefore, this study sought to fill the above critical knowledge gaps in gender and water governance, using a case study of rural Makondo Parish in South-Central Uganda, as
explored in Chapters Five, Six, and Seven that provide evidence from this demographic. The next chapter provides an insight into the theoretical underpinnings of this study.
Chapter Three: Theorising Gender and Water Governance
3.1 Introduction
In Chapter Two, I have examined the key concepts in development literature pertaining to gender and water governance, how they evolved, and the complexities surrounding their adoption and use. I have also reviewed the literature on gender and water governance, particularly on access to water and participation, globally and in rural Uganda, illustrating that evidence on these aspects in SSA and Uganda in particular is inadequate and in many cases anecdotal.
The key issue then is how best to theoretically explore the institutions and gender relations pertaining to access to water and participation in water governance, given that no single theory is available. In this Chapter, I examine theories and frameworks from the disciplines of sociology, political science, gender and participatory governance so as to uncover the gendered politics of water governance. First, I explore social spaces, institutional structures and processes, highlighting how they are laced with politics and power. This is then followed by a deeper analysis of the notion of power and how it is exercised, including the more dynamic agonistic model based on the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault, which is then theorised taking into account difference, particularly women as an oppressed or marginalised group. I then hypothesize access to water using a social relational perspective, which emphasizes the ability of individuals, or women and men to use their powers to gain, maintain, and control access to natural resources. Drawing on theories of participatory governance, democracy and difference, and empowerment, I consider the two key forms of participation: representation, which is also an element of democracy and decision-making; and transformative participation. I also theorise the key water-related institutions, structures and processes that can be used to explore the gender issues in water governance in Makondo Parish.
3.2 Institutional Structures: Gendered Spaces and Processes