Gender and property rights in the commons: Examples of water rights in South Asia

  • Margreet Zwarteveen
  • Ruth Meinzen-Dick

Abstract

In many countries and resource sectors, the state is devolving responsibility for natural resource management responsibility to ``communities'' or local user groups. However, both policymakers and researchers in this area have tended to ignore the implications of gender and other forms of intra-community power differences for the effectiveness and equity of natural resource management. In the irrigation sector, despite the rhetoric on women's participation, a review of evidence from South Asia shows that organizations often exclude women through formal or informal membership rules and practices. Women may have other ways to obtain irrigation services, but even if they are effective, these other informal ways of obtaining irrigation services are typically less secure. As resource management – and rights to resources – are transferred from the state to local organizations, ensuring women's participation is essential for gender equity in control over resources. Greater involvement of women can also strengthen the effectiveness of local organizations by improving women's compliance with rules and maintenance contributions. Further detailed and comparative research is required to identify the major factors that affect women's participation and control over resources, if devolution policies are to be both equitable and sustainable.

Common property Devolution Gender Irrigation Property rights Water users' associations 

References

  1. Agarwal, B. (1992). “The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies 18(1): 119-158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal, B. (1994). A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Agarwal, B. (1997a). ‘Bargaining’ and Gender Relations: Within and beyond the Household. Washington, DC: IFPRI FCND Discussion Paper #27.Google Scholar
  4. Agarwal, B. (1997b). “Environmental action, gender equity and women's participation.” Development and Change 28: 1-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrawal, A. and C. C. Gibson (1999). “Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation.” World Development 27(4): 629-649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahluwalia, M. (1997). “Representing communities: The case of a community-based watershed management project in Rajasthan, India.” IDS Bulletin 28(4): 23-35.Google Scholar
  7. Backer, S. (1992). “Promotional action to incorporate the gender dimension into selected mainstream projects in South Asia.” Women in Development (WID) Study for the Nepal SPWP. Kathmandu: ILO.Google Scholar
  8. Bakker, M., R. Barker, R. S. Meinzen-Dick, and F. Konransen (eds.) (1999). Multiple Uses of Water in Irrigated Areas: A Case Study from Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI, SWIM Report 8.Google Scholar
  9. Baland, J-M. and J-P. Platteau (1996). Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Benda-Beckmann, K., M. de Bruijn, H. van Dijk, G. Hesseling, B. van Koppen, and L. Res (1997). Rights of Women to the Natural Resources Land and Water. The Hague: Netherlands Development Assistance, Development Cooperation Information Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Working Paper No. 2, Women and Development.Google Scholar
  11. Bromley, D. (1991). Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Bromley, D. (ed.) (1992). Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy. San Francisco, California: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bruins, B. and A. Heijmans (1993). Gender Biases in Irrigation Projects. Gender Considerations in the Rehabilitation of Bauraha Irrigation System in the District of Dang, Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: SNV.Google Scholar
  14. Dankelman I. and J. Davidson (1988). Women and Environment in the Third World: Alliance for the Future. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  15. Deere, C. D. and M. de Leon (1997). “Women, land rights and the Latin American Counter-Reforms.” Paper prepared for presentation at the XX International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA), April 17–19. Guadalajara, Mexico.Google Scholar
  16. Haddad, L., J. Hoddinott, and H. Alderman (1994). Intrahousehold Resource Allocation: An Overview. Washington DC: World Bank, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 1255.Google Scholar
  17. Hombergh, H. van den. (1993). Gender, Environment and Development. A Guide to the Literature. Amsterdam: INDRA.Google Scholar
  18. International Conference on Water and the Environment (1992). “Development issues for the 21st century. The Dublin Statement Report of the Conference.” ICWE Conference, January 26–31. Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, C. (1993a). “Doing what comes naturally? Women and environment in development.” World Development 21(12): 1947-1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jackson, C. (1993b). “Women/Nature or gender/history? A Critique of ecofeminist ‘development’.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 20(3): 389-419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson, C. (1997). “Gender, irrigation and environment: Arguing for agency.” In D. Merrey and S. Bhaviskar (eds.), Gender Analysis and Reform of Irrigation Management: Concepts, Cases, and Gaps in Knowledge. Proceedings of the Workshop on Women and Water, September 15–19. Habarana, Sri Lanka (pp. 24-43). Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Jodha, N. S. (1990). “Common property resources: Contributions and crisis.” Economic and Political Weekly, June 30, A65-A78.Google Scholar
  23. Jordans, E. H. and M. Z. Zwarteveen (1997). A Well of One's Own. Gender analysis of an Irrigation Program in Bangladesh. Colombo, Sri Lanka: HMI, No. 1.Google Scholar
  24. Joshi, D. and D. Seckler (1982). “Sukhomajri: Water management in India.” The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 38(3): 26-30.Google Scholar
  25. Kabeer, N. (1991). Gender, Production, and Well-Being: Rethinking the Household Economy. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, IDS Discussion Paper DP 288.Google Scholar
  26. Kome, A. (1997). Gender and Irrigation Management Transfer in Sri Lanka, IRMU, ID and HMI. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Agricultural University.Google Scholar
  27. Lam, W. F. (1998). Governing Irrigation Systems in Nepal: Institutions, Infrastructure, and Collective Action. Oakland, California: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lam, W. F., M. Lee, and E. Ostrom (1993). An Institutional Analysis of Irrigation Performance in Nepal. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
  29. Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. (1997). “Impact of privatization on gender and property rights in Africa.” World Development 25(8): 1317-1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leach, M. (1992). “Gender and the environment: Traps and opportunities.” Development in Practice 2(1): 12-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leach, M., R. Mearns, and I. Scoones (1997a). “Challenges to community-based sustainable development: Dynamics, entitlements, institutions.” IDS Bulletin 28(4): 4-14.Google Scholar
  32. Leach, M., R. Mearns, and I. Scoones (1997b). “Institutions, consensus and conflict: Implications for policy and practice.” IDS Bulletin 28(4): 90-95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lynch, B. D. (1985). Community Participation and Local Organization for Small-Scale Irrigation. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, Water Management Synthesis Project (WMS), Report No. 34.Google Scholar
  34. Mabry, J. B. and D. A. Cleveland (1996). “The relevance of indigenous irrigation: A comparative analysis of sustainability,” in J. B. Mabry (ed.), Canals and Communities. Small-Scale Irrigation Systems (pp. 227-260). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  35. Maggs, P. and J. Hoddinott (1997). The Impact of Change in Common Property Resource Management on Intra-Household Allocation. Washington, DC: IFPRI FCND Discussion Paper No. 34.Google Scholar
  36. McCulloch, A. K., R. Meinzen-Dick, and P. Hazell (1998). Property Rights, Collective Action, and Technologies for Natural Resource Management: A Conceptual Framework. Washington, DC: CGIAR System-Wide Program on Property Rights and Collective Action, SP-PRCA Working Paper No. 1.Google Scholar
  37. Meinzen-Dick, R. S. and M. Bakker (1999). “Water rights and multiple water uses: framework and application to Kirindi Oya irrigation system, Sri Lanka.” Paper presented at 6th Biennial Meeting of the International Water and Resource Economics Consortium, June 29–July 2. Waikoloa, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  38. Meinzen-Dick, R. S. and M. Zwarteveen (1998). “Gendered participation in water management: Issues and illustrations from water users' associations in South Asia.” Agriculture and Human Values 15(4): 337-345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meinzen-Dick, R. S., L. R. Brown, H. S. Feldstein, and A. R. Quisumbing (1997). “Gender, property rights and natural resources.” World Development 25(8): 1303-1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mosse, D. (1995). “Local institutions and power: The history and practice of community management of tank irrigation systems in South India,” in N. Nelson and S. Wright (eds.), Power and Participatory Development. Theory and Practice (pp. 144-155). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pradhan, N. C. (1989). “Gender participation in irrigation system activities in the hills of Nepal,” in Proceedings of second annual workshop on Women in Farming Systems, September 27–29. Kathmandu, Nepal: Inštitute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Rampur, Chitwan/USAID, 49-57.Google Scholar
  43. Pradhan, R. and U. Pradhan (2000). “Negotiating access and rights: Disputes over rights to an irrigation water source in Nepal,” in B. Bruns and R. S. Meinzen-Dick (eds.), Negotiating Water Rights. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Prakash, S. (1998). “Fairness, social capital and the commons: The societal foundations of collective action in the Himalaya,” in M. Goldman (ed.), Privatizing Nature. Political Struggles for the Global Commons (pp. 167-197). London: Pluto Press, in Association with Transnational Institute (TNI).Google Scholar
  45. Quiggin, J. (1993). “Common property, equality and development.” World Development 21(7): 1123-1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quisumbing, A. R., L. R. Brown, H. Sims Feldstein, L, Haddad, and C. Peña, (1995). Women: The Key to Food Security. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, Food Policy Report.Google Scholar
  47. Raby, N. (1991). “Participatory management in large irrigation systems: Issues for consideration.” World Development 19(12): 1767-1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Risseeuw, C. (1988). The Fish Don't Talk about the Water: Gender Transformation, Power and Resistance among Women in Sri Lanka. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
  49. Rocheleau, D. and D. Edmunds (1997). “Women, men and trees: Gender, power, and property in forest and agrarian landscape.” World Development 25(8): 1351-1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari (eds.) (1996). Feminist Political Ecology. Global Issues and Local Experiences. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Sarin, M. (1998). “Community forest management: Whose participation.” In I. Guijt and M. K. Shah (eds.), The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development (pp. 121-130). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Schlager, E. and E. Ostrom (1992). “Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis.” Land Economics 68(3): 249-262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shiva, V. (1989). Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London: ZED Books.Google Scholar
  54. Uphoff, N. (1986). Getting the Process Right: Improving Irrigation and Water Management with Farmer Organizations and Participation. Boulder and London: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  55. van Koppen, B. (1998). More Jobs per Drop: Targeting Irrigation to Poor Women and Men. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.Google Scholar
  56. van Ommering, A. (1991). Women in the Irrigation Line of Credit Project Areas. Kathmandu: 1991 Interim Report.Google Scholar
  57. Vermillion, D. (1996). The Privatization and Self-Management of Irrigation. Colombo, Sri Lanka: HMI Final Report.Google Scholar
  58. Wade, R. (1987). “The management of common property resources: Finding a cooperative solution.” World Bank Research Observer 2(2): 219-234.Google Scholar
  59. Yoder, R. (1994). Locally-Managed Irrigation Systems: Essential Tasks and Implications for Assistance, Management Transfer and Turnover Programs. Colombo, Sri Lanka: HMI.Google Scholar
  60. Yoder, R. and E. Martin (1998). “Water rights and equity issues. A case from Nepal,” in R. Boelens and G. Dávila (eds.), Searching for Equity. Conceptions of Justice and Equity in Peasant Irrigation (pp. 133-142). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  61. Zwarteveen, M. (1994). Gender Issues, Water Issues. A gender Perspective to Irrigation Management. Colombo, Sri Lanka: HMI Working Paper No. 32.Google Scholar
  62. Zwarteveen, M. (1997). “Water: From basic need to commodity. A discussion on gender and water rights in the context of irrigation.” World Development 25(8): 1335-1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zwarteveen, M. and N. Neupane (1996). Free-Riders or Victims: Women's Nonparticipation in Irrigation Management in Nepal's Chhattis Mauja Irrigation Scheme. Colombo, Sri Lanka: HMI Research Report No. 7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margreet Zwarteveen
    • 1
  • Ruth Meinzen-Dick
    • 2
  1. 1.Sub-department of Irrigation and Water EngineeringWageningen Agricultural UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.International Food Policy Research InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations