Volume 5, Number 2
October 1999

Gender, Participation, and Rights to Common Property Resources: The Case of Water Users' Organizations in South Asia

Ruth Meinzen-Dick introduced her work in progress on this subject as having begun with the Gender-Property Rights International E-Mail Conference, which took place from June 1995 to March 1996. She continued her work in collaboration with Margreet Zwarteveen of the University of Wageningen, The Netherlands, and with Margaretha Bakker of the International Water Management Institute.

Meinzen-Dick explained that women's property rights, which provide the ability either to use or to control household assets, matter for several reasons. They assist women in carrying out their household and reproductive tasks; provide incentives to women to invest; make it easier for women to have access to credit or extension services; allow women to earn income that is necessary for meeting household needs; and give women status and bargaining power.

Women do not lack access to property rights as such; rather they gain access only by being part of a household. Their access is further mediated by men. Because women have limited private property rights, they depend more heavily on common property resources such as grazing land, forests, and water, and the interstitial spaces of private property. The idealization of common property and the failure to distinguish between use of and rights to the commons has resulted in the neglect of gender and property rights issues in the development literature.

There are two types of institutions for managing the commons—traditional institutions, which receive their legitimacy locally, and formal institutions, which receive their legitimacy from the state. When women participate in either kind of management institution they improve their rights to common property. Meinzen-Dick stressed the need for empirical evidence that can show the difference in effectiveness between traditional and modern institutions and show which type of institution improves the participation not just of women but of the poor.

In South Asia water rights are given to landowners, who are usually men. Women have use rights through men. Participation in water users' associations can give women a voice in decisions, but women seldom join these associations, despite policy statements favoring their active membership. A variety of reasons may account for women’s low rate of participation: rules may limit participation to only one member per household, in which case the man usually attends meetings; a loss of social prestige may accompany women’s appearances in public; too little time may be given to women at meetings; or lower literacy rates among women in some areas brings them lower status in meetings. Women often find it easier and more effective to call on the water master to gain extra use.

During the discussion, a participant asked whether it would be more helpful to examine rights along other than gender lines—for example, across land ownership and class lines. And should one historicize common land use, since privatization is increasingly an issue and its effects on access to the commons are unclear? In response, Meinzen-Dick noted that Keijiro Otsuka's work on Nepal shows that access to private land does attenuate the effects of lack of access to the "commons." One reason the commons is shrinking is that poor households and groups can apply for titles to "waste land," which is actually forest or grazing land. Thus both gender and class do play a role in affecting and being affected by access. In Nepal only Nepali citizens have access to property, but among women, usually only those in richer households seek citizenship. The overall characteristics of the excluded need to be looked at closely.

A participant wondered whether it would be important to look at the institutions that enforce property rights and the way rights are assured. Meinzen-Dick noted that much attention has been paid to land rights, but less to water rights. There might be a way to determine which right or use should be applied. The catch, however, is that nowadays traditional local institutions tend to tolerate use. These institutions often run counter to the rules–still unenforced--of state and formal institutions.

To a question about the relationship of meeting venues to women’s participation in rights associations, Meinzen-Dick replied that some effort has been made to promote the principle that locations for water users’ association meetings should be convenient for everyone. In one study area formal meetings were not held in a bar so that women could attend.

Another participant asked if it was helpful when looking at environmental degradation to argue for a bundle of defined rights—gender or class-based—for certain people. How should one manage access to land if consensus dictated that open access to commons led to degradation? If one would not argue for managed access to private land, why would one do so for the commons? Meinzen-Dick responded that one of the concerns is that water is increasingly being taken out of agriculture by urban and industrial interests. Yet compensation, determined by outside institutions, will not go to common property holder groups but to landowners. Peri-urban water systems are now at risk.

A questioner wondered what changing the laws—a very slow process—will accomplish, citing the example of Nepal, where formal changes to increase women's roles have resulted in no actual change. Meinzen-Dick agreed that laws in themselves do not change rights. Having a law, however, gives women something to appeal to.

Should we talk about water rights on a more universal level, with the nestedness issue of lower or local level use and rights related to water scarcity? Meinzen-Dick asserted that the interests of the individual focus less on protecting personal rights than on the community's rights. Dividing up rights at a higher level means that groups must negotiate. Theoretical rights are less important than meeting critical needs at critical times.

The rationale for including women in water users' associations was questioned. If lack of participation shows no adverse effect, why should women participate? Meinzen-Dick replied that exclusion of women from these associations can be interpreted to mean that women are not required to adhere to laws and rules regarding use. Moreover, greater participation of women in water associations allows their greater participation in other fora. Meinzen-Dick voiced hope that IFPRI would be able to undertake research on the extent of women’s participation in water users’ associations and the effects of such participation in Nepal and South India.