1. Irrigation, Gender and Nutrition Linkages: Tapping Irrigation’s Potential for Women’s Empowerment
To insert your implementing partner institutional logo, go to View >> Slide Master, and replace the gray box with your logo, placing it to the right of the USAID logo at the bottom. No text or partner logos can be placed within the upper blue banner.
Elizabeth Bryan, March 9, 2016
Photo credit: IWMI Flickr, Ghana, 2011; Passarelli, Ghana, 2015

2. Outline
Motivation: Why gender matters for agricultural water management
Conceptual Framework: Pathways through which irrigation outcomes influenced by gender
Preliminary results from ILSSI
Conclusions and next steps

3. Why Does Gender Matter for Ag Water Management?
There is a gender gap in agriculture and this extends to agricultural water management
Women have different access to and control over water
Women have different needs and priorities for water
“Double burden” for managing both domestic and productive water
Women face constraints in adopting, using and benefitting from water technologies (Van Koppen et al. 2013, Aseyehen et al. 2012, Njuki et al. 2014)
In many cases, water technologies and projects do not meet women’s needs and priorities, and fail to address constraints
The gender gap in agriculture is well documented. Yields on plots managed by women are lower given women’s less access to and control over assets (both tangible and intangible)
The gender gap also extends to agricultural water management—women have less access to water for productive purposes.
Given that women are anyways often responsible for water management for the household, it is important to involve them in decision regarding agricultural water management
Sophie will address constraints in more detail, but some constraints include:
Lack of access to land (Van Koppen, Hope, and Colenbrander 2013)
Lack of labor (Aseyehen et al. 2012)
Social norms that prohibit women’s adoption of particular technologies such as treadle pumps (Njuki et al. 2014)

4. Closing the gender gap can have positive outcomes
Interventions are not inherently gender-neutral
Possibility of widening gender gap or harming women
If these needs were met, what could happen?
When women have access to and control over water management technologies, this could lead to:
More efficient use – and innovation
Positive impacts on household nutrition and health outcomes
Women’s empowerment: more time, control over income, decision-making power (Olney et al. 2009; Iannotti et al. 2009; Domenech 2015).
Efficient uses = if you *plan* for MUS, will protect water source
More efficient use because
Innovation = ? Livelihoods better supported

5. Gender influences how irrigation to nutrition and health pathways
Production pathway
Gender differences in crop choices (cash crops vs. backyard gardens)
Income pathway
Who controls the income from sale of crops can influence health and nutrition outcomes
Water supply pathway
Multiple use systems can improve domestic water access for WASH and reduce women’s time on unpaid labor
Health risks pathway
How water affects health will affect women’s caretaking labor
“instrumental view of gender”
Production pathway (who adopts and for what purpose?):
Gender differences in crop choices: men may plant cash crops while women may focus on homestead gardens
Direct potential for irrigated homestead garden production to improve nutrition outcomes (Olney et al. 2009; Iannotti et al. 2009)
Income pathway:
Irrigation as a source of income through market sales of surplus
Food expenditures higher among irrigating HH in South Africa (Sinyolo et al. 2014)
Market access/infrastructure is key (Chazovachiii 2012—lack of market access limits income generation potential of irrigation, Zimbabwe)
Greater health spending (e.g. malaria treatment and prevention)
Employment generation due to increased productivity and expanded production calendar
Water supply pathway:
Irrigation water may be used for other purposes such as drinking, washing, bathing or other productive purposes (e.g. livestock watering, aquaculture)
Multiple uses of irrigation water may be unplanned or by design (van Koppen et al. 2009)
Greater water for domestic purposes as a result of irrigation resulted in lower diarrhea and stunting in Pakistan (Van der Hoel et al. 2002)
Health risks pathway:
Increased risk of vector-borne diseases (i.e. malaria /dengue)
Microdam construction in Ethiopia led to more malaria (Ghebreyesus et al. 1999; Ersado 2005)
Ijumba and Lindsay (2001) find irrigation does not increase malaria, except in areas of unstable transmission
Relationship depends on many factors: socioeconomic status, vector control programs, presence of cattle
Negative health outcomes from increased pollution (especially pesticides)
Greater symptoms of headache, blurred vision, nausea/vomiting among irrigation workers in Ghana (Clarke et al. 1997)
Source: Domenech 2015; Rosegrant et al. (2009)

6. Irrigation also Influences Women’s Empowerment
Risk that irrigation widens the gender gap if benefits are not equally distributed and/or women adversely affected (e.g. time burden may increase) BUT
Irrigation projects targeted towards women can contribute to women’s empowerment
E.g. Irrigated homestead food production program in Burkina Faso increased assets and income controlled by women (van den Bold et al 2013)
This is not always easy!
Photo Source: IWMI, Ethiopia

7. Why Technologies Matter, Ex. Tanz

8. ILSSI project overview
Goal: Assess how small scale irrigation can sustainably increase food production, improve nutrition, and accelerate economic development
Funded by USAID’s Feed the Future (FtF) initiative
Partners: Borlaug Institute at Texas A&M University, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and NCA&T
Components include:
Identifying promising interventions
Evaluating impacts, trade-offs and synergies through site research, integrated modeling (IDSS), evaluation of impacts, scaling analysis
Identifying constraints and opportunities to improve access to SSI
Capacity building (e.g. training students to use IDSS)
Timeline: 5-year program from October 2013-September 2018

9. Interventions in Ethiopia
Sites: Bahir Dar Zuria and Dangla in Amhara, Adami Tulu in Oromia, and Lemu in SNNP
Technologies:
Pump technologies for irrigation of kitchen gardens and high-value crops (such as vegetables and forages used for short-term fattening of small ruminants). These technologies may include: rope and washer, treadle, solar-thermal and motor pumps
Irrigated fodder for fattening small ruminants during the dry season
Drip/trickle irrigation in kitchen gardens combined with conservation agriculture practices
Groundwater recharge (deep tillage) in Bahir Dar Zuria

10. Ethiopia survey Sampled Villages in Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, we surveyed 15 villages, including 4 ILSSI intervention villages
4 woredas surveyed include: Bahir Dar Zuria and Dangla in Amhara, Adami Tulu in Oromia and Lemu in SNNP
Baseline data collection occurred from November 14th - December 26th 2014
439 households total
Topics of the survey include:
Crop & livestock inputs, production and practices
Household and women’s dietary diversity
Child health, diet, feeding and anthropometry
Household shocks, assets, credit
Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI)
Household survey encompasses sites where IWMI, ILRI and NCA&T interventions are ongoing and also includes irrigating and non-irrigating households from surrounding kebeles as controls
Source: IFPRI EPTD 2015

11. Household Food Security and Nutrition
Food security & Dietary diversity in ETH
Household Food Security and Nutrition
Ethiopia
Non-irrigating households
Irrigating households
p-value of two-sided ttest
n=185
n=284
Mean
Household food insecurity access scale
5.78
4.04
0.00
Female dietary diversity score
3.69
3.58
0.293
Household dietary diversity
5.69
6.06
0.002
We see a statistically significant difference in means for household food insecurity and household dietary diversity for non-irrigators and irrigators. However, the difference in female dietary diversity is not statistically significant in Ethiopia.
All differences are statistically significant, except difference between Female Dietary Diversity Scores of irrigators and non-irrigators in Ethiopia

12. ILSSI is Using The women’s empowerment in agriculture index
Intra-household survey tool
The WEAI measures women’s empowerment across 5 domains of empowerment (5DE) to the right and the Gender Parity Index
Both of these scores are weighted and aggregated to create the WEAI
WEAI is on a scale from zero to one, with higher values = greater empowerment
ILSSI is using a modified WEAI to include more details on irrigation
The WEAI is a survey-based tool, asked of both the main male and female decisionmakers in a household used to determine inclusion of women in domains important to the agricultural sector. It takes about 40 minutes to complete.
There are multiple domains of empowerment. Whereas previous measurements were only able to measure individual domains, the WEAI has the advantage of measuring five domains that are important in the agricultural sector. The five domains of empowerment in the agricultural sector measured in the WEAI include:
Production: decisions about agricultural production, including sole or joint decisionmaking power over food or cash-crop farming, livestock, and fisheries, as well as autonomy in agricultural production
Resources: access to and decisionmaking power over productive resources, including ownership of, access to, and decisionmaking power over productive resources such as land, livestock, agricultural equipment, consumer durables, and credit
Income: sole or joint control over income and expenditures
Leadership: Leadership in the community, including membership in economic or social groups and being comfortable with speaking in public
Time: allocation of time to productive and domestic tasks and satisfaction with the time available for leisure activities
These are measured through 10 individual indicators in the survey based tool, and weighted using the weighting scheme listed on the right. In addition to the domains, the WEAI calculated score also includes the Gender Parity Index. This reflects the percentage of women who are as empowered as the men in their household. This component takes into account the male counterpart’s responses to the 10 indicators and calculates a how many women achieve parity with their husband, and for those who do not, how great is the gap of inadequacy.
ILSSI is using a modified WEAI to better capture linkages between irrigation and gender. Added questions include:
Decisionmaking roles on irrigated food/cash crops
Autonomy in decisionmaking: types of crops to grow for irrigated vs. non-irrigated
Productive capital includes irrigation tank/pond and irrigation equipment
Access to information/extension on irrigation methods
Time allocation time spent irrigating/working with equipment
Added response options on irrigation topics for various questions on credit, savings, group membership

13. Initial WEAI Results from Ethiopia
Irrigators
Gender Parity Index
Non-irrigators
Contributors to disempowerment
Ethiopia
0.82
0.90
0.85
0.91
Group membership
Leisure time
Speaking in public
Credit access
Control over use of income
In Tanzania we saw the opposite results where irrigators had higher empowerment scores than non irrigators

14. Decision-making on Irrigation in Ethiopia
Women’s Responses: Ethiopia
How much input did you have in making decisions about…
How much input did you have in decisions on the use of income generated from…
Irrigated food crop farming
Irrigated cash crop farming
No Input 0% 2% 1%
Input into very few decisions
14%
15%
13%
16%
Input into some decisions
52%
53%
51%
Input into most decisions
23%
Input into all decisions
11%
Total
100%
In Ethiopia women have input into only some decisions whereas in Tanzania women reported greater involvement in decision-making
NEED TO ADD Input into non irrigated farming - yes! Want to see a comparison in DM between irrigators and non-irrigaotrs

15. Decision-Making on Irrigation in Ethiopia
Plot Decision-Making for Irrigators
Plot Decision-Making for Non-Irrigators
Starch
Pulse
Veg.
Fruit
Cash crop, ined.
Total
Husb.
28%
29%
37%
26%
23%
240
31%
33%
39%
910
Wife 5% 6% 4% 8% 58 2% 1%
144
Joint
59%
51%
68%
62%
538
45%
46%
63%
55%
53%
1413

16. FGDs: Qualitative gender-irrigation fieldwork
Sex-disaggregated focus group discussions already conducted in Ethiopia and Tanzania: Ghana scheduled for February
Purpose: to investigate gender dynamics and irrigation technology, in ILSSI treatment and control sites
FGDs ask questions about gender-based differences in:
Access to technology (e.g. access to credit, farmer groups, or information required to invest in irrigation technology?)
Use of technology and technology preferences (e.g. what type of crops and irrigation methods are preferred? Is irrigation water used for other purposes? What technology meets these needs?)
Decision-making power (e.g. over crop and irrigation choice; control over income from irrigated plots)
Impacts and benefits from irrigation (e.g. time-saving? More nutritious crops? More income?)

17. Summary
Men and women have different water needs—water technologies may not always be designed women’s needs in mind (i.e. need for multiple uses, etc.)
Men and women have different abilities to access/adopt/use irrigation/water management technologies
Distribution of benefits from irrigation are not equal (i.e. women’s work burden may go up while men control income from sale or irrigated crops)
Without conscious effort to integrate gender, irrigation interventions may exacerbate existing gender inequalities
However, outcomes (i.e. nutrition, health and women’s empowerment) are likely to be different when women have control over decisions to adopt and use irrigation
Gender checklist under development will help ensure that gender is integrated into irrigation interventions
So far, our results have not found a direct relationship between irrigation and women’s individual empowerment scores, but we are doing more analyses using specific technologies and crops

18. Thank you!
Source: IWMI.

19. Upcoming ILSSI Papers
Passarelli, S., Mekonnen, D., Bryan, E. and C. Ringler. “Tapping Irrigation’s Potential for Food and Nutrition Security: Evidence from Ethiopia and Tanzania.”
Bryan, E., Passarelli, S., Mekonnen, D., Domenech, L. and C. Ringler. “Small-Scale Irrigation and Women’s Empowerment: Measuring the Linkages.”
Paper on constraints to irrigation adoption using data from FGD’s, TBD authorship

20. ILSSI Activities Borlaug Institute, TAMU – Lead
IDSS training (APEX, SWAT, FARMSIM) for national stakeholders
IDSS model and database improvement, maintenance, and distribution
Assessment of production, environmental, and economic impacts of promising SSI
IWMI
Identification of promising small-scale irrigation technologies
Communication with national irrigation R&D organizations
Data collection and field testing of promising small-scale irrigation technologies
ILRI
Identification of promising small-scale irrigation technologies (for livestock)
Field testing of promising small-scale irrigation technologies (for livestock)
IFPRI
Collection of household survey data
Focus group discussions (with IWMI)
Analysis of nutritional, health and gender differentiated impacts of SSI technologies
NCA&T
Commercial home gardens – conservation agriculture and small scale irrigation

21. Integrated decision support system
IDSS estimates the production, environmental, and economic consequences of the introduction and use of new technologies and knowledge for sustainable, efficient and effective use of water resources.
IDSS is comprised of:
Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)
Agricultural Policy / Environmental Extender Model (APEX),
Farm Scale Nutrition and Economic Risk Assessment Model (FARMSIM),
as well as associated international natural resources and nutritional data bases, data visualization tools, and training materials
The SWAT and APEX models will be used to evaluate the production and environmental impacts, trade-offs, and synergies of water capture and small scale irrigation. Impacts and trade-offs will vary with climate, topography, land use, and soil conditions, as well as crop, livestock, and human requirements for irrigation and drinking water throughout the year.
FARMSIM will use the outputs of APEX and SWAT to simulate farm family-scale and/or village-scale economics and nutrition, including risks of inadequate household income and nutrition.

22. Started out with the nutrition framework (UNICEF, Lancet Nutrition series 2008, 2013 updates to UNICEF framework)
-Expanded income poverty box to show the relationships between gender (time use), livelihood strategies, and income
-Broke out 3 components of food insecurity (availability, access and utilization) to show how irrigation affects these different components
-Food stability reflected in the livelihoods/resilience box