Unequal Access to Irrigation

There have been many studies that show that with improved access to resources including water comes improved food security for households and reduced poverty. However, there is inequality in access to water resources at both the household and the national scale. Countries have for many reasons favoured a policy of privatisation that has provided biased provision to commercial farmers over subsistence farmers. In addition, the international community and aid agencies have long biased their support towards male farmers over women farmers. There are several causes for this:

• Women's insecure rights to land act as a barrier.
• Water access may be dependent on access to credit for land purchase, an area where women also face constraints.
• There is often fierce competition for irrigated land, and because women have less social or political power, they tend to lose out in the struggle.
• The view that women cannot contribute fully to irrigation system maintenance acts to exclude them (for instance, in Kenya). However, in some countries, women are as active as men in digging irrigation canals and maintaining them.
• There may be a cultural association of irrigation water rights with males (in the same way that larger livestock and animal traction is often considered men's domain).

In addition to this gender inequality, there exists an inequality between different women groups. The following article was adapted from a 2016 Al Jazeera piece titled, ‘Female Farmers Suffer Most in Southern Africa Drought’

In the semi-arid, southern African country of Botswana, women rely heavily on irrigation to grow vegetables during the long dry season. These crops are produced for home consumption and to generate needed income.

However, differences in water access among female vegetable farmers in Botswana had a huge influence on whether or not commercial horticulture helps improve household food security.

Wealthy female farmers have the financial resources, or access to credit, to invest in boreholes. For these women, increasing commercialisation of vegetable production (or selling a larger share of their crop) leads to clear gains in household food security.

This contrasts with poorer female gardeners who can't afford a well, and water their gardens with purchased tap water. From them, there are only modest food security gains that accompany increasing commercial gardening.

Still, others get their water from a river, where the costs are much lower, and they do very well when they focus on feeding their families. Interestingly, this last group sees a decline in household food security when they begin selling more and consuming less of the vegetables they grow.

Why the difference in these outcomes? Wealthier female farmers with land can afford the upfront costs of a borehole and often have the necessary connections to successfully engage with the market, allowing them to cover the costs of their initial investment and go on to make a reasonable profit that enhances their food security.

Those with lower water costs, the river water users, face less pressure to commercialise to cover costs and do very well directly feeding their families rather than attempting to negotiate the vagaries of the marketplace.

Tap water users have the most difficult situation because they mostly commercialise to cover the cost of the water they are using, yet do not always have the connections to negotiate the marketplace, leading to modest income gains and minimal food security benefits

These results bring to light at least two important issues related to food security, agriculture and resource access in Sub-Saharan Africa. First, while increasing commercialisation of agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa has been championed as a pathway to improved food security, this view neglects how access to resources is a complicating factor. Growing more crops for the market may make sense for some, namely wealthy farmers who make investments to secure water access and are commercially savvy. In other cases, selling more crops on the market may undermine food security.

Second, in Botswana, there is a significant gender component to water access. The historical significance of the cattle industry, which is dominated by men, has meant that government agencies and programmes support the development of water sources for cattle to the exclusion of other agricultural activities.

A national system that gives priority to male livelihoods forces female horticulturalists to either find creative ways to negotiate these constraints or to see their gardens flounder and household food security benefits dwindle. Recognising the importance of affordable access to water for agricultural success is important in Botswana and Sub-Saharan Africa more broadly.

In Botswana, it means that government programmes supporting women's gardening activities will not be successful unless they recognise and address female farmers' unequal access to water. More broadly, the international development community, which has focused on improving food security through commercial agriculture, must acknowledge the importance of unequal resource access.

The commercialisation of agriculture often does not lead to welfare improvements if the power dynamics involved in resource access are not recognised and addressed. Greater commercialisation may increase vulnerability and food insecurity where inequitable access persists.

Addressing women's inequitable access to water resources will only become more important in Southern Africa as the region grapples with climate change, increasing rainfall variability and a growing need for irrigation.