Women and Water Webinar
â˘Als PPTX, PDF herunterladenâ˘
0 gefällt mirâ˘704 views
In December, Malaika Cheney-Coker, Learning and Influencing Advisor for the CARE Water Team presented findings from the GWI East Africa Womenâs Experiences Snapshot study. Watch the video here: http://www.womenforwater.com/news/webinar-recap
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
KĂźrzlich hochgeladen
KĂźrzlich hochgeladen (20)
Empfohlen
Empfohlen (20)
Women and Water Webinar
- 1. Title StyleWomen and Water Perspectives on Empowerment Presented by Malaika Cheney-Coker Women for Water Webinar December 5, 2012
- 2. Title Style About Water+ at CARE ⢠In 2011 CARE helped 27 million women and men in 50 countries develop sustainable water management practices and improve community hygiene and sanitation ⢠Water Team has developed a Theory of Change that seeks to prioritize impact on women and girls
- 3. Title Style 4/30/2013 3 Our Theory of Change Secure and sustainable access to WATER+ services Gender- sensitive WATER+ policies, institutions, & social norms Gender- equitable control over WATER+ services Poor women & school-aged girls improve their lives + x = Catalyst *Sustainability & Appropriateness of Services Enabler *Governance Driver *Womenâs and Girls Agency Goal
- 4. Title Style 4/30/2013CARE (Main Title from Title Page) 4 Gender-sensitive WASH+ health policies, institutions,& social norms Girlsâ & womenâs health needs are voiced with impact on policy & services Secure and sustainable access to WATER+ services Gender- sensitive WATER+ policies, institutions, & social norms Gender- equitable control over WATER+ services Poor women & school-aged girls improve their lives + x = WASH access for household use Access to WASH services including menstrual management in schools Policies, institutions, & social norms support gender- sensitive school WASH provision Building confidence and leadership in schools Policies, institutions, & social norms support ecologically sustainable water resources resilient to climate change Gender-equitable control of maintenance of water resources Gender-sensitive maintenance of water resources & adaptations to climate change Access to water for productive uses with a focus on womenâs livelihoods Policies, institutions, & social norms that support womenâs water dependent livelihoods Girlsâ & womenâs livelihood needs & interests are heard & addressed
- 5. Title Style Key Question ⢠If women are disproportionately affected by inadequate water and sanitation facilities to what extent do women feel that access to clean water and sanitation transforms their lives?
- 6. Title Style The Study ⢠The Womenâs Experience Snapshot Tool was administered to 191 women in GWI EA WASH intervention areas of Ethiopia (49) , Kenya (45), Tanzania (45) and Uganda (52) in 2012. ⢠Primarily a quantitative feedback mechanism but allows for additional comments ⢠The majority of the women were married (53 % ), 22 % were single, 18 % widowed and 7 % divorced. 10% 29% 43% 10% 9% Old parent/relative living in the household Head of household, (e.g.⌠Wife of head of household Other adult within the household (over⌠Young dependant of head of householdâŚ
- 7. Title Style Improved Health ⢠95 % felt the project had resulted in improvements in their health, and 92% in improvement for other members of the household
- 8. Title Style Reduced Stress ⢠82% of women reported that the project had positive impacts on them in term of reduced stress (32 % reported significant improvements). ⢠Reasons included: ⢠Girls no longer being late for school, women being more relaxed due to more time, more water for different needs, not being as tired due to long journeys; being able to spend more time on other activities for themselves and less tension with husbands.
- 9. Title Style Increased Respect/dignity ⢠Availability of water and household sanitation had brought about an improvement in the dignity of the women due to the privacy of latrines and clean clothes â this is confirmed by 86% of the respondents.
- 10. Title StyleImproved Gender Equality ⢠80 % of the women interviewed felt the program had contributed to greater gender equality (10 % no response, 9 % no change and 2 % feedback that it had gotten worse). Reasons include more women in key positions on water user committees, greater understanding of hygiene and sanitation ⢠Only 69 % of women, however, felt the project had increased their sense of empowerment, (13 % didnât respond, 16 % said there was no change and 2 % reported decreases).
- 11. Title Style Improved Finances ⢠72 % of women reported being in an improved financial situation (15% reported no difference, 3% reported worsening). Reasons include: ⢠the reduced cost of water for those who used to pay more ⢠having more time for economic activities e.g. selling products at the market/kiosk setting up a bakery selling doughnuts, or being a hotelier ⢠the changes to household health resulting in fewer costs relating to illness
- 12. Title StyleDifferences in Womenâs Experiences ⢠Wives of heads of households and female heads of households are more likely to report income generation activity benefits; young dependents and older parents/relatives less likely to do so. ⢠Wives of headâs of households were disproportionately more likely to report increased respect/dignity, (e.g. wives of heads of households are 5.4 times more likely than young dependents of the head of household to report improvement). ⢠Middle income women were less likely to have improved time for socializing after intervention compared to women in the both upper and lower income brackets. â˘
- 13. Title Style My Voice as a Woman ⢠âThrough training my capacity to raise my opinion has increasedâ ⢠âIt is better than before as women now get chances to air out their views in village meetings.â ⢠âWomen are involved in making community decisionsâ ⢠âWomen can now be elected to lead groups and community social groups like the water management committee and their opinions are more considered unlike before the interventionâ ⢠âBefore GWI the man (head of household) questioned everything in terms of development but currently they are positive on the activities, carried out by women.â
- 14. Title Style Conclusions ⢠WASH programming does support womenâs empowerment through increased health, dignity, gender equality and financial security and reduced stress. ⢠However, womenâs experiences are not homogeneous. Programming needs to be sensitive to and â wherever possible - take into account not just differences in relative wealth and disabilities, but also issues around position in and composition of households.
Hinweis der Redaktion
- The issue of increased respect/dignity is one where there is some statistically relevant disaggregation of experience that emerges, as it was wives of heads of households rather than old parents or other relatives living in the house, or young dependents who were disproportionately more likely to report this benefit (and other adults in the households more likely to report improvement compared to young dependents. For example:*Wives of heads of households are 5.4 times more likely than young dependents of the head of household to report improvement in changes in respect/dignity after the intervention (1.55, 18.813).*Wives of heads of households are 4.2 times more likely than old parents/relatives living within the household to report improvement in changes in respect/dignity after the intervention (1.236, 13.96).*Other adults within the households are 10.8 times more likely than young dependents of the head of household to report improvement in changes in respect/dignity after the intervention (1.13, 102.849).
- Similarly, 72 percent of women reported being in an improved financial situation thanks to the GWI initiative, see Figure X. This is further explained in terms of a combination of factors that included: i) the reduced cost of water for those who used to pay more â e.g. a halving of costs for many in Tanzania for example; ii) having more time for economic activities e.g. women reporting more time to sell products at the market/kiosk or start new businesses such as selling milk, setting up a bakery selling doughnuts, or being a hotelier; and iii) the changes to household health resulting in fewer costs relating to illness. The situation is however reported as not being any different for 15 percent of the women and 3 percent indicate that it is worse because they now pay for water and previously didnât.
- Although the data on who reported financial benefits do not generate statistically relevant differences, the issue of involvement in income generation activities (IGA) does suggest that age and position within the household are relevant. The main findings are that wives of heads of households and female heads of households were more likely to report IGA benefits and young dependents and older parents/relativesless likely to do so,. Also, women with no kids were less likely to report IGA benefits than those with older kids.   Are they not likely to be single women? Usually in marital terms but might have kids and also possible, though unlikely that there is a husband who isnât head of household somehow (e.g. younger, second husband) Note have edited the paragraph a bit in line with changes to the main document For these and the correlations that follow, it would be useful to have some conjecture about these relationships or else itâs hard to get them to stick or create meaning.  My main point really is that women experience things differently and that we need to look at household position and composition if we really want to ensure that all women can benefit, rather than just assuming that they all have the same chances of uptake/benefit â it could lead to much better targeting. I have some better words to this effect in the revised document I think but not sure that this is the place to talk about this. The issue of increased respect/dignity is also one where there is some statistically relevant disaggregation of experience that emerges, as it was headâs of households rather than elderly relatives, young dependents or other adults in the household who were disproportionately more likely to report this benefit, for example, an old person/relative living in the household had an 86% less chance of improvement in terms of level of respect/dignity after intervention compared to the wife of head of household. OR=0.241; confidence interval 0.0702, 0.809. Also Young dependant has a 81% less chance of improved respect/dignity than wife of head of household. OR=0.185 (0.053, 0.645); Other adult in household has 91% less chance of improved respect/dignity than young dependent. OR=0.093 (0.01 0.882)