Gender, water and climate change

The gendered dimensions of water use and management are fairly well-documented. It has long been noted in the gender and environment literature, for example, that women and girls generally assume primary responsibility for collecting water for drinking, cooking, washing, hygiene and raising small livestock, while men use water for irrigation or livestock farming and for industries (Fisher 2006; Khosla and Pearl 2003). These distinct roles mean that women and men often have different needs and priorities in terms of water use. But while this knowledge isn’t new, it does take on a pressing significance in the context of climate change. It is estimated that by 2025, almost two thirds of the world’s population are likely to experience some kind of water stress, and for one billion of them the shortage will be severe and socially disruptive (WEDO 2003: 61).

Climate change may also lead to increasing frequency and intensity of floods and deteriorating water quality. This is likely to have a particularly harsh effect on women and girls because of their distinct roles in relation to water use and their specific vulnerabilities in the context of disasters. In drought-prone areas affected by desertification, for example, the time absorbed by water collection will increase as women and children (mostly girls) will have to travel greater distances to find water.

The heavy rainfalls and more frequent floods predicted to result from climate change will also increase women’s workloads, as they will have to devote more time to collecting water. This is time that could be spent in school, earning an income or participating in public life. Walking long distances to fetch water exposes women and girls to harassment or sexual assault, especially in areas of conflict; there are many accounts of women and girls being attacked when searching for water and kindling in refugee camps around Darfur (MSF 2005). In urban areas, water collection is also an issue as women and girls spend hours queuing for intermittent water supplies (WEDO 2003).

Nigeria capital city Abuja is not left out of water scarcity equation as the informal settlements within the city are not served or connected by public source of water comparing the residents to depend on streams, ponds and private operators. This sources which are questionable in terms of safety comes with water-borne diseases that has severe consequences on peoples health particularly children, creating more burden of care for women and economic hardship for the families. It is well recognised that poor urban households who are not connected with the public supply of water pay 5 times more than the rich who are connected by buying from private operator of water supply and vendors. The question is what prevents government ministries responsible for water supply from connecting the poor urban households? If the people are paying more than the government set tariff in their present situation would it be a problem in paying less for a safe and clean source if provided for them? What are really the challenges water supply ministries faces in providing safe water for the poor urban households in Abuja?