Research Report

International Water Management Institute

INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTEP O Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Tel (94-1) 867404 • Fax (94-1) 866854 • E-mail iwmi@cgiar.orgInternet Home Page http: //www.cgiar.org/iwmi

ISSN 1026-0862ISBN 92-9090-382-1

31

Gender Issues and Women’sParticipation in Irrigated Agriculture:The Case of Two Private IrrigationCanals in Carchi, Ecuador

Elena P. Bastidas

Research Reports

IWMI’s mission is to contribute to food security and poverty eradication by fosteringsustainable increases in the productivity of water through better management of irriga-tion and other water uses in river basins. In serving this mission, IWMI concentrateson the integration of policies, technologies and management systems to achieve work-able solutions to real problems—practical, relevant results in the field of irrigation andwater resources.

The publications in this series cover a wide range of subjects—from computer mod-eling to experience with water users associations—and vary in content from directly ap-plicable research to more basic studies, on which applied work ultimately depends.Some research reports are narrowly focused, analytical, and detailed empirical studies;others are wide-ranging and synthetic overviews of generic problems.

Although most of the reports are published by IWMI staff and their collaborators,we welcome contributions from others. Each report is reviewed internally by IWMI’s ownstaff and Fellows, and by external reviewers. The reports are published and distributedboth in hard copy and electronically (http://.www.cgiar.org/iwmi) and where possible alldata and analyses will be available as separate downloadable files. Reports may becopied freely and cited with due acknowledgment.

ii

Research Report 31

Gender Issues and Women’s Participationin Irrigated Agriculture: The Case of TwoPrivate Irrigation Canals in Carchi, Ecuador

Elena P. Bastidas

International Water Management InstituteP O Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka

ii

The author: Elena P. Bastidas is a Ph.D. student at the Food and Resource EconomicsDepartment of the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) gratefully acknowledges thefinancial support for this study from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and theFederal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany. Theauthor wishes to thank the collaboration of Ing. Jorge Sotomayor, Ing. Ramiro Mera; Dr.Carlos Garcés and Dr. Wim Kloezen from IWMI; Dr. Susan Poats and Ivette Vallejo fromFacultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO); Dr. Oswaldo Paladines, Ing.Fabian Castillo, and Antonio Ibarra from Consorcio para el Desarrollo Sostenible de laEcoregion Andina (CONDESAN).

Bastidas, E. P. 1999. Gender issues and women’s participation in irrigated agriculture:The case of two private irrigation canals in Carchi, Ecuador. Research Report 31.Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

/ women-in-irrigation / gender / irrigated farming / case studies / irrigation canals / wateruser associations / participatory management / Latin America / Ecuador /

ISBN 92-9090-382-1ISSN 1026-0862

© IWMI, 1999. All rights reserved.

Responsibility for the contents of this publication rests with the author.

The International Irrigation Management Institute, one of sixteen centers supported bythe Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), was incorporatedby an Act of Parliament in Sri Lanka. The Act is currently under amendment to readas International Water Management Institute (IWMI).

iiiiii

Contents

Summary v

Introduction 1Women, gender, and irrigation 1Women and irrigation in Latin America 2

Study Area 2Irrigation in the area 3Water user associations 4Two Canals 4Water allocation 5

Methodology 6Users and uses 6Gender division of labor 9Women’s involvement in irrigated agriculture 11Household composition and life stage 12Women’s background: Urban or rural 15Participation of women in the water user associations 16

Conclusions 17

Annex 19

Literature Cited 20

v

Summary

In the past decades, research findings have madegovernments as well as international and localagencies realize the important role played bywomen in water management. However, there is alack of research on specific roles, tasks, andfunctions of women in irrigated agriculture, espe-cially in Latin America. By considering women asa heterogeneous group among the different wateruser groups, this report seeks to understand thefactors that influence the involvement of mestizowomen in irrigated agriculture in two privateirrigation canals in the province of Carchi, Ecuador.After an introduction to the study area, this reportdescribes the users, their needs, and the differentwater uses of the two irrigation systems. Further,the degree of women’s involvement in irrigatedagriculture is defined. Finally, factors that limitwomen’s involvement in irrigated agriculture andtheir participation in water user associations areidentified. A typology based on “household lifestage” and household composition is used toexplain women’s involvement in irrigated agricul-

ture. Water user’s relation to the resource andwomen’s previous rural/urban background areanalyzed for the different types of households.Women’s participation in agriculture was higher infemale-headed households. In households wherethe couple had small children, women’s participa-tion in agriculture was limited by family obligations.In households where an old couple lived bythemselves, women were either too old or too sickto participate as they used to in agriculturalactivities. Finally, in households where the couplehad no small children, women preferred to engagein other activities where they could control theirincome. It was also found that women with a ruralbackground are more likely to participate in agricul-tural activities than those with an urban back-ground. The study suggests that it is only bytaking a closer look at the intra-household dynam-ics and urban/rural background that affect womenin each of the different types of households, thatwe can properly explain women’s involvement inirrigated agriculture.

1

Gender Issues and Women’s Participation in IrrigatedAgriculture: The Case of Two Private Irrigation Canalsin Carchi, Ecuador

Elena P. Bastidas

Women, Gender, and Irrigation

Recognizing the importance of women in foodproduction and in the provision of water fordomestic use has increased in the past decades.(Roda 1991; Davidson 1993; Cleaver and Jobes1996). It has been estimated that women areresponsible for more than half of the foodproduced in developing countries. Researchfindings have also made governments as well asinternational and local agencies realize theimportant role played by women in watermanagement (Davis 1996; Johnson and Krogman1993). However, there is still a lack of research onspecific roles, tasks, and functions women havein irrigated agriculture, especially in Latin America.

Most of the evidence regarding irrigationdevelopment experiences comes from the Africanand Asian countries. One of the commonassumptions made regarding farmers and,therefore, irrigators is that they are predominantlymale, which leads to the assumption that farmhousehold resources and labor are effectivelycontrolled and allocated by males. Research in theAfrican (Carney 1988; Jones 1986; Zwarteveenand Neupane 1997) and Asian (Hart 1992;Zwarteveen 1996) systems has focused onverifying this assumption, which has guidedirrigation policies, planning, and design. Thesestudies also have shown that the failure torecognize gender issues affects the agriculturalproductivity of irrigated crops negatively, and that

women’s lack of independent access to, andcontrol of, land and water threatens householdfood security. Although these studies providevaluable information and examples, we cannotexpect that the recommendations and lessonslearnt from them would be directly applicable inthe Latin American context.

This report is aimed at understanding thefactors that influence the involvement of mestizowomen in irrigated agriculture in two irrigationcanals in the province of Carchi, Ecuador. For thispurpose, women are considered as aheterogeneous group among the different wateruser groups. As a heterogeneous group, theirinvolvement in irrigated agriculture as well as theirneeds and responsibilities will vary as these areinfluenced by different social variables. A typologybased on “household life stage” and “householdcomposition” is used to explain women’sinvolvement in irrigated agriculture. Women’sprevious background (rural or urban) is analyzedfor the different types of households.

The objectives of this report are first, todetermine the users, their needs with respect tothe resource, and the different water uses of twoirrigation systems, Garrapatal and El Tambo,located in the province of Carchi, Ecuador;second, to determine the degree of women’sinvolvement in irrigated agriculture and decisionmaking, and third, to identify the factors that limitwomen’s involvement in irrigated agriculture andtheir participation in water user associations.

Introduction

2

Women and Irrigation in Latin America

Latin American farming systems were firstclassified by Boserup (1970) as “male farmingsystems” in contrast to the African countries, whereit is estimated that women farmers raise as muchas 80 percent of the crops. The underlyingargument for this classification was that in systemscharacterized by settled farming and use of theplough, usually men do more work than women.Deere and Leon De Leal (1982), who analyzedstudies from the Andean regions of South Americawith respect to women and their productiveactivities, later challenged this classification. Intheir study, they concluded that the term “familyfarming system,” would be more appropriate than“male farming system.” They found that women, infact, do participate in agricultural activities, even ifmen do the majority of fieldwork.

According to Brydom and Chant (1989),beliefs that usually emerge based on religion andother cultural aspects are crucial in determiningthe male and female roles in society. In LatinAmerica, the predominance and influence of theHispanic colonial values and the Catholic Churchhave shaped the male and female roles in themestizo communities, limiting women to thedomestic or the reproductive sphere (Brydom andChant 1989). Despite this fact, research done inEcuador and Peru shows that the involvement ofwomen in agricultural production and irrigationactivities is higher than it is generally assumed.

A study done by Villalobos et al. (1993) inthe community of Camiraya Molino in Puno, Perushows that in most cases, women are moreinvolved than men in the management and useof water for irrigation purposes. Womenparticipate as much as men even in themaintenance, cleaning, and construction of theirrigation systems. One of the reasons for thiswas attributed to the increase of male migrationto the cities, leaving women in charge ofproduction activities. The same study showedthat although women’s involvement in agricultureand irrigation activities was high, women’sparticipation in water user association meetingswas low. Jacome and Krol (1994) found similarresults in the mestizo communities of Guano,Ecuador. Because of the difficult economicsituation, men migrate to the nearby cities towork as drivers or construction workers tosupplement the household income. Only the oldmen and farmers who have enough land stayback to do agricultural work. In both studies, theauthors found women’s involvement in irrigatedagriculture varied according to the migration ofmen. According to Lynch (1991), the femaleparticipation in the construction and maintenanceof irrigation systems varies widely in the Andes.She found that in Cajamarca, Peru womenworked only for short periods on small jobs,while in Puno, Peru they comprised more thanhalf of some work crews.

Study Area

The study area is part of the El Angel River wateruse area, which is part of the Mira Riverhydrological system, one of the large watershedsin Ecuador. It is located in the northern part of thecountry in the province of Carchi, near the

Colombia border (see Annex). Its strategic locationhas a direct impact on agriculture, forestry, andthe consumption centers in Ecuador andColombia. The sub-cuenca1 of the El Angel Riverbegins in the high paramo2 of the “El Angel

1The term cuenca is used in this report to refer to the basin of a river or a watershed.2High, bare, and cold regions of tropical South America.

3

Ecological Reserve.” From this point, numerousstreams form the El Angel River and 11 differentirrigation canals, which provide water foragriculture. These irrigation canals are managedby private water user associations (Nuñez 1997).

These canals and the El Angel River crossthrough 3 distinct agro-ecological zones in theirtrajectory toward the Mira River. In the upper zone(2,400 meters above sea level [masl]), agriculturalproduction is characterized by livestock, basicgrain cereals (wheat and barley), and potato(Vallejo 1997; Arce et al. 1996). The middle zone(2,000–2,400 masl) is warmer and drier, and mostagricultural production is dependent on irrigation.Maize, wheat, and barley are the common cereals,horticultural crops, especially bean, and gardenswith fruits (mainly avocados) tend to predominateover livestock. In the lower zone (1,700–2,000masl), sugarcane and horticultural crops are themain agricultural products (Vallejo 1997).

Agriculture represents the most importantsector of Ecuador’s economy. It contributesapproximately 17 percent of the total GDP and upto 40 percent of the total employment of theEcuadorian labor force. Irrigated agriculturerepresents 27 percent of the total area undercultivation. Eighty percent of this irrigated landcorresponds to irrigation systems which aremanaged by private water user associationslocated mainly in the Andes (Whitaker 1990).

Irrigation in the Area

Most of the private canals in this area, as well asthe other irrigation systems found in theEcuadorian highlands, have a long history.According to Le Goulven, Ruf, and Ribadeneira(1989), irrigation systems in the Andean areaswere known long before the arrival of the

Spaniards (1530) and perhaps before the arrival ofthe Incas from Peru (about 1470). Most of theexisting networks were built between theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when therich landowners were able to make the nativelabor force dig and maintain canals that wereregularly destroyed by bad weather, overflows, andearthquakes.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,especially in the area of Carchi, land wasgradually partitioned due to social movements,thus causing changes in the use of water. On theone hand, the largest haciendas were dividedamong the descendants, creating problems in thedivision of water, which were settled by theconstruction of new canals; on the other, thehuasipungueros3 claimed their water rights, whichwere justified by their crucial participation in theconstruction and maintenance of the irrigationsystem (Le Goulven, Ruf, and Ribadeneira 1989).

Although the process of land partitioning anddistribution had already started in Carchi, theAgrarian Reform of 1960–1970 reinforced thismovement. In 1966, the National Water ResourceInstitute (INERHI) was created. Its main purposewas to deal with the conflicts that arose betweenirrigation network owners and users. The authorityof this institute was strengthened when the waterresources were nationalized in 1972. INERHI wasthe institute responsible to check and grant waterconcessions. Therefore, water users had todeclare their former water rights to be legalized(Whitaker 1990). In 1994, as a result of themodernization policies in the country, theresponsibilities of INERHI were taken over by theRegional Development Corporations, one of whichis the Regional Corporation for the Northern Sierra(CORSINOR), which is in charge of managingwater resources of the northern highlands(Sotomayor and Garcés 1996).

3Huasipungueros are peasants who worked in the big haciendas. The landlord gave a huasipunguero and his family a plot of 2 or 3hectares of land (sometimes more) to sustain themselves. In exchange, the huasipunguero had to work 4 or 5 days of the week in thehaciendas. In some cases, they could use a yoke of oxen to plough their fields and receive water turns during the weekends.

4

Water User Associations

The construction, maintenance, and managementof private irrigation systems and irrigated areasare the responsibilities of the users and their wateruser associations organizations, “Juntas deAguas” that are formed by groups of farmers whohave been granted legal rights to use the water ofprivate canals. Each association’s board is formedby a president, vice-president, treasurer, andsecretary who are elected every year. Theassociations have regular meetings during theyear to plan the maintenance and management ofthe canals, and to solve conflicts between users,or other types of problems related to the irrigationsystem. When water from the same canal feedsseveral distant areas, farmers organize intoseveral sub-juntas, to better deal withmaintenance and management. The presidents ofthe sub-juntas form the board of the water userassociation for the main canal.

The maintenance work of the irrigation systemsis a challenge because of the infrastructure of thecanals. The old facilities consist of winding earthcanals dug on the mountain slopes, which canoften disappear into long tunnels and can carryflows of about 500 l/sec. The water intakes arerustic (water diverted with stones) and, therefore,unstable. All along the flow, the canals cut acrosseach other and become entangled, delivering waterthrough proportional dividers. Generally, gravityirrigation techniques are applied, as they are well

adapted to the topography of the area (Le Goulven,Ruf, and Ribadeneira 1989).

Two Canals

Two private canals, Garrapatal and El Tambo,were selected to be studied in detail among the 11irrigation systems. The selection of these canalswas based on the infrastructure, agriculturalpatterns, and organizational structure of the twosystems. Table 1 summarizes the characteristicsof some of the systems.

Garrapatal takes water from El Angel at analtitude of 2,665 masl (corresponding to the upperzone of the sub-cuenca) and in its course, itdelivers water to 8 different irrigation areas in themiddle zone of the sub-cuenca (La Cocha,Grandeza Nacional, San Nicolas, La Providencia,Loma Seca, San Marcos, Playa Rica, andUyama). The users from these irrigation areas areorganized into 11 sub-juntas whose presidentsform the water user association for the maincanal.

Water intake for the El Tambo canal is locatedat an altitude of 3,200 masl. In its course, thecanal crosses the middle zone but it delivers mostof the water to irrigation areas located in the lowerpart of the sub-cuenca (San Pablo de laCangahua, San Francisco, Torrealba, PotreroGrande, and El Tambito). Most of the users whobenefit from this canal live in the community of

TABLE 1.

Characteristics of some of the irrigation systems, including El Tambo and Garrapatal canals.

Characteristics San El Galera Cunquer Huaquer Garra- Vtte. Higue-Vicente Tambo patal Baños rón

Elevation at water intake (masl) 3,700 3,200 1,670 3,220 2,860 2,665 1,580 1,590

Length of canal (km) 47.90 26.10 3.20 57.20 30.36 10.77 1.23 1.56

Average farm size (ha) - 5.8 - - - 2.8 - -

Irrigated area (ha) 350 416 - - 150 497 - -

No. of irrigated areas 7 8 1 4 2 6 1 1

Source: Sotomayor et al. 1997.

5

El Tambo, and in contrast to Garrapatal, theorganization is centered around one water userassociation.

The average crop production for El Tambo(1.15 t/ha) and Garrapatal (1 t/ha) has beenstandardized taking bean as the base crop(table 2). The standardized gross value ofproduction per hectare is higher in El Tambo thanin Garrapatal since in El Tambo, anise is one ofthe principal crops and has a better sale pricethan bean. El Tambo also has a better grossvalue of production per m3 of water (Molden et al.1998) since water supplied for the area is lowerthan it is for Garrapatal (Sotomayor et al. 1997).

Table 3 shows the production patterns forsummer and winter crops. In both systems, themain crop is bean. In Garrapatal, bean andmaize account for approximately 74 percent of thearea under cultivation, while in El Tambo, beanand anise cover 79 percent of the area undercultivation.

Water Allocation

In both canals, as well as in most of the otherirrigation systems in the area, water is allocatedand distributed in terms of water concessions and

rotation schedules, which were established whenthe associations were first formed during the1970s. During that period, concessions and turnswere approved by the Water Agency of theMinistry of Agriculture and supervised by thetechnicians of the ex-INERHI. The criterion usedto establish the water turn is based on the amountof water supply (concessions) for each branch,time, and the irrigated area. In some cases,farmers receive 12 hours of water per hectarefortnightly, while in other areas, the water turncorresponds to 6 or 7 hours per hectare once in aweek. In any case, water turns are based ontheoretical concessions that rarely correspond tothe actual water supplied. This is illustrated indetail in Sotomayor et al. 1997.

TABLE 2.

Performance indicators of El Tambo andGarrapatal canals.

Performance indicators Garrapatal El Tambo

Production (bean) (t/ha) 1 1.15

Standardized Gross Value ofProduction per season ($/ha)* 1,292 1,508

Standardized Gross Value of Produc-tion per unit of water supplied ($/m3) 0.16 0.32

*The average exchange rate for 1996 was US$1 = S/. 3,210.

Source: Sotomayor et al. 1997.

TABLE 3.Crop pattern for Garrapatal and El Tambo irrigation systems, summer 1996 and winter 1996–1997.

Summer 1996a Winter 1996–97b

Crop Garrapatal El Tambo Garrapatal El Tambo

ha % ha % ha % ha %

Bean 183 39 162 47 209 40 308 63

Maize 157 34 41 12 186 35 18 4

Anise 0 0 93 27 11 2 105 21

Tomato 34 7 0 0 37 7 0 0

Wheat 11 2 12 4 11 2 8 2

Onion 0 0 4 1 30 6 20 4

Others 81 18 32 9 43 8 29 6

Total 466 100 344 100 527 100 488 100aSummer/dry season lasted 11 weeks.

bWinter/wet season lasted 15 weeks.

Source: Sotomayor et al. 1997.

6

Data for this study were collected during twosummer field visits (June–August 1996 andMay–August 1997). To achieve the proposedobjectives, a combination of qualitative andquantitative methods was used to gatherinformation. During the first visit, historical facts,focus groups, and gender analysis (Feldstein andPoats 1993) were used in a participatory way toobtain qualitative information. Mapping andstakeholder analysis were also used to identify thedifferent users of the systems and their primaryneeds.

During the second visit, household interviews,case studies, and focus groups were used toobtain quantitative information. Householdinterviews were based on a random sample takenfrom the rosters of the two water userassociations. For this part of the study,households of male and/or female farmers whoowned at least one irrigated plot of land weretaken into consideration. For Garrapatal, threesubsamples were taken corresponding to farmersin the head, middle, and tail end of the canal. Inthe case of El Tambo, a subsample was takencorresponding to the major irrigation area. Sixtyinterviews were conducted, 15 from eachsubsample. After the interviews were completed,focus groups were used to clarify and validateinformation from the interviews. Based on thisinformation four household types were identifiedaccording to “life stage” and “householdcomposition.” Case studies were conducted toobtain detailed information on the different typesof households.

For the purpose of this study, a “household” isdefined as a residential unit, where the membersshare domestic functions and activities—a group ofpeople who “eat out of the same pot” or who “sharethe same bowl” (Brydom and Chant 1989).Individuals who are not physically present but are

contributing to the household are also consideredhousehold members. Although membership of ahousehold implies at least a minimal degree ofinteraction with others in the unit, it cannot beassumed that such interaction involves equality oreven cooperation among individuals. According toKabeer (1985), it is common to find significantdisparities in terms of the inputs, benefits, andactivities of various household members, which areinfluenced by variables such as age and gender.

The term “life stage” can be defined as theoverall size and composition of a household. Theconcept of different life stages for individualhouseholds should not imply that the householddevelopment follows a predetermined pattern; thatis, although many households have similarities,not every household will originate identical lifestages (Murray 1987; Kabeer 1985).

Users and Uses

This section presents an analysis of how therelation between the user and the resourcedetermines who has control over, or who is morelikely to have access to, water from the irrigationcanals. Through participatory mapping, pointswhere water was used along the canals werelocated. People were grouped into two broadcategories according to their relation to theresource: 1) direct users or those who use waterfor crop production (irrigation) and 2) indirect usersor those who use water for activities other thanirrigation (table 4).4

Direct users

This group includes farmers (both men andwomen) who have been granted legal rights andconcessions to use water from the canals for

Methodology

4Since these canals were constructed as irrigation systems, the terms direct and indirect reflect whether water is being used for thispurpose or for an alternative use.

7

irrigation. As mentioned earlier, land in the studyarea has been owned by a few families, in theform of big haciendas. Due to pressure fromsocial movements and the Agrarian Reforms ofthe 1960s and 1970s, part of the land waspartitioned and sold to groups of farmers, whileother parts were given to the peasants(huasipungueros) in return for their work. Beforethe water law of 1972,5 land and water rights wereacquired independently of one another, whichenabled some farmers in the upper zone of thewatershed (where rain-fed agriculturepredominates) to buy land6 without acquiring waterconcessions. In the same way, some farmers inthe lower valleys bought water rights withouthaving to buy more land than they already owned.In a focus group, one of the farmers from theupper zone explained the view of his fellowfarmers:

We think that water rights and concessionshave to be redistributed. When land waspartitioned, our ancestors didn’t fight to getwater for irrigation because they didn’t need it.With the rains, they had enough water foragriculture. Now the climate has changed, we

can no longer predict when it will rain.Agriculture becomes a riskier business everyyear. It’s not fair that farmers in the lowervalleys use all the water from the canals.

Recently, changes in weather pattern andpopulation have started generating conflicts amongthe communities in the upper zone (who haverecently felt the need for irrigation) andcommunities in the lower valleys (who havealways benefited from this resource). Farmers inthe upper zone want to benefit from the canalwater. But, the farmers who already have waterconcessions indicated that the amount of water isnot enough for the production of crops, especiallyduring the dry season (June, July, and August)and they complained that during such periodsstealing of water increases. It is common to findwater being diverted to fields of farmers who donot have water concessions. Another problem isthat farmers who live along the canals do notleave the established distance (4 m) between thecanals and their fields. In this way, they use theseepage of the soil near the canals to grow theircrops and hence the walls of the canals getdamaged.

TABLE 4.

Uses and users of water from Garrapatal and El Tambo canals.

Relation to the resource Uses Users

Direct users Irrigation Field owners (men and women)Share croppers (mainly men)Leasers (men and women)Paid workers (men and women)

Washing clothes Women

Indirect users Bathing Men, women, and children

Home consumption Women, men, and children(drinking, cleaning, etc.)

Watering animals Mainly women and children

5The water law of 1972 states that water rights are granted to the owner of the land by just showing the corresponding land title.Concessions for the use of water are assigned proportionally to the amount of land owned by the farmer.6In the case of the huasipungueros, land was given without the water rights.

8

Direct users can be further classified as fieldowners, sharecroppers, leasers, and paid workers.These categories are not exclusive of each other;the household members can fall into one or all ofthese categories depending on their means oflivelihood.

Field owners. This category includeshuasipungueros or their descendants (farmers whooriginally bought land from the owners of thehaciendas) and farmers who had come from othertowns and bought land in later years. Farmers inthis group form the water user association andhave the responsibilities of construction, mainte-nance, and management of the irrigation systems.

Some of the wealthier farmers in this grouphave moved with their families to the cities. Thesefarmers either lease their land or engage inagriculture with sharecroppers. Usually, they visittheir properties on weekends. Since the wholefamily lives in the city, women are not involved inagriculture; men manage agricultural activities.

Sharecroppers and lessees. Farmers who do nothave enough land for agricultural purposes buthave the necessary resources, engage in share-cropping or leasing. In the case of the sharecrop-pers, there are several types of arrangements thatwork according to specific situations. Generally,the owner puts up the land, pays for the landpreparation, and bears half the cost of pestcontrol. In exchange, the sharecropper puts uplabor, pays for half the cost of pest control, and allthe other necessary inputs. Each farmer gets halfthe harvested product. The arrangements onpaying the water fees and the maintenance costof the canals vary depending on how long the landis leased. If the sharecropping is for one croppingseason, usually, the owner takes care of thecost. When the sharecropping is for severalseasons, the cost is split between the owner andthe lessee.

Paid workers. For farmers who neither haveenough land nor the resources, wage labor repre-sents an important way to earn their livelihood.Men and women are hired to work in the fields.According to a hacienda owner, women arepreferred during planting and harvesting becausethey do a better job in these activities. While menwere paid US$2.50 per day of work, women werehired for US$2.00. This difference in wages,according to the farmers, is because the work thatwomen perform is not as heavy as the work thatmen do.

Although this common perception can beeasily challenged, it is used to justify the lowerwage paid to women. Women accept this disparitydue to cultural norms, which define gender roles inthe mestizo culture.

Indirect users

The second group includes the legal users andalso people living along the canals. People usecanal water for home consumption,7 bathing, andwashing clothes because they do not have accessto tap water or the systems do not workappropriately. A woman user explains:

This is the third time during this week that Ihave come to the canal to get water for thehouse. Although we have the installations fortap water, the system never works. Somepeople say that it’s because the tanks thatcollect the water are being repaired but thishappens all the time... so we are forced touse this water for everything. I also come towash clothes here and sometimes my childrencome with me to take baths in the canal ...

Poor quality of water is one of the mainproblems faced by the users. In the area, waste isusually dumped into canals and rivers, eventhough everybody is aware of the uses of water

7The water law of 1972 legally protects use of water for these purposes.

9

from the canals. In the case of El Angel River,most of the waste from the city of El Angel (6,000people) goes to the river, including the waste fromthe city hospital. About this situation one of theusers comments:

We know waste from the different communitiesgets thrown into the canal. We have even founddead animals in it. We know the water iscontaminated, but what can we do? We can’tafford boiling the water before using it, itconsumes too much firewood or gas.

Children are the worst affected by thissituation. According to the nurses who work in thelocal health dispensary, the incidence of diseasescaused by parasites are high. They attribute thisproblem to the meager sanitary conditions andpoor water quality. The need for clean water iscritical for women since it is their responsibility toprovide water for the household and the children.

It is the responsibility of the municipalities andthe local governments to provide clean water tothe communities and small towns. But in reality,the local governments take action to solve theproblems only if there is a group of well-organizedpeople to exert political pressure. Since petitionsbacked by an organization stand a better chanceof being heard by the local authorities, water userassociations are crucial to solve problems of thisnature. In one case, a sub-junta of the Garrapatalcanals, which consisted of a group of 42 farmers,persuaded the board of the water user associationto lobby for them to get tap water from themunicipal authorities.

Gender Division of Labor

The needs, tasks, and responsibilities for thegroups described above are influenced not only bythe users’ relations to the resource but also by thecultural determinants. Following the Triple RolesFramework presented by Moser (1989), male andfemale roles are categorized as productive,

reproductive, and community management,although the boundaries between productive andreproductive spheres are not always clear.

Productive roles

These refer to activities that generate income.Those activities related to subsistence farming arealso included in this category. Althoughsubsistence farming is essentially production foruse, it displays similarities to income-generatingagricultural activities and, in times of surplus,becomes production for exchange or trade forother agricultural products or resources like labor.

Reproductive roles

These involve the daily domestic activities (relatedto child bearing and rearing responsibilities) likecooking, cleaning, washing, and so on. They alsoinclude the transformation of goods and servicesfor household use and welfare.

Community management roles

These cover the collective aspect of production,community organization, and the provision ofitems of collective consumption. Table 5 presentsa picture of what are commonly referred to asmale and female activities, tasks, andresponsibilities, as defined by the mestizoculture. Emphasis is given to productive andreproductive roles. The table shows the divisionof labor based on gender according to themestizo culture, which does not necessarilyrepresent what people actually do, but the norm inthe area (what people ought to be doing). Mostpeople (90 % of men and 70 % of women inhousehold interviews), when asked about thegeneral division of labor in the area, differentiatedthe tasks on the basis of the physical strengthrequired to carry them out. Male tasks wereconsidered as those that require more physicalstrength while typical female tasks were thosethat require less physical strength.

10

Men do most of the fieldwork, whilewomen help in activities like planting,weeding (when it is done by hand),harvesting, selection of seed, threshing,and storing the product. Sometimeswomen cook in the field for familymembers and paid workers. This isusually done in times of planting andharvesting. Looking after the smallanimals, which include guinea pigs,chickens, and pigs, is the responsibilityof women. Small animals are usually forhome consumption. Women have thecontrol of small animals and can decideto sell them in need of money. Men andwomen both are responsible for the careof livestock; both contribute to feed,water, and herd the cows while womenusually milk the cows. When there isenough milk, women sell part of theproduction and take control over thecash. Reproductive activities are mainlywomen’s responsibilities.8

To compare the description of theroles of men and women based on thecultural or the prescribed norms and whatpeople actually do in reality, a focusgroup of 21 women was selected. It wasfound that gender roles tend to be more

8Gender roles did not vary much between the two irrigation systems because of the different cropping patterns. Unlike in the Africansystems, where women are mostly in charge of food crops while men are in charge of cash crops, in this area, the roles of men andwomen are more complementary, and division of labor in terms of cash or food crops is not that relevant.

TABLE 5.Gender division of labor.*

Activities Women Men Both

Agricultural activities Land preparation ✓Plowing ✓Planting ✓Weeding by hand ✓Weeding with hoe ✓Fertilizing ✓Hilling ✓Fumigating ✓Harvesting ✓Irrigation ✓Storing ✓Threshing ✓

Rearing of small animals Feeding ✓Forage gathering ✓Watering ✓

Rearing of livestock Milking ✓Watering ✓Feeding ✓Forage gathering ✓Herding ✓

Reproductive activities Preparing food ✓Cooking ✓Fetching water ✓Cleaning ✓Washing ✓Gardening ✓Child caring ✓

*This table was constructed based on the information obtained from four focusgroup meetings, and it represents the general division of labor based onmestizo cultural norms. The information in the table also reflects the resultsfound from household interviews, when people were asked about the generaldivision of labor in the area.

complementary. Women were often involved infield activities more than they acknowledged whenthey were first asked. The women in the groupwere asked explicitly about their participation infield activities, which are considered mainly maleactivities. Results showed that almost half thewomen (47%) worked with the hoe also when theyworked in the fields, 41 percent irrigated, and 23percent applied pesticides. Similar information wasobtained through household interviews, whenwomen were asked to describe their activitiesduring a typical day. Most women considered

themselves “helpers” when referring to productiveagricultural activities and did not acknowledgetheir participation in the field, unless they wereasked explicitly. The following response from oneof the women illustrates this.

I wake up in the morning, prepare breakfast,get the kids ready for school, clean the houseand cook lunch. When lunch is ready, I haveto prepare to go to the field where myhusband and son are working. There we have

11

lunch and I help out. Sometimes we comeback together, other times I have to get homebefore, to do the housework and to take careof the kids. When it is not harvest time, I dowhatever is needed, sometimes work with thehoe and sometimes help irrigate, weed, ... Ifmy older daughter is at home, I stay in theplot from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Women’s Involvement in IrrigatedAgriculture

The involvement of women in irrigated agriculturewas measured in two ways. First, by the degreeof women’s participation in agriculturalproduction, and second, by the degree of theirinvolvement in decision making, regarding thebenefits derived from crop production. During thehousehold interviews, women were askedexplicitly about their participation in field cropactivities. The answers fell into three categories(figure 1).

No participation

This group consists of women who do not work inthe fields. Almost 20 percent of the women in thesample came under this category. They participate

in production activities indirectly, for example, bypreparing food for paid workers.

Semi-participation

In this group we find women who participate infield activities mainly during peak seasons, whenlabor is scarce and extra help is needed from allmembers of the family (for example, planting andharvesting seasons). Sixty percent of the womenfell in this group.

Full participation

Women in this group participate in field activitiesalmost every day. Twenty percent of the women inthe sample mentioned they worked in the fieldsafter finishing with household chores.

Women’s involvement in decision makinginclude decisions regarding the benefits obtainedfrom irrigated agriculture—the amount of the cropto be sold, the amount to be allocated for homeconsumption, the ways in which the money shouldbe spent, etc. Women’s responses also fell intothree groups (figure 1).

• Never consulted. Fourteen percent of thewomen reported that they were neverconsulted by their husbands on decisions

FIGURE 1.Women’s participation in field activities and decision making.

12

related to agricultural benefits. Their husbandscontrolled agricultural production and thebenefits derived from it.

• Sometimes consulted. Women in this groupmentioned that in some cases they wereconsulted by their husbands. Twenty sixpercent of the women fell in this group.

• Always consulted. More than half (60%) of thewomen in this group reported that they shareddecision making with their husbands.

It was found that there is a positiverelationship between women’s participation inagricultural activities and their involvement indecision making. Women who participate more inagricultural activities tend to have greaterinfluence on decision making. Chi-Square Testshowed differences among the groups to bestatistically significant (p=0.004) (figure 2).

Household Composition and Life Stage

The factors influencing women’s participation inagricultural activities varied according to fourdifferent types of household. The households werecharacterized in terms of life stage and householdcomposition.9

Type 1: Households with young couples withchildren less than 14 years old10

Type 2: Mature couples with children of 14 yearsor more

Type 3: Households with old couples

Type 4: Female-headed households

Table 6 summarizes the characteristics of thedifferent types of household.

FIGURE 2.Women’s participation in decision making categorizedby participation in field activities.

TABLE 6.Characteristics of the four types of household.

Household type

Characteristics All Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4households

Average age for husband/wife 57 / 52 47 / 41 60 / 57 70 / 65 — / 54

Average number of household members 3.8 6 4 2.6 2.5

Average number of hectares 3.46 2.77 4.75 3.35* 3

Household type (%) 100 40 27 23 10

*Without the two farmers who possess more than 9 hectares of land, the average number of hectares drops to 1.9 ha.

9Among the 60 households interviewed, 3 cases were found in which the male head was a widower and had not remarried. In thesecases, a female member of the household had assumed the household chores and responsibilities.10The criterion for selecting the age of 14 to differentiate between the two groups was the availability of labor. At the age of 14,approximately, children work as adults in the fields.

13

Type 1: Households with young couples withchildren less than 14 years of age

The majority of the households in the samplecome under this group (40%). The age of menranges between 31 and 63, and of women,between 22 and 57, with means of 47 and 41,respectively. This category includes youngcouples with small children, and families in whichmature couples still have children less than 14years old. The number of household membersvaries between 3 and 10; 59 percent of the caseshave 6 or more members.

Women in this group spend most of their timein reproductive activities like taking care of thechildren, cooking, cleaning, washing clothes, andalso in some productive activities which includerearing of small animals. This limits women’sopportunities to work far from the house. Ingeneral, the agricultural plot and the house are not

in the same plot, making it difficult for women toinvolve in field activities. In 70 percent of thecases, women in this category participate inagricultural activities mostly during peak seasons,when labor is scarce and their husbands needmore help in the fields, in planting and harvestingseasons (figure 3). In 9 percent of the cases,where women fully participate in field activities, afemale member of the household (elder daughteror grandmother) helps with the household choresand reproductive activities. In terms of agriculturaldecision making, only 13 percent of the womenare never consulted.

Some of the women (41%) in this type ofhousehold engage in activities other thanagriculture as part of their livelihood. There arejobs they can do in-between the householdchores, including: weaving, sewing, or managing asmall tienda (shop). Among the activitiesmentioned, the most popular is weaving.

FIGURE 3.Women’s participation in field activities by household type.

14

Merchants from Otavalo give orders to women tomake woollen sweaters on contract. Otavalo is asmall city where arts and crafts from the Andesare sold to tourists. The contractor provides thewool and other materials needed and collects thefinished sweaters fortnightly. They pay US$3.75per finished sweater. These activities give womenan opportunity to earn extra money. Women havecontrol over this money as well as the moneyobtained from selling small animals.

Type 2: Couples with children of 14 years ormore

Households in this category include maturecouples with children over 13 years old. Theaverage age for men is 60 years and for women,57 years. One-fourth of the households fell intothis category. The number of household membersranges between 3 and 8. Eighty two percent of thehouseholds have 5 or fewer members.

In 12 percent of the households of the study,we found cases where a daughter of the head ofhousehold was a single mother and was living withher parents. The majority of such cases fell intothis category (57%). The difference between thisgroup and type 4 household is that the young singlemothers in this group are not heads of households,they are still members of their parents’ household.In this group, we find the highest percentage ofwomen who do not participate in field activities(27%) (figure 3). Sixty seven percent help out partlyand only 7 percent have full participation. Womenget the opportunity to engage in other activities toearn money as their sons usually help with cropproductive activities. Sixty three percent of thewomen engage in activities including hired labor,weaving, managing a small store, sewing, workingas teachers and others. In terms of decisionmaking regarding agricultural activities, one third ofthe women in the group are not consulted by theirhusbands, the highest percentage among the 4groups.

Type 3: Households with old couples

Twenty three percent of the sample correspondsto this type of household. These are householdswhere the couples have finished with the responsi-bilities of raising children. In 57 percent of thesehouseholds, the old couple live alone. The restlive either with a son or a daughter, who helpssupport the couple, and/or grandchildren who helpout with household chores. The couples’ agesrange between 62 and 84 years with a mean of 70for men, and between 55 and 80 years for women,with a mean of 65 years.

Most of the couples in this group (86%)characterize themselves as old people, who are intheir last years of life and sick and, hence cannotwork in the fields as hard as they used to. Theamount of land these couples own ranges from 1to 3 hectares.11 While farmers in all other types ofhousehold produce mainly for the market, farmersin this group emphasize the importance of theirplots for home consumption. Farmers in this groupsometimes receive help from relatives as eithercash or basic products. When there is a need forcash, men and women work as hired laborersprovided they are not sick. Forty four percent ofmen and 14 percent of women mentioned thatoccasionally, they work as hired laborers.

This group is mostly formed by the oldhuasipungueros. Women’s participation in fieldactivities is relatively high (figure 3). The mainreason why women do not participate inagricultural activities is that they are either old orsick. All the women in this group mentioned theyshare decision making with their husbands.

Type 4: Female-headed households

This group includes households in which the malehead is away or has died. Women have childrenwho are either divorced or separated. Ten percentof the sample corresponds to this type of house-hold. The age of the women heads of the house-

11Two of the farmers in this group have more than 9 hectares of land.

15

holds ranges between 37 and 64 years with a meanof 54. The number of members ranges between 3and 5. In 5 of the 6 cases, households were in amature household life stage; the majority of childrenhad either migrated or formed their own families.

Women in this group spend most of their timeperforming and managing agricultural activities(figure 3), in addition to the reproductive activities.Although women as heads of the householdsmake all the decisions regarding agriculturalmanagement, it was found that in no case didwomen engage in agriculture by themselves. Theywould find a male sharecropper who is either arelative or a farmer in the community, to engage inagriculture. This situation forces women to sharethe decisions regarding the agricultural productionwith the sharecropper. These decisions includewhat and how much to grow, as well as when andwhere to sell the product. Sharecroppingarrangements vary in each situation, but generally,the woman provides the land, cash for inputs, andsome labor (own and family), while thesharecropper provides labor and also part of thecash for inputs.

One of the chief reasons that deters womenfrom engaging in crop production is the difficultythey face to control all aspects of agriculturalproduction. According to the women farmers inthis group, there are certain tasks that require thepresence of a man. Although women could hirelabor, they said they could not trust paid workersto look after their interests in the same waya sharecropper would. One of the womenexplained:

If I get the water turn at night and I’m workingalone, I simply lose the water. It is dangerousfor us to go out in the middle of the night toirrigate, God knows what might happen! Paidworkers won’t work at night, so I have to lookfor a male sharecropper. Men can irrigate atnight and make sure nobody is stealing thewater...... Also, when the canal needs to berepaired, farmers have the obligation to go andrepair the damage. We don’t do that type of

work, so we hire workers. The problem withpaid workers is that if the owner is not presentthey don’t do a good job.

In contrast to the studies cited in the first partof this paper (Villalobos et al. 1993; Jacome andKrol 1994), women here refuse to do maintenancework in the canals. This is probably because theycan still hire male workers for this job, since malemigration is not very remarkable.

Women’s Background: Urban or Rural

Women’s background—either rural or urban—is animportant variable in their participation in the fieldactivities. Women who had been raised and hadlived on small farms were more likely toparticipate. One of the women interviewedremarked:

We all have to help in agriculture, men andwomen. It is a lot of work so we both go tothe field; while he forms the beds I plant,when he works with the hoe I take out theweeds with my hands... You need two peopleto irrigate so I help him with that too. I havealways helped in the field, even before gettingmarried.

On the contrary, women who have had aprevious urban experience, who had been raised ina city, sent to school, or worked in an urban area,were less likely to participate in the field activities.They considered agriculture as a man’s work andpreferred to do something else to earn, hireworkers to help their husbands in the field.

Twenty two percent of the cases correspondedto women who have had previous urbanbackground. None of the women within this groupfully participated in field activities: 46 percent didnot work in the field and 54 percent only helpedout. Chi-Square Test showed differences amongthe groups to be statistically significant (p=0.015)(figure 4).

16

Participation of women in the wateruser associations

As mentioned before, many of the problemsrelated to irrigation are solved directly by farmers;at home or at work. This is partly due to a weakorganization, which has forced male and femalefarmers to find informal ways to deal with theirproblems. According to the statutes of theGarrapatal and El Tambo associations, membersshould meet once in two months to discussproblems, make decisions, and collect irrigationfees, and once a year to elect new boardmembers. This is hardly the case. In El Tambo,farmers meet less than twice a year and theprevious board members held office for almost 8consecutive years (1989–1996). It seems that theonly occasion that brings farmers to meetings iswhen the irrigation system ceases to function andan urgent action is needed. The problems thatrequired action from the organization were, inmany cases, dealt with by the board members,who, according to the majority of the farmers,were people they could trust. In Garrapatal,because the association includes 11 sub-juntas,

farmers are forced to meet more often. In somesub-juntas, farmers meet every month. The juntageneral12 usually meets twice a year to organizethe cleaning of the main canal. The correspondingsub-junta deals with problems that arise in thedifferent irrigation modules.

The overall participation of male and femalemembers is low in the association meetings.When the meetings are crucial, and it isimperative that a household member attend themeetings, it is usually a male member whoattends. Only 9 percent of the women in thesample, mentioned they attend critical water userassociation meetings (table 7). There is no rulethat prevents women from attending andparticipating in the association meetings. Eitherthe husband or the wife or both are able to attendand represent their interests at the meetings.However, attending meetings and discussingmatters are thought of as male activities. Thecultural barriers women have when they aretogether with men inhibit their participation. One ofthe women mentioned her reasons for notparticipating:

Meetings are on Friday nights. At that time,after cooking for my husband and the kids, Istill have a lot of work around the house....There is no reason for both of us to attend themeetings. Even if I go to the meetings it’sonly to hear what the men have to say. Menare the ones who talk and discuss. Theyknow what to say and how to say it.

Common reasons for the low participation ofwomen in the association meetings among thewhole sample are:

• The women do not have the time.

• Husbands do not like their wives going out inthe night.

FIGURE 4.Women’s participation in the field activities on the basisof their rural or urban backgrounds.

12The junta general is the main board of the water user associations. Since there are several communities benefiting from the samecanal, there are several boards representing the different user groups, but the presidents of each of those form the general or themain water user association board.

17

• Women lack experience (for example, inmanaging meetings, talking in front of people).

• There is no need for both husband and wife toattend the meeting.

Here it is important to highlight that althoughwomen’s participation in water user associationmeetings is low (60% do not participate), of thegroup of female-headed households, 67 percent ofthe women do participate in crucial meetings. Incontrast, 93 percent of the women from householdtype 2 with older children never attend thesemeetings. In these households, if the husband

cannot attend the meetings the elder son willparticipate.

According to some people (both men andwomen), women can perform better than men in aboard position when they have higher education.In 5 of the 11 sub-juntas in the Garrapatal canal,women occupied positions of leadership, two aspresidents of the sub-juntas, and three assecretaries. In the case of El Tambo, the newtreasurer was a woman. In all of these cases, thewomen had more education than the averagefarmer; all of them had finished high school andthree were schoolteachers.

TABLE 7.Participation of women in the critical water user association meetings.

Household types Whole

Partipation in WUA meetings Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 sample

% % % % %

Does not participate 47 93 69 0 60

Only when husband or a male family member can’t go 53 7 23 33 32

Always participate 0 0 8 67 9

Conclusions

The report suggests that taking a closer look atwomen’s urban /rural background and the issuesthey confront in the different types of householdgives a better understanding of how gender rolesand responsibilities are shaped within thehousehold. It also helps explain variations in thegender-based division of labor, and how it affectsthe participation of women in agricultural activities,decision making, and in the water userorganizations. It was found that women’sparticipation in agriculture is higher in female-headed households, which represent approximately10 percent of the households in the area of study.Although women’s lack of participation in

agriculture is similar among the other types ofhousehold (22% in type 1, 27% in type 2, and23% in type 3), reasons for not participating variedwidely. In households where the couple still hadsmall children, women’s participation in agriculturewas limited by conflicting family obligations. Inhouseholds with old couples, women were eithertoo old or too sick to participate as they used todo in agricultural activities. Finally, in maturehouseholds where the couple had no smallchildren, women preferred to engage in otheractivities by which they could control their ownincome.

In terms of heterogeneity of water uses andusers, the study shows how the control over, and

18

access to, the water resource is influenced byfactors such as land tenure, location, gender, andlabor relations. Although women’s participation inwater user associations is low, and culture plays astrong role in terms of their decision-makingpower, women who had higher-than-averageeducation occupied positions of leadership in theorganizations. Also, women tried to solve theirirrigation-related problems through informal wayswhere they had more decision-making power.Therefore, the importance of analyzing gender inagricultural production through different life stages

to get a broader understanding of factorsinfluencing irrigation is recognized.

This study focused on the mestizocommunities of the middle and the lower zones ofthe Rio El Angel area, where ethnicity is not animportant variable for differentiation. To have abetter understanding of the users in the wholearea, further research should consider ethnicity asa variable for differentiation (see Vallejo1997), asthe communities in the upper zone haveindigenous Andean influence, while in the lowerzone, Negro communities have predominance.

19

ANNEX

Geographic location of the area of study in Carchi, Ecuador.

20

Literature Cited

Arce, B.; O. Paladines; A. Reinoso; and F. Fastillo. 1996. Análisis de los sistemas húmedos de producciónagropecuaria del ecosistema húmedo altoandino de la provincia del Carchi, Ecuador. Informe Proyecto Carchi.Quito, Ecuador: CONDESAN-FUNDAGRO.

Boserup, Ester. 1970. Women’s role in economic development. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Brydom, Lynne; and Sylvia Chant. 1989. Women in the Third World: Gender issues in rural and urban areas. NewBrunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Carney, Judith. 1988. Struggles over crop rights and labor within contract farming households in a Gambian irrigatedrice project. Journal of Peasant Studies 15:334-349.

Cleaver, Frances; and Katja Jobes. 1996. Donor policies and gender in the water and sanitation sector. Natural Re-sources Forum 20(2):111-117.

Davidson, Sally. 1993. Women and environment in developing countries: Issues and linkages. Women & Environ-ments 13(3-4):6-9.

Davis, Susan. 1996. Implementing gender policy in the water and sanitation sector. Natural Resources Forum20(3):189-198.

Deere, Carmen; and Magdalena León de Leal. 1982. Women in Andean agriculture: Peasant production and ruralwage employment in Colombia and Peru. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Feldstein, Hilary; and Susan Poats, eds. 1993. Working together. Gender analysis in agriculture vol. 1: Case Stud-ies. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Hart, Gillian. 1992. Household production reconsidered: Gender, labor conflict, and technological change in Malaysia’sMuda region. World Development 20:809-823.

Jacome, Rosario; and Marjon Krol. 1994. Nosotras tambien surqueamos, canteramos y regamos: Relaciones degenero en el riego en el proyecto Pungales. Quito, Ecuador: CESA.

Johnson, Pamela; and Naomi Krogman. 1993. Gender-related factors influencing the viability of irrigation projectsin Lesotho. Journal of Asian and African Studies 28:4.

Jones, Christine. 1986. Intra-household bargaining in response to the introduction of new crops: A case study fromNorth Cameroon. In Understanding Africa’s rural households and farming systems, ed. J. L. Moock Boulder:Westview Press.

Kabeer, Naila. 1985. Do women gain from high fertility? In Women, work and ideology in the Third World, ed. HalehAfshar. London: Tavistock Publications.

Le Goulven, P.; T. Ruf; and H. Ribadeneira. 1989. Traditional irrigation in the Andes of Ecuador: Research and plan-ning. Paper presented at the VII th Afro-Asian Regional Conference. New York: Tavistock Publications. Tokyo: In-ternational Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID).

Lynch, Barbara. 1991. Women and irrigation in highland Peru. Society and Natural Resources 4:37-52.

Molden, D. J.; R. Sakthivadivel; C. J. Perry; C. de Fraiture; and W. H. Kloezen. 1998. Indicators for comparing perfor-mance of irrigated agricultural systems. Research Report 20. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Manage-ment Institute.

Moser C. O. 1989. Gender planning in the third world: Meeting practical and strategic gender needs. World Devel-opment 117(11):1799-1825.

Murray, Colin. 1987. Class, gender and household: The developmental cycle in South Africa. Development andChange 18:235-49.

21

Nuñez, Guillegmo. 1997. Manejo integral sostenible de la cuenca del río “El Angel”. Perfil del Proyecto. Proyecto“Carchi-Condesan.” Mesa de Concertación. Quito, Ecuador: CONDESAN.

Peluso, Nancy. 1992. The political ecology of extraction and extractive reserves in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. De-velopment and Change 23:49-74.

Roda, Annabel. 1991. Women and the environment. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Sotomayor, Jorge; and C. Garcés. 1996. Perfil de riego de la República del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: InternationalIrrigation Management Institute.

Sotomayor, Jorge; W. H. Kloezen; C. Garcés; and E. P. Bastidas. 1997. Manejo del agua en las acequias privadasGarrapatal y El Tambo en Carchi, Ecuador. Reporte Final del Proyecto. Colombo Sri Lanka: International Irriga-tion Management Institute.

Vallejo, Ivette. 1997. Documento general sobre la cuenca del Río El Angel. Proyecto: poblacion, uso de la tierra,consumo de agua y medioambiente. Una exploración comparativa de las interrelaciones, competencias, conflictosy alternativas al norte del Ecuador. Programa de Sociedades Andinas y Desarrollo Sustentable (DESU-FLACSO).Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO.

Villalobos, Raul; M. Choque; E. Llerena; M. dela Riva; and M. Condori. 1993. Rol de la mujer en sistemas de riego.Instituto de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo Social del Antiplano. Puno, Peru: Universidad Nacional delAntiplano (UNA).

Whitaker, Morris. 1990. El rol de la agricultura en el desarrollo económico del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: Instituto DeEstrategias Agropecuarias (IDEA).

Zwarteween, M. Z; and N. Neupane. 1996. Free-riders or victims: Women’s nonparticipation in irrigation manage-ment in Nepal’s Chhattis Mauja irrigation scheme. Research Report 7. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irriga-tion Management Institute.

Zwarteween, M. Z. 1997. A plot of one’s own: Gender relations and irrigated land allocation policies in Burkina Faso.Research Report 10. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.

Research Reports

18. Impact Assessment of Rehabilitation Intervention in the Gal Oya Left Bank. Upali A.Amarasinghe, R. Sakthivadivel, and Hammond Murray-Rust, 1998.

19. World Water Demand and Supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios and Issues. David Seckler,Upali Amarasinghe, David Molden, Rhadika de Silva, and Randolph Barker, 1998.

20. Indicators for Comparing Performance of Irrigated Agricultural Systems. David J.Molden, R. Sakthivadivel, Christopher J. Perry, Charlotte de Fraiture, and Wim H.Kloezen, 1998.

21. Need for Institutional Impact Assessment in Planning Irrigation System Modernization.D. J. Bandaragoda, 1998.

22. Assessing Irrigation Performance with Comparative Indicators: The Case of the AltoRio Lerma Irrigation District, Mexico. Wim H. Kloezen and Carlos Garcés-Restrepo,1998.

23. Performance of Two Transferred Modules in the Lagunera Region: Water Relations.G. Levine, A. Cruz, D. Garcia, C. Garcés-Restrepo, and S. Johnson III, 1998.

24. Farmer Response to Rationed and Uncertain Irrigation Supplies. C. J. Perry and S.G. Narayanamurthy, 1998.

25. Impacts of Colombia’s Current Irrigation Management Transfer Program. Douglas L.Vermillion and Carlos Garcés-Restrepo, 1998.

26. Use of Historical Data as a Decision Support Tool in Watershed Management: ACase Study of the Upper Nilwala Basin in Sri Lanka. W. K. B. Elkaduwa and R.Sakthivadivel, 1998

27. Performance Evaluation of the Bhakra Irrigation System, India, Using AdvancedInformation Technologies. Wim Bastiaanssen and D. Molden, 1998.

28. Performance Evaluation of the Bhakra Irrigation System, India, Using Remote Sensingand GIS Techniques. R. Sakthivadivel, S. Thiruvengadachari, Upali Amerasinghe,W.G.M. Bastiaanssen and David Molden, 1999.

29. Generic Typology for Irrigation Systems Operation. D. Renault, and G.G.A.Godaliyadda, 1999.

30. Mechanically Reclaiming Abandoned Saline Soils: A Numerical Evaluation. S. A.Prathapar and Asad S. Qureshi, 1999.

31. Gender Issues and Women’s Participation in Irrigated Agriculture: The Case of TwoPrivate Irrigation Canals in Carchi, Ecuador. Elena P. Bastidas, 1999.

Research Report

International Water Management Institute

INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTEP O Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Tel (94-1) 867404 • Fax (94-1) 866854 • E-mail iwmi@cgiar.orgInternet Home Page http: //www.cgiar.org/iwmi

ISSN 1026-0862ISBN 92-9090-382-1

31

Gender Issues and Women’sParticipation in Irrigated Agriculture:The Case of Two Private IrrigationCanals in Carchi, Ecuador

Elena P. Bastidas