In commemoration of the first study mapping groundwater recharge in Africa, Arnaud Sterckx called for 'more local-scale studies of groundwater’ which recognise ‘decision-makers at all levels’. Responding to Sterckx, this blog travels to the Ramotswa Aquifer in Swartkopfontein, South Africa, to investigate how groundwater affects men and women differentially, illuminating the importance of female decision makers, when managing groundwater reserves.
Groundwater refers to water which exists beneath the earth’s surface, infiltrating down through cracks and pore spaces in the rock. Groundwater is a finite resource with variable recharge rates, therefore, careful management is essential to ensure that irreversible ecological damage is not made. The African continent has an abundant supply of groundwater, as illustrated by Figure 2.
But hold on, isn’t Africa’s facing a water crisis?
Yes. However, this is not a crisis of physical supply, but rather, of access and distribution. This is confirmed by Damkjaer et al., quantitatively proving that water scarcity does not equate water supply. For example, infrastructural gaps in remote communities characterised by high levels of poverty, like Swartkopfontein, means that water cannot be sufficiently stored and transported to those requiring it. This gives rise to local, independent solutions such as boreholes and small earth dams, which do not depend on excessive, expensive pipeline infrastructure; instead, tapping into the groundwater reserves beneath their feet.
A secure solution? Not necessarily.
In Swartkopfontein, high recharge rates perceived to be a blessing, from runoff of the Ngotwane River to the Ramotswa aquifer can actually prove disastrous, by inducing contamination and endangering public health. The aquifer’s productive dolomite karst geology explains this; characterised by large rock fractures, it offers little to filter against pollution.
Socially, recent management of this groundwater has perpetuated gender inequalities, as evidenced by its use and access. Whilst South African legislation positively embed the goal of redressing past gender inequities into their narrative of achieving water security, this is difficult to apply in practise.
Conflict Regarding Use
Groundwater is a key gender issue through its use priorities and water source preferences. Excluding using water for drinking, Hawkins et al.’s focus group discussions revealed male participants in Swartkopfontein favoured using water for livestock, preferring small earth dams to deliver this.
Contrastingly, the women, as culturally assigned matriarchs of the domestic sphere, emphasised using water to meet their households needs and preferred private boreholes above all. However as private boreholes are more expensive, women generally use community boreholes, which are not maintained and which deliver water at irregular times. This inconvenience undermines women’s ability to work and perform daily routines which Hawkins et al. deemed ‘disempowering’.
Unequal Access
Despite shouldering the burden of water collection, women are politically constrained in Swartkopfontein. They lack access to land rights and the resources to privately drill wells which could improve water security. This is mirrored in Zambia, where culturally engrained technological biases towards men, dominating the industry, mean women lose out on mechanised technologies to help increase groundwater withdrawal.
As such, women in Swartkopfontein argued strongly in favour of increasing female representation in decision-making processes, to move beyond the rhetoric of political exclusion that exempts women from managing groundwater resources. This parallels Nigussie et al.’s study in Ethiopia which recognises the absence of women in local governing positions is problematic and should be changed, to help address women’s water needs.
Looking to the Future
To begin applying gender equality claims from national frameworks onto a local level, women should have a seat in decision-making processes to ensure their voices are heard. This needs to be legislatively recognised to help shift cultural attitudes towards women. Such as, by including a minimum number of female legislative seats or actively ensuring water collection is less of a hindrance to women’s daily routine.
This blog has only provided a snapshot into such issues. If you have any questions, please comment below!
A good attempt at teasing out the complex intersection of ground water, access, gender and decision making in Swartkopfontein, and constrasting this with Zambia and Ethiopia. The blog certianly illustrate practical difficulty of gender inequalities on the ground in Swartkopfontein against the backdrop of the South African legislations on National Water Act (1998) and Water Services Act (1997), where then do we go from here? I ask because having a seat at the table implies that legislations will be impacted but the reality on ground hardly reflects such changes. Good presentation and engagement with literature, references are well embeded.
ReplyDeleteHi Clement! Thank you for taking the time to read through my blog :)
DeleteI completely value your point, indicating how legislation enforcing female participation may not lead to changes on the ground. I believe I was slightly naive in my thinking earlier this term, emphasising legislative change to help dismantle cultural change. Rather, it is important to address root causes, recognising that barriers to participation exist. Although I alluded to this above in relation to water collection, my later blog post 'female participation in water management' explores this in greater depth.
This is not to say that legislation does not have a place in solutions addressing gender inequality. However, the fact these National Water Act (1998) and Water Services Act (1997) were established prior to 2000, and that issues still exist 20 years later, seems to indicate there are limitations. My later blog post entitled 'Women And The Climate Crisis: How Much Promise Does COP26 Hold?' argues when legislative is drawn from a predominantly masculinist positionality, significant gendered change is unlikely to be seen. As this was the case for the National Water Act (1998) and Water Services Act (1997), lacking female analysis, aware of the root causes and gendered realities on the ground, this might explain why legislation has hardly reflected gendered changes.