Partnerships, platforms and power - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 165

externalities of upstream dams could be catastrophic for Cambodia if they
compromise the seasonal ebb-and-flow of the Tonle Sap and its fishery.
Although the livelihoods of large numbers of poor families living downstream
from dam sites depend on fisheries (Kam, 2010), they have little voice in the
dialogue on the consequences of dams on the fisheries (MK5) 4 (Pukinskis and
Geheb, 2012).
In the Andes basins, poor land and water management by subsistence
farmers in the highlands lowered water quality and gave less-reliable dry-season
flows downstream. The negative externality affected wealthier downstream
users—urban communities, hydropower companies, recreational users and
commercial irrigated farms. CPWF projects helped institute mechanisms for
sharing benefits and costs in which upstream communities were compensated
for using practices that generate positive, not negative, externalities. In some
Andean basins, downstream water users chose to negotiate strategies that were
equitable and provided positive ecosystem services (PN20, AN1-3) 4 (Escobar,
2012; Quintero, 2012; Saravia, 2012).
Power, gender, and the distribution of costs and benefits of innovation
In complex rural livelihoods, innovation often does not benefit everyone.
Some groups may benefit from an innovation while other groups receive no
benefit or are harmed by it. The least powerful are often those who are
harmed. Problems with the distribution of the costs and benefits of innovation
across groups may take many forms: upstream versus downstream water users;
land owners versus landless; hydropower operators versus fishers; irrigated
farmers versus pastoralists; youth versus age, and so on. In this section,
however, we focus on gender bias as this is at the forefront of a more general
problem of equitable distribution across social groups of the costs and benefits
of innovation.
Addressing gender inequities required multiple approaches that recognized
that attitudes to gender are complex social constructs within project teams,
rural communities and institutions at all levels. Women's concerns were
excluded a lot, often unconsciously, in designing and implementing innova-
tions. By understanding the many forms of gender bias, the CPWF R4D
community integrated concerns of power and voice, which the poorest and
most vulnerable people often lack. R4D had to be mindful of gender questions
so that women could access resources and engage in the development pro-
cess. We needed to examine attitudes to gender within institutions so that
researchers and implementers understood their role in addressing gender
inequalities.
Research on water productivity of livestock in Phase 1 confirmed that the
design, timing and labor requirements of some technologies affected men and
women differently. Some technologies to increase livestock water productivity
(LWP) made more work for women but gave them fewer benefits. Men and
women benefitted differently from improved LWP and especially the type of