Water Security and Inclusive Water Governance in the Himalayas
NEw ANgLE
Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy
Volume 5                Number 1                 2019                ISSN 2565-5124
Published by
Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies (SIAS) on behalf of 
Nepal Policy Research Network (NPRN)
 9 How does a social justice framing help understand local peoples’ claims over natural resources?  
 9 How do power relations shape water access and distribution between core and fringe areas in Nepali 
towns ?  
 9 What dynamics of conflict over water resources are emerging in the urbanising mid-hill towns of 
Nepal?
 9 How are civil-society groups responding to large dam projects in the Eastern Himalaya region of India?
 9 What issues and opportunities the newly formed local governments in Nepal are facing in implementing 
inclusive water governance ?   
 9 How can participatory community engagement transform gender relations in agriculture and water 
management?  
 9 How do agrarian structures affect groundwater access for irrigation in Nepal’s Tarai Madesh? 
 9 How can local experts contribute to inclusive water governance?
Notes to Contributors New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy is an internationally peer- reviewed journal published by Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies (SIAS) on behalf of Nepal Policy Research Network (NPRN). We welcome articles which are based upon concrete data as well as analysis of secondary and historical sources. We encourage articles which record the results of completed investigations and raise questions emerging from on-going work.
Articles must subscribe to the 
following format: 1. Research articles: should be roughly 6000-7000 and include an abstract of 250-300 words. 2. Opinion pieces can be between 2000-3000 words with summary of 100 to 150 words [key message]. 3. Spelling should be in the UK English. 4. Articles should be in an MS Word compatible format, with a font size of 12, and 1.5 line spacing. 5. Short quotations should use single quotation marks, while longer quotes should be indented. 6. Photos can be included, but should be no more than 4×6 inches, and will be published in black and white.For further information, please visit: 
www.nepalpolicynet.comOr
Contact:The Editor, New Angle NPRN SecretariatSouthasia Institute of Advanced Studies (SIAS)NK Singh Marga-304, Minbhawan-31 Kathmandu, NepalPO. Box 23499Telephone: 977-1-4469801E-mail: sias-info@sias-southasia.org 
New Angle
Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy
Volume 5 Number 1
2019
Chief Editor Dil Khatri, Southasia Institute of 
Advanced Studies (SIAS)
Special Issue EditorsDil KhatriStephanie Leder, Swedish University of 
Agricultural Sciences (SLU)Hemant Ojha, University of Canberra 
International Advisory Board Hemant Ojha Andrea Nightingale, University of OsloFraser Sugden, University of 
BirminghamSiri Eriksen, Norwegian University  
of Life Sciences  Jon Ensor, University of York
Managing EditorsSuchita Shrestha, SIAS Gyanu Maskey, SIAS and Kathmandu 
University
Design and Layout Sanjeeb Bir Bajracharya 
Front and Back Cover Photo Toby Smith (panipahar.com) 
Contents
EDITORIAL
Water Security and Inclusive Water Governance in the Himalayas
Stephanie Leder, Dil Khatri and Hemant Ojha
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLES 
Natural Resources and Social Justice Agenda in Nepal: From Local 
Experiences and Struggles to Policy Reform
Hari P. Dhungana and Gyanu Maskey
Water Security in Urban Water Governance: A Case Study of 
Dhulikhel Municipality, Kavrepalanchowk, Nepal
Kushal Pokharel, Tikeshwari Joshi, Jagannath Adhikari and Kaustuv Raj Neupane
Water Conflicts in Urbanizing Regions in the Himalaya: Case Studies 
from Dhulikhel and Bidur in Nepal
Kamal Devkota, Dil Khatri and Kaustuv Raj Neupane
The Consensual Politics of Development: A Case Study of 
Hydropower Development in the Eastern Himalayan Region of 
India
Deepa Joshi, Joas Platteeuw and Juliana Teoh
Water Security and Social Inclusion: Local Governance within the 
Newly Established Rural Municipalities in Nepal
Pamela White and Juho Haapala
Transformative Engagements with Gender Relations in Agriculture 
and Water Governance
Stephanie Leder, Gitta Shrestha and Dipika Das
COMMENTARY PAPERS 
Enhancing Water Access in Nepal’s Terai-Madhesh
Fraser Sugden
Local Experts as the Champions of Water Security in the Nepalese 
town of Dhulikhel
Hemant Ojha, Eszter K. Kovacs, Kamal Devkota, Kaustuv Raj Neupane, Ngamindra 
Dahal and Bhaskar Vira  
1-6
7-31
32-48
49-73
74-98
99-127
128-158
159-164
165-178
128
TRANSFORMATIVE ENGAGEMENTS WITH GENDER RELATIONS 
IN AGRICULTURE AND WATER GOVERNANCE
Stephanie Leder1, Gitta Shrestha2 and Dipika Das3 
ABSTRACT
Despite frequent calls for transformative approaches for engaging in agrarian change and 
water governance, we observe little change in everyday development and research praxis. 
Empirical studies on transformative engagements with gender relations among smallscale 
or tenant farmers and water user groups are particularly rare. We explore transformative 
engagements through an approach based on critical pedagogy (Freire, 1996) and 
transformative practice (Leder, 2018). We examine opportunities to promote empathy 
and critical consciousness on gender norms, roles and relations in agriculture and resource 
management. We developed and piloted an innovative “Participatory Gender Training 
for Community Groups” as part of two internationally funded water security projects. 
The training consists of three activities and three discussions to reflect on gender roles 
in families, communities and agriculture, to discuss the gendered division of labour and 
changing gender relations over time and space, and to create empathy and resolve conflicts 
through a bargaining role play with switched genders. The approach was implemented in 
twelve villages across four districts in Nepal and India (Bihar, West Bengal). Our results 
show how the training methods can provide an open space to discuss local gender roles 
within households, agriculture and natural resource management. Discussing own gender 
norms promotes critical consciousness that gender norms are socially constructed and 
change with age, class, caste and material and structural constraints such as limited 
access to water and land. The activities stimulated enthusiasm and inspiration to reflect 
on possible change towards more equal labor division and empathy towards those with 
weaker bargaining power. Facilitators have the most important role in transformative 
engagements and need to be trained to reinterpret training principles in local contexts, 
and to apply facilitation skills to focus on transforming rather than reproducing gender 
norms. We argue that the gender training methods can initiate transformative practice 
with the gender-water-agriculture nexus by raising critical consciousness of farmers, 
community mobilisers, and project staff on possibilities of social change “in situ”. 
Keywords: gender, transformative practice, critical pedagogy, agriculture, water, 
participatory action research, social learning
1  Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. Corresponding email: 
stephanie.leder@slu.se 
2  International Water Management Institute, Kathmandu, Nepal. 
3  University of Southern Queensland, Australia. 
1  Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. 
   Corresponding email: stephanie.leder@slu.se 
2  International Water Management Institute, Kathmandu, Nepal.
3  University of Southern Queensland, Australia. © Leder et al., 2019
Nepal Journal of
Social Science and
Public Policy
2019 Vol 5 ( 1 ), pp. 128-158
 Published by NPRN
Hosted by SIASAvailable at www.nepalpolicynet.comNEw ANgLE
129
INTRODUCTION
Participation in resource governance 
has been considered highly important 
but the literature has not been short on 
demonstrating failures (Agarwal, 2001; 
Mosse, 1994; Mosse, 2004). Gender and 
other social inequalities remain in access 
to and control over natural resources 
such as water and land, and agriculture 
more broadly (Sultana, 2011; Zwarteveen 
and Meinzen-Dick, 2001). Feminists, 
researchers and policymakers have long 
been advocating for the greater inclusion 
of women in decision-making processes 
on natural resources (Agrawal, 2000). 
Several developing countries such as 
Nepal introduced a women quota in water 
user groups at the local level. However, 
there is a rising concern if gender equality 
could be achieved by simply adding 
women to user groups as this might not 
address power relations and structural 
inequalities (Shrestha and Clement, 2019). 
There is even a danger of antagonistic 
attitudes among community members 
and aggravated inequalities (Ahlers and 
Zwarteveen, 2009; Cleaver and Hamada, 
2010; Zwarteveen and Neupane, 1996; 
Harris, 2008). In South Asia, gender 
relations are set within axes of other social 
and economic differences such as class, 
age, ethnicity and caste, which shape 
water access and irrigation management 
(Panta and Resurrección, 2017; Leder et 
al., 2017). These complex social relations 
are often hidden in mainstream water and 
agricultural research, government schemes 
and development projects. However, 
these are vital to understand in order to 
move towards greater inclusion in water 
resource governance and to address the 
unequal division of agricultural labor and 
decision-making (Leder et al., 2019). This 
is particularly of importance in contexts 
of climate change and rural out-migration 
of mostly young men, with an increase in 
labour burden for women accompanied by 
limited access to and control over water 
and other resources (Sugden et al., 2014). 
Addressing gender inequalities through 
open dialogue is essential for small-scale 
agriculture, water security and more 
inclusive water governance. 
Despite frequent calls for transformative 
approaches for engaging in agrarian 
change, water governance and climate 
change by feminist and critical development 
scholars (Sultana, 2019; Nightingale et 
al., 2019) there are only few theoretically 
and empirically grounded approaches to 
transformative engagements which open 
up spaces to discuss opportunities for 
greater inclusion in water governance and 
agriculture more broadly. The literature on 
social learning is in particular insightful. 
Social learning is taking place through 
deliberative interactions amongst multiple 
stakeholders in which participants learn 
to work together and build relationships 
that allow for collective action (Cundill 
and Rodela, 2012; Rodela, 2013). The 
promotion of social learning in forest 
management groups has shown positive 
effects on multi-directional information 
sharing and collective action (Hegde et al., 
2016). Creating ‘contact zones’ between 
different groups to meet and engage can 
reduce conflicts or redress asymmetrical 
power relations (Hegde et al., 2016). 
Furthermore, particularly gender-
responsive participatory approaches have 
been considered as promoting socially-
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
130
inclusive and sustainable natural resource 
management practices (Elias et al., 2016). 
Morales and Harris (2014) suggest to draw 
attention to subjectivity and emotion for 
meaningful participation. Knowledge co-
creation, empathy and a shifting sense of 
own subjectivities can promote new ways 
of relating to water resources and water 
infrastructures (Tremblay and Harris, 
2018). Building on these insights, we see 
the need for empirically tested methods 
to deeply engage with context-specific 
gender relations in resource governance 
which address the unequal division of 
agricultural labour and gendered norms 
on mobility, speaking up and being heard. 
We argue that approaches that build 
on critical pedagogy (Freire, 1996) and 
transformative practice (Leder, 2018) can 
initiate transformative engagements with 
gender relations in agriculture, natural 
resource governance and research. Critical 
pedagogy was developed by the Brazilian 
educationist Paolo Freire (1996) and builds 
on the concept of critical consciousness. 
Freire’s pedagogy is oriented towards 
promoting social justice in which 
marginalised individuals can become 
transformative democratic citizens 
through reflection and dialogue and 
thus contribute to national development 
(Freire, 1996). We also draw on principles 
of transformative practice for sustainable 
development based on democratic and 
visual learning methods as developed by 
Leder (2018). The approach promotes 
critical thinking on controversal human-
environment relations through visual 
methods and a weak framing in which 
the facilitator has less control over the 
communication of participants in order to 
encourage participation.
This paper explores opportunities for 
transformative engagements through the 
development, piloting and implementation 
of a “Participatory Gender Training for 
Community Groups” (Leder et al., 2016). 
The training methods are derived from 
principles of critical pedagogy (Freire, 
1996) and transformative practice (Leder, 
2018) in order to promote empathy and 
critical consciousness on the role that 
gender plays in communities’ everyday 
lives, and to create opportunities for 
reflections on how to transform towards 
more equal gender and labor relations. 
The training aims at openly engaging 
with gender inequalities in small-scale 
agriculture, domestic labor and resource 
management institutions, e.g. in irrigation 
systems, or collective farming. We will 
exemplify how gender-focused activities 
and discussions provide valuable space for 
encouraging farmers to bring their own 
ideas and stimulate critical reflections 
and dialogue on gender perceptions 
and practices in their particular cultural 
setting while avoiding prescriptions based 
on particular “Western” view on gender 
relations. 
In the next section, we review recent 
literature on gendered struggles 
in agriculture and water resource 
management. In section three, we address 
the importance of bargaining in the context 
of gender inequalities in natural resource 
governance. We then introduce in section 
four the approach of the “Participatory 
Gender Training for Community Groups”, 
and outline our methods in section five. We 
will then present participants’ response 
to the different training methods which 
1) reflect on gender norms, 2) discuss 
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
131
the gendered division of labour 3) create 
empathy through a bargaining role play 
with switched genders. We then discuss 
the role and perceptions of the community 
mobilisers and the process of facilitating 
and reinterpreting  training principles in 
local contexts. Finally, we reflect on the 
opportunities and the challenges around 
shifting and reproducing gender norms 
through such social learning engagements. 
GENDERED STRUGGLES IN 
AGRICULTURE AND WATER 
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The influence of gender norms and 
relations in managing natural resources 
such as agriculture, forests and water has 
been widely recognised in the literature 
(Meinzen-Dick and Zwarteveen, 1998; 
Agarwal, 2001). On the one hand, gender 
norms attach particular traditional feminine 
and masculine roles for women and men, 
on the other hand, changing rural dynamics 
such as male out-migration reconfigure 
gender roles and added responsibilities to 
women which were previously performed 
by men. While women carry a triple labour 
burden of reproductive, productive and 
community work in the absence of men in 
the villages, unequal resource access and 
exclusive spaces of decision-making hinder 
equitable use and management of natural 
resources. In opposition to men, women 
often have lower mobility and limited 
access to their husbands’ social networks, 
and women receive lower recognition as 
irrigators than men. Thus, women have 
to repetitively request the pump owner 
for water and spend more time arranging 
irrigation than men. 
One major policy measure to tackle 
gender inequality in agriculture and 
water resource management is the 
33 percent reservation in water user 
associations in Nepal. However, evidence 
suggest limited impact of such policy 
due to failing to take into account social 
and cultural factors that largely shape 
an individual’s access to resources and 
decision-making spaces (Shrestha and 
Clement, 2019). Feminists further stress 
the need for an intersectional analysis to 
demonstrate how differentiated access, 
use and control over water is conditioned 
by poverty, livelihoods, and landlessness 
(Harris, 2008). A gender analysis of the 
Chhattis Mauja irrigation scheme in Nepal 
shows that some women, despite being 
excluded from the management of the 
scheme’s organisation, use the prevailing 
perception of women as physically weak 
to develop a privileged position for getting 
their irrigation needs accommodated 
without spending time participating in 
maintenance and meetings (Zwarteveen & 
Neupane, 1996). 
Gender norms vary over time and space, 
and often put women at disadvantaged 
position affecting livelihood and well-
being of women farmers adversely. Intra-
household relationships have important 
implications on who takes part and who 
benefits from agriculture and water 
interventions (Leder et al., 2017). The 
exclusion of women from decision-making 
bodies has severe consequences in how 
interventions are shaped and resources 
allocated (ibid). Gendered vulnerabilities 
increase during water scarcity for 
household or agriculture use as women 
have to travel longer distances to collect 
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
132
water which increases their workload 
(Gurung and Bisht, 2014). In the context 
of increasing male migration from the 
rural areas, research indicates increasing 
reliance of the left-behind women on male 
relatives to access information, services, 
and opportunities (Shrestha and Clement, 
2019). 
THE IMPORTANCE 
OF BARGAINING IN 
AGRICULTURE
Agriculture and the management 
of natural resources are linked with 
bargaining relations on and beyond the 
farm. Bargaining is an act of negotiation 
that uses power to achieve an outcome 
(Martin, 1992). At the intra-household 
level, bargaining power depends on an 
individual’s fallback or a breakdown 
position (Agarwal, 1997). The fall-back 
position is determined by how well-off 
someone would be if the cooperation 
failed. A person having stronger fallback 
position has better bargaining power 
and often receives a better choices in 
the family (Agarwal, 1997). The process 
of bargaining can involve discussions, 
logic and arguments as well as comprises 
of subtle resistance such as emotional 
manipulation (Locke and Okali, 1999).  
In agriculture, the meaning of bargaining 
power can be described as the ability of a 
person to use their agency to make a fair 
share of farm income or crop produce, as 
well as the ability to make choices related 
to it. Bijman et al. (2012) argued that 
agricultural value chains have persistent 
bargaining imbalances between farmers 
with their upstream and downstream 
partners. Farmers, particularly women 
smallholders, often have low bargaining 
power due to a lack of productive resources 
and low levels of literacy and numeracy 
knowledge (Dorward et al., 2003). In the 
Tarai area of Nepal, for example, traders 
who visit smallholders’ farm to collect 
vegetables also allocate the price of 
agricultural products which has the effect 
that smallholders often bear a loss due 
to the traders’ stronger bargaining power 
(Bastakoti et al., 2017).
Bargaining power is vital for both women 
and men farmers in their everyday 
activities. In farming, bargaining power 
becomes essential to manage tasks like the 
allocation of labour to various activities, 
including household, agriculture and wage 
work (Doss, 2013). Despite its importance, 
Agarwal (1997) noted bargaining power 
is subjective to individuals based on their 
gender and age, caste and experience. 
Women’s bargaining power within a 
household is influenced by her education 
level, health, education of children and 
general wellbeing. In addition, women’s 
active participation in agriculture is 
steered by socially constructed gender 
norms (Farnworth, 2011). Hoyt and 
Murphy (2016) explain that men tend 
to have better bargaining power while 
women feel less comfortable when it 
comes to bargaining. Hence, it is important 
to consider bargaining against the 
background of existing gender norms and 
power imbalances in particular contexts.
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
133
A NEW APPROACH: 
PARTICIPATORY GENDER 
TRAINING FOR COMMUNITY 
GROUPS
As researchers of an international research 
organisation4, the first and third author 
developed a “Participatory Gender 
Training for Community Groups” (Leder 
et al., 2016)5 to inform an internationally 
funded action research project6. The 
approach was developed to be used by 
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) 
staff to hold discussions with community 
members and fellow colleagues on 
gender norms and relations. Furthermore, 
methods were used by researchers for a 
gender analysis.
The training methods are rooted in 
principles of critical pedagogy (Freire, 
1996) and transformative practice (Leder, 
2018). The key objective of critical 
pedagogy is individual liberation through 
promoting capabilities for individual 
development and the collective struggle 
for social justice (Freire, 1996). Freire 
considers transformation as a praxis 
which combines both reflection and 
action. Through dialogue, education 
becomes a democratic and emancipatory 
process, in which the oppressed are freed 
4 The authors worked with the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), and the CGIAR research 
program “Water, Land and Ecosystem”. 
5 The participatory gender training manual is published by Leder et al. (2016) and includes step-by-step 
descriptions for each activity and discussion, as well as tips for facilitation and pictures to use in the training. 
A 12’ film documentary, webinar slides, and an interactive homepage of the implemented training can be 
found at https://wle.cgiar.org/solutions/participatory-gender-training-community-groups (last checked 8 
Jan 2020).
6 The research project was funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, and was 
called “Improving dry-season irrigation for marginal and tenant farmers”.
from their “culture of silence” (Freire, 
1996, p.12). He suggests countering 
the social reproduction of inequalities 
through reflection and dialogue for an 
educational awakening. Freire developed 
teaching methods concerned with the 
actual experiences of rural peasants in 
Brazil and available material from their 
cultural background. This approach led 
to an influential social and educational 
movement to create empowerment 
through critical consciousness, ”la 
conscientização” (Freire, 1996, p.17). 
Transformative practice describes an 
intermediate, transitional form of 
engagement which aims to shift practices 
of social reproduction to practices of 
transformation (Leder, 2018). Unequal 
power relations such as gender can be 
addressed by drawing on principles of 
democratic learning theories (Dewey, 
1916), participatory approaches (Bunch, 
1995; Chambers, 1994) and network 
thinking (Vester, 2002) to develop a 
visualising and communicative approach 
to promote the interlinkage of diverse 
knowledge (Leder, 2018). 
In this spirit, the training methods were 
developed to provide a space for farmers 
and staff to share their perceptions, 
to learn from another, and to engage 
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
134
in a dialogue. To avoid imposing pre-
determined social and gender values, 
space is provided for participants to 
come to their own conclusions by guiding 
them through reflections on gender and 
activities which promote empathy. This 
can lead to collective ideas evolving and a 
critical consciousness (Freire, 1996), which 
contributes to social change. 
The objective of the Participatory Gender 
Training is to create a space for critical 
discussions on gender norms, roles and 
relations in agriculture and water and 
natural resource management groups. 
Participants are encouraged to reflect 
around their capabilities, value and belief 
systems in regard to existing gender 
relations in agriculture. The training 
aimed at bringing the fluidity of gender 
as a rather academic and development-
oriented discourse into discussions 
with marginalised community groups. 
The training is designed to be culturally 
grounded and regionally adaptable 
through using local examples and pictures. 
The training provides methods 
• to reflect on gender roles in families, 
communities and agriculture, 
• to discuss the unequal division of 
labour and changing gender relations 
and across time and space, and 
• to create empathy and resolve conflicts 
through a bargaining role play with 
switched genders
The development of the activities was 
guided by specific principles, objectives 
and methods (cf. Table 1). We developed 
three activities and three discussions for a 
three-hour gender training workshop for 
approximately 5 to 12 participants, which 
we will shortly introduce in the following 
sections. 
Table 1: Principles, objectives and methods of the training activities
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
135
The first activity “Boy or girl?” enables 
farmers to understand and discuss their 
own gender constructions. We build 
the idea on a similar activity in a gender 
training by the non-governmental 
organisation iDE (2015). Participants have 
to choose between a boy or a girl picture if 
they could decide their offspring’s gender 
– given an imaginary medical condition 
which allowed them to have only one 
child. By giving reasons for their gender 
choice to the group, the activity promotes 
reflecting on own gender assumptions 
within the personal sphere as per “the 
personal is political”. Ascribed gender 
traits and roles can be demystified through 
those participants who chose the other 
group, and a discussion may evolve. 
In the second activity, the gendered 
division of labour was discussed with 
photos of different types of labour as 
visual input (Vester, 2002). The photos 
should reflect the local context so that the 
participants can relate their everyday life 
activities to it. The photos had to be placed 
along a “Gender Position Bar” (cf. Fig. 4). 
In the Gender Position Bar, pictures of 
different types of labour shall be arranged 
along a continuum of labour attributed 
as “only female”, “mostly female”, “both 
male and female”, “mostly male”, or “only 
male”. This demonstrated the relativity 
of and changing gender divisions in 
reproductive and productive labour as 
well as community roles (triple work 
load), reflecting on women’s tasks with 
a life cycle approach (Chambers, 1994). 
Participants are encouraged to describe, 
explain, discuss and arrange visual inputs 
in the form of pictures (Vester, 2002). The 
idea of a visual continuum builds on the 
didactic teaching method developed for 
a doctoral dissertation on Education for 
Sustainable Development (ESD) for India’s 
formal educational system (Leder, 2018).
The third activity is a “Bargaining Role Play” 
to encourage bargaining between male 
and female farmers in switched roles. The 
role play challenges farmers to represent 
the other gender in a humoristic manner, 
and to act and speak like they perceive 
the other gender. Themes covered are 
balancing domestic tasks such as cooking 
and fetching water with agricultural tasks, 
landlord-tenant negotiations or in-law’s 
working demands on daughter-in-laws. 
Participants are encouraged to opt for 
any situation, problem or story relevant 
to them to act on. Role-switching can 
promote empathy and awareness of 
the other gender’s constraints without 
directly criticising current gender roles and 
relations. 
Guided discussions help connect the 
activities and provide participants space to 
ask questions and talk about gender norms 
and gender roles in their households and 
community. These spaces for discussions 
allow to spontaneously integrate any 
issues which farmers might bring up during 
the activities of the training (Bunch, 1995). 
While the Participatory Gender Training 
laid out in a detailed manual (Figure 1) can 
be used any time to generate discussion 
and reflection on the role of gender in a 
community, there are four times when 
this specific training may be particularly 
necessary. First, when new projects are 
starting in villages and community groups 
are formed. In this case, the training can be 
used to sensitize field staff and farmers on 
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
136
gender relations in communities. Second, 
when there are gender-related tensions 
in a community. This may happen often in 
communities where men are out-migrating 
and women are left behind. Third, when 
conducting participatory research to 
understand how gender effects community 
relations and practices in villages. Lastly, 
when project staff is working with 
communities. It can help to reveal one’s 
own gender perceptions before addressing 
those directly or indirectly in villages. 
After the implementation of the activities 
and discussions, facilitators and farmers 
can discuss opportunities to repeat 
these activities to observe whether their 
perceptions have changed. It is important to 
view this workshop as an initial engagement 
tool within a greater development process 
which can be linked to other project 
interventions. For this purpose, the 
approach can identify community-specific 
challenges regarding gender relations 
which shape developmental interventions 
in unpredicted ways. 
Figure 1: The Participatory Gender Training Manual (Leder et al., 2016)
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
137
METHODS
The training activities were piloted 
and modified by two researchers in 
collaboration with project field staff and 
farmers in six villages in the Eastern Tarai 
of Nepal and Bihar and West Bengal in 
India. In these villages (Table 2), groups 
were formed by local partner NGOs as 
part of a larger action research project, 
and we were asked by the project team to 
develop a gender training for the groups to 
accompany other technical trainings which 
promoted horticulture, solar irrigation and 
other improved agricultural techniques. 
The trainings were conducted twice per 
village, twelve times in total. The training 
was tested with both female only (4 
groups) and male only (1 group) as well as 
mixed gender (7 groups). Each group had a 
maximum of 12 farmers, whereas we noted 
much better communication happening in 
smaller groups of 6 to 8 farmers.  
We employ action research methods 
in order to promote the co-creation 
of knowledge. We involved local field 
assistants and social mobilisers as 
supporting facilitators in the training. 
Before we conducted the training, we 
met with four support facilitators to 
prepare their roles in the training as well 
as to integrate their views on the training 
and modify it accordingly. During and 
after every training, modifications and 
variations were incorporated in the training 
structure, e.g. timings per activity were 
adjusted and instructions were changed 
or specified. The data collected was 
transcribed, summarised and paraphrased 
for each activity and discussion relying on 
principles of a qualitative content analysis 
(Mayring, 2002).  
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
138
Ta
bl
e 
2:
  C
ha
ra
ct
er
is
ti
cs
 o
f t
he
 1
2 
gr
ou
ps
 in
 6
  v
ill
ag
es
 in
 w
hi
ch
 t
he
 t
ra
in
in
g 
w
as
 p
ilo
te
d 
(D
SI
4M
TF
 C
en
su
s 
Su
rv
ey
, 2
01
5)
Kh
ok
sa
r 
Pa
rb
ah
a,
 
Sa
pt
ar
i, 
N
ep
al
Ko
ila
di
, S
ap
ta
ri
, 
Ne
pa
l
B
ha
gw
ati
pu
r, 
M
ad
hu
ba
ni
, B
ih
ar
M
ah
uy
ah
i, 
M
ad
hu
ba
ni
, B
ih
ar
D
ho
la
gu
ri
, 
Co
oc
h 
B
eh
ar
, 
N
or
th
 B
en
ga
l
U
tt
ar
 
Ch
ak
ow
ak
he
ti
, 
Al
id
ur
pu
r, 
 
N
or
th
 B
en
ga
l
Ca
st
e 
an
d 
ge
nd
er
 
co
m
po
si
ti
on
 o
f 
gr
ou
ps
1 
x 
Th
ar
u 
w
om
en
 g
ro
up
1x
 D
al
it
 
an
d 
M
us
lim
 
w
om
en
 g
ro
up
1x
 M
ix
ed
 c
as
te
 
gr
ou
ps
 w
om
en
 
on
ly
1x
 m
ix
ed
 c
as
te
 
m
ix
ed
 g
en
de
r 
(C
as
te
s:
 S
in
gh
 
M
an
da
l, 
M
uk
hi
ya
, 
D
al
it
, M
us
lim
)
1x
 M
ix
ed
 c
as
te
 
W
om
en
 o
nl
y 
 1
x 
M
ix
ed
 c
as
te
 
M
en
 o
nl
y 
(C
as
te
s:
 Y
ad
av
M
an
da
l
M
uk
ih
iy
a
Jh
a 
(u
pp
er
 c
as
te
))
1x
 D
al
it
 g
ro
up
 
m
ix
ed
 g
en
de
r
1x
 M
ix
ed
 c
as
te
 
gr
ou
p 
m
ix
ed
 
ge
nd
er
(C
as
te
s:
 M
an
da
ls
, 
Br
ah
m
in
 M
us
lim
s 
)
2 
x 
Ra
jb
an
sh
i 
m
ix
ed
 g
en
de
r 
2 
x 
Sc
he
du
le
d 
Tr
ib
es
 (S
C)
 m
ix
ed
 
ge
nd
er
Ed
uc
ati
on
M
os
tl
y 
ill
it
er
at
e
Ill
it
er
at
e
Ill
it
er
at
e
Ill
it
er
at
e
M
os
tl
y 
ill
it
er
at
e
M
os
tl
y 
Ill
it
er
at
e
A
ge
 3
5-
49
 y
ea
rs
25
-5
5 
ye
ar
s
30
-6
2 
ye
ar
s 
18
-5
8 
ye
ar
s
 1
8 
– 
60
 y
ea
rs
24
 –
 5
5 
ye
ar
s
So
ci
al
 s
tr
uc
tu
re
s 
in
 t
he
 v
ill
ag
e
Lo
w
er
 
in
eq
ua
lit
y 
am
on
g 
la
nd
lo
rd
 a
nd
 
te
na
nt
s,
m
or
e 
eq
ua
l 
co
m
m
un
it
y 
in
 t
er
m
s 
of
 
ge
nd
er
 a
nd
 
ca
st
e
H
ig
h 
in
eq
ua
lit
y 
am
on
g 
la
nd
lo
rd
 
an
d 
te
na
nt
,
Ca
st
e 
sy
st
em
 
St
ro
ng
 P
at
ri
ar
ch
y
H
ig
h 
in
eq
ua
lit
y 
am
on
g 
la
nd
lo
rd
 a
nd
 
te
na
nt
Ca
st
e 
sy
st
em
St
ro
ng
 P
at
ri
ar
ch
y
H
ig
h 
in
eq
ua
lit
y 
am
on
g 
la
nd
lo
rd
 
an
d 
te
na
nt
s
Ca
st
e 
sy
st
em
St
ro
ng
 P
at
ri
ar
ch
y
In
eq
ua
liti
es
 in
 
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
, 
te
na
nt
s 
an
d 
ag
ri
cu
lt
ur
al
 
w
ag
e 
w
or
ke
rs
, 
ge
nd
er
 
an
d 
ca
st
e 
in
eq
ua
liti
es
Lo
w
er
 
in
eq
ua
liti
es
 
in
 t
er
m
s 
of
 
ge
nd
er
 a
nd
 
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
hi
p,
 
tr
ib
al
 v
ill
ag
e
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
139
V
ill
ag
e 
re
m
ot
en
es
s 
an
d 
m
ar
ke
t 
ac
ce
ss
 
fo
r 
w
om
en
Cl
os
e 
to
 
hi
gh
w
ay
, 
pe
ri
od
ic
 
m
ar
ke
t 
at
 1
0 
m
in
ut
es
 w
al
k
Re
m
ot
e 
fr
om
 
hi
gh
w
ay
, p
er
io
di
c 
m
ar
ke
t 
15
-2
0 
m
in
ut
es
 w
al
k
Re
m
ot
e 
fr
om
 
hi
gh
w
ay
, m
ar
ke
t 
an
d 
pe
ri
od
ic
 m
ar
ke
t 
20
-2
5 
m
in
ut
es
Cl
os
e 
to
 h
ig
hw
ay
, 
Pe
ri
od
ic
 m
ar
ke
t 
15
-2
0 
m
in
ut
es
 
w
al
k
Cl
os
e 
to
 
hi
gh
w
ay
Re
m
ot
e 
fr
om
 
hi
gh
w
ay
W
om
en
 
in
vo
lv
em
en
t 
ar
ea
s
H
ou
se
ho
ld
, 
Fa
rm
, m
ar
ke
t 
(h
om
e,
 fa
rm
 
an
d 
ha
ati
ya
)
H
ou
se
ho
ld
, f
ar
m
, 
se
lli
ng
 p
ro
du
ce
 
fr
om
 fa
rm
 a
nd
 
ho
m
e 
H
ou
se
ho
ld
, f
ar
m
, 
se
lli
ng
 p
ro
du
ce
 
fr
om
 fa
rm
 a
nd
 
ho
m
e
H
ou
se
ho
ld
, f
ar
m
, 
m
ar
gi
na
lly
 a
ls
o 
in
 s
el
lin
g 
to
 lo
ca
l 
tr
ad
er
s
H
ou
se
ho
ld
, 
fa
rm
, 
m
ar
gi
na
lly
 a
ls
o 
in
 s
el
lin
g 
to
 
lo
ca
l t
ra
de
rs
H
ou
se
ho
ld
 
an
d 
m
os
tl
y 
su
bs
is
te
nc
e 
fa
rm
in
g
M
ob
ili
ty
 
op
po
rt
un
iti
es
 
fo
r 
w
om
en
In
de
pe
nd
en
t 
an
d 
op
en
: 
bi
cy
cl
e,
 
m
ot
or
bi
ke
, 
w
ith
in
 th
e 
vi
lla
ge
 a
nd
 t
o 
th
e 
m
ar
ke
t
Pa
rt
ly
 R
es
tr
ic
te
d:
 
bi
cy
cl
e,
 c
it
y 
ri
ck
sh
aw
Pa
rt
ly
 R
es
tr
ic
te
d:
 
bi
cy
cl
e
Pa
rt
ly
 r
es
tr
ic
te
d:
 
Bi
cy
cl
e
au
to
ri
ck
sh
aw
Pa
rt
ly
 
re
st
ri
ct
ed
: 
Bi
cy
cl
e
au
to
ri
ck
sh
aw
Pa
rt
ly
 R
es
tr
ic
te
d:
 
bi
cy
cl
e
Ir
ri
ga
ti
on
 a
cc
es
s
M
os
tl
y 
gr
ou
nd
 w
at
er
 
ir
ri
ga
ti
on
, 
tu
be
w
el
l a
nd
 
pu
m
ps
et
, s
ol
ar
 
Ca
na
l i
rr
ig
ati
on
, 
gr
ou
nd
 w
at
er
 
us
in
g 
pu
m
ps
et
 
M
os
tl
y 
gr
ou
nd
 
w
at
er
 ir
ri
ga
ti
on
, 
tu
be
w
el
l a
nd
 
pu
m
ps
et
, s
ol
ar
M
os
tl
y 
ra
in
fe
d,
 
lo
w
er
 le
ve
l o
f  
gr
ou
nd
 w
at
er
 
re
so
ur
ce
s
M
os
tl
y 
ra
in
fe
d,
 
lo
w
er
 le
ve
l o
f  
gr
ou
nd
 w
at
er
 
re
so
ur
ce
s
M
os
tl
y 
ra
in
fe
d
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
140
After several modifications of the pilot 
version, the training was implemented 
as part of a different international 
development project7. 36 community 
mobilisers were trained for a day by 
two research consultants who were 
experienced in gender research and 
training. Afterwards, in two consecutive 
days, the community mobilisers conducted 
the training themselves in pairs with three 
mixed farmers groups in two villages in the 
Far-Western Nepal districts Dadeldhura, 
Kailali and Baridya. The implementation 
process was documented by the research 
consultants. In total, our empirical material 
draws from both project implementations 
totalling in 24 conducted trainings with 65 
community mobilisers and field staff of 15 
staff of different NGOs and government 
organisations in 12 villages, and 
approximately 200 farmer participants. 
ENGAGING WITH GENDER 
NORMS IN A PARTICIPATORY 
TRAINING
In the following sections, we will present 
our observations of the training process 
and present results of farmers response to 
each activity.  
Activity 1: Boy or Girl? Creating 
awareness on gender norms in the 
community
At the introductory state, the training 
aimed at creating a safe and comfortable 
space, and to raise awareness on local 
gender norms in the community. The 
training starts with an ice-breaker in which 
the participants sit in a circle on the ground 
and introduce the person next to them to 
the group. A few minutes are allocated to 
discuss in pairs. The pairs then introduce 
their partners to the wider group by name, 
age, number of members in the family, 
and the types of crops they grow. This 
interaction created a positive atmosphere, 
and first giggles were heard. 
Figure 2. Step-by-step guide to the training 
activity “Boy or Girl?”
7    The DFID-funded Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters (BRACED) “Anukulan” 
in Far Western Nepal.
For the first activity “Boy or Girl?” (Figure 
2), farmers chose whether they prefer a 
boy or a girl, if they were able to have only 
one child and were given the choice for 
the sex. This imaginary task required some 
effort to explain, as farmers initial reply 
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
141
often was: “God will give”. In all groups, 
the farmers almost equally divided and 
moved to the two pictures of a boy and 
a girl which were placed at different ends 
of the room. In those two groups, local 
facilitators encouraged a discussion on the 
reasons why they prefer to have a boy or a 
girl. We found that the reasons mentioned 
for a particular gender could be organised 
into the four categories: financial security, 
lineage, gendered tasks and gendered 
traits. The examples (Table 3) demonstrate 
valuable insights how relevant the role of 
gender is within a specific community’s 
beliefs.
Table 3: Reasons for participants’ son or daughter preference
Category Reasons for son preference Reasons for daughter preference
Financial 
Security
Income/remittances through migration
Sons can migrate abroad and bring 
good income.
Son earns and supports parents during 
emergencies such as natural disaster 
(e.g. earthquake), they can migrate and 
send remittances, whereas if daughter 
opt for migration for job, she can fall 
prey to sexual and physical violence. 
Dowry
The dowry of the son’s bride 
contributes to the family’s welfare.
Religious belief 
Daughters are regarded as goddess of Laxmi, 
so having girls, is considered as good source 
of income.
Education
If girls are educated, they can bring money 
like sons.
Gifts
Whatever is given during the wedding 
ceremony, this will come back to us during 
marriage, we will receive gifts from others 
during marriage and the daughter receives 
wedding presents.
Lineage Race
Sons continue the race as they stay in 
the family and pass on the family name.
Social tag of ‘aputro’ (those who cannot 
bear son)
Discrimination within family and by the 
society in case there is no son at home.
Heritage/Property
Property is passed to the son and 
therefore it stays within the family; sons 
can buy land and build a house
Developing Relations
Having a girl creates, extents and 
strengthens relations with another family
Daughters are important to bear children
Receiving family honor
By marrying a daughter to another family, 
the in-law family will be honored for giving 
their daughter 
Marrying = soul cleansing
When we marry daughters to a man, our 
(parents) soul will be cleared, as marrying is 
one of the best things to do in life.
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
142
Gendered 
tasks 
Ploughing, building, managing
Male manpower is required to work on 
the field. Ploughing can only be done by 
male, as a drought will come if female 
plough (based on a legend). Similar 
activities such as livestock management 
and building houses are considered 
male tasks.
Cremation (Daagbathi)
Sons can cremate parents and perform 
funeral rites.
Household help through daughter-in-
law
The son will bring a daughter-in-law 
who will take care over cooking
Household work
Daughters are responsible and help with all 
household work (cooking, washing, cleaning 
etc.)
Daughter-in-law
The son will bring a wife and they are 
disrespectful in behaviour, and the 
relationship between son and family gets 
worse
Caring/Devotion to parents
Daughters are caring and look after their 
parents. Daughters bring happiness and 
brightness at home.
Daughters carry motherly love; they 
understand problems of the family, problem 
of other people.
Obedience/ Responsibility
Daughters come when we call them. Even if 
they are married, they come to their parents 
if they are old or called.
Daughters respect culture. Daughters are 
important for Tihar, Teej and other cultural 
festivals. 
Daughters make family lively, son could not 
be trusted, he never stays at home.
Gendered 
traits
Security and safety
Sons will stay with the family and look 
after the parents when they are old
Son has strong physical built up so they 
can do hard work, whereas daughters 
have weak physical built up
Society prefers son, it brings family 
honour. If son spent a night outside the 
house, it brings no shame. However, if 
daughters spend a night outside home, 
it defames the family.
Daughters are soft in nature, become 
easily nervous; son can handle 
everything by ease.
Discipline, honesty
Girls have discipline, boys quarrel and 
create conflicts. Daughters are important for 
positive society/cleanliness/education. The 
house with daughters are well managed, 
well decorated, they keep relations.
They play important role and voice against 
negativities widespread in the society. 
Daughters are very honest.
Compared to sons, daughters are more 
tolerant and patient. They can endure more 
hardships.
Looks and Decoration
Daughters look cute and can be decorated 
with ornaments and jewellery, and the 
sound of jewellery is a pleasure.
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
143
A range of disagreements between the 
“boy” and the “girl” group came up, and 
sometimes a discussion generated, if 
supported through good facilitation and 
open questions. Participants disagreed: 
“Girls can also earn!”, “My son takes very 
good care of me!”. This was the very 
intention of this activity: to shed light 
on the diverse gender norms on traits 
and roles perceived in the community, 
but also to generate an awareness that 
these are not generalisable and can be 
contradictory. The danger of this activity 
is that particular gender traits or roles 
become manifested instead of critically 
reflected upon. However, with appropriate 
facilitation and critical questions, these 
norms can be destabilised and reflected 
upon collectively. Respondents shared 
their experiences on how gender norms in 
communities have been gradually changing. 
For example, one participant shared how 
men who would help women at home 
are tagged ‘jaitingre [nepali version of 
henpecked]’, which is slowly changing now. 
Similarly, women participants shared how 
changing gender and cultural norms such 
as disregarding ‘Chhaupadi’, the practice 
of untouchability during menstruation, 
is allowing more women to participate in 
education and economic activities. It was 
also shared that in few places women 
have also started challenging rigid norms 
and activities by engaging in ploughing, 
funeral rites, migration etc., which 
traditionally is performed by men. The 
discussion on the variability and change 
of gender perceptions promoted critical 
consciousness on gender norms. 
Discussion 1: Sex vs. Gender
To generate further reflection on those 
gender norms, a short lecture of 5 minutes 
and afterwards a discussion was held on 
the differences between the biological 
“sex” and the socially constructed “gender” 
(cf. Table 4). As a response, several farmers 
shared their own perception why girls 
should be educated like boys, or how 
they can fulfill the same role as boys. The 
farmers were well-aware of the gendered 
restrictions to women and the need to 
challenge these, but the recurring reason 
named for this was social pressure and that 
“people will talk”, and that it takes a long 
time to change the community’s mindset. 
Examples to explain gender norms and 
roles by participants during the discussion 
were: “women are kind-hearted”, “women 
milk cows and buffaloes”, “men sit in the 
tea shop and chat” and “men plough, 
break stones and paint houses”. 
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
144
Table 4: Training guidance to explain the difference between biological sex and socially 
constructed gender
SEX GENDER 
Biological—Male and Female Inborn/
innate cannot be changed 
Examples:
Only women can be pregnant and give 
birth
Only men can supply sperm.
Only mother breastfeeds her child
Only women menstruate 
Social—Masculine and Feminine Not 
inborn/innate, can be changed 
Examples:
Women do domestic chores
Men are breadwinners of the family
Women wear sari/kurta
Men plough agricultural land, drive 
tractor 
Women cut and collect grass
Activity 2: Gender Position Bar: 
Imagining shifts in the gendered 
division of labour in agriculture 
The activity “Gender Position Bar” focuses 
on the gendered division of labour in 
domestic or reproductive tasks as well as 
agriculture, water and forest management. 
To understand and work with the gendered 
perceptions associated with particular 
tasks in these domains, every farmer 
choses one picture of a particular labor 
being performed, describes it in front of 
the group and places it along a position bar 
below one of the five varying degrees over 
women’s or men’s involvement (Figure 3): 
either as female only, mostly female, male 
only, mostly male, or conducted by both 
gender equally. The farmers had also to give 
a reason for their choice. This was particular 
important, as farmers were challenged to 
think beyond “it has always been like this”. 
Most attributes given for male labour were 
“heavy/hard”, “technical”, “dangerous”, 
“income-generating” and “energetic”. 
Female labour was remarked as “low in 
production”, “no skill needed”, “caring”, 
“cleaning”, “better concentrating”, “better 
vision”, “time intense”, “not difficult”, “at 
home” and “calm”. The reasons given for 
particular agricultural activities are listed 
in Table 5. This activity demonstrates 
valuable insights how relevant the role of 
gender is within the community’s beliefs. 
Farmers were well-aware of the gendered 
restrictions to women and the need to 
challenge these, a recurring was theme 
of social pressure and the slow change of 
community’s mindset. 
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
145
Figure 3: Gender Position Bar activity
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
146
Table 5: Farmers response to the Gender Position Bar
Agricultural Task Gender Farmer’s reasons for the task being gendered
Livestock Mostly female not hard work for female
Ploughing Male Not allowed for female, too technical, to respect 
women
Digging Male Now allowed for female, too hard, women are busy 
with household work
Irrigation/    
Pump handling
Male Too heavy, women are not strong enough to rotate 
the handle and its operation, too technical, only male 
have knowledge on electricity and current flow, it is too 
dangerous, an electric shock may happen, women’s sari 
will get rolled into the wheel and this could lead to the 
death of a women
Transplanting Both/ Mostly 
female
Men do not take care of plants, they are busy with 
other work
Weeding Both Only labour, no skill required
Harvesting Mostly female When production is less, female will do
Drying harvest Female Not much power and physical labour required, women 
have a better vision, it is related to caring and cleaning, 
women can better concentrate
Selling vegetables 
at the market
Both if crop good, man sells, if not good and we have to sit 
for a long time, women do, mostly women, as they save 
money, men waste money, if they are free at home, 
some men engage
Money handling Both women sell, but women often can’t calculate, then men
Buying seeds Both men used to go, sometimes if easily available, women 
also go, Women select well because they are working in 
the field
Tractor Driving Male rule by society, but it is driven by women in other 
countries, e.g. in Punjab, women can drive a small 
tractor and replace male farmers, do all their labour
Applying 
Fertiliser
Male Difficult for women
Storage of crops Female Men are busy with income generating work, women 
work at home, women as they are more at home
Pesticides Mostly male Men have more freetime
Cleaning crops Female Male do not do the cleaning grains work because they 
are not good at concentration, they are ‘Chanchal’ 
highly energetic in nature so cannot stay still doing one 
thing. Women are by nature very calm and can do such 
things easily
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
147
Reproductive Tasks Gender Farmer’s reasons for gendered tasks
Childcare Mostly female/
both
Woman do it because they are more kind to 
children, men slap them. Such type of love and 
affection is not seen in a man; women are kind-
hearted, when children are small, women show 
more affection to baby
Healthcare Mostly female smaller things women do, bigger outside travels 
men; men are mindless and not caring
Cooking Female/ mostly 
female
Women do, because husband says: I married 
you, so you have to cook for me, men cook only 
outside or in exceptions, e.g. when wife is sick; 
women do rotis at home
Washing Female Male can only wash their own clothes if needed, 
but not wash for others
Vegetable garden Both Whoever is free
Discussion 2: Challenges for female 
and male farmers
Based on activity 2, farmers discussed 
in group work the challenges and 
opportunities for becoming successful 
male or female farmers (cf. Table 6). The 
prior mentioned gendered division of 
labour seemed to be a major problem 
for female farmers, as they have limited 
opportunities to plough, apply fertilizer, 
pesticides or irrigate. For male farmers, 
mostly structural constrains such as limited 
access or lack of irrigation, pesticides, 
fertilizers, crop choices, market prices etc. 
were listed. Opportunities were seen in 
trainings, group savings, discussions and 
learning from each other, and provided 
inputs such as seedlings, irrigation. This 
task showed that the farmers were well 
aware of the objectives of the projects, 
and the addressed challenges help being 
tackled through project interventions.
The challenge in this activity was to 
challenge participants to think beyond 
“it has always been like this” when they 
describe why a certain labour activity is a 
challenge for the other gender. Participants 
argued, for example, male tasks to be 
too “dangerous” and “heavy”, while 
women’s tasks “take time” and are “safe 
to do at home”. Here is again a danger of 
reproducing existing gender roles which 
the facilitator can avoid by giving space for 
contradicting opinions within the group.  
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
148
Table 6: Challenges and opportunities for female farmers
CHALLENGES FOR FEMALE FARMERS OPPORTUNITIES FOR FEMALE 
FARMERS 
•	 Not being allowed to plough 
•	 Household workload results in coming 
late to meetings 
•	 Not allowed to start water pumps
•	 Lack of confidence
•	 Lack of technologies
•	 Illiteracy
•	 Knowledge on market rates, crop 
insurance, access to local services
•	 Work load
•	 Collective labour support through 
other farmers 
•	 Confidence to speak up in groups 
•	 Increasing cropping areas 
•	 Exposure visits, trainings and 
workshops
•	 improved nutrition
•	 access to government services, e.g. 
subsidy from District Agriculture 
Office
Activity 3: Bargaining Role Play: 
Switching gender roles to create 
empathy
The final activity was a creative role play 
in which some farmers took the role of 
the opposite gender in a bargaining act. 
The aim was that farmers become more 
conscious about the feelings of the other 
gender and thus create empathy for 
someone else’s struggles. This activity 
was perceived as the most entertaining, 
and several farmers enthusiastically 
started to dress up as the opposite sex 
through shawls and headcovers. The 
farmers imitated typical dialogues, which 
would present the opposite gender in 
a stereotypical manner. For example, 
male farmers (played by females) were 
complaining that women were late to 
bring food, and yelling at them to quickly 
and nicely serve plates and water, while 
the female farmer (played by a male) was 
shy, excusing herself for being busy with 
a lot of household work and child care, 
and then quickly fulfilling the demanded 
tasks. The scenes the farmers played also 
indicated which aspects of behavior and 
communication they consider relevant to 
address, and the role play provided a safe 
space to do so. 
Once farmers are sensitised on gender 
issues through prior activities, the 
bargaining role play gives them an 
opportunity to think about how do they 
perceive their opposite gender as a farmer 
and perform gender roles according to it. 
This has as a mirror effect because farmers 
can see how they are dealing with their 
partners when the group switches their 
gender and perform. This spontaneous 
role play of the training challenges farmers 
to think of and react to gender distinctive 
behaviours. The role play promotes 
creativity and fun by demonstrating 
asymmetrical gender roles on farms. 
There are few requirements for a successful 
bargaining role play. First, as the role play 
is a spontaneous activity, farmers must be 
given sufficient time to develop their script 
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
149
and plan their dialogues. In case the time 
to think the script is not adequate, it may 
lead towards less interesting or ineffective 
role play as the farmers might not be able 
to identify and prioritise the important 
gender issues. Second, not only identifying 
the gender issue becomes critical for 
farmers but also they must think on how 
the role play session could be an excellent 
opportunity for them to bargain on the 
gender issues they are suffering since a 
long and they had barriers to convey and 
discuss on it. The group role play gives 
farmers more autonomy particularly to 
women farmers to bring out important 
issue that would not be possible for them 
to speakup alone. Third, farmers may also 
bring upon the feel by using some props 
in the role play. For example, the role play 
in Kanakpatti village, women farmer when 
played a male farmer they had a feeta 
that is a long shawl on their head and to 
become a women they used their towel to 
cover the head as a symbol of purdah that 
women usually do to bring actual feel of 
changed gender roles. 
On other side, as this role play is considered 
to bring out gender issues on farm, it 
might bring out some gender sensitive 
issues to the context. Such topics might 
invole challenging any gender taboos or 
religious belief on farm. Hence, facilitators 
of the training must play important role to 
become aware of the issue that is being 
brought up and take the time to discuss it 
afterwards. 
Photo 1: Role play with changed gender roles
With a little help from the facilitators, this 
seemed the participants’ favorite activity. 
Having random props (such as farm tools 
such as a spade, kitchenware, like plates and 
cups, vegetables etc.) may help generate 
ideas. In our workshops, women were 
excited to get a chance to tell men to bring 
them food and tea constantly, while men 
enjoyed covering their heads with a scarf 
and playing an obedient housewife. We 
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
150
found that participants have lots of ideas 
once they realise that this is supposed to 
be a fun and light-hearted exercise. At the 
same time, some important realisations 
seemed to trigger thinking:
“It felt weird to play a landlord and 
harass people older than me, it was 
good to have that power but at the 
same time he was an elderly person 
and I played a younger person’s 
role.” – Birkuti agriculture group, 
Gulariya, Bardiya, 14.11.2016
“It’s the first time playing a woman 
(for me), I didn’t know how to speak 
as a woman, as a daughter-in law, 
it’s difficult to attend meetings and 
walk in a saree as well.” – male 
community mobiliser, Gulariya, 
Bardiya, 12.11.2016
After one bargaining role play, an elderly 
woman started to spontaneously sing a 
traditional Maithili song, and participants 
joined in or listened in awe (translated 
from the local language Maithili):
“Your wife, son, is much bad-
mannered; she broke her water pot 
and left for her mother’s place.(...)”
“She had slipped out and broke the 
water pot, what is the crime of my 
wife here?” 
 “I saw a lady pouring tears from her 
eyes under the Bel Babur tree.(…)”
“Come back my lady! Let’s return 
home, let’s return home. My 
mother has become old, will die 
shortly, sister will get married to her 
home, remaining will be my brother, 
I will separate him, we both will rule 
our regime.” 
This unexpected but deeply meaningful 
song revealed cultural connotations 
participants drew to the gender 
engagement on the ground – that is, 
injustices felt by a husband towards his 
wife, reproduced through his mother.
At the end of the training, participants 
are requested to reflect on their day long 
involvement in the training and if this 
discussion has succeeded to meet their 
expectations. The feedback should be 
reflected upon collectively and consider 
how to integrate ideas in future trainings. 
THE ROLE AND  
PERCEPTIONS OF 
COMMUNITY MOBILISERS
Community mobilisers and project staff 
have the key role to facilitate the trainings, 
and more generally, are important for 
reaching out and interacting with the 
communities in rural areas, whether it 
is for mobilising farmers for collective 
action in farming, technology adoption, or 
knowledge sharing. However, community 
mobilisers rank lowest in project 
hierarchies, and often have to ‘deliver’ 
results such as functioning user groups 
or accompany project’s technological 
implementations, often without having 
been trained on gender and social relations 
in communities. While being close to 
communities, there is a danger that they 
may reinforce existing gender and social 
inequalities in rural communities as they 
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
151
are unaware of how power relations shape 
everyday lives. Limited gender awareness 
among staffs have been documented in 
many sectors including water and irrigation 
((Udas and Zwarteveen, 2010).  
During the training of community 
mobilisers on the principles and methods 
of the “Participatory Gender Training”, all 
community mobilisers acknowledged that 
this was their first platform to be introduced 
to basic concepts around gender and 
intersectionality, and the practical 
implications of it on their everyday work. 
The majority of community mobilisers, 
both male and female, expressed positive 
learnings from the day long discussion. 
Many shared that they learned about the 
distinction between gender and sex for 
the first time. Such discussions, as the 
majority of community mobilisers shared, 
enable them to provide an understanding 
of why understanding gender relations 
is important for increasing agriculture 
productivity. For example, one community 
mobiliser shared: 
“I learnt about sex and gender […] 
that gender is culture specific and 
its impact in agriculture sector. I feel 
that if both male and female should 
divide work equally, more benefits 
could be derived.” (male community 
mobiliser, Gulariya, Bardiya)
“I learnt that change is possible. 
We have unequal workload and 
it should be shared equally. I will 
share this in community. I had the 
understanding that men and women 
share workload equally, I realised 
today that women bear more 
responsibilities.” (male community 
mobiliser, Dadeldhura)
Some also reflected how the training 
helped them to reflect on their own 
positionality in relation to the farmers. 
“I did not have much knowledge 
on gender. I did not know we also 
practice this in the community. 
I learnt that challenges and 
opportunities are context specific. 
It is important to understand how 
change is required and is possible 
within ourselves. I will share and 
implement this knowledge in my 
project activities and with my 
community.(…) I liked the second 
activity. I realised that we practice 
discrimination in our own lives. 
So, I think I will try to apply this 
knowledge in my life” (female 
community mobiliser, Gulariya, 
Bardiya)
“[…] It felt as if there are many 
things which I need to improve. 
So far we had learnt about gender 
only verbally however, through 
different activities and through 
photo activity, we experienced it 
practically. May be these activities 
could be effective at the community 
level.” (male community mobiliser, 
Gulariya, Bardiya)
However, there were some participants 
who shared about their unmet 
expectations. Although they agreed that 
they gained knowledge on gender, sex and 
gender relations, their expectations that 
they will receive gender solutions to the 
problems they face in the community level 
remained unmet: “We thought we will 
get the solutions of our problems [..] the 
problems we face at the community level.” 
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
152
Especially the discussions helped them to 
realise how gender shapes their everyday 
practices and decisions. For example, at 
the personal level, examples were shared 
which indicated how gender is socially 
constructed, and how it is different across 
spaces and changes with time. Several 
participants shared these insights during 
the introductory discussions:  
“Change is gradual with increasing 
awareness. I have seen it in my 
society. Women have jobs, male do 
not have. So, in those situations, 
men are taking care of children and 
doing household work – may be 
25%.” (male community mobiliser, 
Dadeldhura, 4.11.2016)
 “Nature never formed caste 
division. Caste division was formed 
on the basis of occupation. For 
example, I am Brahmin, someone 
is Chettri and someone is Dalit. 
These divisions have been formed 
by the society.” (female community 
mobiliser, Dadeldhura, 4.11.2016)
“Society is different here. Here 
male and female both can say 
‘no’ to conceive more babies. 
Couple bear children with mutual 
understanding.” (male community 
mobiliser, Dadeldhura, 4.11.2016)
At the professional level, the discussion 
revolved around the challenges community 
mobilisers face while ensuring women’s 
participation in the user groups: 
“In the village, it is difficult to 
convince women to participate in 
the meetings. They are very busy, 
especially in this season.” (male 
community mobiliser, Dadeldhura, 
4.11.2016)
“Community and family support 
is important to make women 
successful farmers. Women lack 
time and income. These are 
the biggest challenges.” (male 
community mobiliser, Dadeldhura, 
4.11.2016)
Project field staffs are little equipped to 
address issues related to social and gender 
inequities, and they seldom receive 
opportunities to learn such skills through 
trainings. For instance, community 
mobilisers receive an orientation on 
community mobilisation in general at the 
time of joining but not a specific training 
on gender norms and relationships:
“This is the first time we have gained 
this detailed knowledge about 
gender roles and relations. No one 
before has helped us to understand 
the concepts. We have never applied 
this in our work besides following 
instructions of including different 
representatives from different 
groups in the user groups.” (female 
community mobiliser, Gulariya, 
Bardiya, 12.11.16)
Similarly, many shared that they had not 
realised the relevance of gender to the 
project beyond women’s involvement 
in numbers. It was shared that before 
attending the training, it never occurred to 
them that gender could be linked to their 
work in substantial ways:  
“I learned that men and women 
need to understand each other’s 
needs. I will now ask my husband 
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
153
to work alongside and help me 
grow vegetables.” (female farmer, 
Phulwari village, Kailali)
“I thought we would argue 
about gender differences but we 
discussed very specific things that 
were previously ignored- it forced 
us to think about it.” (community 
mobiliser, Gulariya, Bardiya)
FACILITATING AND 
REINTERPRETING   
TRAINING PRINCIPLES IN 
LOCAL CONTEXTS
We observed that successful 
implementation of the gender trainings 
depends on excellent facilitation skills, 
group size and composition, and training 
locations which encourage a safe space 
for women and marginalised community 
members to speak up. 
The facilitators should have both 
conceptual clarity on gender and power 
relations, and the expertise to adjust the 
gender discussions and activities to the 
specific local context. One challenge we 
observed is to find clear linkages of gender 
relations to specific agricultural and 
resource management practices relevant 
in the community. Most effective tools are 
pictures of agricultural activities from the 
community itself. In addition, local words 
need to be used to explain gender (e.g. 
“Laingik” in Nepali). Precaution should be 
taken not to confuse participants by using 
abstract concepts such as gender equality 
without referring to specific examples 
and to demonstrate in the activities and 
discussions how gender roles change and 
shape everyday lives.
In the introductory part, facilitators should 
clearly emphasise the objective and 
principles of the gender training. They 
may explain the training schedule, and the 
nature of targeted discussions to create a 
safe space to discuss and understand locally 
practiced gender roles and its possible 
impact on agriculture. Training facilitation 
should aim at minimising power differences 
in groups and maintain ethical conducts. 
Discussions on cultural, social and gender 
norms in any local context are very sensitive 
topics. Therefore, facilitators should be 
trained beforehand how to act neutral 
and discourage conflicts and controversial 
discussions. Specific facilitation skills to 
practice are asking open ended question, 
making appropriate probes, using words 
and language comprehensible to the 
participants, using life experiences and 
local examples, explaining the objective 
of each activity, linking the activities to 
discussions, and keeping discussions 
focussed on agriculture and gender roles. 
We observed the important role of 
group compositions and small-sized 
groups to encourage good discussions. 
We experienced that a workshop can be 
effective with as few as 5 or 6 participants, 
but recommend a maximum number of 
12 participants to ensure for everyone 
the possiblilty to participate and speak in 
the discussions. It is important to allow 
sufficient time to select participants of 
different age, caste, and class, as well as 
to form groups in which all participants 
feel comfortable speaking. To encourage 
women’s participation in meetings, 
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
154
crèches (daycare) for children or similar 
appropriate incentives may be arranged. 
The groups should ideally be mixed, 
but sex-segregated groups often allow 
for a more secure space to speak. The 
choice between mixed or single sex 
groups depends on prior interventions in 
communities and how much women feel 
comfortable speaking about these topics 
in front of men. If there is significant 
hesitancy among the women to speak up, 
then single sex groups may provide greater 
individual participation.
Finally, it is important to chose an 
appropriate place and time suitable for 
the diverse participants’ needs. A place 
for the training should be well chosen, 
and open space with lots of disturbances, 
e.g. at religious places such as temple or 
a mosque should be avoided. The props 
such as clothes and utensils for the role 
play must be arranged beforehand. 
CONCLUSION
Shifting and Reproducing Gender 
Norms
Gender equality is central to international 
development agendas such as the 2030 UN 
Sustainable Development Goals, both as a 
goal in itself (SDG 5), and as cross-cutting 
issue in goals such as “Zero Hunger” 
(SDG2) and “Clean Water and Sanitation” 
(SDG6). Yet, studies on transformative 
engagements with gender relations 
among smallscale or tenant farmers and 
water user groups are particularly rare. 
In this paper, we developed and tested 
methods based on critical pedagogy 
(Freire, 1996) and transformative practice 
(Leder, 2018). We found that these 
initiated transformative engagements 
with the gender-water-agriculture nexus 
because they raised critical consciousness 
of farmers, community mobilisers, and 
project staff on possibilities of social 
change “in situ”. 
The development and implementation 
of the Participatory Gender Training 
demonstrates that the training methods 
provide an open space to discuss local 
gender roles within households, agriculture 
and natural resource management. 
Discussing own gender norms promotes 
critical consciousness that gender norms 
are socially constructed and change with 
age, class, caste and material and structural 
constraints such as limited access to 
water and land. Visual, interactive and 
discussion-oriented training methods 
stimulated enthusiasm and inspiration 
for participants to further join gender 
discussions. Sufficient space to reflect on 
possibilities of change allowed rethinking 
practices towards more equal labor 
division and generated empathy towards 
those with weaker bargaining power. Such 
knowledge co-creation and empathy may 
promote new ways of human-environment 
relations (Tremblay and Harris, 2018). 
Particularly the bargaining role play 
activity provides opportunities to bring 
up relations of dependency and unequal 
power positions in a humoristic manner. 
What participants and facilitators learn 
may differ from workshop to workshop, 
but many participants left with new ideas 
about how gender impacts their daily lives, 
and how they might change those impacts. 
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
155
This approach is different from already 
existing approaches as it is a theoretically 
led and empirically guided gender 
training which combines principles of 
critical pedagogy (Freire, 1996) and 
transformative practice (Leder, 2018). The 
reliance on those principles is important for 
social learning when it aims at addressing 
unequal power relations and promoting 
more socially-inclusive and sustainable 
natural resource management practices 
(Hegde et al., 2016, Elias et al., 2016). 
Nevertheless, various challenges remain 
throughout the implementation. We 
observed several situations in which gender 
norms were further reinforced rather 
than critically deconstructed and shifted. 
To avoid this, a well-trained and skilled 
facilitator has to guide well discussions. 
Facilitators have the most important role 
in transformative engagements and need 
to be trained to apply facilitation skills 
to focus on transforming rather than 
reproducing gender norms. Furthermore, 
the approach is applicable to different 
contexts as long as training methods are 
reinterpreted according to local norms. 
This can be best done through using 
photographs of agricultural and domestic 
labor conducted in the village or region, 
and collaborating with local facilitators. 
Further research is needed on how to build 
and interact in relationships that result 
in collective action in diverse contexts of 
agrarian change or resource management 
conficts. 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We especially thank the participants 
of the participatory gender training, as 
well as the local NGOs which helped us 
facilitate: Sakhi Bihar, CDHI in Jalpaiguri, 
and iDE Nepal. We would like to thank 
Anoj Kumar, Prasun Deb Kanugoe, Mithali 
Ghosh, Emma Karki and Manita Raut who 
helped us facilitate the gender trainings 
and provide valuable insights. We also 
thank two anonymous reviewers for their 
helpful comments on the earlier draft. The 
development of the “Participatory Gender 
Trainingfor Community Groups” was 
funded by the CGIAR Research Program 
“Water, Land and Ecosystems” (WLE) led 
by the International Water Management 
Institute (IWMI), as well as the Australian 
Centre of International Agricultural 
Research (ACIAR) as part of the project 
LWR-2012/079 “Improving water use for 
dry season agriculture by marginal and 
tenant farmers in the Eastern Gangetic 
Plains”. 
REFERENCES
Agarwal, B., 1997. ‘’Bargaining’’and gender relations: within and beyond the household. 
Feminist economics, 3, pp.1-51.
Agarwal, B., 2000. Conceptualising environmental collective action: why gender matters. 
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24, pp.283-285.
Agarwal, B. 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for 
South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development, 29, pp.1623-1648.
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
156
Ahlers, R. & Zwarteveen, M.Z., 2009. The water question in feminism: water control and 
gender inequities in a neo-liberal era. Gender, Place & Culture, 16, pp.409-426.
Bastakoti, R., Raut, M., Kumar, A. & Kanungoe, P.D., 2017. Assessing value chain opportunities 
for smallholder vegetable growers in Eastern Gangetic Plains, Kathmandu, Nepal, 
International Water Mangement Institute.
Bijman, J., Iliopoulos, C., Poppe, K.J., Gijselinckx, C., Hagedorn, K., Hanish, M., Hendrikse, G.W., 
Kühl, R., Ollila, P. & Pyykkönen, P., 2012. Support for farmers’ co-operatives. Final report.
Bunch, R., 1995. Two ears of corn: a guide to people-centered agricultural improvement.
Chambers, R., 1994. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World 
Development, 22, pp.953-969.
Cleaver, F. & Hamada, K., 2010. ‘Good’ water governance and gender equity: a troubled 
relationship. Gender & Development, 18, pp.27-41.
Cundill, G. & Rodela, R., 2012. A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of 
social learning in natural resource management. J Environ Manage, 113, pp.7-14.
Dewey, J., 1916. Democracy and education, New York, The Macmillan Company.
Dorward, A., Poole, N., Morrison, J., Kydd, J. & Urey, I., 2003. Markets, institutions and 
technology: missing links in livelihoods analysis. Development policy review, 21, pp.319-
332.
Doss, C., 2013. Intrahousehold bargaining and resource allocation in developing countries. The 
World Bank Research Observer, 28, pp.52-78.
Elias, M., Jalonen, R., Fernandez, M. and Grosse, A., 2016. A gender-responsive participatory 
research for social learning and sustainable forest management. Forests, Trees and 
Livelihoods, 26, pp.1-12.
Farnworth, C.R. Gender-aware value chain development. UN Women in cooperation with FAO, 
IFAD and WFP, Expert Group Meeting. Enabling rural women’s economic empowerment: 
institutions, opportunities and participation, 2011. pp.20-23.
Freire, P., 1996. Pedagogy of the oppressed, London, Penguin Books Ltd.
Gurung, D. & Bisht, S., 2014. Women’s empowerment at the frontline of adaptation. Emerging 
issues, adaptive practices, and priorities in Nepal, Kathmandu, ICIMOD.
Harris, L., 2008. Water rich, resource poor: intersections of gender, poverty, and vulnerability 
in newly irrigated areas of Southeastern Turkey. World Development, 36, pp.2643-2662.
Hegde, N., Elias, M., Lamers, H.A.H. & Hegde, M., 2016. Engaging local communities in social 
learning for inclusive management of native fruit trees in the Central Western Ghats, 
India. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 26, pp.65-83.
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
157
Hoyt, C.L. & Murphy, S.E., 2016. Managing to clear the air: stereotype threat, women, and 
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), pp.387-399.
Leder, S., 2018. Transformative pedagogic practice: education for sustainable development in 
Indian geography education on water conflicts., Singapore, Springer.
Leder, S., Clement, F. & Karki, E., 2017. Reframing women’s empowerment in water security 
programmes in western Nepal. Gender & Development, 25, pp.235-251.
Leder, S., Das, D., Reckers, A. & Karki, E., 2016. Participatory gender training for community 
groups. A manual for critical discussions on gender norms, roles and relations, Colombo, 
Sri Lanka, CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE).
Leder, S., Sugden, F., Raut, M., Ray, D. & Saikia, P., 2019. Ambivalences of collective farming: 
feminist political ecologies from the Eastern Gangetic Plains. International Journal of the 
Commons, 13.
Locke, C. & Okali, C., 1999. Analysing changing gender relations: methodological challenges for 
gender planning. Development in Practice, 9, pp.274-286.
Martin, R., 1992. Bargaining power. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, p.210.
Mayring, P., 2002. Qualitative content analysis -  research instrument or mode of interpretation? 
In: M. Kiegelmann, ed. The Role of the Researcher in Qualitative Psychology. Tübingen: 
Verlag Ingeborg Huber..
Meinzen-Dick, R. & Zwarteveen, M., 1998. Gendered participation in water management: 
issues and illustrations from water users’ associations in South Asia. Agriculture and 
Human Values, 15, pp.337-345.
Morales, M.C. & Harris, L.M., 2014. Using subjectivity and emotion to reconsider participatory 
natural resource management. World Development, 64, pp.703-712.
Mosse, D., 1994. Gender and knowledge: theoretical reflections on participatory rural 
appraisal. Economic and Political Weekly, 30, pp.569-571+573-578.
Mosse, D., 2004. Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid 
policy and practice. Development and Change, 35, pp.639-671.
Nightingale, A.J., Eriksen, S., Taylor, M., Forsyth, T., Pelling, M., Newsham, A., Boyd, E., Brown, 
K., Harvey, B., Jones, L. and Bezner Kerr, R., 2019. Beyond Technical Fixes: climate solutions 
and the great derangement. Climate and Development, pp.1-10.
Panta, S.K. & Resurrección, B.P., 2017. Gender and caste relations amidst a changing political 
situation in Nepal: insights from a farmer-managed irrigation system. Gender, Technology 
and Development, 18, pp.219-247.
Leder et. al.                                            Transformative engagements with gender relations
158
Rodela, R., 2013. The social learning discourse: trends, themes and interdisciplinary influences 
in current research. Environmental Science & Policy, 25, pp.157-166.
Shrestha, G. & Clement, F., 2019. Unravelling gendered practices in the public water sector in 
Nepal. Water Policy, 21, pp.1017-1033.
Sugden, F., Maskey, N., Clement, F., Ramesh, V., Philip, A. & Rai, A., 2014. Agrarian stress and 
climate change in the Eastern Gangetic Plains: gendered vulnerability in a stratified social 
formation. Global Environmental Change, 29, pp.258–269.
Sultana, F., 2011. Suffering for water, suffering from water: emotional geographies of resource 
access, control and conflict. Geoforum, 42, pp.163-172.
Sultana, F., 2019. Decolonizing development education and the pursuit of social justice. 
Human Geography.
Tremblay, C. & Harris, L., 2018. Critical video engagements: empathy, subjectivity and changing 
narratives of water resources through participatory video. Geoforum, 90, pp.174-182.
Udas, P.B. & Zwarteveen, M.Z., 2010. Can water professionals meet gender goals? A case study 
of the Department of Irrigation in Nepal. Gender & Development, 18, pp.87-98.
Vester, F., 2002. Unsere Welt -  ein vernetztes System, München, Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag.
Zwarteveen, M. & Meinzen-Dick, R., 2001. Gender and property rights in the commons: 
examples of water rights in South Asia. Agriculture and Human Values, 18, pp.11-25.
Zwarteveen, M. & Neupane, N., 1996. Free-riders or victims: women’s nonparticipation 
in irrigation management in Nepal’s Chhattis Mauja irrigation scheme. Colombo, 
International Water Management Institute.
New Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy Vol. 5 (1), 2019
Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies (SIAS) is a 
Kathmandu based policy research institute, established 
in 2011, as a platform to undertake research, policy 
engagement, and scholarly exchange. SIAS operates 
in research-policy-practice interface, covering various 
themes: natural resources management; climate change, 
water, and urban resilience; livelihoods and economic 
development; and democratic processes and local 
governance. 
For more information, please visit, www.sias-southasia.org
Nepal Policy Research Network (NPRN) 
is a network of Nepalese organizations 
established in 2010 that strive to contribute 
to the development of democratic, inclusive 
and pro-poor public policies and at the 
same time safeguard national interest. 
NPRN brings together research, policy and 
academic leaders to collectively engage in 
evidence-based policy development. 
For more information, please visit, 
www.nepalpolicynet.com
N P R N
Nepal Policy Research Network