Armenia

Mainstreaming Gender in Project Operations210. Improved water supply can ease women’s workload. In Armenia, women arethe major users of water in households for preparing meals, cleaning, laundering, bathingchildren, tending household gardens and livestock, and other domestic duties. Women alsoplay a major role in collecting and purchasing water for domestic use as well as storing andmanaging it; therefore, they are acutely affected by water limitations. In areas where wateris only available for a few hours a day or on certain days during the week, women reportedthat families fill barrels or other containers with enough water to last them until supply isresumed. When there is no centralized water supply, “it is mainly women, usually girl [sic]and children who collect water with rather big containers outside the immediate vicinity oftheir homes.” 284 Because a significant proportion of women’s time is spent obtaining waterand managing its use in the home, ADB projects to improve access to safe water couldresult in time savings for women. Establishing baseline data to assess changes to women’sworkload is critical to determine how water supply and sanitation projects have benefitedthem.211. One interviewee raised a related point that families often purchase drinkingwater when the quality of piped water is poor. She pointed out that having to make suchexpenditures has a particular impact on female-headed households, which are already atrisk of impoverishment. It does not appear that any assessments have been conducted ofthe proportion of the household budget families spend on alternative sources of water, butthis information would be useful to evaluate gender-based impacts of water supply andsanitation projects.212. Gendered impacts of limited access to water and sanitation. Women andmen have different water and sanitation needs, especially in public places. Womenpredominantly work in public institutions, such as kindergartens, schools, and healthclinics, many of which have unsatisfactory water supply and sanitation facilities. Womenin focus groups in Gavar and Gyumri stated that sanitation facilities in schools are poor, sostudents avoid using the toilets. A project to improve the sanitation system at a rural schoolin Ararat Marz offers the following case study:[D]uring Soviet times the school had flush toilets for teachers and students, sewage pipesconnected to a drainage canal and a piped water supply system. This system is out of order,forcing students and teachers to use dirty and very bad smelling latrines outside the school,close to the drainage canal. The school used to have one simple pit latrine for about 200boys/male teachers and 200 girls/female teachers each. In order not to have to use thelatrines many students and teachers avoided drinking during school time.” 285213. According to a United Nations Children’s Fund survey in Armenia, 60% of femaleand 70% of male students “never or rarely use the toilets in their schools.” 286 Many studentsdid not use toilets at the schools because they were concerned that they were not clean(41%), but a large proportion were “concerned about the social implications of using thetoilet, and reported feeling ashamed to do so at school.” 287 The poor sanitation facilities,284 E. Manvelyan et al. 2006. Case Study on the Right to Water and Sanitation in Armenia. Yerevan: Armenian Women for Health andHealthy Environment. p. 20.285 S. Deegener, M. Samwel, and E. Anakhasyan. 2009. UDD Toilets in Rural School Hayanist, Armenia—Case Study of Sustainable SanitationProjects. Yerevan: Sustainable Sanitation Alliance. p. 2. http://www.susana.org/en/resources/case-studies/details/54286 WASH in Schools. Armenia: Enabling Policy Environment for Wash in Schools. http://www.washinschoolsmapping.com/projects/Armenia.html287 Ibid.63