Climate change is one of the most pressing issues in the contemporary world and it poses serious  challenges to development. This is why the first  proposed list of achievements for Sustainable  Development Goals 2015-2030 focuses on many  aspects related to environmental protection and  the mitigation of climate change. 

During my internship at Care Ethiopia, in the East Hararghe Field Office,  I had a chance to learn  more about Disaster Risk  Reduction (DRR). I noticed  that, while international  institutions have been calling  for gender sensitive climate  change policies during recent  years, a clear stance has not  yet been taken in the many  adaptation documents issued  by the country on this regard.  I therefore decided to devote  part of my time to researching  the gender dimension of  drought.

My study aimed to  provide an initial assessment  of the gender dimension of  drought in Fedis Woreda,  a highly drought-prone  area in the Oromia Region,  Eastern Ethiopia, to be  later used for policy making  and action planning. More  specifically, my research dealt with vulnerability, risk  reduction capacity, and was collected over a period  of approximately two months  through five key informant  interviews with government  representatives, and a  hundred surveys, six in-depth  interviews, and two focus  group discussions with the  local population.  

Findings showed that  women’s vulnerability is much higher than men’s. For instance, during times of  drought, women’s workloads  drastically increase as  activities usually undertaken  by them, such as fetching  water, require additional time.  More hurdles arise when a  husband migrates and the  wife finds herself as the sole  keeper of the household  and entirely responsible  for livestock. Women’s  health is also more severely compromised: first, because husbands, followed  by children, are given priority in food allocation,  while women tend to eat the leftovers, and;  second, because they are biologically more vulnerable.  

In addition, natural hazards bring psychological problems as well. For example, during a  period of food scarcity disputes increase due  to disagreements about money and food  management. Women experience many  worries due to the fact they are physically and  emotionally closer to their children. They are  worried their displaced husbands will marry a  second wife, thus having to share the yearly  harvest with the new spouse and further  exacerbating the experience of food insecurity.  Furthermore, girls are exposed to sexual  harassment when they walk far distances to  fetch water. They are also more likely to drop  out of school: first, they are more likely to skip  meals, leaving them without the nourishment  necessary for adequate concentration to learn  in class; second, they often remain at home to  support mothers in household management. On  top of it all, women have few chances to engage  in income generating activities during periods of  food scarcity due to the lack of time and money  to invest. Although women play a crucial role in  money-making activities, husbands are indeed those who control household finances. 

Women’s capacity to reduce the negative consequences of drought, be it preventive or immediate capacity, also seems to be inferior to that of men due to various factors, notably that they do not enjoy decision making power on various issues impacting livelihood security, such as crop cultivation, agricultural practices, and asset management. Moreover,  unlike men, women have low participation rates  in trainings and formal education, thus being  endowed with little resiliency.  

Coping mechanisms employed by females and males differ considerably. While women engage mainly in petty trading and firewood  sale, men tend to migrate in search of daily  labor. The selection of the specific strategies  in use appears to be influenced by the level of  vulnerability and other social practices in place.  For example, women are expected to remain  home with the children and the family assets,  while men migrate and can escape hunger  elsewhere. This limits the strategies available to  women. 

Overall, social attitudes and gender discriminatory practices that disadvantage women’s agency appear to be the main factors leading to the  higher disaster risk of women, when  compared to that of men.  

A number of recommendations arose as  a consequence of this study. First, gender  should be mainstreamed into the policy design  process, thus ensuring that all adaptation  intervention would benefit both groups equally  and challenge gender inequality. Second,  local women should be made central actors in  the decision making process, since they can provide useful insights due to the fact that  they better understand the challenges  faced by their group. Third, by mainstreaming DRR in every development intervention, external institutions can ensure that the activities they implement are feasible, reduce the negative impacts of drought, and relieve women instead of overburdening them. Finally, grassroots interventions that call into discussion social practices and give women access and control over resources should be taken. This  would allow women to build resiliency and to  overcome many of the factors that contribute to their disadvantaged position.