Literature review of equity knowledge gaps

IntroductionThis review seeks to reveal some of the important knowledge gaps that currently exist in the literature on energy and gender in developing countries. The purpose is to use this knowledge to create questions for the PISCES socio-economic baseline design framework.

The paper draws on some of the key literature that is listed in the bibliography. Many of these studies provide background to energy and equity, and are written by specialists who offer some fine detail on these issues—especially on gender and energy. In particular this paper benefits from the excellent work of Elizabeth Cecelski (ENERGIA) and Joy Clancy (University of Twente) and their colleagues. I have tried to reference their work throughout this paper, but there may be instances where I have been influenced by their work and not sufficiently acknowledged it. This is perhaps testimony to their prominent roles in the energy and equity field, and their work is highly recommended.

Since the aim of this review is to highlight equity knowledge gaps in relation to energy in developing countries, this paper does not attempt to provide an all encompassing literature review on energy and equity issues. A history is not offered here, for example, of gender and energy issues that might detail the changing attitude of the international development community over time. Nor is there an attempt to replicate the work of others for the sake of ticking boxes on what appear to be staples for many papers on energy and equity. The literature has no lack of studies showing how gender and energy relate to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), for instance (see, for example, Meikle 2006; UNDP 2005), and replicating them here yet again serves little purpose in this review of energy and equity knowledge gaps.

The paper begins by outlining why PISCES is concerned with equity issues, and then discusses what it is that we mean by equity when we talk about energy in developing countries. This leads to a discussion of ‘energy poverty’ and a gendered approach to energy issues, which is followed by a general picture of what is known from the literature about energy and the poor, and energy and equity. The paper finishes with a indication of what more we need to know about energy and equity, and how PISCES can help to plug some of the equity knowledge gaps with evidence from the local-level particulars of the communities that are surveyed in Kenya, Tanzania, India and Sri Lanka.

1

Why the concern with equity in PISCES?One of the aims of PISCES is to have equity mainstreamed in its policy recommendations. The reason for this is to help identify how the more marginalised sections of society in the PISCES study countries can be better represented in, and engage more effectively with, the decision making process. The ultimate aim is to then ensure that the most marginalised are represented in PISCES policy recommendations.

This concern is in tune with DFID’s interest, stated in its (2002) ‘Energy for the Poor’ document, that “Equity of access to basic energy services for cooking, space heating and lighting, like access to water, could be considered a human right. The rights-based agenda highlights inclusion of poor people, their participation in decision-making about their development, and the responsibility of government, as well as the poor, to fulfil obligations.”

The RPC recognises that the provision, access and delivery of energy services and the effect they have on livelihoods are different for men and women, and for the poor. This is well known at a very general level. What is less well known is how this applies to the specifics of the different geographical and thematic contexts. The attempts of PISCES to have an equity approach in every location where research takes place will help to illuminate the situation of the more marginalised sections of society in these areas and better ensure that their voices are heard in the formulation of policy and, ultimately, in policymaking and final policy documents.

This may seem a fairly normal goal now that mainstreaming gender and/or mainstreaming the poor has become common practice in international development, and especially within DFID. Yet it is instructive to note the energy policymaking context that PISCES’ concern for these issues is working within. As Clancy et al (2003: 13) point out, whereas in many developing countries the use of gender analysis has been successfully used for many years in the health, water and agricultural sectors, in energy planning an approach that is sensitive to gender is far from mainstream. The focus in energy policy has been on increasing the efficiency in the electricity sector through privatisation, and on reducing subsidies on fossil fuels—to the exclusion of biomass fuels. This has meant that women’s practical needs, such as their daily cooking requirements, have been insufficiently addressed. Greater objectives related to other productive activities and emancipatory goals are still far from close (Clancy et al 2003: 12-13).

Gender is slowly gaining a place on the energy agenda in developing countries, and there is some evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa that policy makers and policy statements are increasingly aware that the power sector will only

2

achieve sustainable development if gender analysis is integrated into policy formulation. Frequently, however, and despite new research on gender and energy in countries such as Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, the direct influence of research on power sector policy formulation appears to be limited and is only backed by vague policy objectives (Karekezi & Wangeci 2005).

What do we mean by ‘equity’ when we talk about energy in PISCES?Studies of energy in developing countries frequently treat ‘equity’ as synonymous with ‘gender’ (e.g., Rossi & Lambrou 2008). Although this is not always the case, a pro-poor focus is often also the assumption. A broader definition of ‘equity’ might therefore include the poor, and consider anything that bears the quality of being fair and impartial. In relation to energy and development, this could also include consideration of issues of age, ethnicity and, as stated, poverty.

An example of where poverty fits into an ‘equity’ dimension of energy is the fact that, in absolute terms, poor households use less energy than wealthier ones. This means that less water is boiled for drinking and other hygiene purposes, thereby increasing the likelihood of water-borne diseases. Illness often then reduces the ability of poor people to improve their livelihoods and increases their vulnerability, not only preventing adults from working effectively, but also negatively effecting children's learning by keeping them from school (Clancy 2008b).

This study concentrates on gender equity, with a specific focus on women—it is women who tend to be responsible for providing energy in the household. This focus inevitably has a poverty dimension, and helps explain our understanding of equity to be both gender-sensitive and pro-poor.1 In a more traditional definition of poverty, many women would certainly be classified as ‘poor’ because many women have low cash incomes.

Energy povertyThis economic definition of poverty has now been subsumed by a wider conceptualisation that tries to reflect how the poor themselves describe their situation. Poverty is now more often described in terms of marginalisation: a lack of access, for example, to goods and services, whether that is a lack of access to sufficient levels of food, water, clothing, shelter, sanitation, healthcare, and/or education.

1 See UNDP (2006) for further discussion on ‘pro-poor’ and ‘gender sensitive’. UNDP. 2006. Measuring Democratic Governance: A framework for selecting pro-poor and gender sensitive indicators. UNDP, New York

3

Until recently, however, there have been few efforts that have seriously considered energy within the poverty mix; this despite the fact that globally around two billion people (who are usually the two billion poorest) still use biomass fuels (World Bank 1996).2 Fittingly, the term used to describe the absence of choice in accessing adequate, affordable, reliable, high quality, safe and environmentally benign energy services is ‘energy poverty’ (Reddy 2000). The equity dimension of energy poverty has been exemplified in absolute terms in the example above: poor households use less energy than wealthier ones and this, in turn, has repercussions on the quality of those goods and services, such as clean water and education, that poor people have less access to.

There are other influences of energy poverty that are related to the energy needs of the poor but are beyond what we normally associate with the immediate sphere of the household, such as the need to cook food and boil water. For example, the agricultural sector is linked to household energy through opportunities provided by residues as a fuel source (that might be used in various income-generating activities). Similarly, opportunities for education are promoted by the simple ability of energy to provide light for study beyond daylight hours. A broader definition of household energy might therefore include all the activities that take place within a household and the linkages to a much wider system of energy supply and demand (Klingshirn 2000).

A gendered perspective to energyThese household energy needs are not issues that affect women alone. They serve to demonstrate that men are also affected both in the opportunities that energy affords and, of course, in the decisions that are made over who supplies the energy and who benefits from it. Decision-making within the household is discussed below and brings to sharp focus the fact that energy is not a gender-neutral issue.

A gender equity perspective needs to acknowledge that household energy is about more than concern for poor women who spend much of their time collecting firewood and who are not able to cook because they are ill from smoke inhalation due to indoor air pollution. True, household energy is primarily the responsibility of women and, as discussed below, it is often women who get ill from air pollution and who disproportionately carry the burden for biomass collection. Yet there are some cases (especially where for cultural reasons women are restricted from leaving their homes) when men can be involved in collecting fuel over long distances, for example, or in its purchase. In general, 2 Clancy et al address energy and the poverty nexus in their 2003 paper, and document international development agencies’ responses to energy poverty in their 2008b publication.

4

however, women and men do tend to have circumscribed roles when it comes to household energy, and much decision-making within the household can be a male preserve.

A gender equity perspective should therefore start from a point that appreciates the reality that, on the basis of sex alone, women and men have different roles, activities and responsibilities. This informs the understanding of ‘gender’ that this paper uses, which follows the Food and Agricultural Organisation’s (FAO) (2002) definition that refers to the social roles and relations between women and men, and includes the different responsibilities between women and men in a given culture or location. It understands that these roles are socially constructed and are not biologically-determined differences. A clear distinction therefore has to be made between ‘women and energy’ (which projects sometimes focus on) and ‘gender and energy’. The focus here on gender and energy recognises that men and women often use, are impacted on, or benefit from, energy services differently, and that the activities of one may impact on the opportunities and different social or economic outcomes of the other. As Clancy et al (2004: 8) put it, ‘gender analysis is not about looking at women alone, nor is it about complaining that women suffer more than men: rather gender is about reaching a better understanding of how communities work from the perspective of relationships between men and women.’

A gendered approach would therefore also appreciate that men and women will often have different perceptions of, and priorities for, their energy needs (see Sengendo 2005, for example). This increasing appreciation of different spheres for, and therefore different voices of, women and men comes at a time when poverty reduction strategies to facilitate empowering marginalised people have also broadened. Increasingly these efforts are being directed at the policy level to address the inequalities—including gender inequalities—that hinder poor peoples’ influence over policies and interventions that affect them. Again, one of the ideals that PISCES aims for is that the voices of the most marginalised are reflected in policy. As Cecelski (2001: 2-3) puts it, ‘gender assessment needs to be mainstreamed in the project and policy cycle – every energy project should plan for, monitor and evaluate the differential impacts of energy on women and on men; every energy policy should include a gender assessment.’ The best practice is a specific gender strategy in energy projects, with gender analysis at every stage of the project cycle to ensure that women’s needs are included. PISCES’ attempts to ensure this best practice are outlined in the project Monitoring and Evaluation document [cross-ref].

We turn now to the general picture about what is known about energy and the poor, and energy and equity.

5

Energy and the poor: a general reviewAs mentioned in the introduction, some good work has been conducted on energy and the poor in developing countries. Also, as stated, this is beginning to have some influence on policy—albeit slowly. There is some good detail on the type of energy that households use to meet their energy needs, and the general findings across developing countries are of help to our baseline interests—especially since most of the information relates to the rural and per-urban households that PISCES concentrates on.

Across the rural-urban divide there is a definite difference in fuel type based on household income, with low-income households using biomass (Clancy 2008a). Indeed, there is a strong correlation between fuel consumption and socio-economic factors such as household size, area of residence and income (Clancy 2008a). In terms of type of fuel, it has been observed that as people increase their income they generally climb what has been coined a ‘fuel ladder’ that has firewood at the bottom, then charcoal, kerosene and gas, and electricity at the top (FAO 1993). For poor people the quality of the fuel they use tends to be low, and is burnt with levels of smoke and particles that are recognised as having negative effects on health. Poor households rely mostly on biomass and tend to spend more time searching than the households in higher income groups. The collection of biomass frequently takes several hours per day, eating into time that might be used on other livelihood activities. Wealthier households will also purchase other, higher quality, fuels which will be used for a greater variety of end-users than in poor households.3 In rural areas, poor households generally restrict their fuel purchases to candles and kerosene, which are used for lighting (Clancy 2008a).

Energy and gender equityOf the approximately 1.3 billion people who are living in poverty, it is estimated that 70% of the adult population are women, and many of them live in female-headed households in rural areas. In sub-Saharan Africa it is estimated that female-headed households constitute between 50 and 80% of rural households (Klingshirn 2000).

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that poor women bear the brunt of the detrimental implications relating to any of the above energy poverty issues. Yet irrespective of who is the household head, gender inequality also is more or less

3 Brouwer & Falcao have made this observation in Mozambique, and point out the apparent contradiction to the FAO ‘fuel ladder’ that higher income households tend to use charcoal in combination with non-woody fuels. Brouwer, R. & M. Falcao. 2004. Wood fuel consumption in Maputo, Mozambique. Biomass and Bioenergy 27:233-245

6

pervasive in many developing countries at community and society level, with the woman in a subordinate position.

In households where there are adult men and women, the gendered division of labour generally allocates to women the responsibility for household energy provision related to their spheres of influence in the household, and in particular activities centred on the kitchen. Yet while men enter the decision-making process when energy has to be purchased (Clancy et al 2003: 10), it is poor women who carry the burden—both physically and metaphorically—for biomass fuel collection and use. This is a major aspect of the lives of most poor women (as well as school-age girls and, sometimes, boys), and is a task demanding of both human energy and time.

Overall women are thought to spend three times as much time transporting fuel and water than men (Araujo & Quesada-Aguilar 2007: 1). In terms of hours spent, the case of women in Burkina Faso suggests that this can equate to something like five hours per day spent on firewood collection, water hauling, food processing and cooking (another four hours is devoted to other essential activities, such as agriculture) (Cecelski 2000). The time spent on these sorts of activities represents a huge lost ‘opportunity cost’ for poor women, with women and young girls being denied opportunities for other more productive activities such as employment and education, not to mention much needed time for rest (UNDP 2005: 5).

The responsibility for household energy provision also affects women’s health disproportionately to men’s. It is now well known, largely due to the efforts of the World Health Organisation (WHO) in highlighting the issue, that women have higher levels of lung and eye diseases than men due to the longer hours of exposure to smoke and particulates in smoky kitchens (Clancy 2008a: 6; FAO 2007: 22). These now commonly-known effects of biomass combustion impacts, however, are only one of the many aspects of a fuel cycle of collection, transformation, transport and use, each of which have their own specific impacts that are less well documented. When collecting biomass, for example, women suffer from long-term effects such as back problems from heavy loads. Indeed, one study states that women in developing countries regularly carry four times as much fuel in volume as men (Araujo & Quesada-Aguilar 2007: 1). There are many other ailments caused by insufficient rest for the body (Clancy 2008b: 11), as well as other underreported effects such as the risk of rape while walking to less populated areas to collect fuel (Cecelski 2000).

Efforts to reduce women’s exposure to pollution in the kitchen have been improved in some cases by improved cook stove programmes, which also come with the possibility of reducing women’s work burdens and giving them a sense

7

of modernity and increasing their sense of wellbeing. As Clancy (2008a) notes, however, it would not be unreasonable to say that there has been a certain disillusionment with improved cook stove programmes and other interventions, such as biogas and solar cookers, because they have failed to live up to their expectations—not least in terms of gender sensitivity.

In an earlier report (Clancy et al 2003: 12) this point is made by demonstrating the faults of failing to adopt a gendered approach in such interventions: trying to convince women that improved, more fuel efficient stoves are in their interest, for example, is doomed to failure unless the factors that women themselves consider important are taken into account. Such considerations may include awareness of the central role of the stove in the household, that in many society cooks (who are invariably women) prefer to cook indoors for social reasons. Furthermore—and this is a key point—for a woman to purchase such an improved stove or to attend a stove-building course requires her to have access to, and control over, income, and a sympathetic husband (Clancy 2008a). Even if this is case though, other decision-making issues come into play that may effect what other positive interventions a woman might otherwise benefit from. For example, while an initiative of obtaining land to plant trees for fuel to ensure that poor women spend less time travelling far to collect it might be beneficial, in many societies women are rarely conversant with land ownership issues (Wamukonya 1995: 446) and may not have control over what is planted (Clancy 2008a: 7). An understanding of the different roles of women and men in decision-making around household energy issues and the interconnectedness with other sectors is therefore a key aspect to any gendered approach to energy that seeks to have sustainable interventions (Mensah-Kutin: 19).

What more we need to know about energy and equityThe above brief summary of the energy and equity literature on developing countries shows that some good work has been conducted. As discussed below, and acknowledged in some cases in the literature, further research clearly needs to be undertaken. The socio-economic data collection phases of PISCES provide the opportunity to help to plug some of the equity knowledge gaps that are discussed below with evidence from the focus countries of Kenya, Tanzania, India and Sri Lanka. This research will also offer some much-needed detail on the specific, local-level particulars of the communities that are surveyed. Some of the important issues that are raised in the literature are discussed here, and questions that PISCES could consider following up on in socio-economic data collection are also suggested.

Fuel type and acquisition: What women want

8

The literature gives examples of the possibilities for improving the position of poor women through energy (see Table 1 in Clancy 2008b, for example), but a gendered approach would ask what women (and men) themselves want in terms of fuel type and its acquisition (Clancy et al 2003: 14).

The answers to the following types of questions, raised in Clancy et al (2003: 14), are important for the formulation of policies that address women’s strategic needs: Do women want to continue to use wood/charcoal, albeit with more efficient stoves, because it fits with their traditions – in which case, what kind of improvements are needed - or would they prefer to use gas (biogas or LPG) or electricity because they value the convenience? Would rural women pay for wood (good quality, regular supply, in quantities that matched cash flow) if it relieved them of the burden of collection and freed them to participate in income generation, community activities, or to devote more time to their families?

Energy and income-generating activitiesThe role of energy in the sustainability of women’s enterprises is not well understood (Clancy 2008a). Poor women, particularly those in rural areas, undertake (usually informal) income-generating activities that are frequently labour-intensive and are often strongly linked to household and agricultural duties. Cottage industries tend to be energy-intensive and rely on biomass fuels used with low efficiencies of energy conversion. In some income-generating activities, such as food processing, energy costs are 20-25 per cent of the total inputs. As Clancy et al (2003: 16) note, it would be prudent to find out the constraining role that energy plays in the sustainability of small-scale enterprises.

Many women’s income generating activities are based around process heat, for which electricity is not the cheapest option. Where electricity is available in rural areas it is mainly used for lighting. This can extend evening working hours and may mean that women do not have enough time to rest. The extent to which electricity is used for cottage industries has not been systematically researched (Clancy 2008a). An additional question beyond the constraining role of energy on income-generating activities might obtain some initial information on the advantages and disadvantages that women have observed with access to electricity.

The reality of ‘extra time’It cannot automatically be assumed that women will invest in productive activities when they have gained ‘extra time’ from labour-saving practices or technologies (Clancy 2008b). A study in Sri Lanka, for example, found that when women

9

reported on how they used the ‘extra time’ that using electricity had brought to their lives, 29 per cent said they used it for extra housework, while less than 5 per cent reported using the time for other productive activities (Masse & Samaranayake 2002, cited in Clancy et al 2008b: 6). We need to find out how women think that they would be able to use any ‘extra time’ that they may gain through labour-saving practices or technologies and, if they manage to achieve it, the reality of how they really are able to use that time.

The effects of privatisationIt is not yet clear whether privatisation will result in more, or less, access for the rural poor to modern energy forms (Clancy 2008b). Although emerging evidence from India is not positive, privatisation does offer the opportunity of contributing to sustainable livelihoods by providing new entrepreneurs with the opportunity to enter the market by providing local level energy services in rural areas. Any questions on privatisation would have to clarify what privatisation means, and how it might differ from other initiatives that women are affected by. If women have been exposed to privatisation, what advantages and disadvantages have they experienced?

Control over landEvidence from sub-Saharan Africa suggests that women are often allocated low quality, marginal lands by their husbands (Rossi & Lambrou 2008: 6). Further research is required in order to understand the processes driving these situations. A start for PISCES might be to ask women how much control they have over what is planted on the land that their household has access to.

What next?These questions have been added to the list of baseline questions for the data collection surveys.

Tom, 21 May 2008

10

11