Literature review of equity knowledge gaps
· Introduction
This 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.
· 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 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 poverty
This 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.
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 energy
These 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, 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.
· Energy and the poor: a general review
As 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.