Iaee Paper Outline
Finding A Market In The Urban PoorTanzania
Finding a Market in the Urban Poor;
A Pilot Solution for Increasing Accessibility of Fuel and Technology Alternatives in Tanzania
Anna Oursler
Women Development for Science and Technology Association
Author: Anna Lauren Oursler
Title: Community Energy Initiatives
Project Coordinator
Organization: Women Development for Science and Technology Association
Address: Njiro Agricultural Showground, NaneNane
PO Box 3182
Arusha, Tanzania EAST AFRICA
Contact:Phone: +255 756448788
Email: or
2.0. Project Executive Summary
With estimated reserves of 1,119 billion barrels of crude oil, over 6,200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas deposits, and 997,748 million short-tons of recoverable coal, energy a basic need of all humans, is abundant on this earth[1]. Add to the equation thefuture potential of technologically fabricated fuels and appliances, and sustainable managed energy consumption and society has the capability to meet our energy needs for generations to come. Unfortunately like so many other basic needs, energy still remains inaccessible to much of the world’s population.
TheCommunity Energy Initiative research addresses this issue of energy accessibility by poor populations in the developing world. Millions of low income families in developing countries do not have adequate access to energy services and are forced to rely on biomass fuels for household energy needs; with the heaviest biomass consumption of fuel wood due to its abundant nature and limited processing costs. It is estimated that 90% of rural households in developing countries rely on traditional biomass fuels as the major, or only source of domestic energy[2]. This inaccessibility of energy resources by poor residents in developing countries is amplified forthose families living in urban areas. Areas where limited energy resources and infrastructure exist, but only for those who can afford it, and government infrastructure doesn’t provide adequate services to meet the basic needs of all citizens. This coupled unreliable household income as a result of a small formal job sector, means that these poor urban families struggle to meet even their basic needs. Because these centres are urban the residents living here do not have the luxury of free biomass fuels which exist for their rural counterparts. In the cities, everything is bought and sold, and there are increasingly fewer trees for the taking. So in a world where energy is abundant, but its accessibility is dependent on money, politics, and location; the urban poor of developing countries are one of the first population subsets to lose out.
Our research and subsequent pilot project of creating Community Energy Focal Point Centres was an effort to try and bridge the gap between existing energy alternatives, and the people who need them most. Based on preliminary studies by the University College London’s Development Planning Unitand Women Development for Science and Technology Association in 2004, it was revealed that alternatives to biomass fuel consumption and traditional cooking technologies existed in multitude within the East Africa region[3]. It was also determined that the need for more affordable, efficient and cleaner technologies existed in high demand within Tanzanians urban settlements. The problem which remained was accessibility; how could these alternatives be brought to the beneficiaries in a sustainable, affordable, and adaptable way? This was the question that the Community Energy Initiatives project aimed to solve. Our findings and experience over the past 36 months, give us a picture of how and how not to introduce alternative technologies and fuels to an economically disadvantaged population, not privileged enough to make energy choices based on new innovations or environmental impacts, but instead choose their fuels based on severe financial and geographical limitations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SectionPage Number
1.0Title Page1
2.0Executive Summary2
3.0Table of Contents3
4.0Introduction4-7
4.1Research Goals…4
4.2Project Need…4
4.3Background Information…5
4.4Preliminary Research Methods/Findings…7
5.0Materials and Methods7-10
5.1Methodology Overview…7
5.2Specific Phase Methodology…8
5.2.1Baseline Survey…8
5.2.2Community Mobilization …8
Development
5.2.3Market Study…9
5.2.4Training on Technology …10
Construction & Fuel Production
5.2.5Business Plan…10
5.2.6Efficacy Study…10
6.0Results and Findings11-15
6.1General Results…11
6.2Specific Research-Phase Findings…12
6.2.1Baseline Survey Findings…12
6.2.2Community Mobilization …14
& Development Findings
6.2.3Market Study Findings…14
6.2.4Training on Technology …15
Construction & Fuel Production Findings
6.2.5Business Plan Findings…15
6.2.6Efficacy Study Findings…15
7.0Discussions and Conclusion16-21
7.1.Keynote Successes…17
7.2.Project Weaknesses and Lessons Learned…18
7.3Conclusion and Recommendations…19
8.0Acknowledgements22
4.0.Introduction
4.1. Research goals
The Community Energy Initiatives Project was meant to further reveal and understand energy use challenges of poor urban women,and respond to those challenges by providing appropriate community solutions. This was the primary goal of WODSTA’s work in the urban neighborhoods of Daraja Mbili, Sokoni One, Sombetini and Kaloleni from 2004-2008. The subsequent Community Energy Initiatives project was built upon the following specific aims:
● To provide stakeholders (including policy makers, public and community service workers, residents and the academic sector) with an improved understanding of energy use and needs in poor urban areas Northern Tanzania.
● To implement a pilot solution which addressed the energy needs and challenges of poor urban neighborhoods. These challenges include accessibility of energy sources and technologies, cultural norms in decision making and the gender divisionof workload.
● To improve the livelihoods of poor urban women by providing healthier, time saving, and fuel-reducing energy alternatives. To provide income generating opportunities for poor urban women through the construction and sale of energy saving appliances and fuels.
This project initially began as a collaborative effort led by the University College of London’s Development Planning Unit (DPU), together with Women Development for Science and Technology Association (WODSTA), the Community Development Training Institute (CDTI) Tengeru, and local Community Development Officers in the ArushaMunicipality. These four institutions worked together to collect preliminary information that increased the understanding of how access to energy impacts the lively hoods of poor urban women and girls. These findings were published by the Development Planning Unit in a report called The Impact of Energy Use on Poor Urban Livelihoods in Arusha Tanzania.
From this prelinimary research it was realized that poor urban women did not have the time, educational awareness or money to access existing energy alternatives for domestic tasks. These women were forced to use the cheapest and most readily available fuel; firewood or charcoal (locally carbonized firewood) because there were not sufficient means to access more efficient, cleaner technologies. The community members involved in the initial study suggested improving local access to these alternatives as a way to address the noted energy-poverty cycle. After culmination of the preliminary study, WODSTA continued to work directly together with these community leaders in formulating a community based solution to the identified problem. The answer came in the form of a Community Energy Focal Point Centre; a physical place located in the heart of poor neighborhoods where residents could visit to purchase, learn about or construct their own domestic energy saving appliances and fuels.
4.2. Project Need
Human consumption and dependency on finite energy sources, specifically those of timber, coal, petroleum, and natural gases, has increased proportionately over time with the rise of organized civil society. Every person depends on fuel to cook, heat, and provide shelter for their families. In places like East Africa where the gap between the rich and poor is rapidly increasing, and poverty plagues state-sponsored provision of basic needs, we find that energy-supply and use become quality-of-life factorsof increasing magnitude.
According to the United National Population Fund, by the end of 2008 more than half of the world’s population -an estimated 3.3 billion people,will be living in urban regions. This number is projected to grow to 5 billion by 2030[4].Africa, is urbanizing at an alarming rate with 37% of the continents population already living in cities[5]. With urban poverty on the rise, annual slum growth in Africa has reached 4.5%, nearly twice the rate found in Asia and Latin America. During the past 15 years alone, sub-Saharan Africa’s total slum population has doubled to hit 199 million residents in 2005[6]. Tanzaniais amongAfrica’s most rapidly urbanizing countries with an urban migration rate of 13%. In 2007, out of a projectedcensus count of 39,384,223 million inhabitants, an estimated 12,856,200 Tanzanians were living in urban regions[7].
This project focuses on urban energy access, because it is in these centres where the cost of fuel is highest;the urban poor are more impacted than their rural counterparts by the expensive and unreliable energy resources. Dr. Sheila Meikle and Alison Bannister of the University College of London describeshow urban poverty is qualitatively different from rural poverty because urbanpoverty “is characterized by the dominance of a cash economy, increasing reliance on infrastructure and physical assets of the natural environment and often fragmented social relations”[8] Energy is not only a basic need of all people, but also an important tool in expanding social services, spawning economic growth, and improving quality of life in both urban and rural areas. In Tanzania the major commercial sources of energy include petrol, hydroelectric power and oil. In 2004, household energy consumption comprised of 97% biomass[9], 2% petroleum, and 0.3% electricity. Four years ago, alternatives such as photovoltaic, wind, coal, and bio fuels from plant oil made up less than 1.0% of energy consumption in Tanzania[10].
In a recent GTZfunded study, it was estimated that over 44.8 million m3 of wood fuel is consumed each year in Tanzania[11]. While rural populations gather this fuel either free or for very low costs, urban residents must always purchase fuel at the market value. Additionally, the economic burden of maintaining fuel supply disproportionately falls on Tanzanian women as they are responsible for all of the domestic energy-related tasks including the provision of food, household cleanliness, heat and caring for the health of family members. Traditional Tanzanian culture however, gives men the decision making authority and control over financial decision making.
For these reasons, WODSTA, a women’s membership based not-for-profit, sees urban energy-use issues as critical in improving the livelihood of poor women in Tanzania.
4.3. Background Information
The Republic of Tanzaniais the third largest country in eastern and southern Africa, with a total area of 945,000 km2. Over one third of Tanzania’s land mass is covered by forest or woodlands, and 82% of the countries workforce lies in the agriculture sector, which makes up almost 50% of the nation’s GDP[12]. The country is ranked 159th of 177 nations by the UNDP Poverty Index, while a 2005 estimate indicated that 89% of the Tanzanian population lives on less than 2.00 USD each day[13].
The region of Arusha is located in the North-east of Tanzania, with a population of 341,872 people[14].In1995 it was estimated that 70% of the Arusha population lived in its urban slums on the outskirts of town. The city has an annual growth rate of 5%[15]. The region is characterized by a mixture of highlands and middle lands, with altitudes ranging from 800m-1500m above the sea level. The average temperature is 21C, while the area receives 1500mm average rainfall annually over the course of two different wet seasons.
The Arusha region isdivided into six administrative districts that are further divided into divisions, and wards whileneighboring villageslie just outside of the municipal boundary. The ArushaMunicipality within the Arusha Region contains three divisions and 15 wards; four of which, Daraja Mbili, Sokoni One, Kaloleni and Sombetini served as target wards in the Community Energy Initiatives project[16].
Figure 1: Area Map, Tanzania and Arusha Region
The main economic activities carried out in Arusha are agriculture, animal husbandry, and industrial production. The major food crops produced are banana, maize, beans, tomato, carrot, onion, pepper and coffee. In contrast to rural Tanzania where agriculture accounts for over 80% of employment, urban employment is dominated by petty and informal businesses and trade. This includes, but is not limited to small-goods shops, produce sale, formal and informal tourism, food vending and tailoring. In the target project wards, over 87% of household income is generated through produce sales, locally factory employment, and street vending[17].
The majorindustrial and commercial energy sources in the Arusha region are fire wood, petroleum diesel and electricity from regional hydroelectric plants. Fire wood and charcoal are the main sources of domestic energy, with an average family consuming just over 1,000 kilograms of charcoal per year, an equivalent of 13,000-30,000 kilograms of fuel wood[18]. However nation-wide, 79% of poor residents use raw firewood for cooking because they can not afford the high end-market costs of charcoal[19].
Arusha’s quickly growing urban population hasanestimated unemployment rate[20] of 67%[21].These poor residents have limited access to basic amenities such as clean water, proper sanitation infrastructure and health security. There is not enough disposable income to purchase clean or efficient energy resources in order to meet household daily energy needs, which leaves these families with very few options outside of firewood and charcoal for cooking and kerosene for lighting.
These factors all contribute to the cyclical nature of poverty, the income constraints and lack of purchasing power defined by poverty are what prevents households from beginning to break out of the cycle. Poor households can not afford the initial capitol investment for sustainable energy alternatives that would in turn save money, and time in fulfilling household energy needs.
4.4. Preliminary Research Methods and Findings
A collaborative studyfunded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) first addressed theenergy-use impacts on urban livelihoods in 2003/2004. This research, in which WODSTA was a local implementing partner, provided the groundwork for theCommunity Energy Initiative project in peri-urban wards of Arusha Tanzania.
The study was led by Dr Sheilah Meikleand Patrice North from the Development Planning Unit at the University College of London. After initial project planning by the DPU, Dr. Meikle and her team worked together with instructors and students at the Community Development Training Institute (CDTI), Tengeru, staff and management ofWODSTA, and appropriate Ward Officials in order to organize the study parameters and implementation strategies within the target communities.
The study period lasted a duration of one year, with most community-based data collected between September 2003 and May 2004[22]. The methodologies of data collection included focus group discussions (FGD),workshops, interviews, case studies, transect walks and secondary data analysis. The sample size for the study included 114 semi-structured household interviews, 31 informant interviews[23], eight household case studies, six locally based workshops[24], and six focus group discussion sessions[25]. All of the above activities took place in the wards of Daraja Mbili and Kaloleni, of the Arusha Municipal. The activities were jointly facilitated by WODSTA Community Development Field Officers, Municipal Ward Officers, Instructors from CDTI, Tengeru and project directors Dr. Meikle and Patrice North[26].
The DPU-led research culminated with two community-intervention workshops facilitated by WODSTA Community Development staff in May 2004. These workshops focused on developing appropriate solutions to the identified energy-related challenges. The ideas that were formulated during the May 2004 intervention workshops served as the starting point for inception of the Community Energy Focal Point Centre. The community members, guided by WODSTA, continued to develop this concept and eventually a picture of a grassroots-driven community centre, at which residents could visit to learn about, purchase or construct energy saving appliances, emerged. The subsequent project activities over the next three years were meant to enable the implementation of a sustainable Community Energy Focal Point Centre.
5.0 Materials and Methods
In trying to provide a community based approachthat increased energy accessibility in poor urban neighbourhoods, the Community Energy Initiatives project was carried through numerous phases with each chronological set of activities building on the prior. Each phase was implemented by a combination of trained local and international community development workers; a process that demanded a high level of community awareness, extensive trust and relationship-building.
5.1. Research Methodology Overview
After culmination of the DPU directed workshops and focus group sessions as a part of the DFID funded ‘The impact of Energy Use on Poor Urban Livelihoods in the Arusha Region’study, WODSTA continued to mobilize residents around energy-use issues within the original and two additional target communities. Further planning sessions were heldwith community leaders, and in 2005 a detailed outline including activities and structure of the proposed Community Energy Focal Point Centre was put forth. Meanwhile WODSTA began seeking out funding for capitol investment and the technology construction trainings that were necessary in order to carry out the Community Energy Focal Point Centre plans. In order to ensure appropriate Centre inception, WODSTA realized the need to conduct a comprehensive baseline survey which collected a wider sample of household knowledge, preferences and current consumption. In 2006, funding from the Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP)[27] was confirmed and the project began to deploy WODSTA Community Development Officers in an effort tomobilize residentson a larger scale. This mobilization aimed to educate and raise awareness about energy saving technologies and fuel alternatives, as well as the concept of a Community Energy Focal Point Centre. The fourth – and longest(Nov. 2006 - March 2008) project phase included technology trainingsfor community technicians in constructing energy-saving appliances and producingalternative fuels. This was supplemented by a region-wide Market Study in 2007, aimed to analyze current sales distribution and price competition of conventional appliances and fuels. After a market analysis, the prices and production-modes for the products at each centre were established, and the centre undertook a six-month trail period for business operation. Simultaneously, the project kept a strong focus on community education awareness raisingregarding energy efficiency, environmental conservation and the health impacts of fuel use. Each Community Energy Focal Point Centre then went on to create a three-year Business Planoutlining a strategy that increased the production scale and market base for products which proved successful in prior market tests and public demonstrations. Lastly, the project implemented an efficacy study to measure technology effectiveness in real-life settings, and to collect qualitative feedback on technology appropriateness. Each of these phases was essential in launching a successful and sustainable Community Energy Focal Point Centre.