Cross-country analysis / community level case studies,

Implications for work, health and living standards

Margherita TintiNovember 26, 2008

Srilatha Batliwala (1995)Energy as an Obstacle to Improved Living Standardsin  Goldemberg, Johansson: Energy as an Instrument for Socio-

Economic Development

 Njeri Womukonya (2004)Women and Energy: Issues in Developing Nations

 Roger Revelle (1976)Energy Use in Rural India

Paul Wilkinson (2008):Energy and Health – A global perspective on energy:

health effects and injustices

Daniel Spreng (2004): Distribution of Energy Consumption and the

2000W/capita target

Main assumption:Poverty and scarcity of energy services go

hand in hand, and exist in a synergistic relationship.

Goal: Increasing magnitude of energy consumption

Improving the efficiency of energy utilization.

Pura 1977, India: Generally validated for developing countries – with variations.

The nature of energy consumption patterns at the village level = basis to understand how levels of energy services become an obstacle to improving living standards

Poor pay high price for low levels of energy services

High time expenditure for energy procurementTime which could be used for more productive or life-

enhancing activities. Ecological price

of the poor’s forced dependence on inefficient biomass-based technologies (e.g. open cook stoves). 

 Economic costs also at the national level

agriculture and industry are essential to economic growth in poor countries.

Disproportionate influence on energy distribution

of politically powerful groups.

Dependence on human energy and primitive technologies

obstacles to social and gender equality:

trapped in an unceasing cycle of work no access to education no empowerment, barrier to new knowledge, barrier to

question, barrier to criticise demand for children’s labour need for large families

high birth rates depletion of health of women limiting participation in change processes and

development programs.

Relevance No holistic solutions. Comparison with situation in urban areas is one-sided, not

differentiated enough. No inclusion of general energy discussion.

Complexity Problems are well described Clear structure Easy to read and understand Conventional, not innovative

Future directions or further questions Discussion low-tech versus high-tech. How much energy does a human being need?

Research QuestionWomen and energy in the developing country is being advanced

to enhance gender equity. – Does this make sense?  

Methods• Evidence in empirical studies, comparison of studies• Many different sources• Seems very well researched• Structure: Question - Answer• Open questions in the last chapter

Financial status of households is important when talking about energy problem.

 Access to modern energy forms rarely available in rural areas Predominant limiting factor to their consumption is cost. The importance of availability of modern fuels cannot be

underestimated in influencing shifts from fuelwood. By paying more attention to trends that are unrelated to gender

issues, strategies can be established to enable households to shift.

UrbanisationTime, labour, and drudgery associated with fuelwood procurement

in rural areas are less important. Access to money is more so. poverty is the main determinant of access to biomass fuels.

Dependent on various external factors that are not always taken into account in stove programs

1980s: most of the improved stove projects failed: poor targeting – women were excluded. stoves do not always achieve the expected fuel savings.

Positive impact: improved health (for men and women) and timesaving

for the users. Women producing and promoting the stoves earned

some additional money significantly higher standard of living.

Having free time does have welfare benefits.  Monetary value of women’s time makes a difference

only if involved in income generating values.

Not only women and children but also adult men suffer indoor pollution-associated ailments. Half a million children and women die in India annually from indoor air pollution.

Procurement of energy may also have health impact on women (weight).

Fuel scarcity is noted to force women to move to foods that cook faster or to eat more raw foods, increasing health risks to entire families.

Indoor pollution effects in low-income urban households are likely to be more aggravated than in rural areas due to overcrowding and other outdoor pollution effects.

Although it has been reported that indoor air pollution causes birth related complications, including prenatal mortality and low birth weight, there is hardly any statistically representative work that validates this.

Most of the wood produced through afforestation practices is destined to become timber rather than fuel.

Women prefer trees for fuel, fodder and fruit, whereas men prefer timber trees because of women’s unique responsibility for day-to-day care of their families.

Projects to involve women in tree planting for fuelwood efforts are not justified given that communities

naturally undertake the necessary activities without external intervention.

Bulk of the time expenditure, drudgery, and health impacts related to energy procurement by women is in reference to cooking fuels

rural electrification cannot solve this unless it is provided for cooking. electricity production costs must be low

Decentralized electrification mini and micro hydro systems household photovoltaic systems

Capital cost is a major barrier to accessing these systems, whose promotion has been justified on cost effectiveness.

Electrification affects leisure time available to women and provides channels to increase knowledge and awareness through facilitating reading and watching television. 

Women tend to see the benefit of electricity differently than do men.

Women: reduce workloads, better health, reduced expenditures Men: leisure, quality of life, education of children

Decentralised energy technologies: women have direct control of acquisition, design, placement, and consumption decisions

less control over male-dominated, utility-centred grid systems. Cooking and energy-saving appliances are accorded lower priority

than are luxury goods.

Improve women’s decision making powers: training on maintenance and instalment of PV systems, including solar cookers

Women politicians are not always able to alter energy decision making to cater for women’s concerns

general lack of comprehensive understanding of the policy impacts and interference by stakeholders with vested interests.

Offices meant to integrate gender into policy and action plans: isolated and without links to other relevant ministerial or external

stakeholders.

Many of the projects fail because

Projects are evaluated less stringently than their male counterparts. The failure erodes confidence in women as business entrepreneurs.

Most credit programmes provide only small loans that are typically insufficient to generate a sustained process of capitalization.

The women only approach can be detrimental to the overall objective. institutions are isolated from the conventional male-dominated business

world limits networking

Saving time will help women to engage in more productive activities only if already involved in IGA: Time freed from fuel wood gathering is spent on housework and not necessarily on leisure or income-generating activities. The main reason: lack of opportunities and lack of capital

Access to credit for energy has not particularly improved women’s poverty status in any significant way.

Relevance? Compared to 1: includes more comprehensive comparisons with

urban areas No inclusion of general energy discussion. – not necessary

because he does not present more energy as THE solution.

Complexity? Differentiated approach. Goes further than conventional one-sided ideas

Future directions or further questions? Energy – service: what does it replace- what function did this

have other than the most obvious one? At what price does more energy come!?

Intra- and international distribution of energy consumption and their implications for intergenerational equity:

Where is the sustainability limit of energy consumption inequality?

Emission levels in 2050: about what they are today (IPCC, 2000) all 3 ways of drastically reducing CO2 emissions take time. Carbon-free primary energy resources: require large investments. Carbon sequestration: expensive + safety problems

be too slow to meet the 2050 CO2-emission requirements Development of new highly efficient technologies: low-energy prices

Energy conservation through increased efficiency- most cost effective option- could be introduced without delay.

Upper limit of global average per capita energy consumption calculated from the climate model!

Path to stabilisation: 2050: CO2 emissions: 8Gt/year World population: 8 billion people 1t/year/ capitaOn the basis of today’s average carbon content in primary energy: 2000W/capita (if carbon content in primary energy is reduced by half: 4000W/capita – very

ambitious)

Above the poverty level: minimum level of energy consumption = direct

energy required to satisfy basic needs.

Calculation: Direct primary energy per time unit to satisfy basic

needs: 500W per person. Including indirect energy consumption (foods,

clothing and shelter): 1000W/capita

Normative step: definition of basic needsWith continued globalisation the perception of

poverty will also change and the normative determination is likely to increase rapidly.

There is some measure of inequality that leads to social conflict.

The existence of a lower limit of energy consumption is accepted ◦ for monetary measures and ◦ for the per capita energy consumption.The upper, ecological limit to the average

per capita energy consumption does not exist for monetary measures .

Limited spread in energy consumption is necessary for sustainability

Equity (Rawls) The state of affairs of the poorest: if over the course of time

the plight of the poor improves in a nation, the distribution of wealth becomes more just.

Not responsible for how other people distribute their wealth but we share responsibility for international treaties, conventions and dealings.

If they lead to injustice and contribute to keeping people in less well-of countries poor, we, in the richer countries are responsible.

Solidarity the idea of the 2000 W/capita society, is utopian in its

meaning.

Energy policy should be directed at reducing per capita energy consumption. By how much we reduce our own energy consumption is a question of solidarity.

Relevance?Gives the global perspective

  Complexity?Well structuredConcise

Future directions or further questions?Can we count on solidarity?