**2. Energy as a poverty issue**

**Figure 1.** Energy consumption per sector

84 New Developments in Renewable Energy

tion levels and limited employment opportunities.

women lack access to resources and services to change their situation.

Worldwide, more than two billion people lack access to sustainable and modern energy services, using traditional solid fuels for cooking and heating. Without access to basic ener‐ gy services for lighting, cooking, heating, pumping, transportation, communication and oth‐ er productive purposes, people – most often women - are forced to spend the majority of their time and physical energy on subsistence activities. Lack of energy services is directly correlated with the major elements of poverty, including inadequate healthcare, low educa‐

Development literature has recently embraced the term "feminization of poverty" referring to growing gap between men and women caught in the cycle of poverty – 70% of the 1.5 billion people living on less than a dollar a day are women (United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 1995). It is increasingly evident that gender differentiates the societal processes leading to poverty and the escape routes out. Women living in poverty are consis‐ tently without access to key resources such as credit, land and inheritance. Their labor is un‐ rewarded and unrecognized. Their health care and nutritional needs are not given priority, they lack sufficient access to education and support services, and their participation in deci‐ sion-making at home and in the community are minimal. Caught in the cycle of poverty,

Poverty is one of the world's most fundamental issues, and urgently needs to be addressed. Poverty can be conceptualized in a number of ways, for example, in economic terms (an in‐ come of less than \$1 a day) or in social terms (lack of access to adequate levels of food, wa‐ ter, clothing, shelter, sanitation, health care and education). It is also possible to identify an energy dimension to poverty: energy poverty. Energy poverty has been defined as the ab‐ sence of sufficient choice in accessing adequate, affordable, reliable, high quality, safe and environmentally benign energy services to support economic and human development

Limited availability of modern energy critically impairs socioeconomic development. Indus‐ tries and productive activities (agriculture, commerce) require energy in various forms to fuel machines, power transformation processes, conserve perishable goods, ensure trans‐ port, etc. According to United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) (2004), high levels of income per capita tend to be associated with higher levels of industrial‐ ization.

Though, not specifically referred to in the targets of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), energy supply is an underlining requirement to achieve most of the MDGs. With‐ out access to adequate energy services, the majority of Africans would continue to suffer from deep poverty, since energy is required for most basic household needs, such as cook‐ ing and heating. According to World Bank indicators, there is a strong correlation between modern energy consumption and Gross National Product (GNP) per capita. The GNP tends to rapidly increase as per capita commercial energy use increases (figure 2), mainly for lowincome countries. When the countries reach a level of per capita energy consumption of around 4.18680e+11 (10.000 TOE), factors such as efficient utilization of energy by industries, energy production and transformation systems and households tend to make the difference for economic growth to continue; therefore, more energy consumption does no longer imply more income for the country.

The use of biomass has a number of repercussions for poor people. The fuel quality is low, and when burnt it gives off quantities of smoke and particulates that are recognized as having negative effects on health. The several hours a day spent in collecting fuel means that this time cannot be used for other livelihood activities. Although nearly every household in rural areas will use some biomass as an energy carrier, poor households will spend more time searching than those in higher income groups (Reddy, 2000). Wealthier households will also purchase other, higher quality, fuels, which will be used for a greater variety of end-uses than in poor households. In urban areas, poor people have to purchase cooking fuels, and they spend a higher proportion of their income, than higher income households, on fuels (Energy Assessment and Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), 1999). Typically, a poor urban family spends 20% of its in‐ come on fuels (Barnes, 1995). In rural areas, poor households will generally restrict fuel

Viewing Energy, Poverty and Sustainability in Developing Countries Through a Gender Lens

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/51818

87

Energy has an equity dimension: poor households use less energy than wealthier ones in absolute terms. Less water is boiled for drinking and other hygiene purposes, increasing the likelihood of water-borne diseases. Illness reduces the ability of poor people to im‐ prove their livelihoods and increases their vulnerability, not only preventing adults from working effectively but also negatively effecting children's learning. It is frequently said that more lighting for poor families would allow children to study at night, but the ex‐ tent to which home lighting really improves educational performance and life chances is unknown. Lighting, in theory, also provides opportunities for extended working hours and thus improved income generation. Further, street lighting and lighting in community centers can open the way for adult education but whether it does so, and whether poor

Wealthier people are able to exercise some choice in their energy carrier and many opt for the cleaner and more efficient "modern" energy carriers of electricity or gas, including Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) or biogas, although the use of energy carriers is complex. Many better off households use mixtures of modern and traditional fuels, each matched to a specific end purpose, often, for reasons not linked to price. Modern energy carriers do not have the negative health and time effects associated with biomass. Wealthier peo‐ ple are also better able to afford the appliances that make use of these modern energy car‐ riers. In situations where they are reliant on biomass fuels, they are able to purchase more fuel -efficient stoves. In doing so they may be saving a great deal of money per unit of energy consumed. Unfortunately, poor people are often unable to make such invest‐ ments, opting for lower first cost options, rather than lower life cycle costs, because of their lack of capital (Reddy & Reddy, 1994). The consequences for the poor are that pre‐ cious cash resources are used on low quality fuels, which are then used at low efficiency, reducing their ability to accumulate the financial resources they need to invest in strat‐

purchases to lighting uses (candles and kerosene).

families take advantage of this, are not certain.

egies for improving their livelihoods.

**Figure 2.** Energy consumption versus GNP. Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators database.

Energy is one of the most essential inputs for sustaining people's livelihoods. At the most basic level, energy provides cooked food, boiled water and warmth. It has long been estab‐ lished that poor people mostly use biomass as their energy carrier and that in many areas there is an increasing shortage in supply, which adds to the burden of the women whose responsibility it is to collect it. This was christened 'the other energy crisis by the World Re‐ sources Institute as early as 1975, when the world was still reeling from the international oil crisis (Eckholm, 1975). However, despite the fact that around two billion people still use bio‐ mass fuels (World Bank, 1996), and the fact that these are also the two million poorest peo‐ ple on earth, there has been little attempt to analyze the energy-poverty nexus in depth. This can partly be explained by the fact that the biomass in rural areas is collected at zero mone‐ tary cost, mainly by women and children, and so it falls outside national energy accounts, the result of which is that the issue renders itself invisible: No data - no visibility; no visibili‐ ty – no interest (Huyer & Westholm 2001).

The use of biomass has a number of repercussions for poor people. The fuel quality is low, and when burnt it gives off quantities of smoke and particulates that are recognized as having negative effects on health. The several hours a day spent in collecting fuel means that this time cannot be used for other livelihood activities. Although nearly every household in rural areas will use some biomass as an energy carrier, poor households will spend more time searching than those in higher income groups (Reddy, 2000). Wealthier households will also purchase other, higher quality, fuels, which will be used for a greater variety of end-uses than in poor households. In urban areas, poor people have to purchase cooking fuels, and they spend a higher proportion of their income, than higher income households, on fuels (Energy Assessment and Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), 1999). Typically, a poor urban family spends 20% of its in‐ come on fuels (Barnes, 1995). In rural areas, poor households will generally restrict fuel purchases to lighting uses (candles and kerosene).

for economic growth to continue; therefore, more energy consumption does no longer imply

**Figure 2.** Energy consumption versus GNP. Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators database.

ty – no interest (Huyer & Westholm 2001).

Energy is one of the most essential inputs for sustaining people's livelihoods. At the most basic level, energy provides cooked food, boiled water and warmth. It has long been estab‐ lished that poor people mostly use biomass as their energy carrier and that in many areas there is an increasing shortage in supply, which adds to the burden of the women whose responsibility it is to collect it. This was christened 'the other energy crisis by the World Re‐ sources Institute as early as 1975, when the world was still reeling from the international oil crisis (Eckholm, 1975). However, despite the fact that around two billion people still use bio‐ mass fuels (World Bank, 1996), and the fact that these are also the two million poorest peo‐ ple on earth, there has been little attempt to analyze the energy-poverty nexus in depth. This can partly be explained by the fact that the biomass in rural areas is collected at zero mone‐ tary cost, mainly by women and children, and so it falls outside national energy accounts, the result of which is that the issue renders itself invisible: No data - no visibility; no visibili‐

more income for the country.

86 New Developments in Renewable Energy

Energy has an equity dimension: poor households use less energy than wealthier ones in absolute terms. Less water is boiled for drinking and other hygiene purposes, increasing the likelihood of water-borne diseases. Illness reduces the ability of poor people to im‐ prove their livelihoods and increases their vulnerability, not only preventing adults from working effectively but also negatively effecting children's learning. It is frequently said that more lighting for poor families would allow children to study at night, but the ex‐ tent to which home lighting really improves educational performance and life chances is unknown. Lighting, in theory, also provides opportunities for extended working hours and thus improved income generation. Further, street lighting and lighting in community centers can open the way for adult education but whether it does so, and whether poor families take advantage of this, are not certain.

Wealthier people are able to exercise some choice in their energy carrier and many opt for the cleaner and more efficient "modern" energy carriers of electricity or gas, including Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) or biogas, although the use of energy carriers is complex. Many better off households use mixtures of modern and traditional fuels, each matched to a specific end purpose, often, for reasons not linked to price. Modern energy carriers do not have the negative health and time effects associated with biomass. Wealthier peo‐ ple are also better able to afford the appliances that make use of these modern energy car‐ riers. In situations where they are reliant on biomass fuels, they are able to purchase more fuel -efficient stoves. In doing so they may be saving a great deal of money per unit of energy consumed. Unfortunately, poor people are often unable to make such invest‐ ments, opting for lower first cost options, rather than lower life cycle costs, because of their lack of capital (Reddy & Reddy, 1994). The consequences for the poor are that pre‐ cious cash resources are used on low quality fuels, which are then used at low efficiency, reducing their ability to accumulate the financial resources they need to invest in strat‐ egies for improving their livelihoods.

This vicious cycle of energy poverty needs to be broken (figure3 and figure 4). Understand‐ ing the decision -making process within households when choosing energy services, which would appear at present to work against sustainable livelihoods, is important for designing effective interventions. A first step towards this should be a widespread acknowledgement among the development community that a lack of access to clean and affordable energy can, and should, be considered a core dimension of poverty. In this respect, it is therefore wel‐ come that the World Summit on Sustainable Development acknowledged that access to en‐ ergy is needed to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

**3. Gender and energy**

air pollution (MacDade, 2002).

fuel such as paraffin.

**4. The gender component of energy poverty**

Gender refers to different social roles that women and men play, and the power relations between them. Gender relations influence how communities, households, and institutions are organized, how decisions are made, and how resources are used. To understand how gender shapes activities that affect the environment, it is necessary to examine women's and men's roles and responsibilities, access to and control over resources, knowledge of resour‐ ces and authority to make decisions about resource use. Therefore understanding women's and men's relationships to the environment plays an important role in developing solutions and meeting challenges for more sustainable use of energy resources. Ignoring gender dis‐

Viewing Energy, Poverty and Sustainability in Developing Countries Through a Gender Lens

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/51818

89

From a gender perspective, 70% of the 1.3 people in developing countries living below the poverty threshold are women (Denton, 2001). Of the two billion people without access to modern energy services, most live in rural areas, where women head most of the poor households. Lack of modern fuels impacts more on women and girl child. Hundreds of mil‐ lions of women and girls spend between three - eight hours carrying fuelwood, dung and other traditional biofuels everyday. The immediate family energy use need is heat; when fuels become scarcer, girl children over boy children are withdrawn from school to support family energy needs. Girls who do not go to school cannot be literate. Illiterate women have more children, larger and poorer families that reinforces the cycle of poverty and underde‐ velopment. 2 million people die each year due to health and respiratory effects from indoor

For poor people the energy problem is "we do not have it". But worse for women, the ener‐ gy problem is lack of access, control, power relations and social dynamics. Men and women in a given society have different roles, needs and aspirations for energy. From a production point of view, the participation of women in the energy sector has largely been restricted to forestry and biomass management in rural areas. In urban areas women have remained vic‐ tims of environmental impacts of coal based electricity production that serves middle to high income groups. A few women are involved in the formulation of energy policy, and big energy projects have remained the preserve of men. Both rural and urban dwellers have little say and choice over domestic fuels that they use. In rural areas such say and choices is determined by woodfuel availability, and to some extend availability of cash to purchase

The energy-poverty nexus has distinct gender characteristics. Of the approximately 1.3 bil‐ lion people living in poverty, it is estimated that 70% are women, many of whom live in fe‐ male-headed households in rural areas (Dutta, 1997). It is important to take note of this fact, not only because men and women have different energy needs and may have different ideas about sustainable livelihoods, but also because women and men have different access to re‐

torts the understanding of human impacts on the environment as a whole.

**Figure 3.** The vicious circle of energy poverty

**Figure 4.** A virtuous circle to break out of energy poverty. Source: Institute for Development Studies (IDS) (2003)
