The Impact of Energy Use on Poor Urban Livelihoods in ... - DfID

<strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> energy on poor urban livelihoods, Arusha, Tanzania
Findings
Of the three ‘modern’ fuels – electricity, LPG, and kerosene – used,
electricity is the fuel aspired to by all four categories <strong>of</strong> households (male
and female headed, poor and non-poor). However, its expense, and the
quality <strong>of</strong> supply means that poor households either cannot afford to use
it or, where they can, have to severely limit its use and even non-poor
households, nearly all <strong>of</strong> whom are connected to electricity, use it
relatively sparingly. Households are <strong>of</strong>ten not willing to use gas which
they perceive as unsafe because <strong>of</strong> past accidents. Kerosene, the most
easily available fuel, is popular for cooking and lighting amongst all the
household groups.
Charcoal is the most popular ‘traditional’ fuel. It is used by nearly all
households for some cooking and, in poorer households, for ironing.
<strong>The</strong> study found that households, poor or non-poor, do not make
exclusive use <strong>of</strong> one fuel, nor is only one fuel type used for only one
activity. Instead, for a mixture <strong>of</strong> practical and cultural reasons,
households use a mixture <strong>of</strong> modern and traditional fuels.
<strong>The</strong>re is evidence that women, in so far as they can, mix their use <strong>of</strong>
fuels in order to save cooking time, although using a variety <strong>of</strong> fuels is
only one <strong>of</strong> four time saving strategies. <strong>The</strong> other three are; cooking in
larger quantities, buying fuel in larger quantities, and changing to a
different type, or number, <strong>of</strong> cooking stoves. However, the shorter time
spent on daily activities in non-poor households (where there is greater
use <strong>of</strong> modern fuels) compared with poor households suggests that the
time saved each day would <strong>of</strong>ten be relatively short, unless all
households could have access to reliable and affordable electricity for all
activities. In view <strong>of</strong> Tanzania’s current electricity supply situation and
the relative poverty <strong>of</strong> the households this is unlikely in the short to
medium term.
Less than a third <strong>of</strong> women in Kaloleni, and a fifth in Daraja Mbili,
expressed a desire to take-up an education or education related activity
(including girls having more time for homework or mothers helping
children with homework), with any time saved as a result <strong>of</strong> using
modern fuel. This compared to a half <strong>of</strong> women in Kaloleni and two
thirds in Daraja Mbili who would aim to undertake an income generating
activity, (perhaps not surprisingly in households that are lacking in
income and assets). Moreover, in the study area, access to education is
not just restricted through lack <strong>of</strong> time. Lack <strong>of</strong> money to spare for
education, cultural constraints, and lack <strong>of</strong> educational opportunities are
also factors that need addressing if women and girls are to benefit from
improved and increased access to education.
Daraja Mbili and Kaloleni have conservative attitudes to gender roles,
responsibilities and rights. <strong>The</strong> generally accepted paradigm, as in
Tanzania as a whole, is one in which men are seen as the bread winners
and household decision makers while women are responsible for
reproductive tasks and are subservient to men. Nevertheless, despite
this stereotype, decision-making patterns in households vary, with a
vii
Development Planning Unit, UCL London
Dr. Sheilah Meikle and Patrice North