Although energy is a significant concern for poor rural communities, participatory approaches often fail to identify it as an issue. Energy is vital to nearly every development activity and central to improving livelihoods. Yet development practitioners often fail to ask relevant questions at the needs assessment stage of participatory development project cycles. As a result, energy needs are largely ignored.

The final report of a DFID-funded project coordinated by the University of Reading and Gamos Ltd suggests how to promote wider awareness of the role of energy and its impacts on livelihoods. Facilitators of participatory processes are advised on how to incorporate communities’ energy concerns into development projects. Research and lessons from workshops in Ghana and India highlighted linkages between training and needs assessment.

The research pointed to the need to improve understanding of sustainable livelihoods approaches among development workers to raise awareness of cross-cutting themes such as energy. Such a focus would broaden their knowledge of the range of assets people have at their disposal, the institutional frameworks within which they operate and the mix of activities they undertake to maximise their livelihoods. If such considerations are combined with needs assessments that are free from pre-conceived ideas of what development programmes will deliver, participatory processes may reflect energy needs better.

The inattention to energy was highlighted by the researchers. Officially, India is committed to rural energy projects to enhance electricity supply, promote the availability of kerosene and fuelwood and encourage conservation by improving efficiency and providing alternative fuel sources such as renewable energy. In practice, however, their impact has been modest – less than a third of rural households are electrified, kerosene accounts for only seven percent of rural energy consumption and social forestry projects have made limited improvements to fuelwood supplies for the rural poor.

A survey of development practitioners and institutions teaching development studies showed that:

• Development agencies, particularly those attached to governments, have a restricted mandate which constraints their activities. Thus, agencies concerned with community water problems for instance, take no action on other expressed needs.
• Those who specifically deal with household and women’s issues are more aware of energy needs, particularly those involving fuelwood.
• Their education and training has given most development workers expertise in such priority sectors as agriculture and health – few have been exposed to energy issues.
• Only one of thirteen UK and Dutch development studies centres surveyed specifically mention ‘energy’ in their prospectus.

The key factor behind this lack of attention to energy is the insufficient attention paid to participatory and decentralised approaches to programme planning and implementation – both on the part of state and non-governmental agencies. There is a marked absence of literature on how to employ effective participatory methods to energy projects.

The researchers call on development actors to:

• specify when participation is being used and what its objective are
• stop ignoring the differences between issues highlighted during initial needs assessment and those identified by agenda-led planning and design
• be aware of the potential inconsistency of using agenda-driven needs assessment exercises for sector-specific interventions while also maintaining that interventions should be genuinely demand-led in order to be sustainable
• recognise the dangers – already acute in parts of India – that mechanistic application of participatory tools can cause ‘participation fatigue’ where communities to stop responding positively.

In order for the importance of energy to be reflected in development projects, the role of energy in livelihood planning has to be recognised. Participatory approaches can contribute to this. However, facilitators conducting needs assessment must recognise that popular participatory tools may not identify communities’ priorities and that dialogue based on long-term relationships may be more relevant for identifying needs.

Contributor(s): Simon Batchelor, John Best, P Malhotra, O Sakyi Dawson, N Scott and S Sinha

Source(s):
‘Extension processes for rural energy: final technical report’ by Simon Batchelor, John Best, P Malhotra, O Sakyi Dawson, Nigel Scott and S Sinha, Gamos Ltd, April 2003 More information.

Funded by: DFID KaR7660

id21 Research Highlight: 21 January 2005

Further Information:
Simon Batchelor and Nigel Scott
Gamos Ltd
Crown House
231 Kings Rd,
Reading RG1 4LS
UK

Tel:     +44 (0) 0118 9299513
Fax:    +44 (0) 0118 9299514
Contact the contributor:   simon@gamos.org; nigel@gamos.org

Gamos Ltd

John Best
International and Rural Development Department (IRDD)
University of Reading
Early Gate
Whiteknights Road
PO Box 237
Reading RG6 6AR
UK

Tel:     +44 (0) 118 378 8119
Fax:    +44 (0) 118 926 1244
Contact the contributor: j.r.best@reading.ac.uk

International and Rural Development Department, University of Reading

Other related links:
DFID KaR Energy

Powering rural development: energy management in African schools and hospitals

Can partnerships deliver electricity to boost the livelihoods of the rural poor?

Exploring energy-poverty linkages for poor urban households

Energy for sustainable development