*
*
Despite steady rates of both economic and income per capita growth,
charcoal and kerosene remain as the primary sources of energy for lighting
and cooking in urban households, according to a report by Research on
Poverty Alleviation (REPOA).
The study, by Emmanuel Maliti and Dr. Raymond Mnenwa, is the result of an
analysis of the 2007 Household Budget data to assess household energy
expenditures in Tanzania and to what extent energy sources are affordable
for the urban poor. For the purposes of the study, poor households referred
to all households whose total income fell below the poverty line.
The report shows that charcoal is the single most important source of
energy in urban areas. The modern sources of energy such as electricity
account for the lowest share of the household energy budget, with
households spending the minimum on electricity while spending more on
cheaper sources of energy such as charcoal. Significant regional
disparities exist for firewood and electricity, but less so in the case of
charcoal. Households’ dependence on charcoal in Dar es Salaam is very
similar to other regions.
“Although the study shows that electricity is still unattainable for the
majority of the urban poor, the cost is only getting higher giving limited
hope on moving away from traditional biomass sources of energy” said
Maliti, a researcher and grant recipient of REPOA.
The findings come amid power rationing and regular price hikes by TANESCO
which have further limited poor people’s access to electricity. In fact
electricity remains out of poor households’ financial reach, with the urban
poor’s purchasing power only accounting for 61% of the cost of electricity.
Furthermore, the study found that about the same proportion of income is
spent on energy for both the poor and the non-poor.
“When we began the study, the assumption was that the poor spend a larger
percentage of their income on energy,” said Maliti, “the data showed this
to be incorrect, mostly due to the differences in energy sources used by
the poor and non-poor and that the poor households generally opt for
cheaper sources like charcoal and kerosene.”
Charcoal was found to be the single most important source of energy for
both poor and non-poor households, accounting for 57 percent of household
energy expenditures. The report shows that the share of charcoal within
total energy expenditure is higher for non-poor households (59 percent)
than poor households (41 percent), implying that charcoal is an important
energy source not only for the poor but also for non-poor households.
Though there is evidence that as a household’s income increases, they tend
to marginally shift their energy sources to electricity, they however,
still adopt a “mixing” strategy by maintaining charcoal as their primary
source of energy for cooking(i.e. parallel with electricity), leading to
wide volatility in household energy expenditures.
The importance of national policies to promote economic growth and reduce
income poverty to allow more people the purchasing power to be able to
access more modern energy sources was emphasised. There are also multiple
socio-economic benefits of expanding accessibility of modern sources of
energy in terms of reducing or even eliminating health risks associated
with consistent use of biomass energy.
As the use of charcoal is not likely to end in the near future, the report
recommends interventions to reduce the negative environmental consequences
from producing and using charcoal through improving charcoal production
techniques, as it is currently produced using low-efficiency technologies.
Further recommendations include, provision of tax relief on appliances
related to the use of electricity as well as support for investment R&D in
converting farm residuals that would ordinarily go to waste into energy
producing materials.
“If we agree that the development process depends on the accessibility and
affordability of appropriate energy services; then with these limitations
and overdependence on biomass; where will the stimulus for further growth
and poverty reduction come from?” posed Maliti, “In fact the increase in
income over the past decade has been too slow to permit households
switching from traditional biomass energy to more technological efficiency
sources of energy such as electricity”
The research report was released on Tuesday, December 14, 2011 by REPOA.
*The views, opinions, and positions expressed in this article are those of
the authors of the research report and do not necessarily reflect the
views, opinions, and positions of REPOA.*
* *
* *
* *
*###*
You can contact the author of this study through 0656238366 (Emmanuel
Maliti)
REPOA Contact person;
Hannah Mwandoloma
Communications Officer
0787 723724
Hannah@repoa.or.tz
* *
* *
*REPOA is a non-profit, non-governmental policy research institution
specializing in research on socio-economic and development issues. The
organisation conducts and funds research, provides training to researchers
and promotes dialogue for the development of pro-poor policy.*