Productive Use of Energy for Rural Development

INTRODUCTION

There is almost unanimous agreement that energy plays a pivotal role in national development. Generally, there is a high degree of correlation between energy use, economic growth, and level of development. In the context of rural development, the traditional view of the productive use of energy is that it is associated primarily with the provision of motive power for agricultural and industrial or commercial uses. For example, motors are used to grind grain, operate power tools, irrigate farmland, and facilitate many commercial activities. It was believed that the motive power made possible by electricity would result in tremendous productivity gains and economic growth, thus transforming the underdeveloped rural landscape. In other words, the emphasis has been on the direct income-generating uses of energy. The traditional concept of productive uses of energy for rural development needs to be revised for primarily two reasons. First, there is a growing realization that although energy is a necessary condition for rural development, it is insufficient by itself to bring about the desired socioeconomic impact. Second, there is a significant shift in the understanding of what is meant by rural development, especially in the context of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) used by the major donors and international development agencies. The MDGs emphasize not just poverty reduction in terms of income, but they also highlight the importance of improved health, universal primary education, women’s empowerment, and gender equality. The very goals of development are to raise incomes of the poor and also to ensure that they are educated and healthy, and treated equally. Thus, an enhanced understanding of what is a productive use of energy must take into account not only the direct impact of energy on raising incomes, but also the indirect impacts that energy can have on education, health, and gender issues.

TRADITIONAL VIEWOF PRODUCTIVE USES OF ENERGY

For rural development, energy was, and in some cases still is, looked at as having two distinct uses: residential and productive. Residential uses of energy are expected to positively impact the rural quality of life or improve rural living standards (1, 2). The productive use of energy in rural areas is expected to result in increased rural productivity, greater economic growth, and a rise in rural employment, which would not only raise incomes but also reduce the migration of the rural poor to urban areas. With respect to agricultural production, electricity would be used principally to provide motive power for agriculture-based industries and would power farm machinery, such as water pumps, fodder choppers, threshers, grinders, and dryers. Thiswould result in the modernization of agricultural production. Electricitywould bring an increase in irrigation, which in turn would result in an increase in the amount of required labor. The generous output of these modernized farms would provide inputs to large commercial enterprises such as rural cooperative sugar factories. Another example includes the use of electricity as a source of driveshaft power and lighting, which is suitable for rural industries, for example, machine shops. In the past, a common belief was that once a rural region was provided with electrical service and access to modern energy, rural industries would expand and the quality of rural products would improve. Over the long run, the availability of modern energy services would provide significant indirect social benefits such as greater equity and improved quality of life. In short, if energy was used for productive applications, itwould transform an underdeveloped agrarian economy. Not surprisingly, the process has proved to be more complicated (3–5). One example of this is India. India has a long history of supporting rural electrification for productive uses, in recognition of the potential benefits for the country in terms of poverty alleviation and food self-sufficiency. A major component of India’s rural electrification program since the late 1960s has been to promote electricity for irrigation pumping by heavily subsidizing agricultural electricity rates (6, p. 13). Since then, 13 million pump sets have been put in use for irrigation by Indian farmers. Partly owing to the high prices of other pumping alternatives such as diesel, and partly owing to the constrained capacity of the State Electricity Boards, today there are substantial waiting lists for irrigation pump-set connections in most Indian states. Thus, this program in India has been relatively successful in promoting productive uses—particularly in the form of irrigation. However, electricity use by households has not kept pace with its use for irrigation pumping, and it is estimated that only about 44% of rural households actually have electricity in their homes. Bangladesh, by contrast, has witnessed a more balanced approach toward rural electrification. The rural electrification program in Bangladesh stressed both residential as well as productive uses of energy and has met with reasonable success (7, 8). Lack of adequate electricity for households has important gender implications as well. Because agriculture and cultivation are usually male domains (with homes being female domains), the traditional definition of productive use of energy has an inherent gender bias (9). This bias is evident in the rural marketplace as well. Even in rural areas where households have access to electricity, markets stock leisure items such as televisions and radios but not labor-reducing modern cooking appliances for women. Because men serve as the decision makers in households, the market tends to cater to their needs over women’s (10). In Indonesia, a survey of a relatively wealthy rice-growing region found that the rate of growth of pump sets was low and that most irrigation continues to be successfully accomplished through traditional, gravity-fed methods. Furthermore, the price of kerosene and diesel in Indonesia was heavily subsidized, making it less attractive for those farmers who used diesel pumps to switch to electricity. Thus, experience suggests that there are many different ways to promote productive uses of energy. This has important consequences not only in shaping the program but also in producing the types of benefits needed for rural areas.

EMERGING VIEWOF PRODUCTIVE USES OF ENERGY

The view that the productive use of energy for rural development is primarily one of motive power is now changing. There are several reasons for this change. First, some recent studies have documented that lighting for rural nonfarm businesses actually improves productivity and provides additional income for rural people (11). Secondly, there is growing evidence that electricity use in rural homes is related to an improvement in education levels (12). And, because there is a welldocumented relationship between lifetime earnings and education, a use of energy that positively impacts education can be considered productive (13). For instance, one study that stresses the value of human capital in development states, “The main engine of growth is the accumulation of human capital—or knowledge—and the main source of differences in living standards among nations is a difference in human capital. Physical capital plays an essential but decidedly subsidiary role” (14).Finally, access to modern energy services can lead to improvements in health. Although there are very few studies examining the relationship between electricity and health, there is a growing body of literature on indoor air pollution and its impact on both morbidity and mortality (15, 16). And because people who are unhealthy cannot work as much as people who are healthy, surely improved health will lead to higher incomes. Thus, the uses of energy in homes or businesses, which can have a positive impact on social development in many contexts, are also productive. In June 2002, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) held an expert workshop on the productive uses of renewable energy (17). The fact that the traditional concept of productive uses as motive power for farms is under scrutiny was revealed as the assembled international experts grappled with developing a working definition of productive uses. In the end they settled on the following definition: “In the context of providing modern energy services in rural areas, a productive use of energy is one that involves the application of energy derived mainly from renewable resources to create goods and/or services either directly or indirectly for the production of income or value” (17). It should be noted that the above definition is specifically for renewable energy; however, it can apply to energy derived from all sources. The workshop participants admitted that the meaning of productive uses of energy in the context of human development is difficult to establish. They felt that a use of energy that is instrumental in bringing about an increase in income is clearly a productive use. They also felt that the use of energy for increasing education and/or life expectancy is also a productive use; however, the impact that energy can have on these two is an indirect one. They argued that educated and healthy people will possess greater potential for income generation than a comparatively unhealthy and uneducated people. Thus, uses of energy to enhance education and life expectancy should be considered productive uses. However, some argue that applications of energy for home lighting and entertainment cannot be considered as productive applications, because even though they improve the quality of life, their linkages to the Human Development Index are less obvious and almost impossible to quantify. In a reviewof renewable energy markets Martinot et al. (18) use a definition similar to the one developed by the GEF/FAO workshop. Both not only include the uses of energy that have a positive impact on income generation, but also include the uses of energy for indirect social benefits such as education and health. Finally,K. Kapadia, in an unpublishedWorld Bank paper (19), cites three primary reasons for the emphasis on productive uses of energy: maximization of the economic and social benefits, catalyzed by access to energy; facilitation of the Millennium Development Goals; and improving the economic sustainability of rural electrification projects and renewable energy markets. Although all of the above-mentioned reasons for choosing the definition of productive uses are extremely pertinent, they preclude a broader understanding of what is meant by development. Amartya Sen (20) stresses the importance of thinking of development as the process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. Specifically, he notes that the growth of individual incomes is important “as means to expanding the freedoms enjoyed by the members of the society.” In addition, he provides a wide list of freedoms, e.g., political freedom, opportunities to receive basic education, opportunities to receive health care, and freedom to participate in the labor market. It is often asked, he says, whether these freedoms are indeed conducive to development. This question, however, unfortunately misses the point that these very freedoms represent what development aims to achieve. In the context of energy, many of the uses of energy that are seen as consumptive (e.g., home lighting or television) in fact may be uses that help achieve the goal of freedom allowed by development. For instance, television viewing is considered traditionally as a consumptive or unproductive use of electricity. However, a recent study in Bangladesh revealed that women in households with electricity were much more aware about gender equality issues than women in households without electricity. Furthermore, these women cited the television as their chief source of information for gender equality-related knowledge (7). In the discussion above on the definition of productive uses of energy, energy projects that have a positive impact on education and health are included because improved health and education increase people’s incomes. A broader understanding of development would suggest that improved health and education are goals and ends in themselves. This is not to suggest that an emphasis on income generation is misplaced. However, if the only productive uses of energy are those that facilitate income generation, then any use of energy which does not must therefore be an unproductive use. Although energy professionals and specialists may understand that “productive uses of energy” is mere substitute nomenclature for “income-generating uses of energy” and does not in any way pass a value judgment on the “unproductive uses of energy,” some may mistakenly believe that only energy projects that increase income are valuable. Thus, it may be worthwhile to consider revising the nomenclature for income-generating uses of energy from “productive uses of energy” to what they really are, namely, “income-generating uses of energy.” Quantifying the impact of energy services on human development is not easy. However, a lack of quantitative data does not suggest the absence of a relationship but rather the need for further analysis and research. The next section discusses the impact that modern energy services can have on achieving the development goals in rural areas of developing countries.