# **5 Reflections and Im lications** **<u>p</u>**

In this section, we reflect on and draw tentative conclusions based on the peer reviewed literature and World Bank documentation reviewed in the previous sections. We follow the same structure as before with separate sections for increased access to woodfuels, improved cooking technologies and electricity but we start with some general reflections.

## **5.1 General implications**

**Energy interventions may not always have the intended impacts, and more effort therefore should go into designing and targeting interventions based on a context-specific understanding of how household decisions are made. The impact of interventions that are designed to promote the use of new cooking technology and electricity in homes fundamentally depends on household decisionmaking, and in particular, how women’s preferences, opportunity cost of time, and welfare are reflected in those decisions. For example, differences in how men’s and women’s time is valued could lead to further differences in the actual and perceived welfare impact, and therefore household choices.**

This review shows that gender implications are not always conceived of in the planning of energy projects and seldom carefully evaluated. This has also been found in previous ESMAP and Bank studies, and it is what motivated, among others, the Africa Renewable Energy Access program (AFREA). Given the vulnerable situation of many women and the potential welfare gains that can be achieved if they are reached, there seems to be a strong case for specific gender analysis tools for fuelwood supply, cookstove, and electrification projects (see e.g. Clancy et al., 2007; and Making Energy Work for Women and Men: Tools for Task Teams, World Bank 2010f). Such approaches would most likely point to the need to focus directly on more clearly female dominated activities such as cooking (rather than on collection) since that is where the most obvious time savings and health impacts are. Still, for such interventions to be successful they need careful design and targeting to meet the needs and constraints of the recipients, which again, is likely to emphasize the importance of complementary interventions.

There are several reasons to expect that the determinants and rates of adoption of new cooking technology and electricity may be different for female-headed vs. male headed households, including differential poverty rates, legal and cultural constraints, and influence of women‘s preferences, welfare, and opportunity cost of time on household decision-making. Thus, although the majority of poor women are not part of female-headed households, this is still a category that should be carefully considered in planning interventions in the household energy sector.

Complementary interventions that encourage women‘s participation in household decision-making and increase the perceived opportunity cost of their time also increase the likelihood that women will benefit from energy related interventions. Economic rationality is a powerful force in household decision making, even in contexts where cultural factors are seemingly predominant. If women are given education, rights and access to assets, health care etc., then the risk that they will be captured in unproductive and unhealthy energy production and consumption is much lower.

There are strong cross-cutting links to other sectors and interventions that affect the impact on women from energy projects. Among these are education of girls, reforms in local democracy and their 44