|
Energizing Access to Livelihoods
S urprising as it may seem, policy planners,
practitioners and people in general have spent almost half a century
focusing on the comfort and convenience that can be derived from electricity;
paying scant attention to ways in which energy, in its various forms,
can actually help generate incomes and sustain processes of real Empowerment.
Contradictions abound. Take for example, the limitless amount of political,
financial and administrative support available to agriculturists to
run their pump sets on subsidized electricity or diesel. Or, the rather
quaint notion of stringing wires to every home in every village of
the country. Has anyone thought about the energy needs of those families
that do not own land; men and women whose primary need is to eke out
a regular income from the meagre resources at their disposal in rural
India. What kind of power do they need? Certainly not a connection
from the State Electricity Board and bills that they can ill afford
to pay.
There is fortunately, enough evidence to suggest that altering one’s
perspective on socio-economic development processes within communities
that are inextricably linked to technology based livelihoods, can
lead to significant change in living conditions and overall access
to vehicles of empowerment.
Decentralized power production, for example, with biomass or biogas
is socially, environmentally and economically viable if micro and
small enterprises are integrated into a comprehensive solution aimed
at providing total energy security to a village. Energy security that
is not limited to fulfilling the need for light and water, but actually
provides for sustainable incomes to the poor.
Such an approach also has an inherent advantage in terms of being
able to pre-empt conflict. In the real world, where state policy and
private initiative play a dominant role in shaping the future of civil
society, techno-economic feasibility continues
to be an overriding concern while formulating new ventures and keeping
old ones alive. Environmental and social dimensions are seen, in favorable
settings, as desirable consequences or, in more contemptuous circumstances,
as aspects that need to be ‘managed’. Would it not be possible for
governments and industry to conceptualize projects with
techno-social feasibility in mind; with environmental
sustainability being built into the choice of products, technologies
and services? The economic outcomes would, we believe, be easier to
deal with than social instability.
This issue of the Development Alternatives Newsletter shares some
of the thoughts and actions that have propelled our integrated “Energy
and Livelihoods” approach to its current level of utility as a framework
for action. Needless to say, much more work needs to be done. We invite
you to join us on this journey.
|