Prevalence and Correlates with Vulnerable Household Characteristics Presented by: Timotheus B. Darikwa University of Limpopo, Sustainable Energy Africa, Polokwane Municipality 6 th LCEDN Conference, Durham 11 September 2017
Background Access to clean modern energy: have a positive impact on the human development index (Ray et al., 2016). 50%-70% of Africa can neither access nor afford cleaner energy sources (Karekezi, 2002). South Africa generates about 50% of Africa s grid electricity (Karekezi, 2002). 84% electrification rate (StatsSA, 2012) Energy poverty is still very high at 47% (DoE, 2012).
Background Grid electricity Connectivity => Okay Problem => Affordability Electrified low to medium income households => use electricity as an additional fuel instead of replacing the less clean energy fuels of wood, coal, paraffin, dung and others (Davis, 1998). The government has acknowledged the problem Introduced free basic energy (FBE), a subsidy of 50kwh of electricity for the low income households (< R3 000 pm) Energy switching still persist (Department of Energy, 2012).
Background FBE strategy : not necessarily a true reflection of all the varied needs of different categories of low-income energy users. Particularly vulnerable members of the low to medium income category such as: 1. The elderly 2. Children 3. Women 4. Disabled persons 5. Unemployed Fat cells
AIM (S) To profile energy poverty among households of a poor community considering the vulnerable household characteristics that are more likely to describe the energy poor among them (Hypothesis: households with vulnerable members of the community are more likely to be energy poor than those without.) (ASIDE: Pioneering new models for affordable energy service delivery.)
A Review (Definition) Definition : Various definitions of energy poverty. South African government adopted the Expenditure Approach. (EP) : household is energy poor if a household spends at least 10% or more of its income on energy fuels. Limitations : Often when expenditure goes high households revert to free energy from firewood/dung hence costs are not fully captured costs would be people s time collecting wood/dung, impact on the environment... Recall problems of energy use.
A Review (Causes/Factors) Energy poverty due to a combination of factors including: 1. Energy efficiency of the home 2. Energy costs 3. Household income This study focuses on household income. Looks at low-income household area, focusing on the vulnerable.
Methods Setting and Sample selection Sample of 388 households drawn from 7000 households Dikgale Health and Demographic Surveillance Site (HDSS) 15 villages that are located in South Africa s Capricorn District of Limpopo Province. Population of approximately 36 000 which is predominantly black and of the Pedi ethnic group. This site was specifically chosen due to the vulnerability of its populace. The majority of the populace is economically disadvantaged in an area characterised by high unemployment rates, poor road infrastructure and poor service delivery (Mkhonto, Labadarios and Mabaso, 2012).
Household Sample Characteristics 41.6% (159) households are energy poor. 97.9% (380) households are electrified. 92.2% (357) households earn <R3200 pm and qualify for FBE. 24.9% (95) households receive FBE. 67.3% households qualify but do not receive FBE. 63.2% (60) households remain energy poor even after receiving FBE. Characteristics Household Characteristics Category Total N (%) or M (SD) All 388 159 (41.6) Energy Poor Statistic N (%) or M (SD) p-value Electrified? Yes 380 (97.9) 156 (41.1) 0.947 No 8 (2.1) 3 (37.5) Free basic electricity (FBE)? Yes 95 (24.9) 60 (63.2) 0.000 Household Monthly income No 286 (75.1) 98 (34.3) R 0 - R 1600 207 (53.9) 125 (61.0) 0.000 1601 - R 3200 147 (38.3) 32 (21.8) R 3201+ 30 (7.8) 2 (6.7)
38.2% (148) still use biomass fuels (wood, coal,dung), of which 52% of these are energy poor. 51.0% (53) households headed by elderly are energy poor. 41.8% (38) households headed by unemployed are energy poor. 44.9% (22) households headed by casual labourers are energy poor. Household Sample Characteristics Total Energy Poor Statistic Characteristics Category N (%) or M (SD) N (%) or M (SD) p-value Use biomass fuels? No 239 (61.8) 83 (35.0) 0.001 Yes 148 (38.2) 76 (52.4) Household Head Gender Female 220 (56.7) 95 (44.0) 0.286 Male 168 (43.3) 64 (38.6) Household Head Age (Categorised) 36-65 239 (63.6) 86 (36.6) 0.034 18-35 32 (8.5) 15 (48.4) 66+ 105 (27.9) 53 (51.0) Household Head Employment Status Permanent employment 79 (20.7) 18 (23.4) 0.001 Unemployed 93 (24.4) 38 (41.8) Pensioner 154 (40.4) 73 (47.4) Casual/Temp orary employment 51 (13.4) 22 (44.9) Scholar/ Student 4 (1.1) 4 (100.0)
Household Sample Characteristics Energy poverty increases with increase of household occupants. 58.2% (39) of households with one or more infants are energy poor. 26.9% (101) of households rely on wages. (73% rely on government grants) Characteristics Category Total Energy Poor Statistic N (%) or M N (%) or M (SD) (SD) p-value Household size 1-4 163 (42.1) 54 (34.2) 0.024 5-8 182 (47.0) 82 (45.1) 9+ 42 (10.9) 23 (54.8) Household Has Infants No 321 (82.7) 120 (38.1) 0.002 Yes (1 or more) 67 (17.3) 39 (58.2) Main Sources of Household Income Wages 101 (26.9) 24 (24.0) 0.000 Child grants 63 (16.8) 31 (49.2) Pension grants 124 (33.0) 67 (54.5) Disability grant 2 (0.5) 0 (0.0) Multiple income sources 86 (22.9) 30 (35.3)
Households receiving FBE are 4.77 times more likely to be energy poor than who do not. Households using biomass fuels are 2.11 times more likely to be energy poor than who do not. Households with infant(s) are 2.7 times more likely to be energy poor than who do not. Pensioner headed households are 2.96 times more likely to be energy poor than those headed by permanently employed. Multivariate Logistic Regression Energy Poor Characteristics Category COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) a Free basic electricity (FBE)? Yes 3.43 (2.10-5.60)*** 4.77 (2.76-8.24)*** Use biomass fuels? Yes 2.04 (1.34-3.11)** 2.11 (1.30-3.40)** Household Head Employment Status Permanent employment 1 1 Unemployed 2.35 (1.20-4.60)** 2.46 (1.18-5.14 )** Pensioner 2.95 ( 1.60-5.47)** 2.96 ( 1.49-5.89)** Casual/Temporary employment 2.67 (1.23-5.78)** 3.24 (1.41-7.45)** Household size2 1-4 1 1 5-8 1.58 (1.02-2.45)** 1.76 (1.02-3.03)** 9+ 2.33 (1.17-4.65)** 2.31 (1.01-5.26)** Household Has Infants Yes (1 or more) 2.26 (1.32-3.86)** 2.70 (1.45-5.01)**
Discussion and Conclusions 67% qualify for but do not receive FBE. Need for proper roll out and awareness programmes. Households receiving FBE were found to be 4.77 times more likely to be energy poor than those not receiving. Presumably an indication that the subsidy is targeting the poorest households and that without the subsidy the levels of energy poverty would be even more severe which is a good thing. But with 63.2% of the households receiving FBE still energy poor, it means the subsidy is targeting a great need, but currently insufficient in its scope. Hence, there is a need to review upwards the FBE subsidy per month per household guided by threshholds that cater for the different needs of the low-income households.
Discussion and Conclusions 67% qualify for but do not receive FBE. Need for proper roll out and awareness programmes. Households receiving FBE were found to be 4.77 times more likely to be energy poor than those not receiving. Presumably an indication that the subsidy is targeting the poorest households and that without the subsidy the levels of energy poverty would be even more severe which is a good thing. But with 63.2% of the households receiving FBE still energy poor, it means the subsidy is targeting a great need, but currently insufficient in its scope. Hence, there is a need to review upwards the FBE subsidy per month per household guided by threshholds that cater for the different needs of the low-income households. Further studies must consider to empirically determine the optimal cut-off points of the FBE subsidy so that those receiving it do not remain energy poor. Vulnerable members, namely children, pensioners and the unemployed are more likely than others to suffer from energy poverty. A future review of the FBE policy need to cater for these members as they are at a higher risk of being energy poor.
Intervention Programmes: Pioneering new models for energy service delivery