10. Future Interventions and Research
This paper sheds light on some of the ways in which refugees in Kenya and Burkina Faso are engaging with energy products and technologies. The research observed how people secure or try to secure energy services for the things they need and want such as cool drinking water, cooked food, electrical power, light and adequate shelter. It also notes the value that they attach to certain energy-related objects as well as the social and economic relations that surround these. The study also reflects upon some experience with past energy projects orchestrated by humanitarian agencies.
Studying these eight objects through an ethnographic lens brings to light several issues and opportunities worthy of consideration in planning humanitarian energy interventions, bearing in mind of course that no two camp cultures will be the same. While is it not possible to translate these observations into concrete recommendations for how humanitarian energy interventions should be planned or implemented, they point to a number of considerations and areas for approaches and further research that could enhance design for acceptance and sustainability of energy access projects.
One important consideration would be whether to focus on providing externally designed ‘ready-made’ solutions tailored to the assessed needs, or on ones that are co-designed, or to provide beneficiaries the tools for innovation, renovation and upcycling.
The personal satisfaction gained through craft and repurposing of materials was particularly evident among the Malian refugees in Goudoubo. The existence of a workshop where people could use their engineering and other crafting tools, for example, to weld would appear to be a valuable addition to enable energy resilience and self-reliance. In both Kakuma and Goudoubo, people’s preferences for energy equipment were strongly linked to their understanding of the reparability of devices, as well as their affordability and availability.
On the other hand, both communities could benefit greatly from camp-wide access to electricity and cleaner methods of cooking. The evidence gathered in Kakuma, for example, suggests that camp-wide connection to electricity may reduce inequality by reducing the gap between those who can afford to buy expensive electricity provided by private suppliers and those who cannot. Yet such an endeavour would affect vested interests. Understanding existing monopolies in power provision, how much people in different areas interact with providers and how livelihoods are dependent on, for example, fixing wires may assist with designing camp-wide electrification and mechanisms for managing and/or paying for use.
The difficulties of replacing biomass for cooking are well-known. While people often desire gas, it is still firewood and charcoal that form the basis of many vital activities that connect them with their roots and past as well as with local communities. UNHCR’s trial with gas in Goudoubo and the problems in maintaining reliable supply shows that sustained access to modern energy technologies is dependent on logistics, infrastructure and crucial ‘last-mile’ distributors. Without timely access to exchange canisters or refills, people lost trust in the system and reverted to old methods.
The examples in this paper point to the importance of assessing the level of skill, innovation and enterprise already existing in settlements as well as that of understanding how external markets will be able to serve the camp needs of any new programme over time. Many of the activities and repurposing described here illustrate impressive forms of a circular economy centred on energy. More attention is needed for the kinds of equipment being brought into a camp. Parts of energy equipment that cannot be recycled and may cause harm to people and the environment should be a key concern in rethinking energy provision. For example, the dangers of children playing with batteries, of lead and other chemical leakage during attempts to extend battery life, and of disposal are current problems that new interventions need to address. The life cycle of equipment under harsh climatic conditions and the possibilities for its repurposing should be considered at the outset.
Another issue is the way in which interventions will affect status and social relations in a community. Energy equipment and access is a marker of status in both camps and approaches to humanitarian energy should be aware of how new systems and technologies could impact the organic development of communities as well as existing inequalities. For example, the labelling of traditional fuels and technologies (such as firewood-burning open cookstoves) as ‘dirty’ and ‘primitive’ could reinforce gender and income inequalities in the camp. Likewise, a programme that relies on sales of equipment or services such as lighting or solar home systems only affordable to the higher-income households may create more visible inequalities. This is not to say the programmes should not go ahead but these aspects should be investigated.
This paper points to the need to expand the evidence base for humanitarian energy interventions and policies with new methodological approaches. Further questions include:
- Can this qualitative approach be made widely available in a way that is usable by agencies?
- Could an ethnographic study be used directly to assist with the design of a camp-wide sustainable energy plan? Could its effectiveness be quantified?
- How can the results be practically used?
Future research could usefully inform humanitarian energy projects by examining people’s technical knowledge and existing practices in the design of energy technologies, systems and business models. Uptake and sustained use of new systems may be more likely to happen where interventions build on or work in harmony with these.