1. Energy Poverty Assessment Minutes of proceedings Day 4 Data Analysis

2. Presentation of results from Interviews Lasten’s presentation

3. Magi’s presentation Project team focus Fully participatory analysis When and what to analyse? You may assess ethical concerns but not the methods Analysis is done at least twice – analysis at the spot, and analysis of how the tools are doing Analysing the information – what did you want to find out in the first place. If other issues keep cropping up from your group discussions, then you may want to look at that too so that you adjust your tool. What linkages and relationships keep coming up? What is the evidence that confirms or contradicts the theory we have come up with? For example, the clay stove in the households surveys are outliers and may not concern us as such – but we are also making an analysis of the unusual to see whay they are an exception.

4. Audience Who makes the decisions? There are indunas, the Prime Minister, the councillors, the Ward Development Committees, the Chief, etc. Have your audience in mind as you analyse the data. Critically reflect what you did – what were the strengths and weaknesses of the tools. What works well to get you the date you need. Who participated and why? What methods reached certain groups? Culture – did we understand the cultural issues that were in the area that we were in. Focus groups – what are the issues that you would need to focus on? Whether there was consensus or disagreements? Issues raised.

5. To also assess what is factual and what is an opinion – gossip and relevant information. Is the group making a prior positive judgement? Though they may not like the things that we are promoting they may actually Opposite of this are frustrations – for example they are already frustrated with other researches that were there. Are there group effects? Both positive and negative groups such as the members of the royal family and the members of the elderly. Some issues cannot be used to generalise statements about the wider community. Interviewing Sampling – we debated whether that was sampling or not? Other colleagues were directed to certain households. Did it affect anything? Not really. Given a second chance it would have been interesting to interview those villagers further away to assess access and distance issues.

6. Random sampling or systematic sampling? A representation of the population to be able to make inferences. Size of sample? Vulnerability issues that come up on issues of poverty – why and how did you ask the question ‘who is the head of the household?’ How did you know who the decision maker was? Does the decision makers necessarily become head of household? Or is it the traditional role? Also depends on the way in which you ask the question. What you also want to do with the information about the head of the household is important.

7. Other issues about control over finance depends on cultural issues. Proof of causal linkages – what has changed and why? Can energy really alleviate poverty? Because there is now electricity, children are reading more and that is a direct result of the improvement in school. The case of Nyafaru. Can you apply findings in other settings? Similarity of areas; but more often than not, that’s dangerous.

8. What happens when the tools do not agree? The transect walk gives different information from the interview data and the map? It may reflect a complexity of the issue or may reflect some problems with our tools. At times too much consensus also may mean people have been asked the same issue several times before so people already have an answer. What do multiple perspectives or observations say about what is happening?

9. Joy’s presentation 1.Identifying what people want changed Emerged from the CBP workshops 2.Identify MDG interventions – HH Metabolic energy – MDG1, 3, 5. Time, Poverty Community MDG 2,4,5,7 3.What are energy carriers? Matching our motivation (MDGs / Energy poverty) with men and women. 4.Use and control over energy carriers and technologies – who are decision makers? At HH level and over the community level. Identifying control – why is this important? 5.People’s preferences for energy technologies. Involve community in selecting energy services / technologies. EPA workshop.

10. Brainstorming session on energy poverty assessment workshops

11. Energy Poverty Assessments Designing interventions Develop energy indicators Monitoring tools Address real needs Understanding local needs What they could be used for.

12. Proposal for the first EPA workshops StakeholdersKey Intervention Criteria for assessing EP in local MDGs Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) Means of Verification MDG 1 – Hunger and Poverty Reduction HHHunger – cooking and eating 3 meals per day MDG 2 – Poverty ReductionDEO MDG 3 – GenderGender Officers (GO) MDG 4 – Maternal HealthDistrict Health Officers (DHOs) What are the criteria for energy poverty in maternal health issues? Availability of pre- and post natal clinics and care to women MDG 5 – Child MortalityDistrict Health Officers (DHOs) Lack of vaccines Health clinics for children and facilities for children under In five years time, 40%of children under five have been vaccinated. No smoke related deaths in children under five years by 2010. Fridge; Vaccines; pumped water; cleaner cooking fuels MDG 6 – Diseases (HIV/AIDS, TB) District Health Officers (DHOs) MDG 7 – EnvironmentForestry Commissioners; Environmental Management Agencies MDG 8 – Partnerships We are energising the MDGs

13. StakeholdersKey Intervention Criteria for assessing EP in local MDGs Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) Means of Verification MDG 5 – Child Mortality Lack of vaccine

14. Stakeholders for EPA - Workshops Communities may not be the best audience for these? Communities may be required to give information about energy needs Experts may be able to articulate the services required for some institutions – then partners may have to assess the energy needs required to make these institutions energy sufficient