A CASE STUDY - GENDER AND WORKLOAD INBIOGAS ADOPTION, UGANDA

Report prepared by:Kabarole Research and Resource CentreP.O.BOX 782, Fort Portal, UgandaEmail: krc@iway.com, Website: www.krc.co.ug

JUNE, 2013

2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 6

1.1 DOMINANCE OF FIREWOOD ........................................................................................................ 61.2 OTHER ENERGY SOURCES BEFORE BIOGAS ADOPTION ................................................................... 61.3 BIOGAS AND TASK ALLOCATION AMONG MEN, WOMEN, BOYS AND GIRLS ........................................ 71.4 BIOGAS AND TIME SAVING .......................................................................................................... 71.5 USE OF FREED TIME ................................................................................................................... 81.6 BIOGAS AND FAMILY/GENDER RELATIONS................................................................................... 81.7 INCONVENIENCES....................................................................................................................... 8

2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 9

3 ABPP COUNTRY INTERVENTION – ESSENTIAL CONTEXT................................................... 9

3.1 GENDER AND WORKLOAD......................................................................................................... 103.2 CHANGING FAMILY AND GENDER RELATIONS.............................................................................. 11

4 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 11

4.1 COMMENCEMENT OF THE STUDY............................................................................................... 114.2 DESIGNING OF DATA COLLECTION TOOLS................................................................................... 114.3 PRE-TESTING OF THE TOOLS .................................................................................................... 124.4 TRAINING OF RESEARCH ASSISTANTS ........................................................................................ 124.5 FIELD DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................... 124.6 DATA ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................... 124.7 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 12

5 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 13

5.1 RESPONDENTS BY AGE, GENDER, LOCATION, FAMILY SIZE, USE AND DURATION WITH BIOGAS ANDENERGY SOURCES IN PRE AND POST BIOGAS ADOPTION ........................................................................ 135.1.1 AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS..............................................................................................................135.1.2 GENDER OF THE RESPONDENTS ........................................................................................................135.1.3 LOCATION OF THE RESPONDENTS......................................................................................................135.1.4 FAMILY SIZES OF THE RESPONDENTS..................................................................................................145.1.5 DURATION OF USAGE OF BIOGAS BY THE RESPONDENTS .......................................................................145.1.6 USE OF BIOGAS BY THE RESPONDENTS ...............................................................................................155.1.7 PRE AND POST BIO GAS ADOPTION ENERGY SOURCES OF THE RESPONDENTS ............................................155.1.8 MOST USED ENERGY SOURCE OF THE RESPONDENTS ............................................................................155.1.9 INCONVENIENCES ENCOUNTERED WITH BIOGAS ..................................................................................16

6 COMPARATIVE RESULTS ON GENDER WORKLOAD AND TASK ALLOCATION IN THEBEFORE AND AFTER BIOGAS ADOPTION.................................................................................. 16

3 | P a g e

6.1 WORKLOAD AND TIME SPENT ON TASKS PER ENERGY TYPE USED IN THE PRE AND POST BIOGASADOPTION PERIOD ............................................................................................................................ 176.1.1 FIREWOOD ...................................................................................................................................176.1.2 CHARCOAL ...................................................................................................................................206.1.3 ELECTRICITY..................................................................................................................................206.1.4 LPG ............................................................................................................................................216.1.5 PARAFFIN .....................................................................................................................................22

7 RESULTS: GENDER, WORKLOAD AND TASK ALLOCATION IN BIOGAS ADOPTION ........ 22

7.1 BIOGAS AND WORKLOAD.......................................................................................................... 237.2 BIOGAS AND TASK ALLOCATION AMONG MEN, WOMEN, BOYS AND GIRLS ...................................... 257.3 BIOGAS AND TIME SAVING AND GENDER ROLES .......................................................................... 25

8 BIOGAS AND FAMILY RELATIONS AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL ............................................... 28

9 BENEFITS OF BIOGAS ............................................................................................................ 29

10 INCONVENIENCES WITH BIOGAS TECHNOLOGY.............................................................. 30

10.1 INCIDENTS OF GAS EXHAUSTION DURING THE COOKING PROCESS ........................................................ 3110.2 PIPE BLOCKAGE, LEAKAGES AND PLANT FAILURE.............................................................................. 3110.3 BIO SLURRY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 31

11 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 32

12 APPENDICES......................................................................................................................... 34

12.1 DATA TABLES AND FIGURES ................................................................................................... 3412.1.1 TABLE 6: ALLOCATION OF TIME AND TASKS AMONG HOUSEHOLDS THAT USED CHARCOAL BEFORE AND AFTER

BIOGAS ADOPTION.....................................................................................................................................3412.1.2 TABLE 7: ALLOCATION OF TIME AND TASKS AMONG HOUSEHOLDS THAT USED ELECTRICITY BEFORE AND

AFTER BIOGAS ADOPTION............................................................................................................................3512.1.3 TABLE 8: ALLOCATION OF TIME AND TASKS AMONG HOUSEHOLDS THAT USED LPG BEFORE AND AFTER

BIOGAS ADOPTION.....................................................................................................................................3512.1.4 TABLE 9: ALLOCATION OF TIME AND TASKS AMONG HOUSEHOLDS THAT USED PARAFFIN BEFORE AND AFTER

BIOGAS ADOPTION.....................................................................................................................................3612.2 DATA COLLECTION TOOLS...................................................................................................... 3712.2.1 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY TOOL.....................................................................................................3712.2.2 SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW FOR INDIVIDUALS .................................................................4812.2.3 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE.........................................................................................5212.3 PROCESS REPORT .................................................................................................................. 5712.4 FGD REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 5912.5 PHOTO GALLERY ................................................................................................................... 65

4 | P a g e

LIST OF ACRONYMS:ABPP African Biogas Partnership Programme

HIVOS: Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing CountriesHPI: Heifer Project InternationalUDBP Uganda Domestic Biogas ProgrammeSNV Netherlands Development OrganisationFGDs Focus Group DiscussionsSPSS Statistical Package for Social ScientistsNIA National Implementing AgencyLPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

5 | P a g e

AcknowledgementsThe study was commissioned by ABPP and supported by other parties fitting in the followingfunctions;- ENERGIA for content-based input throughout the case study development processand UDBP for logistics as well as access to partners and biogas clients. Special thanks go to thestaff of UDBP under Heifer International for their support and guidance throughout theassignment. Special thanks also go to Ms. Lydia Muchodo-Lead Consultant and Ms. TracyKajumba, Co-Consultant for their professional contribution in this assignment. We are verygrateful to the field staff who organised and mobilised for data collection field work as well aslocal transport and field guides. We would also like to thank the key informants of the casestudy who unreservedly opened a window for us into their households to listen, see anddocument their experiences. We would also like to thank all the men and women whoparticipated in focus group discussions and household interviews. Finally, we appreciate thetechnical contribution of KRC staff-Hyeroba Geofrey for data analysis, Mohammed .A. Shariff fortool development and Mwanga Julius for quality control. We are highly indebted to you all.

6 | P a g e

1 Executive summaryThis report is an outcome of a case study on gender and workload in the context of biogasadoption. The main question the study sought to address was “What changes have occurred inthe workload of men and women and use of freed time (if any) as a result of biogas adoptionand emerging narratives on family relations building from these changes. Data was collectedfrom 302 households using a highly quantitative household survey tool designed to providecomparative data on tasks and time spent on tasks while using different cooking energy sourcesin the before and after biogas adoption disaggregated for men, women, boy child and girl child.Semi structured interviews and focus group discussions incorporating relevant gender analysistools were extensively used and formed the basis for qualitative data collection. The mainfindings of the study can be summarised as follows:1.1 Dominance of firewoodMore generally, firewood remains a dominant energy source for cooking before and after biogasadoption. Nearly all (96%) surveyed households used majorly firewood before acquiring biogastechnology. Even after adopting biogas, firewood has remained in use by the majority (90%)dropping by only 6% from the pre biogas adoption period. However, biogas emerges as themost frequently used energy source with 75.2% responses and firewood trailing with 20.2%.This looks inconsistent with the fact that firewood is a predominant energy source in the preand post biogas adoption. The explanation lies in what biogas is mostly used for (i.e. lightcooking - tea, water, warming already cooked food, fast cooking foods like vegetables, rice andeggs). This kind of cooking is more frequent than the large meals which are mostly cooked onfirewood. Overall, biogas gains preference over other energy sources because it cooks faster andsets off instantly therefore, becoming a natural choice especially in the morning.1.2 Other energy sources before biogas adoptionRegarding other energy sources before biogas adoption (i.e. charcoal, electricity, LPG andparaffin), these were at best supplementary or secondary to firewood. Even after biogas, theyhave remained secondary or even completely abandoned by some households. The commonstrand in these energy sources is that their conduct in regard to task allocation and time spenton tasks remains virtually unchanged in the before and after biogas adoption and therefore, donot offer many insights on the changes under investigation.

Biogas and workloadRegarding biogas, perhaps the most outstanding feature and unique to biogas is the collectiveparticipation of household members in its production. There are no major disparities in thedisaggregated responses for men, women boys and girls regarding their participation in biogasproduction tasks. It is evident from the analysis of tasks that everyone plays a role at theproduction stage though the picture changes on the cooking activities with more tasks beingundertaken by by the women.Results on the analysis of tasks specific to biogas suggest that, in most cases, these tasks do notpose any labour demands out of the ordinary as feared that perhaps, the additional waterneeded for biogas production, collection of dung and feeding it into the digester and taking careof the animals increase the burden of work. Rather, households have made changes particularlyin their animal management practices in order to accommodate the production of biogas energyand including notably, the use of hired labour. In some households the herdsmen were entirelyin charge of biogas production processes thus keeping workload consistent with pre- adoptionperiod for the regular household members.

7 | P a g e

There is evidence (table 11) that time spent on activities like fetching water has notincreased. On the contrary, it has reduced slightly after adoption of biogas. The reasonfor this is majority of the households harvest rain water implying water is usually withinthe homestead except during the dry seasons when households turn to fetching it fromnearby water sources. There were some exceptions though; households who lackedtanks and depended on fetching water reported an increase in time spent to collectwater especially during the dry season. The time spent on collecting cow dung has also not increased especially in householdswhere zero grazing is practiced. It has instead reduced because the cows are stall fedthus confining dung in one place and making it easier and quicker to pick than when it isdropped randomly as cows go about feeding on their own. Stall feeding is for somehouseholds a spinoff of biogas adoption as households realise that stall feeding is verygood for biogas production as it reduces on the amount of time and the fatigue involvedin picking the dung by the roadside. However, in western Uganda where farmers havevast farms and were picking cow dung from the farms, it was reported that it is a tediousprocess involving transporting the cow dung on wheel barrows from the farm, andsorting it, which took more time compared to the time before biogas adoption when itwas collected periodically in dry seasons and used as manure in banana plantations.

1.3 Biogas and task allocation among men, women, boys and girlsThe results show there were no major shifts in tasks for men, women and the children afterbiogas adoption as their sense of gender roles has not changed. Instead, it extends into biogasand explains the nature of task allocation among the men, women boys and girls of a household.For example, from the activity profiles compiled on all surveyed households, results showedthat boys and girls were mostly responsible for fetching water for home use and girls mostlyparticipated in cooking activities. After biogas adoption, additional water needs for biogasproduction are still mostly met by the boys and girls (table 10)1.4 Biogas and time savingThe difference biogas makes becomes more evident with a comparative analysis of tasks thatcut across all cooking energy sources such as: the act of cooking food, cleaning cooking utensilsand the cooking area. Accordingly, the study established that: Time spent on cooking with biogas is just about 30 minutes which is far less timecompared to the amount of time spent cooking with firewood or charcoal – thepredominant energy sources for cooking for over 90% of households. The average timespent on cooking with firewood is 89 minutes for women and 100 minutes for menimplying that using biogas to cook can potentially save a user up to 60 minutes in a day.However, it should be noted that biogas is mostly used for light cooking and is not usedin isolation of other energy sources, particularly, firewood. Traditional foods whichusually take long to cook like bananas which are mashed and put back on fire, sweetpotatoes, cassava and others are cooked using firewood and the time saving may not bethat obvious because it is a daily process in most of the households. Time spent on cleaning utensils when using biogas is just about 13 minutes which also isfar less the amount of time spent cleaning utensils when using firewood and charcoal.The same task takes about 32 minutes and 24 minutes to complete when using firewoodand charcoal respectively.

8 | P a g e

1.5 Use of freed timeThe study established that freed up time is used to do additional activities and is not separateand obvious as such. Most of the households used the extra time to do more of the regular taskslike animal management and others revealed that they were now busier improving farmingactivities using the bio slurry to improve production. Women were putting more time ingardening work and some had started vegetable gardens using bio slurry, which they could notdo before biogas adoption. Children on the other hand were putting more time into academicwork at home, playing longer, and helping their mothers with some of the tasks like washingwhich they never used to do before biogas adoption.1.6 Biogas and family/gender relationsThe study established that there were no significant shifts in the normative gender roles andpower structure rather, incentives for change that add some degree of flexibility to the ratherdefined and rigid gender roles. Resultantly, some changes have occurred and notably: Men are more involved in domestic chores especially in tasks to produce biogas andusing it to cook. Majority of the men can warm their water and make tea at any time ofthe day without bothering their wives or other members of the household. They arealso more active in preparing the apparatus for milking including boiling water neededfor milking. Previously, women used to boil the water and keep it in the flasks includingtea for the children. The availability of biogas has changed the practice and broadenedparticipation in the morning routine. Children (especially boys who never used to cook on fire wood) are more involved incooking activities than before particularly in preparing their own breakfast beforeschool thus, saving up some time for the women in the morning who previouslyprepared breakfast for their school going children. In focus group discussions, both men and women cited improvements in relationsbetween husbands and wives due to reduced expenditure. Women reported that themen regularly quarrelled with them over assumed high expenditure on charcoal,firewood and paraffin, but with adoption of biogas, such quarrels have reduced.

1.7 InconveniencesThe study established that:- Incidents of impromptu gas exhaustion or waning during the cooking process promptingthe user to switch to another form of energy to complete the cooking process is onemajor inconvenience and the effect has been to relegate biogas to light cooking.- The other major source of inconvenience is pipe blockages and leakages and completeplant failure compounded by the fact that repair services are not easily available. Manyhouseholds have at some point had an issue with their digesters but the most constraintis finding repair services within reasonable time. Households make attempts to fix theproblem on their own and sometimes are unsuccessful, wasting an incredible amount oftime especially when the households opt for extreme measures like emptying thedigesters in a bid to restart the whole process again.

9 | P a g e

2 IntroductionThis report is an outcome of a case study about gender and workload in the context of biogasadoption. Commissioned by the ABPP, the study set out to examine the changes in workload ofboth men and women and gender relations as a result of biogas adoption. Of central interest inbiogas technology is its influence on gender relations and workload particularly for womengiven their traditional role of looking after their families and homes as caregivers. Accordingly,regular program monitoring and surveys often picked information on such changes amongbiogas users and reported that biogas users had greatly reduced workload primarily throughreduced time spent on fuel collection, cooking, and cleaning pots. However, to ABPP, thesechanges in workload for women and men, and also the use of freed time by women and men haduntil now not been studied.The study therefore dug deep into particulars of household tasks to make more explicit thechanges in workload and time use that have occurred among biogas users. These new insightsadd to the learning process of ABPP and useful for further improvement of the programme. Acombination of research tools provided both quantitative and qualitative data from 302households which were selected in consultation with the Uganda domestic biogas program.Household surveys were used for quantitative data whereas semi structured interviews andFocus Group Discussions were used to capture the qualitative aspects of biogas use andworkload. The issues for the household survey and interviews with the biogas users weredeveloped from the terms of reference. It was hypothesised that households that had beenexposed to biogas for six months and more were most suited to participate in the study as theywere presumed to have worthwhile experience with the technology.This report points out the main findings, insights and conclusions stemming from the broadinterrogations on household tasks performed by men, women and children and time spent onthese tasks before and after biogas adoption; use of freed time by women and men and changesin social/family relations and power structures because of the changed time use pattern. Thereport firstly describes essential context from the programme’s’ reports and focuses on thevariable of the study to understand the previous reviews and input by other researchers.Second, a description of the methodology used for the research. Third, findings from theprimary data sources and lastly, the conclusions reflecting on the utility of the findings forprogramme improvement3 ABPP country intervention – essential contextABPP works in five countries namely: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda toimprove living conditions of households through the stimulation of the emergence of a marketoriented biogas sector. The programme runs under a tripartite agreement under which, ABPP-Hivos plays the fund manager, SNV provides technical assistance and National ImplementingAgencies (NIAs) play the implementer role. In Uganda, Heifer Project International – Uganda(HPI-U) is the national implementing agency and had constructed 3,083 plants by the end of2013 under its Uganda Domestic Biogas Program. The initial plan was to construct 12,000digesters by end of 2013 with an overarching goal of establishing a sustainable andcommercially viable biogas sector in Uganda. Though this may not be reached production hasbeen steadily growing and is expected that at least half of that target will be achieved due toincreased awareness, increasing number of BCEs and interest from credit institutions. A microcredit study has been conducted to form the basis for a partnership between UDBP, andmicrofinance institutions and savings and credit societies.

10 | P a g e

3.1 Gender and workloadPoor women in rural areas of developing countries generally have a more difficult timecompared to men, due to their traditional socio-cultural roles. They often spend long hourscollecting fuel wood and carrying it back home over long distances. The time and labourexpended in this way exhausts them and limits their ability to engage in other productive andincome-generating activities. Their health suffers from hauling heavy loads of fuel and water,and from cooking over smoky fires. Their opportunities for education and income generationare limited by lack of modern energy services, and as a result their families and communitiesare likely to remain trapped in poverty1. The enthusiasm for biogas builds from this sort ofcomprehensive literature as it is seen to offer most of the solutions.A study on the effect of biogas on the workload of women from a gender perspective, done inNepal found out that biogas as a technology was perceived by the female users as workloadreducing: Qualitatively - cooking became easier, washing pots without soot, not blowing thecoals to keep the fire going, no smoke in the kitchen and especially being freed (for a great deal)from going to the jungle was felt as an improvement. Quantitatively - the amount of fuel woodfor cooking reduced 5 times and it was time-saving according to the respondents. Whereas theabove is commonly expressed in most studies, in a biogas survey in Bangladesh, it was foundout that some women found no decrease in work load; this is because they spent the saved timeon other household chores. Yet a smaller percentage (4%) of women claimed that their workload had increased as they found biogas plant operation laborious in terms of maintenance andmanagement, slurry management, livestock caring, etc. They felt overloaded with work as therewere household chores to perform in addition to operating the plant. 2 The study in Nepal alsofound out that considering the total workload of women, biogas as a "new technology" does notaffect traditional working patterns. This means that introducing labour-saving technologiesdoes not automatically imply that workload as a whole is reduced as well. Most of the timehouseholds substitute more activities using the time saved therefore it becomes hard toevaluate use of the saved time.However it is important to recognise that households are not unadulterated units withundifferentiated labour, resources and incentives; but are made up of women, men, boys andgirls who may share, complement, differ or be in direct conflict in their need for or interest inimproved technologies, given their ascribed roles. The division of labour that exists in any placeis not fixed, but changing. Further, there are wide variations from one place to another. Accessto technology may not easily change the cultural norms per se, it requires gender analysis toaddress power imbalances, gender relations, decision making as well as ownership of andcontrol over resources, particularly land.3 This therefore requires thorough assessment of thedifferent cultural and social practices in the different regions and households of Uganda todetermine change in workload.1 UNDP. 2001. Generating opportunities: Case studies on energy and women, Misana and Karlsson, eds.,www.undp.org/energy/publications/2001/2001a.htm

2Biogas User Survey 2008 ; National Domestic Biogas and Manure Programme (NDBMP); 8 Panthapath, KarwanBazar Dhaka-

1215

3

Report - Sub-regional training course on women in wood energy development, 1995

11 | P a g e

3.2 Changing family and gender relationsIn this study, changes in social/family relations and power structures can be a result of thechanged time use pattern, economic and social benefits which accrue to the household as aresult of using biogas.Regarding the potential of changing gender and social relations aiming at an alternative, moreequal and satisfactory organisation at household level, for both genders, other studies foundthat the introduction of biogas in households has no influence on the social relations. (C. Keizer,1994) Emphasis was on the need to focus more on strategic needs by raising awareness amongfarmers that workload in the household could be equally divided, if men should takeover tasksfrom women, which would improve family relations and promote equity.However the power relations do not have to be on equal levels, it can be a change incommunication, relations, and some roles which can neutralize power balances in differenthouseholds. The study will attempt to find out any changes in the family and social relationsarising from biogas use.4 MethodologyThe aim of the cases study was to examine the effect of biogas adoption on the workload of men,women and the children and the relationships at household level. Does biogas adoption changethe workload of men and women and the children, their roles and amount of time they spend ona task? Drawing on previous reports, hypotheses of women’s workload and cooking energyinterventions and the terms of reference, a probing tool set framing questions of before andafter biogas adoption was formulated. It combined both qualitative and quantitative methods toestablish and learn about the changes as a result of biogas adoptionThe details of the methodology are outlined in the subsections that follow

4.1 Commencement of the studyThe study started off with a meeting between the consultants and the staff from thecommissioning end (i.e. ABPP). The meeting served to clarify on the terms of reference,brainstorm on the tool content and introduce parties in the study and their responsibilities.4.2 Designing of data collection toolsFollowing the discussion on the tools at the meeting mentioned above, the consultants designedthe tools which were shared online for comments and endorsement on the part of the ABPP.The tool kit contained three kinds of tools covering both the quantitative and qualitative aspectsof the study.

- First was the household survey which was largely a quantitative tool designed to providecomparative data on tasks and time spent on tasks while using different cooking energysources in the before and after biogas adoption disaggregated for men, women, boy childand girl child.- Second was the semi structured interview designed to take deeper some aspects in thehousehold survey to provide narratives on the what and how the changes (if any) inworkload for men, women and children had occurred and changes in family relations.- Third was the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Like in semi structured interview, the FGDswere deep and mainly focused on the gender elements of biogas adoption and conductedseparately for men and women groups to maximise participation and expression for bothmen and women.

12 | P a g e

4.3 Pre-testing of the toolsThe tools were pretested in central region. The Extension, Gender & Capacity BuildingCoordinator, of UDBP arranged a visit to one biogas user in Gombe -Wakiso district prior to theroll out with whom, the consultants checked for robustness of the tools as well as got exposureto the process of biogas production/technology.4.4 Training of research assistantsMA students were introduced to the study and trained on the tools in a half day meeting at thedepartment for Gender and Women studies - Makerere University. The Department Head - Dr.Consolata Kabonesa helped with the selection and mobilisation of the students. Additionalstudents particularly for eastern and western regions (for language and logistical reasons) weremobilised through the regional officers of eastern and western respectively. In total, the studyworked with thirteen research assistants; five for central, five for eastern and three for westernregion4.5 Field data collectionField data collection was done by both consultants and the research assistants in the threeregions of central, eastern and western Uganda. The data collection exercise begun on 3rd April2013 with central region and was completed on 14th April with western region. It involvedadministering a quantitative household survey tool, conducting individual interviews using asemi structured questionnaire and facilitating focus group discussions using an FGD guide. Intotal, 302 household surveys, 30 semi structured interviews and 6 focus group discussions wereconducted as planned. 70 respondents were selected from western region, 110 from easternregion and 120 from central region. The selection was guided by the number biogas users in agiven region4.6 Data analysisData collected using the household survey tool was entered into SPSS to produce data sets whilethe semi structured interviews and focus group discussions were individually studied andoverall narratives describing scenarios compiled to use together with the data sets. Time spenton tasks per energy source was an important part of the analysis. The survey tool was designedto tell the kinds of energy sources being used and how much time was taken to complete thecooking process in a day when using a given energy source. This time analysis was subjected toevery energy source under use before and after adoption of biogas to show how much timehouseholds were spending on the cooking process in a day before and after adopting biogas.Consequently, this would reveal if there were any time savings particularly if the time spent onthe cooking process with biogas was less than the time spent on the cooking process with otherenergy sources. In another way, time savings would be revealed if the amount of time spent onthe cooking process in a day before biogas adoption was more than the time spent on thecooking process in a day after biogas adoption.4.7 LimitationsThe main limitation of the study concerns the nature of the inquiry that was subjected to therespondents to tell the amount of time previously spent on a task before biogas adoption. Thismemory call was not always easy to make for some respondents and in a number of cases, wedepended on time estimates. Nonetheless, we laboured at all times to help respondentsremember how it was like by beginning with what was familiar or current and then taking stepsbackwards.

13 | P a g e

5 FindingsThis section presents and discusses the findings drawn from different sources namely:household surveys administered on biogas users at household level, semi structured interviewwith individuals sampled out of the surveyed households and focus group discussions for menand women separately drawn randomly from the larger population of biogas users per region.The findings are presented in three parts namely: comparative results on gender workload andtask allocation in the before and after biogas adoption, results on gender, workload and taskallocation with biogas and lastly, the benefits and drawbacks of the technology.To put the findings in perspective, the section starts by outlining in detail the relevantcharacteristics of the respondents and study areas which will later explain some phenomenonand trends. Overall, a total of 302 households participated in the study as seen in figure 1. 39%of the households were drawn from eastern, followed by 38% from central and 23% fromwestern Uganda. Regional officers did sound the note of caution regarding volume of users perregion. Western Uganda has fewer biogas users than central and western owing to a relativelyhigher plant failure among other constraints.5.1 Respondents by age, gender, location, family size, use and duration with biogas

and energy sources in pre and post biogas adoption

5.1.1 Age of the respondentsMajority (46%) of the respondents were in the 45-64 age bracket followed by those between 25– 44 years, accounting for 32% of the respondents. Those above 65 years and above accountedfor about 14% while about 8% were in the 15 – 24 years’ age group as shown in table 1. Thisdistribution is understandably so because in most cases, the respondents were either the headsof the households or spouses to the heads as further revealed by the study. 52% werehousehold heads while 48% (144) were other household members of which, 67% werespouses to the household heads, 16% were either sons and/or daughters to the households,4.9% were other relatives and hired workers respectively.Table 1: Respondents by Age GroupAge group No. of respondent Percent15 - 24 years 25 8.325 - 44 years 96 31.845 - 64 years 139 46.065+ years 42 13.9Total 302 100.0

5.1.2 Gender of the respondents59% (179) of the respondents were females and 41% (123) males. A helpful argument here toexplain why more females than males were met lies in the fact that most respondents were metin their homes where the likelihood of finding more women than men is high because of thetraditional construction of men and women spaces.5.1.3 Location of the respondentsThe largest (61%) proportion of respondents was from rural areas followed by peri urban with35% and urban 4% as shown in figure 1. This rural concentration is hardly surprising becausethe elements that shape the domestic biogas program will most favour rural household settingthan urban.

14 | P a g e

Figure 1: Respondents by Residence/locality

5.1.4 Family sizes of the respondentsMajority (52%) of the respondents had family sizes ranging between 6 and 10 members,followed by 28% with less than 5 members and less than 1% had over 20 household members.However, about 7% were registered as non response as shown in table 2.Table 2: Distribution of respondents by household sizeFamily size No. of households Percentless than 5 83 27.56 – 10 156 51.711 -15 29 9.616 – 20 10 3.3Over 20 2 0.7Non response 22 7.3Total 302 100.0

5.1.5 Duration of usage of biogas by the respondentsAs observed in fig.3 majority (about 59%) of the sampled households had used biogastechnology for over one year, followed by 19% of the households that revealed to have appliedthe biogas technology for 7 to 12 month while 16% had used it for only less than six months. Wehad on purpose wanted to interview respondents who had used biogas for six months andabove but a few of the sampled households had actually not cooked or lit with it for over sixmonths although the technology had long been introduced in their homes. Officially, they werepresumed to be biogas users but had in reality delayed to put the digesters to work especiallywhen they encountered problems with the initial feeding of the plant. In other cases, somehouseholds were just reluctant with the initial stage while some had relocated their cows tovillage farms on grounds of reducing animal management costs or space limitations.Figure 3: Respondents by duration in Biogas Use

15 | P a g e

5.1.6 Use of biogas by the respondentsTable 3 brings out the main uses households subject their biogas to. As shown in table 3,majority of the households said to use biogas for either light cooking only or for the entirecooking for the household (33.1% and 32.8% respectively). 19.5% of the households said to usebiogas technology for their entire lighting and cooking activities. A negligible proportion of therespondents said to use biogas only in emergencies and about 1% of the respondents said to usebiogas for commercial purposes. The early impression gathered here is biogas is a wellembraced energy source but the details of these choices is arguably more important inunderstanding the wide perception of biogas as an energy source.Table 3: Distribution of Households by actual Use of BiogasBiogas used for No. of Households Percent

Entire lighting and cooking 59 19.5Entire cooking for the house only 99 32.8Commercial use (i.e. cooking items for sale like pan cakes) 4 1.3Light cooking only 100 33.1Used in emergency cases only 2 0.7Non response 38 12.6Total 302 100.0

5.1.7 Pre and post bio gas adoption energy sources of the respondentsThe first general interest in the study was about the broad energy sources available for cooking.Overall, the findings in table 4 show that nearly all (96%) surveyed households used majorlyfirewood before acquiring biogas technology while others either used or supplementedfirewood with charcoal as counted for by 30% responses, electricity (5%) paraffin and LGP(4%) respectively. Even after adopting biogas, firewood has remained in use by the majority(90%) dropping by only 6% from the pre biogas adoption period. Charcoal, electricity, paraffinand LGP are still being used but users have dropped as well from 30% to 21%, 5% to 3%, and4% to 2% respectively. A clear point emerging from this is adoption of biogas has obviouslyinfluenced the use of other energy sources which will go some way towards explaining changesin workload and gender relations in the subsequent sections.Table 4: Households by Use of Sources of Energy before and After Biogas AdoptionEnergy Source Before acquiring Biogas Other used sources after acquiring Biogas Most used energy Source

N0. Percent of Cases No. Percent of Cases No. Percent of CasesBio gas N/A - N/A - 227 75.2Firewood 289 95.7 241 90.3 61 20.2LPG 11 3.6 5 1.9 - -Charcoal 91 30.1 55 20.6 13 4.3Paraffin 12 4.0 5 1.9 - -Electricity 16 5.3 8 3.0 - -Other 0 0 2 0.7 1 0.3Total 419 138.7 316 118.4 302 100

5.1.8 Most used energy source of the respondentsThe second general interest was about which source of energy was most used for cooking andas shown in table 4, biogas is the most used energy source with 75.2% responses which looksinconsistent with the fact that firewood is a predominant energy source in the pre and postbiogas adoption. The explanation lies in what biogas is mostly used for (light cooking- tea,

16 | P a g e

water, warming already cooked food) and the noticeable ease it comes with. This kind ofcooking is more frequent than the major meals which are mostly cooked on firewood. Overall, asshown in figure 4, biogas gains preference over other energy sources because it cooks faster andsets off instantly therefore, becoming a natural choice especially in the morning. The great detailof these dynamics and effect on workload for men, women and children are the subject for thefollowing sectionFigure 4: Reason for Preference of Biogas technology

5.1.9 Inconveniences encountered with biogasAssessing whether households found any inconveniencies with the use of biogas, findingsrevealed that 34% of the households had been inconvenienced. Among the inconvenienciesmentioned, most responses indicated that the technology required intensive labour i.e.challenges of mixing dung, water collection, accounting for 35%, followed those that indicatedthat the system kept on blocking (20%), had leakages (14%), had little gas at the beginningalthough it was overcome by time (13%), bulbs kept on failing regularly, lack of skills toconstruct they system and slow in cooking, accounting for 8% respectively, consumed a lot ofspace (3%), costly in transportation of bioslurry and low supply of energy during rainy seasonsaccounting for 2% while 1% of the responses indicated that the biogas was smelly andirritating.6 Comparative results on gender workload and task allocation in the before and after

biogas adoptionAt the most general level, the household profile data and analysis above has demonstrated theexistence and active use of a variety of energy sources for cooking in the pre and post biogasadoption periods. In what follows, we discuss with empirical evidence issues of gender andworkload and potentially misleading assumptions in biogas energy for cooking and lighting. Thepurpose here is to explain extents of workload in the pre biogas adoption period and comparewith the current status of workload with biogas adoption to analyse what has changed. Wediscuss the energy sources used, tasks therein and allocation among men, women, boys andgirls and the amount of time spent on these tasks in the pre and post biogas adoption.

17 | P a g e

6.1 Workload and time spent on tasks per energy type used in the pre and post biogasadoption period

6.1.1 FirewoodIn the case of firewood, the tasks which were assessed in regard to who did what and theamount of time spent on each task in a day included: collection and splitting of firewood,preparation of the fire, cooking of the food, cleaning the utensils including cooking pots andcleaning the cooking area. Results from the analysis of tasks can be summarised as follows:- Overall, firewood as the main energy source in the pre biogas adoption period requireda lot of time to work with. Overall time spent on the cooking process on average was 301minutes for females and 320 minutes for males as observed in table 5. The most timeconsuming tasks were found to be collection of firewood which on average took 93minutes for females and 103 minutes for males and the actual cooking which on averagetook 98 minutes for females and 86 minutes per day. Other tasks in the list like splittingfirewood, lighting the fire, cleaning pots and cooking area were found to take less than40 minutes each to complete and their combined time only slightly above the amount oftime taken to collect firewood or cook with firewood alone.- However, the time spent on collecting firewood may not be exact or accurate because itwas found out that a good number of households collected firewood in bulk to last amonth or more and as thus, splitting the actual time spent on cooking in a day is not thataccurate and firewood collection may falsely increase the time used. A male respondentfrom central region remarked that“... I collect a truck of firewood which takes about 3 days to split and we use it for up to 3

months because we have other energy sources like biogas, electric cooker and LPG. It istherefore, hard to tell you how long it takes to collect firewood in a single day.”

It was however, confirmed in the FGDs that use of biogas reduced the frequency offirewood collection and saved on firewood thus reducing the workload in aggregateterms.- Tasks associated with firewood were found to be rather fairly shared among men,women, boys and girls but cases where women almost entirely performed all the taskswere also observed. In some tasks, male participation exceeded that of womenparticularly on the task of splitting firewood. Tasks which women almost took totalresponsibility included: preparing and lighting the fire, cooking food includingrefuelling, cleaning the cooking utensils and the cooking area and spent an average of 33minutes on each.- Females numerically did more tasks than men but overall, the amount of time spent ontasks by both males and females was much close to each other. As shown in table 5,women spent an average of 301 minutes on the tasks they performed while the menspent 320 minutes on the tasks they performed. However, it is important to note thatthe males’ overall time has a big element of male hired labour unlike the women whosemajor tasks like gardening and cooking activities have the least incidents of hiredlabour. Ultimately, in real terms, women were found to shoulder a bigger burden thattheir male household heads.

18 | P a g e

After biogas adoption,Firewood remained a dominant energy source dropping in usage by only 6% to 90% from 96%households previously. However, the significant changes happened within the tasks performedindicating clear changes in workload and overall amount of time spent on the cooking processwith firewood. After adoption, the overall time spent on the cooking process came down to 201minutes on average for females and 191 minutes for males, ultimately giving a time saving of upto 100 minutes and 129 minutes for females and males respectively on fuel wood tasks forcooking.Quite significant time savings were observed on collection of firewood and the actual cooking.Presently, females spent an average of 52 minutes and 69 minutes on collecting firewood andcooking respectively unlike before when they spent 93 minutes and 98 minutes on collectingfirewood and cooking respectively. Similarly, males spend less time on these same tasks atpresent. Compared to the pre biogas period, males are nearly spending just half of the time (i.e.from 115 minutes to 59 minutes) they previously spent on firewood collection therebygarnering more significant time savings than females. Men have switched their labour toproducing biogas, so the amount of time they spent on firewood collection is spent on producingbiogasAs seen in table 5, there were no major shifts in task allocation; the disaggregated responses pertask show that there were no major shifts in the numbers in the pre and post biogas adoptionperiods bearing in mind the overall decrease in the use of firewood in the post biogas period.Nonetheless, females appear to some extent to have shed off tasks like collecting firewood andsplitting firewood basing on the number of responses on these specific tasks for women andgirls in the pre and post biogas periods.Overall, the major change observed was the amount of time taken out of the tasks than the tasksevolving or switching responsibility. Time savings are more obvious for both males and femalesfrom a technical approach but not that obvious in day to day living because energy sources areused concurrently like one respondent put it “...assessing the workload on biogas is difficultbecause even with the use of biogas, we still have to use other energy sources due to the nature offood we have to cook which cannot be made on biogas alone.”

19 | P a g e

Table 5: Allocation of Time and Tasks among Households that Used Firewood before and after Biogas adoption (Codes W-Woman,M-Men, BC-Boy child, GC-Girl child, HH- Household)

Tasks Firewood use before adoption of Biogas Firewood use after adoption of BiogasNo.W(HH) No. GC (HH) Av. Time

(Mins.)No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av. Time(Mins.)

No. W (HH) No.GC(HH) Av. Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av. Time(Mins.)

Collectingfirewood

136(155) 54(155) 93 90(182) 115(182) 103 100(118) 46(118) 52 61(132) 91(132) 59

Splittingfirewood

112(128) 38(128) 36 93 (177) 110 (177) 56 86(94) 30(94) 25 67(140) 95(140) 35

Preparing thefire

212(227) 68(227) 16 25 (60) 41(60) 14 155(175) 61(175) 12 28(54) 40(54) 10

Lighting fire 210(227) 81(227) 10 20 (42) 26(42) 12 159(177) 64(177) 8 20(41) 30 (41) 7

Cooking foodincludingrefueling

230(247) 89(247) 98 21(49) 32(49) 86 (193)174 (193)69 69 21(39) 30(39) 48

Cleaningutensils/cooking pots

197(250) 129(250) 32 16(60) 48(60) 34 155(195) 94(195) 23 13(55) 48(55) 21

Cleaning thecooking area

193(242) 115(242) 16 14(54) 41(54) 15 154(191) 94(191) 12 13(54) 47(54) 11

Avg. Totaltime

301 320 201 191

20 | P a g e

6.1.2 CharcoalIn the case of charcoal, the tasks which were assessed in regard to who did what and theamount of time spent on each task in a day included: collecting, stocking the stove, lighting thestove, cooking food on the stove, cleaning utensils and cleaning the stove. Results from theanalysis of tasks can be summarised as follows:- Charcoal; also second to firewood in the order of most used energy for cooking requireda lot of time to work with but not to the extent of firewood. Overall time spent on thecooking process on average was 205 minutes for females and 197 minutes for males asobserved in table 6 in the appendices.- Unlike in the firewood scenario case, tasks associated with charcoal use were mostlyperformed by women with men playing a limited role as can be observed from thedisaggregated responses of males and females in table 5. The most male participation isobserved at collecting charcoal but thereafter, the number of males performingsubsequent tasks visibly drops. However, the amount of time females and males spendon these tasks in totality compares well with females spending an average of 201minutes while the men spend an average of 197 minutes a day to complete these tasks.This means, even though numerically there were fewer men participating in these tasks,the few who did them took nearly as much time to complete them as the women.- Overall, females perform most of the tasks when using charcoal as energy for cookingwith more tasks leaned more to them than their male counterparts in the household.

After biogas adoption,There were no significant changes in regard to task allocation or amount of time spent on thesetasks. An overall time difference of 34 minutes for females was all it came to after adoption ofbiogas implying, women who still use charcoal use just about 34 minutes less on the cookingprocess with charcoal compared to before they adopted biogas. For males, there was no timesaved at all; it still takes them more or less the same amount of time to complete the tasks asbefore biogas adoption.The reason for this consistence is because charcoal was and still is a supplementary energysource and not primary for the majority of the households that use it. As a supplementaryenergy source, the purpose and intent and conduct around it tend to stay the same.Respondents talked about charcoal as a kind of energy which is only supplementary because itis too expensive to resort the entire household cooking to it yet convenient enough to adapt it tomany needs. In other words, it is good to maintain it for use from time to time wheneverdeemed necessary. This rationale equally applies to paraffin, electricity and LPG. These wereand still are not primary sources of energy and the households’ conduct around them is decidedfrom time to time depending on the need or situation at any point in time.6.1.3 ElectricityIn the case of electricity, the tasks which were assessed in regard to who did what and theamount of time spent on each task in a day included: heating the plate, cooking food, cleaningutensils and cleaning the cooking area. Results from the analysis of tasks can be summarised asfollows:

- Much as electricity as energy came third in the order of most used, in reality there werevery few (5.3%) households that were using electricity to cook.

21 | P a g e

- On average, households spent 70 minutes on the cooking process when using electricity.As a matter of fact, it was the actual cooking that ate into more than half of the total timespent on the cooking process while the other tasks took less than 10 minutes each tocomplete as shown in table 7 in the appendices- Women cared for the most of the tasks than the men however minimal and lessdemanding (in terms of time spent on the tasks) they seem.- The participation of children – boys and girls was very low compared to theirparticipation with other energy sources. The possible explanation could be the nature ofenergy which is perceived to carry the most risks particularly when left in the hands ofchildren.

After biogas adoption,There were no significant changes in regard to task allocation or overall amount of time spenton these tasks except the time spent cooking with electricity reduced for both males andfemales from 46 minutes to 26 minutes, and 65 minutes to 25 minutes respectively after biogasadoption. This is most probably because what was cooked on electricity was moved to biogas.Interviews with respondents confirmed cases of abandonment of electricity in the event ofbiogas adoption due to its prohibitive costs and the fact that biogas provided comparable easeand speed moreover, at minimum cost.6.1.4 LPGIn the case of LPG, tasks for households which were assessed in regard who did what and theamount of time spent on each task in a day included: collecting and or purchasing of the LPG,lighting and cooking on the gas cooker, cleaning utensils and the gas cylinder. The results fromthe analysis of tasks can be summarised as follows:

- Generally, there were very few (3.6%) households that used LPG for cooking but fromthe few that used it; the overall time spent on the cooking process was as low ashouseholds that used electricity. The time spent on the cooking process averaged at 90minutes in the pre adoption period. The most time consuming task, accounting for halfof the total time was collecting the gas from the sale point to the home and this task wasperformed mostly by men as observed by the responses in table 8 in the appendices.- The other task which also demanded a comparable amount of time was cooking lastingan average of 35 minutes and mostly done by the women. The rest of the tasks took lessthan 20 minutes each to compete and mostly performed by women and their combinedtime was still less than the amount of time spent on the actual cooking. It is important tonote however, that collection of gas was not a daily task while cooking was implyingwomen performed most of the tasks and in the actual sense spent the most time on thetasks than the males even though the average time spent on tasks in a day for males andfemales in table 8 indicate otherwise (i.e. 79 minutes for females and 102 minutes formales)

After adoption,There were no significant changes in regard to task allocation or overall amount of time spenton these tasks except male participation in these tasks reduced and so was the time from 102minutes on average to 58 minutes after adoption of biogas.

22 | P a g e

6.1.5 ParaffinIn the case of paraffin, the tasks for households which were assessed in regard who did whatand the amount of time spent on each task in a day included: purchase and collecting of paraffin,lighting of the stove, cooking food, cleaning utensils, cleaning the cooking area and the paraffinstove. The results from the analysis of tasks can be summarised as follows:- As was with LPG, there were very few (4%) households that used paraffin but spent agreat amount of time cooking with it than LPG users. The time spent on the cookingprocess averaged at 262 minutes for females and 98 minutes for males in the preadoption period as observed in table 9 in the appendices.- The most time consuming tasks were found to be purchase and collection of paraffinwhich averaged at 107 minutes for females and 50 minutes for males and the actualcooking which averaged at 114 minutes for females. There were no men who cookedwith paraffin from the sample in the pre biogas adoption period. Other tasks in the listlike lighting the stove, cleaning cooking utensils, cooking area and the stove were foundto take less than 25 minutes each to complete and their combined time still far less thanthe amount of time spent on the actual cooking alone with paraffin.- In essence, paraffin as energy for cooking posed the most time demands at purchase andconsequently delivering it home and cooking with it - all of these tasks mainlyperformed by the women. Male participation was found most minimal on tasksinvolving paraffin as an energy source compared to other energy sources used.

After adoption of biogas,Paraffin was virtually dropped from the list of energy for cooking. However for the 1.9% or the5 households that are currently using paraffin, they are spending slightly more time cookingwith it than before but overall, the time spent on the cooking process has reduced owing to thefact that these households are not spending any more time purchasing it. Its likely paraffin salepoints are closer to them than before.After adoption of biogas, male participation is virtually extinct in the tasks regarding paraffin asan energy source and was initially low.Overall, the change in workload observed for males is a reduction in workload stemming fromnearly not participating at all in tasks regarding paraffin as an energy source. For females, thechange in workload is a reduction in workload stemming from the reduced time spent onpurchasing it.Time savings are much obvious for females (up to 99 minutes) and for males; it is more of non-participation than time savings.7 Results: Gender, workload and task allocation in biogas adoptionAs the backdrop of the main interrogations, an outline of the whole range of tasks under biogasproduction and use was developed and put under severe scrutiny to elicit the gender issues,aspects, roles and workload in biogas adoption. We asked who did what and the amount of timehe or she spent on each task in a day. Tasks examined included: collecting dung, fetching waterfor mixing dung, mixing dung with water, Sorting out the unwanted materials for release intothe bio digester, cleaning the mixing chamber, Cleaning one self, lighting and cooking food,cleaning the utensils/pots, cleaning the cooker properly and Management of bio slurry. Resultsfrom the analysis of tasks can be summarised as follows:

23 | P a g e

- The most outstanding feature and unique to biogas is the collective participation ofhousehold members in the production of biogas. There are no major disparities in thedisaggregated responses for men, women boys and girls on tasks of production ofbiogas. It is evident from the table 10 that everyone plays a role at the production stagethough the picture changes on the cooking activities with more tasks undertaken by thewomen.- However, on a one by one scrutiny of the tasks at the production stage, it emerges thatmale participation exceeds that of females on each one of the tasks although womenspent longer time (124 minutes) on these tasks as compared to the males (110 minutes).Views gathered from interviews with respondents put it that tasks of biogas productionare perceived by both men and women to be more masculine and at another level,sophisticated for women to perform as required leading to this kind of division of tasksof men producing biogas and the women cooking with it.

Table 10: Tasks involved when using BiogasTasks Distribution by Gender

No.Women(HH)

No. Girlchild (HH)

Av.Time(Mins.)

No. men(HH)

No. Boychild(HH)

Av.Time(Mins.)

Collecting dung 106(130) 60(130) 30 158(245) 146(245) 29

Fetching water for mixing dung 96(129) 75(129) 26 135(240) 152(240) 23

Mixing dung with water 107(120) 57(120) 24 142(218) 127(218) 21

Sorting out the unwanted materials & ready torelease into the bio digester

123(140) 59(140) 20 131(213) 124(213) 16

Cleaning the mixing chamber 114(133) 54(133) 13 136(218) 129(218) 11

Cleaning one self 99(120) 51(120) 11 134(208) 116(208) 10

Total time for the biogas gas processingactivities 124 110

Lighting the gas cooker 250(257) 106(257) 1 99 (128) 87 (128) 0.9

Cooking food 250(266) 109(266) 33 90 (123) 86 (123) 30

Cleaning the utensils/pots 229(268) 128(268) 13 57 (106) 82 (106) 13

Cleaning the cooker properly 218(253) 118(253) 7 61(101) 75(101) 8

Management of bio slurry 139(147) 56(147) 77 118(168) 95(168) 79

Total time for cooking & post cookingactivities

131 131

Total time on the use of Bio gas 255 241

7.1 Biogas and workloadIn moving further into the analysis of workload, we considered whether these activities specificto biogas production increased the burden of work especially in regard to the additional waterneeded for biogas production, collection of dung and feeding it into the digester and taking careof the animals that produce the basic ingredients for biogas. The results suggest that these tasksdo not pose any labour demands out of the ordinary. The more interesting finding is howhouseholds have made changes particularly in their animal management practices in order toaccommodate the production of biogas energy.- Table 11 for example illustrates well that time spent on activities like fetching water hasnot increased. On the contrary, it has reduced slightly after adoption of biogas. Thereason for this is majority of the households harvest rain water implying water is

24 | P a g e

usually within the homestead except during the dry seasons when households turn tofetching it from nearby water sources. Some of the respondents indicated that they trapurine from the animals and use it in the mixing which makes the gas even stronger. Inother instances, households water the animals on farm and use little time to fill troughseither from running water or nearby wells. In FGDs for both men and women, it wasconfirmed additional water needed for producing biogas was not an issue for mosthouseholds. There were some exceptions though; households who lacked tanks anddepended on fetching water reported an increase in time spent to collect waterespecially during the dry season.- Table 11 further illustrates that, the time spent on collecting cow dung has also notincreased especially in households where zero grazing is practiced. It has insteadreduced because the cows are stall fed thus confining dung in one place and making iteasier and quicker to pick than when it is dropped randomly as cows go about feedingon their own. Stall feeding is for some households a spinoff of biogas adoption ashouseholds realise that stall feeding is very good for biogas production as it reduces onthe amount of time and the fatigue involved in picking the dung by the roadside.However, in western Uganda where farmers have vast farms and were picking cow dungfrom the farms, it was reported that it is a tedious process involving transporting thecow dung on wheel barrows from the farm, and sorting it, which took more timecompared to the time before biogas adoption when it was collected periodically in dryseasons and used as manure in banana plantations.- The same table 11 overall shows that the time spent on animal management beforebiogas adoption has not significantly changed after biogas adoption except on oneactivity of collecting fodder. Because of stall feeding, households spend a little more timeon collecting fodder and this is usually done more than once in a day.

Table 11: Animal management actions before and after Adoption of Biogas (Codes W-Women-Men, BC-Boy child, GC-Girl child, HH- Household)

AnimalManagementactions

Before adoption of Biogas After adoption of Biogas

No.W(HH) No.GC(HH)

Av.Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av.Time(Mins.)

No. W(HH)

No.GC(HH)

Av.Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av.Time(Mins.)

Foddercollection 63(68) 24(68) 96 149(2

44)160(244) 119 65(69) 31(69) 103 140(2

24)146(224) 111

Watercollection 91(115) 67(11

5) 41 122(238)

172(238) 35 97(123) 74(12

3) 38 123(223)

168(223) 35

Collectionof dung 78(89) 35(89) 51 137(1

90)108(190) 51 100(103

)46(103) 35 146(2

69)128(269) 37

Cattlefeeding 65(71) 26(71) 89 110(1

64)110(164) 115 75(79) 42(79) 69 111(1

70)115(170) 90

Total 277 320 245 273

25 | P a g e

7.2 Biogas and task allocation among men, women, boys and girlsSimilarly, in regard to task allocation, there were no major shifts in tasks for men, women andthe children after biogas adoption as the sense of gender roles has not changed. Instead, itextends into biogas and explains the nature of task allocation among the men, women boys andgirls of a household. Ultimately, the traditional gender division of labour is not altered butrather shaped up to the demands of the biogas. In other words, the switch to biogas has not ledto the gender roles being re-imagined but rather extended.From the activity profiles compiled on all surveyed households, results showed that boys andgirls were mostly responsible for fetching water for home use. After biogas adoption, additionalwater needs for biogas production are still mostly met by the boys and girls as observed in table10.A similar trend is observed for what men used to do when using firewood for cooking. Table 5shows men participated most in fetching firewood of all the tasks associated with usingfirewood for cooking. In other words, their role was mostly about making firewood available forcooking. After adoption of biogas, we observe men playing the most roles at biogas productionwhich can equate to the act of fetching firewood. In focus group discussions with men alone,they confirmed this kind of substitution adding that, the time they used to fetch firewood isinstead put into producing biogas and the same need is met. In some households, particularlywhen firewood was being bought, the men became the natural choice for these tasks because inboth cases, it comes down to providing energy for cooking whether through the market or selflabour.In households where hired labour is mostly used, especially for animal management, the malehousehold heads had freer afternoons before biogas adoption as their work typically finished by1:00pm with lunch and thereafter, spending the rest of the day out of home on social activitieswith their peers. After biogas adoption, they are now using the afternoons to fertilise theirgardens with bio slurry as put by one respondent“I used to visit friends or go drinking in my free time, but when I started using biogas, I realised thebio slurry was very good as a fertiliser. Now I use my afternoons to carry bio slurry to my bananaplantation, digging trenches, and I have also established vegetable gardens and a fish pond. I amearning extra income and my time is now well spent”- Male FGD participant, Bushenyi District.Consequently, a number of biogas users reported increased production even on land they hadgiven up using due to fertility problems.

7.3 Biogas and time saving and gender rolesIn terms of biogas freeing up some time, respondents reported that it does free up sometime. Intasks that cut across all cooking energy sources like the act of cooking food, cleaning cookingutensils and cooking area, the difference biogas brings becomes more evident in regard to theamount of time spent on these tasks and renegotiation of the traditional gender roles asillustrated here below:- Time spent on cooking with biogas is just about 30 minutes which is far less timecompared to the amount of time spent cooking with firewood or charcoal – thepredominant energy sources for cooking for over 90% of households. According to theanalysis of tasks involving the use of firewood and charcoal to cook, the average timespent on cooking by women is 89 minutes and 100 minutes respectively. In essence

26 | P a g e

using biogas to cook can potentially save a user up to 60 minutes in a day. The abovescenario is true when doing light cooking for the entire household. However in the FGDs,it was reported that even when households use biogas to cook light food, there isseparate food being cooked on firewood, especially mashed bananas, cassava, and sweetpotatoes among others. This makes the analysis of time saving complex. We observedculture played a big role in time saving. In central Uganda, the staple food is Matookewhich is mashed and left on fire for hours, and this is done on a daily basis and cannotbe done on biogas. In western Uganda, there are households that are predominantlycattle keepers and culturally they lived on milk and have learnt to cook food in recenttimes. It was found out that in these households, they use biogas most times withoutneed of supplementary energy sources because they cook light foods like rice, Irishpotatoes and matooke which is just boiled. The women reported that they have saved alot of time and are able to rest or do other chores.- Time spent on cleaning utensils when using biogas is just about 13 minutes which also isfar less the amount of time spent cleaning utensils when using firewood and charcoal. Bythe same tasks analysis cited above, it is established that the same task takes about 32minutes and 24 minutes to complete when using firewood and charcoal respectively.The reasons why less time in the former scenario as explained by users in interviewsand FGDs inform that utensils used on biogas are less soiled at the end of the cookingprocess; no soot forms and these utensils eventually become exclusive for use on biogasonly and typical food cooked on biogas is usually less sticky, for example, tea water,eggs, rice and vegetables.- More men and boys are performing tasks they would otherwise not as a result of biogas.In FGDs conducted for men alone, men disclosed that they were more involved indomestic chores particularly in meeting their own needs than waiting to be served asbefore. Majority can warm their water and make tea at any time of the day or as of whenthe need arises. In one of the FGDs in central Uganda, the old men participants hailedbiogas used as very appropriate for the elderly who no longer have children to sendaround and confirmed that they had even learnt to cook light food and sauce which theynow do to help their aged wives. They had never done this before but it had becomenormal and in the discussion they were challenging male hegemony and encouragingthe programme to teach households the benefits of sharing roles.- In another way, men have found a more acceptable way to be more helpful withdomestic chores from their perspective of what is manly to do in the domestic realm.Because of the perceived sophistication and masculine overtones associated with biogasproduction tasks, a lot more men are at ease in taking the lead on them. The effect hasbeen a more collective advance to household tasks.- It was further established that biogas has introduced more flexibility on cooking timesand allowed additional time into other tasks performed by men and women. Rather thana very strict timetable previously conditioned by the extensive time required to make ameal ready, men and women can carry on with their other tasks and only return to cookwhen it’s about time to have the meal. It is also possible to opt to have a meal earlier orlater than other family members if necessary to catch up on another task and in thiscase, the person in question – male or female can prepare his or her own.

27 | P a g e

Even though there are specific tasks that clearly demonstrate time savings particularly on thepart of women, overall, women are still working longer time with biogas than the men asobserved in table 10. The difference though not very significant stems from the fact that womenperform most of the cooking and post cooking tasks and at the same time play a significant roleat the production stage of biogas, unlike men whose roles mainly stop at the production level.Moreover, the cooking performed using biogas is not always the only cooking on any given daybecause for most users, biogas is quite limited to light cooking (i.e. boiling water, tea and fastcooking meals like rice, vegetables and sauces like groundnuts and beef). The other bulk ofcooking is usually on firewood and still performed by women.The results so far are largely based on the cooking component of the household tasks which isfair enough. We used an activity profile to observe any shifts in household tasks and collectedover 300 activity profiles of respondents. For insight into household task allocation, table 12typifies how previously and presently a normal day runs but it is by no means a standard for allsurveyed households. The results of the analysis and the discussions that ensued revealed therewere no significant shifts in the normative gender roles but depending on the degree ofcooperation between husband and wife, there is potential for changes in the gender narrative atthe household taking note of what is starting to change as summarised below:- The men are more involved than before particularly in collecting cow dung and makingit available for use at the time of mixing. In some households, men return later to mix thedung and water but in others, the women take on the task after the men have collectedthe dung and placed it close to the mixing chamber.- More men are actively involved in preparing the apparatus for milking than before. Thisincludes boiling water needed for the milking process in the morning. Previously,women used to boil the water and keep it in the flasks including tea for the children. Theavailability of biogas has changed the practice and broadened participation in themorning routine.- Before adoption of biogas, the men were virtually detached from domestic chorestraditionally reserved for women especially activities in the kitchen but with biogas, themen are more involved especially at production stage of biogas and using it to cook. Mencan now sit in the kitchen and keep company with their wives and in the due coursebecome more helpful than just sitting and being idle.- Children are more involved in cooking activities than before particularly in preparingtheir own breakfast before school thus, saving up some time for the women in themorning who previously prepared breakfast for their school going children.

28 | P a g e

Table 12: An example of a typical day of a household before and after adoption of biogas(Codes M-Male, F-Female, B-Boy child, G-Girl child)

24 hours 24 hours

Beforeadoption

Task Person responsible Afteradoption

Task Person responsible

M W BC GC M W BC GC6am Preparation for milking,

fodder collection, feedingcalves

√ √ √ √ 6am Preparation for milking, foddercollection, feeding calves,collection of dung for biogas

√ √ √ √

7am Breakfast for school goingchildren

Milking and packing milkfor sale √

√ √ 7am Milking and packing milk forsale

Breakfast for school goingchildren

√

√ √

8am Cleaning homestead andbreakfast for all

√ 8am Cleaning homestead andbreakfast for all

√

9am 9am Feeding of the digester andmixing

√ √

10am 10am11am Work in the garden and fire

wood collection√ √ 11am Work in the garden √ √

12pm 12pm1pm Lunch preparation and

serving it√ 1pm Lunch preparation and

serving it√

2pm 2pm

3pm Animal managementactivities

√ 3pm Resting, free time √ √

4pm (i.e. fodder collection,milking, packing milk forsale

Free time/resting

√

√

4pm Repeat of the morning routineon animal management (i.e.fodder collection and milking)

√

5pm 5pm

6pm Preparation for supper √ √ 6pm Supper preparation √ √

7pm Serving dinner 7pm

8pm Preparation for bed 8pm Serving dinner andpreparation for bed

√ √ √

9pm 9pm

10pm-4am

Bed time 10pm-4am

Bed time

5am Waking up, includingchildren, spiritual devotion

√ √ √ √ 5am Waking up, including children,spiritual devotion

√ √ √ √

8 Biogas and family relations at household levelThe study used semi structured interviews and FGD to describe the changes in social/familyrelations and power structures because of the changed time use pattern including familyresources. The potential of changing gender and social relations aiming at an alternative, moreequal and satisfactory organisation at household level, for both genders is not only related totime saving but also affected by household resources and income accruing from biogasadoption.

29 | P a g e

In the focus group discussions, it was reported that sharing of roles had led to improvedfamily relations. The most cited example is that of husbands previously returning homelate and expecting their wives to light the fire and serve them warm food, water and tea,which was the source of many quarrels. However, with biogas adoption, many men arenow doing everything for themselves without the need to inconvenience their wives.This is seen as positive and promoting harmony at household level. The shift in roles formen and boys is a much appreciated change that women and girls are benefitting fromand has definitely led to improved relations and team work in terms of gender divisionof labour at household level. In terms of family resources, it was established that the saved time has helpedhouseholds to introduce new activities that are bringing in more income. This hasreduced pressure on the husbands who had to provide all household requirements. Afemale FGD participant in western Uganda reported that from the sale of her vegetables,she has income to contribute to household requirements. Another FGD participant fromeastern Uganda reported that she was in a group with other women who use theircombined bio slurry to spread in their coffee nurseries and were selling the coffeeseedlings for an income to diversify family income and thereby reduce the financialstrain on their husbands. Some households in central and Western region reported that they were selling theexcess bio slurry to non biogas users, which have become a source of income, as well aseasing the management of the bio slurry and ultimately saving time for the households.The farmers who were using the bio slurry reported increase in productivity especiallyin western Uganda and they reported increased income from sell of Matooke, as well asreducing the cost of buying food.

9 Benefits of biogasThe results show, biogas is most valued by its users for its time saving aspect eulogized indifferent ways as shown in table 14. The other benefit relates to increased male participation indomestic chores against a rigid gender division of labour well documented in the genderliterature. In general these benefits do not surprise at all looking back at how biogas comparedwith other forms of energy for cooking in the previous chapters.Table 14: Benefits of biogas to household labour and relationsBenefit No. of responses PercentageReduced time spent on domestic chores as a whole 216 71.5Reduced time spent cooking & cleaning utensils 221 73.2Reduced physical effort involved in cooking and cleaning 209 69.5Freed up time to relax 208 68.2Freed up time to engage in other activities I did not have for before 186 61.6Brought in more male participation in domestic chores 126 41.7Improved quality of family relations 125 41,4Has increased on high yielding crops 15 4.9Kitchen/home remains clean now 2 0.7Attracted visitors at home 1 0.3Enabled household to save some money 6 2.0Freed time especially on cooking 3 1.0

30 | P a g e

Provided with light 3 1.0Acquired animal feeds 1 0.3The more defining aspect was the use of freed up time and the gender relations. Much as therespondents attempted to underline the additional activities on their daily “to do list” todemonstrate use of freed up time, the freed time was used to put more time into the regulartasks to improve them, and in other cases, new activities were introduced. For example, the menrevealed that they were putting more time into animal management tasks than they did beforebiogas adoption due to the reduction in the time taken to source for energy for cooking. As anew activity, men in western Uganda had engaged in fish farming, where they used the bioslurry to grow cabbages which they use to feed the fish in addition to using bio slurry as feedsfor the fish. A number of women had also engaged in establishing vegetable gardens to improvenutrition in their homes as well as selling the surplus to earn some income for the households.This same practice is found with the women and the children. Women are able to put more intosanitation work and garden work and also undertake the kind of tasks which usually fall off thepriority list whenever time does not allow. These kinds of activities include: pressing clothes inadvance, occasional washing for the teenage children, knitting and weaving. Children on theother hand, put more time into academic work at home and play longer at the same timeparticularly over the weekends. Nonetheless, to some respondents, these apparently usualactivities were new on their part and consequent upon freed up time. These are summarisedbelow for men, women, boys and girls separately.Table 15: Use of freed time by women, men, boys and girls specified per extra activitythey undertakeMen Women Boy child Girl child

Spend time with childrengiving counsel

Weaving mats, knitting, poultry project,drug shop business, local bar business,making pancakes for sale

Playing footballwith peers

Playing with peers

Extra care for animals (i.e.sufficient fodder and watercollection, high level ofhygiene of the animal shed)

Attending community meetings andchurch programs, reading the bible,Attending social functions invited to moreregularly

Revision ofclass work athome

Revision of classwork at home

Interaction with friends andthe neighbourhood, attendingvillage meetings

Longer work hours in the gardens,Kitchen gardening using bio slurry,Supervising workers more closely

Watch TV Watch TV

Casual construction work Resting longer hours in the afternoon Preparing ownbreakfast

Preparing ownbreakfast

Planting grass for the animals Helping children with home work Washing ownuniform

Washing ownuniform

10 Inconveniences with biogas technologyThe results from this case study suggest that biogas has, at best only lent half of its full potentialto its users because of its actual and perceived inconvenience. One such inconvenience is theperceived limitations of biogas to meet all the cooking requirements of the family expressed inresponses like: little gas 13%, slow cooking 8%, low supply during the rainy season 2% undersection 5.1.9.

31 | P a g e

The other is the incidents of failure with the plant (expressed in responses like: pipe blockage20%, leakage 14% under section 5.1.9.) The other alleged inconveniences are actually theexpected tasks such as collecting cow dung and water and mixing which exert different levels ofstrain depending on other factors such as: size of family and available labour, proximity of waterand cow dung sources. However, the first two are particularly major inconveniences as furtherexplained below:10.1Incidents of gas exhaustion during the cooking processMost households use biogas for light cooking because they are sceptical of the extent it can go tocook all that is there to cook. Attempts to use it exclusively to cook have been quite unsuccessfulwith the performance of the gas cooker going down in the middle of cooking prompting the userto improvise to complete the cooking process. Having to improvise in the middle of the cookingprocess is one major inconvenience and the effect has been to relegate biogas to light cooking.The undoing is that households spend an hour to two on tasks to produce biogas but use it forhalf of the cooking required. Some respondents showed they owned the constraint as one oftheir own making because of inadequate mixing but in some cases, it is still unexplained the lowperformance despite observing the procedures for biogas production.10.2Pipe blockage, leakages and plant failureThe other and major source of inconvenience is pipe blockages and leakages and complete plantfailure compounded by the fact that repair services are not easily available. Many householdshave at some point had an issue with their digesters but the most constraint is finding repairservices within reasonable time. During the malfunctioning of the plants, households makeattempts to fix the problem on their own and sometimes are unsuccessful, wasting an incredibleamount of time especially when the households opt to empty the digesters in a bid to restart thewhole process again. It is a major inconvenience and doubles the workload on the part of theuser to undertake all the tasks for biogas production in vain and still end up using other energysources for cooking.10.3Bio slurry managementBio slurry management is also deemed time consuming with high labour demands, inspite of thevery positive benefits elaborated in the discussions with the users. This was not uniform acrossboard; it depended on availability of labour, managing the pits and the use of the bio slurry athousehold level. In central region, households are settled on small pieces of land where bioslurry is not that important as manure, so it is an inconvenience. One female participant in theFGD reported that at one time it rained and the slurry was carried by water run offs to theneighbours who have threatened to report her to the authorities if she fails to manage her bioslurry. She has resorted to reducing the times of feeding the digester to reduce bio slurryproduction, which in the long run could be detrimental to the plant. Other households reportedthat they were hiring to empty the bio slurry pits.Other inconveniences but much less serious include: fear of overuse/wastage of biogas by thechildren in the absence of an adult or the parents, having to change into another attire to mix,potential for a bad odour in case someone doesn’t clean properly after mixing and the need forscented soap to clean up and dispel the odour.

32 | P a g e

11 ConclusionsThrough a detailed task analysis, we have obtained a good understanding of the changes thathave occurred and how they have occurred. Generally, workload and roles for men and womenwithin all surveyed households have not significantly changed. However, this does not mean thestatus of women, men and children within the household is completely stuck in the old gendernarrative. There are many incentives for change brought about by biogas which positivelyimpact gender relations and household division of labour.Reduction on work load for men, women, boys and girlsFrom the quantitative data and the narratives in the interviews and FGDs, biogas adoption hasfreed some time and reduced the work load at household level. Women find it easier to cookusing biogas, it does not require too much attention and they can multi task as they cook, whichis a huge benefit mentioned by most of the women. Men on the other hand acknowledge thatbiogas unprecedentedly relieves from the troubles of firewood and makes rush hours moremanageable not just for women but men as well. This acts as an incentive for men to activelyparticipate in biogas production because they personally relate with the benefits especiallywhen they can warm their water and make their tea at any time of the day or when theirrequest for them is immediately met.Despite the above benefits, it is difficult to leverage the actual reduction in the workload for menand women because they have replaced the saved time with new activities or intensified on oldones. Biogas production also has additional activities which replaces firewood collection. On theother hand, even when biogas is the preferred sources on energy, most of the respondents usefirewood as well, which also has tasks related to the cooking process. This therefore, impliesthat the cooking is a double process and this makes it difficult to ascertain if the work load hasreally reduced in actual terms. It can be concluded that biogas saves time in terms of lightcooking because it is easier and convenient to use, but it does not significantly reduce the workload.Change in gender roles between women and men, boys and girlsIn terms of changes in tasks at household level, biogas adoption has led to changes in roles. Itwas reported that men and boys can now do light cooking which was not the case before biogasadoption, which was also confirmed by the women. When the researchers probed why theycould not do it before, the reasons were around the inconvenience of tending fires, smoke andother inconveniences of using fire wood, which is the major sources of energy. The shift in rolesis a big result from the gender mainstreaming efforts of the biogas programme and the lessonscan be documented and used to promote behaviour/attitude change in future work.Use of Freed time as a result of biogas useFrom the analysis, it has been indicated that biogas use frees some time for women and men toengage in other productive activities which have been elaborated on in the discussion. Womenare now more engaged in social and church activities, knitting, extra gardening and cleaning.However, from the women’s perspective, it is hard to “touch” the time that has been freedbecause they are engaged in other activities and their schedules are still heavy. However, it is arecognised fact that using biogas frees some time especially during the day when mosthousehold do light cooking for lunch.

33 | P a g e

Improved family and social relationsBiogas adoption has led to improved gender relations due to sharing of roles, ability of men andboys to cook light food for themselves, which eases the work load for women and reducesfriction on expecting to be served even when women have competing demands. Men are alsohappy to replace the expenditure on buying firewood with their own labour and still meet theenergy needs of their households at virtually no cost. These incentives add some degree offlexibility to the rather defined and rigid gender roles and ultimately benefiting women whootherwise would shoulder the burden of work. On the other hand, the financial benefitsaccruing from use of biogas have significantly reduced resources based conflicts at householdlevel and improved family relations. Focusing on benefits of biogas production and use can be agood avenue for improving household incomes and relations especially if the strategic needs ofwomen are met.Last but not least, talking about the benefits of biogas is not enough. It is necessary to makesome points for further debate in the area of gender and workload: There are aspects where women can particularly draw closer to more equitable terms inthe household that need to be explored. For example, it was found that an improvementin the technology with a mixing machine would bring in more male participationbecause they abhor mixing cow dung and water with their bare hands. This wouldreduce on the workload of women by increasing male participation. This thereforeimplies that there may be need for other required technologies to ease work aroundbiogas use. There is need to explore more ways of operating on a reduced labour budgetparticularly who already have household chores besides operating the plant. The studyhas for example already established that, biogas tasks become lighter when the animalsare zero grazed combined with rain water harvesting technologies because of theproximity of cow dung and water but workload reduces further depending on the natureof the animal shed. If it is cemented, the dung is less dirty and reduces on the time spenton mixing and sorting – a task largely performed by women. Squarely addressing the major points of inconvenience discussed in the section abovehas the potential to make biogas a primary energy source replacing firewood andultimately reduce the workload of women who shoulder the biggest burden when usingfuel wood. As earlier observed, biogas is not only time saving but also has the appeal forcollective participation which in turn is most beneficial to women given the currenthousehold division of labour. The benefits of biogas other than the cooking process also need to be explained andpromoted to the users. Some of the respondents were not clear on how to use bio slurryas fertilizer. The accruing benefits like increased productivity would encourageparticipation of the entire household in the biogas production activities. Awareness raising on gender relations should be integrated in all the processes onbiogas introduction spelling out the benefits, power relations and also aiming ataddressing strategic and practical needs of men and women.

34 | P a g e

12 Appendices

12.1 Data tables and figures

12.1.1 Table 6: Allocation of Time and Tasks among Households that used Charcoal before and after Biogas adoption

Tasks Charcoal use before adoption of Biogas Charcoal use after adoption of Biogas

No.W(HH) No. GC (HH) Av. Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av. Time(Mins.)

No. W (HH) No.GC(HH) Av. Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av. Time(Mins.)

Collecting the charcoal 56 (59) 16 (59) 39 27(41) 17(41) 42 28(46) 8(46) 34 13(21) 11(21) 37

Stocking the charcoalstove

72(79) 25(79) 11 14(25) 15(25) 11 41(46) 19(46) 6 4(13) 12(13) 9

Lighting the charcoal stove 72(83) 31(83) 13 6(17) 14(17) 10 44(44) 12(44) 10 4(12) 11(12) 10

Cooking food includingrefueling & adding charcoal 78(86) 27(86) 100 9(18) 13(18) 93 45(50) 18(50) 81 4(11) 10(11) 98

Cleaning utensils/pots 68(79) 37(79) 24 4(27) 25(27) 22 36(45) 23(45) 21 2(21) 21(21) 20

Cleaning cooking area 67(79) 36(79) 11 4(22) 20(22) 11 35(46) 25(46) 9 2(15) 15(15) 8

Cleaning charcoalstove/removing ash 59(67) 29(67) 7 4(17) 15(17) 8 34(44) 23(44) 10 2(13) 13(13) 18

Total 205 197 171 200

35 | P a g e

12.1.2 Table 7: Allocation of Time and Tasks among Households that used Electricity before and after Biogas adoptionTasks Electricity use before adoption of Biogas Electricity use after adoption of Biogas

No.W(HH) No. GC (HH) Av. Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av. Time(Mins.)

No. W (HH) No.GC(HH) Av. Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av. Time(Mins.)

Heating the plate - - - 3(5) 3(5) 3 4(5) 3(5) 6 2(2) - 2

Cooking food 9 (9) 1(9) 46 2(4) 2(4) 65 5(5) 3(5) 26 2(2) - 25

Cleaning utensils/pots 9(9) 1(9) 10 1(3) 2(3) 8 5(5) 3(5) 14 1(1) - 10

Cleaning cooking area 8(8) 1(8) 6 1(3) 2(3) 3 5(5) 3(5) 9 1(1) - 5

Total 62 79 55 42

12.1.3 Table 8: Allocation of Time and Tasks among Households that Used LPG before and after Biogas adoption

Tasks LPG use before adoption of Biogas LPG use after adoption of Biogas

No.W(HH) No. GC (HH) Av. Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av. Time(Mins.)

No. W (HH) No.GC(HH) Av. Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av. Time(Mins.)

Collecting andpurchasing LPG

2 (2) - 20 5(5) - 41 1(1) - 30 2(2) - 22

Lighting gas cooker 3(3) - 2 2(3) 2(3) 1 1(1) - 2 1(1) - 1

Cooking food 4 (6) 2(6) 23 2(2) 2(2) 35 1(1) - 10 - 1(1) 10

Cleaningutensils/cooking pots

2(3) 1(3) 22 1(1) - 17 1(1) - 30 1(2) 1(2) 20

Cleaning thecylinder/cooker

2(4) 2(4) 12 1(2) 1(2) 7 - 1(1) 15 1(1) - 5

Avg. Total time 79 102 87 58

36 | P a g e

12.1.4 Table 9: Allocation of Time and Tasks among Households that used Paraffin before and after Biogas adoption

Tasks Paraffin use before adoption of Biogas Paraffin use after adoption of Biogas

No.W(HH) No. GC (HH) Av. Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av. Time(Mins.)

No. W (HH) No.GC(HH) Av. Time(Mins.)

No. M(HH)

No. BC(HH)

Av. Time(Mins.)

Collecting /purchasingparaffin

3(3) - 107 2(5) 3(5) 50 - - - 1(2) 1(2) 50

Lighting the stove 7(7) 2(7) 7 - 1(1) 4 2(2) - 10 - - -

Cooking food includingrefueling & addingparaffin

8(8) 3(8) 114 - - - 2(2) - 130 - - -

Cleaning utensils/pots 7(7) 1(7) 17 1(2) 1(2) 15 2(2) - 13 - - -

Cleaning cooking area 8(8) 2(8) 10 - 2(2) 9 2(2) 1(2) 5 - - -

Cleaning the paraffinstove

8(8) 3(8) 7 - 1(1) 20 2(2) 1(2) 5 - - -

Total 262 98 163 50

37 | P a g e

12.2 Data collection tools

12.2.1 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY TOOL

GENDER & WORKLOAD

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY TOOL

Name of Enumerator:Date:Questionnaire Number

1. The purpose for the interview is explained to the respondent and his/her consent is sought2. The respondent is assured of confidentiality for any information that he/she will provide3. Enumerator should ensure all questions are asked and responses recorded when provided. Please,

note, a respondent can decline to respond to a question, in such instances, probe for the reason forthe decline for learning purposes.

4. Probe the interviewee to get correct information on time and tasks5. The respondent is given a chance (at the end of the interview) to ask any questions

Section 1: Household characteristics

Sex of respondent: Male Female

1. Name of the region: Central Eastern Western

2. Household location: Rural Peri-Urban Urban

3. Are you the head of the household: Yes No

4. If not, what is your relationship with the head of the household: Spouse Child ParentRelative Hired worker Other Specify……………………………………

5. Age group of the respondent: 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+

6. Family size: ≤ 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 over 20

7. Period of biogas usage: ≤ 6months 7-12 months over a year

8. Which statements below best desribe what you use bio gas for?

a. Entire lighting for the house only

b. Entire cooking for the house only

c. Commercial use (i.e. cooking items for sale like pancakes etc)

(Specify commercial activities if C is selected…………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………)

d. Light cooking only (i.e. tea, water etc)

e. Used in emergency cases only

9. Others (specify) …………………………………………………………………………………………………

38 | P a g e

Section 2: Current and previous energy source used

10. What were the sources of energy previously used before acquiring the biogas technology? (Multipleresponse)

a. Firewoodb. LPGc. Charcoald. Electricitye. Paraffinf. Farm wastes (maize stalks, cassava stalks, etc.)g. Other (specify).................................................

11. After adoption of bio gas, are there other sources of energy you are using for your regular cooking andlighting? (Multiple response)

a. Firewoodb. LPGc. Charcoald. Paraffine. Electricityf. Farm wastes (maize stalks, cassava stalks etc.)g. Other (specify).................................................

12. Of all the energy sources available to you, which is your most used energy source for cooking on a regularbasis?

a. Bio gasb. Firewoodc. LPGd. Charcoale. Paraffinf. Electricityg. Other (specify).................................................

13. Please give the major reason for your response above?

................................................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................

39 | P a g e

Section 3: Task allocation & time use before bio gas adoption specific to the cooking process andanimal managementThis section focuses on the energy source(s) used by the households and animal management practicesbefore the introduction of bio-gas. The energy sources to be considered are the ones mentioned inquestion 10 under section 214. What were the tasks involved and time taken in using the energy sources mentioned in question 10under section 2 for the cooking process?A. FIREWOODTasks involved when usingfirewood

Time spent ontask in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childPre-cooking activitiesCollecting firewoodSplitting firewoodPreparing the fireCOOKING ACTIVITIESLighting the fireCooking food including refueling –adding firewoodOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cooking areaOther (Spec)Total time

B.LPGTasks involved when using LPG Time spent on

task in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childCOOKING ACTIVITIESCollecting/purchasing of LPGLighting the gas cookerCooking foodOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cylinder /cookerOther (Specify)Total time

C.CHARCOALTasks involved when using charcoal Time spent on

task in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childPre-cooking activities

40 | P a g e

Collecting charcoalStocking the charcoal stoveLighting the charcoal stoveCOOKING ACTIVITIESCooking food including refueling –adding charcoalOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cooking areaCleaning the charcoal stove-removing ashTotal time

D.ELECTRICITYTasks involved when usingelectricity

Time spent ontask in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childPRE-COOKING ACTIVITIESHeating the Cooking plateCOOKING ACTIVITIESCooking foodOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cooking areaTotal time

E. PARAFFINTasks involved when using paraffin Time spent on

task in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childPRE-COOKING ACTIVITIESCollecting/purchasing paraffinLighting the stoveCOOKING ACTIVITIESCooking food including refueling –adding paraffinOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cooking areaCleaning the paraffin stove-Other (Spec)Total time

TOTAL TIME SPENT BEFORE BIO GAS ADOPTION ON THE COOKING PROCESS

41 | P a g e

Select applicable fuel sources onlyEnergy source A B C D E TOTALTime in hours

15. Animal management actions before adoption of bio gas

Animal managementactions

Descriptionof action

Time spenton task ina day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick theappropriate)

Purpose/use of theaction beforebiogas adoption

Man Woman Boychild

Girlchild

Fodder collection

Water collection

Collection of dung

Cattle feeding (e.g.stall-feeding,paddock etc)

Total time

Section 4: Task allocation & time use after bio gas adoption specific to the cooking processThis section focuses on the energy sources that are currently used by the households after theintroduction of bio-gas and animal management. The energy sources to considered are the onesmentioned in question 11 under section 216. What are the tasks involved and time taken in using the energy sources mentioned in question 11under section 2 for the cooking process?A. BIOGASTasks involved when using biogas Time spent on

task in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childPRE-COOKING/ GAS PROCESSINGACTIVITIESCollecting dungFetching water for mixingMixing dung with waterSorting out the unwanted materials(polythene, grass, paper, wood,sawdust etc) and ready to releaseinto the bio digester

42 | P a g e

Cleaning the mixing chamberCleaning one selfOther (Specify)Total time for the gas processingactivitiesCOOKING ACTIVITIESLighting the gas cookerCooking foodOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cooker properly.Removing any food particles fromthe cookerManagement of bioslurryOther (Spec)Total time for cooking and postcooking activitiesTOTAL TIME ON THE USE OF BIOGAS

B. FIREWOODTasks involved when usingfirewood

Time spent ontask in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childPre-cooking activitiesCollecting firewoodSplitting firewoodPreparing the fireCOOKING ACTIVITIESLighting the fireCooking food including refueling –adding firewoodOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cooking areaOther (Spec)Total time

C.LPGTasks involved when using LPG Time spent on

task in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childCOOKING ACTIVITIESCollecting/purchasing of LPGLighting the gas cooker

43 | P a g e

Cooking foodOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cylinder /cookerOther (Specify)Total time

D.CHARCOALTasks involved when using charcoal Time spent on

task in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childPre-cooking activitiesCollecting charcoalStocking the charcoal stoveLighting the charcoal stoveCOOKING ACTIVITIESCooking food including refueling –adding charcoalOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cooking areaCleaning the charcoal stove-removing ashTotal time

44 | P a g e

E.ELECTRICITYTasks involved when usingelectricity

Time spent ontask in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childPRE-COOKING ACTIVITIESHeating the Cooking plateCOOKING ACTIVITIESCooking foodOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cooking areaTotal time

F. PARAFFINTasks involved when using paraffin Time spent on

task in a day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick the appropriate)

Man Woman Boy child Girl childPRE-COOKING ACTIVITIESCollecting/purchasing of paraffinLighting the stoveCOOKING ACTIVITIESCooking food including refueling –adding paraffinOther (Specify)POST COOKING ACTIVITIESCleaning utensils /potsCleaning the cooking areaCleaning the paraffin stove-Other (Spec)Total time

TOTAL TIME SPENT AFTER BIO GAS ADOPTATION FOR COOKINGSelect applicable sources only

Energysource

A B C D E F TOTAL

Time inhours

Section 5: Freed time

17. Calculation of freed time as a result of bio gas adoption

[Time spent on cooking before adoption] - [Time spent on cooking after adoption] = Freed Time

_______________________ --- ____________________________===___________________

45 | P a g e

18. Animal management actions after adoption of bio gas

Animal managementactions

Descriptionof action

Time spenton task ina day (inminutes)

Responsible person (Tick theappropriate)

Purpose/use of theaction after biogasadoption

Man Woman Boychild

Girlchild

Fodder collection

Water collection

Collection of dung

Cattle feeding (e.g.stall-feeding,paddock etc)

Total time

Section 6: Analysis of gender roles before and after biogas adoption19. In before and after biogas adoption, how were/are the households roles distributedbetween man, woman, boy child and girl child (i.e. who is doing what?) Codes M-Male, F-Female, B-Boy child, G-Girl child Note: cluster time lines where hourly description of tasks isnot possible)

24 hours 24 hours

Beforeadoption

Task Personresponsible

Afteradoption

Task Personresponsible

6am M F B G 6am M F B G

7am 7am

8am 8am

9am 9am

10am 10am

11am 11am

12pm 12pm

1pm 1pm

46 | P a g e

2pm 2pm

3pm 3pm

4pm 4pm

5pm 5pm

6pm 6pm

7pm 7pm

8pm 8pm

9pm 9pm

10pm 10pm

11pm 11pm

12am 12am

1am 1am

2am 2am

3am 3am

4am 4am

5am 5am

Section 7: Analysis of the benefits

20. Which statements below best desribe your benefits of bio gas in regard to household labour andrelations?

a. Reduced time I spend on domestic chores as a whole

b. Reduced time I spend cooking and cleaning utensils

c. Reduced physical effort involved in cooking and cleaning

d. Freed up time to relax

e. Freed up time to engage in other activities I didn’t have time for before

f. Altered gender roles to advantage (i.e. men involving in actions traditionally assigned to women)

g. Brought in more male participation in domestic chores

47 | P a g e

h. Improved quality of family relationships

21. Others (specify)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

22. Is there any inconvenience that the biogas plant has brought to you (your household)?

a. Yesb. No

23. If yes, explain………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......

Thank you very much for taking time off to respond to this questionnaire. We greatly appreciate your support

48 | P a g e

12.2.2 SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW FOR INDIVIDUALS

Name of Enumerator:

Date:

Questionnaire Number

(Explain the purpose of the interview using the following script)

The Africa Biogas Partnership Programme (ABPP) with support from DGIS and the Dutch Ministry forDevelopment Cooperation is implementing a program aimed at improving the living conditions of householdsin five African countries, through the multiple benefits of the introduction of more than seventy thousanddomestic biogas digesters for cooking and lighting.The project in Uganda is implemented by Heifer international under the Uganda Domestic biogas Programme(UDBP). To enlighten on the benefits of biogas particularly in regard to labour saving, Africa Biogas PartnershipProgramme (ABPP) in collaboration with the International Network on Gender & Sustainable Energy (ENERGIA)is conducting a case study to provide information on the effect bio gas technology has had on the workload ofwomen and men and how men and women use their newly acquired time (if any) saved through bio gasadoption. All your responses will be kept with utmost confidentiality and will be used in aggregate form onlytogether with others who are responding to it. No one will be able to single out your responses. We thereforerequest you to participate in this survey by answering the following questions.

Profile of interviewee

Sex of respondent: Male Female

Name of the region: Central Eastern Western

1. In reference to the household division of labour between man and woman you earlierdescribed (i.e. Activity profile), please explain what you have seen change in the labourstructure in the event of biogas adoption (probe for changes in the gender division of labouras a result of adoption of biogas)

Note: For question 1, please refer to the activity profile compiled on the same respondentfurther selected for the semi structured interview

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

GENDER & WORKLOAD

SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW FOR INDIVIDUALS

49 | P a g e

2. How are the tasks associated with biogas production distributed? (Probe for who is doingwhat in the production cycle of biogas, how much time is spent on each task and how oftenit is done)

Tasks Person responsible(man or woman, boychild or girl child)

Frequency Amount of timespent on the task

1. Preparation of animal feeds

2.Feeding of animals

3. Initial feeding of the plant

4. Daily feeding of the plant

5.Mixing of water and dung inthe mixing chamber

6.Cleaning of the mixingchamber

7.Management of bio slurry

3. What has been the implication of the above scenario on workload for men and women(probe for changes in labour demands pressed on men and women).

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. Explain inconveniences (if any) caused by the biogas digester/system which encroach onyour time and workload (Probe for cases of breakdown, disruptions, cases of scarcity of bioslurry if any and how it affects time and workload)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

50 | P a g e

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Describe how time is saved and the amount ultimately saved (if any) in a day as a result ofbiogas adoption (probe for how time is saved with examples of tasks where time saving isexpected)

Tasks where time saving is expected How the time is saved Time saved (estimates)compared to a non user

1 Cleaning utensils

2 Cooking

3

4

6. In relation to the above, explain what you use your freed time for (probe for use of newlyacquired time if any, demonstrated by extra activities they undertake)

Extra activities undertaken (fill the section appropriate based on the sex of the respondent)

Men Women Boy child Girl child

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

51 | P a g e

7. Describe the changes in social/family relations and power structures because of the changedtime use pattern ((probe for changes in regard to labour practices, time and resources)

Social/family factors Men WomenLabour practices

Time (i.e. number ofhours per day fordiscretionary use(leisure)

Family resources (i.e. cashmoney),

Thank you very much for taking time off to respond to this questionnaire. We greatly appreciate your support

52 | P a g e

12.2.3 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

Name of Enumerator:

Date:

Questionnaire Number

(Explain the purpose of the interview using the following script)

The Africa Biogas Partnership Programme (ABPP) with support from DGIS and the Dutch Ministry forDevelopment Cooperation is implementing a program aimed at improving the living conditions of householdsin five African countries, through the multiple benefits of the introduction of more than seventy thousanddomestic biogas digesters for cooking and lighting.The project in Uganda is implemented by Heifer international under the Uganda Domestic Biogas Programme(UDBP). To enlighten the benefits of biogas particularly with regard to labour saving, Africa Biogas PartnershipProgramme (ABPP) in collaboration with the International Network on Gender & Sustainable Energy (ENERGIA)is conducting a case study to provide information on the effect bio gas technology has had on the workload ofwomen and men and how men and women use their newly acquired time (if any) saved through bio gasadoption. We therefore request you to participate in this survey by answering the following questions.

Group profile

Number of group members:……………………

Number of males …………… Number of females………………

Name of the region: Central Eastern Western

8. Conduct an analysis of gender roles using the activity profile and discuss changes(if any) inworkload and roles for women and men, boys and girls (code M-Male, F-Female, B-Boy child,G-Girl child)

Note: cluster time lines where hourly description of tasks is not possible)

24 hours 24 hours

Beforeadoption

Task Personresponsible

Afteradoption

Task Personresponsible

6am M F B G 6am M F B G

7am 7am

8am 8am

GENDER & WORKLOAD

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

53 | P a g e

9am 9am

10am 10am

11am 11am

12pm 12pm

1pm 1pm

2pm 2pm

3pm 3pm

4pm 4pm

5pm 5pm

6pm 6pm

7pm 7pm

8pm 8pm

9pm 9pm

10pm 10pm

11pm 11pm

12am 12am

1am 1am

2am 2am

3am 3am

4am 4am

5am 5am

Changes in roles (if any)-narrative

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

54 | P a g e

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

9. Describe the seasonal activities you undertake and their associated labour demands (pleaseindicate with a tick periods/months of intense labour demands for men, women, girl childand boy child)

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Women

Men

Boy child

Girl child

Codes: F=field preparation, P=Planting, W=weeding, H=harvesting, PHH=post harvest handling (i.e.drying, processing, preservation, storage etc), M= marketing, S=shepherding animals

10. How do these seasonal activities and their associated labour demands impact on your biogasproduction and usage?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

11. How accessible are resources related to biogas production particularly water in yourcommunity?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

12. Describe how and the amount of time ultimately saved (if any) in a day as a result of biogasadoption (probe for how time is saved with examples of tasks where time saving is expectedseparately for men and women, boy child and girl child)

Women

Tasks where time saving is expected Basis of time saved App time saved comparedto a non user

55 | P a g e

1 Cleaning utensils

2 Cooking

3

4

Men

Tasks where time saving is expected Basis of time saved App time saved comparedto a non user

1 Cleaning utensils

2 Cooking

3

4

Girl child

Tasks where time saving is expected Basis of time saved App time saved comparedto a non user

1 Cleaning utensils

2 Cooking

3

4

Boy child

Tasks where time saving is expected Basis of time saved App time saved comparedto a non user

1 Cleaning utensils

2 Cooking

3

4

56 | P a g e

13. In relation to the above, explain what you use your freed time for (probe for use of newlyacquired time if any, demonstrated by extra activities they undertake separately for menand women)

Extra activities undertaken

Men Women Boy child Girl child

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

14. Describe the changes in social/family relations and power structures because of the changedtime use pattern ((probe for changes in regard to labour practices, time and resources)

Social/family factors Men WomenLabour practices

Time (i.e.number of hoursper day fordiscretionary use(leisure)

Family resources (i.e.cash money),

57 | P a g e

12.3 Process reportThis section narrates the process by which the case study was completed. Generally, the studywas conducted with a good degree of consultation and correspondences with the differentparties listed in the study.At the start of the process, a meeting was convened by ABPP to clarify on the terms of referencebut also, introduce parties in the study and their responsibilities. Correspondences thereafterwere well directed and response was mostly within reasonable time. A study as this, involvingmany parties requires a clear communication directive to facilitate timely feedback whilekeeping everyone abreast with all the developments.Tool development and planning for field workThe next major part in process was tool development. This was an extensive step with back andforth communication to refine the tools and have every one’s approval on the tools that weregoing to be used. This was an important step and worth the time taken to complete becausehaving the right tools means everything to the usefulness of the data that is eventually collected.Whilst the tools’ refinement, communication and mobilisation for data collection and training ofthe research assistants were initiated to ensure data collection followed right after the toolswere finalised. Initiating the conversation on the data collection plan early enough was verybeneficial to the study because it helped discover some of the unviable parts of the datacollection plan and work around making it practical with the help of the regional officers whoare conversant with their localities.A study as this, involving hundreds of respondents in different geographical locations and morethan one tool to administer requires a well thought out plan to ensure data collection is effectiveand completed within reasonable time and with the available resources.This particular study demanded a lot of creativity to work out and seizing every opportunity totease out the plan with the officers on the ground. One case in point was a meeting with Georgeand Grace - the regional contacts for western and eastern Uganda while at their internationalbio gas conference in Kampala. It helped check the practicality of the initial plan and in the end;there were major amendments which had implications on the budget and approach.Through all the changes that happened, all parties in the study were constantly updated and inmany instances, we (the consultants) received helpful advice on how to work with thedevelopments. Most importantly, ABPP provided the additional funds that were only realisedafter a series of discussions on the field plan and all parties appreciating the initial oversights inplanning.After an agreed and workable plan, the regional officers mobilised accordingly and confirmedwith the consultants the dates as well as arranged for other logistics mainly local transport andresearch guides (i.e. masons and promoters). Using the regional officers to secure fieldtransport was the most practical and cost effective way around the transport issue whichinitially seemed challenging. Regional officers had the advantage of knowledge of serviceproviders in their localities and this eased booking and the negotiation and ultimately, enabledus to work with a reasonable transport budget unlike if transport had been centrally organised.

58 | P a g e

Data collection and report writingAfter an extensive preparatory stage, the data collection exercise begun on 3rd April 2013 withcentral region and was completed on 14th April 2013 with western region. Data collection wasexecuted on target and this was possible because of the effective planning prior to datacollection and a clear division of tasks between the consultants and the research assistants.Expectations from the research assistants were clarified at the training meeting and shortcontracts issued to ensure compliance with the expected outputs. All data collected wasanalysed appropriately and used to write the report. The draft report was shared for commentsleading to the writing of a final report.

59 | P a g e

12.4 FGD reportFocus Group Discussions (FGD) methodology (together with semi structured interviews) wasadopted for qualitative data collection. In total, six (6) FGDs were conducted with two perregion for men and women separately. The turn up and participation in the discussions wasadequate and could be attributed to effective mobilization and working in separate groups formen and women which created room for more open expression by the participants. Below is thebreakdown of the turn up.Region No of FGDs conducted No of

participants pergroup for Men

No of participantsper group forWomen

Total

Centralregion

2 (1 for men and 1 forwomen) 08 09 17WesternRegion

2 (1 for men and 1 forwomen) 12 15 27Easternregion

2 (1 for men and 1 forwomen) 12 15 27TOTAL 6 32 39 71

The focus group discussions were used to obtain depth on issues surveyed on in the householdsurvey. It focused on gender analysis tools especially the activity profile to understand thechanges in gender roles which could have happened as a result of biogas use. The seasonalcalendar was also used to understand how seasonal activities particularly those relating tofarming affected family labour and the implication on biogas production and usage. The FGDsalso assessed time saving as a result of biogas use and how the time was used, with specificexamples and also delved into understanding how the whole process (time, sharing of roles,labour demands) impacted on social/family relations and power structures.1.1 Changes in work load and roles for men, women, boys and girls

WomenThere were changes noted for men, women and children in their routine activities and timespent on these activities. The women reported that before biogas, they used to sleep late andperform certain tasks in preparation for the following day such as; boiling tea for school goingchildren and water for milking which would be kept put in flasks overnight. With biogas use,these tasks are now largely performed in the morning with men and children drawn in intothese specific chores. The men who are largely responsible for milking boil the water in themorning and children boil their tea. This gives time to the women to attend to other chores likecleaning. Some households reported to have reduced the need for helpers as work particularlyin the morning becomes more manageable with biogas.Majority of the women also reported that biogas use does not increase workload for themmainly because biogas production tasks are shared and a great amount of time previously spenton firewood collection is used for biogas production. Although firewood is still a significantenergy source in these households, the practice has changed to the effect of reducing workloadassociated with fuel wood particularly on collection. It was found out that most households

60 | P a g e

“I used to visit friends or go drinking in my freetime, but when I started using biogas, I realisedthe bio slurry was very good as a fertilizer. Now Iuse my afternoons to carry bio slurry to mybanana plantation, digging trenches, and i havealso established vegetable gardens and a fishpond. I am earning extra income and my time isnow well spent”

- Male FGD participant, Bushenyi District.

collect and split wood in bulk which lasts between 1-3 months thus, reducing the frequency offirewood collection. The use of biogas also makes firewood stock last longer because of themultiple energy sources at their disposal. The only section of women who reported increasedwork load are those that have to fetch water for mixing dung which requires additional time andlabour.Overall, women appreciated the support they are getting from men and boys in regard tocooking tasks which they never used to perform with the use of firewood. This change in roleshas eased their work and provided them with discretionary time to rest or engage in activitiesthey were not able to do before.MenUsing the daily activity profile men reported that biogas use had changed their schedules – forbetter. It was reported that before bio gas adoption, men usually got busy during morning hourswith milking activities, animal management and little gardening but most of the afternoons andevenings were free, with no productive rolesbeing performed. With introduction of biogas,there was extra work around collecting andmixing the cow dung and fetching water forthose who did not have water tanks, which areseen as additional but manageable activities ontheir schedules. On a more positive note, menreported changes in their time use, particularlythe afternoon hours with pride because theywere putting their bioslurry to good use asfertilizer and were already reaping the benefits.Some men have started fish ponds, vegetable gardens or improved on their banana and coffeeplantations using the bio slurry. This has reduced the time spent on social gatherings in tradingcenters, where most time was spent on drinking alcohol, watching football matches or justtalking.The other positive change is the ease to engage in cooking activities which comes with biogaswhich has changed men’s perception about cooking – most of the them reported that they cannow engage in light cooking like warming food, boiling tea and bathing water, and a fewreported that they can even cook food for themselves and the children in the absence of theirwives. This is a great change which men view an enabling them to get a quick service and go onto do other roles without having to wait for the women to do it, but also reducing the work loadfor the women.Animal management practices have in some households tilted to be more accommodative ofbiogas production (i.e. a switch to zero grazing) and in this case, new roles like collecting grassfor the cows, watering the animals and cleaning the kraals have emerged. However, mosthouseholds used hired labourers in animal management and most of them were responsible forbiogas production activities with supervision from the household heads at times. Some of themwere also consulted and the responses were not different from the men who were doing it ontheir own.

61 | P a g e

The common increase in labour demands for men was management of bio slurry. The emptyingof the pits reportedly took from one week to two weeks and some households had to hire labourto do that. The biggest problem was with households that did not have plantations and gardenswhere the bio slurry can be used and had to find dumping places. Overall, management of bioslurry increased labour demands for men.ChildrenOn the side of children, it was reported that the time used to collect firewood is now used to mixcow dung for some of them. It was also reported that some boys and girls especially atsecondary school level do not want to mix the dung because they perceive it as dirty and filthycompared to firewood.Orienting them to this change is a slow process. In terms of cooking activities, it was reportedthat boys are now engaged in light cooking like making tea, boiling drinking water, bathingwater, frying eggs, and making sauce and light foods for some. This never used to happen whenusing firewood due to the inconvenience of tending fires, smoke and dirt. This is a positivechange that has eased work for women and girls. The children have also saved time used towalk long distances after school to look for firewood and are able to concentrate on theirstudies and do school preparation activities which would otherwise be done by the mothers.1.2 Labour demands for seasonal activities and the implication on biogas production

and usage.It came out in all the discussions that the seasons do not affect biogas work because theactivities associated with production of biogas take less time and mainstreamed in thehousehold activities.However, for some households it was reported that mixing of cow dung for biogas usually shiftsto the evening during planting seasons so as to maximize on the morning time to plant beforethe rains. However most reported that because of the convenience of biogas and bio slurryhouseholds have found means to ensure constant production to ease the cooking process, andespecially since bio slurry is treasured as manure for the gardens.The availability of the resources for biogas production also eases on the labour demands evenduring busy seasons. The cow dung is within the households, and most of them have watertanks or use urine or waste water to do the mixing. It is only in a few cases where they have tofetch from wells and it becomes time consuming especially during the dry seasons. Anotherdisadvantage is for households that do open grazing and have to collect cow dung from the farmwhich takes longer time.Some respondents reported that they use paid labourers on the farm, separate from householdhelp. These particular households did not have any problem with the seasonal changes becausethey do a supervisory role and biogas tasks are allocated to herdsmen or house girls who werenot engaging with farming activities. In central region which is largely urban and peri urban,few of the households had big gardens and were therefore not affected by the farming seasons.

62 | P a g e

1.3 Time saved and how it is used

WomenThe key tasks mentioned where time is saved are cleaning utensils because pans used on biogasare clean and do not have soot. Cooking on biogas also takes relatively a short time since most ofthem use it for light cooking. More time is saved in the morning where households need waterfor milking and with biogas, it takes a short time. The time used to collect firewood is a savingespecially in western Uganda where there is scarcity of firewood and women and children werewalking long distances. In the FGD, women reported that it was difficult to systematicallyidentify time saved on a single activity and evaluate how it was used.Boys and girlsFor the children time is saved on collecting fire wood, cooking and washing dishes particularlyfor the girls. The time saved is used to revise their school work, play, washing school uniformsand resting since most of them come back home late after walking long distances.MenFor men, time saving was in terms of their engagement in the cooking activities than waiting tobe served. When they need tea, they can make it, have their breakfast and leave in time for otheractivities.The other aspect of time saving was reported on reduced time spent on collecting logs forfirewood, which was practiced by some men.Use of freed time by women, men, boys and girls specified per extra activity theyundertake

Men Women Boy child Girl childSpend time withchildren giving counsel Weaving mats, knitting, poultryproject, drug shop business, localbar business, making pancakesfor salePlayingfootball withpeers Playing withpeers

Extra care for animals(i.e. sufficient fodderand water collection,high level of hygiene ofthe animal shed)Attending community meetingsand church programs, reading thebible, Attending social functionsinvited to more regularly

Revision ofclass workat home Revision ofclass work athomeInteraction with friendsand the neighbourhood,attending villagemeetings

Longer work hours in thegardens, Kitchen gardening usingbio slurry, Supervising workersmore closelyWatch TV Watch TV

Casual constructionwork Resting longer hours in theafternoon Preparingownbreakfast Preparing ownbreakfastPlanting grass for theanimals Helping children with home work Washingownuniform Washing ownuniform

63 | P a g e

My husband used to complain that I amextravagant on daily expenditure for charcoaland there was always friction between us.With the use of biogas, there is peace andharmony and the money is used for otherneeds”Woman participant, central region FGD

The above table shows that women have more activities introduced as a result of saved time,which is an improvement to their personal life and also addresses some of the gender issuesrelating to failure to access public spaces due to heavy domestic chores. The saved time allowsthem to participate in community activities like saving groups, church groups, local councilmeetings where decisions that affect them are made. On the side of men, the activity profileindicated that they had all the afternoons and evenings free, thus, you don’t see a lot of newactivities apart from the few who have introduced new innovations using bio slurry.1.4 Changes in social/family relations and power structures

MenMen reported improved relations with women due to the support they are now giving in termsof sharing roles like cooking and mixing dung with them. In central region, the men reportedthat they no longer quarrel with their wives over serving them cold food and bathing cold waterbecause they can now boil it for themselves or warm the food when necessary. Sharing of rolesgives women time to rest and do their work with ease which reduces friction and tension in thehomes.However most of the changes reported also hinged on economic saving due to using biogas. Menreported that biogas use has saved them from buying charcoal, paraffin or firewood especiallyin central region which is peri-urban. The tensions over funds to provide the different energysources resulted into quarrels and conflict on management of resources. With the use of biogas,all this is now sorted out and homes are more peaceful.The benefits arising from biogas use also promoted good relations at house hold level. Theseincluded food security as a result of improved yields due to use of bio slurry in bananaplantations, fish ponds and coffee gardens leading to better nutrition and improved house holdincome, which reduced resource based conflicts thus improving social relations at householdlevel.WomenWomen reported improved relation with menbecause the demands and quarrels over warmingfood and boiling water especially when men comehome late have ceased with the use of biogas. Theyalso appreciate the support given in cookingactivities by men and boys which helps them dotheir work at ease and reduced stress thusimproving relations for the whole household.For women who depended on men to provideenergy sources like buying paraffin, charcoal orfirewood, they reported that they are now happyand no longer have to beg men for money.The women who have livestock like pigs and chicken reported that the use of bio slurry hasreduced on expenses of buying feed for the animals leading to saving resources for thehousehold needs.

64 | P a g e

Generally there have been positive changes in terms of sharing roles, power relations andmeeting the practical needs as a result of biogas use, which is a big plus for the project. Howeverthe benefits and roles may not necessarily cause a change in the strategic need for women andmen at house hold and community levels, which the programme can continue addressing in allinterventions.

65 | P a g e

12.5 Photo gallery

The consultants -Tracy (extreme left) and Lydia (second from right) look on as a biogas userexplains the production process during the pretesting of the tools in Gombe sub county, Centralregion.

A biogas user demonstrates how the gas cooker works to the consultants during the pretestingof the tools in Gombe sub county, Central region.