A Systemic Approach To Addressing The Complexity Of Energy Problems

Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 16, No. 3, June 2003 ( C
° 2003)
A Systemic Approach to Addressing the Complexity
of Energy Problems
Janet McIntyre1
and Merina Pradhan1,2
Received December 2002
This paper presents a conceptual framework for using energy as a vehicle for holistic
development to address: poverty, gender discrimination, community involvement in de-
cision making on social, economic, and environmental issues. The approach is systemic
and participatory ironically, energy is always seen or considered in fragmentation from
other areas and as a technical subject, without considering it in less literal and more
metaphorical terms as an end and means of communication. Energy should be seen
holistically. Holism is based on a profound understanding of the interconnectedness
of the various parts and their relationship to the whole. The point made in this paper
is that, by adding energy to the development plan, we solve nothing unless we also
consider community mobilization, participatory approaches, and the role of gender in
development. Pradhan’s research in Nepal has demonstrated that if one thinks of energy
only in technical terms and development projects strive to provide more electricity, the
interventions can paradoxically just add more drudgery to the lives of women, unless
policies consider energy within the context of the whole social, political, economic, and
environmental system. Energy provision is more than merely a technical intervention.
Participation uses human energy and the creative energy of human beings in a different
way. The heart of participatory development is co-creating (in the sense used by Reason,
1988, 2002) understanding based on communication that is generative in the sense used
by Paulo Freire. Generative understanding provides a different kind of energy, based
on resonance. So this is a play on words when we place energy in a technical sense and
energy in a human sense at the center of development. Also, physicists would argue
that energy needs to be considered far wore widely as a basis for communication and
life. Some also argue that energy is the basis of all organic and inorganic matter in the
universe; it is the communication across subatomic matter.
KEY WORDS: systemic approach; energy problems; communication.
1Flinders Institute of Public Policy and Management, Flinders University, South Australia, G.P.O. Box
2100, Adelaide, South Australia. E-mail: Janet.Mcintyre@flinders.edu.au.
2To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: merinapradhan@hotmail.com.
213
1094-429X/03/0600-0213/0 C
° 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation

214 McIntyre and Pradhan
1. INTRODUCTION: DEFINITIONS
1.1.1. Energy
Energy is indispensable for life and is essential for all human endeavor. The de-
velopment of human society and civilization has been shaped by energy (Reddy
et al., 1997, p. 1). International attention on the importance of energy in devel-
opment clearly emerged only after the Rio Conference in 1992. However, the
focus was concentrated on the importance of energy related to climatic change.
Ironically, the essential linkages between energy and socioeconomic development
were not approached in an integrated fashion, although it was clearly identified
that energy production and consumption are closely linked to the world’s most
urgent and most fundamental issues like poverty, women’s drudgery, protecting
and regenerating the environment, and enhancing livelihoods with income earning
opportunities. Therefore, it is essential to see energy holistically and systemati-
cally linked with a range of issues rather than an isolated sector. This paper argues
that the systems approach is relevant for energy development. It is the theoretical
framework best suited for addressing the complex problem and issues of energy so
as to find the best negotiable solutions with a view of sustainability of the system
as a whole.
Energy, for the purpose of this paper, is understood as renewable sources
of energy such as hydropower, solar energy, biomass, and biogas. These energy
systems are mainly decentralized in nature, serving isolated remote rural villages
that are deprived from national grid systems.
1.1.2. The Critical Systemic Approach
Flood and Romm (1996) and Jackson (2000) stress that no single model or
theory exists, or can ever be invented, that is capable of addressing all policy and
management issues. Systems thinking was encouraged
r to accept the diversity of issues confronting decision makers;
r to continue developing a rich variety of models and methodologies (the
dominant research agenda prior to the 1980s); and
r to address continually the questions, Which models and or methodologies
should be used? When? and Why?
From a broad range of areas and thinkers there have tended to be two types
of systems thinking and associated practice: the hard systems thinking associated
with technical solutions to organizational problems and soft systems thinking,
which focuses on both strategic and communication aspects.
To sum up, critical systems thinking and practice are characterized by “com-
plementarism, co-creation, emancipation, critical reflection” based on the work
of Peter Reason and Michael Jackson, “systemic sweeping-in” (see Churchman,
1982; Ulrich, 1983, 2001), and commitment to the enlightenment approach to

A Systemic Approach to Energy Problems 215
rationalism and humanism. It is mindful of the contributions of Habermas and
Foucault to the development of a new modernism and the work of Jackson
(2000) McIntyre (2002) to applying critical, systemic thinking to community
development.
Another contribution to this approach is the system thinker Zhu (2000; draw-
ing on Gu). He has developed the Wuli–Shili–Renli (WSR) approach based on
Chinese philosophy. Following Zhu, Wu is the objective (physic, physical, or
physiological); Wuli encompasses the regularities and interactions in objective
existence. Shi includes subjective viewpoints or worldviews, or possible ways
of modeling a situation, so Shili inludes the conceptual or disciplinary perspec-
tives and methodologies which are logical or practically reasonable for engag-
ing in problem- solving. Ren includes intersubjective human relations, so Renli
is the coordination of human behavior, organization, and interaction. This ap-
proach is based on pragmatic and practical philosophy. The approach was used
for integrated water resource management in Australia and has been used in
China (Attwater 2002). The pragmatic problem-solving approach can be applied
to other areas of service provision such as energy to meet basic development
requirements.
2. WHAT DOES A SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT
USING ENERGY AS A CENTER POINT MEAN?
Several theories, models, and approaches have been developed by critical
system thinkers and practitioners. The approach which is discussed for energy
and development is not a new model; rather it is adapted and built on to the
existing approach according to the need of the energy context. Systems flowcharts
illustrating the role of energy in a rural context are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Fig. 1. Systems flowchart before energy intervention.

Fig. 2. Systems flowchart after energy intervention.
The way people think about key concepts such as development, energy, health,
and the environment actually influences greatly how we address the issues and
problems. Our own values, perceptions, and assumptions shape approaches to
problem solving and influence the way we define social problems and develop-
ment outcomes. In this context, viewing energy objectively gives a picture of its
linkages to technical aspects (technological innovation, feasibility, production, end
uses, etc.). Appropriate technology is certainly a part of the solution but it is not an
end. More aspects should be considered for its sustainability. It is relevant therefore
to view energy in a subjective context. How do people perceive development? How
do people see the role of energy in their daily lives? What social and cultural values
are linked with energy? Who decides what? and What role do gender and power re-
lationships play? These aspects are essential if we aim for strategic, long-term, and
positive changes. Viewing energy objectively and subjectively in isolation does not
bring any positive sustainable outcomes. Therefore, intersubjective relationships
for creating mutual understanding between objective and subjective energy aspects
are essential for sustainable, holistic energy development to improve the quality
of human life (see Table 1).
Systems thinkers and practitioners have stressed the importance of con-
sidering the social, political, economic, and environmental aspects, but gender
issues, which are quite relevant to all societies, have not yet been adequately
addressed in many contexts, including Nepal and other developing and less de-
veloping countries. In this research, besides other issues pertaining to power and
empowerment, gender issues will be explored and considered in a significant way.

Table I. Systemic Approach to Development Using Energy for Participation in the Development
Process and Outcomea
Element Key focus
Energy Objective Technical
Technological intervention (hydropower, ICS,
biogas, solar photovoltaic)
Physical infrastructures (electricity, roads, dams,
irrigation channels, etc.)
Energy Subjective Values and meanings
Meaning of development? How do people
perceive it?
Gender roles? Power relationships?
Cultural and social values?
Energy Intersubjective Creating mutual understanding between objective
and subjective relationships and creating
“generative dialogue” (as per Freire and
Banathy 2000) that is meaningful and has
radiance (as per Churchman)
aAnalytical framework developed from Wu, Shi, Ren framework of Zhu and Gu (2002).
3. WHY IS A SYSTEMIC APPROACH RELEVANT
FOR ENERGY INTERVENTIONS?
The problems related to energy are complex in nature, as it has a direct
and an indirect impact in diverse sectors. To environmentalists, the major en-
ergy problem could be seen as increasing pressure on existing forests for fuel,
causing deforestation, the results of which would be land degradation, loss of
agriculture productivity, soil erosion, and climate change. These would ultimately
cause serious environmental problems. For health experts, the major energy prob-
lem could be exposure to indoor air pollution, causing serious respiratory and
eye diseases, especially for women and children. These would ultimately re-
duce life expectancy and increase mortality rates. This is a serious health prob-
lem. For economists, the energy problem could be seen as a lack of economic
growth, causing low productivity, underemployment, and, ultimately, increasing
poverty. Social scientists might see gender discrimination and social conflicts
as the problems, because it is general practice that women or girls are respon-
sible for domestic work and collecting fuelwood. Because of this they are de-
prived of education and other opportunities. This is a sociocultural problem. All
the above-mentioned problems are interconnected. If there is a lack of basic

energy services, economic growth and opportunities are not possible and un-
deremployment and poverty rise as a result. Because of poverty, people make
use of cheap available energy resources for cooking, lighting, heating, etc. Peo-
ple spend more time in search of fuelwood rather than in productive activities.
This increases the pressure on forests, causing environmental problems. Because
of low-quality fuel, the health of families deteriorates, causing serious illness
amongst young children. The quality of life decreases and more and more peo-
ple are trapped in the energy–poverty nexus. Therefore, “unfolding” the com-
plex problems and issues is essential. Complex problems involve interconnected
“parts” and the relationships amongst the parts can be more important than the
parts themselves.
Although it is possible in natural science to test hypotheses by carrying out
experiments in the laboratory, studying cause- and effect among a limited number
of elements, e. g., a comparison of the efficiency of different models of an improved
cooking stove, in the case of real-world problems this is extremely difficult. System
thinking, can be seen as a reaction to the failure of natural science when confronted
with complex problems.
When we look at energy and its linkages to complex problems, the implication
of these linkages is that the issue of energy has to be tackled in such a way
that other problems are not aggravated. For this, conventional energy strategies,
which are sectoral in nature (focused mainly on energy efficiency, supply and
demand side), do not tend to address these other complex problems. What is
required is an holistic approach to energy development that can help solve many
wider problems linked to energy. Systems thinking advocates “holism” rather
than reductionism. According to Jackson (2000), holism does not seek to break
down complex problem situations into their parts in order to study and intervene in
them. Rather, it respects the interconnectedness of the parts and concentrates on the
relationships across them and how these often give rise to surprising outcomes—
the emergent properties. In support of this statement, holistic thinking is useful for
understanding the nature of the problem and for working out negotiated “solutions”
(McIntyre, 1998, p. 105).
Systems thinking uses models rather than experiments in the laboratory in
attempts to understand the nature of the problem. It also does not impose any
arbitrary boundary between the subject of attention and the environment in which
it is located. Rather it reflects and questions where the boundary has been drawn
and how this impacts the kind of improvement. This provides the opportunity to
explore and analyze the complex problems and issues linked to energy in more
depth. This is the reason think it is relevant to use a systems approach in the study
of energy intervention addressing poverty and gender issues. To my knowledge,
this kind of study on energy issues using a systems approach has not been done so
far in the energy sector.

4. NEPAL’S RURAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
4.1. What Does Holistic Development Mean for the Project?
A new paradigm has been designed and implemented by the Rural Energy
Development Programme (REDP) to achieve improvements in the quality of lives
of rural communities through the promotion of renewable energy systems as an
entry point. This paradigm stresses productivity, equity, sustainability, and em-
powerment to place people at the center of its processes. Productive income
generating activities is perceived as the end use of the energy generated. Eq-
uity and empowerment are ensured by enabling equal participation of men and
women from every targeted household in the community organization (CO). Ev-
ery decision-making body is included in the program. To achieve sustainability
local-level energy funds have been created at the district and community levels
with mechanisms for replenishment by physical, human, and environmental cap-
ital, in addition to income generating activities for every participating household
and CO.
4.2. Community Mobilization: Giving Equal Importance to Women
in Society and Improving Communication and Decision
Making Across Gender Groups
Mobilization of the community forms the core of the program. The following
six key principles have been adopted for community mobilization: (i) women’s em-
powerment, (ii) skill enhancement, (iii) environmental management, (iv) capital
formation, (v) technology promotion, and (vi) organizational development (Fig. 4).
Villagers are engaged in participatory development and the importance of rural en-
ergy systems for both individual and community development is explained. Once
convinced, they are facilitated to form a CO. In order to arrive at equity, separate
male and female COs are formed. Segregation of women and men encourages
discussion of specific problems faced by women. A formal forum to look into
matters related to women has been created for the first time in many villages.
Experience shows that in mixed groups women tend only to nod their heads rather
than genuinely participate in discussions and decisions. This community mobiliza-
tion process encourages women’s participation in public life and provides them
a voice in the affairs of the community. These actions instill confidence, increase
self-reliance and self-esteem, encourage leadership, demonstrate women’s man-
agement capability, and enhance the credibility of women. The men realize and
accept them as equal partners in family affairs as well as development activities.
Once a group of COs becomes “mature,” i.e., meeting regularly, undertak-
ing saving and credit activities, making collective decisions, and implementing
them, they form a functional group (FG) for specific activities. Mandatory equal

Fig. 4. Rural Energy Development Programme’s holistic development approach. (Source: REDP,
Annual Report, 1998.)
representation from the men’s and women’s COs in each FG is stipulated. A FG
is responsible for overall planning, implementation, operation, and management
of the specific activity for which it was formed. Literacy classes and saving and
credit schemes are consider to be vital to mobilize and organize women.
4.3. Gap to Be Discussed
The REDP project has covered a wide range of sectors including technical,
environmental, economic, social, human resources incorporating different stake-
holders,localbeneficiarygroups(male,female),privatesectors,politicians,NGOs,
and public sectors. How does the project address the subjective aspects of the
project? How do values and perceptions of development differ across different
stakeholders?
5. COMPARISON OF APPROACHES
(SYSTEMIC VS. CONVENTIONAL)
There are different assumptions and values associated with conventional and
systemic approaches that distinguish them from one another; see Table II.

Table II. Conventional vs. Systemic Approacha
Conventional approach New systemic approach
r Compartmentalization
r Short-term horizon
r Profit and economic capital
r Thinking in terms of the meanings of
one culture or one interest group
r “Either/or” thinking in narrow terms,
i.e., specifically about technical or so-
cial or political or environmental issues
r Hierarchical structures for management,
communication, and program delivery
r Citizenship models stress individual and
family responsibility
r Expert driven by specialists working
within a single discipline
r Management stresses efficiency and
outputs (number of items of service
delivered)
r Top-down research and development
r Systemic, integrated thinking and
practice
r Long-term horizon
r Environmental and social sustainability
and social and environmental capital
r Addressing multiple sets of meaning
when undertaking development
r “Both/and” thinking in social and cul-
tural and political and environmental
terms
r Weblike team approach that span sectors
and disciplines to address issues
r Citizenship models stress social and en-
vironmental responsibility
r Community driven by a range of
stakeholders, interest groups, and
professionals representing multiple
disciplines and sectors who contribute
to research, problem solving, and the
developmental content and process
r Management stresses effectiveness and
outcomes (qualitative perceptions of the
impact of development interventions)
r Participatory action research based on
learning from successes and mistakes
aSource: McIntyre (2001, p. 12).
5.1. Design and Methodologies
Participatory action research (PAR) is practiced and used for diversity man-
agement and problem solving. It is a very effective tool. Using PAR helps to
replace top-down, orthodox research with a participatory and reflective approach
with good partnership between various stakeholders and interest groups. Multi-
ple methods like focus-group discussions, interviews, consultations, participants
observations, questionnaires, documentary analysis, and census data will help to
give a many-sided view for finding common themes. Reflection is essential for
research. It helps to unfold meaning and misunderstandings. It helps us to get a
sense of why we see the way we do (McIntyre, 2001, p. 18).
A map of knowledge narratives as discussed by McIntyre (see Fig. 5) pro-
vides a means of illustrating that we can think, learn, and practice within a single
framework or discourse or we can engage in dialogue that enables us not merely
to compare frameworks in an adversarial manner, but to see the value or potential

Fig. 5. Mandala of knowledge narratives explaining some of
the complexity. (Source: Systemic Practice and Action Research,
Vol. 15, p. 20 [2002]. In the forthcoming book McIntyre (2003)
energy is included in the central circle.)
of the other, so that co-created meaning can be enriched to respond creatively to
specific challenges. Co-creation always occurs within the context of social, polit-
ical, economic, and environmental factors and power and empowerment for the
long term.
REFERENCES
Attwater, R. (2002). Mixing Meta-Methodologies and Philosophies: Wuli-Shili-Renli, Pragmatic and
Practical Philosophy, University of Western Sydney.
Banathy, B. (2000). Guided Evolution of Society a Systems View. Kluwer. New York.
Blackmore, C., and Morris, D. (2001). Systems and environmental decision making—Postgraduate
open learning with the Open University. Syst. Pract. Act. Res, 14, 681–695.
Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems. Basic Concepts of Systems and Organi-
zation, Basic Books, New York.
Churchman, C. W. (1982). Thought and Wisdom, Intersystems, California.
Community-Managed Rural Energy Development: Strategic and Operational Framework (1998). Rural
Energy Development Programme, UNDP, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Estrella, M. (2000). Learning from change, issues and experience in participatory monitoring and eval-
uation, Participation in Development Series, Intermediate Technology, International Development
Research Centre, UK.

Flood, R., and Romm, N. Diversity Management: Triple loop learning Chichester. Wiley Checkland
1981. not required deleted from text.
Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.
McIntyre, J. (1998). Consideration of categories and tools for holistic thinking. Syst. Pract. Act. Res.
11, 105–126.
McIntyre, J. (2001). Critical systemic praxis for social and environmental justice: A case study of
management, governance, and policy. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 3–35.
McIntyre, J. (2002). Teaching critical systemic thinking and practice by means of conceptual tools.
46th International Systems Sciences Conference, Shanghai.
McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2003). Critical systemic praxis (in press).
McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2000). Global Citizenship and Social Movements, Creating Transcultural Webs
of Meaning for the New Millennium, Harwood, Netherlands.
Ochoa-Arias, A. E. (1998). An interpretive-systemic framework for the study of community organiza-
tion. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 11, 543–562.
Picciotto, R. (1999). Global poverty reduction and institutional change. file://wolflecture.html.
Pradhan, M. (2002a). A systemic approach to addressing the complexity of energy problems.
SESAM/ARTES Asia Conference in Bangkok, Appropriate Technology (AT) Forum, Germany
(in press).
Pradhan, M., (2002b). Gender issues in energy sector development, energy intervention: Is it a boon
for rural women? (in progress).
Pradhan, M., and Rehling, U. (2002). Combating Poverty and Gender Inequality through Renewable
Energy Initiatives, World Renewable Energy Congress VII (WERC2002, Germany), Elsevier
Science, Oxford.
Reason, P. (1988). Human Inquiry in Action, Sage, London.
Reason, P. (2002). Justice, sustainability and participation. Inaugural lecture. http://www.bath.
ac.uk/%7Emnspwr/Papers/InauguralLecture.pdf. Concepts Transform. 7(1), 7–29.
Reddy, A., Williams, R., and Johansson, T. (1997). Energy After Rio: Prospects and Challenges, UNDP,
New York.
Reynolds, M. (1998). “Unfolding” natural resource-use information systems: Fieldwork in Botswana.
Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 11, 127–152.
Singh, K. M., and Pradhan, M. (2000). Gender equity a cross cutting theme in REDP paradigm. URJA
Energy for Development, REDP/UNDP Publ., Vol. 12, pp. 2, 3, 11.
Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Wiley
Chichester.
Ulrich, W. (2001). The quest for competence in systemic research and practice. Systems Research and
Behavioural Science. 18, 3–28.
Zhu, Z. (2000). Dealing with a differentiated whole: The philosophy of the WSR approach. Syst. Pract.
Act. Res. 13, 21–57.

A Systemic Approach To Addressing The Complexity Of Energy Problems

More Related Content

Similar to A Systemic Approach To Addressing The Complexity Of Energy Problems (20)

More from Jeff Nelson (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Systemic Approach To Addressing The Complexity Of Energy Problems