Sectr Management Assistance Programme

Ecuador-Energy Pricing, Poverty and

Social MitigationReport No. 12831 -EC

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

JOINT UNDP / WORLD BANKENERGY SECTOR MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME (ESMAP)

PURPOSE

The Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP) waslaunched in 1983 to complement the Energy Assessment Programme, established three years earlier.ESMAP's original purpose was to implement key recommendations of the Energy Assessmentreports and ensure that proposed investments in the energy sector represented the most efficient useof scarce domestic and external resources. In 1990, an international Commission addressedESMAP's role for the 1990s and, noting the vital role of adequate and affordable energy ineconomic growth, concluded that the Programme should intensify its efforts to assist developingcountries to manage their energy sectors more effectively. The Commission also recommended thatESMAP concentrate on making long-term efforts in a smaller number of countries. TheCommission's report was endorsed at ESMAP's November 1990 Annual Meeting and prompted anextensive reorganization and reorientation of the Programme. Today, ESMAP is conducting EnergyAssessments, performing preinvestment and prefeasibility work, and providing institutional andpolicy advice in selected developing countries. Through these efforts, ESMAP aims to assistgovernments, donors, and potential investors in identifying, funding, and implementing economicallyand environmentally sound energy strategies.

GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS

ESMAP is governed by a Consultative Group (ESMAP CG), composed of representatives of theUNDP and World Bank, the governments and institutions providing financial support, andrepresentatives of the recipients of ESMAP's assistance. The ESMAP CG is chaired by the WorldBank's Vice President, Finance and Private Sector Development, and advised by a TechnicalAdvisory Group (TAG) of independent energy experts that reviews the Programme's strategicagenda, its work program, and othbr issues. ESMAP is staffed by a cadre of engineers, energyplanners and economists from the Industry and Energy Department of the World Bank. TheDirector of this Department is also the Manager of ESMAP, responsible for administering theProgramme.

FUNDING

ESMAP is a cooperative effort supported by the World Bank, UNDP and other United Nationsagencies, the European Community, Organization of American States (OAS), Latin AmericanEnergy Organization (OLADE), and countries including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,Germany, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information or copies of completed ESMAP reports, contact:

ESMAPc/o Industry and Energy Department

The World Bank1818 H Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20433U.S.A.

ECUADOR

Precios de la Energia, Pobreza y Mitigacion Social

Agosto de 1994

Este documento tiene distribuci6n restringida y puede ser usado s6lo por quieneslo reciben en el desempeflo de sus obligaciones oficiales. De lo contrario sucontenido no puede ser divulgado sin la autorizaci6n del PNUD o del BancoMundial

Ecuador

Energy Pricing, Poverty and Social Mitigation

August 1994

l

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CAAP Centro Andino do Accl6n PopularCEPAM Centro Ecuatoriano do Promocl6n do la MujerCEDIME Centro do Documentacion do Formacion do los Movimientos Socialo. del

EcuadorCESA Central Ecuatoriana do Sorviclos AgropecuariosCONADE ConsoJo Naclonal do DesarrolloDYA Dorrollo y Augesti6nECS Energy Consumption SurveyESMAP Energy Soctor Management Assisanc ProgrammeFEPP Fondo Ecuatoriano Populorum ProgresioGDP Gross Domestic ProductGOE Government of EcuadorIDB Inter-American Development BankINE National Energy InstitutoINECEL Ecuadorean Electrification Institute (state power utility)kg kilogmkgoe kilogram of oil equivalentkWh kilowatt hourLPG liquifled petroloum gasMEM Ministry of Energy anO MmosNOO Non Governmental OrganiztitoDNVS Nutrition Surveillance SystemPPF Project Proparation FacilityPROENCA Production Development ProgramSENAPS National Episcopal ConferenceSIEF Social Investment Emergency FundUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNICEF Untied National International Children'. Emorgency FundUSAID United States Agwncy for International DevelopmentWB World BankWHO World Health Organization

EXCHANGE RATES

1992 S/i 500 per US Dollar1993 S/1 800 per US DollaJuly 1994 S/2150 per US Dollar

CONVERSION FACTORS

LPO 1.14 kgoe/gFirewood 0.30 kgoe/kgChucoal 0.690 kgoe/&gAgricultural Residues 0.20 kgoe/kgGauoline 2.9071 kgo/galKerosne 3.1643 kgoe/galElectricity 0.086 kgos/kWh

CONTENTS

PREFACEEXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................i

Introduction ............................................................................. iFindings ............................................................................ iiConclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ iv

RESUMEN EJECUTIVO, CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES ................................................................ vi

1. ENERGY CONSUMPTION SURVEY ............................................................................. IIntroduction ............................................................................ 1ISample Background ............................................................................. 1lConsumption Patterns ............................................................................ 2Expenditure Patterns ............................................................................S5Consumption By Region ............................................................................. 7Fuel-Specific Findings ............................................................................. 8

LPG .............................................................................. 8Household Kerosene ............................................................................. 11Biomass Fuels (Including Grass And Agricultural Residues) ........................................................................... 14Electricity ............................................................................ 16Others ....... ...................................................................... 17Household Attitudes By Fuel ............................................................................ 17

LPG ............................................................................ 17Electricity ............................................................................. 18

Gasoline ............................................................................ 19Household Kerosene ............................................................................ 19Charcoal ........ ..................................................................... 19Fuelwood ........ ..................................................................... 19Agricultural Residues ............................................................................ 20Additional Opinions Regarding Energy ............................................................................ 20

Potential Impacts Of Price Adjustments ............................................................................ 20

II. PARTICIPANT OBSERVER MONOGRAPHS ............................................................................ 23Introduction ............................................................................ 23General Findings ............................................................................ 23Fuel Usage ............................................................................ 25Electricity Consumption ............................................................................ 27Opinions About Prices ............................................................................. 27Conclusions ............................................................................ 28

III. POVERTY, MITIGATORY STRATEGIES, AND THE ROLE OF NGOs ........................................................ 30Introduction ............................................................................ 30Facets Of Poverty ............................................................................. 30

Poverty Measures ............................................................................. 30Poverty Determinants ............................................................................ 32

Deterioration of Health, High Mortality and Malnutrition Rates .................................................................. 33Rising Unemployment and Underemployment and Increasing Difficulties for the Young to Find Jobs ...... 33Reduction of Government's Social Expenditures ............................................................................ 34Low Purchasing Power of Salaries ............................................................................ 34

Social Programs and Compensatory Measures ............................................................................ 34NGOs ............................................................................ 37

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................ 40

ANNEXES

I Medtodolog al Aspcts Tables (Survey Results) ............................................ 472 Extended Summaries of Participant Obsener Monogrphs ........................................... 1833 Statistical Dda of Participant Observer Monogaphs ........................................... 2104 Questi ire for Survey ........................................... 214

CONTENIDO

RESUMEN EJECUTIVO, CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES .................. vi

I. ENCUESTA DEL CONSUMO DE ENERGIA (ECE) ....... .................... 1

Introducci6n ............................................... IAntecedentes de la Muestra ............................................. IPatrones de Consumo .............................................. 2Patrones de Gasto ................................................ 5Consumo por Regi6n .............................................. 7Resultados por Tipo de Combustible ......................................... 8

GLP . ............................................. 8Querosn Domestico ............................................ 11Combustibles Biomasicos ......................................... 14Electricidad .............................................. 16Otros . ............................................. 17

Actitudes Dometicas segun el Combustible ............ ...................... 17Impactos Potenciales del Ajuste de Precios ............ ...................... 20

II. MONOGRAFIAS PARTICIPANTE-OBSERVADOR.23

Introducci6n .23Resultados Generales .23Uso del Combustible. 25Consumo de Electricidad .27Opiniones acerca de los Precios .27Conclusiones .28

III. POBREZA, ESTRATEGIAS MITIGATIVAS, Y EL ROL DE LAS ONG .30

Introducci6n .30Facetas de la Pobreza .30

Medidas de la Pobreza .30Determinantes de la Pobreza .32

Compensacion Social y Medidas Compensatorias .34ONG .37

IV. CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES ................................. 40

ANEXOS

I Aspectos Metodol6gicos Cuadros (Resultados de la Encuesta) .472 Resumenes Extendidos de las

Monograffas Participante-Observador .1833 Datos Estadisticos de las Monograffas

Participante-Observador .2104. Cuestionario de la Encuesta . ........................................ 214

Preface

This Report contains the results and analysis of field work carried out in Ecuador from theend of CY 1992 to mid 1993. The field work, which was cofinanced by The World Bank, UNDPand the Government of Belgium, included:

a. a survey of energy consumption and attitudes towards various sources of energy,their ease or difficulty of use and opinions about their prices, together w ith asummary of household expenditures;

b. six detailed monographs covering urban-suburban and rural locations and delving inthe day to day routine of household energy use, via the method of "participant-observer;"

c. review of the literature and surveys of recent social sector policies and the activitiesof NGOs and government organizations in the social sectors and in social mitigationactivities (so called "deuda social" or "social debt"); the preparation of paperscovering these subjects.

This Report presents the substantive content of these activities in a fairly dense fashion.The volume of the Report would otherwise have gotten out of hand, but diskettes containing theraw data and tabular results of the Survey (ECS) have been attached to the back cover of theReport.

Thanks are due to several Ecuadorean agencies/organization for theirparticipation/cooperation in this Study. The National Energy Institute, INE and its ExecutiveDirector, Mr. Oswaldo Boada deserve special mention for being the Study counterpart and forgiving ESMAP staff a home away from home where much of the work was carried out. TheDirectorate of Hydrocarbons of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, PetroEcuador and INECEL alsodeserve gratitude for their cooperation. The Study team is also grateful to UNDP for managing thefunds for local expenditures and to the World Bank liaison office in Quito for assistance withcommunications and computers.

A number of Ecuadorean and International Consultants collaborated on this Study, inaddition to ESMAP/Bank Staff; a list follows:

Ecuadorean Consultants

Ms. Ines Mencias, Energy Economist

Mr. Rodrigo Tenorio, Psychologist, Expert in Social Sector Policies.

Ms. Pilar Guayasamin, Jurist, Social and Gender Aspects, review of NGO activities.

Messrs. J. Vasconez and Granja who conducted the field work of the Energy ConsumptionSurvey (ECS).

Messrs. A. Morales, C. Amores and M. Salvador who assisted with final processing of thesurvey data.

Mr. Roque Espinoza, Sociologist, carried out the "participant observer" case studies.

International Consultant

Mr. W. Teplitz-Sembitzky, Energy Economist.

ESMAP/Bank Staff

Mr. Douglas Barnes, Energy Planner, ESMAP Survey SpecialistMr. Michel Del Buono, Senior Economist, ESMAP/Team Leader.

Sylvia Lanzetta assisted with translation and Spanish Language editing.Cecilia Pavlak prepared the text for publication.

Principal authors of this report are Ms. Ines Mencias and Messrs. W. Teplitz-Sembitzky andMichel Del Buono.

Pr6logo

Este informe contiene los resultados y el analisis del trabajo de campo Ilevados acabo en el Ecuador desde finales del aflo calendario 1992 hasta mediados de 1993. Eltrabajo de campo, que fue cofinanciado por el Banco Mundial, PNUD y el Gobiemo deBelgica, incluy6:

(i) una encuesta sobre el consumo de energia y las actitudes hacia las diversasfuentes de energia, la facilidad o dificultad en su uso y opiniones acerca de susprecios, junto con un resumen de gastos de los hogares.

(ii) seis monografias detalladas cubriendo localidades urbanas-suburbanas y ruralesy penetrando en la rutina diaria de los hogares en el uso de energia, utilizando elmetodo de "participante-observador;"

(iii) una revisi6n de la literatura y de las recientes politicas del sector socialy las actividades de las ONG y organizaciones del gobiemo en los sectoressociales y en las actividades de mitigaci6n social (la Ilamada "deuda social" o"social debt"); la preparaci6n de informes cubriendo estos t6picos.

Este informe presenta el contenido esencial de estas actividades en una formabastante densa. De lo contrario, el volumen del Informe hubiera sido incontenible. Paraquienes lo deseen, los diskettes con los datos originales y los resultados tabulares de laEncuesta pueden ser obtenidos a traves de ESMAP/Banco Mundial y del InstitutoNacional de Energia de Ecuador.

Damos las gracias a varias agencias/organizaciones Ecuatorianas por suparticipaci6n/cooperaci6n en este Estudio. El Instituto Nacional de Energia, INE y suDirector Ejecutivo, Sr. Oswaldo Boada merecen una menci6n especial por ser lacontraparte del Estudio y por darle al personal de ESMAP gran hospitalidad dondemucho del trabajo fue Ilevado a cabo. La Direcci6n de Hidrocarburos del Ministerio deEnergia y Minas, PetroEcuador e INECEL tambien merecen reconocimiento por sucooperaci6n. El equipo de Estudio tambien agradece al PNUD por el manejo de losfondos para los gastos locales y a la oficina del Banco Mundial en Quito por su apoyocon las comunicaciones y computadoras. La Sra. Sylvia Lanzetta tradujo el resumenejecutivo al Espaflol.

Se cont6 con la colaboraci6n de varios consultores Ecuatorianos e Internacionales,ademas de Personal del Banco/ESMAP, los cuales se mencionan a continuaci6n:

Consutores Ecuatorianos

* Sra Ines Mencias, Economista Energetica

* Sr. Rodrigo Tenorio, Sic6logo, Experto en politicas del sector social.

* Sra Pilar Guayasamin, Jurista, Aspectos sociales y de genero, revisi6n deactividades de las ONG.

* Seflores J. Vasconez y Granja quienes dirigieron el trabajo de campo de laEncuesta del consumo de energia (ECE).

* Sefiores A. Morales, C. Amores y M. Salvador quienes ayudaron con elprocesamiento final de los datos de la Encuesta.

* Sr. Roque Espinoza, Soci6logo, llev6 a cabo los estudios de caso "participante-observador".

Consultor Internacional

* Sr. W. Teplitz-Sembitzky, Economista Energetico

Personal del Banco/ESMAP

* Sr. Douglas Barnes, Planeador Energetico y especialista de encuestas* Sr. Michel Del Buono, Economista senior, ESMAP/coordinador del equipo

Los principales autores de este informe son la Sm. Inds Mencias y los Sres. W. Teplitz-Sembitzky y Michel Del Buono.

Executive Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction

1. This Report covers a number of topics that follow up and supplement the work presentedin an earlier ESMAP report (Ecuador: Energy Pricing, Subsidies and Interfuel Substitution, ReportNo. 11798-EC), with a special emphasis on household energy use. The earlier report mentionedabove estimated the size of various subsidies that pricing policies pursued in the past had granted toenergy consumers; examined the impact of low energy prices on macroeconomic variables (e.g.government revenues) and the performance of energy sector institutions; and proposed a newsystem of energy prices that, together with other reform measures, is conducive to a more efficientuse of energy, with significant gains accruing to both the sector and the economy at large.

2. The focus of this Report is on:

a. A general presentation and analysis of the results of the Energy ConsumptionSurvey (ECS), with an Annex showing the main results in tabular form. Thequestionnaire and a diskette containing all tabulated data are attached in case readersmay want to perform additional computations or analysis beyond this study (i.e.,patterns of consumption by fuel, income class, rural/urban and geographicallocation; share of household expenditures accounted for by energy andtransportation, an energy-intensive service; and the opinions of consumers on theprices and pros and cons of using the various energy alternatives).

b. A summary of six "monographs" on living conditions and energy use in selectedrural and sub-urban areas, compiled through the participant-observer method. Moredetailed descriptions of the findings and tables containing statistical informationdistilled from the monographs are attached as annexes. The six participant-observermonographs will be published shortly in Ecuador, in Spanish.

c. A discussion of attempts to identify the number, characteristics and location ofhouseholds suffering from poverty (as variously defined) using information fromthe ECS and other sources (research by academicians, foundations, NGOs,consulting firms) which the study group collected and reviewed.

d. A quick review and enumeration of social programs currently underimplementation, whether private (NGOs, foundations, churches) or, to a lesserextent, governmental.

e. Conclusions and recommendations, including an appreciation of those supportprograms that seemed to work best and be most valued by beneficiaries; somesuggestions on what programs merit further assistance; and a detailed examinationof the option to establish a targeted subsidy fund, earmarked to support (in monetaryor quasimonetary form) needy households, and related in some way to energy

consumption as a complement to short term welfare projects (such as nutrition,among the most valued of social projects and temporary-employment programsdesigned to palliate catastrophic unemployment) and "empowering" or "enabling"projects (ie. those, such as job-related training, that improve the productivity and,hence, the earnings prospects of beneficiaries); and suggestions about povertyattributes facilitating the identification and selection of those households that are inhighest need of support programs and mitigatory measures.

Findings

3. The earlier Report (No. 11798-EC), on the strength of partial Survey results andcalculations of subsidies and their distribution, recommended a fundamental reconsideration of thebasis for pricing energy. In the first major policy package (Sept 1992), the Government of Ecuador(GOE) had taken important steps down the road to a more economically correct energy pricingpolicy, and continued implementing the reform measures in 1993. As a result, subsidies ongasolines, diesel and kerosene for industrial use have been removed. Also, the GOE cut back thesubsidy on LPG, but ignored the problem of household kerosene (kerex) by leaving the officialprice at S/60 per gallon but did nothing to free its distribution. On the contrary, kerex supply wasscaled down and then interrupted. At the same time, subsidies on electricity consumption wereessentially eliminated, except for residential consumers (in March 1993). Domestic gasoline priceswere again raised in February 1994.

4. Given the unequal treatment of LPG and kerex, it is not much of a surprise that the ECSfound that the semi-wholesale and retail distribution of LPG is essentially competitive, withregional/geographic price differences closely approximating transport and distribution costs, whilelocal, final prices of kerex (household kerosene) show no such pattern, confirning that markets forkerex are badly distorted and its trade is critically restricted. Electricity, on the other hand, is nearlyuniversally used, with a coverage of more than 90% in urban areas and about 67% in thecountryside. Woodfuel consumption is concentrated in rural areas, especially in the Oriente and theSierra, but can also be observed among the poorer segments of the urban population.

5. The Survey also shows that with higher incomes, households switch away from biomassenergy towards LPG (cooking) in combination with electricity (lighting). This trend is morepervasive in urban than in rural areas, where the mix of fuels used displays greater variety than inurban settings. In particular, while only 7% of urban households buy kerex, it is still very commonin the countryside, particularly on the Coast and in the Oriente, where 40% of households use it.

6. The ECS not only confirms that energy consumption is positively correlated with income;it also provides evidence that the poorest consumers, those in the lowest expenditure class, spend asubstantially greater proportion of their budget on energy (and energy intensive services liketransport) than do higher income consumers. Just these general findings invalidate the mainpremises of past energy pricing policies in Ecuador, namely that subsidizing energy is an effectiveway of redistributing income to the poor.

- 111 -

7. Notwithstanding the fact that a disproportionately large share of the subsidies granted inthe past were enjoyed by more affluent urban households, there are many poorer families, both inrural and suburban areas, that use modern fuels on a scale not much different from that of higher-income households (even though, due to differences in family size, the per-capita consumption ofthe latter significantly exceeds that of the former). As a consequence, the recent energy priceincreases, and more so the proposed tripling of the price of LPG, can be expected to affect largesegments of the poorer population, particularly those that do not have the option to switch to low-priced woodfuels, or kerosene which (is no longer subsidized but) can be purchased in smallerquantities.

8. The above findings are corroborated by the six participant-observer case studies(Monographs). In addition, the case studies reveal that the patterns of rural fuel use are more amatter of availability and affordability than of price. At current prices, LPG is preferred to keroseneor woodfuels, but many budget- and liquidity constrained households are forced to buy those fuelsthat sell in small portions at higher specific costs. Moreover, the Monographs highlight the fact thata large share of the population lives under conditions of poverty, or even deep poverty.

9. Statistical measures of poverty that have been estimated recently even suggest that thenumber of households falling below the poverty line is increasing. Be that as it may, signs of socialdistress abound: high mortality and malnutrition rates, detoriating health services, risingunemployment and underemployment, declining purchasing power of salaries, and reductions inGovernment's social expenditures.

10. Against this background, the current administration, while embarking on new structuraladjustment programs, has mounted an ambitious Emergency Plan to aid poorer families in theirstruggle to subsist and survive. It also encourages NGOs to join forces and, in particular, act as aninterface between the State, financial institutions and donors, and the community. Given the modestresults of similar programs launched in the past, a closer cooperation with NGOs is likely toenhance new initiatives to fight poverty. NGOs have been playing a vital, albeit improvable, role inthe country's support network addressing the poor, and their work will certainly gain from a bettercoordination with government institutions and programs.

11. Some of the results of the ECS have been supplied to various units of the GOE,especially the Directorate of Hydrocarbons of the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) andCONADE. The MEM is engaged in reviewing policies with respect to the future role of kerex,while CONADE is studying the feasibility of setting up a system of direct income support for the"hard-core" poor in the first two quintiles of the income distribution. This is in line with Bankpolicy and the recommendations of this Study. For these reasons, the team conducting this studyhas cooperated with GOE Staff and consultants working on these matters and will continue to doso. In fact, not all of the information collected through the ECS has been utilized for this Study, butthe data base will remain available at the National Energy Institute at CONADE and at the MEMwhere additional information can be elicited and either used directly or supplied to other GOEdepartments who may need such information. A diskette containing the ECS results can also beordered from ESMAP.

- iv -

Conclusions and Recommendations

12. The study concludes that the energy pricing reform launched by the GOE not onlyhelped remove a major and persistent source of the consolidated public sector deficit, but alsocontributed to a more rational and equitable pattern of energy use. Electricity tariffs, which were thekey vehicle for distributing energy subsidies mainly to the more affluent households, are now closeto long-run marginal costs. And petroleum product prices have been raised to levels that provideindustrial users and the transport sector with reasonably correct market signals, and, in theaggregate, yield sufficient revenues to cover costs. This has left LPG (and kerex which, though, isno longer available at its low official price of S/60 per gallon) as the only fuel affected by sizeablesubsidies. It currently sells for less than a third of its economic cost of supply.

13. More than 70% of poor households use LPG a moderate 20 kg a month, which onaverage devours about 5% of their budget. A significantly higher price would therefore confrontthese household with unpleasant choices, particularly where cheap substitute fuels are not available.Given the prospect that a rise in the price of LPG is bound to worsen the already miserable livingconditions of the poor, the GOE has so far been reluctant to implement the increase. In fact,political leaders have conditioned the removal of LPG subsidies to policy interventions that ease theadjustment to a higher price level.

14. In this connection, it has been suggested in the earlier Report that the GOE may assignup to a third of the "windfall" revenues generated by the energy pricing reforms to social supportinitiatives. This Report offers for consideration a more detailed proposal made up of two policypackages:

a. The first one calls for freeing the supply of kerex prior to the increase in the price ofLPG, and establishing a temporary energy subsidy fund of S/40 billion (US$ 21mnillion) a year, targeted at the poorest LPG-using households and financed out ofthe "windfall" revenues.

b. The second one is the suggestion to commit part of the revenues to selected socialservices and support programs that address the pressing needs of the poor in non-energy areas.

15. Freeing the supply of kerosene which, unlike LPG, is a divisible and versatile fuel, willoffer some households an additional choice and others the only alternative to LPG. While this stepwill prepare the ground for liberalizing the official LPG price, the proposed energy subsidy fund isintended to compensate the poorest household for the loss in real income caused by higher energyprices. The subsidies should be a transitory measure, targeted to households at the bottom of theincome pyramid and issued in the form of tradable coupons, with no strings attached regarding theiruse.

16. However, establishing the subsidy fund will do little to improve the living conditions ofthe poor on a sustained basis. Nor will it reduce the social and political obligation to provideemergency services to those who are chronically handicapped or struck by disastrous events outsidethe energy sector. It is therefore recommended that the GOE uses part of the "windfall" revenues tostrengthen social support activities that have proven effective in meeting essential short- and longterm needs, and are highly appreciated by the beneficiaries. These are nutritional and health-oriented programs on the one hand and, on the other, investments in the human capital of poorerpersons.

vi

Resumen Ejecutivo, Conclusiones y Recomendaciones

INTRODUCCION

Este Informe cubre varios temas que continuan y suplementan el trabajopresentado en un informe anterior de ESMAP (Ecuador: Precio de la energia, subsidios ysustituci6n de combustibles, Informe No. 11 798-EC), y pone especial enfasis en el uso deenergia en los hogares. El informe mencionado anteriormente estim6 la magnitud devarios subsidios que las politicas de precios impuestas en el pasado le dieron a losconsumidores de energia; examin6 el impacto de los bajos precios de la energia en lasvariables macroecon6micas (ej. ingresos del gobierno) y el desempeflo de lasinstituciones del sector energetico; y propuso un nuevo sistema de precios de la energiaque, junto con otras medidas de reforma, es conducente a un uso mas eficiente de laenergia, con significantes beneficios tanto para el sector como para la economia engeneral.

El enfoque de este informe es en lo siguiente:

i.) Una presentaci6n general y analisis de los resultados de la Encuesta del Consumo deEnergia (ECE), e incluye un Anexo mostrando los principales resultados en formatabular. El cuestionario se adjunta en un anexo para informaci6n de los lectores: Undiskette conteniendo todos los datos puede obtenerse a traves de ESMAP o del INE paraquienes quieran ejecutar calculos o analises que vayan mas allA de este estudio. (ej:patrones de consumo por combustible, niveles de ingresos, localizaci6n rural/urbana ygeografica, proporci6n del gasto de los hogares que responden a energia y transporte, unservicio intensivo en energia; y las opiniones de los consumidores acerca de los precios,los pros y contras del uso de las diversas fuentes de energia).

ii) Un resumen de seis "monografias" sobre las condiciones de vida y el uso de energiaen areas rurales y suburbanas seleccionadas, recopiladas a traves del metodo departicipante-observador. Descripciones mas detalladas de los resultados y cuadrosconteniendo la informaci6n estadistica obtenida de las monografias se adjuntan comoanexos

iii) Una discusi6n de los intentos por identificar el niumero, las caracteristicas y lalocalizaci6n de los hogares que estAn sufriendo de pobreza (en sus diferentesdefiniciones) usando informaci6n de la ECE y otras fuentes (investigaciones deacademicos, fundaciones, ONG, firmas consultoras) las que el grupo de estudio reuni6 yanaliz6.

iv) Una ripida revisi6n y enumeraci6n de los programas sociales que actualmente estAnbajo implementaci6n, bien sean privados (ONG, fundaciones, iglesias) o, en menor grado,gubernamentales.

vii

v) Conclusiones y recomendaciones, incluyendo una apreciaci6n de aquellosprogramas de apoyo que aparentemente funcionaron mejor y fueron los mas apreciadospor los beneficiarios; algunas sugerencias acerca de cuales programas merecen asistenciaadicional; y un examen detallado de la opcion de establecer un fondo de subsidiofocalizado para apoyar ( en forma monetaria o cuasimonetaria) familias necesitadas, yrelacionado de alguna manera con el consumo de energia como un complemento a losproyectos a corto plazo de bienestar (como nutrici6n, entre los proyectos sociales masapreciados y programnas de empleo-temporal disefiados para mitigar el desempleocatastr6fico) y proyectos que "habiliten" o "empoderen" (ej. aquellos comoentrenamiento relacionado con el trabajo que mejore la productividad y, en consecuencia,las perspectivas de ganancias de los beneficiarios); y sugerencias acerca de los atributosde la pobreza que faciliten la identificaci6n y selecci6n de aquellas familias masnecesitadas de programas de apoyo y medidas mitigativas.

RESULTADOS

El informe anterior (No. 11798-EC) fundandose en los resultados y calculosparciales de la Encuesta y en calculos de los subsidios y su distribuci6n, recomend6 unareconsideraci6n fundamental de las bases para establecer el precio de la energia. En elprimer paquete de medidas importantes (sept de 1992), el Gobierno del Ecuador (GDE )habia dado pasos importantes hacia una politica econ6micamente mas correcta paraestablecer los precios de la energia y continu6 implementando las medidas de reforna en1993. Como resultado, los subsidios a las gasolinas, diesel y querosen para uso indutrialhan sido eliminados. Tambien, el GDE redujo el subsidio al GLP, pero ignor6 elproblema del querosen de uso domestico (kerex) dejando el precio oficial a S/60 porgal6n pero no hiz6 nada por liberar su distribuci6n. Al contrario, el suministro de kerexfue reducido y luego interrumpido. Al mismo tiempo, los subsidios al consumo deelectricidad fueron esencialmente eliminados, excepto para consumo residencial (enmarzo de 1993). Los precios domesticos de la gasolina fueron subidos una vez mas enfebrero de 1994.

Dado el tratamiento desigual del GLP y del kerex, no es de sorprenderse que laECE encontr6 que la distribuci6n del GLP al semi por mayor y al por menor esesencialmente competitiva, con diferencia de precios regionales/geograficosaproximandose cercanamente a los costos de transporte y de distribuci6n, mientras quelos precios locales, finales del kerex (querosen de uso domestico) no muestran tal patr6n,confirmando que los mercados para el kerex estan muy distorsionados y su comercio estacriticamente restringido. La electricidad, por otro lado, es casi universalmente utilizada,con una cobertura de mas del 90% en las areas urbanas y cerca del 67% en el campo. Elconsumo de combustibles lefiosos estA concentrado en las areas rurales, especialmente enel Oriente y en la Sierra, pero tambien puede observarse entre los segmentos mas pobresde la poblaci6n urbana.

viii

La Encuesta tambien muestra que con ingresos mas altos, los hogares pasan deluso de la energia biomasica al GLP (para cocinar) combinado con la electricidad (paraalumbrado). Esta tendencia es mas comun en las areas urbanas que en las rurales, dondela mezcla de combustibles usados muestra una mayor variedad que en losestablecimientos urbanos. En particular, mientras que s6lo el 7% de las familias urbanascompran el kerex, es todavia muy comfin su utilizaci6n en el campo, particularmente enla Costa y en el Oriente, donde el 40% de las familias lo usan.

La ECE no s6lo confirma que el consumo de energia esta positivamentecorrelacionado con el ingreso; sino tambien suministra evidencia de que losconsumidores mas pobres, aquellos en la categoria mas baja de gastos, utilizan unaproporci6n substancialmente mayor de sus presupuestos en energia (y servicios intensivosen energia, como transporte) que aquellos consumidores de altos ingresos. S6lo con estosresultados generales se invalidan las premisas principales de pasadas politicas de preciosde la energia en el Ecuador, en particular que subsidiar la energia es una forma efectivade redistribuir el ingreso hacia los pobres.

A pesar del hecho de que una parte desproporcionadamente alta de los subsidiosotorgados en el pasado fueron disfrutados por familias urbanas mas acomodadas, haymuchas familias pobres, tanto en las areas rurales como suburbanas ,que usancombustibles modernos en una escala no muy diferente de aquellas familias de ingresosaltos (aunque debido a las diferencias en el tamaflo de las familias,el consumo per-capitade estas ultimas excede significativamente el de las primeras). Como consecuencia, elreciente incremento en el precio de la energia, y aun mas, la propuesta de triplicar elprecio del GLP, podria afectar amplios segmentos de la poblaci6n mas pobre,particularmente aquellos que no tienen la opci6n de cambiarse a combustibles biomasicosde bajo precio, o al querosen el cual (no sigue siendo subsidiado pero) puede sercomprado en pequefias cantidades.

Los resultados anteriores estan corroborados por los seis estudios de caso(Monografias) participante-observador. Ademas, los estudios de caso revelan que lospatrones rurales de uso de combustible son mas un asunto de disponibilidad y de liquidezque de precio. A los precios actuales, el GLP es preferido al querosen o a loscombustibles de madera, pero muchas familias con restricciones de presupuesto yliquidez estan obligadas a comprar aquellos combustibles que se venden en pequefiasporciones aunque sea a costos especificos altos. Ademas, las Monografias hacen enfasisen el hecho de que una gran parte de la poblaci6n vive bajo condiciones de pobreza, einclusive, indigencia.

Medidas estadisticas de la pobreza que han sido estimadas recientemente sugierenque el numero de familias que esta por debajo de la linea de pobreza esta aumentando.Como sea, los signos de miseria social abundan: altas tasas de mortalidad y malnutrici6n,

ix

deterioro de los servicios de salud, creciente desempleo y subempleo, disminuci6n delpoder adquisitivo de los salarios y reducciones en los gastos sociales del Gobiemo.

Frente a estos antecedentes, la presente administraci6n, mientras se embarca ennuevos programas de ajuste estructural, ha montado un ambicioso Plan de Emergenciapara ayudar a las familias pobres en su lucha por subsistir y sobrevivir. Tambien estimulaa las ONG a unir esfuerzos y, en particular, a servir como intermediario entre el Estado,las instituciones financieras, los donantes, y la comunidad. Dado el modesto resultado deprogramas similares emprendidos en el pasado, una mas cercana cooperaci6n con lasONG probablemente mejoraria las nuevas iniciativas en la lucha contra la pobreza. LasONG han estado jugando un rol vital, aunque mejorable, en el sistema de apoyo a lospobres en el pais, y su trabajo ciertamente se beneficiara por una mejor coordinaci6n conlas instituciones y programas del gobierno.

Algunos de los resultados de la ECE han sido suministrados a varias unidades delGDE, especialmente a la Direcci6n de Hidrocarburos del Ministerio de Energia y Minas(MEM) y al CONADE. El MEM esta revisando las politicas con relaci6n al futuro rol delkerex, mientras que CONADE esta estudiando la factibilidad de establecer un sistemadirecto de suplementaci6n de ingreso para aquellos verdaderamente pobres en losprimeros dos quintiles de la distribuci6n del ingreso. Esto es consistente con la politicadel Banco y las recomendaciones de este Estudio. Por estas razones, el equipo que estarealizando este estudio ha cooperado con el personal del GDE y con los consultores queestan trabajando en estos asuntos, y continuara haciendolo. En realidad, no toda lainformaci6n reunida a traves de la ECE ha sido utilizada para este Estudio, pero la basede datos estara disponible en el Instituto Nacional de Energia, donde informaci6nadicional podra ser obtenida y usada directamente o suministrada a otros departamentosdel GDE que puedan necesitar de esta informaci6n. Un diskette conteniendo losresultados de la ECE puede tambien obtenerse a traves de ESMAP.

CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES

El Estudio concluye que la reforma en los precios de la energia lanzada por elGDE no s6lo ayud6 a eliminar una fuente grande y persistente del deficit consolidado delsector puiblico, sino que tambien contribuy6 a la formaci6n de un patr6n de uso de energiamas racional y equitativo. Las tarifas electricas, que eran el vehiculo principal para ladistribuci6n de los subsidios de energia principalmente a las familias mas acomodadas,ahora se aproximan a los costos marginales de largo plazo. Y los precios de los productosderivados del petr6leo han sido subidos a niveles que les proporcionan a los usuarios delsector industrial y del transporte sefiales de mercado razonablemente apropiadas, y en elagregado, dan suficientes ingresos para cubrir los costos. Esto ha dejado al GLP (y alkerex el cual, sin embargo, ya no se consigue al bajo precio oficial de S/60 por gal6n)como el uinico combustible afectado por subsidios significativos. Actualmente se vendepor menos de un tercio de su costo econ6mico de suministro.

Mas del 70% de las familias pobres usan una cantidad moderada de 20 kg al mesde GLP, lo cual en promedio devora cerca del 5% de su presupuesto. Por lo tanto, un

x

precio significativamente mas alto podria confrontar a estas familias con desagradablesalternativas, particularmente cuando no hay combustibles substitutos baratos disponibles.

Dada la probabilidad de que un aumento en el precio del GLP seguramenteempeorara las condiciones miserables de vida ya existentes entre los pobres, el GDE haestado hasta ahora renuente a implementar el aumento. En efecto, lideres politicos hancondicionado la eliminaci6n de los subsidios al GLP a intervenciones politicas que haganel alza del precio mas llevadero.

Con respecto a esto, ha sido sugerido en el informe anterior que el GDE puedeasignar hasta un tercio de los ingresos "extraordinarios" generados por las reformas en elprecio de la energia a iniciativas de apoyo social. Este informe ofrece para consideraci6nuna propuesta mas detallada integrada por dos paquetes de politicas:

(i) El primero pide la liberalizaci6n del suministro del kerex antes de aumentar elprecio del GLP, y el establecimiento de un fondo temporal de subsidio a laenergia de S/40 mil millones (US$ 21 millones) por afio,destinado a las familiasmas pobres que usan el GLP y financiado por estos ingresos extraordinarios.

(ii) El segundo es la sugerencia de comprometer otra parte de estos ingresos enservicios sociales seleccionados y programas de apoyo que se dirijan a lasnecesidades apremiantes de los pobres en areas no energeticas.

La liberalizaci6n del abastecimiento del querosen, el cual a diferencia del GLP esun combustible divisible y versatil, ofrecerA a algunas familias una altemativa adicional ya otras la uinica altemativa al GLP. Mientras que este paso preparara el terreno para laliberaci6n del precio oficial del GLP, el propuesto, fondo de subsidio a la energiacompensara a las familias mas pobres por la perdida en ingreso real causada por elaumento en los precios de la energia. Estas compensaciones deberian ser una medidatransitoria, destinadas a las familias cuyos ingresos esten en la parte inferior de lapiramide y emitidos en la forma de cupones negociables, sin condiciones con relaci6n asu uso.

Sin embargo, establecer un fondo de subsidio hara poco para mejorar lascondiciones de vida de los pobres de manera sostenida. Ni reducira la obligaci6n social ypolitica de suministrar servicios de emergencia a aquellos que estan impedidoscr6nicamente o a victimas de desastres fuera del sector de la energia. Es por lo tantorecomendado que el GDE use parte de estos ingresos extraordinarios para fortaleceractividades de apoyo social que han dado resultados efectivos en satisfacer necesidades acorto y largo plazo, y son altamente apreciadas por los beneficiarios. Por un lado, estoscomprenden programas orientados a la nutrici6n y la salud y, por el otro lado, inversionesen capital humano de la gente mAs pobre.

1. ENERGY CONSUMPTION SURVEY

Introduction

1.1 The energy consumption survey (ECS) described in the present chapter was conductedin September-October 1992 and reports on much more than household energy consumption. It asksquestions about the fuels in use, their convenience, the scope for fuel substitution (should the pricesof some fuels rise), and the ease or difficulty of procuring different forms of energy. The surveyalso elicits information on monthly incomes and expenditures. Some complications arose from thefact that ECS was taken shortly after the September increase in energy prices; so a number answerswere confused (mainly in the case of LPG), ie., some respondents refcrred to the old prices, whileothers quoted the new ones. It was, however, possible to separate the two prices so that the impacton household budgets can be calculated at the new prices, while the price-quantity relationshipsremain correct for other tables.

1.2 In order to complement the survey and to give some sort of independent validation of itsfindings, six more detailed studies were commissioned. These studies use the "participant-observer"method, i.e. are based on intensive interviews and observation of the "oikonomia" or householdorder, the culinary habits, fuel usage, income and expenditure patterns of households living inselected areas: four suburban and two mainly rural locations.

1.3 An overview as well as summaries of the six "participant-observer" monographs arepresented in Chapter 2. Full Spanish language original versions of the monographs will bepublished shortly in Ecuador. Their informational content is compressed into Annex 3. A copy ofthe ECS-questionnaire is attached as Annex 4. Annex I provides the findings of the ECS in tabularform.

Sample Background

1.4 The sample is made up of 2050 observations, of which 1450 were urban and 600 wererural. After cleaning the data, 1769 valid cases were finally retained, 1307 for the urban area and462 for the rural. The survey covers the two major cities of the country, one intermediate city of theSierra, one intermediate city of the Coast, one city of the Oriente (Amazon basin), and 25 rurallocations (both within rural villages and isolated households in the countryside) spanning the threeecological regions of the country.

1.5 The observations are distributed as a function of household expenditure sinceexpenditures are more reliable and consistently reported than income and also represent, moreaccurately than income, the long term status of the household, as suggested by the permantentincome hypothesis. Households can be subdivided into six expenditure classes: the first four arequintiles, the last two pertain to the fifth quintile which is split at the 97.7 Centile because theexpenditure spread over the whole quintile proved too large. On a per capita/month basis, the upperexpenditure limits of the first four quintiles are S/22,635, S/35,419, S/48,736, and S/76,804.S/214,631 is the upper limit of the fifth expenditure class, and the highest registered expenditureamounts to S/749,110.

-2-

1.6 In addition to the cross-classification by expenditure, households can be distinguished interms residential characteristics (urban/rural). Starting from the lowest expenditure class, the ratioof urban to rural households increases across the different income classes from 0.33 to 0.97, 2.04,2.56, and reaches 3.93 for the fifth income class. Only urban households belong to the top 2.3% inthe sixth expenditure class. Likewise, the share of rural (urban) households in the country's totalnumber of households decreases (increases) from 16.9% (5.2%) in the lowest expenditure class, to11.4 (11.0%) in the second, 6.3% (12.9%) in the third, and 5.5% (14.0%) in the fourth expenditureclass. In the fifth class, rural households account for 3.2% of the total number of households, whiletheir urban counterparts' share is 12.7%.

1.7 Since the household budget data collected by the Survey cover only a single period, it isnot possible to estimate household energy demand functions. However, the cross-sectional data canbe used to identify income-consumption curves corresponding to the prices that prevailed when theSurvey was undertaken. Once a second cross section pertaining to another period far enough awayto provide some price variability is available, demand estimation will be feasible.

1.8 The collected data are presented as weighted averages for the national, urban, rural andregional totals and as simple means for the more disaggregated, finer breakdowns along theexpenditure classes. Selected figures are presented below, in the main text and in text tables, whiledetailed tabulations can be found in Annex 1.

Consumption Pattems

1.9 At the national level, average household energy consumption works out at 71.6 kgoe permonth and can be broken down as follows: oil products (LPG, kerex, gasoline) 34.3%, firewood,charcoal and agricultural residues 49.1% and electricity 16.4%. In urban areas, the averagehousehold uses 47.3 kgoe a month, and the percentage shares are: oil products (LPG, kerex,gasoline) 57.2%, firewood, charcoal and agricultural residues 8.3%, and electricity 34.5 %. In ruralareas, including rural villages, monthly household energy consumption averages 104.6 kgoe andexhibits the following structure: oil products (LPG, kerex, gasoline) 20.2%, firewood, charcoal andagricultural residues 74.5%, and electricity 5.3%.(See Table 1). Clearly, the large share accountedfor by biomass and its low conversion efficiency explain why rural household consume almosttwice as much primary energy as their urban counterparts.

- 3 -

TABLE 1: ENERGY CONSUMPTION STRUCTURE

PRIVATE URBAN RURAL NATIONAL

LPG 56.31% 17.32% 32.18%GASOLINE 0.40% 0.00% 0.15%KEREX 0.53% 2.90% 2.00%FIREWOOD 8.21% 72.22% 47.83%AGR. RESID. 0.04% 2.07% 1.30%ELECTRICITY 34.46% 5.30% 16.41%CHARCOAL 0.05% 0.18% 0.13%

TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

1.10 Table 2 reveals that the use of modem fuels (including electricity) is much morefrequent in urban than in rural areas. As a consequence, the average amount of modem energyconsumed by an urban household (43.4 kgoe/month) significantly exceeds that of a rural household(26.7 kgoe/month). The difference is more pronounced in the case of electricity (16.3 vs. 5.5 kgoe)than for LPG cum liquid fuels (27.1 vs. 21.1 kgoe). A greater proportion of urban households usesLPG, while rural ones tend to use kerosene more frequently. At any rate, the figures make plain thata disproportionately large share of the subsidies granted to modem fuels were enjoyed by urbanhouseholds. By the same token, the direct financial burden that a removal of these subsidies wouldplace on households will be heaviest in urban areas.

TABLE 2: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF ENERGY

SOURCE URBAN RURAL NATIONAL

LPG 96.2% 73.0% 86.4%GASOLINE 1.1% 0.0% 0.6%KEREX 7.1% 40.3% 21.2%FIREWOOD 10.5% 76.5% 38.5%AGR.RESID. 1.2% 11.7% 1.3%ELECTRICITY 98.1% 66.6% 84.8%CHARCOAL 0.4% 1.5% 5.2%

1.11 As is shown in Table 3, with higher incomes, households switch away from biomassenergy towards LPG (cooking) plus electricity (lighting). This trend is more pervasive in urban thanin rural areas. Consequently, 68.5% of urban households use LPG in combination with electricity,compared to 12.1% in rural areas. In fact, the principal candidate for replacing woodfuels has beenLPG, and the transition towards LPG is most advanced in urban dwellings: If electricity isexcluded, the (notional) share of urban households relying entirely on LPG rises from 1.9% to 71%,while the share of rural households using exclusively LPG rises from 1.9% to 14.0% (see Annex 1).

-4 -

1.12 It comes as no surprise that due to heterogeneous locational features, the mix of fuelsused in rural areas displays greater variety than in urban zones: On average, the most frequentpattern is biomass in combination with LPG and electricity (32.0%), followed by biomass pluskerosene (12.5%), biomass in combination with kerosene and LPG (12.4%), and biomass plus LPG(12.1%). In the case of the poorest rural households (first quintile), though, the patterns of fuel usehave a stronger bias towards kerosene: The most frequent combination is still biomass plus LPGand electricity, but it accounts for only 25% of the households. Kerosene with biomass and LPG areused by 20%, while the kerosene-plus-biomass combination is typical for 18% of the households.

TABLE 3: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS

Expenditure Groups

COMBINATIONS 0-20% >20-40% >40-60% >60-80% >80-97.7% >97.7-100% AVERAGE

A 1.7% 2.6% 1.2% 2.2% 1.6% 1.9%C .1%E 4.1% .8% .2% 1.0% .4% 1.3%G .2% .3% 1.3% .4%

AC .8% 1.7 1.0% 1.9% 1.1%AE 4.1% 1.9% 2.6% 1.9% .2% 5.7% 2.2%AG 18.1% 38.3% 51.5% 55.4% 62.8% 44.5%CE 13.5 4.3% 2.3% 3.3% 2.4% 5.3%CG .6% 84.6% .1%EG 6.2% 5.3% 2.9% .5% 1.8% 3.4%

ACE 15.1% 3.7% 3.6% 2.0% .8% 5.3%ACG .5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.2% .8% 2.1%AEG 25.9% 28.2% 23.3% 23.8% 19.9% 24.3%CEG 2.4% 2.1% 1.5% .6% 2.3% 1.8%

ACEG 7.2% 8.1% 6.8% 3.7% 5.0% 9.8% 6.2%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

weighted national averagesA=LPG C=KEROSENE E=BIOMASS G=ELECTRICITY

1.13 Tables 4 and 5 underline the findings mentioned above. Wealthier households use moremodem energy in direct proportion to the declining relative importance of biomass energy. On theother hand, 29% of the households in the lowest expenditure class and 13% in the second-lowestclass use no LPG. Fuel diversification decreases as households become more affluent. And sincewealth is distributed in favor of urban areas, the use of modern energy in urban households onaverage exceeds that in rural households by a factor of 3.9.

TABLE 4: STUCTURE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION ACROSS INCOME CLASSES

Expenditure Groups

(0-20%) (20-40%) (40460%) (80480%) (80-97%) (97-100%)*

LPG 16.81% 32.50% 35.23% 45.35% 43.05% 40.62%GASOLINE 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.74% 0.18% 0.00%KEREX 3.03% 1.85% 1.54% 0.90% 2.27% 0.00%FIREWOOD 72.91% 53.51% 44.91% 28.17% 17.91% 0.57%VEG.RESID 1.86% 0.81% 2.54% 0.76% 0.02% 0.00%ELECTRICITY 5.33% 11.25% 15.76% 24.05% 35.88% 58.81%CHARCOAL 0.07% 0.06% 0.02% 0.04% 0.70% 0.00%

* Structure for urban households since there are no rural observations in this category.

TABLE 5: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF ENERGY ACROSS INCOME CLASSES

Expenditure Groups

(0-20%) (20-40%) (40-60%) (60480%) (80-97%) (97-100%*)

LPG 71.0% 87.0% 91.7% 93.6% 89.9% 94.3%GASOLINE 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 2.2% 0.0%KEREX 39.2% 22.1% 17.5% 13.9% 11.5% 0.0%FIREWOOD 72.1% 43.9% 32.6% 21.6% 17.3% 4.9%VEG.RESID. 1.4% 1.5% 0.9% 1.1% 1.7% 0.0%ELECTRICITY 60.5% 88.0% 91.3% 90.8% 95.7% 100.0%CHARCOAL 9.8% 4.4% 4.9% 4.8% 1.6% 5.2%

* Structure for the urban households since there are no rural observations in this category.

Expenditure Patterns

1.14 The ECS supports the conclusion that poverty is more widespread in rural areas,whether they be on the Coast, in the Sierra or in the Oriente. Differences in total incomes (asapproximated by total household expenditures) are much greater in the cities than in thecountryside. For instance, in Quito, absolute expenditures of the surveyed households vary fromS/105,000 to S/935,000 per household per monti, but the majority of households surveyed fall inthe third and fourth quintiles, and in the lower part of the fifth quintile (319 observations out of 469or 68%). In contrast, the data for the 25 rural towns surveyed shows total household expendituresvarying between approximately S/96,000 and S/326,000. Furthermore, a majority of theobservations (297 out of 467 or 64%) fell in the two lowest quintiles of the distribution.

1.15 In rural areas, or rather in the 25 locations outside the main cities, income differentialsare much less marked. In fact, out of 467 observations, the survey found not one household in thehighest income class (97.7 to 100 centiles). Also, in the countryside, the proportion of people in thefirst quintile (of total household expenditures) was extremely high, 38%, while in Quito andGuayaquil, by contrast, it was only 9% and 8% respectively (on average, urban households account

-6-

for 9.1% of the families falling into the first quintile). These results further reinforce the finding thatmore of the poor live in the countryside.

1.16 The (weighted) national average expenditures on energy amount to 6.23% of totalexpenditures, compared with 5.3% in urban areas and 7.6% in the countryside. By internationalstandards, these figures are low and reflect both the significance of nontraded energy and the lowprices of petroleum products and electricity. The fact that the rural share lies above the average isexplained by the lower incomes of rural households and, in some cases, the higher prices ofcommercial fuels supplied to remote or isolated areas. In absolute amounts, the average household'sexpenditures on energy and transport tend to increase with total expenditure. At the national level,monthly household energy expenditures rise from S/7,710 for the first quintile to S/10,451 in thethird quintile, and reach S/20,268 for the fifth quintile. However, as a proportion of totalexpenditures, those on energy did fall markedly with rising income, while expenditures on transporttended to decline only marginally or to stay level.

1.17 As expected, rural and urban household spend their income in different ways. Whereasat the low income/expenditure end both rural and urban households allocate the same expenditurefraction to energy (8.6%), higher incomes cause the urban households' share of energy-relatedexpenditure to decline more rapidly than in the case of rural households. By contrast, more affluentrural households tend to increase the share of expenditures accounted for by transport, while theurban households' expenditures on transport by and large are a constant fraction of totalexpenditure.

1.18 The differences between the lowest quintile of the ECS and the highest 2.3% of thedistribution are striking, even more so when per capita expenditures are compared. For example, inGuayaquil, absolute per capita expenditures on energy for the lowest quintile are about 14.4% ofthose of the highest group. However, the proportion of expenditures the poorest households assignto energy exceeds the corresponding share of total household expenditure of the highest group by afactor of three (viz 7.9% vs 2.8%).

1.19 It is also worth mentioning that the level of household energy expenditures are fairlysimilar across the country. The monthly energy expenditures in rural areas rise from S/7,178 in thefirst quintile to S/10,397 in the third quintile and reach S/28,435 for the fifth expenditure group(which covers the richest rural families). The corresponding figures for urban households areS/9,238 (first quintile) , S/10,477 (second quintile), and S/26,972 (sixth expenditure class whichcontains the most affluent urban households).

1.20 Similar results hold for transportation: The average household of the lowest quintilespends one fourth of the amount spent by the highest group. In per capita terms, as opposed to perhousehold terms, the lowest quintile spends one tenth as much as the highest group. Yet as aproportion of total household expenditure, this low level of expenditure on transportation is 67%higher than that of the highest income group (viz 12.55% vs 7.52%).

1.21 Table 6 shows the average household percentage shares of energy in total expendituresby income (expenditure) classes.

TABLE 6: SHARE OF EXPENDITURES ON ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES

Expenditure Groups

EXPENDITURES IN:0-20% 20-40% 40460% 6040% 80-97.7% 97.7-100%*

FUELS 7.74% 5.56% 3.70% 2.61% 1.12% 4.72%ELECTRICITY 2.60% 1.98% 2.16% 2.51% 2.70% 2.37%ENERGY 8.64% 6.79% 5.14% 4.62% 3.67% 6.23%TRANSPORTATION 12.51% 11.81% 11.75% 11.61% 11.73% 11.86%TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

* Structure for urban households since there are no rural observations in this category.Fuels+Electricity

Consumption By Region

1.22 The pattern of energy consumption is different among the natural regions, as is shownin the table below.

TABLE 7: PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES USING DIFFERENT ENERGY SOURCESBY NATURAL REGION

ENERGY SOURCE SIERRA COSTA ORIENTE

LPG 87.2% 84.7% 96.7%GASOLINE 0.9% 0.4% 0.0%KEREX 10.2% 30.4% 49.8%WOOD FUEL 48.7% 26.5% 59.1%AGR.RESIDUES 5.3% 5.5% 0.0%ELECTRICITY 89.2% 82.9% 48.8%CHARCOAL 0.0% 2.5% 3.3%

1.23 Most of the households in the Sierra and the Coast use electricity and LPG for lightingand cooking, respectively. In the Sierra and on the Coast, 96 % and 73% of householdsrespectively, combine these two fuels. This percentage includes families that also use otherproducts (such as charcoal, wood, agricultural residues and kerex).

1.24 In the Oriente, on the other hand, only 44.8% of households use both electricity andLPG, including families that use other energy products. This occurs because the population isoverwhelmingly rural. A high percentage of families, 92%, use LPG along with wood andagricultural residues. This is understandable, given the availability of wood and residues in alightly populated, tropical rural setting.

-8 -

1.25 The combination of LPG and biomass is more frequent in the Sierra than on the Coast,43% compared to 31%. This demonstrates the possibility of an increase in biomass use amonghouseholds which are already using it for cooking or warming water, as a reaction to an eventualsubstantial increase in the price of LPG which will occur sooner or later.

1.26 Households on the Coast and in the Oriente tend to consume more kerex than those inthe Sierra. On the coast, about 30% of households use it. About 49% of households in the Orienteuse kerex combined with biomass and LPG. This region uses kerex most heavily: 50% ofhouseholds buy it for lighting.

1.27 The high frequency of kerosene usage in the Oriente can be explained by the fact thatelectricity coverage happens to be least developed in this area. Kerex use is concentrated amonglowest income households who generally lack electricity. This finding is strongly supported by oneof the "participant observer" monographs which covers the area around Tena in the Oriente.

1.28 In hot, humid tropical areas, kerex also has other uses: 47% of Oriente and 65% ofCoastal households use it to treat wood, kill vermin, disinfect floors, etc., as can be appreciated inthe table below.

TABLE 8: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING KEREX AND ITS MAIN USES

SIERRA COAST ORIENTE

% of the total hh:10.2% 30.4% 49.8%

% of the hh using kerex:Cooking 0.7% 5% 7%Lighting 70.0% 64% 73%Other Uses 36.0% 65% 47%

Fuel-Specific Findings

LPD

1.29 LPG is the fuel of choice of Ecuadorean households. Its use is almost universal, exceptfor inaccessible areas and the poorest of the poor. The percentage of LPG users is invariably highacross all income classes, ranging from 71% in the first quintile to 94% in the highest 2.3 centilesof the Survey. On average, 96% of urban households and 73% of households living in thecountryside consume LPG in one way or another. LPG has even penetrated 63% of the ruralhouseholds in the first quintile.

1.30 According to PETROECUADOR, in 1992 total LPG consumption (met by domesticrefineries and imports) was about 420,000 tons.' The supply infrastructure is well developed,consisting of several bottling plants, a network of distributors, sub-distributors and dealers,including home-delivery services in densely populated areas. Shortages rarely occur, butprocurement may be complicated in remote areas with no direct link to the distribution system.

1.31 The virtues of LPG are obvious: it is clean, efficient, and usually easy to procure. Itsprincipal use in household applications is for cooking and boiling water. Since there is no heatingor lighting with LPG, woodfuels, kerosene, or electricity are needed as complements. Poorer urbanand rural families often restrict the use of LPG to the preparation quick meals and resort to otherfuels, mainly wood, when the cooking times are long. Affluent urban households, on the otherhand, have extended the use of LPG, in conjunction with boilers, as a substitute for electric waterand space heating systems, particularly as a response to the recent increase in electricity tariffs.

1.32 However, the most compelling incentive to use LPG is that it has consistently been soldbelow cost and much cheaper than its modem fuel substitutes. Until the September 1992 priceincrease, its official price was S/80 per kg (which is less than 6 US cents) and has since been fixedat S/193/kg (about 10 US cents). Currently, LPG-dealers on average charge S/250/kg. Since thespread around the mean is small, LPG sells at a fairly uniform price across the country. On theother hand, the economic cost of LPG (based on import parity+margins) lies in the vicinity ofUS$400/ton or about S/760/kg (at a US$ rate of S/1900 as of May 1993).2

1.33 As is shown in Table 9, expenditure-dependent LPG consumption of households thatuse LPG is distributed near the national average. Per capita consumption, however, variessubstantially across expenditure classes. The reason for this disparity is that family size declines asincome rises.3 While the average family of the first quintile has 6 members, a household of the fifthquintile on average is composed of only 2.3 persons. Hence, average per capita consumption of thepoorest quintile is only 32% of the amount used by members of the most affluent households (or3.3 kg versus 10.4 kg, respectively). As expected, the gap is smaller in rural areas than in urbanagglomerations where income differentials are greater (3.2 kg vs 8.0 kg/capita, compared to 3.4 kgvs 10.4 kg/capita).

1 This is about 40,000 less than the Survey suggests by extrapolating the average household consumption estimateof 23.4 kg/month.

2 This estimate is supported by a recent study of August 1993 (prepared for CONADE under World Bank PPFfunding) which concludes that with reasonably efficient procurement, which is the case for Ecuador, economic costsare about US$400/ton.

3 Consequentiy, income differentials tend to explain most of the differences in per-capita consumption. Part of thedisparity, however, may be attributable to economies of scale; i.e., per-capita consumption is apt to decline as thefamily size increases.

- 10-

TABLE 9: LPG CONSUMPTION BY EXPENDITURE CLASS

Expenditure Groups

(0-20%) (20-40%) (40460%) (60-80%) (80-97%) (97-1100%) AverageKg/monthlHH:

Urban 22.62 23.28 22.72 24.01 23.87 23.95 23.42Rural 18.41 23.01 20.52 23.08 23.57 - 21.15National 19.80 23.20 22.10 23.80 23.80 23.90 22.6

Kg/month/capita:National 3.30 4.30 4.50 5.60 6.80 10.40 4.9Urban 3.40 4.14 4.59 5.67 6.34 10.35 5.22Rural 3.24 4.51 4.32 5.82 8.00 - 4.51

* Figures are weighted national averages per household or person using LPG and do not include commercial uses.

1.34 Table 10 presents figures on total annual LPG consumption by income class andlocation (urban/rural). The estimates are derived from Survey data on average householdconsumption and the number of households pertaining to the different expenditure classes in ruraland urban areas. According to Survey results, aggregate household LPG consumption amounts to465,868 tons/year, which is more than the 420,000 tons that PETROECUADOR reports were soldin 1992. Supposing that PETROECUADOR's sales statistics are correct, the difference of 46,000tons must be due to estimation errors on the part of the households questioned. Projections based onthe micro data collected by the Survey will compound these errors. However, if such errors aresystematic (which is likely), Table 10 gives a reasonably accurate picture of the composition ofLPG consumption (across the five quintiles), while the consumption levels may be a bit on highside. 4

1.35 According to Table 10, about 94,000 tons a year are consumed by rural households ofthe two lowest income classes, which account for almost 60% of total rural LPG use. If the 85,500tons sold to low-income urban households (i.e.,those in the first two quintiles) are added, the totalamount used by households pertaining to the first two quintiles (i.e. about 44% of the totalpopulation), works out at 179,500 tons a year, which is 38.5% of aggregate household LPGconsumption. Clearly, the families that an increase in the price of LPG is likely to harm most willbe found in this segment of the population.

4 Another explanation of the difference could be that LPG bottles contain less than the official weight cases ofwidespread underfilling were reported in 1993.

- I1 -

TABLE 10: ESTIMATED TOTAL LPG CONSUMPTION BY LOCATIONAND EXPENDITURE CLASS*

Expenditure Classes

0.20% 2040% 40460% 60-80% 80-97.7% 97-100% TOTAL

Urban 27.3 58.2 68.7 78.5 68.5 8.6 309.8Rural 44.1 50.0 25.0 28.78 12.9 - 160.7Nat. 71.4 108.0 93.7 102.7 81.4 8.6 465.9

^ in '000 metric tons per year, extrapolated from Survey sample

1.36 At a retail price of S/3,500 per 14 kg-cylinder, LPG is still affordable for many ofthose who where willing to buy it before the September 1992 price increase. Monthly householdexpenditures for LPG in urban areas are slightly below S/5,000 across the first two expendituregroups and range from S/5,000 to S/7,000 in the upper expenditure end. In the two lowestincome groups, rural LPG-using households spend between S/4,300 and S/5,400 a month.

1.37 The poorest households, however, are beginning to face problems posed by theindivisibility of the cylinder. The amount of S/3500 already exceeds the daily wage for unskilledlabor (S/3000), and poor households don't always have this amount all at once. If the price of thecylinder were to rise to a level reflecting economic cost, say S/760/kg or S/10,640 per 14 kgbottle, the difficulty of making this lump-sum payment would become much more pervasive. So,alternatives that match the limited liquidity of poor families must be made available to reduce therisk of disruptions in household fuel supply. Basically, there are only two candidates suited assubstitute for LPG in household applications: domestic kerosene (kerex) and wood. Both fuelsare discussed below.

Household Kerosene

1.38 Household kerosene, called kerex in Ecuador (to distinguish it from Diesel 1 which iskerosene for industrial use), has long been in use for both lighting and cooking in northern Peruand Southern Ecuador, areas with a petroleum industry dating back to the early days of thecentury. Household consumption of kerosene, however, has slowed down dramatically,especially during the last two decades. Three factors contributed to this trend:

a. large investments in electrification, with the result that more than 70% of thepopulation is connected to the grid;

b. aggressive promotion and subsidization of LPG during the 70's and 80's;

c. ill-conceived policies that rationed the supply of kerex and encouraged dealers toprofitably channel the fuel as a substitute for diesel to industrial users.

- 12 -

1.39 According to the sales statistics of PETROECUADOR, between 1989 and 1991aggregate household kerosene consumption declined from 610,156 barrels to 383,901 barrelsand was down to about 180,000 barrels (or 7.56 million gallons) in 1992 (see also Table 12which shows consumption estimates based on the ECS). Before 1989, sales statistics did notdistinguish between kerex and Diesel 1. Total kerosene sales fell from 2,588,000 barrels in 1980to 804,000 barrels in 1988. If kerex and Diesel I are lumped together, total sales increased in1989 to 1,101,000 barrels and thereafter plummeted to 647,000 barrels in 1992, mainly as aresult of PETROECUADOR's restrictive kerex supply policy.

1.40 Kerex is most common in rural areas where 40.3% of the households use it either forlighting, the most important application, or cooking, or for both purposes, compared to meager7.1% in urban areas. Non-energy uses such as cleaning or disinfecting are also widespread. Atthe national level, average monthly consumption of a household that uses kerosene is about 1.1gallon in urban areas and 2.4 gallons in the countryside. On a per capita basis, both rural andnational kerosene consumption levels are fairly uniform across low to medium income groups(see Table 11). However, countrywide the proportion of households that use kerosene drops from39% in the first expenditure class to 1.7% in the fifth expenditure class. By contrast, in ruralareas, the share of kerosene-using households is 50% in the lowest expenditure class and still42% in the fifth expenditure class.

TABLE 11: KEROSENE CONSUMPTION BY EXPENDITURE CLASS

Expenditure Classes

0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-97% Averagegal/month/HH:Urban 0.97 1.49 1.19 0.86 1.03 1.14Rural 2.40 2.05 2.15 1.49 4.69 2.37National 2.34 1.88 1.84 1.27 3.88 2.14

gal/month/capita:Urban 0.11 0.28 0.31 0.18 0.23 0.25Rural 0.38 0.40 0.53 0.41 1.14 0.47National 0.37 0.37 0.46 0.33 0.94 0.43

* weighted national averages per household or person using kerosene.

1.41 Table 12 shows a break-down of total household kerosene consumption byexpenditure class and location (urban/rural). The figures are computed by extrapolating thesample characteristics found by the Survey. As has been explained in the Section dealing withLPG, the consumption levels thus obtained may be flawed on account of estimation errors madeby the households interviewed. In fact, according to the Survey results, in 1982 householdswould have used about 3 million gallons (or almost 25%) more than is suggested byPETROECUADOR's sales figures. What may explain part of the difference is that householdswhich were short of kerex bought Diesel 1 (which is kerosene PETROCUADOR sells under adifferent label for non-household uses). Be that as it may, it can be assumed that Table 12 draws

- 13 -

a reasonably accurate picture of the cross-sectional composition of household keroseneconsumption.

1.42 The Survey suggests that almost two third of the kerosene used in rural areas (or 60%of total household consumption), equivalent to 6.4 million gallons a year, is accounted for byfamilies pertaining to the first two quintiles. If their urban counterparts are included, the twolowest expenditure groups consume 6.9 million gallons a year which is 64% of total householdkerex use. On a heating value basis, this is equivalent to about 11% of what the two expendituregroups consume in terms of LPG.

TABLE 12: ESTIMATED TOTAL KEREX CONSUMPTION BY LOCATIONAND EXPENDITURE CLASS*

Expenditure Classes

0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-97.7% Total

Urban 80.3 416.1 304.4 188.8 94.4 1,084.4Rural 4,581.7 1,810.4 1,183.2 631.5 1,500.5 9,707.2National 4,662.5 2,226.4 1,487.8 820.1 1,594.9 10,789.9

=in '000 gallons per year, extrapolated from Survey sample

1.43 It should be stressed, however, that the currently prevailing low kerex consumptionlevels are a spurious indicator of its popularity among users because supply is extremely limitedand erratic while demand is biased on account of distortionary pricing policies that encouragedealers of household kerosene to divert the fuel to industrial markets where it can fetch a premiumof 2000% (at official prices). Furthermore, LPG, a superior fuel, is still heavily subsidized andeasily available. As a consequence, household kerosene is nowhere available at the deceptively lowofficial price of S/60/gallon (or about S0.5/MJ). In fact, if it were available at this price, it would besignificantly cheaper (on a heating value basis and in terms of useful energy) than LPG supplied atthe official price of S/193/kg (or S/4.3/MJ). Rather, kerex, if it is offered at all, on average sells atS/653/gallon in Quito, at more than S/900/gallon in Guayaquil, and at more than S/2000 in isolatedrural areas. Its average retail price reported by the Survey amounts to S/1360/gallon. Therefore, amultiple increase in the official kerex supply price would probably make no household worse off.The subsidies granted to kerex and meant for the poor are reaped somewhere else.

1.44 Notwithstanding the negative image kerosene has among government officials, thepotential market for household kerosene is likely to prove much larger than current sales figuressuggest, particularly if the subsidies to both LPG and kerosene are discontinued. Should the price ofLPG be permitted to rise to 35 UScents/kg (S 665/kg) or higher, kerex would become a reasonablycompetitive alternative if its supply were more reliable than in the past. Indeed, a policy that insteadof rationing the supply of kerex encourages its distribution (as well as the dissemination ofcomplementary appliances) to every point where demand can be met at the (average) costs ofsupply (=import parity plus margins) will help keep the price of kerosene in the neighborhood of 70US cents/gallon (S/1330/gallon), which is exactly what households on average pay under present

- 14 -

conditions. Once prices have adjusted to these levels, little money could be saved on the part of thefinal users by swapping LPG for kerex or vice versa; nor would it be terribly attractive to divertkerosene to non-household markets. The main effects would be that:

a. poor households have the reliable option to buy smaller fuel (kerosene) quantities inaccordance with their budget constraints, with some of them paying a higher unitprice and others enjoying a discount when compared with the status quo;

b. the more affluent consumers will face much higher household energy prices thanthey were used to, with kerex as an additional choice, which may partly compensatefor the welfare loss they have to (and they are better prepared to) absorb, although itwould appear unlikely that upper middle and upper income consumers would shiftfrom LPG to kerosene.

Biomass Fuels (Including Grass and Agricultural Residues)

1.45 In spite of the high rate at which modem fuels like LPG penetrate rural areas, anoverwhelmingly large proportion of households residing in the countryside (more than 77%)continues to use firewood and, though to a lesser extent, other forms of biomass energy likeagricultural residues. Also, rural fuelwood use is not very sensitive to income: The share of ruralhouseholds that depend on fuelwood only slowly declines from 87% in the lowest expenditure classto 72% in the fifth expenditure class.

1.46 More importantly, there is a high correlation between both the level and frequency offuelwood consumption and poverty: 87% of the households in the first quintile meet 73% of theirprimary energy requirements with firewood. Also, a surprisingly large share of low-income urbanfamilies uses fuelwood: On average, 25% of the urban households of the first quintile fall into thiscategory. In Quito the number is 40%, in Riobamba 46%, in Esmeraldas 23%, and in Lago Agrio20%. These households depend on wood (whether purchased or gathered) as a complement tomodem fuels (mainly LPG), but also as a substitute for that portion of modem fuels they cannotafford to acquire.

1.47 As is shown in Table 13, households that use fuelwood do this at a level that proves notvery sensitive to income (except for households falling into the sixth expenditure class notconsidered in Table 9). Therefore, as income grows and the number of family members decreases,per capita consumption in fuelwood-using households increases. This result, by and large, holds forboth rural and urban fuelwood users.

- 15 -

TABLE 13: FUELWOOD CONSUMPTION BY EXPENDITURE CLASS

Expenditure Classes

0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-97% Averagekg/month/HH:Urban 119 91 149 199 59 126Rural 342 328 360 303 232 329National 323 291 395 286 205 298

kg/month/capita:Urban 17 17 35 41 15 25Rural 58 65 86 80 94 68National 54 58 72 72 82 62

* weighted national averages per household or person using fuelwood

1.48 Wood is locally supplied, and mostly gathered rather than purchased. Gathered woodis cheap if the time spent (mostly by women and children) on this activity has little or no value, asis the case in many instances. It should be kept in mind, though, that this time cost is bound toincrease as wood becomes scarcer and harder to find and absorbs labor that could be employedmore profitably in other areas.

1.49 Where fuelwood is supplied through commercial channels, its price may varysignificantly. The figures collected by the Survey range from S/10/kg to more than S/200/kg. At theaverage retail price of S/43/kg (or SI31MJ) fuelwood would have no cost advantage over LPG soldat the official price of S/193/kg (on a useful energy basis that accounts for differentials inconversion efficiency), and would be considerably cheaper than kerex traded at the non-officialaverage price of S/1360/gallon.

1.50 It can be expected that any major increase in the price of LPG will raise demand forfuelwood as a substitute for LPG. Even though the size of this substitution effect is indeterminate,some qualitative statements about the possible outcome can be made:

1.51 First, the lower the income, the stronger will be the incentive for a household to switchaway from LPG (since LPG is a normal good, i.e. is in higher demand as income rises). Second, ifthere are alternatives to fuelwood, displaced demand for LPG will spread over several fuels ratherthan fall on a single alternative, depending on the availability and relative price of the fuels inquestion as well as on the households' income and preferences. Therefore, this study stronglysuggests that the supply of kerex be vastly improved as a precondition for increasing the price ofLPG. Third, the extent to which fuelwood consumption will increase and what impact this mayhave on the environment also depends on the local or regional fuelwood supply conditions. In areaswhere supply is plentiful and elastic, additional fuelwood demand will pose no problems. However,in other places, notably in the inner city cores, but also in the high altitude areas of the Sierra wherethe principal fuels are agricultural wastes and grass, a significant shift towards woodfuels can leadto an overutilization of the resource base, higher fuelwood prices, and forced energy savings on thepart of poorer households, and might eventually have negative environmental consequences both in

- 16-

the kitchen and on the land. Needless to say, such circumstances will call for mitigatory measuresthat go beyond the mere provision of fuel alternatives.

1.52 Finally, speaking of woodfuels, this section would be incomplete without a brief look atthe role of charcoal which, though, is not very common in Ecuador. It is predominantly used in thesuburban areas of Guayaquil and Esmeraldas, mainly to bridge the gap between the end of one LPGcylinder and the purchase of the following one. It tends to be more expensive than LPG, especiallywhen purchased in small quantities, as is generally the case. Cooking with charcoal can cost aboutS/500 per day in Guayaquil, which adds up to S/15,000/month (if households were to cook withcharcoal only, which is not the case), equivalent to 3.4 times the fuel cost of cooking with LPGsold at current prices. The role of charcoal is limited and will probably remain so: according to theECS, 4.3% of the households in Esmeraldas and 1.2% of those in Guayaquil use it.

1.53 It is important to consider that while the middle and high income urban population usethis fuel for cooking on special occasions (barbecues, etc.), the low income groups in rural andurban areas use it as a complement or emergency fuel where the usual main fuel is not available, orfor preparing foods that need to be cooked for long periods. Charcoal is most important on theCoast, because of its greater supply reliability but its price is generally not competitive withalternatives. Charcoal prices reported by the Survey range from S/80/kg to S/1,400/kg, with amean of S/305/kg (or S/20/MJ).

Electricity

1.54 According to INECEL, about 75% of the population has access to electricity. TheSurvey results suggest a somewhat higher level of coverage (about 84% nationally), which may bedue to numerous illegal or unauthorized connections. Also, reliability of service is often poor; so,many electrified households rely on kerex, candles and flashlights to cope with power outages.

1.55 Electricity is nearly universally used in the larger cities (97% and 92% in Quito andGuayaquil respectively) and reaches about 67% of rural households. Unlike urban areas, access toelectricity varies greatly across income groups in the countryside. Electricity is available to only490% of the rural households pertaining to the first quintile, compared with 80% for those belongingto the first part of the fifth quintile.

1.56 As indicated in Table 14, at the national level, consumption of electricity increasesmarkedly with income, i.e., electricity qualifies as a normal good: electricity users of the firstquintile on average consume 17 kWh/month/capita and those of the highest expenditure class use180 kWh/month/capita. In rural areas, per capita consumption of electricity users in the first twoquintiles works out at 16 kWh/month, while that of the fourth and fifth quintile is about 36kwh/month. By contrast, urban per capita consumption starts with 19 kWh/month for the lowestexpenditure group and ends with 180 kWh/month for the top 2.3%. As documented in the earlierReport (No. 11 798-EC), the lion's share of electricity subsidies accrued to the middle and upperclasses which live overwhelmingly in cities.

- 17-

TABLE 14: HOUSEHOLD ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY EXPENDITURE CLASS*

Expenditure Classes

0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 6040% 80-97.7 >97.7 AveragekWhlmonth/HH:national 98 106 133 191 255 433 161urban 119 130 150 197 285 434 193rural 85 77 88 169 108 - 96kWh/month/capita:national 17 20 27 44 68 180 38urban 19 24 30 46 74 180 46rural 16 15 19 38 35 - 21

* weighted national averages per household/person using electricity

1.57 The ECS did not encounter any households that use electricity for cooking, although itis no secret that a few high income households do use it, especially those who live in luxuryapartments where fire department regulations forbid other cooking methods. Electricity is used byhigher income urban families for water heating but it is being increasingly substituted by LPG aspower tariffs rose faster than the price of LPG (at present, the cost of water heating with LPG isabout half that of using electricity). In the Sierra, luxury hotels and upper bracket houses (notsurveyed) also use electricity for space heating; and, on the coast, for air conditioning. Onlyventilators (fans) were found among appliances in use in surveyed households (which generallyexcluded the highest income areas).

Others

1.58 Cooking with gasoline is limited to a few hundred families in and around Cuenca. Thepractice is dangerous and the gasoline (a filthy, low octane fuel) is available only sporadically albeitat a low price (S/240 per gallon).There is no reason why these users could not convert to kerex,especially if its supply became more reliable. The distribution of this fuel could be discontinued.

1.59 Candles are used normally only during power cuts. The habitual use of candles islimited to those without electricity, i.e. mostly rural, low and very low-income categories. Theprice of candles substituting electric light is extremely high. The frequent use of batteries mainlyoccurs in rural areas (17 %), rarely in the cities (2.7 %). However, while the cost is high, thedemand is concentrated among families with low and very low incomes.

Household Attitudes By Fuel

LPG

1.60 No matter what their economic condition or their home location, the personsinterviewed have similar opinions regarding LPG usage: most people, around 80 %, accept thatLPG is easy to purchase since it is generally available in the market. The majority of these persons -64%- agree on the convenience of using LPG, as it is user-friendly, comfortable and safe.

- 18-

1.61 On the other hand, there is a variety of opinions regarding LPG transportation. Takingthis fuel home is difficult, and even very difficult, for almost 40% of the total of personsinterviewed. If the socioeconomic and geographic situations are considered, some of the answersobtained are coherent. Rural households have problems transporting LPG cylinders (54%). At thesame time, 53 % of the people from the lowest quintile and 41 % of the persons from the secondquintile have similar opinions on LPG transportation. More than 66 % of the population of thelowest quintile agree, partially or completely, that LPG is easy to obtain. For most consumers, theonly problem in LPG distribution is transporting it to their houses: long distances, lack of adequatemeans of transportation, handling heavy cylinders, etc..

1.62 There is a widespread feeling that the price of LPG is high, or very high (95 %),independently of the economic status of the interviewed families. Regarding the increase in LPGprices, 31 % of the population thinks it will reduce its usage but fully 43 % will maintain theirconsumption and absorb this price increase. Only the remaining 23 % have decided to take radicalactions: substituting, partially or totally, LPG by other fuels. After the price adjustment, more thanone third (38 %) of rural households chose partial or total substitution of LPG by other sources ofenergy, whereas only 14 % urban households chose this option. This difference between thepercentages might result from the existence of local energy alternatives (wood, for example) closeto rural areas, and the lack of such alternatives in large cities.

1.63 Finally, it is important to mention that more than 50 % of the persons interviewed donot know what factors affect LPG prices. Twenty-six percent suppose that taxes are included in theprice of LPG. Only 10 % are aware of the government subsidy on this fuel. In urban areas, 1 %state that a price change would not affect them, because of their low consumption, while in ruralareas, 4 % make this statement.

Eleticity

1.64 The majority of persons interviewed consider electricity pretty expensive (77 %) butconvenient as well (78 %). While most of the households across all income groups (an average of58%) thought the quality of service is acceptable, about 41% complained about voltage variations.If electric services were more reliable, about 36% of those interviewed would pay more for it.Although this percentage is lower for the first quintile, these results show how valuable electricservice is for the population.

1.65 Detailed results are as follows: more than 50 % of the individuals asked considerelectricity supply reliable. A low percentage complain about programmed outages or about powercuts for unpaid bills. A substantial proportion of persons interviewed asked for clear andunderstandable electricity bills, (39 %). After the last price increase, half of all consumers (49%)have decided to cut their use of electricity while 35 % have decided to absorb the price increase, i.e.maintain their level of consumption. It should be noted that 78% of the highest income group planto reduce consumption, maybe because they were the most affected by the tariff increase.

- 19-

1.66 Almost nobody considers the substitution of electricity for lighting by other source ofenergy (2 %), while 90% don't know. As with LPG, most of the persons asked were not aware offactors that affect electricity rates (41 %). A higher percentage think that the prices charged includesome kind of tax (43 %). A few individuals ( 8%) suppose that electricity rates are not modifiedeither by subsidies or taxes and a only a minority of 8% know about the government subsidy.

Gasoline

1.67 Only some of the persons interviewed gave their opinions on gasoline characteristics,due to its low usage as a domestic fuel. For most of the individuals who answered the questions, thegasoline price is high, its supply is acceptable (probably referring to the so called special gasolinewhich is used for cars). People seem to be conscious of the risk of using gasoline due to its highinflammability. Their opinions regarding gasoline for transportation are different. More than a halfof the interviewed persons don't know the facts that affect the price of gasoline and almost 31%think that the current (i.e. before Sept 1992) price includes some taxes.

Household Kerosene

1.68 Kerex is a potentially useful fuel in the countryside, even though it is consideredexpensive; 71 % of the population in rural areas believe that kerex is an expensive, or a veryexpensive fuel. At the same time, 55% of these people, consider it convenient. Maybe the variety ofapplications that kerex has, or the deeply-rooted habit of using it (not to mention its divisibility)make this fuel welcome in rural areas. This would support this study's suggestion of widening itsdistribution and promoting its consumption, as the only modem fuel alternative to (unsubsidized)LPG.

Charcoa

1.69 Most of the people who consider charcoal convenient live in the countryside or havelow incomes. The judgements were ambiguous among the persons who gave their opinions,probably because of the geographic and social dispersion of the sample and also because ofcharcoal's specific characteristics and the way it is traded and used. Acquiring it in the market isfairly easy, even though its price is high and its transportation is difficult for many people(it is dusty, dirty, etc.).

Fuelwood

1.70 For most of the persons interviewed in rural areas, wood is always, or almost always,available (74 %); its transportation is pretty easy, (47 %); its safety makes it convenient, or veryconvenient (76 %) and, for some people, wood is even a pretty cheap fuel, (37 %). The answersobtained from a socioeconomic perspective are similar to the ones gotten in the case of charcoal:the lowest social levels being the ones who use it, are the ones that most often give opinions onwood, considering it convenient, easy to carry, usually available and cheap. These households have

- 20 -

little experience of modem fuels because their low incomes prevented them from using LPG evenat its subsidized, pre-September 1992, price.

Agricultural Residues

1.71 Most users consider this fuel cheap and easy to transport; it is also easily available andcan be collected directly from places close to home, which is also convenient. However, not manypeople expressed opinions on agricultural residues, given that their usage is limited. As for wood,most of the opinions registered came from rural areas and low-income households. Even in thoseenvironments, most of the persons interviewed did not have an opinion regarding agriculturalresidues.

Additional Opinions Regarding Energy

1.72 Most of the persons interviewed (73 %), mainly of middle and low incomes, considerthat energy prices were already high. Also, almost everybody is conscious of the importance ofsaving energy for the country as a whole (94 %). Eighty four percent claimed they save energy athome, and a low percentage, around 11%, did not bother to save energy in their homes. Themajority of persons surveyed disagreed with the price increase, pointing at the negative effect ontheir budget. Many among the highest income groups did not want electricity rates to rise (around57%).

Potential Impacts Of Price Adjustments

1.73 The findings of the ECS confirnm that in Ecuador, as elsewhere, energy price increasesare unpopular, even when the increases are intended to recover costs rather than to raise additionalgovernment revenues (a distinction that the Survey shows is not well understood among thehouseholds questioned). Nevertheless, prices have been adjusted upwards in 1992 and 1993 onaccount of compelling economic reasons, and there are further price and tariff increases pending.The precise impact of such adjustments as well as the consumers' response are difficult to modeland predict. Some qualitative statements, however, can be made.

1.74 When electricity tariffs rise, consumers can either bear it, which is unlikely since theSurvey results indicate that demand is income-elastic, or reduce consumption, notwithstanding thefact that there is no readily available, good quality substitute for electric lighting. That is, theincome effect will work. By the same token, an increase in the price of LPG will place a downwardpressure on LPG demand. While the Survey results suggest that the income effect on LPG demandmay be less marked than in the case of electricity, there will sure be some substitution effect infavor of alternative fuels: Depending on the availability of fuelwood, kerosene or other cookingfuels, LPG-users by and large have options to switch, partly or entirely, to other forms of energy.Which option they exercise is a matter of preferences, relative prices and budget constraints

1.75 One can therefore argue that the price and rate increases of September 1992 and May1993 have caused a decrease in domestic use of electricity. A similar, though less pronounced,

- 21 -

effect may have occurred with respect to LPG. Most LPG is used by middle and upper classeswhere the (modest) price increases were not prohibitive and could be absorbed. And even if thelowest income quintile had stopped buying LPG altogether, the decline of overall consumptionwould have been insignificant. Also, there are strong seasonality factors masking the reduction ofLPG consumption; and higher electricity tariffs might well have encouraged a number of middleand upper-income households to invest in complementary facilities and substitute comparativelycheap LPG for electricity, especially for water heating. In fact, the change in the relative price ofLPG (vis a vis electricity) made LPG more attractive, at least for the more affluent households. Sothe net result could have been a slight overall decrease in electric power consumption (by higher-income households) with stable (or even slightly higher) consumption of LPG.

1.76 However, if the price of LPG were to reach its economic cost, requiring an additionalincrease of 300%, households, above all the less affluent ones, would be forced to adjust on a largerscale than was the case in 1992/93. The poorest would have to shift to woodfuel, especially in ruralareas, or to kerosene, provided it were available. Without such options for interfuel-substitution,households are left with the unpleasant choice of reducing the level of energy consumption ormaintaining the consumption level at the expense of other goods. This merely restates the wellknown microeconomic result that the less elastic the demand (which partly depends on substitutionpossibilities) and the larger the budget share accounted for by energy expenditures, the higher theincome effect of any given price increase (and its corollary).

1.77 To get an idea of the potential quantitative impacts of a fuel switch away from LPG,consider the case where the substitute fuel is kerosene. On a heating value basis, and taking intoaccount the differential in stove efficiencies (35% for kerosene vs 48% for LPG), a rough estimateis that 1 gallon of kerosene can displace 2 kg of LPG. Note that at this ratio households by andlarge would almost be indifferent between LPG sold at S/760 per kg (or S/10,760 per 14 kgcylinder) and kerex sold at S/1,300 per gallon (provided their decisions were based only on fuelprices). So if the households of the two lowest expenditure classes were to replace 50% of theircurrent LPG consumption with kerex, their annual kerex demand would increase from about 7million gallons (which is their current, supply-constrained level of kerosene use) to 52 milliongallons (which is only little more than households consumed in 1990).

1.78 However, once LPG prices have reached a level reflecting the costs of supply, withkerosene selling at S/1,300 per gallon, it is unlikely that poorer households continue consuming thesame amount of energy they were used to at a much lower LPG priceS. Rather, on average theirresponse will be to trim energy consumption at the expense of LPG, with some households,

5 Under the old price regime, an average LPG-using household of the lowest income class spent S/5,000/month on20 kg of LPG, while total energy expenditure amounted to S/9,240 or 7.6% of the household's overall expenses.Suppose the price of LPG rises to S/760/kg and the household members decide to maintain their old level andcomposition of energy use. Then the monthly expenditure for energy will increase to S/19,440 and account for 16%of total household expenditure. However, a reallocation of almost 10% of total income/expenditure towards LPG isunlikely. Rather, the household can be expected to reduce the level of energy consumption (in conjunction with achange in the pattern of energy use) so as to keep the increase in (total) energy costs within a tolerable range.

- 22 -

particularly those facing liquidity constraints, substituting kerosene for lumpy LPG. Suppose, forinstne, that low-income households of the first two expenditure classes cut LPG consumption byhalf and replace one third of the remainder with kerosene. Then their annual kerosene demandwould rise from 7 million gallons to 22 million gallons. If all households behaved in that way,aggregate kerosene demand would soar from 10.8 million gallons a year to almost 40 milliongallons a year (which roughly equals the amount of kerex households used in 1990). Of course,other scenarios are conceivable; yet the ultimate outcome is hard to foresee even when estimates ofthe households' energy demand functions were available (which is not the case). At any rate, theabove tentative figures make plain that in the event of a major increase in the price of LPG thecountry's energy supply system should be prepared to meet a sizeable upswing in kerosene demand.

1.79 Hence, measures designed to alleviate the adverse consequences of a further increase inthe price of LPG should focus on two problem areas: On the energy front, it must be ensured thatkerosene supply (including the complementary devices needed to use kerosene) becomessufficiently elastic to meet any household demand that is diverted from LPG. However, for manyhouseholds of the first quintile, particularly those that cannot resort to cheap biomass fuels, theoption to buy kerosene, while providing some relief, may not prevent a drastic shortfall in energyconsumption and the consequent detoriation of living standards. In such cases, compensatorymeasures will be called for that address the problem of poverty directly.

- 23 -

I. PARTICIPANT-OBSERVER MONOGRAPHS

Introduction

2.1 In order to cross-check, substantiate and complete the Energy Consumption Survey(ECS) discussed in the preceding chapter, six case studies of the participant-observer type werecarried out in poor neighborhoods of the cities of Quito, Guayaquil, Cuenca, Jipijapa, and Tena andSan Lorenzo counties. The studies' main concern was to provide a more in-depth view of the livingconditions of low-income households in various parts of the country, thus adding flesh to the barebones of the ECS. Accordingly, the investigations focused on a variety of factors (of which energyis but one) determining the social and economic environment of the poorer households. By the verynature of the monographs, the insight gained ranges from circumstantial and anecdotal evidence torepresentative observations and statistical data. The present chapter summarizes the findings andconclusions. Readers interested in more detailed information are referred to Annex 2 whichprovides summaries of each case study. Annex 3 contains income/expenditure data for 27households interviewed by the authors of the monographs.

General Findings

2.2 All monographs conclude that most of the people in the areas under consideration areunderemployed, or in unstable employment, work on whatever they can get and go throughextended periods of unemployment. The unemployment rate is very high: between 20 and 30 percent.'

2.3 Most men and women in the areas covered work in the informal sector (smallbusinessmen, craftsmen, fishermen, hunters, street vendors, domestic servants, agricultural laborers,clerks, clothes washers, seamstresses, scallop harvesters, etc.) or perform low skill jobs in themodem sector (masons, factory workers, agricultural or forestry laborers, public workers, janitors,drivers, etc). At any rate, family incomes, including the earnings of women and, in many cases,children, do suffice to meet basic needs for food, shelter, transportation, water, electricity, fuel,education and health. In all case studies, there were significant numbers of working minors eitherselling lottery tickets or newspapers, shining shoes, being apprenticed or active in the family's smallbusiness.

2.4 About 40% of the households interviewed fall into the first quintile, 18% belong to thesecond quintile, 21% to the third quintile, and the remaining 21% earn a monthly income of morethan S/48,740 per capita. As is shown in Table 15, the poorest families have been encountered inSan Lorenzo and Cuenca while the richest ones live in Guayaquil and Quito. On a per capita basis,the location-specific average monthly energy expenditures of the households surveyed lie fairlyclose together (with the exception of Jipijapa where the level of electricity consumption is low and

6 According to the information of the priest of San Roque, a neighborhood in Cuenca, the unemployment rate canreach 30% of the economically active population.

- 24 -

cheap fuelwood is supplied from nearby forests). The share of income spent on energy, however,varies significantly across the different places: People living in rural areas of San Lorenzo orCuenca on average allocate about 10% of their earnings to energy; residents of Quito or Guayaquil,while spending roughly the same amount on energy as their counterparts in San Lorenzo andCuenca, use less than 5% of their (much higher) income for energy purchases. So, urbanhouseholds assign a smaller income share to energy, even though their level of energy expenditureis not much different from that of rural dwellers. Again, for reasons mentioned above, Jipijapawhich is rural but has an extremely low ratio of energy expenditure to income, is a notableexception.

2.5 Between 60 and 80% of the energy used by households is for cooking. While the shareof income spent on cooking fuels on average is only 4.5%, more than two third of the income isallocated to food prepared, in one way or another, with the aid of energy. So cooking energy, whilebeing a minor item in the households' budgets, is a key complementary input. In fact, it is anessential good, in that its use (unlike, for instance, that of electricity) can hardly be reduced withoutadversely affecting the households' well-being.

TABLE 15: SELECTED DATA COMPILED BY THE MONOGRAPHS*

Income Energy % Share EnergyLocation Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures % Share Food

Guayaguil S/48,7000 S/1,339** 2.7Quito S/40,700 S/1,729 4.2 52.6Tena S/47,200 S/1,729 4.1 86.2Jipijapa S/27,418 Sr746 2.7 73.3Cuenca S/15,876 S/1,510 9.5 77.7San Lorenzo S/14,450 S/1,586 11.0 68.9

* monthly sample averages per capitaextrapolated weighted average of incomplete sample

2.6 Expenditures for education and health do not appear in the budgets of lower incomefamilies surviving in deep poverty.7 There are extreme cases where none of the children go toschool but rather work. One of the worst situations was observed in San Lorenzo, where severalfamilies with children report no educational expenses and the children work. Likewise, the familiesin this area claim that medicines are very expensive and that they cannot afford to visit a doctor or ahealth center. Furthermore, health centers are generally poorly equipped and have other seriousdeficiencies.

7 In one of the households of Cuenca, the four children of a family (16,14,13 and 11 years old) do not go to school,and a similar case was observed in Jipijapa.

- 25 -

2.7 In most of the areas investigated, the communal and environmental infrastructure islimited and of poor quality. There is no sewerage system nor safe drinking water, the piped water isunhealthy and, in many instances, the water is supplied by tanker trucks and proves very costly. InEl Valle, a suburban area of Cuenca, the piped water runs only half an hour a day and iscontaminated because of the proximity of the city landfill. Therefore, the incidence ofgastrointestinal disorders and the rate of infant mortality are very high.

2.8 Only a few houses in the examined areas have toilets, some have latrines and themajority has cesspools. Most households are electrified, and illegal connections are common. In therural outskirts of San Lorenzo, where there is no electricity, candles or kerosene lamps are used forlighting.

2.9 Housing is generally poor, even in Quito, Guayaquil and Cuenca where cement andblock houses are predominant. In the most depressed neighborhoods of Quito, houses are made ofwood, tin and zinc. In Guayaquil the houses have bamboo walls, clay or wooden floors and tinroofs. In the rural outskirts of Cuenca, the houses are made of adobe and mud. In Jipijapa, bambooand straw roofs are the rule, while in San Lorenzo, bamboo and palm predominate.

Fuel Usage

2.10 Usage of LPG for cooking is common, even in rural areas, except in Tena where kerexserves as a cooking fuel, and in San Lorenzo where, due to its isolation and the high transport costsof modem fuels, firewood and charcoal predominate. The distribution and marketing networks ofLPG are well organized, the supply is plentiful as in each town there are several selling points andthe distribution is done by trucks or pick-ups. In the period under study, Sept-Dec 1992, thewholesale price per 14 kg cylinder was S/2,900 and the final consumer price varied betweenS/3,000 and S/3,800. Prices as high as S/5,000 or above, reported from some remote rural towns,were the exception. A case in point is San Lorenzo where the highest price, about S/7,000 per 14 kgcylinder, was observed. Poorer families combine LPG with firewood or charcoal in an attempt tocut costs, which, as argued below, is often in vain.

2.11 Firewood is preferred in rural areas and in towns in close vicinity to forests where woodis free or cheap (Comite del Pueblo 2, Pisuli and Jaime Roldos in Quito, towns of Jipijapa, Tenaand rural towns in San Lorenzo). Charcoal is used in addition to LPG when firewood isunavailable. People seem to be convinced that combining fuels lowers their fuel expenses. Theyrely on firewood or charcoal to cook hard grains, kidney beans, etc., and to warm up water, whileLPG is thriftily used for light cooking. However, the investigations show that the monthly fuel billfor fuelwood and/or charcoal often exceeds that for LPG, unless firewood is available at a low priceor can be collected free of charge (and the time expended for this activity has no or negligibleopportunity costs).

- 26 -

2.12 For example, in San Lorenzo, a household depending entirely on charcoal for cookingestimated its monthly fuel expenditure at S/7,000 to S/8,000, which, when compared with themeager earnings of those families (S/65,000 to S/120,000), is remarkably high. The samehousehold, if it were to cook exclusively with LPG (acquired at the official price) would spend anaverage of only S/3,500 per month (better off families with earnings over S/500,000 per monthspend about S/6,000 on LPG). The indivisibility of the LPG cylinder may well be the causehere, of the decision to cook with other fuels.

2.13 Sometimes, the main reason for using charcoal or firewood is that families are short ofthe relatively sizeable arnount of money needed to buy a cylinder or the complementary stove.Firewood and charcoal, on the other hand, are traded in small quantities and can be used in cheapdevices. In Guayaquil, for example, charcoal is sold in cans (of 2 to 3 kilos) at S/500. That amountcooks a meal and reheats leftovers for dinner. Charcoal is also sold in S/200 or S/300 portionspacked in small paper bags, enough fuel for cooking rice and eggs. If cooking were doneexclusively with charcoal, the monthly expense would total S/1 5,000, or five times the price of acylinder of LPG (which lasts 20 days on the average). Similar observations have been made inJipijapa where people contend that if they were to cook exclusively with charcoal their fuel billwould be higher than if they cooked with LPG. However, it should be noted in this connection thatpoor households spending each month S/15,000 or more for fuels are hard to find. The case in pointis that liquidity constraints may force households to resort to fuels which, while divisible andaffordable, in the end are more expensive than lumpy alternatives.

2.14 Firewood is used more in Cuenca than in the other towns. It usually sells in bundles of50-60 kilos at a price ranging from S/1,200 to S/1,500 in the rural outskirts of the city, whereasretailers in the city proper charge S/2,000. A bundle of fuelwood lasts a week if used sparingly. InJipijapa, on the other hand, little firewood is traded commercially since it can be gathered in theforests surrounding the city. When purchased, the bundle (of 40 to 60 sticks) costs S/1,000 in thesummer and S/1,500 in the winter. A bundle lasts between 6 and 7 days for cooking twice a dayand, thus, turns out to be almost as expensive than LPG sold at the current official price.

2.15 Kerex has largely been displaced by LPG as a cooking fuel, but continues to servevarious other purposes: as a household disinfectant, as a mosquito repellant, as an aid in burninggarbage, as a wood and charcoal lighter, as a source of light. Its use gradually declined during the1980s as electricity and LPG penetrated poor urban and rural areas, followed by a sharp drop in1992 when the restrictive marketing policy of the "Plan Bandera" became effective (see earlierstudy, Annex 5). However, in areas where electricity supply is unreliable, e.g. in Tena, kerex is stillthe main source of light.

2.16 The most troubling problem with kerex is that while its regulated price is extremelylow (S/60 per gallon or 3 US cents), scarce supplies oblige consumers to pay S/1000 to S/1500 pergallon. The few places where kerex is sold at a price near the official one are Tena, where it isdistributed in open markets, directly to the people at S/100 per gallon; and Napo, where it ismarketed through a cooperative and other outlets (e.g. the Federation of Indigenous Organizations)

- 27 -

that enjoy privileged access to the fuel at S/57 per gallon and are generous enough to sell it atS/150. Even here, the marketing system has been criticized on account of frequent irregularities inthe distribution of kerosene.

Electricity Consumption

2.17 Most of the households surveyed have electricity, with the exception of some of thepoorest areas such as the Pisuli cooperative in Quito, a part of the Mirador de San Antonio inJipijapa and the rural areas of San Lorenzo. Electricity is used exclusively for lightning and forhome appliances and in no case it is used for cooking.

2.18 Almost all the houses in the poor neighborhoods of Quito, Guayaquil and Cuenca havemeters, and electricity bills range between S/1,500 and S/5,000 per month. In Jipijapa there arefewer individual meters because of a shortage. Some families have unmetered connections and paya fixed fee (in Jipijapa the average cost per month is S/1,000). In poorer areas, illegal connectionsabound: people just connect to supply cables or "borrow" from their neighbors at a fixed fee. Forexample, in Jipijapa, those who have electricity, legally or not, supply it to two or three otherneighbors and the monthly fee is negotiable.

2.19 In Cuenca, severe problems in the supply of electricity affect those living in San Roqueneighborhood. Old colonial structures have been turned into rooming houses which have only onemeter and the occupant of each room (typically a whole family) pays a fee to the landlord, who alsodecides on the hours of service (generally from 7pm to 6am).

2.20 Most of the people interviewed do not complain about electricity supply and consider itgood. Voltage variations and cuts are not frequent, with the exception of San Lorenzo where thereis no power during the day and rationing at night. In Tena, electricity is also rationed. Peopleconsider electricity inexpensive compared to other fuels, but they are weary of any increase intariffs, which might cause social reactions or encourage more theft of electricity.

Opinions About Prices

2.21 Most of the families consulted oppose price increases for LPG which would force themto reduce usage. Higher prices would negatively affect their nutritional condition which is alreadypoor. Furthermore, people claim that they will be unable to boil water. This would cripple the anti-cholera campaigns and lead to further deterioration of the population's health status. Also, the useof LPG has relaxed women's time constraint and has made it easier for them to work outside thehome. Other fuels such as firewood and charcoal, and to some extent, even kerex (kerosene) makecooking more time consuming (than with LPG). In the case of firewood, gathering time should bealso considered.8 Having gotten used to LPG, many households consider kerex a step backward.

In Jipijapa where people collect firewood from nearby forests, women and children go out as early as 5 or 6 am.and return after four or five hours.

- 28 -

Nonetheless, many would disregard this problem if supply were to become more reliable,distribution more convenient and efficient stoves available in the market at reasonable prices.

2.22 Families who live in towns where cheap or free firewood is available, will substitute itfor LPG. This could have some negative consequences on the environment. Usually, only thefallen limbs and branches are collected, however, if consumption rises and the supply of firewoodbecomes commercial (i.e., to supply cities), most probably, trees would be felled.

2.23 On the other hand, a fuel price increase could also imply higher transportation costs forlow income families which according to the monographs spend between 7 and 12 per cent of theireamings on transportation.9

Conclusions

2.24 The picture that the monographs draw of the living conditions of poor suburban andrural households is gloomy. It also puts the role played by energy into perspective: Energy, notablyfuel used for cooking, is an essential good. Accordingly, among poorer families the use of, and theexpenditure for, energy is not very sensitive to income.

2.25 The monographs also confirm that, while electricity is almost universally used at a levelthat increases with income, the mix of fuels households use for cooking is a matter of availabilityrather than price. Another factor determining fuel use, particular that of the poorest households, isthe lumpiness of available alternatives. At the current prevailing prices, LPG is preferred overkerosene or woodfuels, but budget- and liquidity-constrained households often are forced to buythose fuels that sell in small portions, even if at higher unit costs.

2.26 The information that the monographs give on energy prices is roughly in line with thefindings of the Energy Consumption Survey: LPG is sold across the board at prices ranging fromS/3,000 to S/4,000 per 14 kg-cylinder. Kerex, if it is supplied at all, costs significantly more than isintended by regulating its official price at S/60 per gallon. Households without access to cheapersubstitutes pay between S/1,000 and S/1,500 per gallon. Where fuelwood can be collected free ofcharge, households spend significantly less on energy than their counterparts using modem fuels forcooking. Commercially traded fuelwood, on the other hand, tends to be more expensive than LPG,but has a cost advantage over kerosene. Fuelwood prices were reported to vary between S/25 andS/30/ per kg (for comparison, the average price computed from the data supplied by the Survey isS/43/kg). Similar arguments apply to charcoal. It is a costly emergency fuel that some householdsuse in small quantities at prices around S/200 per kg, compared with a mean price of S/305/kgestimated by the Survey.

9 In San Lorenzo, transportation is by boat, the families that harvest scallops, spend between 15% and 20% of theirincones on transportatbon.

- 29 -

2.27 Notwithstanding the fact that the poor households interviewed on average spend only5% of their income on energy, under the current situation of poverty and deteriorating livingconditions, raising the costs of electric power and, more importantly, LPG simultaneously wouldhave a fairly significant impact on the well-being of lowest-income households and, therefore,require some sort of mitigation.

- 30-

Ill. POVERTY, MITIGATORY STRATEGIES, AND THE ROLE OF NGOS

Introduction

3.1 The present Chapter provides a brief overview of statistical measures of poverty thathave been recently applied to urban and rural areas in Ecuador, and discusses their usefulness andlimitations. It also sheds light on several factors and trends explaining why many households livein, or drift into, poverty. In response to the distressing and detoriating living conditions of largesegments of the population, successive administrations devised and implemented a numbermeasures and programs that policy makers hoped would bring social and economic progress to thepoor, or at least let poorer families share part of the prosperity enjoyed by their wealthycounterparts. The current administration, which took radical steps towards liberalizing energyprices (except for LPG) and, thus, contributed to the hardship that strikes lower income households,has also announced an ambitious program to improve the living standards of rural and poor urbanfamilies. The present Chapter summarizes and examines the different goals and components of thenew action plan. It also reviews various poverty-oriented activities carried out by non-governmentalorganizations. The information that this Chapter presents on the support network already in place,together with the preceding analysis of impacts that past and planned energy price increases mayhave on the well-being of poor households, will be used in the final Chapter to:

a. track down the high-priority group of households that is in need of mitigatory andcompensatory policy measures,

b. draw conclusions regarding the scope for, and the targeting of, such measures, and

c. explore the opportunities for concerted action and cooperation among governmentinstitutions and non-governmental organizations dealing with poverty-relatedsupport programs.

Facets Of Poverty

Poverty Measures

3.2 A recently published study that was carried out in 1990 by the National Institute ofEmployment with the help of UNICEF, applied two approaches to measuring poverty in urban andrural areas in Ecuador.10 One defines poverty in terms of income; the other uses the criterion ofbasic needs. Based on the income concept, a family is considered "poor" if it cannot afford theminimum amount of goods and services required to meet essential nutritional and non-food needs.And if a poor family cannot even meet basic nutritional requirements it is considered "indigent".Put another way, an indigent household lives in deep poverty. Regarding the non-fulfillment of

10 Medici6n de la Pobreza en las areas urbana y rural del Ecuador (INEM-UNICEF).

- 31 -

basic needs, the study designed a multidimensional weighted indicator of 12 variables includingfood intake, housing quality, sanitation services, drinking water availability, sewerage systems,access to education and health services. "Poor" households are those with a poverty index of351.3145 points or more, while the indigence line begins at 371.8267 points.

3.3 That study concludes that based on household income, 56.1 % of the urban population ispoor and 14.8% is indigent, while in the rural areas 87.6% of the families are poor and 35%indigent. In terms of unmet basic needs, about 52.3% of the urban population of Ecuador is poor,and 29.1% is indigent, compared to 71.4% and 47% respectively in the countryside.

3.4 Three comments are in order, though. First, as the ECS confirms, family size variessignificantly across income/expenditure classes. So family income is a spurious indicator ofpoverty. More reliable results could have been obtained from per-capita income estimates. Second,the welfare level sustained by a given amount of income depends, among other things, on wherehouseholds live. That is, S/250,000 a month may be a much more tolerable cash-income for afamily of six living in an intact rural community than for a family of four in the suburbs of Quito.Third, at the time when the study was conducted, the statistical poverty line was estimated in pricesof 1990. Based on these prices, households with a monthly family income of S/232,600 in urbanareas and S/163,000 in the countryside were deemed poor. Indigent (or deeply poor) householdswere those with a monthly income of (at most) S/93,200 in urban areas and S/64,200 in thecountryside. Prices and incomes, however, have since changed.

3.5 While little can be done to remedy the first two weaknesses of the study, it is feasible toupdate the poverty line. If adjusted for inflation (and assuming that the underlying poverty basketremained valid), in late 1992 the poverty line would have increased to a nominal income ofS/465,000 for urban households and S/326,000 for their rural counterparts. Likewise, urban (rural)households with a monthly income of S/186,000 (S/128,000) or less would have becomeindigent."

3.6 According to the above (updated) standards and based on the results of the ECS, in late1992 about 87% of the urban population qualified as poor and 33% lived below the indigence line.In the same vein, 92% of the rural families were poor and 46% indigent.12 Hence, statistical

For comparison, in July 1993, the National Institute of Statistics estimated the costs of the "basic basket" of poorhouseholds at S/566,809 per month. The indigence line was set at S/250,509.

12 Likewise, the so-called "poverty gap index", which measures the depth of poverty as a proportion of the povertyline, was 37% in urban areas and 49% in the countryside. Eliminating poverty through income transfers that lift poorhouseholds above the poverty line would have cost US$ 2 billion (or 17% of Ecuadors GDP of 1991).

- 32 -

poverty, as measured by the National Institute of Employment, seemed to dramatically increaseabove the level that had prevailed in 1990.13

3.7 However, there are a number of reasons why the Survey estimates may grosslyexaggerate the degree of poverty. First, the Survey sample was skewed in favor of poor rural andurban households and, thus, gives too much weight to the lower income end. Second, the Surveydid not monetize income in kind (e.g.subsistence consumption), nor took it account of intangible orunvalued assets that affect household expenditure (e.g. housing). Third, and closely related to thelast point, households were classified by expenditure rather than income. That is, savings wereexcluded.

3.8 What should be kept in mind as well is that while the poverty-line basket of goodschosen by the National Institute of Employment is certainly a desirable one, many households maymake a living on a less expensive mix of goods and services without being worse off. Moreimportantly, no matter how many households one considers as poor for whatever reasons,measuring poverty is of little operational use if it leads to conclusions that are economically notviable and politically not feasible. Saying that a society is saddled with a poverty rate of 80% givesno advice on how the available means to fight poverty should be allocated in the most efficientway. Also, accepting that poverty exists in such a scale might well make the problem seeminsoluble, and discourage policy makers from even attempting to resolve it.

Poverty Determinants

3.9 Income-based statistical poverty is a measure suited to confront a society with themagnitude or severity of the problem that there are people struggling to subsist and survive. It alsoindicates the extent to which living standards are improving or deteriorating. However, it providesno information on what factors contribute to the level of poverty experienced in urban and ruralareas. The present Section is intended to highlight key deficiencies that keep families below thepoverty line.

3.10 Clearly, while living conditions have deteriorated more in urban areas, rural familieshave always been poor and most of them live and used to live under critical poverty conditions. Inthe countryside, the notoriously low labor productivity, small properties (minifundios), the shortageof land, and the lack of basic infrastructure are factors limiting the scope for economic progress.However, there are other symptoms of poverty and signs of distress that can be found in rural areasand urban agglomerations alike: They are discussed in the following paragraphs.

3 There are other estimates suggesting that the proportion of the poor in urban areas went from 45% in 1980 to 52%in 1990. Also, in 1993, the Center for Responsible Parenthood reckoned that 79% of the Ecuadorean population ispoor because their basic needs are not met.

- 33 -

Deterioration Of Health. High Mortality and Malnutrition Rates

3.11 More than 40% of the families questioned by the Survey report a caloric intake lowerthan the minimum accepted by international standards. Not surprisingly, the infant mortality rateexceeds 56 per thousand live births. Regarding food, most families have reduced their diet to onemeal per day, which does not meet minimum nutritional requirements. From the case studies14 itwas found that nourishment is almost limited to carbohydrates since this is cheaper than purchasingfood with a higher protein content. Protein consumption is sporadic and often depends on favorablecircumstances such as price, income, cultural factors and nutritional knowledge. Children go toschool practically without breakfast, and pregnant women do not get the minimum required forthemselves, let alone for the child. This is reflected in low birth weight and high neonatal mortalityrate.

3.12 Public health services fail to provide adequate and opportune care, and the high costand/or unavailability of medicines make medical examinations pointless. On the other hand, adultsand a high proportion of children must work long hours to survive and have no time to take care oftheir health. They often resort to self- prescribed medicine or delay visits to the doctor unlesssickness reaches a critical stage. Many pregnant women do not receive medical care duringpregnancy or during childbirth.

3.13 The double or triple workday of women, on outside jobs and at home, together withchild rearing and community work severely affect mothers' physical and mental well-being and thatof their children. The young do not find clear goals and solid expectations for the future.Deprivation and frustration often lead to juvenile delinquency. Not surprisingly, there has been anincrease in suicide attempts, drug consumption among the young and running away from home.

Rising Unemployment and Underemployment and Increasing Difficulties for the Youngto F=ind Jobs

3.14 The decline of modern sector dynamism caused by a shortage of productive investmenthalted the creation of new jobs and has led to a substantial expansion of the informal sector, withthe concomitant increase in underemployment which now stands at 49.8%15. Also, off-farmemployment opportunities in rural areas were decreasing.

14 See the Participant-Observer Monographs covering low-income household energy consumption in Quito,Guayaquil, Cuenca, Jipijapa, Tena and San Lorenzo, summaries of which are attached in Annex 2.

15 INEM. 1991. Encuesta Permanente de Hogares de 1990 (Permanent Household Survey).

- 34 -

Reduction of Government's Social Expenditures

3.15 Central government expenditures on education, health and social security whichaccounted for about 37% of total expenditures in 1981, were down to 30% in 1988 and reached alow of 25% in 1992.16

Low Purchasing Power of Salaries

3.16 In July 1993, the minimum wage left a family with S/281,213 a month, which coversless than 50% of the cost of the "basic basket" defining the poverty line. In real terms (based onprices of August 1992) the minimum wage family income dropped from S/365,000 in November1982 to S/I 89,000 in July 1992. This squeeze of purchasing power forced more women andchildren to work17 . In fact, in the majority of low income families, two, three or more membersnow seek for a job, often in vain.

Social Programs and Compensatory Measures

3.17 In an attempt to stem the growing impoverishment of the population, successiveadministrations have proposed or implemented different actions to alleviate the negative effects ofeconomic adjustment measures on lower income groups. Those programs have had the support ofinternational organizations such the WB, IDB, WHO, UNDP, etc, and the participation of localNGOs.

3.18 During the Borja administration (1988-1992), the "repayment of the social debt"'1 8

became a key policy that was supposed to commit the government to the removal of structuralfactors contributing to urban and rural poverty. While it remained mostly on paper, the mainingredients of this policy were the following:

3.19 Reorganization and revitalization of the productive system; deconcentration of propertyrights and wealth; regulation of the financial system; strengthening of grassroots organizations;reduction of unnecessary expenditures; rescheduling of the external debt; support of multisectoralintegration; strengthening of management capabilities and active participation of the community;

16 Total expenditures including transfers, net of repayments and amortization of debt, were S/59,659 Million Sucres in1981, S/475,608 in 1988 and S/3,102,440 Million Sucres in 1992. Expenditures on Education, Health and SocialSecurity were S/20,741 Million Sucres in 1981, S/ 138,575 in 1988 and S/803,270 Million Sucres in 1992. (IMF,Govemment Finance Statistics Yearbook and Central Bank, Informaci6n Estadistica Mensual, June, 1993).

17 The rate of female participation in outside employment increased between 1982 and 1990 from 18.1% to 26%. Inurban areas, this rate increased from 23.9% to 30.8% and in rural areas, from 11.38% to 19.35%.

18 The repayment of social debt is defined as "the commitment assumed by organized society, particularly thosegroups less affected by the crisis, to try to respond to a historical process of social, economic and politicalinjustces" (CONADE, 1989. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Economico y Social, T.IV, pg. 351)

- 35 -

decentralization of social policies; linking of short, middle and long term projects; creation ofspecial social funds; external debt swaps through social projects.

3.20 In practice, some emergency projects in employment and health came on stream, butvirtually none of their goals were achieved. According to expert estimates, the success rate wasonly 45-55% because of bureaucratic delays and financial constraints. For example, the programfocusing on school breakfasts was discontinued, health services failed to improve, and loans tosmall business did not reach the intended beneficiaries. According to what participating familiestold the Survey interviewers, the only program that worked reasonably well was the CommunityNetwork for Infant Protection which has supplied children with complementary care and food.

3.21 The current administration (August 1992 - 1996), while embarking on new structuraladjustment programs, has declared it would design and implement a number of compensatorymeasures to ease the negative impact that the policy reforms might have on the lower- incomepopulation. The proposed measures include the freezing of fares for urban transport throughsubsidies granted to the owners of fleets; a generic medicine program; the freezing of electric powertariffs for small users; a monthly pay raise of ten thousand sucres meant as a transportationallowance plus the provision of an additional month's salary (the 16th one). These measures haveproven ineffective: They were neither targeted at needy households (they rather apply to allemployees of the modern sector, primarily the public sector), nor did they operate through themarket mechanism.

3.22 In addition, the Government announced an Emergency Plan to tackle the criticalsituation of the poorest groups, with the special aim of improving their ability to meet their basicneeds. To this end, the Government created a Social Investment Emergency Fund (SIEF), attachedto the Presidency. The SIEF is operational since March 1993 thanks to a grant from USAID.

3.23 The main objectives of the Emergency Plan are similar to those established by theprevious administration:

a. Integrated treatment of both social and economic aspects in emergency projects.

b. Decentralization of State functions, thus allowing more participation of localauthorities.

c. The delegation of tasks and responsibilities to beneficiary organizations (non-governmental organizations -NGOS-, the church, grassroots organizations etc.),including power over the identification, execution and supervision of programs andprojects.

d. Identification of the poorest groups as the main beneficiaries of the projects (with aview to better targeting).

- 36 -

e. Rationalization and streamlining of public expenditures, with special emphasisgiven to the concept of social investment.

3.24 The Emergency Plan would act through:

a. the provision of direct subsidies to the poorest households;

b. the establishment of convenient child care facilities that permit parents easier accessto outside jobs;

c. the encouragement of employment in the construction sector;

d. the promotion of micro-enterprises;

e. the improvement of marketing systems that help both producersand consumers toobtain better prices for selected basic goods.

3.25 Regarding employment policies, the State will share responsibilities with the privatesector, in a joint effort to create new jobs, particularly for rural youth (of both sexes). Anotherconcern is the implementation of small and medium- size social and productive infrastructureprojects. Employment will be also enhanced through childcare networks, "soup kitchens", andenvironmental cleanup. The informal sector of the economy will receive support through measuresfacilitating credit lines to micro-enterprises. In addition, special assistance will be given to labor-intensive sectors such as peasant agriculture, agroindustry, non-agricultural rural activities (crafts,fishing, forestry etc.) and construction in urban areas.

3.26 In the educational area, more emphasis will be placed on elementary education,broadening its scope and improving its quality; bilingual education will be maintained inindigenous zones; at-distance educational training programs and compensatory (adult) educationalsystems will be supported. Since one of the causes of the high school underachievement is poornutrition, school breakfast programs will be consolidated and expanded.

3.27 The Ministry of Health will strengthen its programs of primary and preventive healthcare directing them mainly to poor children under six, especially in rural and urban areas with highpercentages of unemployment and underemployment, and to female-headed households andworking children. Moreover, measures designed to make generic (i.e. lower priced) medicines moresystematically available will be reinforced so that more low income patients can afford to purchaseprescribed medicines.

3.28 The Ministry of Urban Development and Housing will give priority to improving socialinfrastructure and advancing housing especially in those provinces with a high concentration ofindigenous population and marginal urban areas.

- 37 -

3.29 Food Security programs would be made more responsive to the needs of beneficiaries,as expressed by their own grass-roots organizations. The government plans to invest in transportand marketing infrastructure and establish a functioning price, crop and marketing informationsystem for basic products so that they reach the needy more cheaply and easily (and so that forecastshortages can be offset).

3.30 Also, food security programs need to be enhanced given that the increase in fuel pricesis apt to harm the nutritional status of poorer households. In areas where woodfuel demand may risein response to higher LPG prices, reforestation and soil conservation projects should be consideredas an option to safeguard and strengthen the resource base.

3.31 In spite of the long list of projects and programs that the Government and policymakers expect to improve the nutritional situation of the poor, it can be safely predicted that thelack of efficient administrative structures and follow up capacities, the government's inability toprovide the committed counterpart funds1 9, the absence of policy continuity and an inadequateinter-institutional coordination will make for modest results. Programs which have worked in anacceptable manner are the Maternal-Child Nutrition System; the School Breakfast Program, and theCommunity Network (Red Comunitaria) and the Nutrition Surveillance System (NVS).Nevertheless, the priority assigned to nutrition programs is still uncertain. If the Governmentintends to reach all pregnant and nursing women below the poverty line and reduce infantmalnutrition by 50%, it will have to increase the resources committed to nutrition by about $50million, a qualitative change over presently available resources.

3.32 The "soup kitchens" program undertaken by the Ministry of Social Welfare (MBS)counts with the participation of private institutions and local and international organizations. It willcost about S/635 million to cover the provinces of Pichincha, Guayas, Manabi, Esmeraldas, Azuay,El Oro, Chimborazo and Loja over one year (1993). Another "soup kitchen" project to be carriedout by the MBS in cooperation of UNICEF is attempting to reduce the cost and improve the qualityof food for the poor families of urban centers.20

NGOs

3.33 In keeping with its philosophy of reducing the role of the State, the currentadministration aims at encouraging the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) indevelopment projects along with local and provincial governments. NGOs are supposed to become

19 The Ministry of Education has a current debt of about 500 million sucres to the Church as part of the SchoolBreakfast Program, which might lead to the suspension of a signfficant food donation from the EuropeanCommunity (Chavez 1993:49).

20 The goals of this project are: to reduce by 20% the food expenditure of families of urban areas livng In poverty; toassist 584,600 people, within a four year period, through the creation and operation of 365 "soup kitchens" in 1993,1,462 in 1994, 751 in 1995 and 365 in 1996. It is estimated that each "Soup Kitchen" will assist an average of 200people per day.

- 38 -

the interface between the State, the financial institutions and the community. Internationalorganizations including the World Bank have expressed interest in working with NGOs.

3.34 The significant role played by NGOs has allowed them to specialize and becomeincreasingly efficient, even though many NGOs still need to enhance their managementcapabilities. In fact, NGOs have not yet acquired the expertise and skills required to handle largeprojects that require huge inputs in terms of financial, human and technical resources, except for avery few, notable exceptions (e.g. those handling rural development projects financed byinternational organizations, and the Church).

3.35 So far, NGOs have covered a broad spectrum of development activities. According toan evaluation2 1 conducted during 1989-1992, 16.2% of the NGOs worked on agriculture-fishing(marketing, production, and animal breeding), 46% on regional development (integrated ruraldevelopment, community development), 18% on health (rural health, infant survival, foodassistance), 17.5% on Social Development (improvement of the living conditions of marginalfamilies, community stores, communication and health for women's organizations in the slums),and 0.3% on marketing of rural products. The main beneficiaries of NGO projects were themarginal urban and rural population, children and women.

3.36 The participation of charity organizations, the Church and NGOs proved veryimportant and can gain momentum during the implementation of food security projects. Forexample, the Church has worked for many years through the CARITAS program (until 1987). TheNational Episcopal Conference (SENAPS) is in charge of the Production Development Program(PROENCA), which reaches approximately 100,000 mothers, 50,000 pre-schoolers and 140,000school children. Currently, the Church is promoting a "soup kitchen" program; it also manages thefunds from the European Community for a Nutritional Supplement Program, and sporadicallyassists the peasant productive sector through the provision of loans funded by a donation from theEuropean Community.

3.37 Other programs executed by NGOs focus on the nutritional and health conditions ofchildren (DYA- Desarrollo y Autogestion), "soup kitchens" (Young Christian Association), schoolchildren breakfast, food production and production alternatives (CEDIME), support given topeasant production (FEPP- Fondo Ecuatoriano Populorum Progressio), Brethen Unidos, CESA-Central Ecuatoriana de Servicios Agropecuarios, CAAP- Centro Andino de Accion Popular), andthe management of small business (INSOTEC), food marketing (Grupo Esquel, Solidaridad),among others.

3.38 In the area of health, supplementary nutrition turned out to be a powerful weapon in thefight against poverty. Several NGOs provide health services (CEPAM- Centro Ecuatoriano dePromocion de la Mujer), assist in maternal-infant care (Fundacion Hermano Miguel, Fundacion

21 Fundaci6n Altemativa. Programas Sociales y de Compensaci6n destinados a la Marginalidad. 1989-1992.

- 39 -

Eugenio Espejo, DYA). Other NGOs such as Foster Parents Plan International are supportinghealth, education and infrastructure, production and community development projects. SomeNGOs execute important programs in rural areas such as FEPP, CAAP and CESA; others limittheir activities to the marginal areas of the capital and the major cities. Although many NGOs areheadquartered in cities and have limited presence in the field (especially in the countryside), thegeographical distribution of their projects is quite wide and their coverage of the country is fairlycomplete.22

3.39 In conclusion, NGOs play a vital role in the country's support network addressing thepoor. The scale as well as the success rate of their activities often outperform similar initiativeslaunched by the central govemment institutions. However, the work of NGOs could be moreeffective and less effort would be wasted if they were better coordinated among themselves andwith government activities.

22 According to the aforementioned evaluation, the number of NGOs operating in the different provinces is largest inPichincha (53), Chimborazo (31) and Guayas (26), and lowest in Pastaza (5), Zamora (5) and Sucumbios (3).

-40 -

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Over the last two decades, both the low level and the distorted structure of energy pricesexerted a strong influence on household energy consumption in Ecuador. By 1992, when the ECSwas conducted, the consequences of pricing policies pursued in the past looked as follows:

a. While Ecuadorean households spent significantly less (in absolute and relativeterms) on energy than their counterparts in similar countries, energy subsidies ofmore than US$ 600 million a year were responsible for a major share, if not all ofthe public sector deficit (about 4% of GDP in 1991).

b. In contrast to the belief-turned-policy argument that cheap energy benefits mainlythe poor, the overall effect of the subsidies was regressive: The use of subsidizedenergy, particularly electricity, increases with income, and higher-expenditureclasses account for a disproportionately large share of total subsidized energyconsumption (see Table 16).

C. The main reason for the unequal distribution of subsidies is that with higher income,households switch away from biomass fuels and kerex towards LPG (cooking) and,more importantly, electricity (lighting). This trend, which proved more pervasive inurban than in rural areas, was amplified by the low price at which LPG andelectricity were made available.

d. Another factor contributing to the regressive dissipation of subsidies is that kerex,which poorer households consider a convenient and versatile fuel, no longer sells atits low official price and therefore provides no subsidy to its users.

TABLE 16: HOUSEHOLD ENERGY CONSUMPTION SHARES BY EXPENDITURE CLASS'

Expenditure Classes (%)

<20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-97.7 All

LPG 15.23 23.19 20.11 22.05 17.47 100.00Kerex 43.21 20.63 13.79 7.60 14.78 100.00Electricity 9.20 15.30 16.20 26.40 27.90 100.00

1 percentage shares of aggregate household consumpton by type of energy, basedon ECS results.

4.2 Since late 1992, though, the Government of Ecuador (GOE) has taken decisive measurestowards a more rational energy pricing policy. Electricity tariffs which were the key vehicle fordistributing energy subsidies to the more affluent households, are now close to long-run marginalcosts. Also, petroleum product prices have been raised to levels which, in the aggregate, are more

- 41 -

than sufficient to cover costs. This has left LPG (and kerex which, though, does not sell at its lowofficial price) as the only fuel affected by sizeable subsidies.

4.3 Currently, LPG sells at an official price of S/193/kg and is almost everywhere availableat S/250 kg or less, while the economic cost of supply is S/760/kg (equivalent to US$ 400 per ton).With about 1.7 million households using an average of 22 kg a month, the annual subsidy elementamounts to S/255 billion (US$ 134 million), of which the lions's share is reaped by households. Onthe other hand, the official kerex price is fixed at S/60/gallon, compared to economic costs ofS/1,300/gallon (US$ 0.7 per gallon). Unlike LPG, however, household kerosene is nowhereavailable at a price near the official one. Since kerex is in short supply on account of tightregulations, its price has adjusted to that of Diesel 1, i.e, kerosene destined for industrial users andmarketed at S/1,300/gallon. As a consequence, the 420,000 households that on average use 2.1gallon a month partake little of the subsidies granted to kerosene (approximately S/13 billion ayear).

4.4 Clearly, under such circumstances, deregulating the official prices of LPG and kerosenewould have markedly different impacts on the wellbeing of households. Elimninating themistargeted kerex subsidies will hardly make any kerosene user worse off. A tripling of the LPGprice, though, will considerably increase the burden of energy expenditures placed on householdsthat used to enjoy cheap LPG.

4.5 In fact, the major problem with a drastic rise in the price of LPG is that LPG, likeelectricity, has penetrated households across the board, with the scale of LPG use, unlike that ofelectricity, being fairly uniform among different income classes. Hence, the adverse effect that ahigher LPG price has on real incomes will be similar in size for rich and poor households alike.Poor households, however, spend a significantly larger income share on LPG (and energy ingeneral) and will find it much more difficult to absorb the price shock, particularly under conditionswhere fuel alternatives such as biomass energy and kerosene are not available. According to theECS and the participant-observer monographs, poor LPG-using households pertaining to the twolowest expenditure categories on average spend about S/5,000/month on 20 kg of LPG. If the priceof LPG were to rise to Sf760/kg, maintaining the old consumption level would cost a householdS/15,000/month, and would increase the share of total expenditure accounted for by LPG from4.1% to 12.3%. On the other hand, reducing the level of LPG use would deprive poor householdsof essential energy inputs needed to subsist. At any rate, there is no doubt that increasing the priceof LPG will worsen the already miserable living conditions of the poorer segments of thepopulation.

4.6 It is therefore no surprise that the GOE, while not hesitating to raise electricity tariffs andto pass on fuel price increases to industrial users, has been highly reluctant to increase the officialLPG price. There is a consensus among policy makers and energy planners that the solution to theproblem should include a variety of measures that will cushion the poor from the unpleasant effectof lifting the LPG price subsidies. Indeed, political leaders have conditioned the increase in theprice of LPG to the implementation of measures that provide some form of relief

- 42 -

4.7 Against this background, it has been suggested in the recently companion Report of thisstudy that the GOE could assign up to a third of the "windfall" revenues brought about by theenergy pricing reform to social support programs, including an energy subsidy fund. However, thestudy has also argued that indiscriminate handouts should be avoided, and that the resources savedthrough a more rational energy pricing policy should not be wasted in laying the foundations for anunsustainable welfare state. Rather, if the GOE were to commit a sizeable fraction of the revenuesto projects and operations that service the poor, care should be taken in selecting the programs,executing agencies, and counterparts.

4.8 More precisely, this study suggests that liberalizing the price of LPG, and adjusting theofficial kerex price to the de-facto price charged in the marketplace, should be part of a policypackage that contains two mitigatory components: The freeing of household kerosene supply and,more importantly, the creation of a targeted and transitory energy subsidy fund. This packageshould be launched in addition to other measures that may use part of the revenues generated by theenergy pricing reforms to strengthen ongoing social support programs, emergency services andhuman capital enhacement projects for poor persons.

4.9 Since the proposed subsidy fund, which will be discussed in greater detail below, is atemporary policy instrument intended to alleviate the short-to-medium term effects that the energyprice reform, particularly the planned increase in the price of LPG, has on the poorest families, itwill do little to improve their living conditions on a sustained basis. Also, many poor householdshave other pressing needs that an energy subsidy is unable to address. Thus, establishing thesubsidy fund will not obviate or reduce the political and social obligations that the government andother institutions have to fulfill in promoting economic progress and infrastructural development.Nor is it a sufficient means of providing emergency help in nonenergy-related areas. Therefore, aconvincing case can be made for government initiatives that direct some of the "windfall" revenuesto selected social support activities that have proven successful and cost-effective, are highlyappreciated by the beneficiaries, and are apt to contribute to improvements in the living conditionsthat render an energy subsidy fund superfluous.

4.10 Basically, the ongoing social support programs can be distinguished in terms of theneeds they strive to meet. There are short-term emergency programs that help alleviate theconsequences of natural disasters, economic crises, or chronic handicaps; and long-terminvestments and operations aiming at structural changes that foster ecomomic growth and humancapital formation. Judged on their success- and approval rate, among the short-term activities,highest priority should be given nutritional programs (e.g. school feeding; soup kitchens; improvedfood distribution) and health-oriented services (e.g. maternal and child care; disease control andother preventive measures; upgrading of facilities, service quality, and service coverage). Instrengthening the long-term activities, the focus should be on human resource development (e.g.basic education, vocational training).

4.11 A number of government institutions and NGOs have been working quite successfullyin the above areas of concentration (for details, see Chapter 3 of this volume). Their expertise,

-43 -

knowledge, and coverage should be decisive in selecting the candidates meriting the resourcesmade available from the "windfall" revenues. It is also advisable that program selection,interagency coordination, and performance control be executed by a central government unit,preferably the same unit that will manage the proposed energy subsidy fund.

4.12 Turning to the policy package that is proposed to accompany the LPG price rise, itsfirst component calls for taking steps to free the supply of kerex. Kerosene should be madeavailable to households through the outlets of the existing petroleum product distribution system orthrough new wholesale channels whenever supply is justified in terms of demand from retailersand/or final consumers. This will offer some households an additional choice (and others the onlyalternative to LPG) with potentially attractive fuel properties such as divisibility and versatility.Facilitating this choice also requires that all barriers to the supply of complementary devices (e.g.stoves) be removed. A more detailed discussion of these issues is provided in the earlier Report ofthis study. What should be stressed in the present context is that efforts to deregulate householdkerosene supply are an immediate concern and should be mounted to prepare the ground forlaunching the increase in the price of LPG.

4.13 The second component of the policy package is the establishment of a transitory andtargeted energy subsidy fund, earmarked to support needy households that are likely to be hurt mostby higher energy prices. The size of the fund, to be financed out of the revenues raised through theoverall energy price reform, should be limited to US$ 21 million per annum (S/40 billion), anamount large enough to cover administrative expenses and to compensate the 300,000 LPG-usinghouseholds of the lowest expenditure class for the loss of real income caused by a tripling of theprice of LPG.2 3

4.14 The revenues allocated to the fund should be disbursed by the Ministry of Finance andsubjected to auditing procedures that apply to central government expenditures. A top-levelgovernment unit should be appointed to manage, control and supervise the utilization anddistribution of the fund through executing agencies working in the field. The central managementfunctions could be assumed by the Social Policy Unit (Unidad de Politica Social) of CONADE, orby qualified staff of the recently created Social Investment Emergency Fund (SIEF) that is attachedto the Presidency.

4.15 One may argue that rather than establishing a special subsidy fund, the GOE could justas well commit the resources to general social support activities. However, indiscriminate handoutsto social support and welfare programs often are economically less efficient and politically morecontentious than is a targeted, time-limited compensation scheme designed to ease the adjustmentto a particular policy measure. In fact, the proposed energy fund is a policy instrument that helpsimplement controversial reform measures that have caught much public attention and, even though

23 The sum of S140 billion is arrived at as follows: 300,000 household receive an annual subsidy of S/120,000 (- S/36billion). Administrative costs and overheads amount to S/12,850 per recipient (= S/3.80 billion). The rat ofexchange is S/1,900 per US$.

- 44 -

economically compelling, are likely to have unpleasant effects on the poor, at least in the short-rin.Therefore, the subsidies should be narrowly focused, related to the incidence of the energy priceincreases, and phased out after a couple of years. It should not become a permanent entitlement, norshould it be mistaken for a social safety net, or a substitute for broader and more coherent strategiesaimed at poverty reduction and social development, and enabling the poor to exit form miserableliving conditions.

4.16 Targeting subsidies to a particular group, rather than making them available across theboard, is always a tricky problem. It has the advantage of reducing the amount of resources requiredto perform the intended service. Efforts taken to screen and select a target group, however, tend tosaddle the service with higher administrative costs than does a program with no eligibility criteria.Regarding the subsidy fund under consideration, its ideal target group would be composed of thosehouseholds that, among other things:

a. spend a disproprtionately high income share on energy and/or lack the resourcesneeded to keep the use of higher priced energy at a reasonable level;

b. have limited or no scope for inter-fuel substitution (due to the unavailability orunaffordability of alternative fuels):

C. live in deep poverty; and

d. have no or limited access to welfare benefits and social services alleviating theconsequences of poverty.

4.17 While the above list of socioeconomic characteristics could be easily extended andrefined, it is obvious that even a moderately diversified poverty profile would be difficult and costlyto apply when it comes to the task of scrutinizing, selecting, and monitoring qualified beneficiaries.Given the comparatively small size of the proposed fund and the concomitant need to cut overheadsand administrative costs, and taking into account that the fund should be created and disbursedwithout much delay, it is recommended to resort to a single, or at least dominant, targetingindicator.

4.18 Income is a benchmark that serves this purpose. Simply put, the only conditionsclaimants be required to meet is that they fall into the lowest household income class (say, less thanS/300,000 a year) and depend, or have depended, on LPG as the paramount cooking fuel. Thiswould limit the group of poor households qualifying for the subsidies to about 300,000 families,which is 15% of the total population (or 71% of the households pertaining to the lowest expenditureclass).24 With income as the main hurdle to participating in the energy subsidy fund, no additionalin-depth surveys will be needed to discriminate among the claimants and select the qualified ones.

24 The size of this family group would be broadly equal to the number of households that according to esintes of theNational Institute of Statistics lived below the indigence line in 1990 (see Chapter 3 of this volume).

- 45 -

4.19 It should be mentioned, though, that income and LPG-dependence still are variables tooiffy for a watertight selection process. Often there will be no easy way to tell a deeply poor from amoderately poor LPG-using household. Also, income does not take account of poverty incidencethat vary among regions or between urban and rural settings.2 5 On the other hand, income is aneutral or anonymous criterion to the extent that it is independent of what drives households inmaking expenditure decisions. As far as LPG use is concerned, it can be safely assumed that thefuel is sold at fairly uniforn prices across the country and so far has been consumed in fairlysimilar quantities (on a per-household basis) within each income class. Hence, a uniform subsidy isnot likely to be regressive.2 6

4.20 Another point militating in favor of a single indicator is that in Ecuador, as mattersstand, the administrative capabilities fall far short of what is needed for perfect targeting on thebasis of multiple poverty attributes. And the least desirable effect of the fund would be the creationa new huge administration responsible for poverty screening. Nevertheless, what should be assuredis that there is a reasonably dense network of institutions cabable of identifying and serving therecipients. The institutions in question should have on-the-ground presence in all provinces (or in agiven province) with means to reach remote areas, and with no other obligations that may impairtheir ability to handle the fund (and vice versa). Only two candidates seem to meet theserequirements:

4.21 One option is to put the 21 Provincial Governments (Gobernaciones Provinciales) incharge of handling the fund.27 These governments have both the personnel and resources toperform the tasks in question. In addition, their current responsibilities are confined to protocolmatters and, thus, leave sufficient scope for additional activities.

4.22 The other option is to harness the established infrastructure of the NGOs. As has beenargued in Chapter 3 of this volume, these organizations deal with a variety of projects tailored tothe poorest segments of the population, and their coverage of the country is fairly complete.However, the major problem with the NGOs is that their performance as executing agencies of thesubsidy fund needs to be coordinated and controlled through an entity that is held responsible forthe NGOs and reports to the central management unit. Clearly, control and supervision can moreeasily be accomplished within the hierarchy of government institutions.

25 For example, depending on the place of residence, households with identical preferences may face different priceratios so that the same amount of income yields different levels of welfare.

26 Being tied to LPG-users, however, the subsidy not will reach poor households that prefer, or are forced, to useother fuels for cooking. The only way to remedy this bias is to grant the subsidy to all households belonging to thelowest income class (about 423,000), no matter whether they cook with LPG or not. This would increase the size ofthe subsidy fund to S/56 billion or US$ 30 million (see also footnote 20).

27 In the case of Quito, the Municipality would have to play the role of an executing agency.

- 46 -

4.23 As regards the distribution of the subsidies, it is recommended to pay them out in theform of tradable coupons denominated in Sucres and entitling the recipient or holder to buyanything worth their face value. That is, the purchasing power of the coupons should not berestricted to LPG or other forms of energy. The reason for this is twofold: First, as a compensationfor losses in real income, the coupons are supposed to leave it to the discretion of the recipient inwhich way to adjust (through expenditure reallocations) to higher energy prices. Second, thetradability or transferability of the coupons (which, in the limiting case, means that they can be soldfor cash) will ensure that they remain a highly liquid form of (government) debt with a purchasingpower close to its nominal value.2

4.24 Clearly, a coupon will sell at a discount reflecting the transaction costs associated withits use as a means of payment (or as a store of value). In order to minimize the transaction costelement, its trade in secondary markets should not be restricted or prohibited. The coupons shouldbe issued by the Central Bank and handed out to the beneficiaries through the executing agencies in(twelve) monthly installments, each worth S/10,000 (which almost buys a 14-kg cylinder of LPG ata price of S/760/kg). Shops accepting the coupons should be entitled to cash their nominal valuefrom commercial banks within a limited period (say, within six month after the date of issue), whilethe banks will settle their accounts with the Central Bank. By the very nature of the coupons, theiruse is likely to prevail in the formal sector, but may also encourage the informal sector to seekcloser links with financial institutions, which is a desirable side effect.

20 Two points should be made in this connection. First, giving away tradable coupons amounts to issuing money,which may wony monetary authorities concemed with inflation. However, as is demonstrated the earlier companionreport to this study, the energy pricing reform package as a whole has a marked deflationary impact which clearlymore than offsets the moderate multiplier effect resulting from the disbursement of the (comparatively) smallsubsidy fund. Second, a coupon confined to the purchase of LPG is doomed to lose a significant fraction of its facevalue unless households continue to consume LPG at levels that prevailed in the past, which is unlikely.

- 47 - Annex 1Page 1 of 136

METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS

1. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN.-

The questionnaire were made up of six parts on ten pages. Eachpart was divided in one or more sections, which contained groups ofrelated questions, so as to facilitate the interviews and the dataprocessing. A sample of this questionnaire is attached.

Each survey had an individual number on the headline whichcontained the title and name of the institutions. Each pagerecorded the names and dates of execution and revision of eachindividual questionnaire. Additionally, the first page includedinformation about the geographic location of the survey.

The answers were given by one representative member of the family.

The following aspects were considered in the questionnaire:

A. Characteristics of the house.-

This aspect contained 17 variables regarding the physicalcharacteristics of the house (size, materials, utilities, etc.).The socioeconomic characteristics were also considered (number ofpeople who live in the house; home businesses, etc.) As thequestions in this section were low profile, they were placed at thebeginning of the questionnaire in order to facilitatecommunication.

B. Characteristics of the family.-

Seven questions dealt with the structure of the family, theirlevel of schooling, their economic activities, their place of workand their individual income. A further questiondetermined t,ue income of the family as a whole.

C. Expenses.-

Eighteen questions concerned family expenses (housing, food,transportation, education, health, basic services and others).

D. Energy uses.-

This section referred to fuel and energy sources employed at home.An initial question, directly established the fuels and energysources used. In the following nine sections the questions

* Zi'* Annex 1Page 2 of 136

requested information concerning: use of LPG, gasoline, kerex,charcoal, wood, agriculture residues, electricity, candles andbatteries or dry cells; quantities, usage and kinds of each of thefuels used; prices, distance, means of transportation anddifficulties related to fuel provision. Each case showeddifferences according to the nature of the energy sources.

S. Appliances.-

This section determined the number and characteristics of thedifferent appliances which used the fuel available at each house.

P. Attitudes regarding energy.-

There were 53 questions relating to the interviewee's points ofview towards costs, availability, safety and reliability of eachsource of energy.

2. SAKPLE DESIGN.

There were 2,050 questionnaires; 1,450 correspond to urban homes in5 cities, the remaining 600 correspond to 24 rural areas.Five hundred surveys were performed in the two largest cities ofthe country, Quito and Guayaquil. Three middle-sized cities werealso chosen; each one represented one of the three regions Ecuador(Esmeraldas on the Coast, Riobamba in the Sierra, and Lago Agrio inthe Oriente). In the two first cities, 200 surveys were conducted;50 surveys were carried out in the third one. There were fewersurveys in Lago Agrio because the population is smaller.

Six hundred surveys were also carried out in 24 small towns chosenall over the country (25 surveys in each). Following is the listof towns, province, and location:

LOCATION PROVINCE REGION

Urbina Esmeraldas CostaCarlos Concha Esmeraldas CostaConvento Manabi CostaPedro Pablo G6mez Manabi CostaAbd6n Calder6n Manabi CostaPiedrahita (Nobol) Guayas CostaChong6n Guayas CostaJes1s Maria Guayas CostaBellavista El Oro CostaChilla El Oro Coast

- 49 - Annex 1Page 3 of 136

LOCATION PROVINCE REGION

Puerto Pechiche Los Rios CoastValencia Los Rios CoastFebres Cordero Los Rios CoastGarcia Moreno Imbabura SierraDr.M.Egas (Peguche) Imbabura SierraP.V.Maldonado Pichincha SierraLloa Pichincha SierraChugchillAn Cotopaxi SierraSan Miguelito Tungurahua SierraRio Verde Tungurahua SierraQuasuntos Chimborazo SierraBan Kiguelito Tungurahua SierraRio Verde Tungurahua SierraQuasuntom Chimborazo sierraCumbe Azuay SierraS.Pedro de la Bendita Loja SierraCotundo Napo Oriente

The places chosen intended to cover the variety of physical,geographic, social and economic situations existing in the country,as well as possible differences in local fuel consumption(availability of specific kinds of fuel; possibilities of supply;etc.) Sites were chosen in the highlands of the Sierra; othersurveys were conducted in the fertile valleys in the Andes; othersites were in the so-called "cejas de montahia", in the foothills ofthe mountains ); other areas chosen were the prairies of the coastdedicated to grow export products; still another area included werethose that mine. On the one hand, some of the sites were close tolarge and mid-size cities while others were completely isolated. Insome of these places there was a majority of a specific ethnicgroup. From an economic viewpoint, in some cases, there wasconsiderable activity, while in others economic activity was slowor almost at a standstill.

To determine the specific location of the homes interviewed,information from the 1990 census was obtained, which was done bythe use of records of residents and occupied houses, counted byblocks, (in the case of cities), and by urban and periphericalsectors (in the case of rural areas). On basis of thisinformation, the units to be counted in the survey were determined.Random selection was used.

3. QUESTIONNAIRE TEST.

In order to verify the validity of the questionnaire in urban andrural areas, a trial survey with five previously-trainedinterviewers was carried out. This trial took place in four needy

-50- l

sectors of Quito and in a small nearby town (Lloa), in one workingday. After 25 interviews, it was possible to record, evaluatecorrect operational problems.

To easily cover the geographical area of the study, it wasnecessary to work with two groups of interviewers; the first, wasin charge of Quito, the Sierra, the Oriente and the northern partof the coast. The second group was in charge of Guayaquil and thesouthern part of the coast.

The most important part of the field work was conducted betweenSeptember 7 and October 16, 1992. The questionnaires werecollected, checked, classified and filed by sites in the surveycentral office in Quito.

There were cases of houses where there was electric service, butthere was no evidence of bill payments. In order to estimate theelectricity consumption of these houses, the average kWh was cal-culated on the basis of the electrical appliances existing in thehouse and the probable average time used.

4. UPPER LIHITS OF EACK INCOME (EXPENDITURE) GROUP.-

Percapita expenditure per month was used to classify the incomegroups, according to the following detail:

sucres/capita/month

First Quitile 22,635Second Quintile 5,419Third Quintile 48,736Fourth Quintile 76,804First part of the Fifth Quintile 214,631Second part of the Fifth Quintile 749,110

S. WEIGHTING OF THE ENERGY SURVEY SAMPLE.-

The following chart shows the number of occupied houses from the1990 census in relation to the number of houses of the sample inthe corresponding geographic area. The weighting factor wasobtained by dividing the number of the houses included in thesurvey by the number of the sample houses (in which the extremecases were already excluded).

-51 - Annex 1Psp' q of I'A

GEOGRAPHIC AREA OCCUPIED HOUSES No. of WEIGHTING

Urban Areas-Sierra 515,778 663 777.99Rural Areas-Sierra 460,334 183 2,515.98Urban Areas-Coast 609,127 598 1,018.60Rural Areas-Coast 336,446 263 1,279.26Urban Areas-Oriente 21,465 46 470.54Rural Areas-Oriente 49,995 21 2,380.71

TOTAL 1'993,315 1,774

Areas which did not belong to any one province at the time of thesurvey are not included in this chart; neither is Galapagos, wherethe survey was not conducted.

6.CONVERSION FACTORS

LPG 1.14 KGOE/KGFIREWOOD 0.30 KGOE/KGCHARCOAL 0.690 KGOE/KGAGR. RESIDUES 0.20 KGOE/KGGASOLINE 2.9071 KGOE/GALKEROSENE 3.1643 KGOE/GALELECTRICITY 0.086 KGOE/KWh

7. COMPOSITION OF INCOME (EXPENDITURE) CLASSES

Number of Households Percentage Share

Quintile 1 423,324 21.2Quintile 2 446,878 22.4Quintile 3 363,623 18.2Quintile 4 415,439 20.8Quintile 5 312,267 15.7Highest 3% 31,784 1.6

Total 1,993,315 100.00

Annex 1Page 6 of 136

TABLE No 1.1

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HNOSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL.NATIONAL

INCCt4E GROUPS (PERCENTILES)SOURCE OF ENERGY:

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X

LPG 71.02 300476 87.02 388845 91.7X 353388 93.6X 363250Gasoline .4X 1556 .3X 1556 .2X 778 .5X 1797Kerosene 39.2X 166043 22.1X 98793 17.5X 67272 13.92 53939Firewood 72.12 305339 43.92 196246 32.6X 125503 21.6X 83824Charcoal 1.4X 5958 1.5X 6894 .9X 3316 1.12 4335Electricity 60.52 256251 88.02 393209 91.32 352002 90.82 352277Agr. residues 9.82 41413 4.42 19881 4.92 18756 4.82 18792

Total 100.02 423324 100.02 446878 100.02 385407 100.02 388095

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TotalSOWRCE OF ENERGY

>80-97.7 X >97.7-100 2

LPG 89.92 284692 94.32 29987 86.42 1720638Gasoline 2.22 6946 .0O 0 .62 12632Kerosene 11.52 36354 .02 0 21.22 422401Firewood 17.32 54829 4.9X 1556 38.52 767296Charcoal 1.72 5354 .0X 0 1.32 25857Electricity 95.7X 303021 100.02 31784 84.82 1688544Agr. residues 1.62 5031 .0X 0 5.22 103873

Total 100.02 316548 100.02 31784 100.02 1992036

-53- AnnexIPage 7 of 136

TABLE No 1.2

WIlIER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL URBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)OURCE OF ENERGY

0-20 x >20-40 % 40-60 >60-80 %

LPG 96.6X 100625 94.9% 208252 97.4x 252080 97.92 273197Gasolira 1.5X 1556 .7X 1556 .3x 778 .6x 1797K*rosu 6.6X 6890 11.4X 24984 8.3X 21391 6.6X 18335FIreWWood 25.4x 26512 14.6X 32013 12.82 33150 6.5X 18077Charcoal 1.0 1019 1.4X 3056 .8x 2037 1.1X 3056Electricity 94.6 96599 97.02 212874 97.92 253339 99.0x 276253Agr. reslid. .7K 778 .4x 778 .4x 1019 .8x 2334

TotaL 100.02 104218 100.0D 219512 100.02 258729 100.02 279068

JNNER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL URBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TotaLSOURCE OF ENERGY

80-97.7 K >97.7-100X

LPG 94.42 239155 94.32 29987 96.22 1103296Gaoliera 2.72 6946 .0O 0 1.12 12632Kerosene 3.82 9705 .0O 0 7.1X 81303Fir eood 3.72 9335 4.92 1556 10.52 120644Charcoal 1.62 4074 .0o 0 1.22 13242Electricity 99.72 252453 1oo.02 31784 98.12 1125302Agr. residae .02 0 .02 0 .4x 4908

Total 100.0X 253231 100.02 31784 100.02 1146542

-54 - Annex 1Page 8 of 136

TALE No 1.3

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. RURAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)UMCE OF ENERGY

0-20X >20-40X >40-60 >60-WX

LPG 62.6X 199851 79.4X 180593 80.0X 101308 82.6X 90053Casoline .0K 0 .0K 0 .0K 0 .0O 0Ke 49.9K 159153 32.5X 73810 36.2K 45881 32.7X 35604Frf d 87.4K 278827 72.2K 164232 72.9K 92353 60.3K 65747Charcoal 1.5X 4939 1.7X 3838 1.0X 1279 1.2K 1279Electricity 49.4K 157652 79.3K 180335 77.9 98663 69.7% 76024Agr. residues 12.7K 40635 8.4K 19103 14.0 17M7 15.1K 16458

Total 100.0X 319106 100.0X 227366 100.0X 126678 100.0X 109026

NIIUE AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. RURAL AREAS

INCOME GROWIPS TotalPERCENTILES

SMOCE OF ENERtGY_ 80-97.7K

LPG 71.9K 45537 73.0K 617342aoline .0X 0 .0X 0Kerosae 42.1K 26649 40.3K 341098Firemood 71.9K 45494 76.5 646652Charcoal 2.0X 1279 1.5K 12615Electricity 79.9K 50568 66.6K 563242Air. residue 7.9X 5031 11.7X 98965

Total 100.0X 63317 100.0X 845494

- 55 - Annex 1Page 9 of 136

TABLE No 1.4

NLEIBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)SOURCE OF ENERGY

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 %

LPG 74.9% 146881 84.5% 195113 92.2% 167727 92.2% 158080Gasolire .8% 1556 .7% 1556 .4% 778 .5% 778Kerosene 19.6X 38510 10.5% 24195 5.5% 10062 7.3% 12577Firewood 78.3% 153729 59.4% 137131 44.7% 81376 34.6% 59282Charcoal .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0ELectricity 71.5% 140294 91.0% 210206 94.6% 171980 90.7% 155564Agr. residues 9.4% 18386 2.5% 5809 5.5% 10062 7.2% 12396

Total 100.0% 196231 100.0% 230926 100.0% 181861 100.0% 171435

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUWSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TotalSOURCE OF ENERGY

>80-97.7 % >97.7-100 %

LPG 93.3% 158546 97.0% 24894 87.2% 851241Gasoline 2.3% 3890 .0% 0 .9% 8557Kerosene 8.3% 14133 .0% 0 10.2% 99478Firewood 24.7% 42037 6.1% 1556 48.7% 475109Charcoal .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0Electricity 98.1% 166689 100.0% 25672 89.2% 870406Agr. residues 3.0% 5031 .0% 0 5.3% 51684

TotaL 100.0% 169982 100.0% 25672 100.0% 976107

- 56 - Annex 1TABLE No 1.5 Page 10 of 136

NIUIER AND PERCENTAGE OF NOtSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)SOURCE OF ENERGY _

0-20 8 20-40 X >40-60 >60-80 X

LPG 60.92 110771 89.12 181884 91.0X 180485 94.5X 198583Gasoline .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .5X 1019Kerosene 50.52 91822 36.5X 74598 28.82 57210 19.72 41361Fireiood 62.22 113048 27.6X 56263 21.82 43186 11.7X 24543Charcoal 2.02 3577 3.42 6894 1.72 3316 2.1X 4335Electricity 58.82 106933 84.12 171626 88.1 174846 90.5X 190125Agr. residues 12.72 23027 6.92 14072 4.4X 8694 3.02 6396

Totat 100.0 181888 100.02 204105 100.02 198370 100.02 210072

IUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HNOSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) Total

SOURCE OF ENERGY >80-97.7 2 >97.7-100 2

LPG 85.82 123323 83.3X 5093 84.72 800137Gasolire 2.1X 3056 .02 0 .4X 4074Kerosene 15.52 22221 .02 0 30.42 287212Firewood 8.92 12793 .0O 0 26.52 249833Charcoal 3.7X 5354 .0O 0 2.52 23476Electricity 92.9X 133509 100.0X 6112 82.92 783150Agr. residues .0 0 .0 0 5.52 52189

Total 100.0X 143743 100.02 6112 100.02 944289

- 57 - Annex 1TALE 1.6 Page 11 of 136

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. ORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)SOURCE OF ENERGY

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X a60-80 X

LPG 94.7K 42825 100.0X 11848 100.0X 5176 100.0X 658UGasollne .0X 0 .0X 0 .0X 0 .0K 0Kerosene 79.0K 35711 .0K 0 .0X 0 .0X 0Firewood 85.3X 38562 24.1K 2851 18.2X 941 .0X 0Charcoal 5.3X 2381 .0X 0 .0X 0 .0X 0Electricity 20.0X 9024 96.0X 11377 100.0X 5176 100.0X 6588Agr. rusidue .0X 0 .0X 0 .0X 0 .0X 0

Total 100.0X 45205 100.0X 11848 100.0X 5176 100.0X 6588

NLNlIER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. ORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS TotalPERCENTILES

SOURCE OF ENERGYW80-97.7 K

LPG 100.0X 2823 96.7X 69259Gaolin .0X 0 .0X 0Kerosene .0 0 49.8X 35711FIremood .0 0 59.1K 42354Charcoal .0X 0 3.3X 2381Electricity 100.0X 2823 48.8K 34988Agr. residuc .0X 0 .0X 0

Total 100.0X 2823 100.0X 71640

-58- Annex I

TABLE 1.7 Page 12 of 136

NUBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. QUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)SOURCE OF ENERGY

0-20 X >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 %

LPG 97.6% 31896 98.8% 62235 97.5% 61457 100.0% 85573Gasoline 4.8% 1556 2.5% 1556 1.2% 778 .9% 778Kerosene 2.4% 778 2.5% 1556 .0% 0 .0% 0Firewood 40.5% 13225 32.1% 20226 12.3% 7779 8.2% 7001Charcoal .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0Electricity 90.5% 29562 95.1% 59901 97.5% 61457 99.1% 84795Agr. residues 2.4% 778 1.2% 778 .0% 0 1.8% 1556

Totat 100.0% 32673 1 100.0% 63013 100.0% 63013 100.0% 85573

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. QUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TotalSOURCE OF ENERGY

>80-97.7 % >97.7-100 %

LPG 96.1% 95687 96.3% 20226 97.9% 357074Gasoline 3.9% 3890 .0% 0 2.3% 8557Kerosene 1.6% 1556 .0% 0 1.1% 3890Firewood 4.7% 4668 7.4% 1556 14.9% 54456Charcoal .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0Electricity 100.0% 99576 100.0% 21004 97.7% 356297Agr. residues .0% 0 .0% 0 .9% 3112

Total 100.0% 99576 100.0% 21004 100.0% 364854

-59- Annex IPage 13 of 136

TABLE 1.8

NURSER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. CUAYAQUIL

INCWIE GRMAPS (PERCENTILES)SOURCE OF ENERGY

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X 60-80 X

LPG 100.0X 32595 92.5s 87600 95.7X 89637 98.1X 104916Gasotine .0X 0 .0X 0 .0X 0 1.0X 1019Kerosene 15.6X 5093 20.4X 19353 16.3X 15279 11.4X 12223Firewood 6.3X 2037 5.4X 5093 4.3X 4074 .0X 0Charcoal .0X 0 1.1X 1019 1.1X 1019 1.0X 1019Electricity 100.0X 32595 96.8K 91674 100.0K 93711 99.0K 105934Agr. residues .0X 0 .0X 0 .0X 0 .0X 0

Total 100.0X 32595 100.0X 94730 100.0X 93711 100.0X 106953

NULSER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS USING EACH TYPE OF FUEL. GUAYAOUIL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TotalSOURCE OF ENERGY

_ 80-97.7 K >97.7-100 X

LPG 91.8K 79451 83.3X 5093 94.9K 399291Gasoline 3.5K 3056 .0X 0 1.0% 4074Kerosene 7.1K 6112 .0X 0 13.8X 58060Firewood .0X 0 .0X 0 2.7K 11205Chercoal 2.4K 2037 .0X 0 1.2X 5093Electricity 100.0K 86581 100.0X 6112 99.0% 416607Agr. residues .0X 0 .0X 0 .0X 0

Total 100.0K 86581 100.0X 6112 100.0K 420682

*5' Annex 1Page 14 of 136

TABLE No 2.1

NUER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELSNATIONAL

TOTAL

URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS HOUSEHOLDS 2SMUCES OF ENERGY

HOUSENOLDS 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2

C 21369 1.92 16189 1.92 37558 1.92K 1279 .2X 1279 .1XB 1556 .1X 25241 3.02 26797 1.3XE 7908 .7X 7908 .4XGK 2037 .2X 20339 2.4X 22376 1.12GB 14843 1.32 29073 3.42 43916 2.22GE 784987 68.5X 102404 12.1% 887391 44.5XKB 105484 12.5X 105484 5.3XKE 2037 .2X 2037 .1XBE 10723 .9X 57942 6.82 68665 3.4XGK3 104980 12.42 104980 5.32GCKE 36188 3.22 6396 .82 42585 2.12GBE 21288 18.62 270989 32.02 483878 24.32KE 11983 1.02 22984 2.72 34966 1.82GKBE 40022 3.52 83473 9.92 123495 6.22

TOTAL 1146542 100.02 846M 100.02 1993315 100.02

GaLPG KuKEROSENE BuBIOMASS

TABLE No 2.2

N.IER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS (Disregarding Electricity)NATIONAL

TOTAL

URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OUSLEHOLDS 2SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSENOLDS 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2

6 806356 70.8X 118592 14.02 924948 46.62K 2037 .2X 2037 .1SB 12279 1.12 84462 10.0X 96741 4.9XGK 38225 3.42 26735 3.22 64961 3.3261 227M71 20.02 300063 35.42 527794 26.6XKn 11983 1.12 128468 15.22 140450 7.1261(1 40022 3.52 188453 22.32 228475 11.52

TOTAL 1138634 100.02 8467 7 100.02 1985407 100.02

GaLPG KxKEROSENE BeBIOMASS E=ELECTRICITY

- 61 - Annex 1Page 15 of 136

TABLE No 2.3

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING ENERGY SOURCESSIERRA

TOTAL

URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS 9OUbEHOLDS %SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS %

G 3112 .6% 5031 1.1% 8143 .8%B 1556 .3% 20124 4.4% 21680 2.2%E 778 .2% 778 .1%GK 7546 1.6% 754A .8%GB 6224 1.2% 10062 2.2% 16285 1.7%GE 378079 73.3% 50310 10.9% 428388 43.9%KB 30186 6.6% 30186 3.1%BE 1556 .3% 52825 11.5% 54381 5.6%GKB 20124 4.4% 20124 2.1%GKE 1556 .3% 1556 .2%GBE 119803 23.2% 226393 49.2% 346196 35.5%KBE 778 .2% 2515 .5% 3293 .3%GKBE 2334 .5% 35217 7.7% 37551 3.8%

TOTAL 515774 100.0% 460333 100.0% 976107 100.0%

G=LPG K-KEROSENE B=BIOMASSTABLE No 2.4

NtUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS (Disregarding Electricity)SIERRA

TOTAL

SOURCES OF ENERGY URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS HOUSEHOLDS %

HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS %

G 381191 74.0% 55341 12.0% 436531 44.8%B 3112 .6% 72949 15.8% 76061 7.8%GK 1556 .3% 7546 1.6% 9102 .9%GB 126026 24.5% 236455 51.4% 362481 37.2%KB 778 .2% 32701 7.1% 33479 3.4%GKB 2334 .5% 55341 12.0% 57674 5.9%

TOTAL 514996 100.0% 460333 100.0% 975329 100.0%

G=LPG K=KEROSENE B=BIOMASS

-62- Annex IPage 16 of 136

TABLE No 2.5

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING ENERGY SOURCESCOST

TOTAL

URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS HOUSEHOLDS XSOURCES OF EIIERGY

HOUSEHOLDS HOWSEHOLDS X

G 17316 2.82 6396 1.9X 23712 2.5XK 1279 .4X 1279 .1XB 5117 1.5X 5117 .5XE 7130 1.22 7130 .8XGK 2037 .32 12793 3.8% 14830 1.6"GB 8149 1.32 16630 4.92 24779 2.6XGE 388087 63.7X 47333 14.12 435419 46.02KB 72918 21.72 72918 7.72KE 2037 .3X 2037 .2XBE 9167 1.52 5117 1.52 14284 1.5XGKB 56287 16.72 56287 6.02GKE 34632 5.72 6396 1.92 41029 4.32GBE 91674 15.12 42216 12.52 133890 14.22KBE 11205 1.82 20468 6.12 31673 3.3XGKBE 37688 6.22 43495 12.9X 81183 8.6"

TOTAL 609123 100.02 336445 100.02 945568 100.0X

TABLE No 2.6

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS (Disregarding Electricity)CSAT

URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS T 0 T A LSOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2

G 405403 67.32 53729 16.02 459132 48.9XK 2037 .3X 2037 .2XB 9167 1.52 11513 3.42 20681 2.22GK 36670 6.12 19189 5.72 55858 6.02GB 99823 16.62 58846 17.52 158669 16.92KB 11205 1.92 93386 27.82 104591 l1.1tGKB 37688 6.32 99782 29.72 137470 14.6X

TOTAL 601993 100.02 336445 100.02 938438 100.02

GuLPG KzKEROSENE B=100MASS

- 6-3 - Annex 1Page 17 of 136

TABLE No 2.7

NBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING ENERGY SOURCESORIENTE

TOTAL

URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS HOUSEHOLDS %SOURCES OF ENERGY

HNOSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS %

G 94.1 4.3% 4761 9.5% 5703 8.0%GB 471 2.2% 2381 4.8% 2851 4.0%GE 18822 87.0% 4761 9.5% 23583 32.9%KB 2381 4.8% 2381 3.3%GKB 28569 57.1% 28569 39.9%GBE 1412 6.5% 2381 4.8% 3792 5.3%GKBE - 4761 9.5% 4761 6.6%

TOTAL 21645 100.0% 49995 100.0% 71640 100.0%

G=LPG K=KEROSENE E= BIOMASS E=ELECTRICITY

TABLE No 2.8

NMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS (Disregarding Electricity)ORIENTE

TOTAL

URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS HOUSEHOLDS %SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS %

G 19763 91.3% 9523 19.0% 29286 40.9%08 1882 8.7% 4761 9.5% 6644 9.3%KB 2381 4.8% 2381 3.3%GKB 33330 66.7% 33330 46.5%

TOTAL 21645 100.0% 49995 100.0% 71640 100.0%

GELPG K=KEROSENE B=BIOMASS

- 64 - Annex 1Page 18 of 136

TABLE No 2.9

IuSER AND PERCENTAGE OF NUEHOLDS CMBINING FUELS. NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 XSO.ICES OE ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS HWOSEHOLDS HWOSEHOLDS HWOSEHOLDS X

G 7404 1.7X 11782 2.6X 4813 1.2X 8445 2.2XK 1279 .3XI 17150 4.12 3795 .8X 778 .2X 3795 1.02E 1019 .2X 1019 .3XOK 3534 .82 7633 1.72 3838 1.02 7372 1.9XGB 17291 4.12 8292 1.92 10144 2.62 7411 1.92GE 76511 18.12 171003 38.32 198386 51.52 214894 55.42K1 57260 13.52 19017 4.32 8955 2.32 12620 3.3XKEBE 26259 6.22 23717 5.32 11081 2.92 2037 .5XGIO 64087 15.12 16630 3.72 14029 3.62 7676 2.02mIm 2291 .5S 13502 3.02 11726 3.02 12484 3.22CSE 109610 25.9X 125920 28.22 89877 23.32 92220 23.82IKE 10234 2.42 9448 2.1X 5614 1.5X 2298 .6XalUE 30668 7.22 36140 8.12 26166 6.82 14545 3.7X

TOTAL 423324 100.02 446878 100.02 385407 100.02 388095 100.02

- 65 - Annex 1Page 19 of 136

TABLE No 2.9 (cont.)

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF NHOSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS.NAT IONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

>80-97.7 > 97.7-100 X HOUSEHOLDS XSOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS X

G 5113 1.6X 37558 1.9KKC 1279 .1%B 1279 .4X 26797 1.3XE 4074 1.3X 1797 5.7K 7m .4KGK 22376 1.1lGB 778 .2X 43916 2.2XGE 199722 62.8X 26875 84.6X 887391 4.5XKB 7633 2.4X 105484 5.3XKE 2037 .6X 2037 .1XBE 5571 1.8X 68665 3.4XGKB 2559 .8X 104980 5.3XGKE 2574 .8X 42585 2.1XGBE 63139 19.9X 3112 9.8K 483878 24.3XKBE 7372 2.3K 34966 1.GKBE 15976 5.0X 123495 6.2X

TOTAL 317827 100.0K 31784 100.0K 1993315 100.0O

G=LPG K=KEROSENE BaBIOMASS

Annex 1Page 20 of 136

TABLE No 2.10

NURSER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS (Disregarding Electricity)NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % )6O-80 %SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS %

G 83915 19.9% 182785 40.9% 203199 52.7% 223340 57.7%KB 43410 10.3% 27512 6.2% 11858 3.1% 7111 1.6XGK 5832 1.4% 21135 4.7% 15564 4.0% 19856 5.1%GO 126901 30.0% 134211 30.0% 100021 26.0% 99631 25.7%KU 67494 16.0% 28465 6.4% 14569 3.8% 14918 3.9%GKB 94754 22.4% 52771 11.8% 40195 10.4% 22221 5.7%

TOTAL 422306 100.0% 446878 100.0% 385407 100.0% 387076 100.0%

INCO0ME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

>80-97.7 % >97.7-100 % HOUSEHOLDS XSOLURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS %

G 204835 65.3% 26875 89.6% 924948 46.6%K 2037 .6% 2037 .1%U 6851 2.2% 96741 4.9%GK 2574 .8% 64961 3.3%G8 63917 20.4% 3112 10.4% 527794 26.6%KU 15004 4.8% 140450 7.1%GIK 18534 5.9% 228475 11.5%

TOTAL 313753 100.0% 29987 100.0% 1985407 100.0%

G=LPG KaKEROSENE B.BIOMASS

Annex 1Page 21 of 136

TABLE 2.11

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COM8INING FUELS. URBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 X >20-40 >40-60 X >60-80 XSRCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS 2 NOUSEHOLDS 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2

G 2508 2.42 5564 2.52 1019 .4X 8445 3.02* 778 .7X 778 .3XE 1019 1.0X 1019 .4XGK 1019 1.02 1019 .4XGB 2026 1.92 3352 1.52 3834 1.52 4852 1.7XGE 57586 55.32 138264 63.02 180648 69.82 192040 68.82KEBE 1019 1.02 3593 1.62 1019 .4X 2037 .7XGKE 1019 1.02 12223 5.62 9167 3.52 11205 4.02CGE 30356 29.12 42737 19.52 46985 18.22 49285 17.72ItK 6890 3.12 3056 1.22 1019 .4XCIOE 6890 6.62 6890 3.12 12223 4.72 8149 2.92

TOTAL 104218 100.02 219512 100.02 258729 100.0 279068 100.02

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

>80-97.7 2 >97.7-100 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS 2

C 334 1.52 21369 1.92B 1556 .12E 4074 1.62 1797 5.72 7908 .7XGK 2037 .2XGB 778 .32 14843 1.32GE 189574 74.92 26875 84.62 784987 68.52KE 2037 .8X 2037 .2XU 3056 1.22 10723 .9XGKE 2574 1.02 36188 3.22GBE 40414 16.02 3112 9.82 212888 18.62KU 1019 .4X 11983 1.02GKBE 5871 2.32 40022 3.52

TOTAL 253231 100.02 31784 100.02 1146542 100.02

GxLPG K=KEROSENE BxBIOMASS EsELECTRICITY

- 68 - Annex 1Page 22 of 136

TABLE 2.12

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS (Disregarding ELectricity)URBAN AREAS

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-50 %SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS %

G 60093 58.2% 143828 65.5% 181667 70.2% 200485 72.1%KB 1797 1.7% 3593 1.6% 1797 .7% 2037 .7%GK 2037 2.0% 12223 5.6% 9167 3.5% 12223 4.4%GB 32383 31.4% 46089 21.0% 50819 19.6% 54137 19.5%KB 6890 3.1% 3056 1.2% 1019 .4%GKB 6890 6.7% 6890 3.1% 12223 4.7% 8149 2.9%

TOTAL 103200 100.0% 219512 100.0% 258729 100.0% 278050 100.0%

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

SOURCES OF ENERGY >80-97.7 % >97.7-100 % HOUSEHOLDS %

HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS %

G 193408 77.6% 26875 89.6% 806356 70.8%K 2037 .8% 2037 .2%B 3056 1.2% 12279 1.1%GK 2574 1.0% 38225 3.4%GB 41192 16.5% 3112 10.4% 227731 20.0%KB 1019 .4% 11983 1.1%GKB 5871 2.4% 40022 3.5%

TOTAL 249156 100.0% 29987 100.0% 1138634 100.0%

G=LPG K=KEROSENE B=BIOMASS

- 69 - Annex 1Page 23 of 136

TABLE No 2.13

WH8EE AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS RUSAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X p60-80 XSOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSENOLDS X

G 4896 1.5 6218 2.7X 3795 3.0K 1279 1.21* 16372 5.1X 3795 1.7X 3795 3.5XGK 2515 .8X 7633 3.4X 3838 3.0X 6353 S.8X0G 15265 4.8X 4939 2.2X 6310 5.0 2559 2.3XGE 18925 5.9K 32739 14.4X 1M7 14.0K 22655 21.0OKS 57260 17.9K 19017 8.4X 8955 7.1K 12620 11.6"E 25241 7.9K 20124 8.9K 10062 7.9XGlK 64087 20.1K 16630 7.3K 14029 11.1K 7676 7.0OGKE 1279 .4X 1279 .6K 2559 2.0X 1279 1.2XG E 79253 24.8K 83183 36.6K 42892 33.9X 42935 39.4XKIE 10234 3.2X 2559 1.1K 2559 2.0X 1279 1.2XGKIE 23778 7.5K 29251 12.9X 13943 11.0K 6396 5.9X

TOTAL 319106 100.0K 227366 100.0K 126678 100.0K 109026 10O.OX

PERCENTILES TOTAL

880-97.7 K HOUSEHOLDS KSOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS K

U 1279 2.0K 16189 1.9KK 1279 .2Ka 1279 2.0X 25241 3.0XGK 20339 2.4XGI 29073 3.4KGE 10148 15.7K 102404 12.1KKg 7633 11.8K 105484 12.5KE 2515 3.9X 57942 6.8XGKI 2559 4.0X 104980 12.4KGKE 6396 .8XG E 22725 35.2X 270989 32.0XKIBE 6353 9.8X 22984 2.7XGKBE 10105 15.6K 83473 9.9X

TOTAL 64597 100.0K 846773 100.0X

GuLPG K-KEROSENE *B.IOMASS E-ELECTRICITY

-70-.; Annex 1Page 24 of 136

TANLE No 2.14

NUIER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUWEHOL.DS COMINING FfUELS (Disrgarelfng Et*ctricity)RURAL AREA

INCOME CROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 x '20-40 X 340-60 x 60-80 XS0UCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHLDS 0 HOUSEHOLDS 2 HOUSEHODS 2

C 23821 7.5s 38957 17.12 21532 17.02 22855 21.02S 41613 13.02 23919 10.52 10062 7.92 5074 4.72OK 3795 1.2X 8912 3.92 6396 5.01 7633 7.02C* 94519 29.6x 88122 38.8x '9203 38.8X 45494 41.7213 67494 21.22 21575 9.52 11513 9.12 13900 12.72KB 87865 27.52 4588l 20.22 27972 22.12 14072 12.91

TOTAL 319106 100.02 227366 100.OX 126678 100.02 109026 100.02

INCOME GROUPS TOTALPERCENTILES

o80-97.7 X HO MSEHOLDS 2SOURCES OF ENERGY

_HOUSElOLDS 2

C 11427 17.72 118592 14.0X* 3795 5.9s 84462 10.0oQK 26735 3.22a 22725 35.22 300063 35.42Ks 13986 21.72 128468 15.22GKW 12663 19.61 18"453 22.32

TOTAL 64597 100.02 8467m 100.02

GaLPG KMKEROSEME BUIlONASS

7- - Annex 1TABLE No 2.15 Page 25 of 136

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS. SIERRA

INCOME GROWPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 x >20-40X K40-60 K >60-80 SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS X HNOSEHOLDS X HNOSEHOLDS X HOWSEHOLDS X

G 2515 1.3% 2515 1.4X 2334 1.4xB 15871 8.1X 2515 1.1X 778 .4X 2515 1.5XEGK 2515 1.3x 2515 1.1X 2515 1.5XGB 6587 3.4K 2334 1.0o 5809 3.2x 778 .5xGE 27591 14.1K 79247 34.3K 91746 50.4x 98747 57.6xKB 7546 3.8K 10062 4.4x 10062 5.9XBE 20124 10.3K 21680 9.4K 10062 5.5XGKB 17608 9.0x 2515 1.4KGKEGKE 85033 43.3x 100955 43.7K 60889 33.5K 54484 31.8XKBE 778 .3KGKBE 10840 5.5K 10840 4.7x 7546 4.1X

TOTAL 196231 100.0K 230926 100.0K 181861 100.0K 171435 100.0X

INCOME GROWPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

>80-97.7 K 97.7-100 K HNOSEHOLDS KSOURCES OF ENERGY

HNOSEHOLDS K HOUSEHOLDS K

G 778 .5x 8143 .8XB 21680 2.2XG 778 3.0x 778 .1XGK 7546 .8XGC 778 .5K 16285 1.7KGE 109275 64.3K 21782 84.8K 428388 43.9XKB 2515 1.5K 30186 3.1KBE 2515 1.5K 54381 5.6KGKB 20124 2.1KGKE 1556 .9X 1556 .2XGBE 41725 24.5x 3112 12.1K 346196 35.5KKBE 2515 1.5K 3293 .3KGKBE 8324 4.9x 37551 3.8X

TOTAL 169982 100.0o 25672 100.0K 976107 100.0X

GCLPG KuKEROSENE B-BIOMASS EsELECTRICITY

- 72 - Annex 1Page 26 of 136

TABLE No 2.16

IU1JBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBIING FUELS.COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-201 >20-40X >40-60X >60-80XSOURCES OF ENERCY _____

HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS I

6 2037 1.1 6"31 4.4X 2296 1.2X 6112 2.91K 1279 .6B 1279 .7X 1279 .61 ¶279 .6XE 1019 .6X 1019 .52GK 1019 .6X 5117 2.5X 38 1.9X 4856 2.3XGS 10234 5.6" 3577 1.82 4335 2.2X 6633 3.2XGE 45127 24.8X 85610 41.9X 102405 51.6X 109560 52.2XKB 47333 26.0X 895 4.4X 8955 4.5X 2559 1.Z2KEBE 6136 3.4X 2037 1.02 1019 .5X 2037 1.0O6KB 17910 9.82 16630 8.12 11513 5.8X 7676 3.7XGKE 22 1.32 13502 6.6X 11726 5.92 12484 5.92GBE 22197 12.2X 2494 12.01 284 14.1X 37736 18.0OKBE 10234 5.6" 8670 4.21 5614 2.82 22 1.1XGKBE 15066 8.32 25300 12.4X 18620 9.41 14545 6.9X

TOTAL 181888 100.02 204105 100.02 198370 100.01 210072 100.02

- 7?3 - Annex 1Page 27 of 136

TABLE No 2.16 (cant.)

NUNER AND PERCENTAGE OF NOUNEOLDS COSINING FUELS.COAST

INCONE GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

C80-97.7 K 3.97.7-100 N HOUSEHOLDS XSOUCES OF ENERGY

NOUSENOLDS X HOUSENOLDS

6 4335 3.0G 23712 2.5XK 1279 .1KE 1279 .9X 5117 .5XE 4074 2.8X 1019 16.7X 7130 .8K6K 14830 1.6KC* 24779 2.6XGE 87624 60.4X 5093 83.3X 435419 46.0KKS 5117 3.5K 72918 7.7XKE 2037 1.4X 2037 .2XK 3056 2.1K 14284 1.5KGK3 2559 1.8X 56287 6.0XGKE 1019 .7X 41029 4.3XGBE 21415 14.0X 133890 14.2XKBE 4856 3.3X 31673 3.3XGlKE 7652 5.3X 81183 8.6X

TOTAL 145022 100.0O 6112 100.0K 945568 100.0X

GCLPG KuKEROSENE BIBIONASS COELETRICITY

- 71! - Annex 1Page 28 of 136

TABLE No 2.17

WIUBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS (Disregarding Electricity)COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 >20-40x >40-60 2 >60-8W

SORCES OF ENERGY HOUSEHOLDS 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2 HWOSEHOLDS 2 HNOSEHOLDS 2

G 47164 26.12 94541 46.32 104703 52.82 115671 55.3xKB 7415 4.12 3316 1.6X 1019 .5X 4596 2.2XGK 3316 1.8X 18620 9.1X 15564 7.82 17340 8.3xGB 32431 17.92 28072 13.82 32383 16.32 44369 21.22KB 57567 31.82 17625 8.62 14569 7.32 4856 2.32GKB 32976 18.22 41931 20.52 30133 15.22 22221 10.62

TOTAL 180869 100.02 204105 100.02 198370 100.02 209053 100.0O

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

>80-97.7 >97.7-100 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2SORCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS 2 HNOSEHOLDS 2

G 91959 65.22 5093 M100.0 459132 48.92K 2037 1.42 2037 .2XB 4335 3.12 20681 2.22GK 1019 .7X 55858 6.02GB 21415 15.22 158669 16.92KB 9973 7.12 104591 11.12GKD 10210 7.22 137470 14.62

TOTAL 140948 100.0x 5093 100.02 938438 100.0X

GiLPG K.KEROSENE B.BIOMASS

75 Annex 1Page 29 of 136

TABLE No 2.18

NURSER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELSa1mUTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X 310.80 XSOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS 2 HOUSEHOLDS X

G 2851 6.32 2851 24.1XGB 471 1.02 2381 20.12GE 3792 8.43 6145 51.92 4235 81.8X 6586 100.02KB 2381 5.32GKB 28569 63.22GBE 2381 5.3X 471 4.0X 941 18.2XGKBE 4761 10.5X

TOTAL 45205 100.02 11848 100.02 5176 100.0X 656 100.0O

INCOME GROUPS TOTALPERCENTILES

>80-97.7 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS 2

G 5703 8.02GB 2851 4.02GE 2823 100.02 23583 32.92KB 2381 3.3XGKB 28569 39.92GBE 3792 5.32GKBE 4761 6.62

TOTAL 2823 100.02 71640 100.02

G-LPG KaKEROSENE SuBIONASS EsELECTRICITY

- 76- Annex 1Page 30 of 136

TABLE No 2.19

NLUBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS. Disregarding Electricity )OR1ENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-6O X >60-80 XSOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS HOUWSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS X NOUSENOLDS X

G 6644 14.7X 8996 75.92 4235 81.62 6586 100.01GB 2851 6.3X 2851 24.1X 941 18.2XKB 2381 5.32GKB 33330 73.7X

TOTAL 45205 100.02 11848 100.02 5176 100.02 6588 100.01

INCOME GROUPS TOTALPERCENTILES

>80-97.7 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSENOLDS 2

G 2823 100.02 29286 40.9XGB 6644 9.3XKB 2381 3.3XGKB 33330 46.52

TOTAL 2823 100.02 71640 100.02

GzLPG K=KEROSENE S-8IOMASS

- 77 - Annex 1Page 31 of 136

TABLE No 2.20

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS.OUI TO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 %SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS %

G 2334 2.7%B 778 2.4% 778 1.2%EGS 1556 4.8% 1556 2.5% 77B .9%GE 17115 52.4% 38119 60.5% 51344 81.5% 69237 80.9%GKEGBE 12447 38.1% 21782 34.6% 10891 17.3% 13225 15.5%KBE 778 1.2%GKBE 778 2.4% 778 1.2%

TOTAL 32673 100.0% 63013 100.0% 63013 100.0% 85573 100.0%

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

>80-97.7 % >97.7-100 % HOUSEHOLDS %SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS %

G 778 .8% 3112 .9%B 1556 .4%E 778 3.7% 778 .2%GB 778 .8% 4668 1.3%GE 77016 77.3% 17115 81.5% 269945 74.0%GKE 1556 1.6% 1556 .4%GBE 18671 18.7% 3112 14.8% 80128 22.0%KBE 778 .2%GKBE 778 .8% 2334 .6%

TOTAL 99576 100.0% 21004 100.0% 364854 100.0%

G=LPG K=KEROSENE B=BIOMASS E=ELECTRICITY

- 70 - Annex 1Page 32 of 136

TABLE No 2.21

NUMER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS CO8I1NING FUELS (Disregarding Electricity).OUITO

INCOME GROWPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-8W XSWRCES OF ENERGY

HOWSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS HOtuSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS %

G 17115 52.4% 38119 60.5% 51344 81.5% 71570 83.6%B 778 2.4% 778 1.2%GKGB 14003 42.9% 23338 37.0% 10891 17.3% 14003 16.4%Ka 778 1.2%GKB 778 2.4% 778 1.2%

TOTAL 32673 100.0% 63013 100.0% 63013 100.0% 85573 100.0%

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

>80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X HOUSEHOLDS %SOURCES OF ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS K HOUSEHOLDS %

G 77794 78.1% 17115 84.6% 273057 75.0%* 1556 .4%GK 1556 1.6% 1556 .4%GB 19449 19.5% 3112 15.4% 84795 23.3%KB 778 .2%GKB 778 .8% 2334 .6%

TOTAL 99576 100.0% 20226 100.0% 364076 100.0%

GuLPG K=KEROSENE S=BIOMASS

- 7, - Annex 1

Page 33 of 136TABLE No 2.22

NIMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS COMBINING FUELS.GUAYAQU I L

INCOME GROWPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80XSOURCES OF ENERGY

HWOSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS X HOUSEHOLDS X

G 2037 6.3% 4074 4.3% 1019 1.1% 6112 5.7%E 1019 1.0%GK 1019 3.1% 1019 1.0%GB 1019 1.1% 2037 2.2% 4074 3.8%GE 21391 65.6% 59079 62.4% 66209 70.7% 70283 65.7%KEBE 2037 2.2% 1019 1.1% 1019 1.0%GKE 1019 3.1% 11205 11.8% 8149 8.7% 8149 7.6%GBE 2037 6.3% 8149 8.6% 5093 5.4% 10186 9.5%KBE 5093 5.4% 3056 3.3%GKBE 5093 15.6% 4074 4.3% 7130 7.6% 5093 4.8%

TOTAL 32595 100.0% 94730 100.0% 93711 100.0% 106953 100.0X

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

>80-97.7 % >97.7-100 X HOUSEHOLDS %SWRCES OF ENERGY

HNOSEHOLDS % HOUSEHOLDS X

G 3056 3.5% 16298 3.9%E 4074 4.7% 1019 16.7% 6112 1.5%GK 2037 .5%GB 7130 1.7%GE 63153 72.9% 5093 83.3% 285208 67.8%KE 2037 2.4% 2037 .5%BE 1019 1.2% 5093 1.2%GKE 1019 1.2% 29539 7.0%GBE 8149 9.4% 33614 8.0%KSE 8149 1.9%GKBE 4074 4.7% 25465 6.1%

TOTAL 86581 100.0% 6112 100.0% 420682 100.0%

G=LPG KCKEROSENE BuBIOMASS EmELECTRICITY

- 80 - Annex 1Page 34 of 136

TABLE No 2.23

IIUER AID PRCENTAGE OF HOUEOLDS COSINING FUELS (Disrearding Etectricity).GUAYAQA I L

INCOE GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 x )20-40 X >40-60 X )60-80 X3C3s OF ENERGY

USEHOLWDS HNOSE HOLDS 2 HOUSEHOLDS HOUHOLDS X

6 23428 71.9X 63153 66.72 6722 71.72 76395 72.12Ke 2037 2.22 1019 1.12 1019 1.0mG 2037 6.32 11205 11.82 8149 8.72 9167 8.72C 2037 6.32 9167 9.72 7130 7.6 14260 13.52K3 s09 5.4 3056 3.32au s5 15.6a 4074 4.32 7130 7.6a 5093 4.82

TOTAL 32595 100.02 94730 100.02 93711 100.02 105934 100.02

INCM GRUS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

40-97.7 2 297.7-100 2 HOUSEHOLDS 2=MCES O ENERGY

HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS 2

6 66209 80.22 5093 100.02 301506 72.72K 2037 2.52 2037 .52e 1019 1.22 509 1.2XO 1019 1.22 31577 7.62a 8149 9.92 40744 9.82Ks 8149 2.02OKI 4074 4.92 25465 6.12

TOTAL 82507 100.02 5 so 100.02 414570 100.02

G-LPG KKEROSEHE BIIOHASS

- 81 - Annex IPage 35 of 136

TABLE No 3.1

AVERAGE MOTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KGOE)NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOlALSource of Ernrgy

0-20 X )20-40 X 240-60 X 60-80 X 280-97.7 X 97.7-100 X

LPGMean 22.683 26.513 25.451 30.322 2U.023 27.299 26.667Std. deviation 10.074 13.015 11.950 31.421 15.727 12.094 16.496Percentege 17.5X 22.6X 20.6X 21.0X 16.6X 1.72 100.0O

GASOLINEMean .363 3.997 . 174.426 4.77 . 21.079Std. deviation 3.272 . 2.519 . SO.M6Percentage 7.6X 15.1X . 9.9X 67.4X 100.02

KEROSENEMean 7.405 5.944 5.831 4.010 12.256 . 6.770Std. deviation 7.174 8.980 6.147 4.796 32.158 . 11.667Percentage 39.5X 23.5X 16.0X 12.86 8.2X 100.0.

FIREWOODMean 96.844 87.199 91.359 84.179 61.394 7.386 89.437Std. deviation 120.908 126.735 111.996 115.625 67.201 6.296 117.741Percentae" 40.1X 25.62 16.52 10.62 7.12 .2X 100.0O

AGR. RESIDUESMean 18.190 12.951 34.608 10.408 1.456 . 1.4Std. deviation 32.007 12.469 57.165 6.600 . 33.JMPercentage 41.42 19.92 18.72 17.52 2.52 100.02

ELECTRICITYMean 8.430 9.076 11.426 16.433 21.945 37.283 13.863Std. deviation 6.88 7.039 9.394 15.282 22.676 23.037 14.916Percentage 15.22 23.32 20.82 20.92 17.9X 1.92 100.02

CHARCOALMean 4.483 2.811 1.791 2.092 24.167 . 7.367Std. deviation 3.696 3.030 .352 1.294 36.760 . 19.75Percentage 23.02 26.72 12.82 16.82 20.7X 100.0O

TOTALMean 95.803 70.994 66.240 62.419 58.546 63.400 71.58Std. deviation 116.116 90.817 77.451 71.306 4464 28.4" 65.856Percentage 21.32 22.52 19.42 19.42 15.92 1.6" 100.02

-82- Annex 1Page 36 of 136

TA8LE No 3.2

AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION (KGOE) PER CAPITA.NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALSource of Energy

0-20X >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80x >80-97.7 % >97.7-100 %

LPGMean 3.767 4.932 5.187 8.060 7.886 11.802 6.046Std. deviation 2.031 2.616 2.659 16.487 4.920 9.125 8.336Percentage 17.5% 22.6% 20.6% 21.0% 16.6% 1.7% 100.0%

GASOLINEMean .045 .954 . 43.606 1.648 . 5.573Std. deviation .863 . 1.252 . 12.657Percentage 7.6% 15.1% . 9.9% 67.4% . 100.0%

KEROSENEMean 1.166 1.173 1.460 1.040 2.968 . 1.346Std. deviation 1.206 1.590 1.713 .884 3.790 . 1.778Percentage 39.5% 23.5% 16.0% 12.8% 8.2% . 100.0%

FIREWOODMean 16.229 17.290 21.674 21.459 24.490 2.416 18.509Std. deviation 20.042 22.961 29.749 31.395 32.290 2.14 25.058Percentage 40.1% 25.6% 16.5% 10.6% 7.1% .2% 100.0%

AGR. RESIDUESMean 2.813 3.464 8.934 3.515 .485 . 4.154Std. deviation 4.145 4.167 17.877 3.175 . 8.817Percentage 41.4% 19.9% 18.7% 17.5% 2.5% . 100.0%

ELECTRICITYMean 1.476 1.673 2.318 3.815 5.822 15.488 3.229Std. deviation 1.240 1.289 1.982 3.770 5.209 12.096 4.164Percentage 15.2% 23.3% 20.8% 20.9% 17.9% 1.9% 100.0%

CHARCOALMeon .814 .638 .319 .445 12.034 . 2.965Std. deviation .801 .793 .038 .334 19.428 . 9.999Percentage 23.0% 26.7% 12.8% 16.8% 20.7% . 100.0%

TOTALMean 16.018 13.724 14.624 15.917 17.413 26.740 15.606Std. deviation 19.282 17.020 20.591 23.803 17.637 19.070 19.874Percentage 21.3% 22.5% 19.4% 19.4% 15.9% 1.6% 100.0%

- 83 - Annex 1Page 37 of 136

TABLE No. 3.3

AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY CONS1MPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KGOE)URBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALSource of Energy

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 X >60-80 % >80-97.7 % >97.7-100 %

LPGKean 26.061 26.722 26.280 30.019 28.242 27.299 27.721Std. deviation 11.503 13.911 12.830 32.957 16.665 12.094 20.522Percentage 9.1% 18.9% 22.9% 24.7% 21.7% 2.7% 100.0%

GASOL I NEKean .363 3.997 . 174.426 4.737 . 21.079Std. deviation 3.272 . 2.519 . 50.880Percentage 7.6% 15.1% . 9.9% 67.4% . 100.0%

KEROSENEMean 3.074 4.393 3.752 2.715 3.246 . 3.606Std. deviation 1.636 5.821 4.487 2.185 2.736 . 4.312Percentage 8.7% 31.5% 27.0% 23.1% 9.7% . 100.0%

F IREWOODMean 35.772 27.185 44.812 59.587 17.626 7.386 37.905Std. deviation 72.026 50.016 104.166 135.497 20.385 6.296 88.133Percentage 22.6% 25.9% 28.2% 14.7% 7.3% 1.3% 100.0%

AGR. RESIDUESmean 2.000 8.000 .090 5.302 . . 4.125Std. deviation 3.698 . . 3.693Percentage 15.8% 15.8% 20.8% 47.5% . 100.0%

ELECTRICITYMean 10.223 11.142 12.923 16.955 24.489 37.283 16.622Std. deviation 7.418 7.657 9.602 13.943 23.673 23.037 16.230Percentage 8.8% 18.9% 22.5% 24.5% 22.4% 2.8% 100.0%

CHARCOALMean 1.340 1.887 1.789 2.658 2.463 . 2.185Std. deviation .859 .449 1.135 1.511 . 1.173Percentage 7.7% 23.1% 15.4% 23.1% 30.8% . 100.0%

TOTALMean 44.168 40.511 44.324 50.670 51.949 63.400 47.337Std. deviation 43.623 25.614 42.825 55.555 32.090 28.498 41.714Percentage 9.1% 19.1% 22.6% 24.3% 22.1% 2.8% 100.0%

- 84 - Annex 1

TABLE 3.4 Page 38 of 136

AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION (KGOE) PER CAPITAURBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALSource of Energy

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 % >80-97.7 % >97.7-100 %

LPGMean 3.906 4.744 5.293 7.001 7.650 11.802 6.173Std. deviation 1.902 2.335 2.853 10.398 4.836 9.125 6.309Percentage 9.1% 18.9% 22.9% 24.7% 21.7% 2.7% 100.0%

GASOLINEMean .045 .954 . 43.606 1.648 . 5.573Std. deviation .863 . 1.252 . 12.657Percentage 7.6% 15.1% . 9.9% 67.4% . 100.0%

KEROSENEM4ean .349 .880 .975 .575 .738 . .775Std. deviation .206 1.634 1.546 .479 .582 . 1.271Percentage 8.7% 31.5% 27.0% 23.1% 9.7% . 100.0%

FIREWOODMean 5.168 4.993 10.512 12.284 4.465 2.416 7.590Std. deviation 8.589 8.607 26.155 31.035 5.482 2.144 19.560Percentage 22.6% 25.9% 28.2% 14.7% 7.3% 1.3% 100.0%

AGR. RESIDUESMean .400 2.667 .008 1.213 . . 1.064Std. deviation .930 . . 1.063Percentage 15.8% 15.8% 20.8% 47.5% . . 100.0%

ELECTRICITYMean 1.612 2.030 2.597 3.974 6.384 15.488 3.955Std. deviation 1.242 1.430 2.059 3.984 5.408 12.096 4.769Percentage 8.8% 18.9% 22.5% 24.5% 22.4% 2.8% 100.0%

CHARCOALMean .122 .358 .294 .588 1.167 . .632Std. deviation .276 .026 .300 1.270 . .824Percentage 7.7% 23.1% 15.4% 23.1% 30.8% . 100.0%

TOTALMean 6.639 7.284 9.129 11.743 13.826 26.740 10.712Std. deviation 5.320 4.490 10.791 15.341 8.278 19.070 11.360Percentage 9.1% 19.1% 22.6% 24.3% 22.1% 2.8% 100.0%

- 85 - Anaex IPage 39 of 136

TABLE No 3.5

AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY COhSWPTION PER HCUSEHOLD (KGOE)RURAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS CPERCENTILES) TOTALSource of Enerwgy

0-20 2 >20-40 >40-60X 2 60-80 >80-97.7 2

LPGMen 20.983 26.272 23.388 31.263 26.872 24.833Std. deviatlon 8.793 11.894 9.086 26.047 9.288 13.973Percentag 32.5X 29.4X 16.5X 14.2X 7.42 100.02

GASOLINENMw Std. deviationPercentag

KEROSENEMeon 7.592 6.469 6.801 4.676 14.848 7.505Std. deviation 7.261 9.766 6.563 5.575 36.048 12.694Percentg 46.7X 21.62 13.52 10.42 7.82 100.02

FIREWOODean 102.650 98.329 108.067 90.908 69.627 98.840

Std. deviation 122.992 133.359 109.973 108.598 69.708 120.010Percente 43.32 25.5X 14.3X 9.8X 7.12 100.02

AG. RESIWJESIean 18.500 13.152 36.590 11.192 1.456 19.182Std. deviation 32.233 12.679 58.165 6.598 34.580Percentag 42.7X 20.12 18.62 15.92 2.62 100.02

ELECTRICITYNen 7.309 6.638 7.584 14.534 9.249 8.2mStd. deviatIon 6.173 5.275 7.590 19.266 9.497 9.718Percentag 28.02 32.02 17.52 13.52 9.02 100.02

CHARCOALNewn 5.131 3.547 1.795 .739 93.M 12.806Std. deviation 3.744 3.831 27.261Percentage 39.22 30.42 10.12 10.12 10.12 100.02

TOTALmen 112.667 100.423 111.001 93.203 84.932 104.572Std. deviation 126.924 117.533 107.332 94.925 69.968 114.641P re ntag 37.9X 27.0X 15.02 12.62 7.52 100.02

- 86 - Annex 1TPAl NO 3.6 Page 40 of 136

AAU N0TL NOW COlNPT1ION (KOM) PER CAPITAIUIAL AREA

INCOM GRtJPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL$ore Of neg

0-20 X ;20-40 X 240-60 2 260.80 2 280-97.7 X

LPGNen 3.696 5.149 4.92/. 11.35S 9.123 5.818Std. dwiation 2.069 2.891 2.079 27.693 5 .164 11.075Pe_centag 32.5X 29.4X 16.S 14.2X 7.42 100.02

IAUM.INENeo . ...Std. dewitionPercntg ...

N1on 1.201 1.273 1.686 1.280 3.610 1.4785td. deviation 1.219 1.562 1.740 .947 4.069 1.851PecetagP 46.7% 21.6X 13.52 10.42 7.82 100.0O

FIRUWSNeon 17.2J1 19.571 25.681 23.969 28.257 20.501Std. deviation 20.497 24.041 29.939 31.024 33.816 25.435Por_entage 43.32 25.52 14.32 9.82 7.12 100.02

Am. RelIMSNe 2.859 3.497 9.447 3.869 .485 4.313Std. dwviation 4.170 4.247 18.251 3.249 9.010PerCta 42.7% 20.12 1S.6" 15.92 2.63 100.02

ELICTRICITYNeon 1.392 1.252 1.604 3.238 3.019 1.779Std. deviation 1.231 .937 1.555 2.785 2.669 1.838Pei entags 28.0 32.02 17.52 13.52 9.02 100.02

CIULNeOn .957 .860 .359 .106 U.647 5.414Std. deviation .J09 .978 13.875Pereonta" 39.22 30.42 10.12 10.12 10.12 100.0X

TOTALn 19.031 19.941 25.846 26.853 31.756 22.264

5td. devistion 21.116 21.708 29.403 35.626 32.000 26.0onPercentage 37.9X 27.02 15.02 12.6X 7.52 100.02

-87- AnnexlPage 41 of 136

TABLE No 3.7

AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KGOE)SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALSource of Energy

0-20X >20-40 x >40-60 >60-80 , >80-97.7 x >97.7-1OO X

LPGNean 22.370 26.250 25.893 34.850 27.730 26.913 27.374Std. deviation 9.705 11.807 14.229 4.209 13.285 12.893 22.324Percentage 17.3x 23.0x 19.8X 18.3x 18.7X 2.9K 100.0o

GASOLINEMean .363 3.997 . . 4.651 . 3.952Std. deviation 3.272 . . 2.326 . 2.823Percentage 12.5x 25.0x . . 62.5x 100.0K

KEROSENEMean 3.736 4.623 5.838 3.202 6.971 . 4.557Std. deviation 1.677 4.641 7.666 1.942 4.799 . 4.184Percentage 38.7x 24.3K 10.1X 12.6X 14.2x . 100.0x

FIREWOODMean 92.690 85.531 80.689 91.359 63.003 7.386 85.492Std. deviation 137.902 129.509 103.730 127.388 73.627 6.296 124.245Percentage 32.7x 28.9s 17.3x 11.9X 8.8x .3K 100.0O

AGR. RESIDUESMtean 30.394 17.998 32.988 9.817 1.456 . 22.792Std. deviation 4.168 16.137 33.648 6.355 . 33.368Percentage 37.4x 11.8K 20.5K 25.2x 5.1K . 100.0x

ELECTRICITYMean 8.495 8.859 11.215 16.94 22.617 39.922 14.262Std. deviation 6.374 6.825 9.881 14.321 26.692 22.634 16.541Percentage 16.1K 24.2x 19.8K 17.9X 19.2x 2.9x 100.0o

CHARCOALMeanStd. deviationPercentage

TOTALMean 99.014 81.422 72.741 78.778 64.044 66.467 79.459Std. deviation 135.775 102.616 79.842 94.492 50.057 27.164 97.686Percentage 20.2x 23.7x 18.7X 17.4K 17.5K 2.6K 100.0x

- 88- Annex lPage 42 of 136

TABLE No 3.8

AVERAGE ONTHLY ENERGY CONSIMPTION (KGOE) PER CAPITA.SIERRA

INCOME CRPUS (PERCENTILES) TOTALSource of Energy

0-20 > 2.20-40 2 0-60 2 260-80 2 280-97.7 2 97.7-100 2

LPGMon 3.948 5.196 5.415 10.718 7.794 10.920 6.685Std. devitfon 1.U68 2.699 2.882 24.578 4.519 9.063 11.237Percentage 17.3X 23.0X 19.8X 18.3X 18.7X 2.9X 100.02

GASOLINEean .045 .954 . . 1.231 . 1.013Std. deviation .863 .683 .791Percentag 12.5X 25.0X . . 62.5X . 100.02

KEROSENEMean .636 1.327 1.049 1.437 2.677 . 1.237Std. deviation .306 1.813 1.252 1.085 2.483 . 1.570Percentage 38.72 24.32 10.1X 12.62 14.22 . 100.02

FIREIdOOMen 17.023 17.128 17.903 24.514 24.365 2.416 18.710Std. deviation 24.875 23.623 25.390 35.430 35.092 2.14 27.256Percentag 32.72 26.92 17.3X 11.92 8.82 .3X 100.02

AGR. RESIDUESMean 4.570 4.425 6.328 3.026 .485 . 4.314Std. deviation 5.457 4.147 5.188 2.816 . 4.7"Percentag 37.42 11.82 20.52 25.22 5.12 100.02

ELECTRICITYMean 1.583 1.706 2.357 4.325 5.835 16.392 3.507Std. deviation 1.213 1.256 2.075 4.747 5.617 13.048 4.925Percentage 16.12 24.22 19.82 17.92 19.22 2.92 100.02

CHARCOALMea Std. deviationPercentage

TOTALMben 17.976 16.255 15.678 22.259 19.163 27.127 18.330Std. deviation 24.083 19.121 19.005 33.346 20.612 20.595 23.592Percentage 20.22 23.72 18.72 17.42 17.5X 2.6X 100.02

- 89 - Annex 1Page 43 of 136

TABLE No 3.9

AVERAGE ONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HNUSEHOLD (KGOE)COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALSourcc of Energy

0-20 x >20-40 % >40-60 2 >60-80 x >80-97.7 2 >97.7-100 2

LPGNean 23.727 26.484 25.074 26.971 28.005 29.184 26.157Std. deviation 10.597 13.635 9.430 15.298 17.250 6.671 13.563Pcrcente 13.8X 22.7x 22.62 24.82 15.4X .6X 100.02

GASOLINENa n 174.426 4.845 . 47.240Std. devition 2.741 . 73.478Percentage 25.0x 75.0x 100.0O

KEROSENENen 6.244 6.372 5.830 4.255 15.956 . 6.593Std. deviation 6.586 9.953 5.840 5.347 41.339 . 13.378Percentge 32.22 26.22 20.12 14.52 7.1x 100.02

FIREWOODNean 91.153 95.177 112.585 67.801 56.205 . 91.680Std. devition 107.105 121.588 124.249 80.390 39.526 . 110.011Percentage 45.2x 22.5s 17.32 9.8x 5.12 l 100.0O

AR. RESIDIESNean 8.446 10.867 36.484 11.838 . . 14.244Std. deviation 8.424 9.864 75.719 6.955 . . 33.857Percentag 45.2x 27.6x 17.12 10.12 100.0X

ELECTRICITYMean 8.110 9.354 11.510 15.794 21.245 26.196 13.388Std. deviation 7.391 7.235 8.558 15.461 16.532 21.351 12.839Percentag 13.72 21.9x 22.32 24.32 17.02 .8x 100.02

CHARCOALMean 1.501 2.811 1.791 2.092 24.167 . 7.205Std. deviation .707 3.030 .352 1.294 38.760 . 20.757Percentsg 15.22 29.42 14.12 18.5X 22.82 . 100.0x

TOTALMan 80.123 60.876 60.779 49.727 52.005 50.516 60.665Std. devlation 94.150 76.484 75.641 41.755 35.565 30.310 69.798Percentag 19.32 21.62 21.02 22.22 15.22 .6x 100.02

- 90 - Annex 1Page 44 of 136

TABLE No 3.10

AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION (KGOE) PER CAPITACOAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALSource of Energy

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 % >80-97.7 % >97.7-100 %

LPGMean 3.557 4.457 4.945 6.049 7.875 16.112 5.439Std. deviation 2.171 2.039 2.408 3.458 5.335 8.149 3.630Percentage 13.8% 22.7% 22.6% 24.8% 15.4% .6% 100.0%

GASOLINEMean . . . 43.606 2.180 . 12.537Std. deviation . . . 1.570 . 17.992Percentage . . . 25.0% 75.0% . 100.0%

KEROSENEMean 1.000 1.123 1.532 .920 3.172 . 1.281Std. deviation 1.138 1.507 1.772 .774 4.472 . 1.860Percentage 32.2% 26.2% 20.1% 14.5% 7.1% . 100.0%

FIREWOODMean 14.072 18.507 28.891 14.489 24.893 . 18.227Std. deviation 14.377 21.556 35.710 17.340 20.821 . 22.393Percentage 45.2% 22.5% 17.3% 9.8% 5.1% . 100.0%

AGR. RESIDUESMean 1.410 3.068 11.950 4.700 . . 3.999Std. deviation 1.638 4.110 25.326 3.646 . . 11.440Percentage 45.2% 27.6% 17.1% 10.1% . . 100.0%

ELECTRICITYMean 1.255 1.583 2.228 3.342 5.808 11.691 2.908Std. deviation 1.202 1.243 1.755 2.493 4.669 5.285 3.100Percentage 13.7% 21.9% 22.3% 24.3% 17.0% .8% 100.0%

CHARCOALMean .163 .638 .319 .445 12.034 . 3.084Std. deviation .078 .793 .038 .334 19.428 . 10.486Percentage 15.2% 29.4% 14.1% 18.5% 22.8% . 100.0%

TOTALMean 12.336 11.048 13.724 10.951 15.306 25.118 12.576Std. deviation 13.410 14.282 22.133 9.329 13.172 10.307 15.219Percentage 19.3% 21.6% 21.0% 22.2% 15.2% .6% 100.0%

- 91 - Annex 1

TABLE No 3.11 Page 45 of 136

AVERAGE MOTHLY ENERGY CONSLIPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KGOE)ORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALSource of Energy

0-20 2 '20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 2 40-97.7 2

LPGMean 21.057 31.289 24.251 24.917 45.220 24.398Std. deviation 9.633 19.635 8.698 11.046 41.617 15.617Percentage 61.82 17.12 7.52 9.52 4.12 100.02

GASOLINEMean . . .Std. deviation . . .Percentage .

KEROSENEMean 14.345 . . . . 14.345Std. deviation 7.653 . . . . 7.653Percentage 100.02 . . . . 100.02

FIREWOODMean 130.085 9.131 39.870 . . 119.938Std. deviation 71.012 2.540 27.645 . . 75.308Percentage 91.0X 6.72 2.22 . . 100.02

AGR. RESIDUESMean . . .Std. deviation . . .Percentae . . .

ELECTRICITYMean 11.220 8.902 15.638 22.785 15.386 13.633Std. deviation 6.000 7.736 16.279 26.233 10.435 15.221Percentage 25.8X 32.5X 14.8X 18.8X 8.12 100.0X

CHARCOALMean 8.963 . . . . 8.963Std. deviation . .Percentage 100.02 . . . . 100.02

TOTALMean 144.959 42.035 47.138 47.702 60.606 108.603Std. deviation 84.384 18.767 20.405 28.976 49.071 83.817Percentage 63.12 16.52 7.22 9.22 3.92 100.02

- 92- Annex 1Page 46 of 136

TABLE No 3.12

AVERAGE ONHTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION (KGOE) PER CAPITAORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALSource of Erergy

0-20 X >20-40 X '40-60 X 860-80 X 480-97.7 X

LPGNen 3.693 7.893 6.254 6.209 13.517 5.243Std. devlation 2.129 5.237 2.587 2.648 4.262 3.879Percenta"e 61.8X 17.1X 7.5X 9.5X 4.1X 100.02

GASOLINEMean . . .

Std. deviationPercentage

KEROSENEMen 2.163 . . . . 2.163Std. deviation 1.401 . . . 1.401Percentag 100.0l 100.0

FIREWOODMean 19.391 1.022 9.661 . . 17.938Std. deviation 9.034 .265 7.217 . . 9.908Percentage 91.0 6.7X 2.2 . . 100.0

AGR. RESIDUESMean . . ...

Std. deviationPercentage

ELECTRICITYMoan 2.446 2.436 4.056 5.448 5.765 3.514Std. deviation 1.396 2.057 4.102 5.763 4.324 3.736Percentag 25.8X 32.52 14.82 18.82 8.12 100.02

CHARCOALMean 1.793 . . . . 1.793Std. deviationPercentage 100.0X 100.0X

TOTALNon 22.331 10.479 12.067 11.657 19.282 18.528Std. deviation 11.376 5.231 5.318 6.252 7.124 11.002Percentae 63.1X 16.5X 7.2Z 9.2Z 3.9X 100.0O

-93- AnnexlPage 47 o' 136

TABLE No 3.13

AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KGOE).QUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALENERGETICOS

0-20 % >20-40 X >40-60 % >60-80 % >80-97.7 % >97.7-100 %

LPGMean 27.119 23.913 28.494 32.344 26.271 24.749 27.678Std. deviation 10.629 10.236 19.864 51.994 14.783 12.102 28.560Percentage 9.0% 17.5% 17.2% 23.8% 26.9% 5.7% 100.0%

GASOLINEM4ean .363 3.997 . . 4.651 . 3.952Std. deviation 3.272 . . 2.326 . 2.823Percentage 12.5x 25.0% . . 62.5% . 100.0%

KEROSENEMean .791 5.142 . . 3.164 . 3.481Std. deviation 4.352 . . .000 . 3.188Percentage 20.0% 40.0% . . 40.0% . 100.0%

LENAMean 24.335 32.843 112.328 141.976 19.082 7.386 54.109Std. deviation 33.958 61.050 191.150 199.876 24.999 6.296 118.657Percentage 25.8% 36.4% 15.2% 12.1% 7.6% 3.0% 100.0%

AGR. RESIDUESMean 2.000 8.000 . 3.585 . . 4.293Std. deviation . 3.416 . . 3.292Percentage 25.0% 25.0% . 50.0% . . 100.0%

ELECTRICITYMean 11.385 12.932 12.965 17.883 26.985 42.653 19.667Std. deviation 7.308 6.895 8.834 14.580 26.778 22.916 19.385Percentage 8.3% 16.8% 17.2% 23.8% 27.9% 5.9% 100.0%

CHARCOALMean . . . . . .

Std. deviation . . . . . .Percentage . . . . . .

TOTALMean 46.699 45.967 54.303 60.161 53.206 67.032 53.990Std. deviation 28.609 37.185 77.989 90.524 32.743 28.416 60.484Percentage 9.0% 17.3% 17.3% 23.5% 27.3% 5.8% 100.0%

- 94 - Annex 1Page 48 of 136

TABLE No 3.14

AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION (KGOE) PER CAPITAQUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALENERGETICOS

0-20 >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 ,80-97.7 1 397.7-100X

LPGMean 4.514 4.813 6.083 8.045 7.173 10.530 6.733Std. deviation 1.979 1.968 3.849 17.135 4.634 9.408 9.311Percentage 9.0X 17.5X 17.2X 23.8X 26.9X 5.7X 100.01

GASOLINEMean .045 .954 . . 1.231 . 1.013Std. deviation .863 . . .63 . .791Percentage 12.5X 25.01 . . 62.5X 100.01

KEROSENEMean .099 .870 . . .633 . .621Std. deviation .712 . . .000 . .531Percentage 20.01 40.01 . . 40.01 . 100.0X

LENAMean 4.182 5.792 27.674 29.481 6.687 2.416 11.530Std. deviation 6.541 10.126 48.206 46.857 7.176 2.14 27.915Percentage 25.81 36.41 15.21 12.11 7.61 3.01 100.01

AGR. RESIDUESMean .400 2.667 . 1.195 . . 1.364Std. deviation 1.139 . . 1.149Percentage 25.01 25.0X . 50.01 . . 100.0O

ELECTRICITYMean 1.905 2.601 2.911 4.406 6.935 17.613 5.122Std. deviation 1.264 1.462 2.335 4.845 5.728 13.373 6.304Percentage 8.3X 16.8X 17.2X 23.81 27.91 5.9X 100.01

CHARCOALMeanStd. deviationPercentage

TOTALMean 7.836 9.020 12.188 14.503 14.147 27.932 13.235Std. deviation 4.469 6.229 19.532 25.330 8.259 21.550 17.003Percentage 9.0X 17.3X 17.31 23.51 27.31 5.81 100.01

- 95 - Annex 1

TABLE No 3.15 Page 49 of 136

AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY CONSt3NPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KGOE).GWAYACUIL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEHERGETICOS

0-20 2 320-40 >40-60 2 >60-80 >80-97.7 2 >97.7-10

LPGMean 25.472 26.313 24.529 26.779 27.440 29.184 26.227Std. deviation 11.324 15.592 9.149 17.650 11.058 6.671 13.803Percentage 8.22 21.92 22.42 26.32 19.92 1.32 100.02

GASOLINEMean . . 174.426 4.845 . 47.240Std. deviation . . . 2.741 . 73.478Percentage . . . 25.02 75.02 100.0l

KEROSENEMean 3.797 4.830 4.753 2.999 4.054 . 4.259Std. deviation 1.266 6.363 4.930 2.488 3.338 . 4.845Percentage 9.12 34.52 27.32 21.82 7.32 100.02

LENAMean 2.590 17.370 26.565 . . . 18.026Std. deviation 1.226 10.397 11.454 . . . 12.928Percentage 18.22 45.52 36.42 100.02

AGR. RESIDUESMean . . . .Std. deviation . . . .Percentage . . . .

ELECTRICITYMean 8.201 9.583 12.133 15.452 21.056 26.196 14.169Std. deviation 4.789 6.787 7.978 10.862 13.277 21.351 10.969Percentage 7.82 22.02 22.52 25.42 20.82 1.52 1OO.0

CHARCOALMean . 1.774 2.237 1.256 1.008 . 1.457Std. deviation .111 . 485Percentage . 20.02 20.02 20.02 40.02 100.0O

TOTALMean 34.428 35.546 37.550 43.589 46.622 50.516 40.448Std. deviation 13.701 17.892 16.231 27.339 19.428 30.310 21.173Percentage 7.72 22.52 22.32 25.42 20.62 1.52 100.02

-96- AnnexIPage 50 of 136

TABLE No 3.16

AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION (KGOE) PER CAPITAGUAYAQIJIL

INCOME GROU PS (PERCENTILES) TOTALENERGET ICOS

0-20 >20-40 2 >40-60 x >60-80 >80-97.7 2 >97.7-100 2

LPGMean 3.670 4.173 4.654 6.137 7.997 16.112 5.669Std. deviation 1.825 1.954 2.324 3.861 4.970 8.149 3.947Percentage 8.2x 21.9X 22.4x 26.3x 19.92 1.3X 100.02

GASOLINEMeNow. . . 43.606 2.180 . 12.537Std. deviation 1.570 . 17.992Percentage 25.02 75.0x 100.02

KEROSENEMean .435 .985 1.262 .664 .865 . .932Std. deviatfon .170 1.824 1.746 .536 .694 . 1.467Percentage 9.12 34.52 27.32 21.82 7.32 . 100.02

LENAMean .261 4.964 6.741 . . . 4.755Std. deviation .033 5.767 5.754 . . . 5.682Percente 18.22 45.52 36.42 . . . 100.02

AGR. RESIDUESMeanStd. deviationPercentage

ELECTRICITYMeaw 1.179 1.668 2.329 3.605 6.084 11.691 3.336Std. deviatfon .812 1.342 1.637 2.550 4.390 5.285 3.307Percentage 7.82 22.02 22.52 25.42 20.82 1.52 100.02

CHARCOALMean .177 .320 .419 .336 . .318Std. deviation .037 . .082Percentage 20.02 20.02 20.02 40.02 . 100.02

TOTALMean 4.934 5.943 7.283 10.086 13.548 25.118 9.060Std. deviation 2.358 3.048 4.952 6.593 8.223 10.307 6.846Percentage 7.72 22.52 22.32 25.42 20.62 1.52 100.02

- 97 - Annex IPage 51 of 136

TABLE No 4.1

STRUCTURE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Percentages)NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)ENERGY SOURCE

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X 397.7-100 X TOTAL

LPG 16.81 32.50 35.23 45.35 43.05 40.62 32.18

GASOLINE .00 .02 . .74 .18 . .15

KEROSENE 3.03 1.85 1.54 .90 2.27 . 2.00

FIREWOOD 72.91 53.51 44.91 28.17 17.91 .57 47.83

AGR.RESIDUES 1.86 .81 2.54 .76 .02 . 1.30

ELECTRICITY 5.33 11.25 15.76 24.05 35.88 58.81 16.41

CHARCOAL .07 .06 .02 .04 .70 . .13

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

TABLE No 4.2

STRUCTURE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Percentages)LRBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)ENERGY SOURCE

0-20 X >20-40 X ,40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X p97.7-100 X TOTAL

LPG (Percentage) 56.97 62.58 57.77 57.83 51.34 40.62 56.31

GASOLINE (Percentage)

KEROSENE .46 1.23 .70 .35 .19 . .53

FIREWOOD 20.60 9.31 12.95 7.29 1.15 .57 8.21

AGR. RESIDUES .03 .07 .00 .09 . . .04

ELECTRICITY 21.90 26.67 28.55 33.12 46.99 58.81 34.46

CHARCOAL .03 .06 .03 .06 .08 . .05

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

- 98- Annex 1Page 52 of 136

TABLE No 4.3

STRUCTURE OF ENERGY CONISUMPTION (Percentages)RLURAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)ENERGY SOURCE

0-20 X >20-40 S >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X TOTAL

LPG (Percentage) 11.66 20.78 16.85 27.57 22.75 17.32

GASOLINE (Percentage) . . .

KEROSENE 3.36 2.09 2.22 1.68 7.36 2.90

FIREWOOD 79.61 70.73 70.98 57.90 58.90 72.22

AGR. RESIDUES 2.09 1.10 4.62 1.71 .07 2.07

ELECTRICITY 3.20 5.24 5.32 11.13 8.70 5.30

CHARCOAL .07 .06 .02 .01 2.22 .18

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

TABLE No 4.4

STRUCTURE OF ENERGY CONISUMPTION (Percentages)SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)ENERGY SOURCE

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X TOTAL

LPG (Percentage) 16.91 27.24 32.83 40.54 40.39 39.26 30.00

GASOLINE (Percentage) .00 .03 . . .17 . .03

KEROSENE .74 .59 .44 .30 .91 . .59

FIREWOOD 73.34 61.67 49.64 38.44 23.88 .67 51.88

AGR.RESIDUES 2.88 .56 2.51 .91 .03 . 1.45

ELECTRICITY 6.13 9.90 14.58 19.81 34.63 60.06 16.05

CHARCOAL . . . .

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

-99 - Annex 1Page 53 of 136

TABLE No 4.5

STRUCTURE OF ENERGY CONSLMPTION (Percentages)COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)ENERGY SOURCE

0-20 X >20-40 X '40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X TOTAL

LPC (Percentage) 18.03 38.77 37.54 51.27 46.20 48.14 36.53

GASOLINE (Percentage) 1.70 .20 . .34

KEROSENE 3.93 3.83 2.77 1.68 4.31 . 3.28

FIREWOOO 70.71 43.10 40.33 15.93 9.62 . 39.98

AGR.RESIDUES 1.33 1.23 2.63 .58 . . 1.27

ELECTRICITY 5.95 12.92 16.69 28.75 37.94 51.86 18.30

CKARCOAL .04 .16 .05 .09 1.73 . .30

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

TABLE No 4.6

STRUCTURE OF ENERGY CONSLIPTION (Pereentages)ORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)ENERGY SOURCE

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 K >60-80 X >80-97.7 K TOTAL

LPG (Percentage) 13.76 74.44 51.45 52.23 74.61 21.72

GASOLINE (Percentage)

KEROSENE 7.82 . . . . 6.58

FIREWOOD 76.55 5.23 15.38 . . 65.29

AGR.RESIDUES . . . .

ELECTRICITY 1.55 20.34 33.17 47.77 25.39 6.13

CHARCOAL .33 . . . . .27

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

- 100 - Annex 1Page 54 of 136

TABLE No 4.7

STRUCTURE OF ENERGY CONSLNMPTION (Percentages)QUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)ENERGY SOURCE

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 % TOTAL

LPG (Percentage) 56.69 51.38 51.18 53.27 47.45 35.55 50.06

GASOLINE (Percentage) .02 .21 . . .34 . .12

KEROSENE .04 .28 . . .09 . .07

FIREWOOD 21.09 21.17 25.54 17.16 1.40 .82 14.10

AGR.RESIDUES .10 .21 . .11 . . .07

ELECTRICITY 22.06 26.74 23.29 29.45 50.72 63.63 35.57

CHARCOAL . . . . .

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

TABLE No 4.8

STRUCTURE OF ENERGY CONSLMPTION (Percentages)GUAYAQUI L

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)ENERGY SOURCE

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 % TOTAL

LPG (Percentage) 73.99 68.45 62.48 60.26 54.01 48.14 61.55

GASOLINE (Percentage) . . . 3.81 .37 1.13

KEROSENE 1.72 2.78 2.06 .79 .41 . 1.40

FIREWOO .47 2.63 3.08 . . . 1.19

AGR.RESIDUES . . . . .

ELECTRICITY 23.82 26.09 32.31 35.11 45.16 51.86 34.69

CHARCOAL . .05 .06 .03 .05 . .04

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

- 101 - Annex 1Page 55 of 136

TABLE No 5.1

AVERAGE MOTNLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucres).NATIONUL

INCONE GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 % >20-40 K >40-60 K >60-8W K '80-97.7 K >97.7-1oo X

FUELSMean 6789 8411 7421 8318 11391 7743 8340Std. deviation 5315 9539 5723 7912 39332 7290 17205No.of households 377270 427430 371468 380984 302491 29209 18 3

ELECTRICITYMean 2536 3287 4525 7511 11029 20355 6214Std. deviation 3903 4520 5667 11037 11548 ¶6401 9225No.of households 204696 287984 278008 291089 259433 31006 1352216

ENERGYeoan 7710 10446 10451 13936 20268 26972 12414

Std. deviation 6406 10533 7599 13043 39853 16824 18890No.of households 399537 435537 384127 383281 311174 31784 1945441

TRAHSPORTMoan 12370 19003 25943 35573 51173 109476 29524Std. deviation 10682 15741 22879 36108 60225 139469 40907No.of households 299925 361588 327486 326680 273230 27894 1616802

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMoan 99941 163183 218296 286493 432141 860965 238426Std. deviation 52928 68499 78462 116550 220418 427372 18863No.of households 423324 446878 385407 388095 317827 31784 1993315

TABLE No 5.2

DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATIONNATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 K >20-40 K >40-60 K >60-80 K >80-97.7 K '97.7-100 K

FUELS 7.74x 5.56x 3.70x 3.73x 2.61x 1.12X 4.nx

ELECTRICITY 2.60x 1.98x 2.16K 2.63x 2.51X 2.70X 2.37X

ENERGY 8.64K 6.79K 5.14X 5.70x 4.62x 3.67x 6.23x

TRANSPORT 12.51K 11.81K 11.75K 11.61K 11.73K 11.86X ll.8X

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 100.00K 100.00K 100.00K 100.00K 100.00K 100.00K 100.00K

- 102 - Annex 1

TABLE No 5.3 Page 56 of 136

AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE P/C FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucre.)NATIOHAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X 480-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

FUELSMen 1134 1562 1547 2190 2869 3119 1834Std. deviation 894 1520 1283 4101 5850 2392 3213No.of househoLds 377270 427430 371468 380964 302491 29209 1888853

ELECTRICITYNan 405 565 917 1632 2826 8378 1456Std. deviation 551 737 1185 2151 2824 7949 2507No.ot households 204696 287984 278008 291089 259433 31006 1352216

ENERGYNOn 1279 1911 2160 3413 5144 11039 2793Std. deviation 1048 1680 1630 4568 6175 U879 3959No.of households 399537 435537 384127 383281 311174 31784 1945441

TRANSPORTMean 1921 3314 4973 7208 13564 32544 "ISStd. deviation 1416 2461 4343 6058 13665 33177 9506No.of householdr 299925 361588 327486 326680 273230 27894 1616802

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMan 15404 28484 42172 61603 114268 300857 52822Std. deviation 4966 3730 4204 8110 35490 77904 48705No.of households 423324 446878 385407 388095 317827 31784 1993315

- 103 - Annex 1Page 57 of 136

TABLE No 5.4

AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucres).URBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

FUELSMean 6619 6607 6559 7237 7673 7743 7013Std. deviation 3760 3903 4523 6410 8755 7290 6100No.of households 102422 217716 254895 277031 244248 29209 1125521

ELECTRICITYMean 3810 4524 5302 7652 12349 20355 7891Std. deviation 4595 5179 5788 9935 11828 16401 9851No.of househoIds 72321 150353 195932 225300 219056 31006 893967

ENERGYMean 9238 9689 10477 13360 18286 26972 13088Std. deviation 6586 6412 7092 11586 15413 16824 11503No.of households 103200 219512 258729 278050 250416 31784 1141690

TRANSPORTMlean 13773 19064 24815 33158 52986 109476 33468Std. deviation 10279 14756 21973 34696 64587 139469 47757No.of househoids 87175 187300 219868 236713 218781 27894 977730

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMean 121347 173931 228797 291602 458276 860985 292021Std. deviation 52785 72153 79076 102086 222242 427372 206078No.of househoIds 104218 219512 258729 279068 253231 31784 1146542

TABLE No 5.5

DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATIONURBAN AREAS

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN,

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 % >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

FUELS 6.19s 4.16X 3.13% 2.68% 1.90% 1.12% 3.18%

ELECTRICITY 3.56% 2.76% 2.42% 2.72% 2.75% 2.70% 2.74%

ENERGY 8.64% 6.04% 4.92% 4.86% 4.25% 3.67% 5.28%

TRANSPORT 12.30% 10.96% 10.65% 10.63% 10.83% 11.86% 10.92%

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

- 104 - Annex 1Page 58 of 136

TABLE No 5.6

AVERAGE MNTHLY EXPENDITURE P/C FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (lucres)MU8AN AREA

INCOME GROUIPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X 220-40 X >40-60 2 *60-80 X ,80-97.7 2 397.7-100 X

FLIELSMean 1017 1187 1328 1641 2122 3119 1568Std. deviation 692 769 1032 1559 2771 2392 1735No.of househoLds 102422 217716 254895 277031 244248 29209 1125521

ELECTRICITYMen 567 792 1042 1698 3117 8378 1890Std. deviatfon 677 836 1186 2289 2U88 7949 2891No.of households 72321 150353 195932 225300 219056 31006 893967

ENERGYNeon 1407 1729 2097 3005 4797 11039 3026Std. deviation 1078 1151 1520 2721 4015 J879 3413No.of households 103200 219512 258729 276050 250416 31764 1141690

TRANSPORTMean 2024 3158 4578 6678 12810 32544 7227Std. deviation 1315 2132 4119 5522 13336 33177 10767No.of households 87175 187300 219668 236713 218781 27894 977o30

TOTAL EXPENDITURENMon 17146 28968 42766 62199 115153 300857 65666Std. deviation 4009 3748 4165 7873 35605 77904 56025No.of households 104218 219512 258729 279068 253231 31784 1146542

- 105 - Annex 1Page 59 of 136

TABLE No 5.7

AVERAGE MTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucre*).RURAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X ,20-40 X .40-60 X )60-80 S 480-97.7 X

FUELSNea 6853 10283 9305 11199 26982 10297Std. deviation 5788 12757 7379 10417 86094 25908No.of houaeholida 274848 209715 116573 103952 58243 763332

ELECTRICITYMen 1841 1936 2670 7029 3867 2941Std. deviation 3263 3154 4890 14166 6097 6751No.of houAehotdg 132374 137632 82076 65790 40377 458248

ENERGYMean 7178 11215 10397 15457 28435 11456Std. deviation 6255 13443 8552 16179 84098 25964No.of houeeholdr 296338 216025 125399 105232 60759 803752

TIRASPORTNen 11795 18937 28246 41928 43887 23489Std. deviation 10791 16734 24465 38871 37061 26153No.of householde 212750 174289 107618 89967 54449 639071

TOTAL EXPENDITUREmWan 92951 152805 196848 273418 329689 165861Std. deviation 51066 63062 72618 146427 179572 117429No.of householdr 319106 227366 126678 109026 64597 846773

TABLE No 5.8

DISTRIBUTION Of MONLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION.RURAL AREAS

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X )20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X

FUELS 8.31X 7.03X 4.95f 6.54X 5.58X 7.00X

ELECTRICITY 2.08X 1.14X 1.51X 2.32X 1.18X 1.65X

ENERGY 8.64" 7.55X 5.59X 7.91X 6.14X 7.59X

TRANSPORT 12.60X 12.73n 14.001 14.20X 15.37K 13.33X

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X

- 106 - Annex 1Page 60 of 136

TABLE No 5.9

AVERAGE MOTHLY EXPENDITLURE P/C FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATIRURAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X

FUELSMean 1178 1950 2027 3656 5998 2225Std. deviation 954 1949 1608 7226 11552 4566No.of households 274848 209715 116573 103952 58243 763332

ELECTRICITYMean 317 317 620 1404 1245 609Std. deviation 443 505 1129 1564 1741 1075No.of househoLds 132374 137632 82076 65790 40377 458248

ENERGYMean 1234 2096 2291 4489 6577 2461Std. deviation 1034 2068 1829 7406 11239 4605No.of households 296338 216025 125399 105232 60759 803752

TRANSPORTMean 1879 3482 5779 8605 16593 5173Std. deviation 1453 2761 4667 7096 14524 6981No.of househoLds 212750 174289 107618 89967 54449 639071

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMean 14836 28017 40959 60077 110797 35429Std. deviation 5114 3653 4016 8496 34820 28431No.of households 319106 227366 126678 109026 64597 846773

- 107 - Annex 1Page 61 of 136

TABLE No 5.10

AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucres).SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X :80-97.7 X 897.7-100 X

FUELSMean 6373 9153 7773 8949 8359 7832 8170Std. deviation 3455 10173 6495 8946 9573 8016 8a84No.of households 165267 215055 173536 168920 163577 24116 910472

ELECTRICITYMean 2496 2892 4316 6956 10512 22528 5979Std. deviation 3494 4262 6135 8928 12034 16056 9078No.of households 125746 183444 154684 147785 155616 24894 792169

ENERGYMean 7547 11351 11089 14952 17749 29203 12841Std. deviation 5580 11290 8703 12223 15343 16178 12031No.of households 181138 220864 181861 168920 169204 25672 947659

TRANSPORTMean 12757 19506 29124 40768 57037 125321 33458Std. deviation 9278 15612 25121 42664 65067 151665 48458No.of households 155569 193143 162645 147552 150170 21782 830661

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMean 90462 150879 207696 273779 453038 918752 243718Std. deviation 45746 61240 70556 109311 235595 429148 213586No.of households 196231 230926 181861 171435 169982 25672 976107

TABLE No 5.11

DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATIONSIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 2 >20-40 2 >40-60 X >60-80 2 >80-97.7 2 497.7-100 X

FUELS 7.61X 6.40X 3.98X 4.81X 2.03X 1.02X 4.94X

ELECTRICITY 2.74X 1.81X 2.15X 2.69X 2.22X 3.00X 2.31X

ENERGY 8.84X 7.77X 5.63X 7.15X 4.01X 3.87X 6.67X

TRANSPORT 13.772 13.392 13.702 13.67X 12.722 13.08X 13.44X

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X

- 108 - Annex IPage 62 of 136

TABLE No 5.12

AVERAGE MOTHLY EXPENDITURE P/C FOR EWERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucres)SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X 460-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

FUELSMean 1165 1782 1647 2780 2333 2862 1957Std. deviation 737 1698 1403 5881 2524 2339 3029No.of households 165267 215055 173536 168920 163577 24116 910472

ELECTRICITYMean 435 513 919 1670 2585 9362 1481Std. deviation 582 730 1308 2401 2610 8275 2780No.of househotds 125746 183444 154684 147785 155616 24894 792169

ENERGYMean 1365 2171 2354 4232 4633 11767 3119Std. deviation 1041 1863 1830 6304 3385 9424 4094No.of households 181138 220864 181861 168920 1692D4 25672 947659

TRANSPORTMean 2133 3706 5766 8503 15377 35845 7619Std. deviation 1380 2699 4834 7248 15514 36025 11630No.of households 155569 193143 162645 147552 150170 21782 830861

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMean 15300 28082 41892 61926 117137 297756 56630Std. devistion 4851 3698 4285 8463 36538 79326 56305Wo.of households 196231 230926 181861 171435 169982 25672 976107

- 109 - Annex 1Page 63 of 136

TABLE No 5.13

AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucres)COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

FUELSMean 6159 7694 7166 7890 15053 7320 8446Std. deviation 5056 8965 4974 7026 57458 546 23292No.of households 166797 200528 192756 205476 136091 5093 906741

ELECTRICITYMean 2672 3885 4594 7545 11836 11502 6403Std. deviation 4624 4807 4619 11722 10785 14735 9027No.of households 73247 101246 120030 138128 102405 6112 541169

ENERGYMean 7061 9546 9806 12818 23433 17602 12011Std. deviation 6208 9754 6254 12928 56937 16245 24281No.of househoLds 173194 202825 197091 207774 139147 6112 926143

TRANSPORTMean 11176 18618 22871 31341 44091 53000 25707Std. deviation 11527 16100 20004 29000 52943 52091 30865No.of households 124369 162743 163429 178187 122589 6112 757428

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMean 115449 178636 229374 298068 409721 618331 241943Std. deviation 58714 72586 84039 121759 199191 321522 152440No.of households 181888 204105 198370 210072 145022 6112 945568

TABLE No 5.14

DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATIONCOAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

FUELS 5.77% 4.62% 3.47% 2.89% 3.29% 1.58% 3.98X

ELECTRICITY 2.38X 2.20% 2.01% 2.38% 2.94% 1.48X 2.36%

ENERGY 6.56% 5.66% 4.62% 4.44% 5.38% 2.80X 5.27%

TRANSPORT 9.64X 10.08% 9.82% 9.93% 10.53% 7.52X 9.97%

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

- 110 - Annex 1Page 64 of 136

TABLE No 5.15

AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE P/C FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucres).COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

FUELSMean 936 1315 1464 173? 3509 4333 1718Std. deviation 796 1275 1173 1494 8224 2266 3484No.of households 166797 200528 192756 205476 136091 5093 906741

ELECTRICITYMean 356 629 860 1472 3191 4371 1385Std. deviation 505 700 868 1523 3099 4646 1994No.of households 73247 101246 120030 138128 102405 6112 541169

ENERGYMean 1052 1614 1955 2691 5781 7982 2491Std. deviation 898 1407 1352 2085 8394 5037 3893No.of househoLds 173194 202825 197091 207774 139147 6112 926143

TRANSPORTMean 1550 2891 4194 6146 11347 20778 5231Std. deviation 1333 2095 3648 4603 10602 14866 6395No.of househoLds 124369 162743 163429 178187 122589 6112 757428

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMean 16188 28948 42467 61393 110904 313882 50949Std. deviation 4688 3754 4126 7808 33957 70145 40093No.of households 181888 204105 198370 210072 145022 6112 945568

- 111 - Annex 1Page 65 of 136

TABLE No 5.16

AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucres).ORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X

FUELSMean 10636 7067 5091 5500 10500 9167Std. deviation 8996 4819 1743 2180 11070 8061No.of househoLds 45205 11848 5176 6588 2823 71640

ELECTRICITYMean 1691 6893 11783 22441 9457 10629Std. deviation 1367 5653 10500 26018 5216 16678No.of households 5703 3294 3294 5176 1412 18878

ENERGYMean 10849 8983 12589 23132 15228 11968Std. deviation 8869 6499 10015 25419 16512 12173No.of households 45205 11848 5176 6588 2823 71640

TRANSPORTM4ean 16788 12917 15000 22500 25000 16250Std. deviation 13641 2930 4084 12507 11966No.of households 19987 5703 1412 941 471 28512

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMean 78696 136761 166210 248274 325689 119948Std. deviation 38332 7163 38056 81313 161328 89487No. of Households 45205 11848 5176 6588 2823 71640

TABLE No 5.17

DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATIONORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 K >60-80 K >80-97.7 X

FUELS 15.48U 6.31X 3.19X 2.34X 2.86X 11.37X

ELECTRICITY 2.33X 5.26X 7.46X 7.54X 2.60X 5.19X

ENERGY 15.78X 7.77X 7.94X 8.26X 4.16X 12.74X

TRANSPORT 20.63X 7.75X 9.33X 7.31X 11.03X 16.89X

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 100.00 100.00 100.00K 100.00X 100.00K 100.00K

- 112 - Annex 1Page 66 of 136

TACLE No 5.18

AVELRE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE P/C FOR ENERGY AND TRNSPTATION (Sucre*).ORIENTE

INCOIE GROIPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0 20 X >20-40 S '40-60 X )60-80 X 480-97.7 X

FUELSMean 1752 1736 1310 1396 2972 1733Std. deviatfon 1346 1239 518 547 1160 1258No.of housebolds 45205 11848 5176 658J 2823 71640

ELECTRICITYMen 394 1513 2952 4802 2851 2428Std. deviation 286 1255 2555 4777 1413 3294No.of houseold 5703 3294 3294 5176 1412 18878

ENERGYMean 1802 2157 3189 5169 4398 2372Std. deviatfon 1334 1518 2428 4623 2647 2305No.of households 45205 11848 5176 65J8 2823 71640

TRANSPOTMen 2579 2137 3694 5375 12500 2802Std. deviation 1599 485 275 3377 2038lo.of households 19987 5703 1412 941 471 28512

TOTAL EXPENDITUREOMen 12707 28318 40721 59903 114289 25656Std. deviation 5531 M9 3180 7711 33195 24722No.of households 45205 1148 5176 6588 2823 71640

- 113 - Annex 1Page 67 of 136

TABLE No 5.19

AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucre).QUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 x >20-40 x 40-60 x >60-80 x 280-97.7 W7.7-100 x

FUELSMean 6281 6301 6338 6492 6153 5932 6291Std. deviation 2997 3745 4765 5610 3974 2526 4394No.of householdr 32673 63013 62235 85573 96465 19449 359406

ELECTRICITYMean 4218 4663 5134 7612 13379 24549 9213Std. deviation 4158 4319 5470 9622 12800 16228 11151No.of household. 24894 55234 5134 793so 9465 20226 327513

ENERGYmen 9495 10518 10443 13386 18921 29132 14451Std. deviation 5332 6333 6851 11255 14516 16333 12030No.of housLhoLds 32673 63013 63013 85573 99576 21004 36454

TRANSPORTMean 15966 18071 23989 38803 65964 118591 41955Std. deviation 11030 13718 22627 4659f 76398 149362 6907No.of households 29562 58346 56012 74682 87129 1n115 322045

TOTAL EXPENDITUREmn 105826 151358 210175 287010 501993 935975 330120Std. deviation 44936 50576 7223 106288 252487 4U302 275779No.of households 32673 63013 63013 85573 99576 21004 364854

TABLE No 5.20

DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATIONQUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 x )20-40 x ,40-60 x 260-80 x 280-97.7 x >97.7-100 x

FUELS 6.67x 4.ux 3.22x 2.43x 1.40x .83x 2.94S

ELECTRICITY 4.265 3.22x 2.665 2.865 2.74x 3.24x 2.98x

ENERGY 9.91x 7.37x 5.34x 5.05x 4.00x 3.M9 5.5a8

TRANSPORT 15.04% 12.08X 10.40x 12.14X 12.58x 12.39x 12.23S

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X 100.00X

- 114 - Annex 1Page 68 of 136

TABLE No 5.21

AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE P/C FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucres).WUITO

INCONE GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 2 >20-40 2 >40-60 2 >60-80 >80-97.7 x >97.7-100 2

FUELSNean 1059 1256 1361 1506 1665 2483 1492Std. deviation 543 736 1010 1461 1081 1978 1193No.of househoLds 32673 63013 62235 85573 96465 19449 359408

ELECTRICITYMean 661 934 1143 1798 3304 10186 2425Std. deviation 612 908 1379 2872 2677 8483 3732No.of households 24894 55234 51344 79350 96465 20226 327513

ENERGYNon 1563 2107 2276 3157 4813 12107 3648Std. deviation 770 1311 1609 3268 3100 9913 4154No.of househoLds 32673 63013 63013 85573 99576 21004 364854

TRANSPORTMean 2546 3481 4465 7707 16614 35174 9768Std. deviation 1529 2412 3341 7116 17368 37454 15341No.of households 29562 58346 56012 74682 87129 17115 322845

TOTAL EXPENDITLIREmen 16759 28982 42833 62582 124012 307400 80124Std. deviation 4488 3756 4245 7742 38250 81370 73654No.of households 32673 63013 63013 85573 99576 21004 364854

- 115 - Annex 1Page 69 of 136

TABLE No 5.22

AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION (Sucres).GUAYAQUIL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X p60-80 x >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

FUELSMean 6081 6282 5964 6918 7018 7320 6514Std. deviation 2537 3769 3431 6151 4007 546 4411No.of househoLds 32595 93711 93711 104916 81488 5093 411514

ELECTRICITYMean 2057 3741 4737 7133 10500 11502 6526Std. deviation 1933 4209 4667 7727 9835 14735 7740No.of households 22409 51949 68246 74358 73339 6112 296413

ENERGYMean 7495 8266 9413 11858 15873 17602 11051Std. deviation 3592 5530 5970 9978 10997 16245 8854No.of households 32595 94730 93711 105934 84544 6112 417626

TRANSPORTMean 14612 19681 21821 237m 39378 53000 25487Std. deviation 10445 15642 16728 16264 33916 52091 23423No.of househotds 26484 79451 78432 95748 74358 6112 360584

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMean 132588 188668 240156 284486 411031 618331 272160Std. deviation 52923 80837 79915 81754 176437 321522 147563No.of househoids 32595 94730 93711 106953 86581 6112 420682

TABLE No 5.23

DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION.GUAYAQUI L

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 2 >20-40 2 >40-60 2 >60-80 2 >80-97.7 2 >97.7-100 2

FUELS 5.22X 3.57x 2.65s 2.64X 1.96X 1.582 2.91%

ELECTRICITY 1.71X 2.19X 2.03X 2.552 2.73n 1.48X 2.33X

ENERGY 6.402 4.74X 4.13X 4.40X 4.26X 2.80s 4.52X

TRANSPORT 12.102 10.27X 9.31X 8.33X 9.25X 7.522 9.42X

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 100.002 100.002 100.002 100.00 100.00 100.002 100.002

- 116 - Annex 1Page 70 of 136

TABLE No 5.24

AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE P/C FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATIONGUAYAQUI L

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEXPENDITURES IN

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 x >60-80 x >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 %

FUELSMean 890 1021 1127 1597 2059 4333 1428Std. deviation 461 562 666 1534 1415 2266 1234No.of households 32595 93711 93711 104916 81488 5093 411514

ELECTRICITYMean 292 623 880 1610 2951 4371 1558Std. deviation 324 638 865 1548 3053 4646 2151No.of households 22409 51949 68246 74358 73339 6112 296413

ENERGYMean 1090 1352 1767 2712 4544 7982 2513Std. deviation 667 827 1152 2284 3613 5037 2588No.of households 32595 94730 93711 105934 84544 6112 417626

TRANSPORTMean 2006 2949 3903 5198 10058 20778 5453Std. deviation 1211 1947 2698 3260 8228 14866 5848No.of households 26484 79451 78432 95748 74358 6112 360584

TOTAL EXPENDITUREMean 17665 29025 42568 62273 110551 313882 60532Std. deviation 3612 3668 3887 7915 34371 70145 47159No.of households 32595 94730 93711 106953 86581 6112 420682

- 117 - Annex 1Page 71 of 136

TABLE No 6.1 LPG CONSUWPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month). BY END USESNATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 K >20-40 x >40-60 x >60-80 K >80-97.7 x >97.7-100 x

COOKINGMean 19.404 22.270 21.174 23.069 23.026 23.139 21.850Std. deviation 8.254 10.595 8.295 22.083 9.825 10.972 13.162Households 300476 388845 353388 358160 284692 29987 1715548Percentage 17.5X 22.7x 20.6x 20.9x 16.6X 1.7X 100.0m

WATER HEATINGMean 4.473 5.918 6.599 6.208 7.084 10.367 6.180Std. deviation 3.946 4.421 5.979 4.344 7.326 3.840 5.372HousehoLds 24846 43342 43164 35984 27499 2334 177169Percentage 14.0m 24.5s 24.4x 20.3x 15.5 1.3X 100.0K

LIGHTINGNean . . . .Std. deviationHouseholdsPercentage

OTHER USESMean 1.895 15.071 4.654 7.444 3.922 . 6.278Std. deviation 2.633 12.823 4.628 8.708 3.020 . 8.262Househotds 6705 5733 8225 9942 8166 38771Percentage 17.3K 14.8K 21.2K 25.6K 21.1K . 100.0K

TOTAL (EXCLUD .USINESS)Mon 19.816 23.152 22.0E8 23.780 23.823 23.946 22.606Std. deviation 8.574 11.371 9.160 22.255 10.426 10.609 13.611Nouweholds 300476 388845 353388 359957 284692 29987 1717344Percentage 17.5K 22.6x 20.6x 21.0X 16.6K 1.7X 100.0K

USE FOR BUSINESSMeon 24.000 6.668 32.570 67.398 95.225 . 51.049Std. deviation 5.897 21.234 55.954 14.882 . 51.297Households 1019 6109 2574 15052 2267 27021Percentage 3.8x 22.6x 9.5K 55.7x 8.4K . 100.0K

LPG (Kg)Mean 19.898 23.257 22.325 26.598 24.581 23.946 23.409Std. deviation 8.837 11.417 10.483 27.563 13.796 10.609 16.227Households 300476 388845 353388 359957 284692 29987 1717344Percentage 17.5K 22.6K 20.6K 21.0x 16.6x 1.7X 100.0o

- 118 - Annex 1Page 72 of 136

TAkLE No 6.2 LPG CONSUWPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/month). BY END USES NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEWD USES

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 K >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

MOWn 3.231 4.126 4.328 5.474 6.577 9.654 4.796Std. deviaton 1.751 2.035 2.014 7.241 3.945 7.399 4.290Nouseholda 300476 388845 353388 358160 284692 29987 1715548Percentage 17.5X 22.7X 20.6K 20.9X 16.6X 1.7X 100.0K

WATER NEATINGNeon .697 1.182 1.339 1.505 1.629 8.967 1.390Std. dvistion .551 .971 1.136 1.123 1.124 5.658 1.519Housholds 24846 43342 43164 35984 27499 2334 177169Percentage 14.0X 24.5X 24.4X 20.3X 15.5X 1.3K 100.0K

LICNTING

Std. deviationNouseholdrPercentag

OTNER UuESNen .305 3.475 .862 1.167 1.229 . 1.307*td. devlatfon .296 3.411 .749 1.110 1.075 . 1.825Nhusehotds 6705 5733 8225 9942 8166 38771Percenta 17.3X 14.8X 21.2X 25.6X 21.1K . 100.0X

TOTAL (EXCL3.UUSINESS)MGn 3.296 4.309 4.511 5.629 6.770 10.352 4.964Std. deviation 1.771 2.292 2.162 7.247 4.034 8.004 4.392Nouseholds 300476 388845 353388 359957 284692 29987 1717344Percentag 17.5X 22.6X 20.6K 21.0X 16.6K 1.7X 100.0X

USE FOR OUINESSean 2.667 1.097 5.343 34.450 18.486 . 21.599

Std. deviation .920 4.523 50.406 4.640 . 40.568NoIuholds 1019 6109 2574 15052 2267 27021Percentage 3.8K 22.6K 9.5K 55.7X 8.4K . 100.0X

LPG (Kg)Mean 3.305 4.327 4.550 7.070 6.917 10.352 5.304Std. deviation 1.781 2.294 2.333 14.462 4.316 8.004 7.313Nosholds 300476 388845 353388 359957 284692 29987 1717344Percentag 17.5X 22.6K 20.6K 21.0K 16.6X 1.7X 100.0K

- 119 - Annex 1Page 73 of 136

TABLE No 6.3 DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONSWliPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (GAL/MONTH) BY END USESNATIONAL

INCCME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 % >80-97.7 %

COOKINGMean 3.040 2.678 2.234 1.000 . 2.611Std. deviation 3.570 2.678 2.209 . 2.930Households 6996 5614 4596 1019 18225Percentage 38.4% 30.8% 25.2% 5.6% . 100.0X

WATER HEATINGMleanStd. deviationHouseholdsPercentage

LIGHTING1Mean 1.915 1.275 2.137 1.023 1.690 1.688Std. deviation 1.760 1.248 2.165 .708 1.297 1.654HousehoLds 133129 61600 37292 32264 15222 279507Percentage 47.6% 22.0% 13.3% 11.5% 5.4% 100.0%

OTHER USESMean 1.496 1.467 .790 1.235 3.512 1.588Std. deviation 1.983 3.182 .919 1.990 10.814 4.476Households 75097 62735 43033 27811 30522 239198Percentage 31.4% 26.2% 18.0% 11.6% 12.8% 100.0%

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Mean 2.340 1.878 1.843 1.267 3.873 2.139Std. deviation 2.267 2.838 1.943 1.516 10.163 3.693Househotds 166043 98793 67272 53939 34317 420364Percentage 39.5% 23.5% 16.0% 12.8% 8.2% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMeanStd. deviation.HouseholdsPercentage

KEROSENE (Gal)Mean 2.340 1.878 1.843 1.267 3.873 2.139Std. deviation 2.267 2.838 1.943 1.516 10.163 3.693Households 166043 98793 67272 53939 34317 420364Percentage 39.5% 23.5% 16.0% 12.8% 8.2% 100.0%

- 129 - Annex 1Page 74 of 136

TABLE No 6.4 DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONSU3PTION PER CAPITA (Galt/Mnth) BY END USES, NATIONAL

INCOME GROIPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 2 >20-40 >40-60 I >60-J 2 >8o-97.7 2

COOKINGMean .312 .675 .549 .125 . .473Std. deviation .269 .948 .560 . .644HoucehoLds 6996 5614 4596 1019 18225Percentage 38.4x 30.82 25.2x S.6" . 100.02

WATER HEATINGnow

Std. deviationHouseholdsPercentage . . .

LIGHTINGMean .297 .318 .508 .341 .709 .357Std. dviatiofn .239 .401 .572 .306 .568 .383Households 133129 61600 37292 32264 15222 279507Percentage 47.6X 22.02 13.32 11.52 5.42 100.02

OTHER USESMean .259 .211 .222 .237 .701 .294Std. deviation .442 .363 .360 .219 1.205 .576Householda 75097 62735 43033 27611 30522 239196Percentage 31.42 26.22 18.02 11.62 12.62 100.02

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Mean .368 .371 .461 .329 .936 .425Std. devietion, .1 .502 e.51 .279 9 1 s6ZHouseholds 166043 9793 67272 53939 34317 420364Percentage 39.52 23.52 16.02 12.86 8.22 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSMean . . .Std. deviationHouseholdsPercentage

KEROSENE (Gal)Mean .368 .371 .461 .329 .936 .425Std. deviation .381 .502 .541 .279 1.196 .562Households 166043 98793 67272 53939 34317 420364Percentage 39.52 23.52 16.0X 12.8X 8.22 100.02

-121- Annex 1Page 75 of 136

TASLE No 6.5

FIREWOOD CONSUWPTION PER HOUSENOLD (Kg/Month) BY END USESNATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X 40-60 X )60-80 X 80-97.7 X -97.7-100 X

COOKINGmean 326.527 287.74U 306.354 236.454 208.993 . 295.886Std. deviation 401.417 430.298 370.527 295.232 227.908 386.682Nousedolds 292280 182927 115722 71551 50939 713420Percentage 41.0X 25.6X 16.2X 10.0 7.12 100.0.

SPACE HEATINGMean 47.415 71.077 114.000 9.090 89.180 24.620 65.743Std. deviation 44.608 91.453 98.317 20.967 75.198houholds 6587 96W 2515 778 2334 1556 23650Percentoge 27.9X 41.8X 10.6X 3.3X 9.9X 6.6X 100.02

VATER hEATINGIean 46.148 60.367 74.433 49.567 26.066 . 55.105Std. deviation 62.609 80.084 89.924 71.261 15.989 . 74.869Households 25411 30096 19440 20582 6630 102161Percentag 24.9X 29.52 19.0X 20.1X 6.5X 100.0.

OTHER USESMen 65.296 75.000 71.593 61.110 10.326 . 63.285Std. deviation 83.044 60.454 118.461 80.865 9.950 . 88.310Nouseholdr 6914 7952 9445 4071 3336 31719Percentag 21.8X 25.1X 29.8X 12.8X 10.5S . 100.02

TOTAL tEXCLUD.BUSINESS)Man 323.473 287.872 313.190 236.303 204.647 24.620 294.420Std. deviation 405.721 421.173 377.576 301.924 224.004 20.987 386.880Households 301027 193671 120891 76997 54051 1556 748193Percentage 40.22 25.92 16.22 10.3X 7.22 .22 100.0O

USE FOR BUSINESSMen 151.224 272.071 53.750 543.029 . . 263.969Std. deviation 129.878 187.320 36.123 523.248 . . 368.605NouseboLds 7389 3076 6649 8107 25721Percente 30.72 12.02 25.92 31.5X . . 100.02

FIREWOOD (Kg)Men 322.812 290.664 304.529 280.598 204.647 24.620 296.124Std. deviation 403.025 422.450 373.321 385.417 224.004 20.967 392.471Nouseholds 305339 194690 125503 80531 54051 1556 761669Percentage 40.12 25.6X 16.52 10.62 7.12 .22 100.02

- 122 - Annex 1Page 76 of 136

TABLE No 6.6

FIREWOOD CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USESNATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

COOKINGMean 54.792 57.212 73.439 64.068 84.482 . 61.487Std. deviation 67.255 78.186 99.43.4 93.065 110.043 . 82.718Households 292280 182927 115722 71551 50939 713420Percentage 41.0x 25.6x 16.2x 10.0x 7.1% . 100.0o

SPACE HEATINGMean 14.701 17.129 16.286 2.272 21.569 8.055 15.716Std. deviation 15.521 23.230 25.021 7.147 19.287Households 6587 9880 2515 778 2334 1556 23650Percentage 27.9x 41.8% 10.6% 3.3% 9.9x 6.6% 100.0o

WATER HEATINGM4ean 6.548 10.166 15.995 8.734 8.104 . 9.953Std. deviation 6.997 13.230 18.883 9.322 4.141 . 12.672Households 25411 30098 19440 20582 6630 102161Percentage 24.92 29.5% 19.0% 20.12 6.5x . 100.0%

OTHER USESMean 9.295 15.651 10.892 11.631 1.472 . 10.841Std. deviation 11.894 15.683 14.589 16.446 .879 . 14.363Households 6914 7952 9445 4071 3336 31719Percentage 21.82 25.12 29.82 12.8X 10.5% . 100.0%

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Mean 54.288 57.134 74.061 62.509 81.634 8.055 60.945Std. deviation 67.253 76.394 100.526 92.043 107.634 7.147 82.210Households 301027 193671 120891 76997 54051 1556 748193Percentage 40.22 25.9x 16.2% 10.3% 7.22 .2% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 22.302 50.589 17.125 116.857 . . 54.149Std. deviation 19.849 31.018 18.343 106.368 . . 76.125Households 7889 3076 6649 8107 25721Percentage 30.72 12.0% 25.9% 31.5X . . 100.02

FIREWOOD (Kg)llean 54.098 57.634 72.247 71.530 81.634 8.055 61.695Std. deviation 66.806 76.536 99.164 104.649 107.634 7.147 83.527Households 305339 194690 125503 80531 54051 1556 761669Percentage 40.1% 25.6% 16.5% 10.62 7.12 .22 100.02

- 123 - Annex 1Page 77 of 136

TABLE No 6.7

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KWH/Month)NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 2 >20-40 > )40-60 >60-80 >80-97.7 > 97.7-100 O

ELECTRICIDAD (Kw-h)NOan 96.024 105.541 132.866 191.076 255.180 433.518 160.969Std. deviation 79.398 81.846 109.237 177.698 263.676 267.867 173.438Households 256251 393209 352002 352277 303021 31784 1688544Percentag 15.2X 23.3x 20.8x 20.92 17.92 1.9X 100.02

TABLE No 6.8

ELECTRICITY CONSUNPTION PER CAPITA (KWH/Nonth).NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 x >20-40 2 >40-60x >60-80 x >80-97.7 2 >97.7-1002

TOTALMOea 17.167 19.459 26.957 44.365 67.702 180.090 37.551Std. devlation 14.416 14.984 23.050 43.837 60.568 140.653 48.416Households 256251 393209 352002 352277 303021 31784 1688544Percentage 15.22 23.32 20.82 20.9x 17.92 1.92 100.02

- 124 - Annex 1Page 78 of 136

TASLE No 6.9

LPG CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month). BY END USESURBAN AREA

INCOME GROWPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 > >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 x >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

COOKINGMen 21.684 22.437 21.694 23.255 23.104 23.139 22.563Std. deviation 8.913 11.836 8.468 24.912 10.085 10.972 15.119NousIholdc 100625 208252 252080 270623 239155 29987 1100722Percentag 9.1X 18.9X 22.9X 24.6X 21.7X 2.7X 100.0O

WATER HEATINGNean 4.695 5.185 6.726 6.043 7.685 10.367 6.181Std. deviation 4.084 3.909 6.478 4.461 8.190 3.840 5.683Househotds 17299 30765 35617 33468 21189 2334 140673Percente 12.3X 21.9X 25.3x 23.8X 15.1X 1.71 100.0X

LIGHTINGW n

Std. deviationHousehotdsPercentage

OTHER USESNean 1.895 4.468 2.748 5.901 4.722 . 3.862Std. deviation 2.633 3.237 1.420 9.598 3.957 . 5.646Households 6705 3352 6946 7427 4371 28801Percentage 23.3X 11.6X 24.11 25.81 15.21 . 100.01

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSIMESS)Mean 22.618 23.275 22.720 24.005 23.871 23.946 23.416Std. deviation 9.463 12.126 9.524 25.043 10.805 10.609 15.503Houc holds 100625 208252 252080 272420 239155 29987 1102518Percentag 9.11 18.91 22.91 24.71 21.71 2.71 100.01

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 24.000 9.583 32.570 72.541 95.225 . 54.562Std. deviatfon 6.204 21.234 45.669 14.882 . u.526HoucshoLds 1019 3593 2574 8742 2267 18195Percentag 5.6x 19.71 14.1x 48.01 12.51 100.01

LPG (Kg)Noon 22.861 23.440 23.053 26.333 24.774 23.946 24.316Std. deviation 10.091 12.202 11.255 28.910 14.618 10.609 18.002HourehoLds 100625 208252 252080 272420 239155 29987 1102518Percente 9.1X 18.91 22.91 24.71 21.71 2.71 100.01

- 125 - Annex 1Page 79 of 136

TABLE No 6.10

LPG CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USESURBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 % >20-40 X >40-60 % >60-80 % >80-97.7 % >97.7-100 %

COOKINGMean 3.270 3.995 4.379 5.408 6.367 9.654 5.034Std. deviation 1.620 2.035 2.089 8.149 3.843 7.399 4.964Households 100625 208252 252080 270623 239155 29987 1100722Percentage 9.1% 18.9X 22.9% 24.6% 21.7% 2.7% 100.0%

WATER HEATINGMean .634 .875 1.376 1.408 1.682 8.967 1.355Std. deviation .471 .571 1.223 1.104 1.228 5.658 1.618Households 17299 30765 35617 33468 21189 2334 140673Percentage 12.3% 21.9% 25.3% 23.8% 15.1% 1.7% 100.0%

LIGHTINGMean . . . .

Std. deviation . . .HousehoLdsPercentage . . . .

OTHER USESMean .305 .617 .560 .885 1.072 . .669Std. deviation .296 .472 .281 1.155 .995 . .794Households 6705 3352 6946 7427 4371 28801Percentage 23.3% 11.6% 24.1% 25.8% 15.2% . 100.0%

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Mean 3.400 4.135 4.589 5.569 6.535 10.352 5.216Std. deviation 1.637 2.039 2.280 8.133 3.889 8.004 5.032Households 100625 208252 252080 272420 239155 29987 1102518Percentage 9.1% 18.9% 22.9% 24.7% 21.7% 2.7% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 2.667 1.572 5.343 17.813 18.486 . 12.077Std. deviation .943 4.523 16.026 4.640 . 13.536Households 1019 3593 2574 8742 2267 18195Percentage 5.6% 19.7% 14.1% 48.0% 12.5% . 100.0%

LPG (Kg)Mean 3.427 4.162 4.643 6.141 6.711 10.352 5.415Std. deviation 1.669 2.048 2.503 9.121 4.242 8.004 5.534Households 100625 208252 252080 272420 239155 29987 1102518Percentage 9.1% 18.9% 22.9% 24.7% 21.7% 2.7% 100.0%

- 126- Annex 1Page 80 of 136

TABLE No 6.11

DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONSIlJPTION PER NOUSEHOLD (GAL/MONTH) BY END USES13BAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 x >20-40x >40-60 K 60-80 K ).80-97.7K

COOKINGMean .250 4.000 3.250 1.000 . 2.911Std. deviation 2.944 2.751 . 2.825Households 778 3D56 2037 1019 6890Percentage 11.3x 44.4x 29.6x 14.8x . 100.0x

WATER HEATINGMeanStd. deviationHouseholdsPercentage

LIGHTINGen . .212 .614 .592 . .487

Std. deviation .205 .393 .649 . .43Households 3056 4074 3056 10186Percentage 30.0K 4D.DK 30.0x . 100.0K

OTHER USESMean 1.063 .995 .996 .792 1.026 .956Std. deviation .476 1.259 1.044 .498 .865 .970Households 6112 21928 16298 16298 7667 68302Percentage 8.9x 32.1K 23.9x 23.9x 11.2K lo0.0K

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Mean .971 1.388 1.186 .858 1.026 1.140Std. deviation .517 1.840 1.418 .690 .865 1.363Households 6890 24984 21391 18335 7667 79266Percentage 8.7K 31.5K 27.0x 23.1K 9.7K 100.0x

USE FOR BUSINESSMeanStd. deviationHowseholdsPercentage

KEROSENE (Gal)Mean .971 1.388 1.186 .858 1.026 1.140Std. deviation .517 1.840 1.418 .690 .865 1.363HousehoIds 6890 24984 21391 18335 7667 79266Percentage 8.7x 31.5K 27.0x 23.1K 9.7K 100.0K

- 127 - Annex 1Page 81 of 136

TABLE No 6.12

DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Gal/Month). BY END USESURBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 >80-97.7 X

COOKINGMean .031 1.079 .800 .125 . .737Std. deviation 1.129 .700 . .935Households 778 3056 2037 1019 6890Percentage 11.3X 44.4K 29.6X 14.8X 100.0O

WATER HEATINGMeanStd. deviationHouseholdsPercentage

LIGHTINGMean .045 .100 .115 . .088Std. deviation .039 .061 .132 . .089Households 3056 4074 3056 10186Percentage 30.0X 40.0K 30.0K . 100.0X

OTHER USESMean .120 .160 .279 .175 .233 .197Std. deviation .062 .157 .464 .120 .184 .264Households 6112 21928 16298 16298 7667 68302Percentage 8.9X 32.1K 23.9X 23.9X 11.2X 100.0O

TOTAL (EXCLUD BUSINESS)Mtean .110 .278 .308 .182 .233 .245Std. deviation .065 .516 .489 .151 .184 .402HousehoLds 6890 24984 21391 18335 7667 79266Percentage 8.7X 31.5K 27.0K 23.1K 9.7K 100.0K

USE FOR BUSINESSMeanStd. deviationHousehoLdsPercentage

KEROSENE (Gal)Mean .110 .278 .308 .182 .233 .245Std. deviation .065 .516 .489 .151 .184 .402HousehoIds 6890 24984 21391 18335 7667 79266Percentage 8.7X 31.5K 27.0K 23.1X 9.7K 100.0X

- 128 - Annex 1

Page 82 of 136TABLE No 6.13

FIREWOOD CONSIMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month) BY END USESURBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 > 320-40 >40-60 > )60-80X 280-97.7 , >97.7-100 X

COOKINGNean 116.618 52.027 146.295 196.228 50.149 . 111.238Std. deviation 265.193 69.808 352.805 366.820 47.619 . 268.596Households 19607 26327 24649 10835 5446 87064Percentage 22.8X 30.2X 28.3X 12.4X 6.3X 100.0O

SPACE HEATINGMean 24.065 18.976 . 9.090 89.180 24.620 39.175Std. deviation 21.342 10.153 . 98.317 20.987 61.498Households 1556 2334 778 2334 1556 8557Percentage 18.2X 27.3X . 9.1X 27.3X 18.22 100.02

WATER HEATINGMean 27.478 68.778 93.558 52.272 11.350 . 60.286Std. deviatien 38.668 108.987 106.749 90.852 2.251 . 94.493Households 9039 12447 9335 5446 1556 37822Percentage 23.9X 32.9X 24.7X 14.4X 4.1X . 100.0X

OTNER USESMean 7.602 28.415 26.294 130.550 5.000 . 37.765Std. deviation 5.858 19.341 36.404 96.481 . 61.052Households 1797 1556 4371 1556 778 10057Percentage 17.9X 15.5X 43.5X 15.5X 7.7X 100.0O

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Nean 105.575 78.613 160.987 160.988 58.753 24.620 116.238Std. deviation 239.444 108.658 372.472 309.421 67.951 20.987 262.175Households 24715 29439 28538 16281 8557 1556 109087Percentage 22.72 27.02 26.22 14.92 7.82 1.4X 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 196.075 24.082 53.750 453.679 . . 166.201Std. deviation 160.561 242.289 36.123 457.468 . . 249.001Households 2815 1797 6649 1797 13057Percentage 21.6X 13.82 50.92 13.8X . . 100.0O

FIREWOOD (Kg)Mean 119.241 90.617 149.372 198.623 58.753 24.620 126.349Std. deviation 240.087 166.721 347.221 451.658 67.951 20.987 293.778Households 26512 30458 33150 17299 8557 1556 117532Percentage 22.62 25.92 28.22 14.72 7.32 1.32 100.02

- 129- Annex IPage 83 of 136

TABLE No 6.14

FIREWOOD CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USES.URBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 K 20-40 >40-60 X >60-80 8 >80-97.7 > 97.7-100 X

COOKINMGMean 17.949 10.201 34.002 39.049 12.340 . 22.426Std. deviation 31.979 14.784 89.528 71.464 11.813 . 57.798Households 19807 26327 24649 10835 5446 87064Percentage 22.8X 30.2X 28.3X 12.4X 6.3X . 100.0X

SPACE HEATINGMean 5.799 4.224 . 2.272 21.569 8.055 9.760Std. deviation 5.553 2.635 . 25.021 7.147 15.567Households 1556 2334 778 2334 1556 8557Percentage 18.2X 27.3X . 9.1X 27.3X 18.2X 100.0K

WATER HEATINGMean 4.157 11.502 19.866 7.345 5.683 . 10.973Std. deviation 4.831 17.939 20.591 8.705 3.418 . 16.164Households 9039 12447 9335 5446 1556 37822Percentage 23.9X 32.9X 24.7X 14.4X 4.1X . 100.0X

OTHER USESMean .652 5.114 5.515 25.542 1.250 . 7.353Std. deviation .373 2.845 7.237 19.865 . 12.222Households 1797 1556 4371 1556 778 10057Percentage 17.9X 15.5X 43.5X 15.5X 7.7X . 100.0X

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Mean 16.317 14.591 36.711 30.995 14.882 8.055 23.147Std. deviation 29.137 19.708 93.551 60.237 18.273 7.147 57.020Households 24715 29439 28538 16281 8557 1556 109087Percentage 22.7X 27.0K 26.2X 14.9X 7.8X 1.4K 100.0X

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 18.968 43.067 17.125 113.420 . . 34.341Std. deviation 16.441 38.878 18.343 114.367 . . 57.525Households 2815 1797 6649 1797 13057Percentage 21.6K 13.8K 50.9X 13.8X . . 100.0X

FIREWOOD (Kg)Mean 17.225 16.644 35.039 40.948 14.882 8.055 25.299Std. deviation 28.632 28.688 87.184 103.U9 18.273 7.147 65.199Households 26512 30458 33150 17299 8557 1556 117532Percentage 22.6K 25.9X 28.2X 14.7X 7.3X 1.3K 100.0K

- 130 - Annex 1Page 84 of 136

TABLE No 6.15

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KWH/Month). URBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

ELECTRICIDAD (Kw-h)Mean 118.869 129.561 150.265 197.150 284.751 433.518 193.279Std. deviation 86.260 89.039 111.654 162.124 275.262 267.867 188.722HousehoIds 98599 212874 253339 276253 252453 31784 1125302Percentage 8.8X 18.9X 22.5X 24.5X 22.4X 2.8X 100.02

TABLE No 6.16

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (KWH/Month) URBAN AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES___ ___

0-20 2 >20-40 >40-60 2 >60-80 2 >8097.7 2 >97.7-100 2

TOTALMOean 18.744 23.610 30.193 46.212 74.230 180.090 45.990Std. deviation 14.440 16.632 23.948 46.325 62.889 140.653 55.456HousehoLds 98599 212874 253339 276253 252453 31784 1125302Percentage 8.82 18.92 22.5X 24.5X 22.42 2.82 100.02

- 131 - Annex 1Page 85 of 136

TABLE No 6.17

LPG CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month) BY END USES.RURAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X

COOKIHGMean 18.256 22.079 19.879 22.493 22.619 20.573Std. deviation 7.648 8.948 7.698 8.728 8.319 8.461Households 199651 180593 101308 87537 45537 614826Percentsge 32.5X 29.42 16.5X 14.2X 7.4X 100.02

WATER HEATINGMean 3.965 7.710 6.000 8.400 5.067 6.173Std. deviation 3.561 5.047 2.450 1.849 3.951Househotds 7546 12577 7546 2515 6310 36496Percentage 20.72 34.5X 20.72 6.92 17.3X 100.02

LIGHTINGMen . . .e

Std. deviation . . .HouseholdsPercentage . . .

OTHER USESMean . 30.000 15.000 12.000 3.000 13.258Std. deviation .000 10.382Households 2381 1279 2515 3795 9970Percentage . 23.9X 12.8X 25.22 38.12 100.02

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Nean 18.406 23.011 20.516 23.079 23.572 21.154Std. deviation 7.714 10.431 7.970 9.180 8.147 9.120Households 199851 180593 101308 87537 45537 614826Percentage 32.5X 29.42 16.52 14.22 7.42 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSNean . 2.505 . 60.272 . 43.807Std. deviation . 67.021 . 62.382Households 2515 6310 8826Percentage . 28.52 . 71.5X . 100.02

LPG (Kg)Mean 18.406 23.046 20.516 27.424 23.572 21.783Std. deviation 7.714 10.434 7.970 22.848 8.147 12.257Households 199851 180593 101308 87537 45537 614826Percentage 32.52 29.42 16.52 14.22 7.42 100.02

- 1132- Annex 1Page 86 of 136

TABLE No 6.18

LPG CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USES.RURAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 % >20-40 x >40-60 x >60-80x >80-97.7 x

COOKINGMean 3.212 4.277 4.200 5.678 7.684 4.370Std. deviation 1.813 2.025 1.807 3.027 4.277 2.640Households 199851 180593 101308 87537 45537 614826Percentage 32.5x 29.4x 16.5x 14.2X 7.4x 100.0x

WATER HEATINGMean .841 1.934 1.167 2.800 1.452 1.526Std. deviation .678 1.288 .531 .632 1.043Households 7546 12577 7546 2515 6310 36496Percentage 20.7x 34.5x 20.7X 6.9X 17.3X 100.0x

LIGHTINGMean . . .Std. deviation . . .HouseholdsPercentage . . . .

OTHER USESMean . 7.500 2.500 2.000 1.409 3.153Std. deviation 1.135 2.559Households 2381 1279 2515 3795 9970Percentage . 23.9% 12.8% 25.2% 38.1% 100.0%

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Mean 3.243 4.511 4.319 5.815 8.003 4.512Std. deviation 1.832 2.537 1.823 3.173 4.530 2.856Households 199851 180593 101308 87537 45537 614826Percentage 32.5% 29.4% 16.5% 14.2% 7.4% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean . .418 . 57.499 . 41.230Std. deviation . 69.214 . 63.946Households 2515 6310 8826Percentage . 28.5% . 71.5% . 100.0%

LPG (Kg)Mean 3.243 4.517 4.319 9.960 8.003 5.103Std. deviation 1.832 2.536 1.823 24.292 4.530 9.715Households 199851 180593 101308 87537 45537 614826Percentage 32.5% 29.4% 16.5% 14.2% 7.4% 100.0%

- 133 - Annex 1Page °7 of 136

TABLE No 6.19

DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONSLWPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (GAL/NONTH) BY END USES.RURAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X )40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X

COOKINGMean .347 .192 .349 . . .312Std. devistion .265 .142 .289 . . .257HousehoLds 6218 2559 2559 11336Percentage 54.9X 22.6X 22.6X . . 100.01

WATER HEATINGMean . . .Std. deviation . . .HouseholdsPercentage . . .

LIGHTIHGmeon .297 .332 .559 .365 .709 .368Std. deviation .239 .406 .586 .309 .568 .386Households 133129 58545 33218 29208 15222 269321Percentage 49.41 21.71 12.3X 10.81 5.71 100.01

OTHER USESMean .271 .239 .187 .325 .858 .332Std. deviation .459 .432 .272 .287 1.353 .660HouseholdB 68986 40807 26735 11513 22855 170096Percentage 40.41 23.9X 15.61 6.7X 13.41 100.01

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Mean .380 .402 .533 .404 1.141 .467Std. deviation .385 .494 .550 .299 1.286 .585HousehoLds 159153 73810 45881 35604 26649 341096Percentage 46.71 21.61 13.51 10.41 7.8X 100.01

USE FOR BUSINESSMean . . . .Std. deviation . . . .HouseholdsPercentage . . . .

KEROSENE (GaL)Mean .380 .402 .533 .404 1.141 .467Std. deviation .385 .494 .550 .299 1.286 .585Households 159153 73810 45881 35604 26649 341096Percentage 46.7X 21.6X 13.5X 10.4X 7.8X 100.01

- 134 - Annex 1Page 88 of 136

TABLE No 6.20

FIREWOOO CONSUNPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month) BY END USES.ELMAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 x 120-40 x >40-60 X )60-80 X 480-97.7 X

COOKINGNewn 341.786 327.377 349.673 243.633 228.007 321.552Std. deviation 405.341 452.276 363.250 279.939 233.46 393.550Ho0uehoLda 272473 156600 91074 60716 45494 626356Percentage 43.5x 25.0x 14.5X 9.7x 7.3X 100.0O

SPACE HEATINGNean 54.636 87.190 114.000 . . 80.807Std. deviation 47.369 99.093 . . 78.036lloucaihods 5031 7546 2515 15s93Percentage 33.3x 50.02 16.72 . . 100.02

WATER HEATINGMean 56.456 54.436 56.764 48.593 30.579 52.060Std. deviation 70.537 49.752 66.180 62.709 15.676 60.221HousehoLds 16372 17651 10105 15136 5074 64338Percentege 25.4x 27.4x 15.72 23.5x 7.92 100.02

OTHER USESMean 85.551 86.332 110.616 18.160 11.946 75.133Std. deviation 87.902 61.615 147.281 10.856 96.158HoucehoLds 5117 6396 5074 2515 2559 21661Percentage 23.62 29.52 23.42 11.62 11.82 100.02

TOTAL (EXCLUDBUSINESS)Mean 342.963 325.382 360.223 256.499 232.089 324.833Std. deviation 411.799 444.760 366.575 296.651 232.359 396.418Households 276311 164232 92353 60716 45494 639106Percentage 43.22 25.72 14.52 9.52 7.12 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 126.339 305.760 . 568.468 . 364.77Std. deviation 100.959 . 537.839 . 438.207Houceholds 5074 1279 6310 12663Percentage 40.12 10.12 . 49.82 . 100.0X

FIREWOOD (Kg)Mean 342.168 327.764 360.223 303.026 232.089 329.467Std. deviation 409.973 444.532 366.575 361.992 232.359 400.032HousehoLds 278827 164232 92353 63231 45494 64137Percentage 43.32 25.5x 14.32 9.8x 7.1X 100.02

-135- Annex 1

Page 89 of 136

TABLE No 6.21

FIREWOOD CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USES.RURAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 % >20-40 x >40-60 x >60-80x >80-97.7 %

COOKINGMean 57.470 65.115 84.112 68.533 93.117 66.917Std. deviation 68.351 81.670 99.293 95.727 113.334 84.186Households 272473 156600 91074 60716 45494 626356Percentage 43.5% 25.0% 14.5% 9.7% 7.3% 100.0%

SPACE HEATINGMean 17.454 21.120 16.286 . . 19.093Std. deviation 16.547 25.238 . . 20.346Households 5031 7546 2515 15093Percentage 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% . . 100.0%

WATER HEATINGMean 7.868 9.223 12.418 9.234 8.847 9.353Std. deviation 7.629 8.330 16.361 9.485 4.060 10.021Households 16372 17651 10105 15136 5074 64338Percentage 25.4% 27.4% 15.7% 23.5x 7.9% 100.0%

OTHER USESMean 12.330 18.213 15.523 3.027 1.540 12.460Std. deviation 12.476 16.439 17.457 .994 14.981Households 5117 6396 5074 2515 2559 21661Percentage 23.6% 29.5% 23.4% 11.6% 11.8% 100.0%

TOTAL (EXCLUD.BUSINESS)Mean 57.685 64.760 85.602 70.960 94.190 67.397Std. deviation 68.638 80.187 99.797 97.124 112.719 84.093Households 276311 164232 92353 60716 45494 639106Percentage 43.2% 25.7% 14.5% 9.5% 7.1% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 24.152 61.152 . 117.835 . 74.572Std. deviation 21.286 . 103.967 . 86.816Households 5074 1279 6310 12663Percentage 40.1% 10.1% . 49.8% . 100.0%

FIREWOOC (Kg)Mean 57.604 65.236 85.602 79.897 94.190 68.336Std. deviation 68.322 80.138 99.797 103.412 112.719 84.784HousehoIds 278827 164232 92353 63231 45494 644137Percentage 43.3% 25.5% 14.3% 9.8% 7.1% 100.0%

- 136- Annex 1Page 90 of 136

TARLE No 6.22

ELECTRICITY CONSLWPTION PER HOUSENOLD (KWH/Nonth).RAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 x >20-40 x >40-60 x >60-80 x ,80-97.7 x

ELECTRICITY (Kw-h)1e4n 84.9s7 7r7.186 88.191 169.005 107.550 96.417Std. deviation 71.7r4 61.342 88.255 224.025 110.427 113.000NousehoLds 157652 180335 9663 76024 5058 s63242Percentag 28.02 32.02 17.52 13.52 9.02 100.02

TABLE No 6.23

ELECTRICITY CONSLMPTION PER CAPITA (KWH/Month) RURAL AREA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 x ,20-40 2 >40-60 2 >60-80 2 ,s80-97.7

TOTALMea 16.181 14.558 18.650 37.654 35.108 20.691Std. deviation 14.314 10.894 18.085 32.389 31.036 21.370NHseholds 157652 180335 96663 76024 50568 563242Percentage 28.02 32.02 17.52 13.52 9.02 10o.ox

- 137 - Annex 1Page 91 of 136

TABLE No 6.24

LPG CONHUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Nonth) END USESSIERRA

INCOME GROJPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 2 340-60 X >60-80 X 480-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

COOKINMGmean 18.916 21.606 20.770 24.248 22.841 22.636 21.716Std. deviation 8.108 9.296 8.567 31.873 10.025 11.685 16.009No. of houeholds 146881 195113 167M27 154009 158546 24894 847170Percentage 17.3X 23.0X 19.8X 18.2X 18.7X 2.9X 100.02

WATER HEATINGMean 4.461 6.178 7.099 7.408 7.373 10.367 6.605Std. deviation 3.960 4.U45 6.507 4.434 7.754 3.840 5.668No. of househoLds 20771 38249 33996 22742 22146 2334 140239Porcentag 14.8X 27.32 24.2X 16.2X 15.82 1.7X 100.02

LIGHTINGMean . . . ...

Std. deviation . . . .No. of househoLdsPercentag . . . ..

OTHER USESMenn 2.406 3.800 2.550 12.217 2.872 . 5.012Std. deviation 3.017 3.686 1.874 10.398 1.624 . 6.819No. of households 466t 2334 3890 4849 4849 20590Percentage 22.7X 11.32 18.92 23.6X 23.6X . 100.0X

TOTAL CoxcL.business)Meon 19.623 22.863 22.268 25.597 23.958 23.608 22.910Std. dewiation 8.513 10.266 10.083 32.056 10.720 11.309 16.529No. of householdr 146881 195113 167M77 154787 158546 24894 847948Percentage 17.32 23.0X 19.82 18.3X 18.7X 2.92 100.02

USE FOR USINESSMean . 7.853 48.000 79.367 74.700 . 58.031Std. deviation . 6.864 12.004 59.503 . 55.606No. of households 4071 1556 9699 778 16104Percentag . 25.32 9.7X 60.22 4.8X . 100.0X

TOTAL (Kg.)Nean 19.623 23.026 22.714 30.570 24.325 23.608 24.012Std. deviation 8.513 10.357 12.481 38.780 11.654 11.309 19.583No. of households 146881 195113 167M77 154787 158546 24894 847948Percentge 17.32 23.02 19.8X 18.32 18.72 2.92 100.02

- 130 - Annex 1

Page 92 of 136

TABLE No 6.25

LPG CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USES.SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X 140-60 X v60-8O X )-0-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

COOKINGMean 3.349 4.279 4.368 6.077 6.454 8.738 5.000Std. deviation 1.614 2.179 1.933 10.668 3.604 7.110 5.346No. of households 146881 195113 167727 154009 158546 24894 847170Percentage 17.3X 23.0X 19.8x 18.2X 18.72 2.92 100.02

WATER HEATINGMtean .719 1.263 1.464 1.718 1.746 8.967 1.509Std. deviation .595 .989 1.226 1.059 1.161 5.658 1.631No. of households 20771 38249 33996 22742 22146 2334 140239Percentage 14.82 27.32 24.22 16.22 15.82 1.7X 100.02

LIGHTINGMeanStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

OTHER USESMean .373 .450 .469 1.822 .542 . .781Std. deviation .327 .478 .278 1.278 .266 . .896No. of households 4668 2334 3890 4849 4849 20590Percentage 22.72 11.3X 18.92 23.62 23.62 . 100.02

TOTAL (excL.business)Mean 3.463 4.532 4.675 6.356 6.715 9.579 5.264Std. deviation 1.639 2.369 2.189 10.660 3.617 7.950 5.446No. of households 146881 195113 167727 154787 158546 24894 847948Percentage 17.32 23.02 19.82 18.32 18.72 2.92 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 1.227 8.000 48.618 24.900 . 31.566Std. deviation 1.030 4.001 57.809 . 49.780No. of househoLds 4071 1556 9699 778 16104Percentage 25.3X 9.72 60.22 4.82 100.02

TOTAL (Kg)Mean 3.463 4.558 4.750 9.402 6.837 9.579 5.864Std. deviation 1.639 2.367 2.528 21.559 3.964 7.950 9.857No. of househoLds 146881 195113 167727 154787 158546 24894 847948Percentage 17.3X 23.02 19.82 18.32 18.72 2.92 100.02

- 139 - Annex 1Page 93 of 136

TABLE No 6.26

DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONSUJPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (GAL/MONTH) BY END USES.SIERtA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X '20-40 X >40-60X >60-80X >80-97.7 X

COOKINGMtean .250 . . . .250Std. deviationNo. of households 778 778Percentage 100.0X 100.0a

WATER HEATINGMeanStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

LIGHTINGMean 1.083 1.215 6.000 1.012 1.837 1.360Std. deviation .460 1.298 .614 1.357 1.277No. of households 30186 17608 2515 12577 7546 7013Percentage 42.9X 25.01 3.6X 17.9X 10.71 100.01

OTHER USESMean 1.667 1.532 .460 . 1.487 1.320Std. deviation .471 1.708 .389 . .801 1.109No. of households 75U 9102 7546 11618 35813Percentage 21.11 25.41 21.11 . 32.41 1M.=

TOTAL (excL.business)Mean 1.181 1.461 1.845 1.012 2.203 1.4UStd. deviation .530 1.467 2.423 .614 1.517 1.322No. of househotds 38510 24195 10062 12577 14133 99475Percentage 38.71 24.31 10.11 12.6X 14.21 100.01

USE FOR BUSINESSMeanStd. deviationNo. of househoLdsPercentage

TOTAL (Gal)Mean 1.181 1.461 1.845 1.012 2.203 1.440Std. deviation .530 1.467 2.423 .614 1.517 1.322No. of househoLds 38510 24195 10062 12577 14133 99478Percentage 38.71 24.31 10.11 12.6X 14.21 100.01

- 140 - Annex 1Page 94 of 136

TABLE No 6.27

DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (GaL/Month) BY END USES.SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 7 >20-40 > 40-60 % >60-80 % >80-97. 7X

COOKINGMean .031 . . . .031Std. deviationNo. of households 778 778Percentage 100.0X 100.0X

WATER HEATINGMeanStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

LIGHTINGMean .205 .477 1.000 .454 .835 .414Std. deviation .105 .652 .343 .737 .491No. of households 30186 17608 2515 12577 7546 70433Percentage 42.9X 25.0X 3.6X 17.9X 10.7X 100.0X

OTHER USESMean .201 .191 .109 . .487 .272Std. devistion .017 .202 .101 . .206 .223No. of households 7546 9102 7546 11618 35813Percentage 21.1X 25.4X 21.1X . 32.4X 100.0X

TOTAL (excL.business)Mean .201 .419 .331 .454 .846 .391Std. deviation .097 .573 .396 .343 .785 .496No. of households 38510 24195 10062 12577 14133 99478Percentage 38.7X 24.3X 10.1l 12.6X 14.27 100.07

USE FOR BUSINESSMean . . . .Std. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

TOTAL (Gal)Mean .201 .419 .331 .454 .846 .391Std. deviation .097 .573 .396 .343 .785 .496No. of househoLds 38510 24195 10062 12577 14133 99478Percentage 38.7X 24.3X 10.1X 12.6X 14.27 100.07

- 141 - Annex 1Page 95 of 136

TABLE No 6.28

FIREWOOD CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month) BY END USES. SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 % >80-97.7 % >97.7-100 %

COOKINGMean 307.905 275.086 268.763 246.390 218.725 . 276.913Std. deviation 455.484 435.238 341.921 321.402 252.486 . 404.065No. of households 146545 129948 75930 48027 38147 438598Percentage 33.4% 29.6% 17.3% 11.0% 8.7% . 100.0%

SPACE HEATINGMean 47.415 71.077 114.000 9.090 89.180 24.620 65.743Std. deviation 44.608 91.453 98.317 20.987 75.198No. of households 6587 9880 2515 778 2334 1556 23650Percentage 27.9% 41.8% 10.6% 3.3% 9.9% 6.6% 100.0%

WATER HEATINGMean 51.337 63.571 60.934 38.879 26.778 . 53.306Std. deviation 65.620 82.783 87.586 58.300 12.214 . 74.044No. of households 22094 27540 16882 18023 4071 88610Percentage 24.9% 31.1% 19.1% 20.3% 4.6% . 100.0%

OTHER USESMean .900 28.415 22.252 61.110 5.000 . 33.701Std. deviation 19.341 13.853 80.865 . 52.644No. of households 778 1556 4849 4071 778 12032Percentage 6.5% 12.9% 40.3% 33.8% 6.5% . 100.0%

TOTAL (exci.business)Mean 309.565 282.088 273.498 239.188 210.010 24.620 277.283Std. deviation 464.440 428.833 347.576 314.818 245.423 20.987 403.757No. of households 150435 135575 79820 53473 41259 1556 .462117Percentage 32.6% 29.3% 17.3% 11.6% 8.9% .3% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 281.620 525.250 36.370 733.372 . . 494.291Std. deviation 96.434 .030 504.233 . . 449.967No. of households 3293 778 1556 5809 11436Percentage 28.8% 6.8% 13.6% 50.8% . . 100.0%

TOTAL (Kg)Mean 308.966 285.102 268.964 304.530 210.010 24.620 284.973Std. deviation 459.673 431.696 345.766 424.628 245.423 20.987 414.151No. of househoLds 153729 135575 81376 55988 41259 1556 469482Percentage 32.7% 28.9% 17.3% 11.9% 8.8% .3% 100.0%

- 142 - Annex 1Page 96 of 136

TABLE No 6.29

FIREWOOD CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USES

SIERRA

INCONE GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 x >20-40 x >40-60 >60-80 x >80-97.7 x >97.7-100 2

COOKINGMean 56.753 55.378 60.456 72.667 85.468 . 61.227Std. deviation 83.779 79.784 83.688 106.055 120.547 . 89.562No. of househoLds 146545 129948 75930 48027 38147 438598Percentage 33.4x 29.6X 17.3X 11.0x 8.7x 100.0o

SPACE HEATINGMean 14.701 17.129 16.286 2.272 21.569 8.055 15.716Std. deviation 15.521 23.230 25.021 7.147 19.287No. of households 6587 9880 2515 778 2334 1556 23650Percentage 27.9x 41.8x 10.6X 3.3x 9.92 6.6x 100.02

UATER HEATINGMean 7.196 10.845 12.688 8.094 9.652 . 9.672Std. deviation 7.257 13.628 17.336 9.124 3.769 . 12.243No. of househotds 22094 27540 16882 18023 4071 88610Percentage 24.92 31.12 19.12 20.3X 4.6x . 100.02

OTHER USESMean .225 5.114 4.680 11.631 1.250 . 6.578Std. deviation 2.845 2.740 16.446 . 10.506No. of households 778 1556 4849 4071 778 12032Percentage 6.5x 12.92 40.32 33.82 6.52 100.02

TOTAL (excL.business)Mean 56.987 56.590 60.991 68.914 81.218 8.055 60.941Std. deviation 83.803 78.368 85.119 103.564 116.975 7.147 88.693No. of households 150435 135575 79820 53473 41259 1556 462117Percentage 32.6X 29.32 17.32 11.62 8.92 .32 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 45.576 87.542 6.236 153.217 . . 97.754Std. deviation .042 1.045 105.283 . . 95.516No. of households 3293 778 1556 5809 11436Percentage 28.82 6.82 13.62 50.8x . . 100.02

TOTAL (Kg)Mean 56.743 57.092 59.944 81.714 81.218 8.055 62.366Std. deviation 82.917 78.743 84.634 118.099 116.975 7.147 90.853No. of households 153729 135575 81376 55988 41259 1556 469482Percentage 32.72 28.92 17.32 11.92 8.82 .32 100.02

- 143 - Annex 1Page 97 of 136

TABLE No 6.30

ELECTRICITY CONStJMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KWH/Month). SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

ELECTRICITY (Kw-h)Mean 98.774 103.014 130.409 197.023 262.992 464.206 165.835Std. deviation 74.118 79.364 114.890 166.524 310.369 263.184 192.339No. of households 140294 210206 171980 155564 166689 25672 870406Percentage 16.1X 24.2X 19.8X 17.9X 19.2X 2.9X 100.0X

TABLE No 6.31

ELECTRICITY CONSUIMPTION PER CAPITA (KWH/Month). SIERRA

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 2 >20-40 2 >40-60 2 >60-80 2 >80-97.7 2 >97.7-100 X

TOTALMean 18.409 19.836 27.413 50.293 67.845 190.600 40.777Std. deviation 14.110 14.602 24.127 55.201 65.309 151.723 57.266No. of households 140294 210206 171980 155564 166689 25672 870406Percentage 16.1X 24.2X 19.82 17.9X 19.2X 2.92 100.02

- 144 - Annex 1Page 98 of 136

TABLE No 6.32

LPG CONSIWPTIOH PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month) BY END USES.COAST

INCONE GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 K 20-40 K 4O-60x % 36o80 K >8O-97.7 K >97.7-10O0

COOKINGNeon 20.412 23.039 21.546 22.190 23.296 25.600 22.184Std. deviation 8.268 11.958 8.036 9.331 9.596 5.852 9.671No. of housoholds 110771 181884 180485 197364 123323 5093 799119Percentagp 13.9x 22.8X 22.6X 24.7X 15.4X .6x 100.0K

WATER NEATINGNeOn 4.536 3.965 4.744 4.146 5.890 . 4.566Std. deviation 3.876 3.698 2.640 3.286 5.022 . 3.629No. of house hold 4074 5093 9167 13242 5354 36930Percentage 11.0X 13.8x 24.8K 35.9X 14.5X . 100.0x

LIOHTINCMan Std. deviationHo. of householdePe rentae

OTNER USESMean m 6.000 6.541 2.900 5.457 . 4.355Std. deviation .025 5.474 1.664 3.825 . 4.038No. of houseehold 2037 1019 4335 5093 3316 15800Percentage 12.9x 6.4x 27.4K 32.2X 21.0X . 100.0x

TOTAL (exct.bueiners)Men 20.593 23.183 21.944 22.427 23.696 25.600 22.452Std. deviation 8.623 11.948 8.251 9.444 10.085 5.852 9.854Ho. of hous boldt 110771 181884 180485 196583 123323 5093 800137Pere ntae 13.8X 22.7X 22.6K 24.8x 15.4x 100.0K

USE FOR tUSINESSMean 24.000 4.300 9.000 45.714 105.000 . 37.721Std. deviatfon 1.300 40.731 . 40.512No. of househoLds 1019 2037 1019 5354 1019 10447Prce ntag 9.8x 19.5K 9.8X 51.2X 9.8x . 100.0K

TOTAL (Kg)Mean 20.813 23.231 21.995 23.659 24.566 25.600 22.945Std. deviation 9.295 11.961 8.272 13.419 15.132 5.852 11.897No. of houLehoLde 110771 181884 180485 19583 123323 5093 800137Percentag 13.8x 22.7x 22.6x 24.8x 15.4x .6K 100.0x

- 145 - Annex 1Page 99 of 136

TABLE No 6.33

LPG CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USES.COAST

INCONE GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X ).20-40 X )40-60 X 60-80 X 80-97.7 X )97.7-100 X

COOKINMGMean 3.072 3.878 4.257 5.005 6.674 14.133 4.627Std. deviation 1.862 1.785 2.067 2.378 4.310 7.149 2.918No. of householdB 110771 181884 180485 19756 123323 5093 799119Percentage 13.94 22.81 22.6X 24.7X 15.4X .6X 100.0X

WATER HEATINGMean W83 .578 .875 1.139 1.147 . .936Std. deviation .182 .525 .474 1.135 .793 . .839No. of househotd. 4074 5093 9167 13242 5354 36930Percentage 11.01 13.8X 24.8X 35.91 14.5X 100.01

LIGHTINGMean .Std. deviationNo. of househotdsPercentage .

OTHER USESMean .150 1.000 1.214 .543 2.232 . 1.061Std. deviation .100 .856 .232 1.024 . .963No. of householdr 2037 1019 4335 5093 3316 15800Percentage 12.9X 6.4X 27.41 32.21 21.01 . 100.01

TOTAL (exct.businasa)Mean 3.096 3.900 4.331 5.069 6.784 14.133 4.686Std. deviation 1.876 1.779 2.114 2.392 4.489 7.149 2.978No. of househotds 110771 18184 180485 1953 123323 S093 800137Percentage 13.81 22.71 22.61 24.81 15.4X .6X 100.01

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 2.667 .836 1.286 8.784 15.000 . 6.513Std. deviation .564 8.211 . 7.394No. of households 1019 2037 1019 5354 1019 10447Percentage 9.81 19.5X 9.81 51.21 9.8X 100.0O

TOTAL (Kg)M4ean 3.121 3.909 4.338 5.306 6.908 14.133 4.771Std. deviation 1.905 1.788 2.112 3.033 4.680 7.149 3.1U4No. of households 110771 18188 180485 196583 123323 S5 800137Percentage 13.8X 22.71 22.61 24.8X 15.41 .6X 100.01

- 146 - Annex 1Page 100 of 136

TABLE No 6.34

DO"ESTIC KEROSENE CONSLMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (GAL/MONTH) BY END USES.COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X

COOKINGMean .529 2.678 2.234 1.000 . 1.882Std. deviation .299 2.678 2.209 . 2.231No. of households 3838 5614 4596 1019 15066Percentage 25.5X 37.3X 30.5X 6.8X . 100.01

WATER HEATINGMean . . .Std. deviation . .No. of householdsPercentage . . .

LIGHTINGMean 1.723 1.298 1.858 1.030 1.546 1.565Std. deviation 1.628 1.226 1.967 .762 1.219 1.552No. of househotds 76756 43992 34777 19686 7676 182886Percentage 42.0X 24.1X 19.0X 10.81 4.2X 100.02

OTHER USESMean .921 1.456 .860 1.235 4.756 1.498Std. deviation 1.660 3.369 .982 1.990 13.577 4.970No. of households 50886 53633 35486 27811 18904 186720Percentage 27.31 28.71 19.01 14.91 10.11 100.02

TOTAL (excl.business)Mean 1.973 2.014 1.843 1.345 5.042 2.084Std. deviation 2.081 3.145 1.846 1.690 13.064 4.228No. of households 91822 74598 57210 41361 20183 285175Percentage 32.2X 26.22 20.11 14.51 7.11 100.01

USE FOR BUSINESSmean . . .

Std. deviation . . .No. of househoLdsPercentage . . . .

TOTAL (Gal)Mean 1.973 2.014 1.843 1.345 5.042 2.084Std. deviation 2.081 3.145 1.846 1.690 13.064 4.228No. of households 91822 74598 57210 41361 20183 285175Percentage 32.2X 26.21 20.12 14.51 7.11 100.02

- 147 - Annex 1Page 101 of 136

TABLE No 6.35

DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONS4JMPTIOW PER CAPITA (GaL/honth) BY END USES.COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 X >80-97.7 %

COOKINGMean .149 .675 .549 .125 . .465Std. deviation .105 .948 .560 . .696No. of households 3838 5614 4596 1019 15066Percentage 25.5% 37.3% 30.5% 6.8% . 100.0%

WATER HEATINGMean . . .Std. deviation . . .No. of househoLdsPercentage . . .

LIGHTINGMean .272 .254 .473 .269 .585 .319Std. deviation .233 .202 .576 .255 .272 .340No. of households 76756 43992 34777 19686 7676 182886Percentage 42.0% 24.1% 19.0% 10.8% 4.2% 100.0%

OTHER USESMean .148 .214 .246 .237 .833 .268Std. deviation .323 .383 .389 .219 1.508 .611No. of households 50886 53633 35486 27811 18904 186720Percentage 27.3% 28.7% 19.0% 14.9% 10.1% 100.0%

TOTAL (excL.business)Mean .316 .355 .484 .291 1.002 .405Std. deviation .359 .476 .560 .245 1.413 .588No. of households 91822 74598 57210 41361 20183 285175Percentage 32.2% 26.2% 20.1% 14.5% 7.1% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean . . .Std. deviation . . .No. of householdsPercentage . . . .

TOTAL (Gal)Mean .316 .355 .484 .291 1.002 .405Std. deviation .359 .476 .560 .245 1.413 .588No. of households 91822 74598 57210 41361 20183 285175Percentage 32.2% 26.2% 20.1% 14.5% 7.1% 100.0%

-148- Annex 1Page 102 of 136

TABLE No 6.36

FIREWOOD CONS1MPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month) BY END USES.CCOAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 X >80-97.7 %

COOKINGNean 313.458 335.208 384.022 216.169 179.974 312.750Std. deviation 361.712 422.101 413.184 231.530 124.941 369.354No. of households 107173 50128 38851 23524 12793 232469Percentage 46.1% 21.6% 16.7% 10.1% 5.5% 100.0%

SPACE HEATINGMean . . .Std. deviation . . .No. of househotdsPercentage . . .

WATER HEATINGNean 11.578 25.880 163.500 124.850 24.934 66.872Std. deviation 7.071 19.524 41.108 102.170 20.570 79.050No. of househotds 3316 2559 2559 2559 2559 13551Percentage 24.5% 18.9% 18.9% 18.9% 18.9% 100.0%

OTHER USESMean 73.460 86.332 123.656 . 11.946 81.366Std. deviation 84.725 61.615 152.842 . 10.856 100.049No. of households 6136 6396 4596 2559 19686Percentage 31.2% 32.5% 23.3% . 13.0% 100.0%

TOTAL (exct.business)Mean 304.236 315.354 396.365 229.748 187.350 308.601Std. deviation 358.566 407.807 422.099 270.229 131.754 369.796No. of househoLds 112030 55245 40130 23524 12793 243721Percentage 46.0% 22.7% 16.5% 9.7% 5.2% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 57.778 186.358 59.060 61.850 . 79.574Std. deviation 37.070 133.840 39.788 7.006 . 77.992No. of househotds 4596 2298 5093 2298 14284Percentage 32.2% 16.1% 35.7% 16.1% . 100.0%

TOTAL (Kg)Mean 303.843 317.256 375.284 226.003 187.350 305.601Std. deviation 357.018 405.294 414.162 267.965 131.754 366.702No. of househotds 113048 56263 43186 24543 12793 249833Percentage 45.2% 22.5% 17.3% 9.8% 5.1% 100.0%

- 149 - Annex 1Page 103 of 136

TABLE No 6.37

FIREWOOD CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USES.COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 8 >20-40 8 >40-60 8 >60-80 8 80-97.7 X

COOKINGmean 48.569 65.025 99.812 46.511 81.540 62.288Std. deviation 48.303 74.646 121.170 54.047 69.826 75.259No. of househoLds 107173 50128 38851 23524 12793 232469Percentage 46.1X 21.6X 16.7X 10.1X 5.51 100.01

SPACE HEATINGMeanStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

WATER HEATINGMean 2.231 2.859 37.815 13.242 5.642 11.791Std. deviation 1.683 1.269 13.338 9.460 3.459 15.053No. of households 3316 2559 2559 2559 2559 13551Percentage 24.51 18.91 18.9X 18.91 18.91 100.0O

OTHER USESMean 10.445 18.213 17.446 . 1.540 13.446Std. deviation 12.151 16.439 18.598 . .994 15.717No. of householdB 6136 6396 4596 2559 19686Percentage 31.21 32.5X 23.31 . 13.01 100.0O

TOTAL (excL.business)Mean 47.102 61.243 101.039 47.951 82.977 61.154Std. deviation 48.089 72.256 122.104 55.174 69.402 75.116No. of househoLds 112030 55245 40130 23524 12793 243721Percentage 46.01 22.7X 16.5X 9.71 5.21 100.0O

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 5.623 38.078 20.452 24.941 . 19.238Std. deviation 3.142 25.864 19.790 10.211 . 19.739No. of househoLds 4596 2298 5093 2298 14284Percentage 32.2X 16.11 35.7X 16.1X . 100.0X

TOTAL (Kg)Mean 46.906 61.689 96.302 48.296 82.977 60.758Std. deviation 47.924 71.854 119.032 57.799 69.402 74.645No. of households 113048 56263 43186 24543 12793 249833Percentage 45.21 22.5X 17.3X 9.81 5.11 100.01

- 150 - Annex 1Page 104 of 136

TAKE Nl 6.36

ELECTRICITY CONITION PER HOUSEHO (KW/Nth) BY END USESCOAST

INCOCE GROPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

0-20 X >20-40 X |40-60 X |60-80 X >80-97.7 X '97.7-100 X

ELECTRICITY (Ku-h)Nh1 94.303 108.769 133.833 183.651 247.039 304.608 155.6696td. deviation 85.938 84.133 99.506 179.78m 192.235 248.264 149.287gO. of hoeLeh@Ld. 1069 171626 174846 190125 133509 6112 783150Percntae 13.7X 21.9X 22.3X 24.3X 17.0X .81 100.01

TAKE No 6.39

ELECTRICITY CODNUTION PER CAPITA (KWNH th). COAST

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTAL

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-1OO X

TOTALNMen 14.588 18.408 25.911 38.857 67.537 135.941 33.8194td. dweiation 13.973 14.452 20.403 28.985 54.291 61.448 36.044No. of houealtde 106933 171626 174846 190125 133509 6112 783150Prerentae 13.71 21.9X 22.3X 24.3X 17.0X .8X 100.0X

-131- Annex 1Page 105 of 136

TABLE No 6.40

LPG CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month) BY END USESORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 > 20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X

COOKINGMean 18.471 21.418 21.273 21.857 21.667 19.637Std. deviation 8.450 6.975 7.630 9.690 7.762 8.392No. of househoLds 42825 11848 5176 6588 2823 69259Percentage 61.8X 17.1X 7.5X 9.5X 4.1X 100.0X

WATER HEATINGM4eanStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage . . .

LIGHTINGMeanStd. deviationNo. of househoLdsPercentage

OTHER USESMean 30.000 . . . 30.000Std. deviationNo. of households 2381 2381Percentage 100.0 100.01

TOTAL (excL.business)Mean 18.471 27.447 21.273 21.857 21.667 20.668Std. deviation 8.450 17.223 7.630 9.690 7.762 11.030No. of hosehoLds 42825 11848 5176 6588 2823 69259Percentage 61.81 17.11 7.51 9.51 4.11 100.01

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 108.000 108.000Std. deviationNo. of households 471 471Percentage 100.01 100.01

TOTAL (Kg)Mean 18.471 27.447 21.273 21.857 39.667 21.402Std. deviation 8.450 17.223 7.630 9.690 36.506 13.699No. of households 42825 11848 5176 6588 2823 69259Percentage 61.8X 17.1X 7.5X 9.5X 4.11 100.01

- 152 - Annex 1Page 106 of 136

TABLE No 6.41

LPG CONSLMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) mY END USES.ORIEhTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 x >20-40 A 40-60 2 >60-8O 2 )80-97.7 X

COOKINGMean 3.239 5.417 5.486 5.446 9.286 4.236Std. deviation 1.868 2.406 2.269 2.323 4.456 2.646No. of households 42825 11848 5176 6588 2823 69259Percentage 61.82 17.12 7.52 9.5X 4.12 100.02

WATER HEATINGn . .ow

Std. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

LIGHTINGMeanStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

OTHER USESNM 7.500 . . . 7.5tStd. deviationNo. of householdc 2381 2381Percentage 100.0 1000X

TOTAL CexcL.business)Mean 3.239 6.924 5.486 5.44 9.286 4.494Std. deviation 1.868 4.594 2.269 2.323 4.456 3.249No. of households 42825 11848 5176 65U 2823 69259Percentage 61.8X 17.12 7.52 9.52 4.12 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 15.429 15.429Std. deviationNo. of households 471 471Percentage 100.0X 100.0X

TOTAL (Kg)Mean 3.239 6.924 5.486 5.44 11.857 4.599Std. deviation 1.868 4.594 2.269 2.323 3.738 3.402No. of households 42825 11848 5176 6588 2823 69259Percentage 61.82 17.12 7.52 9.52 4.12 100.02

- 153 - Annc IPage 107 of 136

TABLE No 6.42

DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (GAL/MOHNH) BY END USES.

ORIENTE

PERCENTILESEND USES TOTAL

0-20 X

COOKINGn 8.000 8.000Std. deviationNo. of household. 2381 2381Percentap 1OO.OX lOO.OX

IATER HEATINGNOaStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentoge

LIGHTINGMen 3.436 3.436Std. daviation 2.127 2.127No. of hous hold. 26188 26188Perentag 1oo.0m 100.ox

OTHER USESNOn 3.171 3.171Std. davietion 2.319 2.319No. of housaholdr 16665 16665Percente 1OO.OX 100.0X

TOTAL (exct.busIness)Men 4.533 4.533Std. deviation 2.418 2.418No. of households 35711 35711Percentag 100.OX 100.0X

USE FOR UUSINESSNMWStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentap

TOTAL (CGe)Mean 4.533 4.533Std. deviation 2.418 2.418No. of households 35711 35711Percentag 100.OX 100.0O

- 154 - Annex 1Page 108 of 136

TABLE No 6.43 DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONSLJIPTION PER CAPITA (Gal/Month).BY END USES. ORIENTE

PERCENTILESEND USES TOTAL

0-20 X

COOKINGMean .667 .667Std. deviationNo. of households 2381 2381Percentage 100.0X 100.0X

WATER HEATINGMeanStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

LIGHTINGMean .475 .475Std. deviation .274 .274No. of households 26188 26188Percentage 100.0X 100.0X

OTHER USESMean .624 .624Std. deviation .624 .624No. of households 16665 16665Percentage 100.0X 100.0X

TOTAL (excl.business)Mean .684 .684Std. deviation .443 .443No. of households 35711 35711Percentage 100.02 100.0X

USE FOR BUSINESSMeanStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage .

TOTAL (Gal)Mean .684 .684Std. deviation .443 .443No. of households 35711 35711Percentage 100.02 100.02

- 155 - Annex 1Page 109 of 136

TABLE No 6.4

FIREWOD CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month) BY END USES.ORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X ,20-40 X p40-60 X

COOKINMGMean 433.616 30.437 132.900 399.793Std. deviation 236. m 8.465 92.149 251.026No. of households 38562 2851 941 42354Percentage 91.0X 6.7X 2.2X 100.0X

SPACE HEATINGMea nStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

WATER HEATINGMa nStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

OTHER USESeo nStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

TOTAL (excl.business)Noon 433.616 30.437 132.900 399.793Std. deviation 236.705 8.465 92.149 251.026No. of households 38562 2851 941 42354Percentage 91.0X 6.7% 2.2K 100.0X

USE FOR BUSINESSMea nStd. deviationNo. of househoLdBPercentage

TOTAL (Kg)Mean 433.616 30.437 132.900 399.793Std. deviation 236.705 8.465 92.149 251.026No. of households 38562 2851 941 42354Percentage 91.0X 6.7X 2.2K 100.0K

-156- Annex 1Page 110 of 136

TABLE 1o 6.45

FIREWOOD CONSUJPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USESORIENTE

INCWIE GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 x >20-40 x >40-60 x

COOKINGMen 64.636 3.408 32.205 59.793Std. deviation 30.113 .882 24.058 33.027No. of households 38562 2851 941 42354Percentage 91.0X 6.7x 2.22 100.02

SPACE HEATINGM"nStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentag

UATER HEATING

Std. deviationNo. of houeholdsPorcentge

OTNER USESMeanStd. deviationNo. of hou shold.Percentag

TOTAL (excl.buslness)Men 64.636 3.408 32.205 59.793Std. deviatfon 30.113 .882 24.058 33.027No. of households 38562 2851 941 42354Percentage 91.0X 6.7x 2.2x 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSNeonttd. deviationno. of householdsPercentage .

TOTAL (Kg)Mean 64.636 3.408 32.205 59.793Std. deviation 30.113 .882 24.058 33.027No. of househoLds 38562 2851 941 42354Percentage 91.02 6.72 2.22 100.0X

- 157 - Annex 1Page 111 of 136

TABLE No 6.46

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KWH/Month) . ORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X

ELECTRICITY (Kw-h)Mean 130.459 103.507 181.836 264.940 178.910 158.525Std. deviation 69.773 89.949 189.294 305.031 121.336 176.985No. of households 9024 11377 5176 6588 2823 34988Percentage 25.8X 32.5X 14.8X 18.8X 8.1X 100.0X

TABLE No 6.47

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (KWH/Month). ORIENTE

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 K >20-40 K >40-60 K >60-80 K >80-97.7 K

TOTALMean 28.438 28.329 47.167 63.345 67.030 40.860Std. deviation 16.229 23.918 47.694 67.015 50.277 43.439No. of households 9024 11377 5176 6588 2823 34988Percentage 25.8X 32.5X 14.8X 18.8X 8.1K 100.0X

158 - Annex 1TABLE No 6.48 Page 112 of 136

LPG CONStNPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month). BY END USES QUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 X 480-97.7 x a97.7-100 X

COOKINGMean 21.816 19.327 20.960 24.369 21.334 20.513 21.632Std. deviation 8.826 8.050 9.542 42.280 10.141 10.887 22.222No. of househoLds 31896 62235 61457 4018 95687 20226 355519Percentage 9.0% 17.5% 17.3% 23.6% 26.9% 5.7% 100.0%

WATER HEATINGMean 4.576 5.457 9.614 6.876 8.905 10.367 7.256Std. deviation 4.385 4.447 8.121 5.047 10.330 3.840 6.964No. of households 11669 16337 17115 16337 11669 2334 75460Percentage 15.5% 21.6% 22.7% 21.6% 15.5% 3.1% 100.0%

LIGHTINGMeanStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

OTHER USESMean 2.450 1.200 2.813 12.450 1.100 . 4.090Std. deviation 3.303 .300 2.011 14.987 .400 . 7.941No. of households 3890 1556 3112 2334 1556 1247Percentage 31.2% 12.5% 25.0% 18.7% 12.5% . 100.0%

TOTAL (EXCL.BUSINESS)Mean 23.789 20.789 23.780 25.812 22.438 21.710 23.264Std. deviation 9.324 8.945 12.671 42.371 11.482 10.616 22.837No. of househotds 31896 62235 61457 84795 95687 20226 356297Percentage 9.0% 17.5% 17.2% 23.8% 26.9% 5.7% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 15.000 48.000 93.000 74.700 . 66.386Std. deviation 12.004 48.939 . 43.066No. of households 778 1556 2334 778 5446Percentage 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% . 100.0%

LPG (Kg)Mean 23.789 20.977 24.995 28.372 23.045 21.710 24.279Std. deviation 9.324 8.979 17.424 45.609 12.967 10.616 25.053No. of households 31896 62235 61457 84795 95687 20226 356297Percentage 9.0% 17.5% 17.2% 23.8% 26.9% 5.7% 100.0%

- 159 - Annex 1TABLE No 6.49 Page 113 of 136

LPG CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month) BY END USES. QUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 % >20-40 % >40-60 % >60-80 % >80-97.7 % >97.7-100 %

COOKINGMean 3.680 3.931 4.570 6.086 5.857 8.203 5.290Std. deviation 1.785 1.741 2.205 14.186 3.339 7.185 7.518No. of households 31896 62235 61457 84018 95687 20226 355519Percentage 9.0% 17.5% 17.3% 23.6% 26.9% 5.7% 100.0%

WATER HEATINGMean .652 .976 1.928 1.517 1.874 8.967 1.645Std. deviation .563 .640 1.532 1.109 1.472 5.658 2.049No. of households 11669 16337 17115 16337 11669 2334 75460Percentage 15.5% 21.6% 22.7% 21.6% 15.5% 3.1% 100.0%

LIGHTINGMean . . . .Std. deviation . . . .Mo. of householdsPercentage . . . .

OTHER USESMean .338 .113 .524 1.629 .220 . .584Std. deviation .347 .013 .285 1.823 .080 . .975No. of households 3890 1556 3112 2334 1556 12447Percentage 31.2% 12.5% 25.0% 18.7% 12.5% . 100.0%

TOTAL (EXCL.BUSINESS)Mtean 3.960 4.191 5.134 6.368 6.089 9.237 5.647Std. deviation 1.736 1.734 2.691 14.113 3.453 8.252 7.622No. of househoLds 31896 62235 61457 84795 95687 20226 356297Percentage 9.0% 17.5% 17.2% 23.8% 26.9% 5.7% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean . 2.500 8.000 25.050 24.900 . 16.936Std. deviation . 4.001 20.712 . 16.681No. of households 778 1556 2334 778 5446Percentage . 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% . 100.0%

LPG (Kg)Hean 3.960 4.222 5.336 7.057 6.292 9.237 5.906Std. deviation 1.736 1.726 3.377 15.031 4.065 8.252 8.167Mo. of households 31896 62235 61457 84795 95687 20226 356297Percentage 9.0% 17.5% 17.2% 23.8% 26.9% 5.7% 100.0%

- 160 - Annex 1

TABLE No 6.50 Page 114 of 136DOMESTIC KEROSENE COHUHIPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (GAL/MONTH), BY END USES

QUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X 20-40 X >0-97.7 X

COOKINMGMean .250 . . .250Std. deviftionNo. of householdc 778 778Percentoge 100.0X 100.02

WATER HEATINGn .W

Std. deviationNo. of householdcPercentage

LIGHTINGMeanStd. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

OTHER USESMan . 1.625 1.000 1.312Std. deviation 1.375 .000 1.021No. of housholde 1556 1556 3112Percenta9e . 50.02 50.02 100.02

TOTAL (EXCL.EWSINESS)e n .250 1.625 1.000 1.100

Std. deviation 1.375 .000 1.008No. of households 778 1556 1556 3890Percentage 20.02 40.02 40.02 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSn .OW

Std. deviationNo. of householdsPercentage

KEROSENE (Gal)e n .250 1.625 1.000 1.100Std. deviatIon 1.375 .000 1.008No. of households 778 1556 1556 3890Percentage 20.02 40.02 40.02 100.02

- 161 - Annex 1

TABLE No 6.51 Page 115 of 136

DOMESTIC KEROSENE CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (GaL/Month) BY END USES. WUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 % >20-40 % 480-97.7 %

COOKINGMean .031 . . .031Std. deviationNo. of households 778 778Percentage 100.0% . 100.0%

UATER HEATINGMean .

Std. deviation .No. of househoLdsPercentage

LIGHTINGMean .Std. deviation .No. of householdsPercentage

OTHER USESMean . .275 .200 .237Std. deviation . .225 .000 .163No. of households 1556 1556 3112Percentage . 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

TOTAL (EXCL.BUSINESS)Mean .031 .275 .200 .196Std. deviation .225 .000 .168No. of households 778 1556 1556 3890Percentage 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean . .Std. deviation . .No. of householdsPercentage

KEROSENE (Gal)Mean .031 .275 .200 .196Std. deviation .225 .000 .168No. of househoLds 778 1556 1556 3890Percentage 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 100.0%

- 162 - Annex 1

TABLE No 6.52 Page 116 of 136

FIREWOOD CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month) BY END USES. QUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

COOKINGMean 55.077 50.590 394.366 494.470 36.400 . 156.522Std. deviation 74.232 72.014 668.684 484.626 . 362.660No. of households 8557 15559 5446 3890 778 34229Percentage 25.0X 45.5% 15.9X 11.4X 2.3% . 100.0%

SPACE HEATINGM4ean 24.065 25.910 . 9.090 89.180 24.620 42.582Std. deviation 21.342 3.211 . 98.317 20.987 63.502No. of households 1556 1556 778 2334 1556 7779Percentage 20.0% 20.0% . 10.0% 30.0% 20.0% 100.0%

WATER HEATINGMean 33.638 89.248 183.740 109.200 9.100 . 89.508Std. deviation 44.596 124.995 111.181 116.087 . 114.481No. of households 6224 8557 3890 2334 778 21782Percentage 28.6% 39.3% 17.9% 10.7% 3.6% . 100.0%

OTHER USESMean .900 28.415 9.537 . 5.000 . 13.049Std. deviation 19.341 9.327 . . 15.723No. of househoLds 778 1556 2334 778 5446Percentage 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% . 14.3% . 100.0%

TOTAL (EXCL.BUSINESS)Mean 57.749 87.591 411.986 351.130 63.608 24.620 154.849Std. deviation 65.803 124.171 661.052 431.949 83.331 20.987 333.964No. of households 12447 18671 7001 6224 3890 1556 49788Percentage 25.0% 37.5% 14.1X 12.5% 7.8% 3.1% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 455.000 525.250 36.400 977.000 . . 498.412Std. deviation . . 333.635Wo. of households 778 778 778 778 3112Percentage 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% . . 100.0%

FIREWOOD (Kg)Mean 81.116 109.476 374.427 473.255 63.608 24.620 180.364Std. deviation 113.194 203.501 637.168 666.252 83.331 20.987 395.523No. of households 13225 18671 7779 6224 3890 1556 51344Percentage 25.8% 36.4% 15.2% 12.1% 7.62 3.0% 100.0%

N 6 3 - Annex ITA3LE No 6.53 Page 117 of 136FIREWOOD CONSuJPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/4onth) BY END USES. JITO

INCOME GRWJPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 > -20-40 >40-60 2 >60-80 2 >80-97.7 , 97.7-100 x

COOKINGMean 12.852 9.136 102.024 99.436 36.400 . 35.724Std. deviation 25.038 12.434 168.687 92.150 . 85.620No. of households 8557 15559 5446 3890 778 34229Percentage 25.0X 45.5X 15.92 11.42 2.3X 100.02

SPACE HEATINGM4ean 5.799 5.910 . 2.272 21.569 8.055 10.651Std. deviation 5.553 1.370 . 25.021 7.147 16.058No. of households 1556 1556 778 2334 1556 7779Percentage 20.0X 20.0X . 10.0o 30.0X 20.02 1oo.02

WATER HEATINGMean 4.785 15.548 38.775 14.156 9.100 . 16.241Std. deviation 5.563 20.326 18.401 9.379 . 19.279No. of households 6224 8557 3890 2334 778 21782Percentage 28.62 39.32 17.92 10.72 3.6x 100.02

OTHER USESMean .225 5.114 2.384 . 1.250 . 2.694Std. deviation 2.845 2.332 . . 2.743No. of households 778 1556 2334 778 5446Percentage 14.32 28.62 42.92 . 14.32 100.02

TOTAL (EXCL.BUSINESS)Mean 11.967 15.658 101.689 67.740 22.291 8.055 33.624Std. deviotion 20.953 20.612 166.727 84.200 23.921 7.147 78.586No. of households 12447 18671 7001 6224 3890 1556 49788Percentage 25.02 37.52 14.12 12.5x 7.82 3.12 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSMean 45.500 87.542 7.280 244.250 . . 96.143Std. deviation 90.113No. of households 778 778 778 778 3112Percentage 25.02 25.02 25.02 25.02 . . 100.02

FIREWOOD (Kg)Mean 13.940 19.306 92.248 98.271 22.291 8.055 38.432Std. deviation 21.805 33.752 160.686 156.191 23.921 7.147 93.048No. of households 13225 18671 7779 6224 3890 1556 51344Percentage 25.82 36.42 15.22 12.12 7.62 3.02 100.02

- 164 - Annex 1TABLE No 6.54 Page 118 of 136

ELECTRICITY CONSUI4PTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KWH/Nonth). OUITO

INCOKE GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 x >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 x >97.7-100 X

ELECTRICIDAD (Kw-h)Mean 132.388 150.368 150.758 207.938 313.776 495.963 228.687Std. deviation 84.981 80.179 102.721 169.537 311.373 266.460 225.405No. of households 29562 59901 61457 84795 99576 21004 356297Percentage 8.3% 16.8% 17.2% 23.8X 27.9% 5.92 100.0%

TABLE No 6.55

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (KWH/Month). QUITO

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 2 >40-60 2 >60-80 2 >80-97.7 2 >97.7-100 2

TOTALMean 22.155 30.241 33.847 51.230 80.643 204.797 59.564Std. deviation 14.692 17.002 27.153 56.343 66.602 155.500 73.302No. of households 29562 59901 61457 84795 99576 21004 356297Percentage 8.3% 16.8% 17.2X 23.82 27.9% 5.9% 100.0%

- 165- Annex 1TAILE No 6.56 Page 119 of 136

LPG CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KM/Month) BY END USES GUAYAOUIJL

INCONE GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 K p20-40 K )40-60 K 60-80 K 80-97.7 K 397.7-100 K

COOKINGMean 21.994 22.886 21.319 21.425 23.927 25.600 22.321Std. deviation 8.3 13.672 7.978 8.342 9.5w8 5.852 10.000No. of houreholds 32595 87600 89637 103897 79451 5093 396273Percentage 8.2K 22.0K 22.5% 26.1K 19.9K 1.3K 100.0K

WATER HEATINGMean 11.200 11.200 4.200 6.720 5.600 . 6.873Std. deviation 1.400 3.798 2.801 . 3.654No. of housMholds 1019 1019 2037 5093 2037 11205Percentag 9.1K 9.1X 18.2K 45.5K 18.2. 100.0K

LIGHTINGMean . . . .Std. deviatfonNo. of howueholdsPercente . . . ..

OTHER USESMn . . . 1.400 . . 1.400Std. deviationNo. of houasholds 1019 1019Percentage 100.0X 100.0K

TOTAL (EXCL.SUSIlESS)mean 22.34 23.016 21.415 21.556 24.071 25.600 22.461Std. deviation 9.933 13.667 7.974 8.364 9.700 5.852 10.100No. of households 3259f 87600 89637 104916 79451 5093 399291Percentag 8.2K 21.9K 22.4K 26.3K 19.9K 1.3K 100.0K

USE FOR USINESSen . 5.600 9.000 66.400 . . 42.760Std. deviation 43.166 . . 44.243No. of househotds 1019 1019 3056 5093Percentage 20.0K 20.0K 60.0K . . 100.0K

LPG MK)Mean 22.344 23.081 21.517 23.490 24.071 25.600 23.006Std. deviation 9.933 13.677 8.025 15.483 9.700 5.852 12.108No. of houreholds 325sf 87600 89637 104916 79451 5093 399291Percentage 8.2X 21.9K 22.4K 26.3X 19.9X 1.3K 100.0K

-166- Annex 1TABLE No 6.57 Page 120 of 136

LPG CONlSiWTION PER CAPITA (Kg/th) BY END USES. GUAYAYAUIL

INCOE GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 > ,20-40 >40-60 > 60-80 >80-97.7 K 97.7-100 K

COOKINGNOn 3.197 3.625 4.043 4.945 6.976 14.133 4.831Std. deviation 1.602 1.693 2.001 2.162 4.352 7.149 3.178No. of huesholds 32595 87600 89637 103897 79451 5093 396273Percentage 8.2x 22.0x 22.5x 26.1x 19.9x 1.3x 100.0K

WATER KEATINGMen .700 1.600 1.108 2.053 1.517 . 1.620Std. devistion .759 1.340 .583 . 1.093No. of households 1019 1019 2037 5093 2037 11205Percentae 9.1x 9.1K 18.2X 45.5s 18.2K . 100.0K

LIGNTINGNow . . . .Std. deviation . . . .No. of householdsPercentag . . . ..

OTNER USESMeaNo. . . .350 . . .350Std. deviation . .No. of haoseholds 1019 1019Percage . . . 100.0X . . 100.0X

TOTAL (EXCL.UUSINESS)Men 3.219 3.644 4.068 5.000 7.014 14.133 4.865Std. deviation 1.601 1.688 2.042 2.191 4.359 7.149 3.190No. of households 32595 87600 89637 104916 79451 5093 399291Percentag 8.2x 21.9x 22.4K 26.3x 19.9x 1.3K 100.0K

USE FOR USINESSMean . 1.400 1.286 13.167 . . 8.437Std. deviation 8.539 . . 8.792No. of households 1019 1019 3056 5093Percentage . 20.0x 20.0x 60.0x . . 100.0K

LPG (Kg)Men 3.219 3.660 4.083 5.384 7.014 14.133 4.973Std. deviation 1.601 1.714 2.039 3.387 4.359 7.149 3.462No. of households 32595 87600 89637 104916 79451 5093 399291Percentage 8.2x 21.9x 22.4K 26.3x 19.9x 1.3K 100.0o

- 167 - Annex 1TABLE No 6.58 Page 121 of 136

DONESTIC KEROSENE CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD (GAL/MONTH) BY END USES. GUAYAOUIL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)END USES TOTAL

0-20 x >20-40 x >40-60 X >60-80 x >80-97.7 X

COOKINGMean . 4.000 3.250 . . 3.700Std. deviation . 2.944 2.751 . . 2.892No. of households 3056 2037 5093Percentage . 60.0x 40.0X . . 100.0x

WATER HEATINGMean . . .Std. deviation . . .No. of househoLdsPercentage . .

LIGHTINGMean . .069 1.000 .875 . .648Std. deviation . .031 .000 .625 . .549No. of households 2037 2037 2037 6112Percentage . 33.3x 33.3x 33.3x 100.0o

OTHER USESMean 1.200 1.054 1.275 .875 1.281 1.099Std. deviation .400 1.351 1.132 .520 1.055 1.058No. of househoLds 5093 16298 11205 11205 4074 47874Percentage 10.6X 34.02 23.4x 23.4X 8.5x 100.0o

TOTAL (EXCL.BUSINESS)Mean 1.200 1.526 1.502 .948 1.281 1.346Std. deviation .400 2.011 1.558 .786 1.055 1.531No. of households 5093 19353 15279 12223 4074 56023Percentage 9.1X 34.5x 27.3x 21.82 7.3x 100.02

USE FOR BUSINESSMean . . . .

Std. deviation . . . .No. of householdsPercentage . . . .

KEROSENE (Gal)Mean 1.200 1.526 1.502 .948 1.281 1.346Std. deviation .400 2.011 1.558 .786 1.055 1.531No. of households 5093 19353 15279 12223 4074 56023Percentage 9.12 34.52 27.32 21.82 7.32 100.02

- 16P Annex 1TABLE No 6.59 Page 122 of 136DCtESTIC KEROSENE CONSLIIPTION PER CAPITA (Gtl/Month).BY END USES

GUAYAQUIL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 x >20-40 x 2.o-60 x 060-80 x 480-97.7 x

COOKINGMean . 1.079 .800 . . .9"Std. deviation 1.129 .700 . . .969No. of houreholds 3056 2037 5093Percentage 60.0X 40.0X 100.01

WATER HEATINGw n

Std. devistlonNo. of houaeholdsPercentge

LIGHTINGMean .018 .145 .171 . .111Std. deviation .001 oss .129 . .105No. of houaeholds 2037 2037 2037 6112Percentage 33.31 33.3x 33.3x 100.01

OTHER USESMean .137 .165 .372 .196 .274 .228Std. devition .054 .158 .533 .124 .219 .301No. of houashold 5093 16296 11205 11205 4074 47874Percentg 10.6X 34.01 23.41 23.41 8.51 100.0o

TOTAL (EXCL.USINES#)Mean .137 .311 .3n .210 .274 .MStd. deviation .054 .577 .552 .169 .219 .44No. of househotda s3 19353 15279 12223 4074 56023Percentaw 9.11 34.51 27.31 21.61 7.31 100.01

USE FOR SUSINESSMan . . .oStd. deviationNo. of houaehotdePercentag

KEROSENE (Gtl)Mean .137 .311 .399 .210 .274 2mStd. deviation .054 .577 .5s2 .169 .219 .u4No. of houbaholdc 5093 19353 15279 12223 4074 56023Percentag 9.1x 34.5x 27.31 21.81 7.31 100.01

- 169 - Annex 1Page 123 of 136

TABLE No 6.60

FIREWOMD CONSIMITION PER HOUSEHOLD (Kg/Month).END USES GUAYAQUIL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X p20-40 X 40-60 X

COOKINGmen 3.185 63.275 111.250 68.398Std. deviation 36.835 2.251 43.864No. of houeholds 1019 4074 2037 7130Percentae 14.3X 57.1X 28.6X 100.0X

SPACE HEATINGmen.Std. deviation .No. of householdsPercentage .

WATER HEATINGMean 1.365 . . 1.365Std. deviationNo. of householdr 1019 1019Percentage 100.0X . . 100.0X

OTHER USESMean 12.720 . . 12.720Std. devlationNo. of households 1019 1019Percentag 100.0X . . 100.0X

TOTAL (EXCL.USIhESS)Mean 8.635 63.275 111.250 61.609Std. deviation 4.086 36.835 2.251 44.754No. of househoLds 2037 4074 2037 8149Percentage 25.0X 50.0X 25.0X 100.0K

USE FOR USINESSMean . 36.400 65.850 56.033Std. deviation 43.361 38.027No. of households 1019 2037 3056Percentage . 33.3X 66.7X 100.0X

FIREWOOD (Kg)mean 8.635 57.900 88.550 60.088Std. deviation 4.086 34.655 38.181 43.094No. of households 2037 5093 4074 11205Percentae 18.2X 45.5X 36.4K 100.0K

- 170 - Annex 1Page 124 of 136

TABLE 6.61

FIREWOOD CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA (Kg/Month).BY EWD USES GtJAYAQUIL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X

COOKINGMean .531 18.410 15.389 14.993Std. deviation 21.087 2.778 17.114No. of households 1019 4074 2037 7130Percentage 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 100.0%

SPACE HEATINGMean .Std. deviation .No. of householdsPercentage .

WATER HEATINGMean .227 . . .227Std. deviationNo. of households 1019 1019Percentage 100.0% . . 100.0%

OTHER USESMean .978 . . .978Std. deviationNo. of households 1019 1019Percentage 100.0% . . 100.0%

TOTAL (EXCL.BUSINESS)Mean .868 18.410 15.389 13.269Std. deviation .110 21.087 2.778 16.644No. of households 2037 4074 2037 8149Percentage 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 100.0%

USE FOR BUSINESSMean . 9.100 29.550 22.733Std. deviation . 25.056 22.615No. of households 1019 2037 3056Percentage . 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

FIREWOOD (Kg)Mean .868 16.548 22.469 15.850Std. deviation .110 19.225 19.179 18.939No. of househoLds 2037 5093 4074 11205Percentage 18.2% 45.5% 36.4% 100.0%

- 171 - Annex 1TABLE No 6.62 Page 125 of 136

ELECTRICITY CONSUI4PTION PER HOUSEHOLD (KWH/Nonth). LAYAQUIL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 X |40-60 X | 60-80 X ),80-97.7 X L>97.7-100 X

ELECTRICIDAD (Kw-h)Mean 95.357 111.435 141.085 179.671 244.832 304.608 164.754Std. deviation 55.681 78.922 92.767 126.303 154.380 248.264 127.S42No. of households 32595 91674 93711 105934 86581 6112 416607Percentage 7.8X 22.0X 22.5X 25.4X 20.8X 1.5S 100.0X

TABLE No 6.63ELECTRICITY CONSIMPTION PER CAPITA (KWm/Month). WAYAGUIL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES) TOTALEND USES

0-20 X >20-40 2 >40-60 2 >60-80 X >80-97.7 X '97.7-100 1

TOTALMean 13.715 19.396 27.078 41.920 70.746 135.941 38.718Std. deviation 9.445 15.610 19.032 29.650 51.046 61.448 38.452No. of households 32595 91674 93711 105934 86581 6112 416607Percentage 7.8X 22.02 22.52 25.4X 20.8X 1.5S 100.02

-1 72- Annex 1

TABLE No 7.1 Page 126 of 136

ATTITUDES REGARDING ENERGY NATIONAL

URBAN OR RURAL A.

URBAN A. RURAL A.

ENERGY COSTS ARE NOTEXCESIVE IN RELATIONTO NY INCOME- Strongly agree 5.3x 2.2x 4.02- Agree 17.5x 12.22 15.22- No opinion 6.42 7.12 6.7x- Des*gre. 43.52 48.12 45.52- Strongly desagre. 27.42 30.42 28.7x

No of Nouseholds 1134284 820706 1954990

ENERGY CONSERVATION ISIMPORTANT FOR NYCOUWNTRY- Strongly agree 69.02 63.82 66.8x- Agree 27.8x 28.92 28.32- No opinion 1.02 4.42 2.52- Desagre 1.12 2.22

StrongLy desagree 1.02 .8x .9sIo of HNosehoLds 1138829 837861 1976691

IN OUR NONE WE DO NOTSAVE ENERGY

- Strongly agree .7x .4X-Agree 13.42 7.7x 10.92-No opinion 1.82 6.62 3.9x- Desagree 55.0x 59.62 57.0x- StrongLy desagree 29.12 26.22 27.82

No of Households 1009321 774564 1783885

A PRICE RISE OF ENERGYWOULD NOT AFFECT OURFAMILY BDGETStrongly agree 8.22 2.32 5.7xAgree 4.42 5.12 4.72No opinion 1.12 2.92 1.82

- Desagree 29.0x 33.7x 31.0X- Strongly desagree 57.22 56.02 56.72No of HousehoLds 1138107 838082 1976189

- 173 - Annex 1TASLE No 7.2 Page 127 of 136

ATTITIDES REGARDING ENERGY - By Income Groups NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

ENERGY COSTS ARE NOTEXCESIVE IN RELATIONTO MY INCONE- Strongly agree 1.6X 3.5X 4.2% 6.0% 3.7% 15.4X 4.0X- Agree 12.5X 11.1% 18.4X 13.9% 21.5X 22.8% 15.2X- No opinion 8.8X 9.5% 5.7X 4.2% 4.4X 4.9X 6.7%- Desagree 34.9% 50.0% 46.71 51.3% 45.0% 34.1X 45.5X- StrongLy desagree 42.2X 25.8% 24.91 24.71 25.31 22.8X 28.7%No of Households 402556 43091 376739 385520 315300 31784 1954990

ENERGY CONSERVATION ISIMPORTANT TO MY COUNTRY- Strongty agree 58.31 65.51 69.61 70.51 70.11 83.8% 66.81- Agree 34.0% 29.2% 26.7X 25.2% 26.61 13.8% 28.31- No opinion 5.4% 2.11 1.01 2.61 .7% 2.41 2.51- Desagree 2.0% 2.31 1.3% 1.11 1.2% 1.61- Strongly desagree .2% 1.01 1.51 .7X 1.51 .9XNo of Houswholds 416193 44821 382832 384983 316078 31784 1976691

IN OUR HONE WE DO NOTSAVE ENERGY- Strongly agree .3% .4X .8X .4X .4X- Agree 7.5X 9.21 11.3X 15.71 11.91 8.91 10.91- No opinion 7.8% 4.1% 1.61 2.7% 2.2% 6.0% 3.9X- Desagree 47.11 62.11 64.01 58.01 54.7% 38.51 57.01- Strongly desagree 37.41 24.11 22.31 23.21 31.21 46.61 27.8%No of Households 373925 404894 343197 349790 285981 26097 1783885

A PRICE RISE OF ENERGYWOULD NOT AFFECT OURFAMILY WBDGET- Strongly agree 2.41 5.6% 5.0% 7.0% 9.01 9.8% 5.7%- Agree 2.91 4.41 6.5% 4.61 5.51 4.91 4.7%- No opinion 1.91 2.31 2.2% 1.81 1.01 1.8%- Desagree 30.51 33.2% 25.91 34.0% 31.31 30.01 31.0X- Strongly desagree 62.31 54.51 60.31 52.61 53.2% 55.4% 56.7%No of Households 414116 446878 382832 385520 315059 31784 1976189

- 176 - Annex 1

TABLE No 7.3 Page 128 of 136

OPINIONS ABOUT LPG NATIOHAL

URBAN OR RURAL A.

URBAN A. RURAL A.

COST- Too expensive 67.8X 64.3X 66.4X- Expensive 27.9X 30.62 29.0X- No opinion 1.12 3.8X 2.2X- Cheap 3.0X 1.3X 2.3X-Very Cheap .3X .2XNo of households 1141930 770041 1911971

TRANSPORTATION- Very difficult 6.52 11.8X 8.6X- Difficult 24.82 42.5X 31.92

N No opinion 1.72 4.42 2.82- Easy 58.9X 37.9X 50.42-Very easy 8.22 3.32 6.22No of households 1139893 772556 1912449

CONVENIENCE- Very convenient 17.92 10.12 14.82- Convenient 51.32 45.72 49.12-No opinion 2.02 6.1X 3.62- Inconvenient 25.52 36.52 29.92- Very inconvenient 3.42 1.6X 2.72No of households 1141690 772556 1914246

PRICE IS AFFECTED BY:- Taxes 28.0X 24.52 26.62-Suidies 13.32 6.12 10.42- Neither of the above 7.12 8.02 7.52- No answer 51.72 61.4% 55.62

No of households 1137078 769998 1907076

IT IS EASY TO OBTAIN- Strongly agree 45.02 25.12 36.92-Agree 42.9X 42.9X 42.9X- No opinion 1.62 5.82 3.32- Desagree 8.42 21.62 13.82- Strongly desagree 2.12 4.62 3.12

No of households 1139607 771062 1910669

PRICE HAS RISEN, WHAT DOYOU PLAN TO DO?

- Pay the increase 49.32 33.12 43.2X-Reduce consumption 35.12 24.72 31.12-Combine with other fuel 10.12 28.82 17.12-Switch to other fuel 4.52 9.12 6.22-Cons. is so low thatprice rise has noteffect 1.12 4.42 2.32No of households 1098214 664207 1762420

-175 - Annex 1Page 129 of 136

TABLE No 7.4

OPINIONS ABOUT LPG NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 X >60-80 X >80-97.7 X >97.7-100 l

COST- Too expensive 68.1X 68.9X 65.7X 66.7X 62.0X 57.52 66.4X- Expensive 26.72 26.8X 30.82 30.22 31.72 23.42 29.02- No opinion 4.02 2.52 1.82 .7X 1.9X 2.22- Cheap .8X 1.8X 1.52 2.22 4.42 16.6X 2.32- Very Cheap .4X .2X .2X 2.52 .2X

No of households 378318 430506 379357 378033 314752 31006 1911971

TRANSPORTATION- Very difficult 13.92 7.42 8.32 5.4X 8.22 8.32 8.62- Difficult 39.42 33.62 30.72 30.12 25.52 20.82 31.92- No opinion 3.7X 2.82 3.52 2.22 1.42 3.32 2.8X- Easy 37.62 51.0X 53.9X 56.2X 54.52 45.02 50.4X- Very easy 5.52 5.22 3.62 6.12 10.32 22.62 6.2X

No of households 380055 429488 379357 378033 314511 31006 1912449

CONVENIENCEVery convenient 12.02 16.0X 14.22 17.0X 13.32 26.02 14.82

- Convenient 52.62 49.3X 51.1X 43.7X 49.8X 36.52 49.1X- No opinion 4.62 4.42 4.7X 2.3X 2.22 3.62- Inconvenient 29.32 29.62 27.82 33.32 29.22 32.62 29.9X

Very inconvenient 1.62 .82 2.22 3.72 5.62 4.9X 2.7XNo of households 380833 430506 379357 377255 314511 31784 1914246

PRICE IS AFFECTED BY:Taxes 20.12 21.72 29.22 29.12 35.7X 18.2X 26.62Subsidies 4.82 6.0X 10.92 12.52 18.22 26.6X 10.42Neither of the above 4.4X 7.4X 8.0X 8.0X 8.7X 20.1X 7.52

- No answer 70.7X 64.92 51.9X 50.32 37.42 35.12 55.62No of households 379554 430506 378338 374179 313492 31006 1907076

IT IS EASY TO OBTAINStrongLy agree 25.72 37.8X 37.7X 42.82 40.52 48.32 36.9XAgree 41.2X 42.92 45.9X 42.02 42.82 41.72 42.92

- No opinion 6.52 4.02 .82 1.52 3.72 2.5X 3.32Desagree 21.32 13.62 12.72 11.22 9.9X 5.02 13.82Strongly desegree 5.32 1.72 3.0X 2.62 3.12 2.52 3.12No of households 384739 426669 375286 379451 313519 31006 1910669

PRICE HAS RISEN, WHAT DOYOu PLAN TO DO?

- Pay the increase 26.5X 38.52 48.8X 48.32 55.22 35.82 43.22- Reduce consurption 31.02 29.32 27.72 32.42 34.02 53.72 31.12- Coubine with other fuel 28.62 18.62 17.72 15.12 6.12 3.2X 17.12- Switch to other fueL 10.12 10.32 5.02 3.22 1.82 4.9X 6.2X- Cons.is so Low thatprice rise has no 3.9f 3.3X .7X 1.0X 2.8X 2.4X 2.3XeffectNo of households 317990 402681 352350 362002 295614 31784 1762420

- 17A - Annex 1TASLE No 7.5 Page 130 of 136

OPINIONS ABOUT KEROSENE NATIONAL

URBAN OR RURAL A.

URBAN A. URAL A.

COST-Too expnsIve 20.0X 28.SX 23.4X- Expe n se 24.4X 43.4X 32.0X- No opinion 40.0X 22.0% 32.86

Cheap 15.1X 6.0X 11.5X-Very cap .5X .3X

no of Iouseholds 947037 634265 1581302

AVAILABILITY-Alway 10.9X 14.0X 12.1X-Almot alwys 12.9X 35.oX 22.0X-No answer 36.6X 17.9K 29.0X- 31dom 32.6X 28.2X 30.8X-Nevr 7.1K 4.4K 6.0O

No of Ihuseholds 941407 632966 1574392

TRANIPORTATIONVery difficuLt 4.3X 4.0 4.2X

-DIffIcuLt 20.5X 38.81 27.9K- No opinion 42.1K 21.5K 33.8X-Easy 30.3X 33.6X 31.6X-Very esy 2.8% 2.1K 2.5XNo of HousehoLds 938591 632966 1571577

CONVENIENCE- Very convenfent 3.1K 5.3K 4.0X-Cornnient 33.4K 49.5X 39.9X-No opinion 35.3K 23.6X 30.6XInconvenient 23.6X 19.8X 22.1XVery Inconvenient 4.5X 1.86 3.4XNo of Households 935239 634265 1569504

PRICE IS AFFECTED BY:-Taxes 14.1K 19.1K 16.1K

-,Sbdies 13.8% 7.8 11.4KNeither of the abov" 12.6X 6.6X 10.2X

-No anwer 59.5K 66.5X 62.3KNo of Iouseholds 890605 596839 148944

- 177 - Annex 1Page 131 of 136

TABLE No 7.6

OPINIONS ABOWUT KEROSENE NATIONAl

INCOME GRUWPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 % )20-40 X I 40-60 K 60-80 K A80-97.7 % 397.7-l00 1

COST- Too expeslve 36.0X 21.1X 19.3K 21.7X 17.3X 18.2 23.4X- Expenive 37.5X 30.3X 33.6X 30.9X 28.0O 17.3X 32.0X- No opinion 21.8X 37.9X 30.2X 35.1X 38.7X 53.1X 32.8X- Cheap 4.62 10.4X 16.5X 11.9 15.6X 6.0X 11.5X- Very Cheap .2X .3K .3X .4X 3.5S .3I

No of Householdc 336696 351142 300277 311248 2594r90 22448 1581302

AVAILABILITY- Always 14.1X 9.1X 14.8X 11.0K 11.9X 11.5X 12.1X- ALmost always 29.8X 24.1K 19.3K 21.8 13.2X 14.9X 22.0X- No anser 21.2X 30.5X 27.5X 30.0K 36.0X 53.1X 29.0X-Seldom 31.7X 30.1l 32.6X 29.7X 30.8X 20.5X 30.1X. Never 3.3X 6.2X 5.9X 7.5K 8.2K 6.O&

No of Households 336696 345551 300755 308674 260268 22448 1574X2

TRANSPORTATION-Very difficult 3.3X 4.0K 4.3K 4.0X 5.8X 3.5X 4.2X-Difficult 38.1X 31.9X 23.9X 25.6X 18.4K 4.5X 27."X- No opinion 22.2X 33.7K 31.6X 40.3X 41.5K 60.0X 33.81- Easy 33.3K 26.5K 37.2K 29.5K 32.4X 32.01 31.1X-Very easy 3.2X 4.0K 3.0X .6K 1.9X 2.51

No of HousehoLds 335417 346830 300755 307655 25872 22448 157157

CONVENIENCE-Very convenient 7.5K 2JK 2.1X 3.2X 4.2X 12.5K 4.0X-Convenient 47.5K 41.1K 39.1K 36.1S 37.0X 4.5X 39.91- No opinion 23.5X 35.2X 28.2X 31.2X 33.3X 60.01 3O.X- Inconvenient 20.4K 17.3K 26.3X 25.0X 22.2X 22.91 22.11-Very inconvenient 1.1X 4.3K 4.2X 4.5K 3.4K 3.41

No of Households 335918 330 297940 307655 258712 22448 15690

PRICE IS AFFECTED SY:Taxes 14.2X 11.7K 20.3X 17.0X 19.4K 8.01 16.11Subsidies 4.6K 4.7K 15.2X 12.0X 21.2X 40.01 11.4"Neither of the above 3.8A 11.3X 7.2X 12.9X 16.2X 17.3X 10.21

lo answer 77.4X 72.3x 57.3X 58.1X 43.2 34.7K 62.3XNo of Households 313697 330475 285918 230 248526 22448 148U444

- 178- Annex 1

TABLE No 7.7 Page 132 of 136

OPINIONS ABOUT FUELWOOD NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20X >20-40 X >40-60X >60-80X >80-97.7 , >97.7-10O

COST- Too expensive 7.7X 10.1x 6.1X 4.1X 3.1X 6.5X- Expensive 22.3X 25.5X 25.3X 26.4X 25.6X 24.6X- No opinion 33.4X 40.4X 41.1X 53.0X 56.4X 84.0x 44.5X- Cheap 28.5X 15.7X 19.5X 11.3X 14.6X 12.0X 18.1X- Very Cheap 8.1X 8.4X 8.0X 5.2X .4X 4.0X 6.4X

No of Households 291026 326074 268488 265498 209038 19393 1379516

AVAILABILITY- ALways 40.6K 40.5X 33.7% 23.7X 17.7X 12.0X 32.1X- Alost always 21.9X 18.7X 23.2X 19.4K 14.7X 8.0X 19.6K- No answer 22.8X 26.0X 30.3K 43.1X 51.2X 75.9K 34.0X- Seldom 7.5K 13.0X 9.2X 8.6K 12.4K 4.0X 10.0X- Never 7.2X 1.8x 3.6K 5.2X 4.1K 4.3KNo of Households 290766 324561 270525 262682 213350 19393 1381276

TRANSPORTATIONVery difficult 6.0X 7.2X 5.5K 5.1X 8.3K 6.3KDifficult 32.6K 30.8X 26.5K 23.5s 17.5K 4.0X 26.5K

- No opinion 16.7X 23.5K 31.9K 43.8X 53.8x 74.7X 32.9%Easy 38.4K 31.1K 30.6K 25.9X 17.5K 21.3K 29.4KVery easy 6.2X 7.4K 5.6K 1.7X 2.9X 4.9KNo of Households 298573 325339 274059 260645 212113 19393 1390122

CONVENIENCEVery convenient 16.0X 5.9X 4.7x 3.9X 4.5K 4.0X 7.3KConvenient 53.4K 53.0X 46.3K 36.3K 28.1K 13.3K 44.4XNo opinion 15.7X 24.6K 26.3X 38.9X 40.9X 7".7K 28.7XInconvenient 12.7X 12.5K 17.8X 15.0X 20.9X 12.0X 15.3K

- Very inconvenient 2.2K 4.0X 4.8X 5.9x 5.6K 4.3KNo of HousehoLds 305902 324320 270285 259366 208280 19393 1387544

- 179 - Annex 1TABLE No 7.8 Page 133 of 136

OPINIONS ABOUT ELECTRICITY NATIONAL

URBAN OR RURAL A.

URBAN A. RURAL A.

COST- Too expensive 56.0X 30.7X 46.4X- Expensive 28.1X 35.1X 30.7X-No opinion 8.5X 23.22 14.22-Cheap 7.22 10.02 8.32-Very Cheap .12 .9X .42

No of Households 1099069 682652 1781721

CONVENIENCEVery convenient 37.32 20.42 31.0XConvenient 49.22 44.02 47.32No opinion 2.12 12.82 6.12Inconvenient 10.22 20.52 14.1XVery inconvenient 1.2X 2.32 1.62No of HousehoLds 1014631 609187 1623818

PRICE IS AFFECTED BY:Taxes 49.42 32.92 43.02

- Subsidies 8.62 7.62 8.22Neither of the above 5.52 11.12 7.62No answer 36.62 48.42 41.12No of Households 1058991 662184 1721175

ELECTRIC SERVICE IS NOTRELIABLE

-Strongly agree 16.62 10.12 14.12-Agree 39.12 31.72 36.22-No opinion 2.22 14.62 7.02-Desegree 32.42 38.42 34.7X- Strongly desagree 9.72 5.22 8.02

No of Households 1137888 725329 1863218

IF ELEC. WERE MORE RE-LIABLE I WOULD PAY MORE- Strongly agree 11.9X 4.12 8.82-Agree 26.92 27.62 27.22-No opinion 10.52 24.52 16.02- Desagree 31.62 25.82 29.32- Strongly desagree 19.12 18.02 18.72

No of Households 1107710 715316 1823027

ELECTRICITY BILLIS TOO COMPLEX- StrongLy agree 15.12 7.7X 12.22- Agree 24.52 29.52 26.52- No opinion 9.82 30.82 17.92- Desegree 39.62 26.12 34.42

- 18C - Annex 1Page 134 of 136

TABLE No 7.9

OPINIONS ABOUT ELECTRICITY (Continuation) NATIONAL

URBAN OR RURAL A.

URBAN A. RURAL A.

- Strongly desagree 10.9% 5.8% 9.0%No of Households 1103243 688495 1791738

ELECTRICY SERVICE ISAFFECTED BY:VOLTAGE VARIATIONS- Strongly agree 27.2% 20.1% 24.9%- Agree 14.5% 18.1% 15.7%- No opinion 9.9% 12.9% 10.9%- Desagree 40.1% 38.6% 39.6%- Strongly desagree 8.2% 10.4% 8.9%

No of Households 1135544 559588 1695131

NO ANNOUNCED ELEC.CUTS.- Strongly agree 3.0% 7.0% 4.3%- Agree 11.7% 17.0% 13.4%- No opinion 15.2% 22.6% 17.6%

Desagree 58.1% 45.1% 53.7%- Strongly desagree 12.1% 8.4% 10.9%

No of Households 1119968 559588 1679556

ANNOUbNCED ELEC. CUTS.Daily 1.2% .8%WeekLy 5.2% 1.6% 4.0%Monthly 4.8% 3.0% 4.2%Eventualty 65.1% 44.2% 58.1%Never 23.7% 51.2% 32.8%

No of Households 1116134 557029 1673164

ELEC.CUTS DUE TO NOPAYKENT:Daily 1.0% .6%Weekly .2% .1%Monthly 1.2% .5% 1.0%Eventually 14.5% 13.7% 14.2%Never 83.2% 85.8% 84.1%No of Households 1093003 551912 1644915

ELECT.TARIFFS HAVE RISENWHAT DO YOU PLAN TO D0? 34.4% 37.3% 35.5%- Pay the increase- Reduce consuLption 54.7% 38.9% 48.9%-Combine with other fuel 1.5% .8% 1.2%-Switch to other fuel 1.1% .8% 1.0%- Cons. is so low that

price increase has no 2.6% 6.7% 4.1%effect

- No answer 5.7% 15.5% 9.3%No of Households 1139358 657873 1797231

- 181 - Annex 1Page 135 of 136

TABLE 7.10

OPINIONS ABOUT ELECTRICITY NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 X 2.20-40 K ,40-60 X >60-80 X '80-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

COST- Too expesive 31.3X 43.1X 49.0x 53.7x 54.4x 49.5K 46.4X- Expenive 33.5s 29.7x 31.1X 31.9K 27.3X 31.8K 30.7X- No opinion 26.4X 17.7K 9.7x 7.5s 9.8x 13.0X 14.2X- Cheap 8.4K 9.2x 9.4x 6.6X 7.9s 5.7K 8.3x- Very Cheap .4K .3X .7x .4K .5s .4K

No of Nouseholds 324136 401396 356903 360718 306784 31784 1781721

CONVENIENCE- Very convenient 12.7X 31.1K 29.5s 35.1K 35.3K 45.7x 31.0X- Convenient 46.6K 49.7K 46.0X 46.9K 47.4K 43.9s 47.3K- No opinion 14.7X 3.6K 7.3X 2.1K 3.2X 5.2z 6.1X- Inconvenfent 14.8K 13.6X 15.5K 14.4X 12.7X 5.2z 14.1K- Very inconvenient 1.3X 2.1K 1.7X 1.6K 1.4K 1.6K

No of gousehotde 301700 355130 341267 321130 274604 29987 1623818

PRICE IS AFFECTED BY:- Taxes 36.5s 36.2X 46.2X 46.6K 50.9s 43.9s 43.0X- Subsidies 3.2X 4.5s 9.5K 9.7K 14.0X 19.4K 8.2x- Neither of the sbove 4.5s 7.1K 8.1K 9.3K 8.5s 14.7X 7.6"- No wwwer 55.9K 52.2x 36.2X 34.4K 26.7X 22.0X 41.1X

No of Households 312844 386096 351790 342343 296318 31784 1721175

ELECTRIC SERVICE IS NOTRELIABLE

- Strongly agree 10.2X 15.0K 9.7K 18.3K 15.9K 29.2x 14.1X- Agree 25.4K 39.6X 39.4x 38.7K 38.2x 29.4x 36.2K- No opinion 20.5K 5.1K 4.1K 3.6X 2.1K 7.0K- Desagree 36.5K 32.7X 39.2x 31.1K 35.3K 25.2x 34.7X- Strongly desagree 7.3X 7.6K 7.6X 8.3K 8.4K 16.2X 8.0o

No of Households 359371 416557 372466 372079 310960 31784 1863218

IF ELEC. WERE MORE RE-LIABLE I WOULD PAY NORE- Strongly agree 4.7X 7.9s 7.1X 10.9K 13.2X 20.3X 8.8s- Agree 23.3K 25.8% 29.3K 30.2K 27.7K 22.8s 27.2K- No opinion 29.7K 18.9K 12.0X 10.1K 9.9K 16.0X- Deagroe 22.0X 26.7X 33.4K 31.6X 33.1K 34.1K 29.3X- StrongLy desagree 20.2X 20.6K 18.2K 17.3K 16.0X 22.8s 18.7K

No of NousehoLds 353200 406038 364815 361336 305855 31784 1823027

ELECTRICITY BILLDAD NO SE ENETIENDE- Strongly agrec 11.2K 10.5K 11.9K 13.2X 14.0X 22.8s 12.2X- Agree 20.0X 30.0X 32.0X 25.5K 24.7X 17.1K 26.5s- No opinion 36.0X 20.5K 12.3X 11.9K 9.0o 2.4K 17.9K- Desagree 25.5K 30.3K 37.6K 40.6K 37.7K 47.1K 34.4X- Strongly desagree 7.3X 8.8s 6.2X 8.sx 14.6X 10.5K 9.0oNo of Households 344746 403480 356669 353217 301843 31784 1791738

- 182- Annex 1Page 136 of 136

TAKE 7. 11

OPINIONS ASOUT ELECTRICITY (Continuation) NATIONAL

INCOME GROUPS (PERCENTILES)

0-20 X >20-40 X >40-60 K >60-80 X 380-97.7 X >97.7-100 X

ELECTRICITY SERVICE ISAFFECTE BY:VOLTAIE VARIATIONS- Stronly agree 25.2x 22.5 26.7X 26.2X 23.0X 34.2Z 24.9X* Agree 15.0K 14.8K 17.1% 16.9K 14.8K 12.5K 15.7K- No opinion 12.9K 9.8x 14.8K 9.3x 8.2X 8.3X 10.9X- Dearee 36.11 44.3K 34.5K 38.8K 44.3K 31.7K 39.6x- Strongly dsgree 10.8X 8.6 6.9X 8.9s 9.7x 13.3X 8.9X

No of Noumaholds 267157 389135 349460 354575 303796 31006 1695131

NO ANNOMCED ELEC. CUTS.* Strongly agree 3.7K 6.1K 3.4K 3.9K 3.6K 10.5K 4.3K- Agree 17.6 14.8X 12.4K 11.8x 11.01 14.7% 13.4K- no opinion 20.6K 18.7X 17.3K 19.2K 13.0X 9.8K 17.6K- Desaree 48.5% 51.1K 57.3K 52.9K 59.2K 47.8K 53.7x- Strongly disaree, 9.7X 9.4X 9.5K 12.2X 13.2X 17.1X 10.9X

No of Nouseholds 267935 38326 346645 348704 301224 31784 1679556

ANNMOICED ELEC. CUTS.- Deily .3K .9s 1.3K .7K .5K 5.1K .8K- Wekly 2.9X 3.3K 3.0K 5.7K 5.3K 2.6K 4.01

Ionthly 3.7K 2.7X 5.4X 3.5K 5.5K 7.7K 4.2X- Evantuelly 54.0X 54.6X 56.7X 62.1X 63.3K 59.8X 58.1X* ier 39.2x 38.5s 33.6K 28.01 25.4K 24.SX 32.8K

No of Nousaholdi 267935 382246 346645 344108 302002 30228 1673164

ELEC.CUTS DUE TO NOPAYMENT:- Daily .4X 1.0X .3K .3X .9x 2.4K .6X

Weekly .2K .3K .1Xonthly 1.4K 1.0X .5s .9K .9s 2.4K 1.0K

- Evntua lly 15.9K 13.3X 12.9X 18.6K 11.0X 8.1K 14.2K- Nr 2.3x 84.6 86.0x 80.0o 87.1K 87.0x 84.1X

No of NoIbeholds 261302 375116 339234 340054 297426 31784 1644915

ELEC.TAMIFFS NAVE RISENINAT DO You PUAN TO DO- Pay the increse 24.8K 38.9X 37.5X 37.3K 39.3X 19.6X 35.5K- Reuce consrAption 43.2X 44.a 50.5X 53.2X 50.9X 78.0X 48.9X- Cobaine with other fuel 1.11 1.8K .9X .8s 1.5K 1.2X

Smitch to other fuel 1.8K 1.3K .6K .8s .6X 1.0X- Cons.is so low that

the price rise has no 7.0 5.3K 3.8K 2.9K 1.3X 2.4K 4.1Kef fect.

- No answr 22.1X 8.21 6.6X 4.9K 6.4K 9.31No of Nouhold 3263 406574 359511 364813 307667 31784 1797231

- 183 - Annex 2Page 1 of 27

SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT-OBSERVER MONOGRAPH No. 1: QUITO

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS:

Research on a number of aspects related to the consumption of energy in marginalneighborhoods in the city of Quito, was done in the Cooperatives called Comite del Pueblo 2,Pisulf and Jaime Rold6s. These are recent settlements located to the northwest of the city, andhave been formed by land squatters sponsored by certain political parties. These are marginalareas without any basic public services such as drinking water and sewage systems. The disposalof solid waste is through cesspools or, in some cases, latrines, while water is supplied by watertrucks. Some areas have electricity but public lighting is generally poor.

EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS:

These areas are basically bedroom communities where large numbers of laborers live.These people perform a series of activities having to do with the service sector, informalcommerce, construction (mainly), industry, and, in the case of women, domestic service (maids).There are two characteristics that one can identify regarding the inhabitants of thesecooperatives: the high level of underemployment and as a consequence, the low incomes. Thereis also a continuous fluctuation in their work because of work stoppage and seasonal work.Family gardening has become a source of employment and income for many of the households,as houses are small and there is space between them for vegetable gardens.

THE INCOME SITUATION:

According to information obtained, income fluctuates between 25 and 30 thousand sucresweekly for a day laborer, 35 and 40 thousand for a mason, and 45 and 50 thousand sucres fora master bricklayer. A maid earns from 50 to 80 thousand sucres monthly, whereas a clotheswasher may receive a daily income of about 4 to 6 thousand sucres.

While the inhabitants of these cooperatives face basically similar circumstances, theRold6s and Comite del Pueblo Cooperatives are better off. Thus, according to survey data, itis estimated that Pisuli men earn an average of 110 thousand sucres monthly while Pisuliwomen, less than 50 thousand sucres monthly. The average monthly income for men in theother two cooperatives is about 150 thousand sucres, whereas for the women, is 70 thousandsucres.

- 184 - tnnex2Pa,!e 2 cof 27

EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION:

Research on family expenditure budgets was through six case studies. The results areas follows:

CASE No. 1

Family 1 in the Rold6s Cooperative is made up of six members. The father is acarpenter and earns a monthly income of 120 thousand sucres, while the mother owns a grocerystore - bakery shop which produces a monthly income of 80 thousand sucres.

This family has monthly expenditures of S/234,500.00 which can be broken down asfollows: 42.5% for food, 8.5% for transportation, 2.1% forelectricity, 10.2% for LPG (mainlyused at the bakery), and 36.7% for miscellaneous. The difference between income andexpenditure can be justified with the father's occasional higher income, as well as the fact thatsome of the goods used come from the grocery store owned by the family.

CASE No. 2

In this family from the same cooperative, the father is a mechanic whose monthly wageis approximately 260 thousand sucres, and represents the only income for this family of sevenmembers.

Monthly expenditures run to S/272,500 (44% food, 1.8% electricity, 1.8% LPG, 11.0%transportation, and 41.3% miscellaneous).

CASE No. 3

(Comite del Pueblo). This is a family unit with one main family of three members andan "ad hoc" family of four members who share expenses. Together, this family unit has amonthly income of 378 thousand sucres, including the salaries of the two household heads, rentand profits from a retail LPG business.

Expenditures amount to S/294,550, out of which 89.6% is for food, 1.2% forelectricity, 2.0% for LPG and 7.2% for miscellaneous. Transportation expenses are notrecorded. This family is in good financial condition compared with others in the area.

- 185 - Annex 2

CASE No. 4 Page 3 of 27

(Comite del Pueblo). This family is made up of six members. The husband is a masonwith a monthly salary of 130 thousand sucres, whereas the wife is a maid who earns 86 thousandsucres monthly.

Their expenditures at S/220,750.00 monthly are slightly higher than their income. Itmust be pointed out that transportation represents their second most important expense (25 % ofthe total), followed by 36.2% for food, 3.3% for energy (1.4% electricity and 1.9% LPG), andthe remaining 35.2% for miscellaneous.

CASE No. 5

(Pisuli Cooperative). This is a family made up of four members, in which the father isa day laborer with a monthly income of 160 thousand sucres and S/164,300 worth of expenses.They have no electricity. The family spends 2 % of its total expenditures on LPG, whereas 61 %corresponds to food, 12.2% to transportation and 24.9% to other expenses, which must includekerex and/or candles for lighting.

CASE No. 6

(Pisuli Cooperative). This is a family of four members, where the father is the only oneemployed and has an income of 175 thousand sucres monthly. He works at a grocery store andas an LPG vendor. According to the data, their expenses are higher than their average income,coming to a total of S/188,200 monthly. This family does not have electricity either, and thisis why their expenditures on energy (1.6% on LPG) are under estimated because they excludelighting, which is more expensive when it is not electric. Food represents 42.5% of the totalexpense, 10.6% is for transportation, and 45.3% remains for other expenses.

COOKING AND THE TYPICAL DIET:

Since the women often work outside the home, it is common for them to cook only oncedaily. The typical diet is made up of a variety of low protein foods. These arc potatoes,noodles and rice, which are important in the daily diets of the people in these marginal areas.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION:

The fuels which are mainly used in this area are liquified petroleum gas (LPG) andfirewood. Kerex is also used, but charcoal and gasoline are not.

- 186 - Annex 2Page 4 of 27

LPG:

It is estimated that where the study was carried out, in the housing cooperatives, 85 %to 90% of households use LPG for cooking. The LPG is sold/delivered by trucks or pick-upswhich roam the area, or purchased at small informal shops (that are not authorized byPetrocomercial). These shops (14 in all), each sell from 20 to 30 cylinders weekly. The dealersbuy the cylinders from the distribution pick-ups at prices ranging from S/2,700.00 toS/3,000.00, and retail them for S/2,900.00 to S/3,300.00. The distribution pick-ups homedeliver the cylinders selling them for S/3,200.00 to S/3,300.00 each, and sell about 100cylinders weekly. Even low income households are willing to pay more for home deliverybecause carrying the cylinder up steep slopes is problematic.

In general, the Rold6s and Comite del Pueblo Cooperatives, which are better-off,relatively speaking use LPG almost exclusively. However, in poorer areas, this fuel is oftencombined with firewood.

There is also a non-household demand for LPG because of the existence of many bakeryshops in the area and presence of street vendors who work mainly on weekends.

FIREWOOD

Even though this is an urban area, firewood is a significant source of energy, due to thepresence of eucalyptus trees in the surroundings. The use of firewood is generalized in thePisuli Cooperative, and is the main fuel of many households. However, even in the other twobetter-off cooperatives, firewood is complementary to LPG in lower-income households.

Firewood is gathered generally by children and women on a daily or weekly basis. Theycollect the leaves or fallen branches but don't cut trees. The firewood gathered in the area isnot normally sold. A few bakeries do buy firewood but from merchants outside of the area.

Firewood is used together with LPG to cook hard foods, boil water and give thetraditional taste to certain foods, as well as for special occasions.

KEREX

At present, only 10% of the families living in these places, concentrated in the PisuliCooperative where there is no electricity, use kerex mainly for lighting. Only a small proportionof the people use kerex as an alternative fuel for cooking.

Kerex is bought from distribution trucks at open markets, where long lines and manyhours' wait is the rule. The maximum amount a family can receive is 12 gallons, which isenough for about a month of cooking. If it is purchased directly from the distribution truck, theprice is 60 sucres per gallon, but could be considerably higher if purchased from a retailer.

- 187 - Annex 2Page 5 of 27

As has been mentioned, those who consume kerex are the poorest families, and they useit for lighting, kindling fire, burning garbage or cooking.

Charcoal:

The use of charcoal in the area researched has practically disappeared, with the exceptionof the few street vendors who still use it in combination with LPG. The main reasons for thissituation are: a) the availability of firewood; b) the very limited supply and relatively high priceof charcoal; and, c) cheap and available LPG.

ELECTRICITY:

The three cooperatives are practically all electrified and only a small part of the PisuliCooperative does not have electricity. Nevertheless, many of the people have electricityclandestinely, getting it directly from the distribution lines or by running wires from otherhouses that have it.

Normally, almost every home with electricity has its own meter. The Electric Companybills regularly, every one or two months. Electricity is not used for cooking, and an averagefamily pays from 3 to 5 thousand sucres monthly for this service. (basically lighting, radio,television, ironing). There are many workshops and stores that have monthly electricity billsof 15 to 40 thousand sucres.

OPINIONS ON ENERGY:

Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) is a fuel with no major problem of supply and, becauseof its easy handling, many families have become accustomed to using it. As far as price isconcerned, only the better-off households consider they could still afford it even if the pricewere to rise. The people with lower incomes stated that they would have to return to usingfirewood if the price of LPG rose any higher.

People do not consider kerex an alternative to LPG any more and kerex stoves are nowhard to find. The main reason people have turned away from kerex (apart from access to cheapLPG) is that kerex supply is so unreliable.

Electricity is very highly regarded as a service and people believe that the price paid forit is not excessive.

- 188 - Annex '

Page 6 of 27

SUMMARY OF THE PARTICIPANT OBSERVER MONOGRAPH NO. 2: GUAYAQUIL

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.-

The research in Guayaquil was conducted in the slum area of the Guasmo Sur, which ismade up of several housing cooperatives. These are Causa Proletaria, where 5900 people liveand Batalla de Tarqui, which houses 1900; Cristal, which is estimated to have over 2900inhabitants; 26 de Abril and 10 de Agosto, with 7523 people and, Union de Bananeros whichis the most extensive, housing 37000 people.

Generally speaking, the cooperatives are slums formed by squatters approximately 15years ago. They have limited basic public services. Electric power and transportation can befound in various areas; however, the water is delivered by trucks and there is no sewage system;only a few homes have cesspools. Garbage is collected in small trucks.

The houses are basically made of bamboo and zinc, with wooden or dirt floors. Onlyin those areas closer to major city roads can one see some buildings of mixed materials (cementand wood), which belong, generally, to shopkeepers who are better-off financially.

A small portion of the men work in the formal sector of the economy, with stable jobsin construction, industry or in shrimp farming; they live in better conditions, together with taxiand other drivers. There is another group of people who float between the formal andinformal sectors working at whatever they can find. The most important group belongs to theinformal sector and consists of traders and street vendors and self-employed traders and workerswith their own businesses at home.

From the information gathered, about 90% of the Economically Active Population (EAP)of the area are either shopkeepers, street vendors or unemployed; the latter make up 25 to 30%of the population. Most of the women, besides doing their daily house chores, work outside thecooperatives as domestic servants or clothes washers, or within the cooperatives, keeping smallgrocery stores, selling food or making a variety of articles. Many of the children also help theirparents in their jobs which puts them on the streets at an early age. In short, the livingconditions of Guasmo Sur are among the most depressed of the city.

CASE STUDIES

The research on income and expenditures was carried out with five local families, withthe following results:

189 - Annex 2

CASE No.1.- Page 7 of 27

This family belongs to the Cooperative "Causa Proletaria"; it has 7 members; 4 of themwork. The father, an adult brother and sister work in stable jobs and the mother manages asmall family business. Together, they earn 430000 sucres per month.

The family's expenditures amount to 423000 sucres per month, broken down as follows:56.7% for food, 7.1% for transportation, 1.2% for electrical power, 1.6% for LPG and 33.4%for miscellaneous. This family belongs to the "upper-middle class" of the area, which isreflected in their diet of beef, fish and grains.

CASE No. 2.-

This family lives in "Union de Bananeros" and is made up of 7 members; 4 work. Thefather as a photographer, one of the sons at stable job, the mother as a LPG retailer and anotherson works occasionally. Their monthly income is 350000 sucres. The family's budget is brokendown as follows: 75.3% for food, 9.4% for transportation, 0.9% for electricity, 1.4% for LPGand 13% for miscellaneous, a total of 318000 sucres per month. The quality of their diet issimilar to Case 1.

CASE No. 3.-

This case is that of a lower-income family in the cooperative "Batalla de Tarqui". It ismade up of 6 members. Only the father (a street vendor) and the mother (selling food) work,earning in total 210 thousand sucres per month.

Their monthly expenditures amount to 227800 sucres, broken down as follows: 92.2%for food, 0.7% for electricity, 2.2% for LPG and 4.9% for miscellaneous (there is notransportation item). As expected, their diet is of a lesser quality than the previous cases, sincebeef is only eaten once a week.

CASE No. 4.-

This family belongs to cooperative "Cesar Augusto Sandino". This family belongs to thelowest income category. It is made up of 8 members; the father works at a shrimp farm andthe mother sells used clothes. They earn a monthly income of 192000 sucres. There is no detailon their expenses.

It is worth mentioning that one of the most important expense items for families inGuasmo Sur in general, is the purchase of water from the water trucks.

- 190 - Anntpy v

Page 8 of 27CASE No. 5.-

This family lives in the cooperative "Union de Bananeros" and it is also made up of 7members. The father works as a taxi driver, the mother is a public servant, the eldest daughterhas her own business and, the son-in-law provides a certain amount of money for the supportof his children. This family is in a relatively better situation, with a monthly income of 512000sucres. There is no information on the composition of their expense budget.

FUEL CONSUMPTION.-

The fuels used in households in the Guasmo are: liquified petroleum gas (LPG), charcoal,kerex and, marginally firewood.

LPG.-

In general use in the area, it is used by 85 to 90% of the families. The distributionsystem of LGP in the Guasmo Sur goes through various stages. There are wholesalers(authorized dealers), who get the fuel directly from the battling companies. They deliver it toa group of retailers located in strategic points in the different cooperatives. The retailers, manyof whom are women, are people in different lines of business; the selling of LPG becomes justone of them. The wholesalers' prices range from 2800 to 2900 sucres per cylinder, which inturn are retailed for 3100 to 3500 sucres. A small shopkeeper sells about 20 cylinders a day.

The greatest demand for LPG is for household use even though the fuel is also used bypeople with small food businesses. A better-off family in this area uses a cylinder of LPG every15 days. For families of an average income and who generally cook twice a day, a cylinder ofLPG is required every 18 days. In poorer homes, where the cooking is done once a day andLPG is sometimes combined with charcoal, a cylinder usually lasts between 25 to 30 days.

The informants with higher earnings reported that they would still use LPG despite itsprice rise. People with lower incomes reported that a price increase would force them to cookless or switch to kerex should the Government change its marketing system. (i.e. making kerexsupply more reliable).

Kerex.-

It is another fuel with significant demand in the area. It is not only used for cookingbut also for burning garbage, kindling fire, protecting wood, disinfecting the home and, mostimportantly, for lighting.

Despite the high demand for kerex, its supply is quite limited and precarious and itsmarketing is complex. There are dealers who get the fuel directly from Petrocomercial and are,

- 191 - Annex 2r"age 9 of 27

in some cases, practically employees. It is during this stage that diversion to certain dealers andservice stations occurs. Those dealers, in turn, sell the kerex to industrial plants or theythemselves mix it with gasoline. Dealers are supposed to sell 2 gallons each to 500 people perweek but this doesn't always happen as bulk supplies are given to those who pay gratuities tothe original dealers. At the start of the marketing chain, the official Petrocomercial price forkerex is 60 sucres per gallon; retailers purchase it for 250 sucres. When it finally reaches theuser, the price ranges between 1200 and 1500 sucres per gallon.

Since people use kerex less for cooking than for other uses, the volume of the demandis not very high. A gallon of kerex for other purposes (rather than cooking) lasts about a monthduring the winter and 2 months during the summer. Those few who use kerex for cookingrequire a gallon every three days. Generally, kerex is used in combination with charcoal. Theshortage of supply forces people to look for alternatives and prevents kerex from being areasonable alternative (which it normally is) to LPG.

The generalized conclusion is that kerex is not used in great quantities because of itsunavailability, due to marketing irregularities. In this context most households felt that thereshould be more selling points and that the distribution system should be improved and extended.

CHARCOAL.-

Charcoal is the other fuel of some importance in the Guasmo, particularly among poorergroups. It is used basically for cooking at home as well as in small informal food shops. Thereare many vendors dedicated exclusively to chorcoal. A wholesaler distributes between 20 and30 bags per week to smaller dealers at 5000 sucres per bag, which in turn are re-sold for 6000to 6500 sucres. The final consumer usually buys portions of 200, 300 or 500 sucres whichimply a price of 10000 per bag of charcoal.

Those who buy small portions are poor people; some of them have small food shops.Many people who can not purchase LPG or kerex stoves resort to charcoal on a daily basis.There are also people who use charcoal in combination with LPG or kerex. In any case, giventhe price and characteristics of charcoal, this fuel has limited possibilities although its use wouldprobably increase in the shanty towns around Guayaquil if LPG were to be sold nearer to itseconomic price.

ELECTRIC POWER.-

In several cooperatives in the area, users have contributed to the payment of thetransformers installed by the electric company. There are many billing problems since themeters are not read often and the bills are only estimated. Poorer households normally have 2to 3 light bulbs, a radio, a B/W TV set and an electric iron. The better-off have 4 light bulbs,

- 192 - Annex 2Page 10 of 27

a color TV set, an iron, a stereo and a blender. The families who own stoves also generallyhave a refrigerator. Electric power is not used for cooking, as people do not have electricranges or stoves; furthermore power cuts and voltage variations cause damage to homeappliances. Lighting is the application with greatest demand. The generalized opinion is thatelectricity service in the area is good and inexpensive.

- 193 - Annex 2Page 11 of 27

SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT-OBSERVER MONOGRAPH No. 3: CUENCA

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.-

Research in the area of Cuenca was conducted in the parish of San Roque and, in thenearby neighborhood of El Valle. Even though El Valle is an agricultural town, it has recentlybecome a permanent source of craftsmen and industrial manpower. It also supplies food andservices to Cuenca, the provincial capital of Azuay, and has thus become directly involved inthe dynamic growth of the city. The population of El Valle according to the 1990 censusreached 15.214 people; only 4.1% actually live in the town. Of a total of 3.140 houses, 132 arein the town itself.

Brick and blocks are the predominant materials used in construction; cane plastered withmud and chopped straw and wood are also used. In the surrounding areas, most houses are builtof adobe. Modern constructions are rare.

The inner town has transportation, sewage, electricity, telephones and potable water.There is also a primary school and a high school, a health center and a day care center forchildren under 5. Surrounding areas lack many of these basic public services with the exceptionof water and electric power which is available to about 90% of the houses in this area. SanRoque is one of the oldest and most densely populated towns around Cuenca; most of itspopulation have average to high incomes. About 15000 people live in San Roque inapproximately 3.800 houses. It has all the public services: electricity, water, sewage,transportation, etc.

El Valle is the provider of manpower for factories and workshops in the city. Men workas masons, carpenters, mechanics and laborers, while the women work as domestic servants,clothes washers, and market vendors. The women, besides doing their house chores, sew orknit to supplement their income. A significant number of women and children go to thegarbage dumps to gather and search for recyclable materials such as cardboard, paper and irongoods.

A large part of San Roque has all of the public services of a city. However, in realitythese services reach but a limited population. Many of the families in San Roque share theirhomes and have onlv one electricity meter, one main water system, one shower, and one toilet.It is very common to find families of 6, 7 or 8 members living in one or two rooms in a housewhich is shared among 4 or 5 other families.

A significant fraction of the men from San Roque work in the formal sector in activitiessuch as industry, construction and, craft shops. Another group, probably more important, worksin informal activities such as house-based shops, bakeries or food. Many of the women of San

- 194 - Annex 2Page 12 of 27

Roque manage small shops and stores, or run various types of businesses; others work at streetvending and domestic service. The income of these families is meager, even if the father,mother and children all work. The children's contribution is becoming more important as anaddition in the family's income.

CASE STUDIES.-

In each of the towns studied, two families were used as samples:

CASE No.1.-

(Rural town, El Valle). This family is made up of 8 people; the father works at afactory, and the mother, as a caretaker in a day care center. Their total monthly incomeis 125 thousand sucres; household expenditure is 139 thousand sucres. The deficit is made upby the husband through additional occasional work (odd jobs).

The food item dominates the household budget with 61.9% of the total; 7.9% is usedfor energy; 2.2% for electricity, 1.4% for LPG and 4.3% for firewood; 18.7% is used fortransportation, and 1.5% for other expenses. This is a family with relatively acceptableconditions, whose diet is principally made up of products such as noodles, bread, hominy, grainsand rice.

CASE 2.-

This family is made up of 4 members whose only income is that of the mother. She earns49800 sucres per month from weaving hats and selling "espumilla" (beaten egg whites with fruitflavors). As might be expected, the greatest part of the family budget goes for food (83.7%)and the remaining corresponds to energy: 3.8 % for electricity and 12.5 % for firewood. Thisfamily is practically indigent; thus, their diet consists of beans, potatoes and oatmeal.

CASE 3.-

(Town of San Roque) This family is made up of 7 people, whose total monthly incomeiS S/.180 thousand. Three of its members work. Monthly expenditures total 195 thousandsucres. The difference is compensated through supplementary earnings. This family spends71.8 % of its total budget on food; on energy, 6.7% (1.5% electricity, 0.8 % in LPG and 4.4%gasoline); and 21.5% corresponds to other expenses. Their basic food consists of rice, potatoesand noodles.

- 195 - Annex 2Page 13 of 27

CASE 4.-

(San Roque). This case deals with a family of 7 people; 6 of them work (the mother,an uncle and 4 children). Together, they earn 68 thousand sucres per month. In their budget,85.7% corresponds to food; 4.3%, to LPG; 4.4%, to kerex; and 5.7%, to other. This familyfaces the most dire poverty, spending all it earns. Their diet is basically made up of potatoes,noodles and rice.

FUEL CONSUMPTION.-

In suburban areas, LPG and firewood are the fuels most often used; in urban areas, LPGand gasoline. Practically all households are electrified although service quality may vary.

LPG.-

In El Valle, at least 90% of the families use LPG, while in the surrounding areas, onlyabout 60% do. Almost everywhere in the area around Cuenca, LPG is combined with firewood.In San Roque, 90% of the families use LPG, but in the more depressed shanty towns,households combine kerex and gasoline.

In El Valle, there is an official dealer who sells between 80 and 100 cylinders of LPGper week at 2800 sucres each. The majority of the surrounding areas have small dealers (11 inall) who sell between 10 and 30 cylinders per week each, at prices which range between 3000and 3800 sucres per cylinder. In San Roque there are many dealers who sell LPG at the officialprice. Since the standardization of LPG valves, LPG retailing points have proliferated,guaranteeing a good supply.

The demand for LPG meets the needs of better-off households for both cooking and waterheating. In San Roque the demand also comes from a number of restaurants, small food places,bakery shops, and jewelry craft shops (who use it in blowtorches). In the suburban areas, LPGis used in combination with firewood.

FIREWOOD.-

Poorer households in the entire area generally use firewood for both cooking and spaceheating. The firewood used in El Valle is brought from nearby mountains by peasants who cutdown trees for this purpose. It is sold in bundles at a price of 1400 to 1600 sucres. T h edemand comes largely from private homes, even though in Cuenca there are some restaurants,bakery shops and craftsmen who still use this fuel.

GASOLINE.-

This is another fuel of great importance in this area and only in this area: this fuel is not

- 196- Annex 2Page 14 of 27

sold elsewhere in the country. In the case of the suburban areas, it is used exclusively forcooking in combination with LPG or firewood. In urban areas, it is used by the low-incomepopulation, by the service sector, and by some craftsmen and even by industry. In Cuenca thisproduct is sold by two official dealers, through the distribution of 500 "tickets" per day, withan allotment of 6 gallons per person. However, in practice, this procedure is not followed, sincethe fuel is diverted to re-sellers or sent to other intermediaries and final users. The selling priceat the official dealers is 250 sucres per gallon, while retailers charge between 650 and 1000sucres. When there is a shortage of supply, prices can reach 2000 sucres per gallon.

CHARCOAL.-

Charcoal is rarely used for cooking in urban areas, but there are some non-fuel uses forit such as in making fireworks and in some medicinal compounds. In El Valle, the use ofcharcoal is secondary, due to the abundance of firewood, a more economical fuel but there arethree small dealers who retail it in the area. In Cuenca, charcoal is widely used as it is requiredby better-off groups for barbecuing, by some restaurants and by certain craftsmen. There isactually a charcoal "market", where 5 wholesalers distribute it to the entire area and to otherregions of the province. The selling price is between 7000 and 7500 sucres per sack ofapproximately 100 pounds.

KEREX.-

Due to its shortage, kerex has become a fuel of marginal use in the Province of Azuay.It is used most often as an aid to kindle firewood, for lighting and for some other non-fuel uses,such as wood protection or as a home disinfectant and only in very few instances, as a cookingfuel because the substantial quantities needed for cooking are just too difficult to procure giventhe marketing restrictions.

In El Valle, there is one kerex dealer and many re-sellers in the surrounding areas. InCuenca, there are three dealers who use the same mechanism as for gasoline (i.e. tickets) to sellit to the public at the official price of 60 sucres per gallon. However, a large share of theavailable kerex is monopolized by retailers who sell it at ten times its official price .

The main demand for kerex comes from the rural areas, where its used mostly forlighting. The shortage of supply is such that there probably is a significant suppressed demandat all prices. (from S/.60 to S/.1600 per gallon)

ELECTRICITY.-

The majority of houses located in the area of El Valle have electricity and each househas its own meter. In the town of San Roque, many of the houses have been turned intomultifamily units (each unit consisting of one or two rooms with shared kitchen and bathroom).

- 197 - Annex 2'Page 15 of 27

As there is only one meter for each house, the landlords take advantage of the tenants. Theycharge a rate that often does not reflect actual use. For example, a landlord may pay to theelectric company a monthly bill of 20000 sucres while he charges each tenant 3 to 5 thousandsucres for a service that is only available during the night. Thus, a consumption of 5 to 10 kwh,which is what most one room households can chalk up, would end up costing over S./3000, orS/. 300/kwh, a multiple of the true tariff.

OPINIONS ON FUELS.-

It is a generalized opinion that LPG is an inexpensive, easily accessible fuel. Mostpeople would continue using it, even if its price were to rise. Firewood, which is the secondmost widely used fuel is scarce and its supply is diminishing. People say that gasolinedistribution should be expanded and the marketing systems improved. Likewise, in the case ofkerex, despite the problems caused by the smoke. People consider electrical service is good butexpensive, especially in El Valle. [If kerex were easily available, there is no reason whygasoline should continue to be distributed and in fact, an argument could be made to stop sellingthis dirty, dangerous fuel.]

- 198 - Annex 2Page 16 of ?7

SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT OBSERVER MONOGRAPH No. 4: TENA

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.-

Tena is the capital of Napo, a province located in Oriental Region of Ecuador. Thisprovince is very rich in hydrographic resources. The Napo, Quijos, Coca and Aguarico riversmake up the fluvial systems. Tropical rain forests extend over the entire region; they areseriously threatened by oil and wood exploitation as well as by colonization, all with harmfulconsequences to the ecosystem. Most of the population is rural (85%). Agriculture and cattleraising are the main economic activities in the province. During recent years, tourism hassubstantially increased. Communication between this province and other regions in the Orienteand the rest of the country is very difficult. There are only two main roads: Quito-Baeza-Archidona-Tena and Ambato-Puyo-Tena.

Tena's population is approximately 7,800. Most of the inhabitants are settlers, and onlya small portion are native indians such as Oriental Quechuas. Tertiary activities are predominantamong the population. Unemployment and underemployment levels are high and most of theeconomic activities depend upon other provinces and regions. Urban infrastructure, such aspotable water and sewage, is deficient; electricity is rationed every 48 hours in different areasof the city.

ENERGY SUPPLY AND DEMAND

LPG.-

LPG is transported from the bottling plant of El Beaterio, near Quito, and distributed forthe whole city by two agents who sell the 14 kg. cylinders to sub-distributors at a price of 2,900sucres. These traders sell the cylinders to the public from 3,000 to 3,500 sucres. According tolocal informants, an average of 600 cylinders are sold per month. LPG is the most widely usedproduct for cooking in both rural and urban areas, even though the price is considered excessive,as it is available and easy to use.

KEREX

Kerex is transported from Ambato to Tena and is distributed directly from 1000 gallontankers that park in the so called "ferias libres" (open markets) that take place in Tena andArchidona on Saturdays. The retail price is 100 sucres per gallon. Through this system, 4,000gallons are sold monthly. Kerex is also sold through agreements with farmers' unions in Tenaand nearby towns. These unions receive 17,000 gallons a month. Through this system, kerex-costs the public 150 sucres per gallon with a limit of 6 gallons per person. Kerex is mostly used

- 199 - Annex 2Page 17 of 27

by low income families. Its multiple uses include kindling, lighting and cooking.

CHARCOAL

Charcoal is brought from Ambato. There are few distribution points. There is nocommercial production because of low demand. It is used only in the neighborhoods surroundingthe city and it is used only by street food vendors and some restaurants. The price of thisproduct is 500 sucres for a 15-lb. package.

FIREWOOD

The demand for both charcoal and wood is low. They are used only for cooking drygrains in order to reduce LPG usage. The most frequent users are in rural areas. There are nospecific suppliers; it is gathered from nearby woods. On the average, a family uses four 25-lb.baskets a week. This fuel is traditional in rural farm households. The use of wood as fuel doesnot cause deforestation in the area.

ELECTRICITY, CANDLES AND BATTERIES

The families surveyed all had an electricity meter. The average monthly cost ofelectricity for an 8-member family was 4,000 sucres. Because of frequent rationing and theunreliability of service, candles are commonly used as a replacement. A five-candle packagecosts from 850 to 1,000 sucres. Two or three packages are used per week, resulting in anadditional monthly cost almost equivalent to the electric bill. Dry cells and batteries are alsoused quite frequently. Middle-sized batteries cost 1,200 sucres each.

CASE STUDIES

Socio economic disparities are mild in Tena. Nevertheless, there are some distinctresidential areas. Four families were interviewed in the neighborhoods of Las Palmas,Aeropuerto, and a suburban area with a farmer/indian population.

CASE No.1.-

The head of the family is a medical technician who works in a hospital and in privatelaboratories. His monthly income is 250,000 sucres and the monthly family expenses are about227,000 sucres. The wife's handicraft activities produce an additional small monthly sum.

-200 - Annex 2Page 18 of 27

The distribution of expenses is as follows: food 92.5 %, other expenses 0.7% ' ,transportation2.6%, fuel (LPG) 1.9%, electricity 2.2%.

CASE No.2.-

This family consists of six people, four adults and two children. The head of the familyis a woman who works as a hotel receptionist. The work of the older children and grandmotheradds to family income, bringing the total to 325,000 sucres per month.

Expenses amount to 322,400 sucres and are distributed as follows: food 83.7%, otherexpenses 10.1%, transportation 2.5%, fuel 2.0%, electricity 1.1%.

CASE No.3.-

Case three was an eight-member family. The father works for the ProvincialGovernment as a tractor driver. His monthly salary is 170,000 sucres. His wife worksseasonally in a women's program, in family agricultural activities. Their household expensesexceed their income of 350,000 sucres.

Expenses are distributed as follows: food 82.3 %, other expenses 12.0% 2, transportation3.3%, fuel (LPG) 1.3%, electricity 1.1%. This family occasionally uses wood for cooking.Gathering wood is easy for them, since they live in a community surrounded by woods.

CASE No.4.-

This is a seven-member family with two adults and five children. The father isunemployed. The mother and the 14-year-old daughter work as house maids. Together they earn110,000 sucres. Their expenses reach 102,500 sucres, broken down as follows: food 86.1%,other expenses 3.8%, transportation 2.8%, fuel(kerex) 1.9%, fuel (LPG) 3.5%, electricity 1.9%

'Due to the husband's job, health care for the family is free.

2 This percentage includes children's medical care.

- 201 - Annex 2Page 19 of 27

CONCLUSION

In the cases analyzed, there is no possibility of saving; more than 80 percent of incomeis spent on food, mainly carbohydrates with low protein levels. Transportation expenses arebetween 2 and 3 percent of the total; and energy expenses vary between 2.4 and 7.3 percent.

- 202 - Annex 2Page 20 of 27

SUMMARY OF THE PARTICIPANT OBSERVER-MONOGRAPH No. 5:SAN LORENZO

San Lorenzo is in a humid tropical zone on the northern coast of Ecuador in the provinceof Esmeraldas. It is extremely rich in natural resources in both mountain and coastal areas.There has been irrational exploitation of forest resources because of concessions given to lumberbusinesses and colonization. Harvesting of seafood is increasing partly for export. Thereduction in the area of mangroves along the coast may threaten the sustainability of thisactivity.

The area researched is not connected to the rest of the country by road and access is onlypossible by train or water. San Lorenzo county has a population of 22,552 inhabitants, of which51 % live in rural areas, and where towns have no urban characteristics at all. The economicallyactive population is made up of agricultural and forest workers, fishermen and hunters and ismostly black.

Unemployment and underemployment are serious problems in San Lorenzo. This is whymost of the population is poor and marginate. An important activity is shellfish harvesting bywomen. Due to the unemployment of male workers, these women are of the ones who bearmost household expenditures and have become household heads. The shellfish are generally soldin Colombia, where there is demand.

The infrastructure of the county is poor. There is no drinking water nor sewage systemand most families do not even have cesspools. Most of the roads are made of gravel and veryfew are paved. Only about 55 % of the houses have a supply of piped water and the percentageis similar for toilets. This causes serious environmental sanitation problems, and there is alsoa problem of malnutrition. The majority of dwellings is made of cane plastered with mud andchopped straw, and the roofs are made of thatch or zinc. San Lorenzo is one of the poorestcounties in the country and its people live under conditions of extreme poverty.

ENERGY SUPPLY AND DEMAND

LPG

LPG gets to San Lorenzo from Esmeraldas or Santo Domingo. There are two dealersand the retail price at S/5,000.00 for 14 kg, is considerably higher than the official rate. Theprice can go as high as S/6,000.00 in surrounding areas. This high price is due to transportationcosts from Guayaquil, Santo Domingo and Esmeraldas, from wharf to warehouse, and alsobecause of port handling costs. Moreover, water transport isn't all that safe, and part of theprice of LPG also reflects a risk premium. LPG is more common in town but rare in peripheralareas where most of the families use charcoal. Approximately 720 cylinders are sold monthlywhich, in relation to the 4,753 families living there, shows that not everyone can afford LPG

- 203 - Annex 2Page 21 of 27

at those prices. At best, only 30 % to 40% of households use LPG for cooking. The mainreasons for this low consumption is low income. Moreover, and paradoxically, poor familiespurchase charcoal in small amounts (by the plate) which, when added up for the moth, coststhem much more than a cylinder of LPG. However, the trade in LPG is helping some familiessurvive.

CHARCOAL

There are small warehouses for retailing charcoal (about 10) in San Lorenzo, where itis sold in 25 - pound bags and at S/600.00 a plate. Retailers purchase the bags for S/1,500.00,and then resell them at S/1,800.00 to S/7,000.00 (depending on the size of resales). About1,600 bags of charcoal are sold monthly in San Lorenzo. The charcoal is produced nearby fromfine hard woods, such as chanul, mangrove, guabo and nato. In comparison with firewoodusers, who only gather branches, the charcoal producers cut down trees, thereby contributingto deforestation. It is estimated that 70% of the families use charcoal for cooking, regularlyusing one bag weekly or one plate daily. In both cases, the cost is much higher than LPGwhich, however, must be purchased by the cylinder and thus is beyond the reach of manyhouseholds because of its indivisibility. Traditional sellers of prepared foods use both charcoaland firewood.

FIREWOOD

Firewood is more widely used than charcoal in rural towns. The residents of "LasDelicias" sell charcol in San Lorenzo and Esmeraldas, but use wood themselves. Wood is alsosold but only in the "city" of San Lorenzo. Each household uses about 25 pounds of firewoodweekly. The species used are the same as those used to make charcoal. Firewood is also usedfor other purposes such as repelling mosquitoes and for magical or medicinal purposes.

KEREX

There are three kerex dealers in San Lorenzo who bring product from Esmeraldas. Itis sold by wholesalers and retailers for S/2,000.00 and S/2,500.00 per gallon and S/600,00 percan. The price per can in the surrounding countryside is S/800,00 to S/1,000.00. These pricesare caused by generally short supplies and the high costs of transport. Kerex is mainly used tokindle firewood or charcoal, for lighting and other non fuel purposes. A typical family usestwo to three half liter cans weekly.

GASOLINE

Poor families use gasoline to kindle firewood and charcoal and to light "petromax" lampsin homes without electricity. For this purpose, a family uses from two to three gallons weekly,or from eight to twelve gallons monthly, which signifies an extremely high cost, as the retail

- 204 - Annex 2Page 22 of 27

price is S/2,000.00 per gallon, identical to kerex, for which this low octare gasoline is aninferior substitute.

ELECTRICITY, CANDLES AND BATTERIES

Electricity is provided by an old diesel generator which consumes from 10,000 to 15,000gallons monthly. Its service is poor and subject to many failures, causing the generalized useof candles and batteries. Most houses lack meters and purchase electricity from a neighbors.The average use of electricity represents a monthly cost of S/3,000.00, whereas the cost ofcandles is S/1,500.00 for a package of four thick candles. The consumption rate is threepackages weekly. Each large battery is worth S/2,000.00. Lighting costs are high due to poorelectricity service.

CASE STUDIES

Case studies were done in the outlying neighborhoods of San Martin, La Magdalena,Nuevos Horizontes, Kennedy and 26 de Agosto, all near the coast. The site of Pichangal wasresearched in the rural area. The main general money-making activity in all these places wasgathering of shellfish.

CASE No. 1

This is a family with the mother as family head and six children, none of whom attendschool. Her income is quite meager for she earns only S/60,000.00 monthly and getsSf10,000.00 from a son who works as a shoeshine boy. Household expenses are as follows:food 86.1%; electricity 4.1%; other fuels 9.7%

As can be seen, this family is almost below the limits of survival, and that is the reasonwhy it has a poor diet which consists mainly of carbohydrates. The proportion expenditures onfuel and electricity is extremely high because the budget is so low. This family cooks withcharcoal, which ends up costing more (ie. about S/.7000 as against S/5000-6000 for a cylinderof LPG).

CASE No. 2

This is a family with two adults and three children. The mother and daughter workharvesting shellfish which gives them a monthly income of S/64,000.00. This family cannotsave money and does not have the necessary means to meet its basic needs in health, education,clothing, etc.

- 205 - Annex 2Page 23 of 27

The estimated monthly expenditure is S/65,000.00 and can be broken down as follows:food 69.2 %; electricity 3.1%; other fuels 11.1%; other expenses 16.6 %. Again, the fact thatthis family cannot afford LPG shows through the high proportion of fuel in the budget.

CASE No. 3

The father of this household is the only one earning an income, which he receives fromhis job as a small boat operator. He earns S/140,000.00 and spends S/145,000.00 monthly,according to the following detail: food 62.1 %; electricity 2.1%; LPG 3.4%; other expenses32.4%. This last percentage is quite high as it must cover clothing, as was reported, but alsohealth and education. Relatively speaking, this family is much better off than the other onesobserved. The share of the budget going to fuels is also much lower, as this household haselectricity and can afford LPG.

CASE No. 4

This family lives in a rural area called Pichangal, near the port. The father is afisherman, and the fish help him feed his family. His expenses reach S/120.800 sucres that aredistributed as follows: food 62.1 %; other fuels 13.1 %; other expenses 24.5 % This case showshow rural families that lack electricity must pay more for lighting kerex and candles at a weeklycost of about S/3,000.00. Families like these have a hard time improving their standard ofliving. Nevertheless, and in general, the people located in coastal areas have access to aminimum of protein, derived from fish, which is not too expensive, or they can fish for itthemselves. On the other hand, expenditures on charcoal are extremely high and can reach upto 11 % of the budget of a low income family.

- 206- Annex 2Page 24 of 27

SUMMARY OF THE PARTICIPANT OBSERVER MONOGRAPH No. 6: JIPUJAPA

The city of Jipijapa in southern Manabi Province is at a point of intersection between thesemi-dry and humid zones. According to the 1990 census, it has a population of 32,133 people.There are 5,879 houses of which 54.4% consist of only one or two rooms, and where 64.8%of the population lives. Some 21 % lack running water and only 42 % have sewage systems. Thelack of safe water and of sewage systems cause serious health problems.

Three neighborhoods were studied: Parrales y Gual, Mirador San Antonio and FAE.Parrales y Gual houses more or less middle level groups while Mirador is inhabited by squattersand unemployed professionals and agricultural laborers. In all three neighborhoods, women'swork is important because it contributes to family income through small business, domestic workand coffee harvesting.

ENERGY

LIQUID PETROLEUM GAS (LPG) - There is a good supply of this fuel. It is distributedin Jipijapa by four dealers which also supply some rural towns. Furthermore, there arenumerous small re-sellers, especially in the most densely populated parts of the neighborhoods.The wholesale price is S/.2,312 for a cylinder of 14 kg, which is sold to small resellers at pricesof S/.2,600 to S/.2,800 who then retail it at S/3,00 to S/.3,200, or just above the official price(of S/.2,900). LPG is the fuel with most demand in the city, since 90% of households cookexclusively with it while the remaining 10% use either charcoal or firewood. In poorerneighborhoods, 80% use LPG for cooking though they combine it with firewood or charcoal.Following the recent price increase, poorer families try to limit their consumption, and use itonly for light cooking.

FIREWOOD -

In Jipijapa, firewood is the second most frequent fuel, complementary to LPG. Thesupply of this resource comes from the shrubs and trees found in surrounding areas. Gatheringis done by women and children, generally each week, and, when there is a mule or donkey,every 20 days. The price for a bundle of firewood is S/.1,000 in the summertime and S/. 1,500in the wintertime. The use of firewood has become widespread due to gas price increases andmany families must resort to firewood to meet their fuel needs. It is true that, at present, in thearea of Jipijapa, there is a concern for the conservation of wood resources. Generally, the treesare not cut down but rather branches and limbs are used. However, in the future, the processof deforestation may well worsen, and causing greater difficulties for wood-using households.

- 207 - Annex 2Page 25 of 27

CHARCOAL -

In Jipijapa, the use of charcoal is limited. The city is supplied by an importantdistribution center located downtown. The price for a bag (of 30 to 40 kg) is S/.4,000 in thesummer and S/.6,000 in the winter. It is also sold in cans of S./500 (of 4 to 5 pounds) and insmall bags of S/.300 (of about 3 pounds). A S/.500 portion is enough for a day's cooking,whereas a S/.300 bag is only enough for one meal. Thus, charcoal is much more expensive touse and, paradoxically, it is used by the poorest families who cannot afford to buy a gas stoveor a full LPG cylinder. Charcoal supplements LPG in the residential areas but is also used byfood businesses, as well as in roast chicken restaurants.

KEREX -

According to the study conducted in one of the neighborhoods, only 1% of familiescooked with kerex, in combination with other fuels. Kerex is also used as an insecticide,disinfectant, floor protector, fire starter and for lighting. Not only poor families use kerex forthese purposes. Kerex is more widely used during the wintertime, due to the shortage offirewood. It is worth noting the declining demand is due to the poor distribution system as wellas limited supply. Furthermore, not all the kerex sent from Manta reaches Jipijapa, as a goodamount of it is sold to the service stations along the highway. Kerex price ranges betweenS/.1,500 and S/.1,800 per gallon. There are smaller units than the gallon such as the"Ecuadorian Gallon" which is a little more than a liter or in bottles of S./100, S/.150 andS/.400, which are used to kindle fire. Smaller units tend to cost more than full gallons, and theyare purchased by poorer people who tend to have erratic, low cash flow.

ELECTRIC POWER -

Most houses in city have electric power, though most lack meters. So, people havedirect connections for which a fixed amount is paid to the company. There is a significantnumber of clandestine connections which are not paid for and it is a common practice forfamilies who have a connection, legally or not, to supply power to others. According to theinformation received, the absence of meters is due in part to their scarcity well as the financialinability of many households to purchase one.

For metered houses, electric power bills range between S/.2.000 and S/.5,000 per monthfor the better-off areas and S/. 1,000 for those who have an authorized direct connection. Inareas where there are no meters and where there is only a transformer, frequent voltagevariations often cause damage to the appliances. Also, the development of productive activitiesis stymied in these areas because supply is monophasic.

- 208 - Annex 2Page 26 of 27

CASE STUDIES

Four households were studied to get an idea of income and expenditures.

CASE No. 1

In Parrales y Gual, a household of 11 members including one parent, her own childrenand grandchildren, has a monthly income of S/.505,000, through earnings from the parent andtwo sons. This family has expenses of S/.479,300 which are distributed in the following way:food 62.6%; other expenses, 23.0%; transportation , 12.5%; electricity, 0.6%; fuel (LPG)1.3%.The family's diet contains the basic protein requirements needed and can be consideredacceptable. This family can be described as middle class.

CASE No. 2

In the same neighborhood, another household made up of ten members, three adults andseven minors, was studied. The family income consists of the earnings of one parent and thoseof the son-in-law, or approximately S/. 152,000 per month, which does not allow this familyto cover its expenditures. These total SI.161,000 and are distributed as follows: food, 93.2%,other, 0.3; transportation, 3.7%; electricity 0.9%; fuel (LPG) 1.9%.

CASE No. 3

The third household is made up of 9 members, the parents and seven children. Thefather is the only member who earns money. The spouse only works during the coffee harvest,providing an additional annual income of about SI. 100,000. The family's expenditures amountto SI.142,400 distributed among food, 94.8%, electricity, 1.0%; fuel (LPG), 2.5%; other fuel,(charcoal) 1.7% .

CASE No. 4

The fourth household studied has a total income of S/.205,000 with SI. 198,000 worthof expenses distributed as follows: food, 75.7%; other expenses, 15.3%;1 transportation,6.0%; fuel (LPG), 2.0%; other fuel, (charcoal) 0.5%. The food expenditures item for thisfamily is lower than in prior cases, because their diet is mainly made up of carbohydrates, witha low protein component.

From the expense breakdown of the families studied, we can conclude that the largestpart of family income is assigned to food, leaving a very small margin for other expenses suchas health, education and transportation. Practically none of the households studied are able tosave anything, and for the few (1) that can, savings are negligible. Furthermore, some familieshad income supplements, through occasional jobs and in-kind donations from related familiessuch as clothing or the like. In summary, fuel and electric power expenditures in the 4 cases

- 209 - Annex 2Page 27 of 27

studies are typical of low income families in a mid size coastal city. These expendiaes rangebetween 1.9% and 5% of their budgets. An increase in the price of fuel would certainly affectfamilies such as those whose margin of safety is practically null.

OPINIONS ON RESIDENTIAL FUEL USE

ELECTRIC POWER -

In one of the neighborhoods, those surveyed said that the electric power service wasacceptable, while in others it was rated as poor, due to frequent cuts. Nonetheless, the tariffwas considered inexpensive. However, should tariffs rise, most people feel that they mustreduce their usage. Also, many stated that if tariffs rose, they would switch to clandestine(illegal) connections.

KEREX -

Some people considered a price increase acceptable if accompanied by better supply andavailability in the market. However, it was felt that new policies should keep kerex inexpensivecompared to other fuels.

FIREWOOD -

With a still plentiful forest reserve in the area, firewood continues to be an importantcooking fuel in Jipijapa, be it exclusively or as a supplement to other fuels. However, anadequate management of the forest and reserves is required in order not to deplete this resourceas firewood requirements may well rise in the future if the prices of modern fuels are increased.

LPG -

At present prices, a 14 Kg cylinder is considered "not too expensive" but a price increasewould push consumption downward. The lowest income groups would be forced to return tofirewood, and gas would only be used as a supplement. Any increase in energy prices willfurther reduce the food budget. Gradual increases have been proposed, but most people thinkthat a price of SJ.5,000 for 14 Kg. is about the ceiling of what can be accepted by thepopulation.

CHARCOAL -

The poorer families who cannot afford to buy either a small range or a gas cylinder areforced to use charcoal, a more expensive fuel, which in the last instance means that poor peoplepay more for their energy.

- 210 - Annex 3Page 1 of 4

MANA!!: JpIlTrOl

FApILIT NPMERQ TNGPESO- G A r T r c M E N U A L , S F sucreF0C. PERSONAS MENSI'AL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AQrppn,141

TOTAL Electri- GLr 0t'cs Ener- cETOTAI Alimer,- 0tro' TOTAL 0fsucresl cidad eticOE ENERGTA tacion Gastos % OEICIT(-'

1 11 505000 3000 6000 9000 1.9% 300000 62.6% 173Q00 35.5'5 479300 257002 1527000 '500 3000 4500 2.r' !5000 97.2t% 6450 4.0t 160Q50 -q5,5

0 15F300 1500 7500 24?0 ' 4',0 ,r

4 7 205000 !ooo PM ilo so:0 :.Q:^ '''¢ . 2 0n -,O!. c'l ' r n r^'

I ' 0TTC:A: QUTOf

FAMILTA NUMERO INGRESQO G A eT O S K S ^ (Scres,NRO. M!RSONAS MENSUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL Electri- GLP Otros Ener- SUBTOTAL Alimen- Otro! TETPL r(sucresl cidad geticos !NERGIA tacion Gastos DErICTf!-1

! 6 200000 5000 24000 29000 12,31 10000l 42.5S I630C 45,2% 235300 -353002 7 260000 5000 4900 9900 3.6O 120000 44.0% 142600 52.3% 272500 -1250Q3 7 376000 3 500 5900 PT.6 ` 21250 7.2% 294550 83450

4 6 216000 3000 4350 7350 3.3% 80000 36.2% 133400 6C. 4 220750 -d50n

5 4 160000 3300 3300 2.0% :00000 60.9% 61000 37.1% 164300 -4300

6 4 175000 300v 3000 1.6% 80000 4>z 105200 55.9% 188200 -137200

AdUAY: CUENCA

FAMILIA NUMERD iNGRPS0 G A S T 0 S M E N S U A S E ar rS'

NRO'. EPEO0NAS5 MENSUAL --- ------------ ---------- AHOPRQU1TOTAL Electr - GLP Otros Ener- SUBTOTAL Alimen- Otros TOTAL 0(sucres) cidad geticos ENERGIA tacion Gastos DEFICIT(-)

8E 125000 3000 2000 6000 !!000 7.9% 86000 61.91 42000 30.2% 139000 -140002 4 49800 1800 6000 7800 16.3% 40000 83.7% 0 0.0% 47800 2000

3 7 8100000 "M0 1500 8500 13000 6.7% 140000 71.2% 4200C 21.5% lQSOO0 -150004 7 68000 3000 3000 6000 8.6% 60000 85.7% 4000 5.7% 70000 -2000

- 211 - Annex 3Page 2 of 4

GUAYAS: GUAYAQIL!

FAMILIA NUMERO INGPESO G A 5 T 0 S m E N 5 U A L E S (sucres!NRO. PERSONAS MENSUAL - - ------------- ----- AHORRO(+

TOTAl Electri- GLP C!ros Ener- SUBTOTAL Alimen- Otros TOTAL 0(sucres) cidad geticos ENERGIA tacion Gastos - -

1 7 430000 5000 6800 11B00 2.8% 240000 56.7' 171500 40.5% 423300 67002, 51200 S!4

7 71,"00 ,Q 4SQQ 7500 2,4% 240000 7'.31 71417 2^4' 318917 '1OE'4 6 210000 1500 5!00 660' 2. C 210000 92.2% 1' ?' 4.9% 2277800 -178005 P 192000

NAPO: TENA

FAMILIA NUMERO INGRESO G A S T 0 S M E N S U A L E S (sucres)NRO, PERSONAS MENSUAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TCTAL Electri- GLP Otros Ener- SUBTOTAL Alinen- Otros TOTAL 0(sucres) cidad ceticos ENERGIA taciorn Gastos DEFICTTV-1

! 4 260000 5000 4400 9400 4,1t 210'0C 92,. 7500 3.3% 226900 33iOC2 6 350000 5500 £400 11900 3.7% 270000 B7.71 40500 12.6% 322400 2 6993 8 350000 4000 4667 8667 2.4% 300000 82.31 56000 15.4% 364667 -146674 5 110000 2000 3500 2000 7500 7.2% 90000 86.1% 7000 6.7% 104500 5500

ESMERALDAC SAN LORENZO

FAMILIA NUMERO INGRESO G A S T 0 S M E N S U A L 5 (suc-esNAR PEPSONAS MENSLIAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A RRO(

TOTAL Electri- GLP Otros Ener- SUBTOTAL Alimen- Otros TOTAL 0(sucres) cidad geticos ENERGIA tacion Gastos DEFICIT(-N

! 7 70000 2900 6800 9700 13.9% 60000 86.1% 0.0% 6Q700 30064000 2000 7200 9200 14.2% 45000 69.2% 10800 16.6' 65000 -1000

3 7 140000 3000 5000 8000 5.5% 900QQ 62.1% 47000 32.4% 145000 -50004 E 120000 15800 15800 13.1% 75000 62.1% 30000 24.8% 120BOO -800

-212- Annex 2Paee 3 of 4

FANILTA NUt'5P INGOPSD G a 5 T r E N S ti ! L E F C A 7 T T A isucrO.rn DERSONQS PERCA- ----------------------------------------

PITA Ele.tri- GID Qtros Ener-S!jFTOTA! Alinerl- Otrcs TOTAL{'L:Ce,9 rj.i.b,d 'gt'ic2s ENGIE t3cion G3stos

11 45QO 7 545 0 CIP ''277 154K7 435732 q 168q 10 37 5 500! 166' 7 17853? 9 17559 167 38q 26'7 527 250C 0 I5HU

7 "I 7427 5 47 347 147Q 621' 4^;'n4

PROFE71777 :. i2 456 1 70^> , l0ql 556Q 6795pIClNMI'2^: ;^]'-

FAMILA4 N2 INGRESO G A S T D c M E N Si UL E S P E CA P 1 T A (sucres!NRO. PEPSONrr PERCA- -----------------------------------------------------------------

PITA Electri- GLP OtrDs Ener-SIJETOTL AlirrE- Otros TOTAL(sucres' cidad aeticos ENERGii tacior, Gastos

1 327'' 5^rr r777 , 4577 :/q67 ' 792172 7 37143 714 700 0 1414 17147 'G3' 3P9

- 54000 500 c r 7 _

4 6 3600C0 50Q 72^5 0 1 225 i33'7722 7 HI"74 49 ^ n 2 I r t; * ;; '

C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~

43750 0 750 ; '50 20W2 26 4 7050,

PR0MEt-DI 40704 475 0 1729 216 4 do"55 lr5'tsU C'.ENCP

FRILIA NK'MER INGRESO G A T Q0^ M E N r U A L E CV P D i C A D T T A (sucres)NIFl, PEPSONA5 PERCA- -----------------------------------------------------------------

PITA Eec tri GLP Otros Ene'-SE CTOTL A .e- 2 -os T !T'L(sucres cidad geticos ENERGIA tacion Gastos

i 15625 375 250 S. :75 7 0750 5^cr i73752 4 12450 450 9 iS0. ?5^ :07^797 7 ^5714 429 2!1 2114 1857 20000 6CC7 277,574 ' e!4 QC 42Q 429 857 8575 57! 10°.°0

PROMEDIOS 15576 313 227 97 2510 127¢30 2955 16796GUAYAS: GYJAYAQUIL

- 213 - Annex 3Page 4 of 4

GUAYAS: GUAYAO0'I'

FAMILIA NUMERO INGRESO G A S T O S M E N e C A L E S A P I T A (sucres!NRO. PERSOMAS PERCA- -------------------------------------

PITA Electri- GLP Otros Ener-SUBTOTAL A!imer- Otros TOTAL(sucres) cidad geticos ENERGIA tacion Gastos

! 61429 714 971 0 i6EG 34286 24500 604712 7 73143 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 ' 5r000 429 643 1071 34286 10202 455604 6 3500 250 850 0 1100 35000 1967 379675 P 24000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PROMEOICS 48714 464 82! 0 i289 34524 12190 47999

NAPO: TENA

FAHILIA NUMERO INGRESO G A S T O S E N SU A L E S P E R C A P I T A (sucres)NRO. PERSONAS PERCA- -----------------------------------------------------------------

PITA Electri- GLP Otros Ener-SUBTOTAL Alimen- Otres TOTA!(sucres' cidad geticos ENERGIA tacion Gastos

1 4 65000 1250 1100 0 2350 52500 1875 567252 6 5837? 9!7 1067 0 1993 45000 6750 5'7333 8 43750 50 583 0 1083 37500 7000 455834 5 22000 400 700 400 1500 18000 1400 20900

PROMEDIOS 47271 767 863 100 1729 38250 4256 44235

ESOERALDAS: SAN LORENlO

FAMILIA NUMERO INGRESO G A S T O S M E N S UA L E S PE F P C IT!7 A suc-e!eNRO. PERSONAS PERCA- -----------------------------------------------------------------

PITA Electri- GLP Otros Ener-SUBTOTAL Alimen- Otros TOTAL(sucres) cidad geticos ENERGIA tacion Gastos

1 7 10000 414 0 971 1386 8571 0 99572 5 12800 400 0 1440 1840 9000 2160 130003 7 20000 429 714 0 1143 12857 6714 207144 8 15000 0 0 1975 1975 9375 3750 15100

PROMEDIOS 14450 311 179 1097 1586 9951 3156 14693

-214 - Annex 4Page 1 of 1 n

IINISTCRIO DE ENERGIA Y MINAS ENCUESTA NACIONAL SOBRE CONSUMO DE ENERGIA ENCUESTA No.

IP4STITUTO NACIONAL DE ENEROIA EN EL SECTOR RESIDENCIAL URBANO Y RUJRAL

LOCALIDAD ZONA SECTCR ANZ PRDIO DIRECC[ON

I. CARACTERISTICAS DE LA VIVIENDASUPERFICIE (mr2) NUMEPO DE ITPAS ACTIVWAIIES tN LA VIVIENDA

7 TEPREN13 |S VIVICNDA ViViltIDASt$ JPA __OM1_C _10_

MATCRIALES PREDG4IN4MTES CN LA VIVENDA SERVICIOS EN LA VIVIENDA(E3ESTRUCTURA 1 PAREDES aS CUDIERIA A AGUA 20 LUZ 21 COCINA -A SH JLVN4RIA

2~~~~

* .1~~~~~~~~~1

II. CARACTERISTICAS DE LOS MIEMBROS DEL HOGAR CENSALI (D F3 1 Q) (Z 3

NOMBRE DE PILA EDAD SEXO EDUC. OCUPACION LUGAR DE TRABAJO INGRESOS

III. GAST!S DEL HOGAR CENSALGASTO MENSUAL POP VIVIENDA _______

APIIE~4DO OTR T=OS

ALMNAIN(ULTIMO MCS) LaATCNC1I3N A LA SALUD (ANUJA4.

[f RA 1_1 1EI .TRABA.D ILTIIM0 MESI 3

YRMiSPOITE ESCOLAR TIATImC MES) A (CLATIMa MES)

9OTROS TRA4SPO3BTES IIA.TIMO MES) LS ITNO (ULTIMO HMIS)

PIE NSIOMCS Y MATRICLLAS (AMUAL) I 3TPOTS GASTOS

I UTILES ESC3ARES CANUAL) G AHORRO FAMILIAR (LCLTISO ES)

ENCUESTADOR FECHA SUPEVISOR FECHA

E NO P^G I F P%Bltit8WD l_+ PPfSr^"t;=TX OTPSS l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

- 215 - Annex 4Pane 2 of 1Ct

ENCUESTA No.MINISTERIO DE ENERGIA Y MINAS ENCUESTA NACIONAL SOBRE CONSUMO DE ENERGIA

INSrITUI[I NACIONAL DE EIEPGIA Etl EL SECTOR REISIDENICIAL UJP2ND1 Y PU,PAL

IV. ENERGIAS UTILIZADAS EN LA VIVIENDAENERGIAS 0 COMBUSTIBLES SI NO ENEPGIAS 0 COMBUSTIBLES SI NO

A GAS F RESIDUOS VEGETALES

B GASOLINA G ELECRCIDAD

C KEREX _ H VELASD CARBON i PlLAS Y BATERIASE LERIA 0 MADERA J OTROS

GA &

FRECUENTEMENTE I

UTILIZACION OCASIONALMENTE 2

NUNCA UTILIZA 3

COCINAR, HERVIR AGUA r_

% DE USO CALENTAR LA CASA __

CALENTAR AGUA

POR ACTIVIDAD ( LUMINACION

@oTROS USOS CASEPOS

_ (EGOCIO EN LA CASA

_CANTIDAD

COMPRAS EFECTUADAS (%NIDAD

EL MES PASADO aRECTI POR UNIOAD

E0)UUIVALENC IA

CANTIDAD

CONSUMO EFECTIVO Q.JNIDAD

EN EL MES PASADO (PECIO PZP UNlDAD

EOUIVALCrhCIA

DURACION DE LA ULTIMA COMPRA

&No. DE VIAJES EFECTUADOS EL ULTIMO MES

8DISTANCIA AL SITIO USUAL DE COMPRA

sTIEMPO DE VIAJE EMPLEADO

)MEDID DE TRANSPORTE USADO

ENCUESTADOR FECHA SUPERVISOR FECHA 2 A

-216- Annex 4Paa 3 of 10

HINISTURIC Dt ENERGIA Y MNAS ENCUESTA NACIONAL SOBRE CONSUMO DE ENERGIA ENCUESTA No.

INSTITUTO MACIOCAL DE ENECGIA EN EL SECTOR RESIDENCIAL URBANO Y RURAL

GASOLINA

FRECUENTEMENTE I

UTILIZACIaN OCASIONALMENTE 2

NUNCA UTILIZA 33

TOCINAR, HERVIR AGUA

4

X DE USO CALENTAR LA CASA _ .-

CALENTAR AGUA

POR ACTIVIDAD (LUMINACION

(%TROS USOS CASEROS

EGOC10 EN LA CASA

CANTIDAD

COMPRAS ErECTUADAS 2NIDAD

EL MES PASADO RECIC POR UNIDAD

OUIVALENCIA

CANTIDAD

CONSUMO EFECTIVO BNIDAD

EN EL MES PASADO (RECID POP UNIDAD

I_E VUVALENCIA

DURACION DE LA ULTIMA COMPRA

No. DE VIAJES EFECTUADOS EL ULTIMO MES

DISTANCIA AL SITIO USUAL DE COMPRA

TIEMPO DE VIAJE EMPLEADO

N4EDID DE TRANSPORTE USADO

ENCUESTADOR FECHA SUPERVISOR | FECHA | 3AV I I I Vl°l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

-217 - Annex 4, 1 '~~~~~~~~~~~~~ate 4 o' .0

ENCUESTA NoMVNISTERErO K ENCWA Y NiNAS ENCUESTA NACIONAL SOBRE CONSUMO DE ENERGIA

TISITUION IC CGK c*IA EN EL SECTOR RESIDENCIAL URBANO Y RURAL j

KEREX

fRECUENTEMENTE I

UTILIZACION OCASIONALMENTE 2

NUNCA UTILIZA 3

INAR HERV R AGU

A DE USO ENTAR LA CASA

ENTAR AGUA

POR ACTIVIDAD LLNMINACION

TROS USOS CASEROS

EGOCIG EN LA CASA

ANTIDAD

COMPRAS EFECTUADAS IDAD

EL MES PASADO RECI0 POR UNIDAD

.OIIVALENCIA

CANT IDAD

CONSUMO EFECTIVO IDAD

EN EL MES PASADO ')RECIa POR UNIDAD

OUIVAI.ENCIA

IURACION DE LA ULTIMA COMPRA

No. DE VIAJES EFECTUADOS EL ULTIMO MES

DISTANCIA AL SITIO USUAL DE COIMPRA

TIEMPO DE VIAJE EMPLEADO

MEDID DE TRANSPORTE USADO

ENCUESTADOR FECHA I SUPERVISOR | FECHA I 4 /A1- I I I Y 10

- 218 - Annex 4pn Oa 9 f 10(

ENCUESTA No.MINtSTEPID DE ENERGIA Y MINAS ENCUESTA NACIONAL SOBRE CONSUMO DE ENERGIA

INSTrTUIO NACIONAU DC ENERGIA EN EL SECTORZ RESIDENCIAL URBAND Y RURAL

CARBON

FRECUENTEMENTE I

UTILIZACION OCASIONALMENTE 2

NUNCA UTIL[ZA 3

COCINAR, HERV[R AGUA_

~5~%. DE US O CALENTASA_A _A_

CALENTAR AGUA

POR ACTIVIDAD tLUMINACION

(%TROS USOS CASEROS

(1EGOCID EN LA CASA

GCANTI DAD

COMPRAS EFECTUADAS NIDAD

EL MES PASADO (4RECIO POR UNIDAD

OUI VALENCIA

)CANTIDAD

CONSUMO EFECTIVO (UNIDAD

EN EL MES PASADO RPRECIO POR UNIDAD

C OU IVALENCIA

DURACION DE LA ULTIMA COMPRA

No. DE VIAJES EFECTUADOS EL ULTIMO MES

DISTANCIA AL SITIO USUAL DE COMPRA

@TIEMPO DE VIAJE EMPLEADO

3MEDIO DE TRANSPORTE USADO

ENCUESTADOR | FECHA SUPERVISOR FECHA j10o

- 219 - Annex 4Pap,c G W. 10

ENCUESrTA No.HINISTERIO DE ENERGIA Y MINAS ENCUESTA NACIONAL SOBRE CONSUMO DE ENERGIA .

INSTITUTa NACIONAL DC ENERGIA EN EL SECTOR RESIDENCIAL lURBANO Y RURAL

LENA 0 MADERA

(i) ~~~~FRECUENTEMENTE I

UTILIZACION OCASIONALMENTE 2

NUNCA UT IL IZA 3 _

D COCINAF, HERVIR AGUA

CALENTAR LA CASA%. DE USO

CALENTAR AGUAPOP ACTIVIDAD _ __-

OTROS USOS CASEROS _

NEGOCIO EN LA CASA

(DCOMPRA

PROVISION R

COMPRA Y RECOGE

COMPRA RECOLECCION

CANTIDAD

PROVISION EFECTUADA UNIDAD _-

EL MES PASADO 0PRECIO POP UNIDAD _ -

__E__ EQUIVALENCIA

CANTIDAD _

CONSUMO EFECTIVO UNIDAD

EN EL MES PASADO (TRECIO Pi'P UNlnAD

)DURACION DE LA Ul_TIMA PROVISION..

D9 No. DE VIAJES EFECTUADOS EL ULTIMO MES

20DISTANCIA AL SITIO USUAL DE PROVISION

:-:3)TIEMPO DE VIAJE EMPLEADO____-

MEDIO DE TRANSPORTE USADO

TIEMPO FAMILIAR HOMBRES

EMPLEADO EN LA MUJERES

RECOLECCION _

NIROS - DE IZ ANOS

ENCUESTADOR FECHA SUPERVISOR FECHA I 6 AI r 1 T v iol

-220 - Annex 4n5 s>p 7 nf I

ENCUESTA No.| NlISTERIO DK ENCIGIA Y MINAS ENCUESTA NACIONAL SOBRE CONSUMO DE ENERGIA

INSTITUTO NACIONI DE ENRGIA EN EL SECTOR RESIDENCIAL URBANO Y RURAL

RESIDUOS VEGETALES

(D ~~~~FRECUENTEMENTE I

UTILIZACION OCASIONALMENTE 2

NUNCA UTILIZA 3

COCINAR, HERVIR AGUA

CALENTAR LA CASA% DE USO

POR ACTIVIDAD CALCNTAR AGUA

OTRoS USoS CASEROS

NEGOCID EN LA CASA

COMPRA

PROVISION

COMPRA Y RECOGE

COMPRA RECOLECCION

CANTIDAD

PROVISION EFECTUADA UNIDAD

EL MES PASADO DilUPRECIO POP UNIDAD

ECUIVALENCIA

14CANTIDAD

CONSUMO EFECTIVO UNIOAD

EN EL MES PASADO PRECIO POR UNIDA_

EOUIVALENCIA

DURACION DE LA ULTIMA PROVISION

No. DE VIAJES EFECTUADOS EL ULTIMO MES

DISTANCIA AL SITIO USUAL DE PROVISION

TIEMPO DE VIAJE EMPLEADO

MEDI1 DE TRANSPORTE USADO

TIEMPO FAMILIAR HOMBRES

EMPLEADO EN LA 24MUJERES

RECOLECCION _

NIFOS - DE 12 ANOS

ENCUESTADOR f FECHA SUPERVISOR FECHA 7 7/viol

- 221 - Annex 4PaRe 8 of 10

I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ENCUESTA NO.MINISIERJO DE ENERG,A Y MINAS ENCUESTA NACIONAL SOBRE CONSUMO DE FNERGIA ECET o

INSftTUID t4ACinNAL K EFSERGI EN EL SECTOP PESIDENCIAI- UPBAN(I Y RUPAL

ELECTRICIDAD COMEDIDOR No. IRED rORMA DE PAGO TARIFA ' MOTIVO DE CARENCIA

1 2 1 2 3 . l 2 3 4 1 2 3 l 2 1 2 3 4 5

0 C3 _

CO H DL 0 UIx M 4T -(i) UTIL]ZACIN-

| COIA HEVRAU- LMNCO Z~~ I

- U - U~~~~~~~j 3 Cj U

|CALENTAR~ ~ ~~ E~( LACS 2 TO uo .JTIO

-j | tJ | I | U (-|

| 212 UNCAUTILIZAI3 1 1212|NUNC|3 4 5

| tTIPO SANTIDADSVALOR | |~~ CAnTIDADVALR

| CONSUCNSUO DEL |ULTI1 (lMO MDEAORUITA K\--JH-

UT m ILZA (ICON

CAMENSA LAASAD | 2 OTRO USG DMES TIO 5AD]0+

I W W F 11 1@ 1@ 1@ 1±~ W C

|ALETIAR AGUPA | NrOI EN L LIM : A |A~ 6

VELASu 0 IA BTRA

1. 1 1FRCUNTMET 1 FREC IENTEEN1

| DRCO DE LNA ULTIL COZPA 3 NUCD A UTILA 3

1 2 1 2 3 234 .120 (23) .. 4I.1

rC TADOR |NTIDAD VALOR | S OFTIDDO |AT EAHALOR

CONSUMO CDELDCLMNSSAODE -NTARI WVHl

ULIM CUMTAILTIZAC CON P

DUACETANR G LA ULTASCOPRAOTflRACOSNS DOESL TIMACOS P

CAE NACAUSAD3OREGECHA SUERVIACSORACH

VELAS (D 'PILAS Y BATERIAS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

-222 - Annex 4Page 9 of 10

IENCUESTA No,r INISTEPID DE ENERGIA MINAS ENCUESTA NACIONAL SOBRE CONS'JMO DE ENERGIA

INSTITUTO NACIONAL DC ENERGIA EN EL SECTOR RES[DENCIAL URBANO Y RURAL

V. UTILIZACIUN DE LA ENERGIA EN LA VIVIENDAILUMINACION

A LAMPARAS INCANDESCENTES LAMPARAS FLUORESCENTES

.! TIPO (W,) C)NO. DE FOCOS 3 HOPAS USOL DI I TIPO (W) (!'No DE rcOCOS HORAS USO/DIo

(3 APARATOS ELECTRICOS APARATOS ELECTRICOS

NOMBRE WTIPO (W) G) EDAD NOMBRE TIPO (W) EDAD

APARATOS No ELECTR[COS APAPATnS NO ELECTFICOS N

ENUSAO _ECH A_UEVSR EH 9=~~ ~ ~~~~~ viol

- 223 - Annex 4Page 10 of 10

ENCUESTA No.MINISTERIO DE EW*PGIA Y MINAS ENCIJE7TA rNACIO[GNAt- &OBPE CON[lJHG [t_ FNERI 11A

mINSTIIITln NACInNAL DE ErNPGIA [I FL- PF l I 11 r( t uP B PFAPAL | l , t

VI. OPINIONES RE-SPECTO A LA ENERGIA. _ EXXSTENCIA EN FACILlDAD DE _ TAFECTACIONCONVENIENCIA EL MERCADO TRANSPORTE AL PRECIO

Li Z Li~ L coMBUTTIDLES C > z Z 1 iL.) L zz Q~za.Xr '.m Li-

GA~~~~~~~> C 5 0 I Ni 0 _~ ._. ___3

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LE R o >AER . Cy_

RESIDUGS-)4 D v T c 0 -_ a-IZ u Z Z(Y Z Z 1 Z. &: Z nZ

1 314 HUY _I 22E 3 41 rN Z; ID EtJ 1| 21 31 4

GAS GL P)

GASOLINA

KEREX

CARBON

LEFJA 0 MADERA

RESIDUOS VEGETALESELECCtRICIDAD

ELECCIONE 1 MUY DE ACUERDOi 2 DE ACUEPOfl, 3 NO OrLNA, i EN Dr:SACLIEPDO, 5 lilly ENj rtIE,AcUEPDD1 34

3 LA CONSERVACION DE LA ENERGIA ES IMPOPTANTE PAPA EL PAIS

40 SI EL SERVICIO DE ELECTpIcInAo riiEPA MAS (:ONrFAPI Fr PIDPIA rAGAP MA. .; nr_

Ei FN Ml rASA NO SE AHOPRA ENERGIA_

42 LA FACTURA DE ELECTRICIDAD NO SE LNTlENPEC

')EL INCREMENTO DE PRECID EN LOS COMBUSTIBLES NO ArECTA A LA ECONrIMIA DE M! FAMILIA

OCURRE DI oAPIrn 2 SFMANAL; 3 MFNS'AL. 4 EVENTIIAL. NI[Nr/I = 1 ? 3 4 5r 43 CAIDAsS DEL V.nI TAJE, rLUClAClrJN/; PFC INP EN' SAP

_ SUSPENSIONES DEL SERVICIO NO rPOrPAMAPAS

46 SUSPENSIONES DEL SERVIC1O PROGRAMADAS

47 SUSPENSIONES POP FALTA DE PAGO _

I SEGI11P USAOn Y PAGAP El INfJrPFMFriTn. ? e Fr fl Ir Ft , In. n -,A n rAIItflt -AC At,

4 CAMPIG TOTAI, 5 NO CONSUME MlIl ,tl] ( tJ.I I F Al fj. rA, A NU ;ARFi rl N iL , TA

__ _.__ _ ____ ___ _ _._1 2 3 4 5 642 SI EL GAS SUBE 50 DEL VALOR ACTUAL

49 SI EL GAS SUBE 100% DEL VALOR ACTUAL

S SI EL GAS SUBE 2007. DEL VALOR ACTUAL

~lSI LA ELECTRICIDAD SLIBE 50Z/ DEL VALORZ ACTLIAL

SI LA ELECTRICIDAD SUBE 1o0% rEL VALOr Ar TilAI

3 SI LA ELECTRICIDAD SUBE 200% DEL VAIJfP An-T,Jil-

ENCUESTADO| FEC-A SUPERVISOR _FECHA 10

'_ .. I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1/'°

Joint UNDP/World BankENERGY SECTOR MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME (ESMAP)

LIST OF REPORTS ON COMPLETED ACTIVITIES

Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA (AFR)

Africa Regional Anglophone Africa Household Energy Workshop (English) 07/88 085/88Regional Power Seminar on Reducing Electric Power SystemLosses in Africa (English) 08/88 087/88

Institutional Evaluation of EGL (English) 02/89 098/89Biomass Mapping Regional Workshops (English - Out of Print) 05/89 --Francophone Household Energy Workshop (French) 08/89 103/89Interafrican Electrical Engineering College: Proposals for Short-and Long-Term Development (English) 03/90 112/90

Biomass Assessment and Mapping (English - Out of Print) 03/90 --Angola Energy Assessment (English and Portuguese) 05/89 4708-ANG

Power Rehabilitation and Technical Assistance (English) 10/91 142/91Benin Energy Assessment (English and French) 06/85 5222-BENBotswana Energy Assessment (English) 09/84 4998-BT

Pump Electrification Prefeasibility Study (English) 01/86 047/86Review of Electricity Service Connection Policy (English) 07/87 071/87Tuli Block Farms Electrification Study (English) 07/87 072/87Household Energy Issues Study (English - Out of Print) 02/88 --Urban Household Energy Strategy Study (English) 05/91 132/91

Burkina Faso Energy Assessment (English and French) 01/86 5730-BURTechnical Assistance Program (English) 03/86 052/86Urban Household Energy Strategy Study (English and French) 06/91 134/91

Burundi Energy Assessment (English) 06/82 3778-BUPetroleum Supply Management (English) 01/84 012/84Status Report (English and French) 02/84 011/84Presentation of Energy Projects for the Fourth Five-Year Plan(1983-1987) (English and French) 05/85 036/85

Improved Charcoal Cookstove Strategy (English and French) 09/85 042/85Peat Utilization Project (English) 11/85 046/85Energy Assessment (English and French) 01/92 9215-BU

Cape Verde Energy Assessment (English and Portuguese) 08/84 5073-CVHousehold Energy Strategy Study (English) 02/90 110/90

Central AfricanRepublic Energy Assessement (French) 08/92 9898-CAR

Chad Elements of Strategy for Urban Household EnergyThe Case of N'djamena (French) 12/93 160/94

Comoros Energy Assessment (English and French) 01/88 7104-COMCongo Energy Assessment (English) 01/88 6420-COB

Power Development Plan (English and French) 03/90 106/90C8te d'Ivoire Energy Assessment (English and French) 04/85 5250-IVC

Improved Biomass Utilization (English and French) 04/87 069/87Power System Efficiency Study (Out of Print) 12/87 --Power Sector Efficiency Study (French) 02/92 140/91

Ethiopia Energy Assessment (English) 07/84 4741 -ET

- 2 -

Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number

Ethiopia Power System Efficiency Study (English) 10/85 045/85Agricultural Residue Briquetting Pilot Project (English) 12/86 062/86Bagasse Study (English) 12/86 063/86Cooking Efficiency Project (English) 12/87 --

Gabon Energy Assessment (English) 07/88 6915-GAThe Gambia Energy Assessment (English) 11/83 4743-GM

Solar Water Heating Retrofit Project (English) 02/85 030/85Solar Photovoltaic Applications (English) 03/85 032/85Petroleum Supply Management Assistance (English) 04/85 035/85

Ghana Energy Assessment (English) 11/86 6234-GHEnergy Rationalization in the Industrial Sector (English) 06/88 084/88Sawmill Residues Utilization Study (English) 11/88 074/87Industrial Energy Efficiency (English) 11/92 148/92

Guinea Energy Assessment (Out of Print) 11/86 6137-GUIHousehold Energy Strategy (English and French) 01/94 163/94

Guinea-Bissau Energy Assessment (English and Portuguese) 08/84 5083-GUBRecommended Technical Assistance Projects (English &Portuguese) 04/85 033/85

Management Options for the Electric Power and Water SupplySubsectors (English) 02/90 100/90

Power and Water Institutional Restructuring (French) 04/91 118/91Kenya Energy Assessment (English) 05/82 3800-KE

Power System Efficiency Study (English) 03/84 014/84Status Report (English) 05/84 016/84Coal Conversion Action Plan (English - Out of Print) 02/87 --Solar Water Heating Study (English) 02/87 066/87Peri-Urban Woodfuel Development (English) 10/87 076/87Power Master Plan (English - Out of Print) 11/87 --

Lesotho Energy Assessment (English) 01/84 4676-LSOLiberia Energy Assessment (English) 12/84 5279-LBR

Recommended Technical Assistance Projects (English) 06/85 038/85Power System Efficiency Study (English) 12/87 081/87

Madagascar Energy Assessment (English) 01/87 5700-MAGPower System Efficiency Study (English and French) 12/87 075/87

Malawi Energy Assessment (English) 08/82 3903-MALTechnical Assistance to Improve the Efficiency of FuelwoodUse in the Tobacco Industry (English) 11/83 009/83

Status Report (English) 01/84 013/84Mali Energy Assessment (English and French) 11/91 8423-MLI

Household Energy Strategy (English and French) 03/92 147/92Islamic Republicof Mauritania Energy Assessment (English and French) 04/85 5224-MAU

Household Energy Strategy Study (English and French) 07/90 123/90Mauritius Energy Assessment (English) 12/81 3510-MAS

Status Report (English) 10/83 008/83Power System Efficiency Audit (English) 05/87 070/87Bagasse Power Potential (English) 10/87 077/87

Mozambique Energy Assessment (English) 01/87 6128-MOZHousehold Electricity Utilization Study (English) 03/90 113/90

Namibia Energy Assessment (English) 03/93 11320-NAM

Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number

Niger Energy Assessment (French) 05/84 4642-NIRStatus Report (English and French) 02/86 051/86Improved Stoves Project (English and French) 12/87 080/87Household Energy Conservation and Substitution (Englishand French) 01/88 082/88

Nigeria Energy Assessment (English) 08/83 4440-UNIEnergy Assessment (English) 07/93 11672-UNI

Rwanda Energy Assessment (English) 06/82 3779-RWEnergy Assessment (English and French) 07/91 8017-RWStatus Report (English and French) 05/84 017/84Improved Charcoal Cookstove Strategy (English and French) 08/86 059/86Improved Charcoal Production Techniques (English and French) 02/87 065/87Commercialization of Improved Charcoal Stoves and CarbonizationTechniques Mid-Term Progress Report (English and French) 12/91 141/91

SADCC SADCC Regional Sector: Regional Capacity-Building Programfor Energy Surveys and Policy Analysis (English) 11/91 --

Sao Tomeand Principe Energy Assessment (English) 10/85 5803-STP

Senegal Energy Assessment (English) 07/83 4182-SEStatus Report (English and French) 10/84 025/84Industrial Energy Conservation Study (English) 05/85 037/85Preparatory Assistance for Donor Meeting (English and French) 04/86 056/86Urban Household Energy Strategy (English) 02/89 096/89Industrial Energy Conservation Program 05/94 165/94

Seychelles Energy Assessment (English) 01/84 4693-SEYElectric Power System Efficiency Study (English) 08/84 021/84

Sierra Leone Energy Assessment (English) 10/87 6597-SLSomalia Energy Assessment (English) 12/85 5796-SOSudan Management Assistance to the Ministry of Energy and Mining 05/83 003/83

Energy Assessment (English) 07/83 4511 -SUPower System Efficiency Study (English) 06/84 018/84Status Report (English) 11/84 026/84Wood Energy/Forestry Feasibility (English - Out of Print) 07/87 073/87

Swaziland Energy Assessment (English) 02/87 6262-SWTanzania Energy Assessment (English) 11/84 4969-TA

Peri-Urban Woodfuels Feasibility Study (English) 08/88 086/88Tobacco Curing Efficiency Study (English) 05/89 102/89Remote Sensing and Mapping of Woodlands (English) 06/90 --Industrial Energy Efficiency Technical Assistance(English - Out of Print) 08/90 122/90

Togo Energy Assessment (English) 06/85 5221-TOWood Recovery in the Nangbeto Lake (English and French) 04/86 055/86Power Efficiency Improvement (English and French) 12/87 078/87

Uganda Energy Assessment (English) 07/83 4453-UGStatus Report (English) 08/84 020/84Institutional Review of the Energy Sector (English) 01/85 029/85Energy Efficiency in Tobacco Curing Industry (English) 02/86 049/86Fuelwood/Forestry Feasibility Study (English) 03/86 053/86Power System Efficiency Study (English) 12/88 092/88

Region/Country Activity/Report Title Date Number

Uganda Energy Efficiency Improvement in the Brick andTile Industry (English) 02/89 097/89

Tobacco Curing Pilot Project (English - Out of Print) 03/89 UNDP TerminalReport

Zaire Energy Assessment (English) 05/86 5837-ZRZambia Energy Assessment (English) 01/83 4110-ZA

Status Report (English) 08/85 039/85Energy Sector Institutional Review (English) 11/86 060/86

Zambia Power Subsector Efficiency Study (English) 02/89 093/88Energy Strategy Study (English) 02/89 094/88Urban Household Energy Strategy Study (English) 08/90 121/90

Zimbabwe Energy Assessment (English) 06/82 3765-ZIMPower System Efficiency Study (English) 06/83 005/83Status Report (English) 08/84 019/84Power Sector Management Assistance Project (English) 04/85 034/85Petroleum Management Assistance (English) 12/89 109/89Power Sector Management Institution Building(English - Out of Print) 09/89 --

Charcoal Utilization Prefeasibility Study (English) 06/90 119/90Integrated Energy Strategy Evaluation (English) 01/92 8768-ZIM

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC (EAP)

Asia Regional Pacific Household and Rural Energy Seminar (English) 11/90China County-Level Rural Energy Assessments (English) 05/89 101/89

Fuelwood Forestry Preinvestment Study (English) 12/89 105/89Fiji Energy Assessment (English) 06/83 4462-FIJIndonesia Energy Assessment (English) 11/81 3543-IND

Status Report (English) 09/84 022/84Power Generation Efficiency Study (English) 02/86 050/86Energy Efficiency in the Brick, Tile andLime Industries (English) 04/87 067/87

Diesel Generating Plant Efficiency Study (English) 12/88 095/88Urban Household Energy Strategy Study (English) 02/90 107/90Biomass Gasifier Preinvestment Study Vols. I & 11 (English) 12/90 124/90

Lao PDR Urban Electricity Demand Assessment Study (English) 03/93 154/93Malaysia Sabah Power System Efficiency Study (English) 03/87 068/87

Gas Utilization Study (English) 09/91 9645-MAMyanmar Energy Assessment (English) 06/85 5416-BAPapua NewGuinea Energy Assessment (English) 06/82 3882-PNG

Status Report (English) 07/83 006/83Energy Strategy Paper (English - Out of Print) -- --

Institutional Review in the Energy Sector (English) 10/84 023/84Power Tariff Study (English) 10/84 024/84

Philippines Commercial Potential for Power Production fromAgricultural Residues (English) 12/93 157/93

Solomon Islands Energy Assessment (English) 06/83 4404-SOLEnergy Assessment (English) 01/92 979/SOL

-5-

Region/Country AcJivity/Report Tile Date Number

South Pacific Petroleum Transport in the South Pacific (English-Out of Print) 05/86 --Thailand Energy Assessment (English) 09/85 5793-TH

Rural Energy Issues and Options (English - Out of Print) 09/85 044/85Accelerated Dissemination of Improved Stoves andCharcoal Kilns (English - Out of Print) 09/87 079/87

Northeast Region Village Forestry and WoodfuelsPreinvestment Study (English) 02/88 083/88

Impact of Lower Oil Prices (English) 08/88 --Coal Development and Utilization Study (English) 10/89 --

Tonga Energy Assessment (English) 06/85 5498-TON

Vanuatu Energy Assessment (English) 06/85 5577-VAVietnam Rural and Household Energy-issues and Options (English) 01/94 161/94Western Samoa Energy Assessment (English) 06/85 5497-WSO

SOUTH ASIA (SAS)

Bangladesh Energy Assessment (English) 10/82 3873-BDPriority Investment Program 05/83 002/83Status Report (English) 04/84 015/84Power System Efficiency Study (English) 02/85 031/85Small Scale Uses of Gas Prefeasibility Study (English -(Out of Print) 12/88 --

India Opportunities for Commercialization of NonconventionalEnergy Systems (English) 11/88 091/88

Maharashtra Bagasse Energy Efficiency Project (English) 05/91 120/91Mini-Hydro Development on Irrigation Dams andCanal Drops Vols. I, 11 and III (English) 07/91 139/91

WindFarm Pre-Investment Study (English) 12/92 150/92Power Sector Reform Seminar 04/94 166/94

Nepal Energy Assessment (English) 08/83 4474-NEPStatus Report (English) 01/85 028/84Energy Efficiency & Fuel Substitution in Industries (English) 06/93 158/93

Pakistan Household Energy Assessment (English - Out of Print) 05/88 --

Assessment of Photovoltaic Programs, Applications, andMarkets (English) 10/89 103/89

Sri Lanka Energy Assessment (English) 05/82 3792-CEPower System Loss Reduction Study (English) 07/83 007/83Status Report (English) 01/84 010/84Industrial Energy Conservation Study (English) 03/86 054/86

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA (ECA)

Eastern Europe The Future of Natural Gas in Eastern Europe (English) 08/92 149/92Poland Energy Sector Restructuring Program Vols. I-V (English) 01/93 153/93Portugal Energy Assessment (English) 04/84 4824-POTurkey Energy Assessment (English) 03/83 3877-TU

- 6 -

ReglonWCountry Activity/Report Title Date Number

MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA (MNA)

Morocco Energy Assessment (English and French) 03/84 4157-MORStatus Report (English and French) 01/86 048/86

Syria Energy Assessment (English) 05/86 5822-SYRElectric Power Efficiency Study (English) 09/88 089/88Energy Efficiency Improvement in the Cement Sector (English) 04/89 099/89Energy Efficiency Improvement in the Fertilizer Sector(English) 06/90 115/90

Tunisia Fuel Substitution (English and French) 03/90 --Power Efficiency Study (English and French) 02/92 136/91Energy Management Strategy in the Residential andTertiary Sectors (English) 04/92 146/92

Yemen Energy Assessment (English) 12/84 4892-YAREnergy Investment Priorities (English - Out of Print) 02/87 6376-YARHousehold Energy Strategy Study Phase I (English) 03/91 126/91

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (LAC)

LAC Regional Regional Seminar on Electric Power System Loss Reductionin the Caribbean (English) 07/89 -

Bolivia Energy Assessment (English) 04/83 4213-BONational Energy Plan (English) 12/87 --National Energy Plan (Spanish) 08/91 131/91La Paz Private Power Technical Assistance (English) 11/90 111/90Natural Gas Distribution: Economics and Regulation (English) 03/92 125/92Prefeasibility Evaluation Rural Electrification and DemandAssessment (English and Spanish) 04/91 129/91

Private Power Generation and Transmission (English) 01/92 137/91Household Rural Energy Strategy (English and Spanish) 01/94 162/94Natural Gas Sector Policies and Issues (English and Spanish) 12/93 164/93

Chile Energy Sector Review (English - Out of Print) 08/88 7129-CHColombia Energy Strategy Paper (English) 12/86 --Costa Rica Energy Assessment (English and Spanish) 01/84 4655-CR

Recommended Technical Assistance Projects (English) 11/84 027/84Forest Residues Utilization Study (English and Spanish) 02/90 108/90

DominicanRepublic Energy Assessment (English) 05/91 8234-DO

Ecuador Energy Assessment (Spanish) 12/85 5865-ECEnergy Strategy Phase I (Spanish) 07/88 --

Energy Strategy (English) 04/91Private Minihydropower Development Study (English) 11/92Energy Pricing Subsidies and Interfuel Substitution 08/94 11798-ECEnergy Pricing, Poverty and Social Mitigation 08/94 12831-EC

Guatemala Issues and Options in the Energy Sector (English) 09/93 12160-GUHaiti Energy Assessment (English and French) 06/82 3672-HA

Status Report (English and French) 08/85 041/85Household Energy Strategy (English and French) 12/91 143/91

Honduras Energy Assessment (English) 08/87 6476-HOPetroleum Supply Management (English) 03/91 128/91

Reglo/Counhtry Activity/Report Title Date Number

Jamaica Energy Assessment (English) 04/85 5466-JMPetroleum Procurement, Refining, andDistribution Study (English) 11/86 061/86

Energy Efficiency Building Code Phase I (English-Out of Print) 03/88 --Energy Efficiency Standards andLabels Phase I (English - Out of Print) 03/88 --

Management Information System Phase I (English - Out of Print) 03/88 --

Charcoal Production Project (English) 09/88 090/88FIDCO Sawmill Residues Utilization Study (English) 09/88 088/88Energy Sector Strategy and Investment Planning Study (English) 07/92 135/92

Mexico Improved Charcoal Production Within Forest Management for 08/91 138/91the State of Veracruz (English and Spanish)

Panarna Power System Efficiency Study (English - Out of Print) 06/83 004/83Paraguay Energy Assessment (English) 10/84 5145-PA

Recommended Technical Assistance Projects (English-(Out of Print) 09/85 --

Status Report (English and Spanish) 09/85 043/85Peru Energy Assessment (English) 01/84 4677-PE

Status Report (English - Out of Print) 08/85 040/85Proposal for a Stove Dissemination Program inthe Sierra (English and Spanish) 02/87 064/87

Energy Strategy (English and Spanish) 12/90 --

Study of Energy Taxation and Liberalizationof the Hydrocarbons Sector (English and Spanish) 120/93 159/93

Saint Lucia Energy Assessment (English) 09/84 5111-SLUSt. Vincent andthe Grenadines Energy Assessment (English) 09/84 5103-STV

Trinidad andTobago Energy Assessment (English - Out of Print) 12/85 5930-TR

GLOBAL

Energy End Use Efficiency: Research and Strategy(English - Out of Print) 11/89

Guidelines for Utility Customer Management andMetering (English and Spanish) 07/91 --

Women and Energy--A Resource GuideThe International Network: Policies and Experience (English) 04/90 --

Assessment of Personal Computer Models for EnergyPlanning in Developing Countries (English) 10/91 --

Long-Term Gas Contracts Principles and Applications (English) 02/93 152/93Comparative Behavior of Firms Under Public and PrivateOwnership (English) 05/93 155/93

10/04/94