weo-2002: chapter 13 "energy and poverty"
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER 13:ENERGY AND POVERTY
This chapter analyses the relationship between energy use and poverty indeveloping countries. It describes current patterns of energy use, including rates ofelectrification. A unique, country-by-country database was especially prepared forthis study. This chapter details electricity access and the way households make thetransition from traditional fuels to modern forms of energy. It projects biomass useand electricity access rates for the next three decades. It assesses the factors behindthese trends, including policies to promote investment in electricity supply and tomake electricity more affordable for poor people.
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
HIGHLIGHTS• Some 1.6 billion people – one-quarter of the world population –
have no access to electricity. In the absence of vigorous newpolicies, 1.4 billion people will still lack electricity in 2030.
• Four out of five people without electricity live in rural areas of thedeveloping world, mainly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.But the pattern of electricity deprivation is set to change, because95% of the increase in population in the next three decades willoccur in urban areas.
• Some 2.4 billion people rely on traditional biomass – wood,agricultural residues and dung – for cooking and heating. Thatnumber will increase to 2.6 billion by 2030. In developingcountries, biomass use will still represent over half of residentialenergy consumption at the end of the Outlook period.
• Lack of electricity and heavy reliance on traditional biomass arehallmarks of poverty in developing countries. Lack of electricityexacerbates poverty and contributes to its perpetuation, as itprecludes most industrial activities and the jobs they create.
• Investment will need to focus on various energy sources, includingbiomass, for thermal and mechanical applications to bringproductive, income-generating activities to developing countries.Electrification and access to modern energy services do not per seguarantee poverty alleviation.
• Renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind and biomassmay be cost-effective options for specific off-grid applications,while conventional fuels and established technologies are likely tobe preferred for on-grid capacity expansion.
The Link between Energy Use and PovertyAccess to electricity and other modern energy sources is a necessary,
but not a sufficient, requirement for economic and social development.The escape from poverty also requires, among other things, clean water,adequate sanitation and health services, a good education system and acommunication network. Yet cheap and available energy is indispensable.Electricity provides the best and most efficient form of lighting; householdappliances require it. Kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) aremore energy-efficient cooking fuels than traditional biomass. Diesel,heating and heavy fuel oil are more cost-effective for space heating. Diesel,gasoline and LPG are, and will remain, the primary transport fuels.
Modern energy services enhance the life of the poor in countlessways.1 Electric light extends the day, providing extra hours for reading andwork. Modern cook-stoves save women and children from daily exposureto noxious cooking fumes. Refrigeration allows local clinics to keep neededmedicines on hand. And modern energy can directly reduce poverty byraising a poor country’s productivity and extending the quality and rangeof its products – thereby putting more wages into the pockets of thedeprived.2
The extensive use of biomass in traditional and inefficient ways andthe limited availability of modern fuels are manifestations of poverty. Theyalso restrain economic and social development:
• Time spent gathering fuel: The widespread use of fuelwood andcharcoal can result in scarcity of local supplies. This forces people –usually women and children – to spend hours gathering fuelwoodand other forms of biomass further afield. In India, two to sevenhours each day can be devoted to the collection of fuel for cooking.3
This reduces the time that people can devote to other productiveactivities, such as farming and education.
• Gender: 70% of all people living in poverty are women.4 Womenplace a high value on improved energy services because they are theprimary users of household energy. Women are most likely to suffer
World Energy Outlook 2002
1. In September 2000, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, members of theDevelopment Assistance Committee of the OECD and many other agencies adopted the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. These goals set targets for reductions in poverty, improvements in health andeducation, and protection of the environment. Improved access to energy services is an underlyingcomponent linked to the achievement of these goals. (http: //www.developmentgoals.org).2. The World Bank Group (2002).3. United Nations Development Program, United Nations Department of Economic and SocialAffairs and World Energy Council (2002).4. http: //www.undp.org/unifem/ec_pov.htm
the health effects of energy-inefficient appliances. Their exclusionfrom the decision-making process in many countries has led to thefailure of many poverty alleviation programmes.
• Environment: Gathering wood for fuel leads to local scarcity andecological damage in areas of high population density where there isstrong demand for wood.
• Energy efficiency: In developing countries, biomass fuels are oftenburned in inefficient stoves. Wood is much less efficient forcooking than modern fuels, such as kerosene and LPG – its netcalorific value is four times lower.
• Health: The inefficient use of biomass can lead to serious healthdamage from indoor smoke pollution. Possible effects includerespiratory diseases, such as asthma and acute respiratoryinfections; obstetrical problems, such as stillbirth and low birth-weight; blindness; and heart disease (Box 13.1).
• Agricultural productivity: Use of biomass energy reducesagricultural productivity, because agricultural residues and dungare also widely used as fertilizer. The more biomass is put tohousehold use, the less there is available for fertilizer. The dungused as fuel in India would be worth $800 million per year if it wereused as fertilizer.5
Box 13.1: Examples of the Impact of Energy Poverty on Health
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
5. Tata Energy Research Institute et al. (1999).6. http: //allafrica.com
The absence of efficient and affordable energy services can severelydamage the health of the poor in developing countries.
• In rural sub-Saharan Africa, many women carry 20 kilogrammesof fuel wood an average of five kilometres every day.6 The effortuses up a large share of the calories from their daily meal, which iscooked over an open fire with the collected wood.
• Poor people in the developing world are constantly exposed toindoor particulate and carbon monoxide concentrations manytimes higher than World Health Organization standards.Traditional stoves using dung and charcoal emit large amountsof CO and other noxious gases. Women and children suffer
The share of energy in the total spending of low-income households ishigh, up to 15% of income (Table 13.1). Energy spending rises withincome, but generally at a less than proportional rate.
Table 13.1: Share of Energy Expenditures in Household Income (%)
Uganda Ethiopia India South Africa United Kingdom
Lowest quintile 15.0 10.0 8.5 7.2 6.6Highest quintile 9.5 7.0 5.0 5.5 2.0
Sources: African Energy Policy Research Network (Afrepren), direct communication; Tata Energy ResearchInstitute (2001); Davis (1998); Department of Trade and Industry (2002).
The Transition to Modern Fuels
As poor families in developing countries gradually increase theirincomes, they can afford more modern appliances, and they demand moreand better energy services. But the transition from traditional biomass useto full dependence on modern energy forms is not a straight-line process.
World Energy Outlook 2002
most, because they are exposed for the longest periods of time.Acute respiratory illness affects as much as 6% of the worldpopulation. The WHO estimates that 2.5 million women andyoung children in developing countries die prematurely eachyear from breathing the fumes from indoor biomass stoves.7
• A shift from cooking with wood to charcoal reduces the overallhealth risk by a factor of more than four. A shift to keroseneresults in a reduction by a factor of six. Using LPG reduces theoverall health risk by a factor of more than 100.8
• Often in developing countries, there are no pumps to gather orto purify water. In sub-Saharan Africa, only half of thepopulation has access to an improved water source.9
• Lack of refrigeration means that food is spoilt and wasted.Clinics lacking electricity cannot perform such routinefunctions as sterilising instruments or safely storing medicines.
7. United Nations Development Program, United Nations Department of Economic and SocialAffairs and World Energy Council (2002).8. http: //www.ftpp.or.ke/rnews/biomass.htm9. http: //www.developmentgoals.org/Definitions_Sources.htm
There is a widespread misconception that electricity substitutes forbiomass. Poor families use electricity selectively — mostly for lighting andcommunication devices. They often continue to cook and heat with woodor dung, or with fossil-based fuels like LPG and kerosene.
The three main determinants in the transition from traditional tomodern energy use are fuel availability, affordability and culturalpreferences. If a modern distribution system is not in place, householdscannot obtain access to modern fuels, even if they can afford them. LPGpenetration rates are low in many developing countries, partly becausedistribution infrastructure is lacking.
Even when they can afford modern fuels, households may not usethem if they are much more expensive than traditional biomass. In ruralareas, biomass is often perceived as something that is “free” and readilyavailable. This kind of thinking seriously hampers the switch to modernenergy. Even when fuelwood is purchased, it is likely to be cheaper than thecheapest alternative fuel.10 The affordability of energy-using equipment isjust as important as the affordability of fuels. The initial cost of acquiringkerosene and LPG stoves and LPG bottles may discourage some peoplefrom switching away from biomass.
In some cases, traditions determine the fuel choice regardless of fuelavailability and income. In India, even very rich households keep a biomassstove to prepare their traditional bread.
Figure 13.1 is a static representation of the typical fuel transition inpoor households as their income rises. The actual transition is much moredynamic, as nearly all households opt for a combination of fuels.11 Verypoor households can hope to satisfy only their most basic needs: heating,cooking and lighting. Their fuel choices are restricted mainly to differentforms of biomass. As their income increases, their fuel choices widen. Theincremental energy needs of the highest-income households, whose use ofbiomass is minimal, tend to be met by electricity. The share of basic needsin total consumption falls off sharply as families grow more prosperous.
Figure 13.1 cannot adequately capture rural-urban differences in fuelchoices, nor can it capture fuel switching that takes place within eachblock. Poor people often switch from one biomass fuel to another when thefirst becomes scarce. If wood is scarce or labour to collect it is in short
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
10. See World Bank (1995), which cites the result of a household energy survey in N’Djamena, Chadshowing that fuelwood and charcoal are much cheaper than kerosene and LPG, even on the basis ofcooking heat delivered.11. Davis (1998), Masera et al. (2000) and Barnett (2000).
supply, low-income families will use dung or agricultural residues forcooking and heating. In cities, consumption patterns are more likely to beaffected by relative fuel prices.
Figure 13.2 plots average final energy consumption per capita for100 developing and transition countries, grouped according to thepercentage of their population under the poverty line ($2 a day).12 Incountries where less than 5% of the population is poor, per capitaenergy consumption is four times higher than in countries where morethan 75% of the population lives under the poverty line. Consumptionof commercial fuels, especially oil products, is much higher in the
World Energy Outlook 2002
12. World Bank (2001). In this chapter, being below the poverty line is defined as having income ofless than $2 per day. People with income of less than $1 per day are categorised as “very poor”. Roughly1 billion come into this category. There is, however, considerable uncertainty over data on the numberof people in each of these categories.
IncomeLow High
Cooking
Heating
RefrigerationBasic Appliances
Transport
ICT
Cooling
Other Appliances
Water Pump
Refrigeration
Basic Appliances
Transport
Biomass Biomass Kero, LPG,
Biomass, Coal
DieselElectricity
Oil
Electricity,Batteries
Electricity
Electricity
Oil
Gas, Electricity, LPG
Gas, Coal, Oil
Lighting Candles, batteries
Cooking
Heating
Cooking
Heating
Lighting LightingKero, batteries, elec Electricity
Cooking
Heating
,
Oil
Figure 13.1: Illustrative Example of Household Fuel Transition
Trad
ition
al/V
ital
Fuel
/Ener
gy
Serv
ice
Mod
ern/
Adv
ance
d
Note: ICT is information and communication technology.Source: IEA analysis.
richest group of countries, partly because transport demand rises withincome. LPG and kerosene are transition fuels in households: theirconsumption is higher for the intermediate groups, but lower for therichest citizens, who replace them with natural gas and electricity (seeinsert in Figure 13.2).13 Electricity consumption is very stronglycorrelated with wealth. The share of biomass in final energyconsumption is lowest in countries where the percentage of poor peopleis lowest.
Some 2.8 billion of the world’s people live on less than $2 a day – the“poor” as defined in this chapter. Our detailed statistical analysis ofenergy use in developing countries reveals that 2.4 billion people rely onbiomass for cooking and heating, which account for more than 80% oftheir residential energy needs, and 1.6 billion people use no electricity atall.14 Most of these people live in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa(Figure 13.3).
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
Figure 13.2: Average per Capita Final Energy Consumptionand Share of Population Living under Poverty Line, 2000
Ave
rage
Tot
al F
inal
Con
sum
ptio
n pe
r cap
ita(k
goe)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
<5%5-40%40-75%>75%
percentage of the population living with less than 2 a day$
Biomass Electricity Gas Coal LPG & kerosene Other oil
LPG + Kerosene
Source: IEA analysis.
13. LPG accounts for nearly 20% of total residential energy demand in Latin America, but only forsome 3% in Asia and Africa.14. Access to electricity is defined as the number of people with electricity in their homes, either on-grid oroff-grid. Our estimate does not include unauthorised connections. See Annex 13.1 for further discussion.
***The transition from energy poverty to relative affluence is a complex and
irregular process, varying widely from nation to nation, village to village andfamily to family. In a general way, it is a journey from nearly exclusive relianceon traditional biomass to the access and use of electricity together with a range ofother modern fuels. By 2030, about two billion people will have completed thetrip, but more than a billion will still be stranded in primitive energy poverty.
It is a common misconception that electricity simply replaces biomass. Infact, most households use a wide mix of fuels as their income rises, combiningbiomass with kerosene or LPG to cook or with fuel oil to heat their homes.Nevertheless, traditional biomass and electricity do occupy contrasting positionsin the fuel transition, and that is why this chapter concentrates mainly on them.Statistics and analysis of all the other fuels that play a part in the transitionfrom energy poverty to energy affluence are provided in chapters on individualfuels and on regions in the World Energy Outlook.
***
World Energy Outlook 2002
Figure 13.3: Global Energy Poverty
Source: IEA analysis.
Access to ElectricityTo improve our understanding of the electrification process, we have
built an extensive database with the best available information for mostdeveloping countries on how many people have access to electricity in theirhomes. The database is broken down by rural and urban areas. Annex 13.1provides a detailed account of electrification rates for each country coveredin the survey.
Aggregate data for 2000 show that the number of people withoutelectricity today is 1.64 billion, or 27% of the world’s population. Morethan 99% of people without electricity live in developing countries, andfour out of five live in rural areas. The World Bank estimates that thenumber of people without electricity has fallen from 1.9 billion in 1970,but not on a straight-line decline, in 1990, the figure was 2 billion.15 As aproportion of the world’s population the number of unelectrified has falleneven more sharply — from 51% in 1970 to 41% in 1990.
The average electrification rate for the OECD, as well as for transitioneconomies, is over 99%. Average electrification rates in the Middle East,North Africa, East Asia/China and Latin America are all above 85%. Morethan 80% of the people who currently have no access to electricity arelocated in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 13.4). Lack ofelectricity is strongly correlated to the number of people living below $2per day (Figure 13.5). Income, however, is not the only determinant inelectricity access. China, with 56% of its people still poor, has managed tosupply electricity to more than 98% of its population (Box 13.2).
The rate of improvement in electricity access varies considerablyamong regions. Rapid electrification programmes in East Asia, especiallyChina, account for most of the progress since 1970. Excluding EastAsia/China, the number of people without electricity increased steadilyfrom 1970 to 2000 (Figure 13.6).
Box 13.2: China’s Electrification Success Story
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
15. World Bank (1996).16. Most sources confirm this electrification rate (See Annex 13.1).
China secured electricity access for almost 700 million people in twodecades, enabling it to achieve an electrification rate of more than 98% in2000.16 From 1985 to 2000, electricity generation in China increased by
World Energy Outlook 2002
nearly 1,000 TWh, 84% of it coal-fired, most of the rest hydroelectric.The electrification goal was part of China’s poverty alleviation campaignin the mid-1980s. The plan focused on building basic infrastructure andon creating local enterprises. China’s economy grew by an average annual9.1% from 1985 to 2000. A key factor in China’s successfulelectrification programme was the central government’s determinationand its ability to mobilise contributions at the local level. Theelectrification programme was backed with subsidies and low-interestloans. The programme also benefited from the very cheap domesticproduction of elements ranging from hydro generators down to lightbulbs. China has avoided a trap into which many other nations havefallen: most Chinese customers pay their bills on time. If they do not,their connections are cut off.
This achievement dwarfs the efforts of any other developing country,but it conceals some serious shortcomings. China’s transformation anddistribution networks still need very large investment to meet modernstandards. Electricity services are unreliable and of poor quality. Wiringand meters in homes and offices are undependable, even unsafe. Usage islow, especially in rural areas, where consumers tend to restrict theirelectricity use to lighting their homes.
Figure 13.4: Electrification Rates by Region, 2000
per c
ent
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Middle East North Africa East Asia/China
LatinAmerica
South Asia Sub-SaharanAfrica
Developing countries average
World average
Source: IEA analysis.
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
Figu
re 1
3.5:
The
Lin
k be
twee
n Po
vert
y an
d E
lect
rici
ty A
cces
s
020406080100
010
2030
4050
6070
8090
100
% o
f pop
ulat
ion
belo
w $
2 a
day
OEC
D
Nig
eria
Indi
a
Burk
ina
Faso
Paki
stan
Mad
agas
carN
epal
Gha
na
Moz
ambi
que
Bang
lade
sh
Ethi
opia
Sene
gal
Leso
tho
Cam
eroo
n
Zim
babw
e Keny
a
Botsw
ana Ta
nzan
ia
Nam
ibia
Indo
nesi
a
Egyp
tChi
na
Ecua
dor
Mon
golia
Côte
d'Iv
oire
Yem
en
Hon
dura
s
Para
guay
El S
alva
dor
Peru
Vene
zuel
aTu
rkm
enis
tan
Mol
dova
Trin
idad
& T
obag
o
Arm
enia
Col
ombi
a
Sout
h A
frica
Boliv
ia
Gua
tem
ala
Pana
ma
Thai
land
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Mor
occo
Jam
aica
Chi
le
Kaza
khsta
n
Alg
eria
Ukr
aine
Esto
nia
Bulg
aria
Braz
ilC
osta
Ric
a
Rom
ania Ru
ssia
Tuni
sia
Jord
anU
rugu
ay
Aze
rbai
jan
Lithu
ania
Cro
atia
electricity access %
Not
e:So
me
tran
siti
onec
onom
ies
and
the
OE
CD
aver
age
are
incl
uded
for
com
pari
son
purp
oses
.So
urce
:IE
Aan
alys
is;i
ncom
est
atis
tics
from
the
Wor
ldB
ank’
sW
orld
Dev
elop
men
tInd
icat
ors,
2001
.
With only 23% of its population electrified, sub-Saharan Africa hasthe lowest electrification rate of any major world region (Table 13.2). Morethan 500 million Africans are still without access to electricity. The region’spoverty is one reason, but so is its low population density, which raises thecost of extending networks.
There are 580 million people lacking electricity in India. Althoughthe electricity network there is technically within reach of 90% of thepopulation, only 43% are actually connected because many poor peoplecannot afford the cost of connection. Even where incomes are highenough, households are often discouraged from connecting to the gridbecause of the poor quality of service, including frequent blackouts andbrownouts.
Over the past three decades, half the growth in world populationoccurred in urban areas. Worldwide, electrification has kept pace withurbanisation, maintaining the number of the urban population withoutelectricity at roughly 250 million. Put another way, the urbanelectrification rate increased from 36% in 1970 to 91% in 2000. The bulkof the urban unelectrified live in Africa and South Asia, where more than30% of the urban population do not have electricity.
World Energy Outlook 2002
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
World Rest of the world East Asia/China
Figure 13.6: Number of People without Electricity, 1970-2000m
illio
n
Source: IEA analysis.
Table 13.2: Urban and Rural Electrification Rates by Region, 2000 (%)
Urban Rural Total
North Africa 99.3 79.9 90.3Sub-Sahara 51.3 7.5 22.6Africa 63.1 16.9 34.3South Asia 68.2 30.1 40.8Latin America 98.0 51.5 86.6East Asia/China 98.5 81.0 86.9Middle East 98.5 76.6 91.1Developing countries 85.6 51.1 64.2World 91.2 56.9 72.8
Four out of five people lacking access to electricity live in rural areas.This ratio has remained constant over the past three decades. The numberof the rural unelectrified has fallen by more than 200 million, and ruralelectrification rose from 12% in 1970 to 57% in 2000.
In Africa, more than 83% of the population in rural areas still lackelectricity. In sub-Saharan Africa, more than 92% of the rural population isunelectrified. The number of the people without electricity in this regionhas doubled in rural areas and tripled in urban areas in the last 30 years. InSouth Asia, 70% of the rural population has no electricity access.
At the rate of connections of the past decade, it would take more than40 years to electrify South Asia and almost twice as long for sub-SaharanAfrica.
Prospects for Electricity Access in Developing Countries17
The WEO Reference Scenario projections show that 1.4 billion peoplewill still not have electricity in 2030, some 17% of the world’s population,despite assumptions on more widespread prosperity and more advancedtechnology. The number of unelectrified will be 200 million less than today,in spite of an assumed increase in world population from 6.1 billion in 2000to 8.2 billion in 2030. Since as much as 95% of population growth will takeplace in urban areas (Figure 13.7), urban electrification programmes willneed to accommodate the swelling mass of the urban poor.
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
17. A new module has been added to the IEA’s World Energy Model to generate projections ofelectrification rates. The projections are based on many factors, including incomes, fuel prices,demographic trends, technological advances and electricity consumption.
World Energy Outlook 2002
Figure 13.7: Population Increase in Developing Countries
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Urban Rural Urban Rural
Sub-Sahara Latin America East Asia/ChinaSouth Asia North Africa Middle East
1970-2000 2000-2030
mill
ion
Source: UN Population Statistics for projections, World Bank and OECD for historical data.
Figure 13.8: Number of People without Electricity, 1970-2030
0
100200
300400500
600
700
800
900
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
South Asia East Asia/China Latin AmericaMiddle East Sub-Saharan Africa North Africa
mill
ion
Source: IEA analysis.
Electrification rates and the number of unelectrified people willcontinue to diverge significantly among regions. Numbers of thosewithout electricity will decline throughout the projection period in Chinaand the rest of East Asia, North Africa, Latin America and the Middle East.They will continue to rise slightly in South Asia, turning down after 2010.They will peak in sub-Saharan Africa around 2025.
Most of the people without access to electricity in 2030 will still be insub-Saharan Africa (650 million) and South Asia (680 million). In all otherregions, including North Africa, the overall electrification rate will exceed96% (Table 13.3) and will likely be close to 100% in urban areas. Onaverage, 75 million people will gain access to electricity each year for thenext 30 years (Figure 13.9).
In sub-Saharan Africa, the population without electricity will increasesteadily until 2025 in line with projected trends in the number of people belowthe $2 per day poverty line.18 The number of the unelectrified is expected tostabilise after 2025, mainly because of migration to towns and cities, whereaccess to electricity will be easier. The region’s population is projected to
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
Figure 13.9: Annual Average Number of People Gaining Accessto Electricity
mill
ion
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1970 -1980 1980 -1990 1990 -2000 2000 -2010 2010 -2020 2020 -2030
Africa South Asia Middle East Latin America East Asia/China
Source: IEA analysis.
18. See http: //www.developmentgoals.org/Sub-Saharan_Africa.htm for income projections.
double in the next three decades.19 Three-quarters of the increase will occur inurban areas. By 2030, roughly half the population will have electricity.
The number of the unelectrified in South Asia is expected to peak andlevel off in this decade and start declining from then on. Affordability andreliability are the main factors in this region. Two out of three people willhave access by 2030. If poverty were to be reduced faster than assumed inour analysis, electricity access would expand farther and faster.
These projections are highly dependent on assumptions about incomesand electricity pricing, which together determine the affordability of electricpower, and about the rate of investment in expanding electricity supply.
Table 13.3: Electrification Rates by Region (%)
1970 1990 2000 2015 2030
North Africa 34 61 90 98 99Sub-Sahara 9 16 23 33 49Africa 14 25 34 43 56South Asia 17 32 41 53 66Latin America 45 70 87 94 96East Asia/China 30 56 87 94 96Middle East 36 64 91 97 99Developing countries 25 46 64 72 78World 49 60 73 78 83
Investment in Electricity Supply Infrastructure
Investment requirements in developing countries fall broadly in thesecategories:
• additional generation capacity;• extension of the electricity grid in urban areas;• mini-grids in medium-sized settlements;• decentralised installations providing thermal, mechanical and
electric power in rural areas;• maintenance and upgrading of existing infrastructure.Over the next three decades the investment needed for new power
generation capacity in developing countries will amount to $2.1 trillion –10% in Africa and 15% in South Asia.20 Even if this investment is secured
World Energy Outlook 2002
19. United Nations Population Division (2001).20. See Chapter 3 for the global and regional electricity generation and investment outlooks.
over the next thirty years, 1.4 billion people will still lack access toelectricity in 2030.The average cost of connection varies greatly amongcountries. In South Africa, the average cost in 2001 was $240, compared to$270 in Sri Lanka and over $1,000 in rural Kenya and Uganda.
Private investment in electricity projects in the developing worldincreased through most of the 1990s. It fell off, however, after the Asianfinancial crisis, from $46 billion in 1997 to less than $15 billion in 1999,then recovered to $30 billion in 2000.21 Private investment in electricityprojects in developing countries is concentrated in power generation,rather than transmission and distribution. It is also concentrated in a smallnumber of countries. Only a quarter of foreign direct investment in energygoes to South Asia and Africa, while official development aid to Africa fromforeign governments has fallen by some 6% a year since 1995.22
Since most sub-Saharan African and South Asian countries arestrapped for cash, their governments will have to choose whichelectrification programmes to do first. Meeting the electricity needs of theurban poor costs much less per capita than meeting those of the rural poor.Therefore, providing electricity to the 230 million unelectrified urbanpeople in the two regions is likely to be tackled first.23 In many countries,strenuous efforts will be made to reduce transmission and distributionlosses due to unauthorised connections, non-metering, non-payment ofbills and technical malfunctions.
In rural areas, investment is likely to focus on harnessing indigenousenergy sources, including fossil fuels, to drive productive, income-generatingactivities. Smaller, less capital-intensive investments are more likely to befunded and will benefit more poor people. The technology choice should bebased on economics and on natural resource availability. Private utilities willnot extend networks where it is unprofitable to do so, unless governmentsubsidies make up for financial losses and provide a fair margin of profit. Inremote areas, where the distance from the grid renders it too costly toconnect communities to the national or regional grid, decentralised micro-projects are an option. (Table 13.4). What is needed is a comprehensivestrategy, co-ordinating policies and programmes through which micro-credit, technology uptake and capacity building can take place.
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
21. These figures do not include investments in oil and upstream gas. (See Private Participation inInfrastructure Database, World Bank)22. OECD (2002).23. Future electrification investment needs will depend greatly on the level and pattern of rural/urbanelectrification trends. Detailed projections for rural/urban electrification are in progress and will bemade available in the forthcoming study, WEO 2003 Insights: Global Energy Investment Outlook.
Table 13.4: Examples of Off-Grid Power Plant Technologies
Technology Applications Pros Cons
Diesel engines Water pumpsMillsRefrigerationLighting andcommunication
Easy maintenanceContinuous energyservices (24 hoursa day)Allows for income-generating activities
High fuel costsNoxious and CO2
emissions
Small biomassplants
Water pumpsMillsRefrigerationLighting andcommunication
Allows for income-generating activitiesBase load operation,continuous operationpossible
Noxious emissions
Mini-hydro MillsLighting,communicationand other
Long life, highreliabilityAllows for income-generating activities
Site-specificIntermittentWater availability
Wind Lighting andcommunicationMillsPumps
No fuel cost Expensive batteriesIntermittent energyservices
PV/Solar Basic lightingand electronicequipment
No fuel cost High capital costsHigh cost of batteryreplacementNeeds further R&D
Frequent electricity blackouts and brownouts (euphemisticallyknown as “load shedding”) induce many poor consumers to maintainan alternative energy source. Kerosene is the standard replacement fuelfor electricity. In the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, over 90% of ruralelectrified households use kerosene as a backup fuel for lighting. Inurban areas, “load shedding” is much less frequent and kerosene plays alesser role. Low-quality electricity service imposes non-negligible costson consumers, and it can undermine their willingness to pay forelectricity. Where it is possible, “scheduled load shedding” isannounced to consumers in advance to allow them to adjust and planfor it. Even predicted power outages disrupt activities and increase coststo the end user.
World Energy Outlook 2002
Across India, unauthorised power connections run as high as 20% to40% of the total.24 A third of all power produced in India gets stolen. Slumssurvive on stolen power. Tapped electric lines and poles are a common sight inIndian cities. In Angola, theft is roughly equal to 40% of total electric utilityrevenue.25 Poverty drives people to steal electricity and boosts the number ofunauthorised grid connections. The expected rise in urban population willexacerbate the problem. In India, half of the electricity supply is estimated tobe unmetered. Unpaid bills are also an issue. Unmetered and unauthorisedconnections lead to very high electricity losses in many developing countries,compared with OECD countries, where losses are technical (Figure 13.10).
Pricing
Even when the infrastructure to supply electricity to the poor exists,they are often unable to pay for it. There are two main barriers:
• the initial cost of connection to the grid and of inside wiring, whichcan be too high for poor households;
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
Figure 13.10: Electricity Losses by Country
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NigeriaIndiaTogo
KenyaZimbabweCameroon
EritreaAlgeriaSudan
PhilippinesEgypt
IndonesiaEthiopia
ChinaOECD
per cent
Source: IEA analysis.
24. Tata Energy Research Institute (2002).25. Angola News Agency.
• monthly charges for units consumed; since many poor people donot earn a regular wage, it is hard for them to keep up monthlypayments for electricity.
As a result, most developing countries subsidise electricity tohouseholds, since the benefits subsidies provide are judged to exceed thelong-term costs to government. In many countries, the size of the subsidiesand the way they are delivered result in heavy losses of economic efficiency,wasteful habits on the part of consumers and adverse environmental effects.26
One way to improve this situation is to have the government pay partof the capital cost of connection, or have the utility company spread theconnection charge out over several months. Another approach is the so-called “lifeline rate,” a special subsidy for poor families — with “poverty”defined by both household income and electricity use. The lifeline-ratesystem avoids a number of the pitfalls of other forms of subsidies, but it ishard to design in such a way that it does not benefit the rich even more thanthe poor.
Market Reforms
Energy industries in most developing countries are in urgent need ofreform. Several countries have begun the process, but in widely varyingways. These include the commercialisation and privatisation of state-owned utilities, unbundling energy production from its distribution,opening markets to private investors and revising price policies. A fewcountries have even begun setting up competitive power pools. One aim ofall these schemes is to attract private capital, in one way or another, into animpoverished energy sector.
Competition is the major theme in OECD reform programmes of thepower sector. This may not be the first priority in developing countries.Typically in these countries, the prerequisites for reform are often weak orlacking. Utilities are poor or bankrupt, the institutional framework forinvestment is non-existent and energy networks are underdeveloped.
Reform strategies in developing countries should address the issue ofsustainable financing. Prices charged to consumers must cover the cost ofproducing and distributing energy. But achieving that end can be verydifficult in the world’s poorest countries. Subsidies in the form of low-costenergy for consumers are rife. Pilfering, unauthorised grid connections and
World Energy Outlook 2002
26. See IEA (1999).
the non-payment of utility bills can be the rule, not the exception. In India,electricity revenues regularly run at about three-quarters of actual costs.27
In these circumstances, innovative thinking and the propersequencing of events are vital to successful reform. Indeed, there are somecases in which systematic subsidisation for a limited period may be moredesirable than attempting to charge full economic prices overnight. Asenergy industries in the developing world face these challenges, a degree ofpublic support may be essential.
In countries like India, the necessary process of raising prices tomarket levels is bound to be politically and socially difficult. There isevidence, however, that even very poor families are willing to pay forreliable energy services.
One of the highest barriers to new investment in these countries is theperceived threat of “regulatory risk.” If the regulatory framework isperceived as unpredictable or incompetent, investors tend to keep theirmoney in their pockets. A striking example occurred in Argentina earlierthis year, when the regulator cut consumer prices after a large foreigninvestor had built a plant on the basis of the previous tariff lists.
Further complications arise from the lack of domestic capital markets,which can often mean high interest rates, with built-in risk premiums, tooffset expected currency volatility and inflation.
The ultimate objective of reform should be an industry structureallowing a sufficient number of players to compete on equal terms, with themonopoly power of established entities truly constrained. This is feasible inmost developed countries, but it may be an unrealistic early objective in thedeveloping world. The tendency may be to privatise first and reformindustry structures later on. In some cases, there may not be much choice.Most developing countries have inadequate gas and electricity grids, andthe deficiency must obviously be made good before real competition canoccur. But, in that event, close regulation will be needed to avoidexploitation of customers and to achieve wider electrification.
International lenders and major financial institutions have learnedmany lessons the hard way. Major lenders have switched away from energyprojects to energy programmes and sector reforms aimed at paving the wayfor private-sector participation and competition. And there is a newemphasis on the proper sequencing of reform steps, which can be expectedto vary from country to country.
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
27. IEA (2002).
Biomass UsePoor people in developing countries rely heavily on traditional
biomass for cooking and heating.28 Because the share of biomass use infinal consumption has been decreasing since 1994, the earliest year forwhich comprehensive IEA data are available29, it is easy to get theimpression that it is being replaced by other fuels and is gradually beingphased out. New industries, transport and power generation often do usefossil fuels. But wood and other biomass continue to be used in manyindustries in developing countries and for cooking and heating.30
In developing countries, some 2.4 billion people rely on traditionalbiomass for cooking and heating. The 2000 estimates presented inTable 13.5 are based on an analysis of rural and urban biomassconsumption in developing countries. While the people included in thetable may or may not have access to electricity for lighting, they generallylack access to modern energy services for cooking and heating.
Over half of all people relying on biomass for cooking and heating livein India and China, but the proportion of the population depending onbiomass is heaviest in sub-Saharan Africa. Extreme poverty and the lack ofaccess to other fuels mean that 80% of the overall African population reliesprimarily on biomass to meet its residential needs. In Kenya, Tanzania,Mozambique and Zambia, nearly all rural households use wood forcooking, and over 90% of urban households use charcoal. In Indonesia,nearly all rural households use wood for cooking. In East Asia, the heaviestbiomass use occurs in the Philippines, Thailand, Myanmar and Vietnam.In China, the government has discouraged people from using straw andother agricultural waste for fuel. Nevertheless, in rural areas, many familiesdo still rely on biomass. In the past, coal replaced biomass for heating andcooking in China’s cities. Poor people in many Central Americancountries, especially Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Haiti, rely onwood for cooking and heating.
World Energy Outlook 2002
28. See definition in Annex 13.1. Biomass use here is mostly non-commercial.29. Despite the importance of biomass in energy demand in developing countries, only recently has itbeen included in global energy statistics. This is mainly because national biomass statistics have beenincomplete or of poor quality. Biomass use can vary widely within a single country, and statistics basedon a small number of villages can be misleading when extrapolated to the national level. The IEA hascreated a specialised database on biomass, with historic data from 1994. Projections for biomass energydemand by region/country are in Annex 13.1.30. Hulscher (1997) finds that there is no inverse correlation between per capita consumption ofbiomass and GDP per capita for countries in South and South-East Asia. As GDP per capita rises,people in these countries are likely to go on using biomass, and complement it with other fuels.
Table 13.5: Number of People Relying on Traditional Biomass forCooking and Heating in Developing Countries, 2000
million % of total population
China 706 56Indonesia 155 74Rest of East Asia 137 37India 585 58Rest of South Asia 128 41Latin America 96 23North Africa/Middle East 8 0.05Sub-Saharan Africa 575 89Developing countries 2,390 52
Biomass consumption in any country is largely a function of thatcountry’s relative poverty (Figure 13.11). But other factors come intoplay as well, including the country’s degree of urbanisation and whatfuels are readily available. Biomass use can vary sharply between twocountries with similar poverty levels. Costa Rica has a similar number ofpeople living below the poverty line as Thailand, but because of theample availability of hydroelectric power, many Costa Ricans useelectricity for cooking and heating. In Eastern Europe and in Russia,modern fuels are available and a higher percentage of people live incities. When more than half of the population has an income of less than$2 per day, residential energy demand tends to be dominated bybiomass.
In 2000, biomass accounted for over 70% of residential energyconsumption in developing countries (Figure 13.12). The amount ofbiomass consumed and the form it takes differ among regions and evenwithin countries, depending on resource availability, the accessibility ofcommercial fuels, cultural preferences and incomes. In the majority of sub-Saharan African countries, 80% to 90% of the residential energy needs oflow-income households are met by fuelwood or charcoal. In South Asia,dung and agricultural residues account for over half of biomass energy use.In China, agricultural residues alone make up half of biomass energy use.In Latin American countries, biomass use is predominately made up offuelwood for cooking and heating.
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
World Energy Outlook 2002
Figure 13.11: The Link between Poverty and Share ofTraditional Biomass in Residential Energy Consumption
Shar
e of
bio
mas
s in
resi
dent
ial c
onsu
mpt
ion
(%)
% of population below $2 a day
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0102030405060708090100
Algeria
Zambia
Panama
Costa Rica
Bangladesh
Mexico
Ecuador Bolivia
Russia
Tunisia
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
NepalIndia
Nigeria
Mozambique Tanzania
GuatemalaSenegal
Indonesia
Uruguay
Morocco
Poland
Romania
Brazil
Turkey
Colombia
China
Zimbabwe Kenya
ParaguayEl Salvador
Peru
South AfricaThailand
Chile
Source: IEA analysis and the World Bank’s World Development Indicators for income statistics.
Figure 13.12: Share of Traditional Biomass in ResidentialEnergy Consumption, 2000
010203040506070
8090
100
Sub-SaharanAfrica
India Rest ofSouth Asia
Rest ofEast Asia
Indonesia China LatinAmerica
NorthAfrica
Biomass Other
per c
ent
Source: IEA analysis.
Rural and urban consumption patterns also differ. But some generalobservations can be made:
• Biomass consumption is usually higher in rural areas, wherefuelwood is more likely to be gathered than bought commercially.
• In urban areas, biomass competes with commercial energy sources,and consumption patterns are largely determined by relative fuelprices.
• Much of the fuelwood used is collected from the roadside or vacantlots. Very little comes from natural forests.
• Cooking stoves used in rural households are generally of poorerquality than those used in cities.
• In peri-urban areas, poor people are likely to use whatever waste isavailable as fuel for cooking and heating.
Rural industry in developing countries relies heavily on biomass forfish-smoking, brick-making, tobacco curing, food processing, furniture-making, ceramics and bakeries. These industries employ tens of thousandsof people, and the income they produce frees many rural households frompoverty. Enormous potential exists to improve the efficiency of industrialovens, dryers and bakeries that run on biomass.31
Prospects for Biomass Use in Developing Countries
Expanded access to electricity, which low-income households useprimarily for lighting, is unlikely to reduce the demand for biomass inmany countries in Africa and South Asia. In thirty years’ time, biomass willalso continue to represent the largest share of residential energy demand insome countries in East Asia. In many countries, biomass consumption willcontinue to increase in absolute terms. The fact that the number of peoplerelying on biomass will remain high over the projection period is not, initself, a cause for concern. It is the way in which biomass is used, thetechnologies and applications used in its combustion, which links biomassuse to poverty in many developing countries. This makes it urgent toimprove the efficiency of biomass use in order to alleviate the adverseimpact on health (see Box 13.1) and other damaging effects.
In the WEO Reference Scenario, residential biomass demand indeveloping countries is projected to rise from 723 Mtoe in 2000 to788 Mtoe in 2030. The main drivers are macroeconomic and demographic
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
31. See World Energy Council/FAO (1999) and www.rwedp.org for more information on industrialbiomass use in developing countries.
variables, commercial energy use, technology and fuel prices. Theavailability of biomass resources is also taken into account.32
In Africa, biomass will still account for 80% of residential energy usein 2030. In East Asian countries, excluding China, it will account for over50% of residential consumption in 2030. Biomass use in the residentialsector in Indonesia will decline in the last two decades of the projectionperiod, accounting for 45% of residential demand in 2030.33 In South Asia,the share of biomass use will remain high, at nearly 70% in 2030. Indeveloping countries as a whole, biomass will represent 53% of residentialenergy consumption in 2030, down from 73% in 2000.
The share of the world population relying on biomass for cooking andheating is projected to decline in most developing regions. But the totalnumber of people will rise, mainly due to increases in the number of peoplerelying on biomass in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Over 2.6 billionpeople in developing countries will continue to rely on biomass for cookingand heating at the end of the projection period.34 That is an increase of238 million, or 9% (Table 13.6). In China and Indonesia, the number ofpeople using traditional biomass for cooking and heating will decline.Vigorous government measures to encourage the use of agricultural waste forpower generation rather than for cooking will lower the share in China.35 Inmuch of Latin America, rising incomes, improved availability of modernenergy and urbanisation will reduce demand for biomass, although it will likelyremain the dominant fuel in the poorer countries of Central America.
Because biomass will continue to dominate energy demand indeveloping countries in the foreseeable future, the development of moreefficient biomass technologies is vital for alleviating poverty, creatingemployment and expanding rural markets. Modern biomass technologiescompete with conventional technologies in many applications, and theroom for improving the use of biomass in developing countries isimmense.36 Biomass is routinely listed along with other “renewable” energy
World Energy Outlook 2002
32. See Annex 13.1 for regional projections. Regional assumptions regarding wood fuel availability andbiomass utilisation issues were made in co-operation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO-UN).33. See Chapter 11 for more detail on biomass energy demand in Indonesia.34. The energy demand projections on which these estimates are based include technologicalparameters that increase the efficiency of biomass use. The estimates of the number of people relyingon biomass for cooking and heating are based on the assumption that biomass demand per capita ineach region is constant over the Outlook period at 2000 levels. The constant per capita use is aconservative assumption, which defines the lower limit of the number of people who rely on biomassfor cooking and heating.35. Ping (2001).36. See United Nations Development Program (2000) and IEA (2001).
sources, and the impression persists that it is a “free good” that willcontinue to be available indefinitely. That, however, is not the case.Urbanisation and industrialisation strain the availability of biomassresources. Peri-urban areas, in particular, will come under increasingpressure to meet demands for biomass energy and agricultural land.Biomass scarcity will worsen living conditions in poor neighbourhoods, byforcing residents to use lower-quality waste as cooking fuel. Rising demandfor commercially-traded fuelwood in towns and cities will put pressure onsupplies in nearby rural areas. As rural supplies become monetised,traditional “free” sources will diminish.
Table 13.6: Number of People Relying on Biomass for Cooking andHeating in Developing Countries (million)
2000 2030* 2000-2030(%)
China 706 645 -9Indonesia 155 124 -25Rest of East Asia 137 145 6India 585 632 7Rest of South Asia 128 187 32Latin America 96 72 -33Africa 583 823 27Developing countries 2,390 2,628 9
* Assuming that biomass use per capita is constant, at some 0.3 toe per capita, over the projection period. Thisfigure is an average across all regions and countries. Analysis indicates that average per capita biomass use variesbetween some 0.24 toe in South Asia to nearly 0.4 toe in many countries in East Asia. See Tata Energy ResearchInstitute et al. (1999) for a similar approach.
In some rural areas, people must go farther and farther afield togather fuelwood. Radar imagery, which shows deforestation along roadsand trails leading to villages, is presented in Figure 13.13. The figure givesa rough idea of how biomass has been depleted around villages in CentralAfrica.
In many urban and suburban areas of mega-cities in developingcountries, there is virtually no wood left to scavenge — or what is left is manymiles away. Populations in slums are growing fast because of the influx ofpeople from rural areas attracted by the perception of opportunities that thecities offer. Some of them resort to fuelwood gathering even in the cities.Currently in Africa, there are two cities with more than 10 million people,
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
Lagos and Cairo. By 2015, Lagos will have a population of over 23 millionand Cairo’s population may reach 14 million. With an increasing number ofpeople living in marginalised conditions in mega-cities in developingcountries, the use of traded wood fuels is bound to increase.
As a result, poverty proliferates and quality of life erodes evenfurther. One example is Delhi, where sprawling slums haveproliferated.37 When wood becomes scarce, the better-off switch tokerosene. But very poor families have to collect virtually anythinglying about — twigs and scraps from construction sites — to heat,cook and light their homes. Together with the low ceilings, crampedquarters and tainted water of the Delhi slums, the noxious fumes frominefficient combustion of this mix of fuels pose a direct threat to the
World Energy Outlook 2002
Figure 13.13: Radar Image of the “Charcoal Web”in Central African Republic
Note: This enhanced radar image shows swathes of deforested land, in darker colour, along the roads and tracksleading out of towns and villages in northwest Bangui in the Central African Republic. The “charcoal web” refersto the deforestation swathes. Most of the wood is used to make charcoal for use by village households.Source: Courtesy: NASDA; Interpretation: Radar Technologies France.
37. Bhasin (2001).
residents’ health. Poverty is also severe in many African cities. In Dares Salaam, the poor often cannot afford to buy wood forcooking, instead, they collect various sawmill- and agro-residues,twigs from city trees and wastes from public dumps.38
Our projections for biomass use take account of expectations forbiomass supply. But the link between availability of biomass resourcesand demand pressures is still not very well understood. Theprojections are meant to provide a message about possible outcomes ofbiomass use. The precise numbers are less important than the messagethey portend.
Chapter 13 - Energy and Poverty
38. Katyega (2001).
Annex 13.1EXPLANATORY NOTES
ContentsTable 13.A1 – Electricity Access in 2000 (Country-by-Country Database)
• Regional Aggregates• Africa• Developing Asia• Latin America• Middle East
Table 13.A2 - Urban and Rural Electrification Rates by Region, 2000Table 13.A3 - Projections of Biomass Energy Demand in Developing Countries
Definitions
Electricity Access
There is no single internationally accepted definition for electricityaccess. The definition used here covers electricity access at the householdlevel, i.e. the number of people that have electricity in their home. Itcomprises commercially sold electricity, both on-grid and off-grid. It alsoincludes self-generated electricity, for those countries where access toelectricity has been assessed through surveys by government or governmentagencies. The data do not capture unauthorised connections.
The main data sources are listed in the tables. Each data point hasbeen validated through a consistency-check process among different datasources and experts. The electrification rate shown in this annex is thenumber of people with electricity access as a percentage of total population.Rural and urban electrification rates have been collected for mostcountries. Only the regional averages are shown in this publication.Enquiries about statistics should be addressed to the Economic AnalysisDivision (http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org).
Annex 13.1
Secretariat EstimatesWhere country data appeared contradictory, outdated or unreliable,
the IEA Secretariat made estimates based on cross-country comparisons,earlier surveys, information from other international organisations, annualstatistical bulletins, publications and journals.
Population and Urban/Rural BreakdownProjections are from the World Urbanisation Prospects – The 2000
Revision 1, published by the United Nations Population Division. Historicaldata are from World Bank Development Indicators, 2001.
BiomassBiomass comprises solid fuels (wood, charcoal, wood wastes and
agricultural residues and dung), gas (biogas, landfill gas, and other gasesfrom biomass), liquid fuels (alcohols, bio-additives and other liquid fuels)and industrial and municipal waste. Data on biomass consumption arefrom IEA statistics, Energy Balances of Non-OECD Countries, 2002 edition.UN-FAO data are used for information on forest coverage and estimates ofbiomass supply. In the chapter, traditional biomass refers mainly tonon-commercial biomass use, which is largely solid fuels.
World Energy Outlook 2002
Annex 13.1
Table 13.A1: Electricity Access in 2000 - Regional Aggregates
Electrificationrate
%
Populationwithout
electricitymillion
Populationwith
electricitymillion
World 72.8 1644.5 4390.4
Developing countries 64.2 1634.2 2930.7
Africa 34.3 522.3 272.7Developing Asia 67.3 1041.4 2147.3Latin America 86.6 55.8 359.9Middle East 91.1 14.7 150.7
Transition economies 99.5 1.8 351.5
OECD* 99.2 8.5 1108.3
*OECD figures aggregate some important regional variations. The electrification rate for Turkey and Mexico isabout 95 %. All other Member countries have 100% electrification.
World Energy Outlook 2002
Tab
le13
.A1:
Ele
ctri
city
Acc
ess
in20
00-A
fric
a
Elec
trifi
catio
nra
te %
Pop
ulat
ion
wit
hout
elec
tric
ity
mill
ion
Pop
ulat
ion
wit
hel
ectr
icit
ym
illio
n
Sour
ces
Ang
ola
12.0
11.5
1.6
Em
pres
ade
Dist
ribui
cao
deE
lect
ricid
ade
Ang
ola
ED
EL
(200
1).A
FRE
PRE
N(2
001)
Ben
in22
.04.
.91.
4W
orld
Ban
k(2
000)
Bot
swan
a22
.01.
20.
.3B
otsw
ana
Pow
erC
ompa
ny(2
000)
,AFR
EPR
EN
(200
1)B
urki
naFa
so13
.010
.41.
6So
ciét
éN
atio
nale
d’E
lect
ricité
SON
AB
EL
(200
1),O
EC
DD
evel
opm
entC
entr
e(2
001)
Cam
eroo
n20
.011
.93.
0So
ciét
éN
atio
nale
d’E
lect
ricité
SON
EL
(200
1),O
EC
DD
evel
opm
entC
entr
e(2
001)
Con
go20
.92.
40.
6M
arch
ésT
ropi
caux
(200
1)C
ote
d’Iv
oire
50.0
8.0
8.0
Com
pagn
ieIv
oirie
nne
d’E
lect
ricité
CIE
(200
2),O
EC
DD
evel
opm
entC
entr
e(2
001)
D.R
.ofC
ongo
6.7
47.5
3.4
Mar
chés
Tro
pica
ux(2
002)
Erit
rea
17.0
3.4
0.7
AFR
EPR
EN
(200
1)E
thio
pia
4.7
61.3
3.0
Eth
iopi
anE
lect
ricPo
wer
Cor
pora
tion
EE
PCO
(200
1)G
abon
31.0
0.8
0.4
D.G
.de
l’Eco
nom
ie-R
épub
lique
Gab
onai
se(1
998)
,OE
CD
Dev
elop
men
tCen
tre
(200
1)G
hana
45.0
10.6
8.7
Ele
ctric
ityC
ompa
nyof
Gha
na(2
000)
Ken
ya7.
927
.72.
4K
enya
Pow
er&
Ligh
ting
Com
pany
Lim
ited
(200
1),A
FRE
PRE
N(2
001)
Leso
tho
5.0
2.0
0.1
Mar
chés
Tro
pica
ux(2
002)
Mad
agas
car
8.0
14.3
1.2
Jiro
SyR
ano
Mal
agas
yJI
RA
MA
(200
0)M
alaw
i5.
09.
90.
5N
atio
nalE
cono
mic
Cou
ncil,
Mal
awiG
over
nmen
t(20
01),
AFR
EPR
EN
(200
1)M
aurit
ius
100
0.0
1.2
Cen
tral
Stat
istic
sOffi
ceof
Mau
ritiu
sCSO
(200
1),A
FRE
PRE
N(2
001)
Moz
ambi
que
7.2
16.4
1.3
AFR
EPR
EN
(199
8)N
amib
ia34
.01.
20.
6A
FRE
PRE
N(2
001)
Nig
eria
40.0
76.1
50.8
Nat
iona
lEle
ctric
Pow
erA
utho
rity
NE
PA(2
001)
,AFR
EPR
EN
(200
1)
Annex 13.1
Sene
gal
30.1
6.6
2.9
Age
nce
Séné
gala
isepo
url’é
lect
rific
atio
nru
rale
(200
2),O
ECD
Dev
elop
men
tCen
tre
(200
1)So
uth
Afr
ica
66.1
14.5
28.3
Nat
iona
lElec
tricit
yR
egul
ator
(200
2),E
skom
(200
2),D
epar
men
tofM
iner
alsan
dEn
ergy
(200
1)Su
dan
30.0
21.8
9.3
AFR
EPR
EN
(200
1)T
anza
nia
10.5
30.2
3.5
Tan
zani
aE
lect
ricSu
pply
Com
pany
Lim
ited
(200
1),B
urea
uof
Stat
istic
sTan
zani
a(2
000)
Tog
o9.
04.
10.
4C
ompa
gnie
d’én
ergi
eél
ectri
que
duT
ogo
(CEE
T)(
2001
),A
FREP
REN
(200
1)U
gand
a3.
722
.50.
9U
gand
aE
lect
ricity
Boa
rd(2
002)
,AFR
EPR
EN
(200
1)Z
ambi
a12
.08.
91.
2A
FRE
PRE
N(2
001)
Zim
babw
e39
.77.
65.
0A
FRE
PRE
N(2
001)
Oth
erA
fric
a7.
771
.15.
9Se
cret
aria
test
imat
eSu
b-Sa
hara
22.6
508.
914
8.2
Alg
eria
98.0
0.6
29.8
Soci
été
Nat
iona
lede
l’Éle
ctric
itéet
duG
az(2
001)
Egy
pt93
.84.
060
.0In
tern
atio
nalP
rivat
ePo
wer
Qua
rter
ly(2
002)
Liby
a99
.80.
015.
3W
orld
Ban
k(2
000)
Mor
occo
71.1
8.3
20.4
Min
istèr
ede
l’Ind
ustr
ieet
duC
omm
erce
,de
l’Ene
rgie
etde
sMin
es(2
002)
Tun
isia
94.6
0.5
9.1
Min
istry
ofE
nerg
yan
dM
inin
g(2
000)
Nor
thA
fric
a90
.313
.412
4.6
Afr
ica
34.3
522.
327
2.7
World Energy Outlook 2002
Tab
le13
.A1:
Ele
ctri
city
Acc
ess
in20
00-D
evel
opin
gA
sia
Elec
trifi
catio
nra
te %
Pop
ulat
ion
wit
hout
elec
tric
ity
mill
ion
Pop
ulat
ion
wit
hel
ectr
icit
ym
illio
n
Sour
ces
Chi
na98
.617
.612
44.9
Chi
nese
Ene
rgy
Res
earc
hIn
stitu
teE
RI(
2002
),O
EC
D20
02(C
hina
’sW
este
rnD
evel
opm
ent
Stra
tegy
),U
SAID
Bru
nei
99.2
0.00
30.
3A
PER
C(2
002)
Cam
bodi
a15
.810
.31.
9M
inist
ryof
Plan
ning
(199
8)C
hine
seT
aipe
i98
.60.
321
.9Se
cret
aria
test
imat
eD
PRof
Kor
ea20
.017
.84.
5W
orld
Ban
k(2
000)
Indo
nesia
53.4
98.0
112.
4PL
N(2
002)
,ASE
AN
Cen
terf
orE
nerg
y(2
002)
Mal
aysia
96.9
0.7
22.6
8th
Mal
aysia
Plan
,Mal
aysia
nG
over
nmen
t(20
00)
Mon
golia
90.0
0.3
2.4
Wor
ldB
ank
(200
0)M
yanm
ar5.
045
.32.
4W
orld
Ban
k(2
000)
Phili
ppin
es87
.49.
566
.1R
ural
Ele
ctric
Coo
pera
tives
,Man
ilaE
lect
ricC
ompa
ny,D
oEPh
ilipp
ines
,APE
RC
(200
2)Si
ngap
ore
100
0.0
4.0
Wor
ldB
ank
(200
0)T
haila
nd82
.110
.949
.8D
epar
tmen
tofE
nerg
yD
evel
opm
enta
ndPr
omot
ion
ofT
haila
nd,A
PER
C(2
002)
Vie
tnam
75.8
19.0
59.5
APE
RC
(200
2)O
ther
Asia
15.5
10.9
2.0
Secr
etar
iate
stim
ate
Eas
tAsi
a/C
hina
86.9
240.
715
94.6
Afg
hani
stan
2.0
25.4
0.5
Secr
etar
iate
stim
ate
Ban
glad
esh
20.4
104.
426
.7B
angl
ades
hPo
wer
Dev
elop
men
tBoa
rd,A
genc
yfo
rInt
erna
tiona
lDev
elop
men
t(20
02)
Indi
a43
.057
9.1
436.
8T
ata
Ene
rgy
Res
earc
hIn
stitu
te(2
002)
,Ind
ian
Plan
ning
Com
miss
ion
(200
2)N
epal
15.4
19.5
3.5
Nep
alE
lect
ricity
Aut
horit
y(2
000)
Paki
stan
52.9
65.0
73.1
Wat
erPo
wer
Dev
elop
men
tAut
horit
yof
Paki
stan
(200
0)Sr
iLan
ka62
.07.
412
.0B
urea
uof
Infr
astr
uctu
reIn
vest
men
t(20
01)
Sout
hA
sia
40.8
800.
755
2.7
Dev
elop
ing
Asi
a67
.310
41.4
2147
.3
Annex 13.1
Tab
le13
.A1:
Ele
ctri
city
Acc
ess
in20
00-L
atin
Am
eric
a
Ele
ctri
ficat
ion
rate %
Pop
ulat
ion
wit
hout
elec
tric
ity
mill
ion
Pop
ulat
ion
wit
hel
ectr
icit
ym
illio
n
Sour
ces
Arg
entin
a94
.62.
035
.0O
LAD
E(1
998)
Bol
ivia
60.4
3.3
5.0
OLA
DE
(199
9)B
razi
l94
.98.
716
1.7
OLA
DE
(199
9)C
hile
99.0
0.2
15.0
OLA
DE
(199
9)C
olom
bia
81.0
8.0
34.3
OLA
DE
(199
9)C
osta
Ric
a95
.70.
23.
6E
lect
ricid
ady
Tel
ecom
unic
acio
nesp
ara
Cos
taR
ica
(200
2)C
uba
97.0
0.3
10.9
Secr
eter
iate
stim
ate
base
don
OLA
DE
Dom
inic
anR
epub
lic66
.82.
85.
6W
orld
Ban
k(2
000)
Ecu
ador
80.0
2.5
10.1
Nat
iona
lEle
ctric
ityC
ounc
ilof
Ecu
ador
CO
NE
LEC
(200
0)E
lSal
vado
r70
.81.
84.
5O
LAD
E(1
998)
Gua
tem
ala
66.7
3.8
7.6
OLA
DE
(199
9)H
aiti
34.0
5.3
2.7
OLA
DE
(199
9)H
ondu
ras
54.5
2.9
3.5
OLA
DE
(199
8)Ja
mai
ca90
.00.
32.
3Se
cret
aria
test
imat
eba
sed
onO
LAD
EN
ethe
rland
sAnt
illes
99.0
0.0
0.2
Secr
etar
iate
stim
ate
Nic
arag
ua48
.02.
72.
4N
icar
agua
nN
atio
nalE
nerg
yC
omm
issio
n(20
00),
OLA
DE
(199
9)Pa
nam
a76
.10.
72.
2Se
cret
eria
test
imat
eba
sed
onO
LAD
EPa
ragu
ay74
.71.
44.
1O
LAD
E(1
997)
Peru
73.0
6.9
18.8
Est
adist
ica
Ele
ctric
a-P
ER
UM
inist
ryof
Ene
rgy
(200
0)T
rinid
adan
dT
obag
o99
.00.
011.
3Se
cret
eria
test
imat
eba
sed
onO
LAD
EU
rugu
ay98
.00.
13.
2O
LAD
E(1
999)
Ven
ezue
la94
.01.
522
.7O
LAD
E(1
999)
Oth
erLa
tinA
mer
ica
86.6
0.5
3.1
Secr
etar
iate
stim
ate
Latin
Am
eric
a86
.655
.835
9.9
World Energy Outlook 2002
Tab
le13
.A1:
Ele
ctri
city
Acc
ess
in20
00-M
iddl
eE
ast
Ele
ctri
ficat
ion
rate %
Pop
ulat
ion
wit
hout
elec
tric
ity
mill
ion
Pop
ulat
ion
wit
hel
ectr
icit
ym
illio
n
Sour
ces
Bah
rain
99.4
0.0
0.6
Min
istry
ofE
lect
ricity
and
Wat
er(1
999)
Iran
97.9
1.3
62.4
Iran
Pow
erG
ener
atio
n&
Tra
nsm
issio
nC
ompa
nyT
AV
AN
IR(1
999)
Iraq
95.0
1.2
22.1
Wor
ldB
ank
(200
0)Is
rael
100
0.0
6.2
Isra
elE
lect
ricC
orpo
ratio
nLt
d.(1
997)
Jord
an95
.00.
24.
7W
orld
Ban
k(2
000)
Kuw
ait
100
0.0
2.0
Secr
eter
iate
stim
ate
Leba
non
95.0
0.2
4.1
Wor
ldB
ank
(200
0)O
man
94.0
0.1
2.3
Secr
etar
iate
stim
ate
Qat
ar95
.00.
00.
7Se
cret
aria
test
imat
eSa
udiA
rabi
a97
.70.
520
.2M
inist
ryof
Indu
stry
and
Ele
ctric
ity(1
999/
2000
)Sy
ria85
.92.
313
.9U
ND
P(2
000)
Uni
ted
Ara
bE
mira
tes
96.0
0.1
2.8
Secr
etar
iate
stim
ate
Yem
en50
.08.
88.
8W
orld
Ban
k(2
000)
Mid
dle
Eas
t91
.114
.715
0.7
Annex 13.1
Tab
le13
.A2:
Urb
anan
dR
ural
Ele
ctri
ficat
ion
Rat
es,2
000
Tot
alpo
pula
tion
mill
ion
Urb
anpo
pula
tion
mill
ion
Ele
ctri
ficat
ion
rate
%U
rban
elec
trifi
catio
nra
te%
Rur
alel
ectr
ifica
tion
rate
%N
orth
Afr
ica
138
7490
.399
.379
.9Su
b-Sa
hara
657
226
22.6
51.3
7.5
Afr
ica
795
300
34.3
63.1
16.9
Sout
hA
sia
and
sub-
Saha
ra20
1060
834
.961
.923
.2La
tinA
mer
ica
416
314
86.6
98.0
51.5
Eas
tAsia
/Chi
na18
3563
386
.998
.581
.0So
uth
Asia
1353
381
40.8
68.2
30.1
Mid
dle
Eas
t16
510
991
.198
.576
.6D
evel
opin
gco
untr
ies
4565
1739
64.2
85.6
51.1
Wor
ld60
3528
2872
.891
.256
.9
World Energy Outlook 2002
Tab
le13
.A3:
Pro
ject
ions
ofB
iom
assE
nerg
yD
eman
din
Dev
elop
ing
Cou
ntri
es
Leve
ls(M
toe)
Shar
es*
(%)
Gro
wth
rate
s(%
per
annu
m)
2000
2010
2020
2030
2000
2010
2020
2030
2000
-201
020
00-2
020
2000
-203
0In
dia
Dem
and
198
216
224
227
4034
2823
0.9
0.6
0.5
ofw
hich
resid
entia
l17
518
919
319
084
7974
670.
80.
50.
3R
esto
fSou
thA
sia
Dem
and
4352
6065
4438
3226
2.0
1.7
1.4
ofw
hich
resid
entia
l38
4753
5684
7873
672.
01.
71.
3C
hina
Dem
and
213
213
208
195
1814
118
0.0
-0.1
-0.3
ofw
hich
resid
entia
l21
221
220
619
372
6456
470.
0-0
.1-0
.3In
done
sia
Dem
and
4750
4640
3225
1813
0.7
0.0
-0.5
ofw
hich
resid
entia
l47
4944
3773
6656
450.
5-0
.2-0
.7R
esto
fEas
tAsi
aD
eman
d62
7077
8316
1311
101.
21.
11.
0of
whi
chre
siden
tial
4143
4444
7465
5851
0.3
0.3
0.2
Afr
ica
Dem
and
254
295
321
345
5146
4034
1.5
1.2
1.0
ofw
hich
resid
entia
l18
121
423
324
789
8681
751.
71.
31.
0B
razi
lD
eman
d43
4447
5024
1916
130.
40.
50.
7of
whi
chre
siden
tial
74
32
3417
105
-5.2
-4.7
-4.6
Res
tofL
atin
Am
eric
aD
eman
d37
4044
5013
119
80.
70.
81.
0of
whi
chre
siden
tial
2120
2019
4437
3024
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
Dev
elop
ing
Cou
ntri
esD
eman
d89
898
210
3010
5925
2117
140.
90.
70.
6of
whi
chre
side
ntia
l72
377
879
678
873
6760
530.
70.
50.
3
*T
hesh
are
ofbi
omas
sin
tota
lpri
mar
yen
ergy
dem
and
and
the
shar
eof
biom
ass
into
talr
esid
enti
alen
ergy
dem
and.