HouseHold Energy Access DP 23

8/10/2019 HouseHold Energy Access DP 23

1/68

E N E R G Y A N D M I N I N G S E C T O R B O A R D D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R

P A P E R N O . 2 3

J U N E , 2 0 1 1

Household Energy Access forCooking and Heating:Lessons Learned and the Way Forward

Koffi Ekouevi

Voravate Tuntivate

The World Bank, Washington, DC

Copyright 2011 The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/The World Bank. All rights reserved

The Energy andMining Sector Board

THE WORLD BANKGROUP

DP 23 Household Energy Access 11-15-11.indd 1 11/16/11 1:20 PM


2/68



3/68

i

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................v

FOREWORD .............................................................. vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................ vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................viii A Multidimensional Challenge ............................. ixMeeting the Challenge ......................................... ixLessons Learned ....................................................xThe Way Forward ................................................. xii

What Can the World Bank Do? ........................... xii What Can Be Done through Partnerships? .......... xii

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1

2. A MULTIDIMENSIONAL CHALLENGE ............... 1 An Overwhelming Reliance on Solid Fuels inDeveloping Countries ........................................... 1The Use of Solid Fuels and Energy Poverty .......... 3Relationships among Household Energy Use,Indoor Air Pollution, and Health Impacts .............. 5Inefficient Use of Solid Fuels is Associated

with Environmental Degradation andClimate Change ................................................... 9

3. MEETING THE CHALLENGE ............................. 10 An Overview of Main World Bank Programs with Focus on Household Energy ....................... 10 A Review of World Bank-Financed LendingOperations on Household Energy Accessfor Cooking and Heating .................................... 14

Supply-Side Components ................................ 15

Demand-Side Components ............................. 17 An Overview of Selected Interventions fromGovernments and Other Organizations ............... 21

4. LESSONS LEARNED .......................................... 26 A Holistic Approach to Household EnergyIssues Is Necessary ............................................. 26Public Awareness Campaigns ArePrerequisites for Successful Interventions ............. 26Local Participation Is Fundamental ..................... 26Consumer Fuel or Stove Subsidies Are Nota Good Way of Helping the Poor ....................... 26Both Market-Based and Public Support AreRelevant in the Commercialization ofImproved Stoves ................................................. 27Needs and Preferences of Improved StovesUsers Should Be Given Priority ........................... 27Durability of Improved Stoves Is Key forTheir Successful Dissemination ........................... 27

With Microfinance, the Poor Can Gradually Afford an Improved Stove ................................... 27

5. THE WAY FORWARD ......................................... 28 What Can the World Bank Do? .......................... 28 What Can Be Done through Partnerships? ......... 28



4/68


5/68

v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AGECC Advisory Group on Energy and Climate

Change ALRI Acute lower respiratory infection ARI Acute respiratory infection ARTI-TZ Appropriate Rural Technology Institute ASTAE Asia Sustainable and Alternative Energy

ProgramBEIA Biomass Energy Initiative for AfricaBEST Biomass Energy StrategyBMZ Bundesministerium fr Wirtschaftliche

Zusammenarbeit (German Federal Ministry for Economic

Development Cooperation)CDM Clean Development MechanismCETA Appropriate Technology Experimental

Center

CFU Carbon Finance Unit (World Bank)CILSS Permanent Inter-State Committee forDrought Control in the Sahel

(Comit Inter-Etat pour la Lutte contre laScheresse au Sahel)

CO 2 Carbon dioxideCOPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseDALY Disability-adjusted life year EAETDN East African Energy Technology

Development NetworkECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America

and the CaribbeanENCOVI Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Vida (National Survey of Conditions of Life)EnDev Energising DevelopmentEPA Environmental Protection AgencyESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance

ProgramEU ETS European Union Emission Trading SchemeFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFIS Fondo de Inversin Social (Social Investment Fund)

GDP Gross domestic productGEF Global Environment FundGPOBA Global Partnership on Output-Based AidGIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale

Zusammenarbeit(German International Cooperation)

GVEP Global Village Energy PartnershipIAP Indoor air pollutionICADA Scientific Research Related to the AltiplanoICR Implementation Completion ReportIEA International Energy AgencyISR Implementation Supervision ReportJET Joint Environmental TechniquesLPG Liquefied petroleum gasLULUCF Land use, land use change, and forestryMDG Millennium Development Goal

NGO Nongovernmental organizationNISP National Improved Stoves ProgramNPIC National Program for Improved ChulhasPCIA Partnership for Clean Indoor Air PM Particulate matter PM10 Particulate matter up to 10 micrometers in

size caused by smokeProBEC Programme for Basic Energy and

Conservation in Southern AfricaR&D Research and developmentRPTES Regional Program for the Traditional Energy

Sector SME Small and medium enterprisesTaTEDO Tanzania Traditional Energy Development

and Environment OrganizationUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeWHO World Health OrganizationWODSTA Women Development for Science and

Technology Association



6/68

vi

FOREWORD

Providing clean and efficient stoves and fuels to poorhouseholds in developing countries is a complexchallenge, cutting across many disciplines, such as theenvironment, forestry, energy, health, and householdeconomics, and linked to contextual social and culturalconsiderations. The complexity and cross-sectoralnature of the challenge is also reflected in the mixedresults that have been obtained in the field over theyears. Lately, a new wave of mobilization around theimportance of developing clean cooking solutionsfor poor households has emerged. The drivers ofthis mobilization are multiple. There is a growingrecognition that access to energy services is importantto the achievement of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) and to poverty alleviation. The negative

health outcomes faced mostly by women and children insettings where households rely on solid fuels are seriouspublic health concerns. Moreover, the recent discussionsin the climate change community on black carbon, evenif not conclusive, have drawn attention to the issues ofclean cooking and cookstoves.

This mobilization has gained momentum and newopportunitiessuch as the Global Alliance for CleanCookstoves, the new global partnership chaired by theUnited Nations Foundationare emerging.

Against this background, this report on HouseholdEnergy Access for Cooking and Heating: LessonsLearned and the Way Forward is timely, since it providesa unique overview of the World Bank experienceand important lessons learned by other multilateral,bilateral, and government organizations. We expectthat this report will provide insights for policy makers,stakeholders, and donors in meeting the challenge ofproviding clean cooking and heating solutions to poorhouseholds in developing countries.

Lucio MonariManager, Energy Anchor Unit (SEGEN)

Sustainable Energy DepartmentJune 2011



7/68

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared by a team led by KoffiEkouevi, Senior Economist (Sustainable EnergyDepartment), that included Ashaya Basnyat, VeroniqueBishop, Andrew Eil, Harikumar Gadde, Besnik Hyseni,Jing Li, Vanessa Almeida Lopes, Mario Nanclares,

Varun Nangia, Alain Ouedraogo, Klaus Oppermann,Brice Jean Marie Quesnel, Maria Shkaratan, NatsukoToba, Voravate Tuntivate, Jens Wirth, Xiaolu Yu, andYabei Zhang. It was prepared under the guidance andencouragement of Lucio Monari.

The team benefitted from intellectual insights fromMasami Kojima, Robert Bacon, Keith Openshaw,Douglas Barnes, Rasmus Heltberg, Enis Baris, RichardHosier, Klas Sanders, Kseniya Lvovsky, Tjaarda Storm

Van Leeuwen, Amarquaye Armar, Rohit Khanna, Sameer Akbar, and Daniel Kammen.

The report was cofunded by the Sustainable EnergyDepartment, the Energy Sector Management AssistanceProgram (ESMAP), and the Africa Renewable EnergyProgram.



8/68

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Half of humanityabout 3 billion peopleare stillrelying on solid fuels for cooking and heating. Of that,about 2.5 billion people depend on traditional biomassfuels (wood, charcoal, agricultural waste, and animaldung), while about 400 million people use coal as theirprimary cooking and heating fuel (UNDP and WHO2009). The majority of the population relying on solidfuels lives in Sub-Saharan Africa and in South Asia. Insome countries in Central America and in East Asiaand the Pacific, the use of solid fuels is also significant.The inefficient and unsustainable production and use ofthese fuels result in a significant public health hazard,as well as negative environmental impacts that keeppeople in poverty.

Strategies to improve energy access to the poor havefocused mainly on electricity access. They have oftenneglected non electricity household energy access. Itis, however, estimated that about 2.8 billion of peoplewill still depend on fuelwood for cooking and heatingin 2030 in a business-as-usual modus operandi(IEA 2010). The need for urgent interventions at thehousehold level to provide alternative energy services tohelp improve livelihoods is becoming more and moreaccepted.

The failure of past large-scale fuelwood plantationsand improved stoves programs has generally createdpessimism in the development community aboutthe relevance and effectiveness of interventionson household energy access. Altogether, this hasaffected the level of policy attention considerably andconsequently the allocated resources for interventions.This situation is gradually changing. There is a growingglobal mobilization around household energy accessissues. An important milestone is the recent launching ofa public-private Global Alliance on Clean Cookstovesled by the United Nations Foundation to help 100million households adopt clean and efficient stoves andfuels by 2020 (United Nations Foundation 2010). A

primary driver of this mobilization is the realization thatconsiderable health benefits in line with the MillenniumDevelopment Goals can be gained by improvingindoor air pollution (IAP) with the use of efficientcookstoves and clean fuels (AGECC 2010). Discussionof household energy access in the climate changecommunity is also helping keep up attention on theissues.



9/68

i

relationships; (b) the need to handle confoundingbetter by using more adequate statistical methodologyto control the effects of confounders, such as poverty,malnutrition, and housing environment; and (c) theimportance of intervention studies to complete findingsof observational studies (von Schirnding and others2002; Ezzati and Kammen 2002; and Jaakkola andJaakkola 2006).

It is now widely accepted that the clearing of land forarable and pastoral agriculture is the main cause ofdeforestation rather than the use of wood for energy, aswas believed in the past. Surrounding growing urbanareas in some Sub-Saharan African countries and Haitiare some exceptions. In these settings, inefficient useof fuelwood is putting tremendous pressure on forestresources (World Bank 2009; ESMAP 2007b).

The reliance on fuelwood for cooking and heating isincreasingly being associated with climate change.There are claims that reducing black carbon emittedfrom the burning of open biomass with the use ofimproved stoves may provide quick gains to help slowdown global warming (Ramanathan and Carmichael2008; Gustafsson 2009). Recent research indicatesthat while black carbon emissions from diesel is clearlyshown to have a warming effect on the climate, blackcarbon emissions from burning biomass in inefficientcookstoves, because of their organic nature and small-size particles, may be interacting with other aerosols inthe atmosphere to produce a net cooling effect on theclimate (Bauer and others 2010). It appears that currentscience points to uncertainties around the potentialclimate change impact of black carbon emissions frombiomass combustion.

Meeting the Challenge

During the last 25 years, household energy accessissues have retained the attention of many specialistswithin the Bank from different sectors, such as energy,forestry, environment, health, agriculture and rural

development, gender, and climate change. The EnergySector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP),jointly set up by the Work Bank and the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) in 1983, has playedand is still playing a leading role in funding workundertaken by specialists from these different sectors. Inthe specific case of Sub-Saharan Africa, the RegionalProgram for the Traditional Energy Sector (RPTES)supported analytical work and upstream studies between

This reports main objective is to conduct a review ofthe World Banks financed operations and selectedinterventions by other institutions on household energyaccess in an attempt to examine success and failurefactors to inform the new generation of upcominginterventions. First, the report provides a brief literaturereview to lay out the multidimensional challenge ofan overwhelming reliance on solid fuels for cookingand heating. Second, it highlights how the Bank andselected governments and organizations have beendealing with this challenge. Third, it presents lessonslearned to inform upcoming interventions. And finally, itindicates an outlook on the way forward.

A Multidimensional Challenge

It is well documented that exposure to IAP from the

inefficient combustion of solid fuels with low-qualitystoves in poorly ventilated kitchens is a significant publichealth hazard. The World Health Organization (WHO)estimates that 1.9 million people die prematurelyevery year from exposure to smoke from traditionalcookstoves and open fires; that is nearly 1 deathevery 16 seconds. Women and children in developingcountries are particularly affected by the negative healthoutcomes of IAP from the use of solid fuels. Womenand children in these countries are exposed daily topollution in the form of small particulates that exceedWorld Health Organization and U.S. EPA recommendedlimits by 10 to 50 times (von Schirnding and others2002; WHO 2006).

Although there are many studies on solid fuels, IAPand their health outcomes, research gaps remain thatneed to be filled to inform the design and monitoringof interventions better. At the same time that strongevidence exists that links IAP to childhood pneumonia,chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer(from coal) in adults, the evidence is weak on howinhaling wood smoke is associated with tuberculosis,low birth weight, and cataracts. What we do not knowis the exposure-response relationship between IAP and

different negative health outcomes. In other words, wedo not know what different dose levels of IAP causedifferent negative health outcomes. Evidence on theexposure-response relationship is important in orderto ensure to what level exposure should be reducedto start gaining positive health outcomes. Three mainareas of further research are generally acknowledged:(a) the need for better exposure assessment to makemore direct measurement of exposure-response



10/68


11/68

x

in forest management initiatives have failed.Households need to perceive and to be convincedabout the direct and indirect benefits associated withthese interventions.

3. Local participation is fundamental.Experience indicates that the active participationof communities, governments, nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs), and the private sector isfundamental for household energy access projectsto be successful and sustainable. For example,local communities need to be involved at an earlystage to ensure that they own supply-side forestmanagement initiatives. They should understand whythey should be the ones protecting the forests in theircommunities. A clear rule of engagement should bediscussed for communities to know their rights and

responsibilities, the prerogatives of the national forestservice, the role of NGOs and local associations.

4. Consumer fuel subsidies are not a good way ofhelping the poor.Experience has shown that across the boardconsumer fuel subsidies are not a good way ofhelping the poor. Affluent households tend tobenefit the most from prevailing fuel subsidies, giventhat in most cases, energy consumption increasesin parallel with income. For governments, thesesubsidies result in heavy fiscal deficits diverting directpublic expenditures away from productive and socialsectors. Alternative options are usually designedin the form of social protection programs. Thechallenge remains in successfully implementing theseoptions to effectively reach the poor.

5. Both market-based and public support arerelevant in the commercialization of improvedstoves.

A market-based approach in the commercializationof improved stoves is often viewed as the best wayto ensure sustainability of programs. This is basedon the evidence that subsidized programs do not

continue when donor or public funding dries out.Evidence indicates, however, that a certain level ofpublic funding is necessary at the initial programstages for improved stoves programs to take off.This is particularly true in settings where the businessenvironment is not well developed. Funding is usuallyneeded to support research and development (R&D),marketing, quality control, training related to stovedesign and maintenance, and monitoring and

evaluation. Work on developing stoves standardsand certification protocols rely on the availabilityof public funding. Without this initial support, smallenterprises find it difficult to participate in improvedstoves programs, and scaling up is unrealistic. Achallenge is to determine what level of public fundingis adequate and the timing to transition to a fullymarket-based business model.

6. The needs and preferences of improved stoveusers should be given priority.Successful programs pay attention to the needs andpreferences of the users of improved stoves. Targetinghouseholds susceptible to buying and using theseimproved stoves and working with them to supply asuitable stove that responds to their needs is critical.

At first, this target group is usually not the poorest

of the poor. By first focusing on households that canafford to adopt an improved stove, the programcan subsequently capitalize on the benefits of thedemonstration effects produced. Successful, improvedstoves programs are also designed bearing in mind thepreferences of the users. Experience has shown thatwhen these factors are ignored, stove disseminationrates are low, and programs are not sustainable.

7. Durability of improved stoves is important fortheir successful dissemination.For households that can afford an improved stove,the decision to adopt one or not includes theirperception of durability of the stoves. The durabilitydepends on the quality of the materials used in theproduction of the stove, the resistance of the stovein the climatic context where it is used, how it used,and the maintenance that is needed. It is importantto account for durability issues in the design andconstruction of improved stoves, in addition totechnical considerations, such as heat transferefficiency and combustion efficiency.

8. With microfinance, the poor can graduallyafford an improved stove.

Availability of improved stoves and cleaner fuels isone thing, whereas their affordability is another one.Programs that have included microfinance options tohelp households afford the stoves tend to be moresuccessful. The poor need to have a time horizon togradually pay for the improved stoves. For example,in Bangladesh, Grameen Shakti has been workingwith international donors to provide cookstoves aspart of its microfinance activities. This dimension



12/68


13/68

x

2. External partnershipsThere are many organizations well grounded withtremendous experience in household energy accessinterventions that the Bank could partner with ininnovative ways. The review of household energyaccess projects reveals that grassroots efforts areneeded to raise the awareness of populations toadopt alternative ways of harvesting their forests andusing improved stoves and fuels. These behavioralchanges require a lot of time and operationalresources that are close to targeted communities.Civil society organizations, including NGOs andcommunity-based associations, and the private sectorare better equipped to deliver on this work.

Another way the Bank can leverage partnershipsis to help facilitate the use of funding mechanisms

on climate change with windows that will allowfunding to be directed at technical assistance oroperational work on household energy access-related issues. A number of climate changemechanisms are available, but they are either notwell known by beneficiary countries or are difficultto access. In working with other multilateral andbilateral organizations and governments, the Bankcan play a pivotal role in making this fundingaccessible.

Going forward, it appears that partnerships havean important role in scaling up household energyaccess interventions. However, selectivity shouldbe exercised in the choice of partners, and toolsshould be developed to measure performance andimpact.



14/68



15/68

1

1. INTRODUCTION

It is recognized that access to modern energy servicesincluding electricity and clean fuelsis important forachieving the Millennium Development Goals (UNDP2005). Strategies to improve energy access to the poorhave focused mainly on electricity access. They haveoften neglected non electricity household energy access.It is estimated, however, that about 2.8 billion peoplewill still depend on fuelwood for cooking and heatingin 2030 in a business-as-usual modus operandi (IEA2010). The inefficient and unsustainable production anduse of these fuels result in a significant public healthhazard accompanied by negative environmental impactsthat keep people in poverty.

The failure of past large-scale fuelwood plantations

and improved stoves programs has generally createdpessimism in the development community aboutthe relevance and effectiveness of interventionson household energy access. Altogether, this hasaffected the level of policy attention considerably andconsequently the allocated resources for interventions.This situation is gradually changing. Global mobilizationaround household energy access issues is growing.

An important milestone is the recent launching of apublic-private Global Alliance on Clean Cookstovesled by the United Nations Foundation to help 100million households adopt clean and efficient stoves andfuels by 2020 (United Nations Foundation 2010). Animportant driver of this mobilization is the realizationthat considerable health benefits in line with theMillennium Development Goals can be gained byimproving IAP with the use of efficient cookstoves andclean fuels (AGECC 2010). The fact that the climatechange community is also discussing household energyaccess is helping sustain attention on the issues.

The main objective of this report is to conduct a reviewof the World Banks financed operations and selectedinterventions by other institutions on household energyaccess in an attempt to examine success and failure

factors to inform the new generation of upcominginterventions. The report first provides a brief literaturereview to lay out the multidimensional challenge of thereliance on solid fuels for cooking and heating. Second,an overview highlights how the Bank and selectedgovernments and organizations have been dealing withthis challenge. In the next section of the report, lessonslearned are drawn to inform upcoming interventions. Afinal section presents ideas on the way forward.

2. A MULTIDIMENSIONAL CHALLENGE

This section describes (a) the overwhelming reliance onsolid fuels in developing countries by showing levelsand trends across regions and selected countries;(b) the linkages between the use of solid fuels andenergy poverty, including the complexity of the ongoinghousehold energy transition; (c) the relationshipsamong household energy use, IAP, and health impacts;and (iv) the resulting local and global environmentalimpacts.

An Overwhelming Reliance on Solid Fuels inDeveloping Countries

Half of humanityabout 3 billion peopleis stillrelying on solid fuels for cooking and heating. Of that,

about 2.5 billion people depend on traditional biomassfuels (wood, charcoal, agricultural waste, and animaldung), while about 400 million people use coal astheir primary cooking and heating fuel (UNDP andWHO 2009). As indicated in Figure 1, the majority ofthe population relying on solid fuels for cooking andheating live in Sub-Saharan Africa and in South Asia.

The reliance on solid fuels remains the same forcountries in Sub-Saharan Africa whether they havelarge oil and gas reserves or are without hydrocarbonendowments (Table 1). For example, Benin andChad are both in the 90th percentile for solid fueldependence, even though Chad is an oil-exportingcountry and Benin is an oil-importing country. AfterSub-Saharan Africa, India is the most reliant on solidfuels with about 71 percent reliant on solid fuels, and

Figure 1: Percentage of Population Relyingon Solid Fuels for Cooking, by Fuel Type andRegion, 2007

Wood Dung Coal Charcoal

Arab StatesLAC

China

EAP (less China)South Asia (less India)

India

SSA

0 20 40 60 80 100

Source: UNDP and WHO 2009.



16/68

2

Table 1: Percentage of National Population by Type of Fuel Used for Cooking in SelectedCountries (continued )

Country Charcoal Wood Dung Coal Total

Sub-Saharan Africa

Oil-exporting countries

Angola 18.7 28.6 0.4 47.7

Chad 15.4 70.8 0.1 4.9 91.2

Cte dIvoire 19.6 66.3 85.9

Nigeria 2.2 72.3 0.5 0.1 75.1

Sudan 1.3 56.2 0.5 14.3 72.3

Oil-importing countries

Benin 21.2 72.2 93.4

Botswana 43.4 0.1 0.1 43.6

Burkina Faso 4.3 88.5 92.8

Lesotho 0.1 56.6 5.7 62.4

Mali 14.5 82.6 2.0 99.1

South Asia

Afghanistan 0.5 57.5 27.0 85.0

Bangladesh 82.6 8.3 90.9

Bhutan 40.7 40.7

India 0.4 57.9 10.6 1.9 70.8

Nepal 0.1 75.2 8.0 83.3

Pakistan 0.4 60.26.9

67.5Sri Lanka 79.5 79.5

East Asia

Cambodia 7.9 84.4 0.1 92.4

China 26.7 28.9 55.6

Indonesia 0.4 53.4 53.8

Lao PDR 1.5 74.8 21.2 97.5

Mongolia 0.2 34.0 23.3 19.4 76.9

Myanmar 22.4 70.2 92.6

Philippines 6.8 41.8 48.6

Vietnam 3.5 56.8 5.2 65.5

Latin America

Bolivia 28.4 28.4

El Salvador 21.8 0.1 21.9

Guatemala 0.4 61.3 61.7(continued on next page )



17/68

3

within that, 11 percent using dung. Within the restof the South Asian region, reliance remains high in

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri

Lanka (Table 1).

In middle-income countries, there is also reliance onsolid fuels. For example, in China 56 percent of thepopulation are users of solid fuel. Furthermore, 29percent of the Chinese rely on coal as a householdfuelmore than any other country. In other East Asiancountries, such as Cambodia, Lao PDR, Mongolia,

Vietnam, and especially Indonesia and the Philippines,the use of solid fuels remain high.

In the Latin American and Caribbean countries, there isalso reliance on solid fuels, but to a lesser extent thanthe other regions. Countries such as Brazil, Guatemala,Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Paraguay have acritical mass of its population using solid fuels. ECLAC(2010) reported that total firewood consumptiondecreased in Latin America and the Caribbean untilthe mid-1990s, but has started to increase againbecause of the rise of poverty in the region during thelast decade. This situation may be further exacerbated,given the rise in international oil prices and oilsderivatives experienced between 2004 and 2008.

Although the use of solid fuels is more prevalent in

rural areas, there is still a significant reliance within theurban areas as well. In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 83percent of the rural population is estimated to rely onsolid fuels for cooking as compared to 60 percent ofhouseholds in urban areas (IEA 2010). It is projectedthat households in developing countries will continue torely on solid fuels for many more years to come, withabout 2.8 billion people in 2030 (IEA 2010) as shownby Table 2.

The Use of Solid Fuels and Energy Poverty

The great reliance on solid fuels for cooking andheating is an indicator of energy poverty. It isrecognized that access to modern energy servicesincluding electricity and clean fuelsis importantto the achievement of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (UNDP 2005). For example, access to modern

energy services is essential for increasing productivityin agriculture and for increasing the potential of micro-enterprises to generate employment opportunities thatare likely to help eradicate extreme poverty and hunger(MDG1). Access to modern energy services can reducewomens domestic burden of collecting fuelwood andallow them to pursue educational, economic, andother employment opportunities that can empowerthem and promote gender equality (MDG3). Similarly,

Table 1: Percentage of National Population by Type of Fuel Used for Cooking in SelectedCountries (continued )

Country Charcoal Wood Dung Coal Total

Haiti 41.6 51.8 0.3 93.7

Honduras 52.2 0.1 52.3

Nicaragua 56.5 0.6 57.1

Paraguay 33.8 13.8 47.6

Peru 30.0 4.0 3.0 37.0

Source: Extracted and adapted from UNDP and WHO 2009.

Table 2: People Using Traditional Biomassfor Cooking

Region/country

2009 2015 2030

(millions)

Africa 657 745 922

Sub-Saharan Africa 653 741 918

Developing Asia 1,937 1,944 1,769

China 423 393 280

India 855 863 780

Other developing Asiancountries

659 688 709

Latin America 85 85 79

Total 2,679 2,774 2,770 Source: IEA 2010.



18/68

4

the use of clean cooking and heating fuels in efficientappliances can contribute to reducing child mortality(MDG4). Without access to modern energy services, thelikelihood of escaping poverty is very low.

As shown in Figure 2, access to modern energy servicesfulfills the basic human needs of cooking, heating, andlighting; improves productivity; and addresses the needsof everyday life in a modern society.

In most societies where solid fuels, and particularlyfuelwood, are used for cooking and heating, womenare generally the ones who devote most of their time tocollection and transport. In times of fuelwood scarcity,the distance they have to go to find wood increasesand requires more time. Box 1 describes how the roleof women in the collection of fuelwood results from the

prevailing and generally accepted sexual division oflabor within poor households in developing countries.The literature has described how fuelwood collectiondeprives women and girls of the opportunity foreducation, for engaging in income generating activities,and for having leisure time (Clancy, Skutch, andBatchelor 2004; Blackden and Wodon 2006). Accessto modern energy services increases the likelihood forwomen and girls to break out of this poverty trap.

In some countries, fuelwood collection is not necessarilyjust a task for women. Cooke, Khlin, and Hyde (2008)highlighted studies from Ethiopia, India, Indonesia,Madagascar, Nepal, and Vietnam that found that bothmen and women were involved in fuelwood collection.

Amacher, Hyde, and Joshee (1993) indicated thatwhen fuelwood scarcity increased, men were moreinvolved in fuelwood collection from agriculturallands. Studies showing that men were also involvedin fuelwood collection indicated the existence ofmore diverse intrahousehold labor allocation than thegenerally described pattern showing women as theonly ones associated with fuelwood collection. Thissuggests that household energy access interventionsshould pay attention to contextual social and prevailingintrahousehold labor allocation and not be derivedfrom stereotypical considerations.

There is evidence indicating that households indeveloping countries are following more complex energytransition trajectories than those prescribed by the energyladder model. This model describes a three-stage fuel-

switching process. The first stage is characterized byuniversal reliance on traditional biomass energymainlycrop waste, dung, and woodby households whenincome levels are low. The second stage is marked bya switch to intermediary fuels, such as charcoal andcoal, as households income levels improve. At thisstage, urbanization has begun, along with some signsof deforestation. In the third stage, households switch tomodern and clean fuels, such as LPG, kerosene (in a highpressure stove), natural gas, and electricity as incomelevels become sufficiently high (Leach 1992; IEA 2002).

The energy ladder model assumed that as income levelsincrease, people will switch from the use of solid fuelsto cleaner fuels. Instead of an orderly fuel-switching

Figure 2: Incremental Levels of Access to Energy Services

Level 1

Basic human needs

Level 2

Productive uses

Level 3

Modern society needs

Electricity for lighting, healthcommunication, and communicationand community services (50100 kWhper person per year)Modern fuels and technologies forcooking and heating (50100 kgoeof modern fuel or improved biomasscook stove)

Electricity, modern fuels and otherenergy services to improveproductivity e.g. Agriculture: water pumping for

irrigation, fertilizer, mechanizedtilling

Commercial: agriculture processing,cottage industry

Transport: fuel

Modern energy services for manymore domestic appliances, increasedrequirements for cooling and heating(space and water), privatetransportation (electricity usage isaround 2000 kWh per person peryear)

Source: AGECC 2010.



19/68

5process based on income levels, evidence points tofuel stacking or the simultaneous use of different fuelregardless of income levels (Masera, Saatkamp, andKammen 2000; ESMAP 2003b; Bacon, Bhattacharya,and Kojima 2010). Households continue to use differentfuels as their incomes rise, and they do not immediatelyabandon the use of fuelwood. This suggests that highincome levels alone may not be a sufficient determinantof fuel switching. Other factors, such as reliability ofsupply, safety, and taste preferences of food cookedusing fuelwood, may be factors under consideration by

households. There is also evidence indicating that fuelswitching is not the only option for cleaner affordablecooking and heating in settings where viable alternativefuels are not yet available. For example, work inMongolia has shown that fuel efficiency and combustionefficiency are equally important factors to consider.Emphasis should therefore be placed on matchingappropriate appliances with fuels to ensure cleanliness(World Bank 2009).

Some developing countries have sufficient financingresources to lift their populations out of the energypoverty trap. The International Energy Agency (IEA2008) focused on oil- and gas-exporting Sub-Saharan

African countries and assessed whether their resourcescould alleviate energy poverty. 1 Despite the enormousrevenues expected to be collected by these countriesfrom hydrocarbon exports, a significant portion of theirpopulation is expected to remain without access toelectricity and without access to clean cooking fuelsin 2030. The IEA estimated that the capital cost of

providing minimal energy services, such as electricityand LPG stoves and cylinders, to households during the200630 period would represent only 0.4 percent ofgovernments take from oil and gas exports.

Relationships among Household Energy Use,Indoor Air Pollution, and Health Impacts

Burning solid fuels in traditional stoves emits smokethat contains large quantities of particulate matter (PM)and gaseous pollutants. Switching to clean fuels hasbeen identified as the most effective way of reducingIAP, while having an improved stove and improvingventilation conditions can reduce IAP considerablyas well. Inefficient combustion of traditional biomassresults in high levels of IAP from a mixture of PM,carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, formaldehyde, and

benzene, which has been shown to significantly exceedsafe levels (Smith and others 2000; Smith and others2009, and Venkataraman and others 2010). Researchhas shown that having a clean stove, such as an LPGor kerosene stove, as the primary stove significantlyreduces IAP concentrations. For example, Zhang (2010)showed that if an average household switches fromusing both a traditional primary stove and a traditionalsecondary stove to using only one clean stove, the PMconcentration will decline by more than 70 percent.However, having a clean stove as the secondary stovedoes not necessarily reduce IAP levels. If households useclean fuels only occasionally, such as for making tea,and still use traditional biomass for primary cooking, thehousehold IAP level does not change much.

A number of studies have examined whether improvedstoves reduce IAP and have found that various types ofimproved cooking stoves have resulted in reductionsof toxic pollutants (for example, Ezzati and Kammen2002; Daz and others 2008). The actual effect ofan improved stove will depend on how the stoveis designed and constructed and whether it is usedproperly. Ventilation conditions also play a significantrole in IAP levels. Ventilation conditions can relate to

a number of factors, such as kitchen location, housingstructure, and cooking practices.

Improved stoves are designed and constructed bearingin mind two main technical considerations. The stoves

Box 1: The Sexual Division of Labor and theReliance of the Poor on Fuelwood

There is a relationship between the sexual division

of labor and the reliance of the poor on traditionalenergy sources. The division of labor affects womenand men, and boys and girls differently. Womengenerally work in both productive activities and intasks associated with child-rearing, food processingand cooking, caring for the sick, and caring for thehouse. Girls are more likely than boys to providesupport in these tasks. The poorer the household,the greater the time and the physical and healthburdens associated with these tasks. The absence ofbasic labor-saving devices and clean technologies,such as fuel-efficient stoves, not only burdens poor

women in these ways, but also prevents them fromdoing other productive activities (Standing 2002).

1 The selected oil- and gas-exporting Sub-Saharan African countries areAngola, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Cte dIvoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon,Mozambique, Nigeria, and Sudan.



20/68

6

need to aim simultaneously at improving heat transferto the pot and at improving combustion efficiency. Heattransfer efficiency decreases fuel use, while combustionefficiency decreases harmful emissions. Theserelationships are described in Box 2.

Exposure to IAP from the inefficient combustionof solid fuels with low-quality stoves in poorly

ventilated kitchens is a significant public healthhazard. A growing number of research studies hasbeen showing a strong correlation between IAP andnegative health outcomes. A number of studies havefound associations between IAP and acute lowerrespiratory infections (ALRIs) (Smith and others 2000,Ezzati and Kammen, 2001a, 2001b, Dherani andothers 2008), chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases(Bruce and others 2000; WHO 2002), and lung cancer

(Mumford 1987; Smith and others 1993). Ezzati andKammen (2001a) used longitudinal data from Kenyato test the exposure-response relation. They foundthat acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and ALRIs areincreasing concave functions of average daily exposureto PM10 with the rate of increase declining for exposuresabove 1,0002,000 mg/m 3 (Figure 3).

Emerging evidence is showing that IAP increases therisk of other child and adult health problems, includinglow birth weight, perinatal mortality, asthma, middleear infection, tuberculosis, nasopharyngeal cancer,cataracts, blindness, and cardiovascular disease (WHO

2002). Table 3 summarizes the status of evidence onthe health effects of IAP.

Several studies have quantitatively assessed therelationship between exposure to smoke from solidfuel combustion and ALRIs in young children indeveloping countries. For example, Smith and others

Box 2: Heat Transfer Efficiency and Combustion Efficiency

How heat transfer efficiency decreases fuel use How combustion efficiency decreases harmful emissions

In continuous-feed stoves, heat transfer efficiencyinto the pot is determined by the following:

Temperature difference between the flue gasesand the outer surface of the pot. The flue gases should be kept as hot as

possible. Proximity of the flue gases to the pot.

The gases should be forced to pass close to thebottom and sides of the pot. Heat transfer isslowed by the boundary layer of still air aroundthe pot.

Velocity of the flue gases. Hot flue gases more effectively heat the pot

when velocity is increased. Faster flue gases getcloser to the pot.

To improve combustion efficiency:

Keep the combustion area as hot as possible to burnup pollution.

Direct incoming air into the fire and coals. High- velocity, low-volume jets of air clean combustion. Toomuch air can cool the combustion zone.

Burn small amounts of fuel. Heating wood makes

gas. All the gas should become flame. Too muchfuel makes too much gas for the flame to burn andemissions rise.

Shape the combustion chamber to encourage mixingof gases, air, and flame. This is the most importantfactor in clean combustion.

Source: Still 2007.

Figure 3: Illness Reduction Observed inKenya

3-Stone Fire

ARI

ALRI

Ceramic Wood Stoves

Charcoal

P r o

b a

b i l i t y

( A R I )

Average Daily Exposure ( g/m 3)

0.05

0.00

0.10 All ARI

ALRI,Lower respiratoryInfections only

1.4B totall DALYS:10% of DALYS lost to ARI x 50% potential reduction

0.15

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Source: Ezzati and Kammen 2001a.



21/68

7

(2000) reviewed 13 studies that reported wide-rangingodds ratios ranging from 2 to 10. More recently,Dherani and others (2008) conducted a meta-analysisof pneumonia risk from IAP in children under fiveyears of age. Out of 5,317 reviewed studies, 24 wereselected for the meta-analysis. Despite heterogeneityand evidence of publication bias, Dherani and others(2008) were able to provide sufficient consistency to

conclude that the risk of pneumonia in young childrenis increased by exposure to unprocessed solid fuelsby a factor of 1.8. However, since few studies directlymeasure IAP, this meta-analysis was unable to examinefurther how IAP intensity affects health. In addition tousing indirect exposure proxies instead of measuringIAP directly, many studies fail to deal adequately withconfounding issues. Households who have takenmeasures to improve their indoor air quality may doso following improvements in their socioeconomiccharacteristics (such as income, education, nutrition,and medical care), which strongly influence many healthoutcomes (Bruce and others 1998). Thus, inadequatecontrol over these confounding factors is likely to resultin an overestimate of the health impacts of IAP. Morerecent studies have given more attention to confoundingissues. For example, some have adjusted for factorssuch as socioeconomic status, parental education,breastfeeding, nutritional status, environmental tobaccosmoke, crowding, and vaccination status. However,the adequacy of control of and/or adjustment for

confounding factors has varied considerably (Dheraniand others 2008).

A more recent study on India (Zhang 2010) thatused direct IAP measures, objective doctor-measuredspirometric indicators as health outcomes, andsophisticated econometric models controllingconfounding factors provided additional and more

fundamental evidence on the health impacts of IAP. Byanalyzing the impacts on spirometric indicators, thestudy found that IAP has major impacts on restrictivelung disease rather than obstructive lung disease. Thusit provided an explanation for why the literature containsmore evidence of IAPs impact on certain respiratorydiseases, such as ALRIs, for children, but less andinconsistent evidence of IAPs impacts on other diseasessuch as asthma (a typical obstructive lung disease).

These studies lend robustness to the conclusion thatthe harmful health effects from household fuel use trulycomprise a global problem (UNDP and WHO 2009).The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that1.9 million people die prematurely every year fromexposure to smoke from traditional cookstoves andopen firesthat is, nearly 1 death every 16 seconds(WHO 2010).

Women and children in developing countriesare particularly affected by the negative health

Table 3: Summary of the Status of Evidence on the Health Effects of IAP

Health outcome Nature and extent of evidence

ALRIs (children under 5) aCOPD (adults) b

Lung cancer

1020+ studies from developing countries; fairly consistent results across studies,but confounding is not dealt with in many studies; supported by studies of ambientair pollution and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and, to some extent, byanimal studies.

Cancer of nasopharynx and larynx CataractsTuberculosis

23 studies from developing countries; consistent results across studies; supportedby evidence from smoking and animal studies.

Low birth weight 23 studies from developing countries; supported by evidence from ambient airpollution and ETS.

Perinatal mortality

Acute otitis mediaCardiovascular disease

No studies from developing counties, but an association may be expected fromstudies of ambient air pollution and studies of wood smoke in developed countries.

Asthma Several studies from developing countries, but results are inconsistent; some supportfrom studies of ambient air pollution, but results are also inconsistent.

Source: Von Schirnding and others (2002), WHO (2002), Desai, and others (2004), Fullerton, Bruce, and Gordon (2008),Smith and others (2009).a ALRIs refer to acute lower respiratory infections.b COPD refers to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.



22/68

8

outcomes of IAP from the use of solid fuels. Sincewomen are usually responsible for cooking while takingcare of children, women and children are most exposedto IAP from the use of solid fuel and its subsequenthealth impacts. For example, as shown in Figure 4,using the survey data from India, children under age5 have the highest incidence of respiratory symptomsamong all age groups, and women in the age groupof 1650 who are likely to spend lot of time cookingfor their families have higher incidences of respiratorysymptoms than men in the same age group, eventhough men smoke more.

Young children living in households exposed to biomassindoor pollution have a two to three times greaterrisk of developing an ALRI than others. They are moresusceptible than adults to absorb pollutants, since their

lungs are not fully developed until they reach theirlate teens (Budds, Biran, and Rouse 2001). A studyin rural Kenya found that the amount of pollution achild is exposed to correlates to the risk of developingpneumonia (Ezzati and Kammen 2001a). Data fromEcuador show deterioration in lung function whenchildren are exposed to high levels of IAP frombiomass fuels (Rinne and others 2006). It was found inGuatemala that the babies of mothers using open woodfires were on average 63 grams lighter compared withbabies born to mothers using cleaner fuels (Boy andothers 2002). Children under five suffer severely fromthe IAP. More than 40 percent of the environmentaldisease is registered among this age group, althoughthey constitute only 10 percent of the world population(WHO 2002).

Why do people use household energy technologiesthat can make them sick or even contribute to their

death, and what are the factors affecting householdfuel choices? A few studies, such as Heltberg (2004,2005), Ouedraogo (2006), and Jack (2006) haveexamined factors determining household fuel choices.Heltberg found that in addition to income, factors suchas opportunity costs of time used to collect firewood,education level, and access to electricity also play anessential role. However, there is little systematic evidenceindicating which factors determine household behaviorwith respect to fuel use and motivate households toswitch cooking technologies. More recently, Zhang(2010) explicitly modeled household behavior regardingthe energy technology choices based on their attributes,including cooking costs (including stove cost andfuel cost), convenience, and cleanliness. The studyfound that the marginal utility of income decreases asincome increases and that this effect carries over into

the cooking technology choice. Thus, households areless sensitive to cooking cost as income increases..The study simulated that rural households barelychange their energy technology choices if the LPGstove cost is reduced by 50 percent. But if income isdoubled, 1424 percent of rural households switch theirprimary stove from a traditional stove to a clean stovedepending on their residence. This result is consistentwith the conclusions in Heltberg (2004, 2005), Zhang,Barnes, Sen (2007), and Zhang and Vanneman (2008)that fuel switching on a large scale will not occur inrural areas unless rural economies become substantiallymore developed.

Households are more likely to choose energytechnologies with shorter cooking times in areas withhigher wage rates for unskilled women. With respectto cleanliness, the study showed that residents ofhouseholds that know IAP is harmful to health are more

Figure 4: Incidences of Respiratory Symptoms for Males and Females by Age Group

Male Female

050

100150200250

300350400

Age 05 Age 610 Age 1115 Age 1620 Age 2130 Age 3140 Age 4150 Age 5160 Age 6160 n c e n c e s o

r e s p r a

t o r y

s y s m p

t o m s p e r

1 , 0

0 0

Source: Zhang 2010.



23/68

9

likely to choose energy technologies with lower pollutionlevels. Therefore, improving the overall rural economies,particularly for womens employment opportunities,and promoting health education seem to be the long-term strategy to help households move up the energyladder. Meanwhile, improving efficient use of solid fuelsthrough improved stoves and conducting advocacycampaigns on health education and how to improveindoor ventilations could be the short- to medium termstrategy to improve the current situation.

Inefficient Use of Solid Fuels is Associated with Environmental Degradation and ClimateChange

Local environmental impacts are associated with theinefficient use of fuelwood, especially surrounding

growing urban areas. It is now widely accepted that theclearing of land for arable and pastoral agriculture isthe main cause of deforestation rather than the use ofwood for energy, as was believed in the past. As notedby Dewees (1989), the fuelwood crisis has not made asignificant difference between physical and economicfuelwood scarcities. With the rapid urbanization inmany countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia,inefficient production of charcoal for growing urbanpopulations might be threatening forest cover in theneighboring catchment areas (Arnold and others 2003).In these countries, in addition to households, small andmedium-sized enterprises, such as bakeries, laundries,and restaurants, rely heavily on charcoal. The energyefficiency of charcoal production ranges from 25percent in Africa, which uses mainly artisanal methods,to 48 percent in Brazil, which uses industrial kilns withextensive energy and material recovery. A recent studyconducted in Tanzania by the World Bank (2009)reveals that between 2001 and 2007, the proportion ofhouseholds in Dar es Salaam using charcoal climbedfrom 47 percent to 71 percent, and about half ofTanzanias annual consumption of charcoal takesplace in Dar es Salaam, amounting to approximately500,000 tons per year.

The reliance on fuelwood for cooking and heating isincreasingly being associated with global warming. Agrowing body of literature from the climate changecommunity indicates that black carbon originating fromincomplete combustion of solid fuels and diesel exhaustmight be the second most important factor affectingthe rise in global temperatures after carbon dioxide(CO 2) (Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008; Gustafsson2009). Black carbon is formed from the incompletecombustion of fossil fuels, biomass fuels, and biomassburning. Black carbon warms the planet by absorbingheat from the atmosphere and by reducing albedo, theability to reflect sunlight, when deposited on snow andice. Black carbon stays in the atmosphere for only severaldays to weeks, whereas CO 2 has an atmospheric lifetimeof more than 100 years. Because black carbon remainsin the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing black

carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowingclimate change in the near term. It is estimated thatapproximately 40 percent of black carbon comes fromfossil fuels, 40 percent from open biomass burning(such as natural fires and slash and burn), and 20percent from burning biomass in stoves in the householdand service sectors and from burning it in industrialprocesses, such as crop drying, food manufacture, andbrick and tile production. There are claims that reducingblack carbon emitted from the burning of open biomasswith the use of improved stoves may provide quick gainsto help slow down global warming. A closer look at theeffects of black carbon suggests the opposite. Accordingto Bauer and others 2010, smaller particles stay longerand travel longer distances and behave differently thanlarger particles. In fact, this study suggests that whileblack carbon emissions from diesel is clearly shown tohave a warming effect on the climate, black carbonemissions from cookstoves, because of their organicnature and small-size particles, may be interacting withother aerosols in the atmosphere to produce a netcooling effect on the climate. It appears that currentscience points to uncertainties around the potentialclimate change impact of black carbon emissions frombiomass combustion.



24/68

10

3. MEETING THE CHALLENGE

The objective of this section is to assess how thechallenge of improving household energy access tothe poor for cooking and heating is being met. First,an overview on the main technical assistance andadvisory programs that were implemented or beingimplemented by the Bank is provided. Second, a reviewof Bank lending operations over the last 20 years withan attempt to point out their main characteristics, theirsuccess and failure factors is conducted. And third,selected programs undertaken by governments or otherorganizations are highlighted with an acknowledgementof their main strengths and weaknesses.

An Overview of Main World Bank Programs with Focus on Household Energy

During the last 25 years, household energy accessissues have retained the attention of many specialistswithin the Bank from different sectors, such as energy,forestry, environment, health, agriculture and ruraldevelopment, gender, and climate change. The EnergySector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP)jointly set up by the World Bank and the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1983,has played and is still playing a leading role in fundingwork undertaken by specialists from these differentsectors. In the specific case of Sub-Saharan Africa,the RPTES supported analytical work and upstreamstudies between 1993 and 2003. Since 2009, workon household energy in the Africa region has beensupported by the Biomass Energy Initiative for Africa.

ASTAE, created in 1992, has been supporting activitieson household energy access. Work done by theCarbon Finance Unit also includes activities related tohousehold energy access.

Energy Sector Management Assistance Program: ESMAPs focus on household energy access issuesbegan in 1985 as many completed energy assessmentreports highlighted the major challenge securing an

adequate long-term supply of household fuels ataffordable prices (ESMAP 1985). Alarming reports weresurfacing on the scarcity of fuelwood mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and part of Latin America,as detailed in Box 3.

ESMAP had a Household Energy Division to workon household energy access issues (ESMAP 1987).Household energy access subtopics included

(a) household energy strategy; (b) traditional fuel(fuelwood planting, biomass residues); (c) traditionalfuel utilization (improved stoves, charcoal kilns, andbiomass utilization in industries); (d) substitution(household use of modern fuels); and (e) renewables.

The focus on household energy access remained strongbetween 1988 and 1994. The 1988 household energyunit portfolio included 29 activities, with a total cost ofabout US$7.4 million (ESMAP 1988) Soon thereafter,rural household energy access was included, and thethematic priority area of Household and Rural Energy

remained robust. As stated in the 1993 Annual Report,ESMAP household and rural energy activities, oneof the Programs long-term strengths, have continuedvigorously. Many studies have since been carriedout to develop household energy strategies in severalcountries, including Bolivia, Botswana, Haiti, India,Jamaica, Mexico, Mali, Chad, Rwanda, and Vietnam.These studies provided a clear picture of supply anddemand on traditional fuels that were overlooked byconventional energy planning, often for the first time inmany countries. 2 In some cases, these assessments werefollowed by prefeasibility studies of investment projectsrelated to biomass and charcoal productive uses. Thesetechnical and analytical pieces assisted countries inscoping their household energy use for planning, policy,and investment purposes. Records indicate that by theend of 1995, ESMAP had designed household energycomponents for projects in 10 countries, namely, Bolivia,

2 In most of these countries, these reports produced by ESMAP are still the onlydetailed assessments on supply and demand of fuelwood that exist to date.

Box 3: A Description of the Fuelwood Scarcity

Some 2 billion people who depend on wood andother traditional fuels for their basic energy needs

are facing a deepening crisis of energy scarcityas local resources are depleted and the moredistant forests are cut down. The implications ofthis crisis reach far beyond the supply of energyitself. As trees are lost and people are forced toburn fuels that are taken from the fields, the landthat provides their livelihood and feeds the nationmay become increasingly vulnerable to erosion andsoil degradation. In some areas of the developing

world, the process has reached its terminal stages where the land produces nothing, and starvationor migration are the only alternatives (Leach andGowen 1987).



25/68

1

Burundi, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Madagascar, Mali,Mauritania, Niger, and Rwanda (World Bank 1996).

However, a shift came in the mid-1990s, whenhousehold energy access activities declined during the199697 period as growing attention focused on ruralelectricity access. Some believe that the realizationthat the fuelwood crisis was exaggerated because offaulty data may have played a role in this decliningtrend. The 1997 ESMAP Annual Report acknowledgedthat biomass projects had a relatively lower profile in1997 than previously and reported that ESMAP initiatedonly one purely urban household energy activitytheIndia Urban Energy Studyto assess households useof traditional fuels and to propose appropriate energypolicies and potential investments. Furthermore, ESMAPactivities within the rural and household energy theme

focused principally on developing least-cost ruralelectrification, promoting the use of modern biofuels,and enlarging the role of cost-effective, small-scalerenewable energy sources.

The 2002 annual report pointed out that ESMAPsupported analytical work on household energy in fivecountriesChina, Guatemala, India, Mongolia, andNicaraguacovering a range of issues, such as IAPshealth impacts, barriers to commercializing of improvedcookstoves, and promotion of the use of alternativecooking fuels, such as LPG, kerosene, and natural gas.

In 2003, the growing Gender-Energy portfolio underESMAPs Increased Access to Modern Energy Servicesthematic led to two studies to (a) assess the impact ofenergy on womens lives in rural India and (b) identifyways to integrate gender in energy provision inBangladesh. Furthermore, in 2004, the Energy andPoverty thematic, which replaced the Increased Accessto Modern Energy Services, included access to moderncooking fuels for the poor and rural households andefficient use of biomass in its agenda.

During 200508, ESMAP household energy access

work ramped up through the introduction of theregional block grants and the energy small andmedium enterprise (SME) program. In accordancewith ESMAPs 200507 business plan, the programretained management of cutting-edge and knowledgedissemination activities, but devolved pre-investmentactivity implementation to the World Bank regionalenergy units by providing them with annual block grantsto support activities falling within ESMAPs five redefined

business linesenergy security, renewable energy,energy poverty, market efficiency, and governance. Inaddition, ESMAP initiated the energy SME programfunded by the United Kingdom, which launchedcross-cutting thematic activities, including improvedcookstoves in Haiti, small-scale, off-grid systems inCambodia and Cameroun, and solar home systemsin Bolivia (ESMAP 2007a). The program has alsostrengthened its support to the Global Village EnergyPartnership (GVEP) by setting up a grant program, theGAPFund, which focuses partly on the role of SMEs inimproving energy access. These initiatives resulted ina stronger household energy access portfolio. In fiscal2008, 28 percent of the total annual block grants(US$7.1 million) were allocated to activities under theEnergy Poverty thematic area, which covers householdenergy access issues (ESMAP 2009b). Notable ESMAP

publications on household energy access included(a) Household Energy, Indoor Air Pollution, and Health: A Multisectoral Intervention Program in Rural China ;(b) Haiti: Strategy to Alleviate the Pressure of FuelDemand on National Wood Fuel Resources ; and(c) Cleaner Hearths, Better Homes: Improved Stoves forIndia and for the Developing World .

In 2008, ESMAP transitioned into a five-year businessplan model and adopted its 200813 Strategic BusinessPlan focusing on its global thematic challenges (climatechange, poverty reduction, and energy security)through its core functions of knowledge clearinghouse,operational leveraging, and think tank. A pillar ofESMAPs program was dedicated to poverty andenergy access through dedicated programs on ruralelectrification, SMEs, access to the urban poor, andgender and energy (ESMAP 2009a).

Regional Program for the Traditional EnergySector: Another important program within the Bank thatfocused on household energy issues was the RPTES.The RPTES was based in the Africa Technical EnergyGroup. It was funded with a trust fund provided by theDirectorate General for International Cooperation of the

Netherlands Government. The RPTES started in 1993with a review of policies, strategies, and programs inthe traditional energy sector. The core objectives of thereview were (a) undertaking a retrospective evaluation oftraditional energy work done in Africa; (b) identifying theprincipal critical intersectoral linkages that influence theoperation of the traditional energy sector; (c) identifyingprojects and programs; and (d) disseminating theoperational results (RPTES 1996). The review of policies,



26/68

12

strategies, and programs was completed in 1995. Ashort-term extension was provided to the RPTES between1995 and 1996 to keep the momentum generated incountries.

A full program was funded between 1997 and 2003 bythe Directorate General for International Cooperationof the Netherlands Government (US$7.2 million). Theobjectives this program were mainly to (a) rationalize thestructure and functioning of the traditional and biomassenergy sector; (b) support capacity and institutionaldevelopment in the sector; (c) support the review,formulation, and implementation of enabling policy andregulatory framework for the sector; (d) identify andassist in the preparation and implementation supervisionof sectoral investment projects; (e) identify andpromote the implementation of sustainable fuelwood

supply management systems; and (f) identify andpromote sustainable and economically viable interfuelsubstitution options. The RPTES supported a number ofstrategy papers and upstream studies intended to helpmainstream into lending operations household energyissuesand particularly those related to the efficientproduction and use of biomass energy. The flagshipinvestment operation generated through the RPTES wasthe 1997 Senegal Sustainable and Participatory EnergyManagement Program. Work initiated by the RPTEShelped the preparation of other lending operationswith components on household energy in Benin,Burkina Faso, Mali, and Ethiopia. In June 2010, theSenegal Second Sustainable and Participatory EnergyManagement Project (PROGEDE II) was approved withthe objective of contributing to increasing the availabilityof diversified household fuels in a sustainable andgender-equitable way and to contribute to increasingthe income of participating communities whilepreserving the forest ecosystems.

Biomass Energy Initiative for Africa : The AfricaEnergy Team is currently implementing the BiomassEnergy Initiative for Africa (BEIA) since March 2009.The BEIA is funded through trust fund resources

(US$3.5 million) as part of the broader AFREA programsupported by the Netherlands Government throughESMAP. The primary objective of the BEIA is to testpromising building blocks dealing with biomass energythat have the potential to be incorporated into the futureBanks lending portfolio. The BEIA is focusing on thefollowing four themes: (a) enabling market conditionsfor high-quality and high-performance cookingstoves; (b) modernization of the charcoal industry by

improving the industrys environmental sustainabilityand energy efficiency in charcoal production and use;(c) demonstrating the feasibility of social biofuels; and(d) increasing power capacity with bioelectricityusebiomass as fuel for power generation for off-grid oradd-on capacity (BEIA 2009). About 11 pilot projectshave been selected around these themes to be executedby recipients in selected African countries. Through theBEIA, the Africa Energy Team produced an issues andapproaches paper on household biomass energy for

Africa in February 2011. This paper advocates that anypolicy reform in the biomass energy sector should entaila combination of clear rules, transparent enforcement,strong incentives, awareness creation, and capacitydevelopment. It indicates that the World Banktogetherwith other development partners, CSOs, and the privatesectorcan choose from a large portfolio of options in

providing assistance to countries. Some of the mainoptions are (a) promotion of secure and long-term treeand land tenure rights for communities as essentialprerequisites for implementing and sustainingcommunity-based forest management;(b) modernization of fuelwood markets for bothfuelwood and charcoal as an opportunity forstakeholders to engage formally in the sector,(c) application of improved kiln technologies to enhancethe efficiency of charcoal production, (d) reforms oftaxation and revenue systems providing fiscal incentivesfor the sustainable production of fuelwood, and(e) promotion of improved cookstove technology.

ASTAE is a global program and partnership with amandate to scale up the use of sustainable energy in

Asia and Pacific to reduce energy poverty and protectthe environment. Box 4 illustrates its recent activities onhousehold energy access.

The East Asia and Pacific (EAP) Region of the WorldBank is in the process of finalizing its Flagship Reporton Energy AccessOne Goal, Two Paths. The reportexplores strategies along two paths to achieve universalaccess to electricity and clean and efficient cooking

solutions in the region by the year 2030. The reportaddresses access to modern cooking fuels (mainly LPG,and biogas in rural areas), as well as the provision ofimproved cookstoves that reduce indoor pollution andprovide greater combustion efficiency. The range ofissues that is covered includes institutional frameworks,financial requirements, and policy responses. Aproposal to launch a clean and efficient cookstoveprogram covering the region is under preparation.



27/68

1

Box 5 illustrates recent activities of the EAP Region onhousehold energy access with the support of ASTAE.

The World Bank Carbon Finance Units

(CFUs) initiatives are part of the larger globaleffort to combat climate change. The CFU usesfinancial resources contributed by governmentsand companiesthe overall volume is currently atabout US$2.5 billionto purchase project-basedgreenhouse gas emission reductions in developingcountries and countries with economies in transition.The emission reductions are purchased throughone of the CFUs carbon funds on behalf of the

contributor, and within the framework of the KyotoProtocols Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)or Joint Implementation. Some of the CFUs carbonfunds, such as the Community Development Carbon

Fund, specifically provide carbon finance to projectsin the poorer areas of the developing world. TheBio Carbon Fund focuses on land use, land usechange, and forestry (LULUCF) projects and seeksto extend its reach to new landscape approachesthat includes LULUCF and energy components. TheCarbon Partnership Facility aims for programmaticapproaches to carbon finance and for up-scalingfrom the project-by-project approach. Overall the

Box 4: Indicative List of ESMAPs Past Activities on Household Energy Access for Cooking and Heating,200209

Country Brief Activity Description Results

India A study that includes a review of best-performing improved biomass stoveprograms in six states of IndiaCompleted in 2002

A report India: Household Energy, Indoor Air Pollutionand Health that includes lessons learned forsuccessful implementation and replication of improvedcookstove projects

Guatemala An analysis of household energyconsumption patterns and interfuelsubstitution constraints using livingstandard and measurement surveys.Completed in 2003.

A report Household Fuel Use and Fuel Switchingin Guatemala that recommends that interfuelsubstitution be complemented by policies aiming topromote improved cookstoves

Guatemala A study to better understand theimplications of indoor air pollution and themitigation options.Completed in 2005.

A report Environmental Health and TraditionalFuel use in Guatemala that provides policyrecommendations to facilitate the adoption of cleanercooking fuel and improved cookstoves

Nicaragua Assistance to promote thecommercialization of improved cookstoves.Completed in 2005.

Market assessment of improved cookstoves demandand development of improved cookstoves models

Global A study on energy policies and multitopichousehold surveys.Completed in 2007.

A paper that provides guidelines on how LivingStandards Measurement Studies (LSMS) can helppolicymakers design household energy transitionpolicies and monitor progress toward adoption ofcleaner cooking fuel.

Haiti Technical assistance to promote theinvolvement of small & medium enterprisesin producing and commercializingimproved cookstovesCompleted in 2009.

Dissemination of 11,000 energy efficient cookstoves144 artisans trainedEstablished a Quality and Energy Efficiency Label

Cambodia Technical assistance to support theinvolvement of SMEs in providing energyservices.Completed in 2009.

About 8,000 improved cookstoves and 600 lightemitting diode (LED) lanterns were distributed tohouseholds

Bangladesh A study to draw lessons from past andexisting cookstove dissemination programsin Bangladesh.Completed in 2009.

Recommendations for large-scale cookstovecommercialization and policy support



28/68

14

CFUs portfolio contains a number of projects witha focus on household energy, including installationof solar home systems in Bangladesh and domesticbiogas installations in China and Nepal. TheBangladesh solar home systems program could resultin an estimated 2.6 million tons of CO 2 equivalentreduction of emissions over a 7-year period. In all

these activities, besides purchasing carbon, the CFUsystematically develops CDM projects and programsand helps its clients to access the carbon markets.Given the development of the current carbon markets,the CDM will focus more and more on projects inlow-income countries, increasing the interest for thehousehold energy sector. Appendix 1 provides lessonslearned from using carbon markets for householdenergy access programs and information on the

elaboration on carbon finance and its potentialcatalytic role for cookstove programs.

A Review of World Bank-Financed LendingOperations on Household Energy Access forCooking and Heating

The following section provides a review of World Bank-financed projects, which are directly aimed at improvinghousehold energy access for cooking and heatingenergy access.

Data and Methodology: It proved difficult to track andfind nonelectricity household energy access projects.The only forms of nonelectricity energy that is oftentaken into consideration in the coding of projects

Box 5: Indicative List of ASTAE Activities on Household Energy Access for Cooking and Heating, 200710

Country Brief activity description Results

China Just-in-time advisory support to share

knowledge and international experience withtransitioning to meter-based heating supplysystems through reviews and analysis of theactivities performed by the city of Tianjin inChina. Completed in 2007.

Contributed to improved solutions to address

problems encountered in heat metering programs.If successful, scale up potential in other cities innorthern China.

Cambodia Help to create a model productionfacility using improved technologies andmanagement practices that could bereplicated by SMEs, including women, toproduce the Neang Kongrey Stove (cookstove)for broad-scale dissemination. Completed in2008.

Production capacity of model production facility, with 30 potters about 2,000 stoves a month,a dramatic increase from the earlier artisanaloutputs. The planned scaling-up phase convertingtraditional stove makers into improved cookstoveproducers, including women.

Mongolia Comprehensive study on Energy Efficientand Cleaner Heating in Peri Urban Areas tomobilize a wide range of resources to developand support abatement measures for airpollution in Ulaanbaatar. Completed in 2009.

An outline of a program to replace stoves andintroduce new fuels, including setting technicalstandards and testing compliance of emissions,assistance to Mongolian stove producers andlinking them up to international counterparts,convincing households to switch to better fuel-stove combinations.

Timor-Leste A household energy study, an assessmentof rural and renewable energy options, withcomplete techno-economical analysis of thedifferent options, including improved stoves.Completed in 2010.

A report to help the government with its ruralenergy policy choices, with focus to assist indeveloping clear and coherent policies and guideplanning of the subsequent phases of ongoingprograms, initiation of new programs, andprioritization of projects competing for limitedfunds.

Cambodia Technical assistance to develop a servicedelivery model of a biodigester and toimplement it in three test provinces byestablishing and training private biodigestercontracting companies. Completed in 2010.

The privatization of biodigester services in eightprovinces. Twenty-one biodigester constructioncompanies created, well above initial targets. Asixfold increase in the number of biodigestersinstalled and further targeting the installation of21,800 biodigesters in 12 provinces by 2012.



29/68

1

are coal, gas, and oil products, while householdenergy access interventions are often lumped as newrenewable energy or other energy projects.

The list of projects included here has gone throughseveral rounds of revision. An initial list was preparedas part of a broader study entitled Modernizing EnergyServices for the Poor: A World Bank Investment Review(Barnes, Singh, and Shi 2010). Generating the listrequired a keyword search through the text of severalhundred energy projects financed by the Bank betweenfiscal years 2000 and 2008 and reading throughdocuments individually to determine whether theprojects had a household energy access intervention forcooking and heating or not. The examination of eachproject component focused on whether or not and howeach project component addressed topics of demand

and supply of household cooking and heating energyaccess. This analysis was extended to cover a 20-yearperiod from fiscal years 1990 to 2010.

The methods used to review these projects includedexamination of each component of the project and itsproject budget allocation, as described in the Project

Appraisal Document or Staff Appraisal Report. Forprojects that are still active, the ratings of the lastImplementation Supervision Reports were examined. Forthe projects that have already been closed, the ICRs orProject Performance Audit Reports were examined.

List of Selected Projects and their Costs: A total ofabout 70 projects during the past 20 years have beenreviewed, of which 19 projects were selected as havingthe objective of improving household cooking andheating energy access through fuelwood managementor improved stoves. The total cost of these projects wasUS$1.2 billion, to which the World Bank contributedUS$698 million and of which US$161 million wasdevoted specifically to household fuels (Table 4).These projects have focused on community-basedforest management for sustainable supply of fuelwood,substitution of polluting fuels with cleaner fuels, and

institutional capacity development. With the exceptionof the Mongolia Urban Stove Improvement Projectfinanced by the GEF, the remaining projects were onSub-Saharan African countries.

During the period of the review, the Bank funded fourbiogas projects for cooking and lighting at the householdlevel in China and Nepal (Table 5). The total cost of theseprojects was US$1 billion, to which the Bank contributed

US$365 million with 70 percent allocated to householdenergy access components. Similarly, the Bank hasfinanced 8 household energy access projects on naturalgas for cooking and heating, mostly in Europe andCentral Asian countries, and one project in Colombia(Table 6). The total project cost is US$203 million, towhich the Bank has contributed US$126 million. Thetotal cost of specific components on household accessto natural gas is US$142 million. Figure 5 provides asummary of the respective share of funding allocated tofuelwood and stove, biogas, and natural gas programs.It appears that relatively few resources were allocated tofuelwood and stove programs.

Main Components and Performance of HouseholdEnergy Access Projects on Fuelwood and ImprovedStoves: World Bank-financed projects on household

energy access in several countries have followed similardesign and intervention approaches. An emphasis wasplaced on dealing with supply-side and demand-sideissues while initiatives were undertaken to reinforceinstitutions. Figure 6 is a broad summary of keycomponents of these projects. It should be noted thatnot all the projects have dealt with all three of thesecomponents simultaneously. Some projects have hadeither only a supply-side focus, while others havefocused solely on demand-side issues. In most of thecases however, institutional capacity development wasgiven a considerable place.

Supply-Side Components

Community-Based Fuelwood and Tree Management

To establish community-based fuelwood managementplans, projects rely on information from fuelwoodsupply assessment studies. These studies generallyhelp identify areas of intervention. For example, thecommunity-based fuelwood supply management planand implementation plan at the village level for theNiger Energy Project gives villagers guidelines onhow to exercise their right to manage forests in their

communities. The plan recommended how to divide theforest area into parcels for woodcutting rotation. Villagecommittees are set to play an interface role betweennational forest service officials, woodcutters with anestablished permit, random woodcutters without permits,and wood buyers. According the Mali HouseholdEnergy Project, village forest management plans wereeffectively implemented in 200 villages, bringing about320,000 hectares of forest land under local community



30/68

16

management. The ICR for The Senegal Sustainable andParticipatory Energy Management Program of 1997 hasalso confirmed successful results in the establishmentof effective community base fuelwood management

plans. The ICR concluded that the SustainableWoodfuels Supply Management Component wasable to (a) establish sustainable community-basedforest management systems over an area of 378,161

Table 4: World Bank-Funded Projects with Access to Fuelwood and/or Stove Component(US$ million)

Project Year

Totalproject

cost

IBRD,IDA, GEF,GPOBA

HH energyaccess

component

% of totalproject

costs

Projectclosing

date

1 Niger: Energy Project 1989 65.90 30.40 16.20 25 12/31/96

2 Mali: Household Energy 1995 11.20 11.20 11.20 100 12/31/00

3 Madagascar: Energy SectorDevelopment

1996 102.60 44.20 2.90 3 12/31/05

4 Senegal: Sustainable andParticipatory Energy Management(PRODEGE I)

1997 19.93 19.93 19.93 100 12/31/04

5 Chad: Household Energy 1998 6.30 5.27 6.30 100 6/30/04

6 Mongolia: Urban StoveImprovement (GEF)

2001 0.75 0.75 0.75 100 3/31/07

7 Ethiopia: Energy Access Project 2002 199.12 132.70 5.44 3 6/30/13

8 Mali: Household Energy andUniversal Access

2003 53.35 35.65 13.47 25 6/30/12

9 Madagascar: EnvironmentProgram

2004 148.90 40.00 2.50 2 6/30/11

10 Senegal: Electricity Services forRural Area

2004 71.70 29.90 4.60 6 12/31/12

11 Benin: Energy Services Delivery 2004 95.70 45.00 6.20 6 12/31/11

12 Rwanda: Urgent ElectricityRehabilitation

2004 31.30 25.00 0.90 3 4/30/10

13 Chad: Community-BasedEcosystem Management

2005 94.45 39.76 2.50 3 3/30/11

14 Benin: Forests and Adjacent LandsManagement (GEF)

2006 22.35 22.35 22.35 100 11/30/11

15 Burkina Faso: Energy Access 2008 41.00 41.00 6.70 16 4/30/13

16 Benin: Increase Access to modernEnergy

2009 178.50 72.00 5.50 3 6/30/15

17 Rwanda: Sustainable EnergyDevelopment (GEF)

2009 8.30 8.30 8.30 100 N/A

18 Mozambique: APL for EnergyDevelopment and Access

2010 80.00 80.00 6.30 8 6/30/15

19 Senegal:2nd Sustainable andParticipatory Energy Management(PRODEGE II)

2010 19.37 15.00 19.37 100 11/30/16

Total 1,250.72 698.41 161.41 13

Average loan/credit 65.83 36.76 8.50



31/68

1hectares with a capacity to supply more than 370,596tons per year of sustainable fuelwood equivalent tosome 67,400 tons of charcoal per year; and (b) adopteffective strategies to strengthen the buffer zone aroundthe Niokol

Documents

HouseHold Energy Access DP 23