WEO-2002: Chapter 13 "Energy and Poverty"

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


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.


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


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


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).


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.

***


Figure 13.3: Global Energy Poverty


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


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


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



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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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;


Figure 13.10: Electricity Losses by Country

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

NigeriaIndiaTogo

KenyaZimbabweCameroon

EritreaAlgeriaSudan

PhilippinesEgypt

IndonesiaEthiopia

ChinaOECD

per cent


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


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.


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.


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.



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


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


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


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,


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.

Documents

WEO-2002: Chapter 13 "Energy and Poverty"