Household energy in South Asia

Biomass 12 (1987) 155-184

Household Energy in South Asia Gerald Leach International Institutefor Environmentand Development,3 EndsleighStreet, London WC1H ODD,UK (Received 2 September 1986; accepted 2 February 1987) ABSTRACT The paper reviews the use by households of biomass and other fuels in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, based on several large surveys. Consumption and biomass shares are related to income, househoM size, settlement size and fuel prices. Major substitutions over time between biomass and other fuels are examined, as are the implications of further switching out of biomass fuels. Key words: Fuel use, fuel prices, fuel substitution, Asia, rural energy.

INTRODUCTION Common sense and scores of studies from around the world suggest that a few key factors have a dominant impact on the amount of energy consumed by households, which fuels are used, and who faces the worst hardships of 'fuel poverty' and shortages. These powerful influences include income, settlement size, household size, the price or personal costs of obtaining fuels, and the efficiency of end-use equipment. Most of these factors are interrelated and have major implications for policies to remedy household energy problems. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to establish the strength of these relationships due to the lack of consistent, comparable survey data based on sufficiently large and statistically valid samples. Time series data, in particular, are usually lacking. However, these difficulties have been overcome to some extent in South Asia by the completion of several large, nationally representative household energy surveys in four of the major countries of the region having a combined population of nearly 900 million people: Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. 155 Biomass 0144-4565/87/S03.50- © Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1987. Printed in Great Britain

156

G. Leach

These surveys 1-7 provide fairly detailed information on average consumption of different fuels according to rural and urban location, household income (except Bangladesh, for which the data are by farm size) and household size. In the latter three countries, comparable surveys are available for different years, allowing the examination of changes in fuel use over time, especially the substitution of biomass by 'modern' (i.e. non-traditional) fuels. These changes, which differ greatly between the countries, can be related to absolute and relative fuel prices, since all four countries have time series price data for fuelwood and the main competing modern fuels (kerosene, bottled gas and, to some extent, electricity). In the case of Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka, there is also information on the sources of biomass fuels so that it is possible to construct national household biomass supply and demand 'maps'. This paper reviews some of the main features of biomass demand, supply and prices revealed by these surveys. It is condensed from a major report with the same title and author to be published by IIED. Calorific values

All the surveys recorded fuel consumption in physical units such as kg or litres, but none of them measured the calorific values (or moisture content) of biomass fuels. Since a common unit is needed to compare different fuels, energy units are used here, based on calorific values derived by the author from close inspection of measured values published in a substantial number of surveys in the region. The calorific values employed, in MJ kg-1, are: firewood logs, 16"0; firewood twigs and crop residues, 14.5; animal dung (dry), 10.0; charcoal, 30"0; coal and coke, 23.0; bottled gas (LPG), 45.0; and also kerosene, 35.0 MJ litre-1; biogas and coal-derived synthetic gas ('town gas'), 18.0 MJ m -3, and electricity 3"6 MJ kWh- 1. Units of tonnes wood equivalent (twe) (16 GJ) and tonne oil equivalent (toe) (42.6 GJ) are also used. INCOME, SETTLEMENT SIZE AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE Table 1 gives a summary of average fuel consumption derived from these surveys. The conformity between Bangladesh, India and Pakistan is remarkable: for example, average rural use of biomass fuels fell between 4.4 and 5.0 GJ (275-315 kg wood equivalent) capita-1 in the 1979/80 period. Also remarkable is the contrast between these countries and Sri Lanka, with its much higher level of rural and urban biomass use. Notable too is the good agreement between the two Bangladesh surveys

Household energy in South Asia

157

TABLE 1 Average Fuel Consumption Based on National Surveys (GJ year- ~) Per person Rural Urban

Per household Rural Urban

4.80 4.79 8"62

3-76 3"10 6-80

28.22 28.76 43-14

21"63 19.79 32.42

3 5 7

Pakistan 1979 Sri Lanka 1982

0.25 0.40 0"59

1'35 1"41 0"77

1.47 2.41 2.97

7.80 9"00 3"68

3 5 7

Total biofuels: Bangladesh 1977 Bangladesh 1980

5.03 4.94

3.17 --

29.64 34.50

17.97 --

1 2

India 1979 Pakistan 1979

4.55 4-39

2-41 1"69

26-75 26.35

13.83 10.79

3 5

Sri Lanka 1982 measured subsample Sri Lanka 1983 (measured)

8-03 8.09 8"31

6"03 6-07 5"13

40.18 42.16 40.34

28.74 33.29 31.47

7 7 8

1"86 2"87

2.47 --

10.96 20"06

13.96 --

1 2

Pakistan 1979

2-34 3-25

1-77 1.45

13.78 19.53

10.17 9.26

3 5

Sri Lanka 1982 measured subsample Sri Lanka 1983 (measured)

8"03 7.75 6"11

6.03 5.99 3.68

40.18 40-39 29.63

28.74 32.80 22.54

7 7 8

Total energy: India 1979 Pakistan 1979 Sri Lanka 1982

Total modern fuels: India 1979

Firewood & twigs: Bangladesh 1977 Bangladesh 1980 India 1979

Refs

which used different methods and the Sri Lankan surveys based on measured consumption and consumers' recall of their fuel use. This agreement gives some confidence in the reliability of the survey data. Figure 1 shows that the share of biomass in total household energy is strongly determined by urban-rural location and by income in urban areas. With rising income, urban families are able to switch from biofuels to more efficient, convenient and cleaner m o d e m fuels and equipment for cooking and heating. The income threshold at which these switches occur -- usually in two steps, from biofuels to kerosene, and then to LPG (or electricity) -- is an important policy parameter. It varies considerably between and within countries, depending on the availability of modern

G. Leach

158 i00

RURflL

~" ~ ' = ~ ' ~ - - "

....

"B':---

Ind!a

Srl

Lanka

Q/ I0 r

Pakistan 80

60 3 e E o

40

g, 20 0

2

4

Household I00

6

Income:

8

thousand

10

52

54

US$ per year

URB@N

q,I L IQ

" MI

80

I L._

'~ •

- . . . . . .

Colombo

"; 6o If. m e

E 0

X%. .........India

4CI x

0

2

Household

4

Pakistan

8

Income;

8

thoueand

10

12

14

U$$ per year

Fig, 1. Shares of biomass fuels in total household energy by household income: averages for rural (upper) and urban (lower) -~,5.6 (income in thousand USS (1975), adjusted for purchasing power parity).

fuels, the relative prices of biofuels and modern alternatives, and on equipment costs for m o d e m fuels. In contrast, biofuels in rural areas account for 90-95% of total energy across the full income range. The remaining 5-10% of demand is mostly kerosene for lighting. This suggests either that the personal or cash costs

Household energy in South Asia

159

of obtaining biomass fuels have not yet reached the point where richer rural households which could afford to switch to m o d e m fuels think it is worthwhile doing so, or more probably that m o d e m cooking fuels cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts for this to be a feasible option. With the first alternative it is the relative cost, and with the second the availability, of m o d e m fuels that determines the pattern of demand. Figure 1 also underlines the contrast in urban patterns between Sri Lanka and the other countries. The biofuel share falls steeply with income in urban India and Pakistan, from a near-rural 80% for the poorest families to only 30-35% among high income households. In Sri Lanka, the urban biofuel share is a consistent 85-90% across all income groups and remains above 65% even in the one major city, Colombo, where one would expect the transition to m o d e m fuels to be well advanced. One explanation of this contrast is the high access to firewood in urban Sri Lanka, where 30% of domestic firewood comes from the household's own land or garden.6 This proportion is as high as 40-50% among poorer families and 20-30% in the middle to high income range. The equivalent figure for India is only 2.5%. 3 The Sri Lankan contrast is also explained by high kerosene and LPG prices and low firewood prices compared to the other countries (see later). Settlement size and access to modern fuels

The rural-urban income trends shown in Fig. 1 confirm the obvious points that people will generally switch to modem fuels if they can, and that access to modern fuels strongly affects this choice and hence the level of biomass use. The factors which affect the availability of m o d e m fuels are therefore of great importance to biomass energy planning. Generally, access to m o d e m fuels is low in rural areas, intermediate in medium sized towns and greatest in large cities. However, as one would expect, there can be large local variations and exceptions to this rule. This supports the observation that the normal division between 'rural' and 'urban' used in biomass and household energy assessments is not sufficient and that there should be further disaggregation by settlement size and other factors such as transport costs and infrastructure that affect the availability of m o d e m fuels. The broad effects of urban size on fuel choice are illustrated in Table 2, based on all-India averages for 1979. 3 Note how the shares of the main biomass alternatives -- kerosene and LPG -- increase rapidly with urban size. Between the small towns and the large cities there is a reduc-

160

G. Leach TABLE 2

Household Energy Patterns and City Size: India 19793 City size (thousand population)

Per capita energy ~

Over 500 200-500 100-200 50-100 20-50 Under 20 All

Percentage shares of modern fuels ~ All

Elec.

Kerosene

LPG

Coke

294 275 269 266 234 244

75.4 66.2 57.5 56.2 37.6 39"0

13.5 9.4 9.2 8.0 6.3 6"7

28.9 28-6 19.8 18.7 9.5 16'6

15.6 13.0 7.2 6.4 2.9 1.5

17.3 14.2 21.3 22.5 18.8 14.3

266

57.0

9"3

21"2

8"5

17.7

aEnergy totals and shares are in terms of kg coal replacement, an approximation to useful energy. Small amounts of town gas are omitted.

tion in the share of biofuels (in useful energy terms) from a r o u n d 60% to only 25%. Unfortunately, there are no comparable data for the other countries. These trends suggest that households are often prevented from switching out of biomass fuels not only by the costs involved but also by shortages of m o d e m fuel alternatives. This seems clearly to be the case in the rural areas of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (see Fig. 1). T h e r e is also direct evidence to support this suggestion for urban areas, where the p o o r in particular often use the least efficient and costliest (biomass) fuels because they cannot obtain regular supplies of cheaper alternatives such as kerosene. A recent survey in Lucknow, s for example, found that the poorest families avoided kerosene for cooking, even though it cost only 40% as m u c h as firewood on a useful heat basis, because it was difficult to get, not because kerosene stoves were too costly. Stove costs were equivalent to only one to four days of h o u s e h o l d income (Rupees 5235 or U S S 4 4 0 year-i). Variable quality and irregular supplies are also a major deterrent to the use of soft coke in India, where in some states it is a m u c h cheaper cooking fuel than firewood? However, for bottled gas, equipment costs are usually severe deterrents to the poor. In C o l o m b o in 1983, for instance, the initial cost for LPG cooking was Rupees 1820 (USS 83), or at least one month's income for 70% of households and at least five month's income for the poorest 12%. 6 In India in 1979 the initial investment for LPG cooking was 34% of annual family income for the poorest third of urban households. 3

Household energy in South Asia

161

Improvements in the supply and marketing of kerosene for rural areas and the urban poor, and the provision of smaller-sized and lower cost bottled gas systems, are among the key policy issues that arise from these observations. Household size

The impact of household size (persons per household) on energy use has often been ignored in assessments of the residential sector. For every major domestic use of energy there are large economies of scale with respect to household size. If one considers traditional cooking methods, the fire must be burning well and the cooking medium heated up before cooking can begin. The energy to cook one extra person's meal is usually small compared to these overheads. Large families can use large cooking pans, which are more energy-efficient than small ones.9 With lighting and space heating, energy use is a function of the number of rooms or dwelling area and volume, which vary little with household size until one reaches the upper income groups. In other words, for most purposes large households use much less energy per person than small households (other things being equal). This effect is of crucial importance in South Asia, where there is a consistently strong association between household size and household income. In rural Pakistan, for example, average household size increases from around three to nine people across the full income range, while in urban areas the increase is roughly a factor of four) Consequently, while household energy use rises steeply with household income, per capita energy use does not. Indeed, in all four countries per capita energy use hardly alters with household or per capita income across the entire income range. Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate these points for rural and urban India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (income data are not available for Bangladesh). With the full income breakdowns compressed into five categories, there are only small differences in per capita energy use and, in rural areas, per capita biofuels, across the income range. The tables also show the rise in household size with income. If the income and energy data are multiplied by household size, it will be seen that household energy rises quite rapidly with household income, in sharp contrast to the per capita trends. One important implication is that household energy cannot be compared solely on the basis of household on per capita measures. Both measures are needed for legitimate comparisons. In particular, household measures must be corrected for the effects of household size.

162

G. Leach

TABLE 3 Per Capita Energy by Per Capita Income: Rural Areas

Income band Low India 3 Per capita income a % of population Household size Per capita energy Per capita biofuels Firewood Residues Dung Other biomass b Pakistan 5 Per capita income a % of population Household size Per capita energy Per capita biofuels Firewood Residues Dung Other biomass b Sri Lanka 6 Per capita income ~ % of population Household size Per capita energy Per capita biofuels ( = firewood c)

160 38.1 5.1 4.81 4.58 2.42 0.89 1.26 0"01 250 10.8 4.1 4.65 4.27 3.17 0.13 0.91 0.06 190 3.1 2-3 9.20 8.66

Low-mid

260 27.3 6.4 4.53 4.30 2.19 0.75 1.35 0"01 305 20-6 5"6 4.81 4.43 3-29 0.11 0.94 0.09 290 18"7 4.3 8.03 7.53

Mid

360 10.4 8.1 5.19 4.86 2.45 0.93 1-44 0"04 405 24.8 7.4 4.64 4.24 3.09 0.10 0-97 0.08 460 43.2 5.5 8.18 7.62

High-mid

520 1.4 9.7 5.79 5.43 2.54 1.21 1.65 0"03 625 1.6 9.4 4.71 4.26 3.20 0.10 0.92 0-04 815 9.7 6.1 9.01 8-34

High

730 1.1 10.8 5.65 5.21 2.30 1.07 1.84 -1140 2.1 10.9 5"57 4.85 3-52 0.18 1-01 0. l 4 2040 7.5 6.3 9.6 8.76

aPer capita income: USS (1975), corrected for purchasing power parity.t° bOther biomass is mostly charcoal, plus some biogas in rural India. cUse of residues and dung is negligible in Sri Lanka: coconut, rubber, tea and cinnamon residues are counted as firewood.

Breakdowns by fuel T a b l e s 3 a n d 4 a l s o s h o w s o m e m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e m i x o f b i o m a s s fuels e m p l o y e d b y h o u s e h o l d s . A l t h o u g h t h e s e a r e m o s t o b v i o u s a n d r e l e v a n t a t a m o r e d i s a g g r e g a t e d l e v e l t h e n t h e n a t i o n a l a v e r a g e , it is w o r t h l o o k i n g b r i e f l y at t h r e e p o i n t s r e v e a l e d b y t h e tables.

Household energy in South Asia

163

TABLE 4

Per Capita Energy by Per Capita Income: Urban Areas

Income band

India 3 Per capita income" % of population Household size

Low

Low-mid

Mid

170 5'7 5-0

300 9-1 5.7

460 5.4 6"6

Per capita energy Per capita biofuels Firewood Residues Dung Other biomass b Pakistan 5 Per capita income" % of population Household size

4.05 3.22 2"52 0"15 0"39 0"16 290 3"0 3.7

Per capita energy Per capita biofuels Firewood Residues Dung Other biomass/, Sri Lanka 6 Per capita income" % of population Household size

3'71 2.83 2.42 0.01 0-36 0.04 265 0.4 1.7

Per capita energy Per capita biofuels (= firewood ')

6.69 6.02

3.65 2.36 1"76 0"09 0-35 0"16

370 2' 1 3.5 5.79 5.24

720 0.8 7.2

3.70 1"87 1.25 0' 10 0.34 0"18

330 8-5 5"3 3"16 2.23 1.96 . 0.25 0.02

High-mid

465 21.4 7-1

.

2'90 1.55 1'32 . 0.21 0.02 535 8"7 5"0 6-63 6'00

3.69 1.78 1.01 1.22 0.42 0"13 725 2"5 8.2

High 1010 0.7 8.3 3'15 1.17 0.74 0"09 0.22 0.12 1525 4.7 8-7

2.89 0.92 0.77

3.67 1.03 0.89

0.10 0.05

0.13 0.01

.

900 3-0 5.8 6"80 6"03

2510 3.6 5.4 7.45 6.22

"Per capita income: USS 1975, corrected for purchasing power parity? ° ~Other biomass is mostly charcoal, plus some biogas in rural India. 'Use of residues and dung is negligible in Sri Lanka: coconut, rubber, tea and cinnamon residues are counted as firewood.

F i r e w o o d logs a n d twigs T h e I n d i a n s u r v e y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f i r e w o o d 'logs' f r o m l o w e r g r a d e fuels s u c h as b r a n c h e s , twigs a n d b r u s h w o o d . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n is c r u c i a l in t e r m s o f t h e i m p a c t o f w o o d f u e l d e m a n d o n t r e e r e s o u r c e s a n d w h o is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o r gains b y t h e s e i m p a c t s . T h e s u p p l y o f logs i n v o l v e s the felling o f t r e e s a n d t h e u s e o f s o p h i s t i c a t e d e q u i p m e n t s u c h as axes a n d

G. Leach

164

saws. Small branches and twigs, on the other hand, can be gathered by anyone without depleting tree resources. Table 7 (later) shows that rural firewood use is mostly of 'twigs'. The greatest use of logs is by the urban sector, especially the urban poor. As discussed in the following section this finding has overturned some basic assumptions in India about the role of woodfuel demand in the depletion of government forests. A very similar pattern of rural dependence on twigs rather than logs is found in Bangladesh.2 Unfortunately no separation of these woodfuels was made for the other countries.

Animal dung The importance of dung as a fuel in both rural and urban areas of India and Pakistan is apparent. Not only does dung exceed crop residues in every income group, it is also used to a considerable extent by the highest income groups, even in urban areas.

Charcoal Charcoal is not a major domestic fuel in any South Asian country, in contrast to Africa and many parts of South and Central America. Its only significant use revealed by these surveys is in urban India, where on average it contributes about 3% of total household energy consumption.

Total biofuei consumption To conclude this section, the national surveys can be used to estimate total consumption of household biofuels and compare it to the consumption of modern fuels. This is done in Table 5 by applying the per capita

TABLE 5

Total Household Biofuels and Total Modern Fuels: circa 1980

Population (millions) Bangladesh India Pakistan Sri Lanka

88.5 673.2 82.2 14-7

Household biofuels (Mtoe) 10.3 71.9 8.5 2.8

(Mtwe)

Modern fuels (Mtoe)

Biofuels as % of biofuels + modern fuels (col 2/(col 2 + col 4))

(27.3) (191.4) (22"6) (7.4)

3.0 97-3 12"7 2.0

77 43 40 58

Mtoe: million tonnes oil equivalent (42"6 GJ per toe). Mtwe: million tonnes wood equivalent (16 GJ t ~).

HousehoM energy in South Asia

16 5

consumption data outlined above to population and 'commercial' energy use in mid-1980.11 In Bangladesh, household biofuels account for 77% of all modern fuels used in the economy plus household biofuels. Since this ratio ignores the relatively small consumption of biofuels outside the household sector, it gives a shghtly understated approximation to the biofuel dependence of the national energy economy. In Sri Lanka this minimum dependence is rather lower at 58%, while in India and Pakistan it is close to 40%. By any account, these are large fractions. They underline the importance of both the household sector and biofuels in the energy scene: an importance that is not matched by the attention given to them by energy planners or donor agencies. In India, for example, the flows of modern forms of energy totalled about 100 million tonnes oil equivalent (Mtoe) but the household biofuel sector accounted for almost double this tonnage in terms of woodfuels.

Summary This section has shown that income, household size and settlement size are major determinants of the amount and type of energy used in the home. Urban migration, city size and rising urban incomes are dominant factors in the transition from biofuels to modern fuels. Under present conditions, there is little sign of this transition in rural areas. However, these demand factors, which stand out so clearly from the survey data, are ones which energy policies can do nothing to alter. The strong determinants of consumption which do concern energy policy are the availability of fuels and their perceived costs, and end-use efficiencies. However, with few exceptions the surveys ignore these factors or fail to measure them adequately. As a result, we have only some patchy evidence that these factors are indeed crucial and cannot draw firm conclusions from it about the strength of their impact on the levels of energy use or fuel substitutions. This partial evidence is sufficient, though, to confirm that consumers can respond flexibly to fuel scarcity without turning to the main 'woodfuel solutions' of improved cook stoves and tree planting for fuel. In particular, comparisons between the high woodfuel consumption of Sri Lanka and the patterns of the other countries confirms that, as preferred fuels such as firewood become more costly, there is a vast scope for diversifying the biofuel resource base by supplementing firewood with crop residues and dung; or saving energy without needing to install a more efficient cooking stove; or switching to cheaper modern fuels.

166

G. Leach

The conditions which prompt these adjustments are central to planning for the woodfuel problem. Demand surveys which examine these issues directly, with a reasonable level of disaggregation by region and district, as well as individual villages and cities, are essential to the development of sound energy policies. Above all, measures of local biofuel resources and other supply factors need to be integrated into consumption surveys. Fuller disaggregation by type of fuel, such as firewood logs versus twigs, is also needed. Such focused surveys would also help provide a better picture of how patterns of energy use change over time as the major demand variables alter.

NATIONAL BIOMASS SUPPLIES A fundamental problem facing most developing countries is the lack of information on biomass resources and their possible contributions to development. This problem is particularly severe for tree resources and biomass fuels. Statistics on the production of timber and agricultural produce, or on crop areas and yields, are reasonably well developed in most countries. But there are very few countries which have more than the most rudimentary information on the areas, stocks and sustainable yields of forest and other tree resources, how these provide fuels, or the production of crop residues and animal wastes and their use for fuel or other purposes. Consequently there is a sharp asymmetry between the quality of data on household energy demand and -- for the biofuels -- how that demand is met. Even the most detailed village energy consumption surveys usually fail to collect information on supply sources: for example, whether firewood comes from common land or private on-farm trees, is gathered or purchased, comes from sources in the village or outside it, or involves the felling of trees rather than the collection of twigs and brushwood. Each of these alternatives has major implications for biofuel policies since they are basic to people's perceptions of their fuel problems and their incentives to do something about them. This lack of information also leads to serious misconceptions about such basic issues as the impact of woodfuels on deforestation and how these fuels are obtained. Firewood consumption, for instance, is often compared with the production of government forests because there are data on this, leading to conclusions such as the following: 'In India, during the years 1973-74 the legal fuelwood extraction was 9 million tonnes [i.e. recorded production from state forests], whereas the esti-

Household energy in South Asia

167

mated actual fuelwood consumption amounted to 130 million tonnes, indicating the magnitude of illegal extraction'.~2 This section examines these issues using aggregate data for three of the South Asia countries. The data reveal some large discrepancies between actual conditions and the basic premises of national biofuel planning. Bangladesh Bangladesh is the prime example of a country where biofuel supplies come from the agricultural sector. Of all biomass energy in 1980/81, 66% was from crop residues and 16% from animal dung. The remainder was firewood, but over 90% of this came from trees within the village or homestead gardens. The state forest sector provided only 0"64 Mt of firewood, or a little over 2% of total biomass supply. These data are from recent analysis by Nurul Islam, ~3summarised in Table 6.

TABLE 6 Biofuel Supply Matrix: Bangladesh 1980-81

(Mt year-~)13

Supply by class of land Crop area

Farm trees

Public forest

Other sources

Fallow, non-cult,

Total

Dung

Recycle biomass

--

1'61

15"13

--

1'61

3'56 1"20 19'89

Crop residues Straws

13.28

--

--

Husk & bran Bagasse Sub-total

3'56 1.20 18.04

----

. . --

Woodfuel Firewood: logs Twigs & leaves Sub-total

----

2-65 1-45 4-10

0"64

0"27

--

0"22

3.78

0"64

0"27

--

0"22

5.23

Dung

--

--

--

4-86

--

4'86

Total biofuels

18.04

4.10

0-64

0'51

4"86

1"83

0"15

0"58 a

Land area: ha Fuel per unit area (t h a - l y e a r - 1)

8405

300 2.2

"Dung per unit cropped area.

13.7

0"24 . .

. . 0'24

. .

1.45

2190 0"29

--

3392

29"98

168

G. Leach

A notable feature of this biofuel supply 'map' is the heavy dependence (just over 50%) on cereal straws, which are taken here to include jute and cotton sticks. The supply system is thus highly sensitive to changes in agricultural practices and economics, such as the movement to higher yield but short-straw cereals and the decline in jute and cotton markets. The need to integrate agricultural and biofuel policies is one obvious implication of this fact. Another interesting feature which is found in virtually no other biofuel supply assessment is the column headed 'recycle biomass'. This includes wood and straw which was originally used as building or fencing material and becomes available as a fuel when it is replaced. Since this material accounts for 6% of total biofuels it is not a negligible item. In the woodfuel sector, nearly 80% of supplies come from 'village trees' and a further 5% are raised on fallow and uncultivable lands. Only 2.1% of total biofuels come from public (state-owned) forests -- all of it, according to these data, in the form of logs rather than twigs and brushwood. Although these forest supplies serve important markets, mainly in the towns and cities, it is clear that the main thrust of woodfuel development must be placed outside the formal forest sector. This requires substantial changes to the training of foresters and the institutional framework in which they operate.~ 3 Another notable feature is the vast range in the rate of extraction of biofuels per unit of land area (see the bottom row of Table 6). With crop residues, the average hectare provides just over 2 t of woodfuel equivalent (twe) energy. Public forests, fallow and uncultivable land and animal wastes are exploited for fuel at very much lower rates. In contrast, the extraction rate for village trees is exceptionally high at 13.6 twe hayear-1. This rate is quite reasonable for the typical farming regions of Bangladesh, with their relatively high water tables, and compares favourably with measured data. In a survey of 23 villages, Islam ~4found that the average homestead tree provided 29 kg year-~ of fuelwood (standard deviation 21.4 kg, range 4.1-99.3 kg). With this average, a stocking density of only 470 trees per ha is sufficient to provide the 13"6 t hayear- ~ target. This high usage and the fact that nearly 80% of firewood supplies come from these sources underlines the crucial importance of on-farm trees in the biofuel system. India

India has experienced and is still suffering rapid deforestation. The most recent and reliable data, based on satellite imagery, show that from 1972-75 to 1980-82 the area of closed and open forest cover declined

Household energy in South Asia

169

from 55.52 to 46.35 Mha (or 16.9 to 14.1% of total land area), a loss of about 1.2 Mha year-i. In the latter period there was only 0.05 ha of forest per person, one of the lowest figures in the world. Closed forests (defined as a canopy cover of at least 30%) dropped from 46.42 to 36.02 Mha, while the area of open and degraded forest rose from 8.77 to 10.06 Mha. The balance consists of mangrove forests, which fell from 0.33 to 0.26 Mha. ~5 These losses are about seven times greater than previous official estimates for 'forest land', much of which has no trees on it. This massive tree loss has become a major concern to the public and government. It has also been a contributory cause of increasing fuelwood scarcity. But the role of fuelwood demand in causing forest loss is a much more controversial and cloudy issue which is bedevilled by the lack of reliable and non-contradictory data on tree stocks and yields both from the public forests and private farm trees. At the same time, firewood supplies are often assumed to consist of stemwood logs from felled trees, adding further confusion to the debate. Thus the most recent government estimates put annual firewood demand at 131-142 Mt. ~ The recorded volume of firewood from public forests in 1979-80 was about 15 Mt, ~7 with an estimated 4 Mt from 'social forestry' plantations and 30 Mt from private on-farm trees. 16 These supplies total around 50 Mt, leaving an unrecorded supplydemand 'gap' of about 80-90 Mt. Most of this large deficit is often assumed to be filled by illegal felling on public forest lands. It is only a short step from here to the widely held view that fuelwood demand is a major cause of deforestation. The faults in this analysis are revealed by the all-India biofuel supply matrix for the household sector, shown in Table 7. 3 Although total household biofuel consumption was close to 200 Mt, just under half (95 Mt) was firewood. Of this, 63 Mt consisted of small branches and twigs which were gathered from the ground or bushes without depleting tree stocks. Firewood logs amounted to only 32 Mt. Of these, about 12 Mt (38%) were collected, almost entirely in rural areas. Roughly half came from trees on peoples' own land or that of neighbours and the remainder from public lands ('forests' and 'roadsides', etc.). Finally, 20 Mt of logs were purchased: 11 Mt by urban and 9 Mt by rural people. Other breakdowns show that only 12% of collected logs involved the felling of trees; the other 88% came from cutting large branches (which may or may not have killed the tree). Of those who felled trees, while 73% never replanted them, the remainder were equally divided between those who 'always' and 'occasionally' replanted them. In summary, on the extreme assumptions that no purchased wood is ever replanted, from these data the maximum annual tree loss due to

G. Leach

170

TABLE 7 Biofuel Supply Matrix: India 1978-79 (Mt year-

Firewood logs Rural Total Purchased Collected Collected from: Own land Neighbour's land Forest land Roadsides, etc. Urban Total Purchased Collected Collected from: Own land Neighbour's land Forest land Roadsides, etc Total

Firewood twigs

Crop residues

t)3 Dung

Total

20"11 8'65 11.46

58.75 3.29 55.46

29.53 0.38 29.15

66.76 1.49 65.27

175.15 13.81 161-34

5"24 0-29 4'65 1.28

19"06 3.04 18-93 24.43

17"56 11.59

51.63

13.64

93.49 14-92 23.58 29.35

11.50 11.06 0.44

4.20 2.55 1.65

1.09 0.18 0.91

4.95 2.33 2.62

21-74 16.12 5'62

0.20 0.01 0.18 0.05

0.57 0.09 0'56 0"43

0.64 0.27

1-80

3'21 0"37 0.74 1.30

31-6

62.9

0.82 30-6

71.7

196.8

firewood use was about 21 Mt: 19.7 Mt for purchased wood and 1.2 Mt for collected wood from felled trees that are never or sometimes replanted. This figure could greatly overstate the true loss of trees, since many of the purchased firewood logs must have come (1) from cut branches and (2) from felled trees on public and private land that were replanted. Although state-wise data for India show that fuelwood demand is very high in some states compared with forest resources, the lack of information on forest stocks and yields, farm trees and the sources of purchased firewood -- as well as inter-state trade -- makes it impossible to draw any definite conclusions about the role of firewood demand in deforestation. There is no doubt that in some regions and pockets it is a substantial factor, largely because of concentrated felling for urban markets. Regionally disaggregated assessments of the kind shown in Table 7, but including information on stocks and yields, are therefore required in order to appraise the size of fuelwood supply-demand deficits and hence

HousehoM energy in South Asia

171

the scale of the remedial policies to bring supply and demand into a sustainable balance. Sri L anka

Sri Lanka provides an interesting paradox centred on the role of farm and homestead trees. Until recently it was widely held that fuelwood demand was a major factor in the massive loss of known (i.e. stateowned) forests, which have been reduced by roughly 50% since World War II. There has also been much talk of large and rising fuelwood deficits. However, more recent detailed estimates by the FAO-sponsored Forest Inventory show that, when coconut and rubber plantations plus home gardens are considered, more than half the country is covered with vegetation, with a quarter under forests with a tree canopy of over 75%.~s Furthermore, the fuelwood 'deficit' has been turned around into a projected surplus, at least for the next decade, t9 With such large wood resources, there is little need to use crop residues for fuel and the burning of animal wastes is virtually unknown. Household firewood use is very high for South Asia (see above) as is industrial demand -- estimated at about 2 Mt annually out of a total of 9.5 Mt. It is rare for families to walk more than a mile (1.6 km) to collect firewood. 7 Table 8 presents a biofuel supply matrix for Sri Lanka. While it shows some similarities with the one for India, such as proportions of demand by urban and rural areas and in collected versus purchased firewood, it also reveals some important differences. About 92% of biofuels are in the form of wood, compared to 48% for India (including twigs). The fraction of total biofuels collected from public lands (14%) is only half that of India (28%), emphasising the importance of farm trees and home gardens. But since a much higher proportion of firewood is in the form of logs, many more of these come from public lands than in India (12% of total biofuels compared with about 3% in India). This difference is partly explained by the heavy Sri Lankan dependence on rubber and coconut plantations. Biofueis and land constraints

Table 9 compares at the most aggregate level the use of household biofuels per unit of land area. It is based on the energy data reviewed here and FAO land use statistics for 1 9 8 0 . 2o Land areas are the sum of: arable land, permanent crops, meadows and pastures, and forest and wood-

172

G. Leach

TABLE 8

Biofuel Supply Matrix: Sri Lanka 1981-82 (kt year- 1)6

Rural Total Purchased Collected Collected from: Own lands Public lands, etc. Urban Total Purchased Collected Collected from: Own lands Public lands, etc. Total

Rubber and coconut wood

Other tree wood

Crop residues a

Total

2582 335 2247

3347 413 2934

548 37 511

6477 785 5692

2198 49

2119 815

394 117

4711 981

623 482 141

419 259 160

17 15 2

1059 756 303

133 8

121 39

2

254 49

3205

3766

565

7536

aCrop residues are: twigs from tea bushes, cinnamon sticks and small amounts of sawdust. These are counted as firewood in Tables 3 and 4.

TABLE 9

Biofuel and Agricultural/Forestry Land Use Densities Land area Total (mha)

Bangladesh 1980 India 1979 Pakistan 1979 Sri Lanka 1982

11"9 242.8 26.7 5.0

Per capita (ha)

0.13 0.37 0.33 0.33

Annual household biofuel supply Total (mtwe)

23.0 196.8 22.6 7.5

Per unit land area (Twe ha- i)

(GJ ha- i)

1-9 0.81 0.85 1.5

30 13 14 24

Twe: tons wood equivalent (16 GJ t- 1). Land area: total of arable crops, permanent crops, meadows and pasture, forest and woodland. 21

Household energy in South Asia

17 3

lands. Forest/woodland refers to government land so classified and may include large areas with little or no tree cover. The table points up the acute population pressures and land shortages in the region, as well as the substantial pressures on the land to produce fuels. In Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, each hectare of agricultural and forest land (as defined above) has to provide roughly 1.5 and 1.9 twe energy to maintain the present household biofuel system, while in India and Pakistan the requirement is about 0"8-0"85 twe. These figures are of the same order, or larger, then the sustainable output of forest land with the typical low productivities found, for example, in India and Pakistan. In the latter, annual yields of riverain state forests and bushlands are estimated to be 1.6 and 0"6 m 3 harespectively, or about 1.0 and 0.4 t ha-1.2~ In India the average annual yield of the 75 Mha of government 'forest' has been estimated at 0.4 m 3 (0"3 t) ha- 1,22 and of closed forest at 0.75 m 3 ha- 1. In other words, if the present Indian household biofuel demand, shown as 0.81 twe ha -~ year-~ in Table 9, were to be met entirely by wood from typical closed forests, the latter would have to cover all of the land in India now given to crops, pasture, forest and woodland. Three things prevent this absurdity from being a reality. The first is deforestation itself. The annual loss of 1.2 Mha of forest, for whatever reason, could provide in the region of 50-100 Mt of wood so long as trees are not cleared by burning. Second is the fact that about half the fuel supply comes from agricultural sources rather than trees. Third is the unknown contribution of farm and other trees outside the registered forest areas, as well as twigs, brushwood and weeds from uncultivated wastelands. Of these, deforestation is obviously unsustainable as a supply source. The use of agricultural and animal residues may not be sustainable because it breaks the nutrient cycles unless 'closed loop' systems such as biogasification are employed, or agricultural productivity is greatly increased so that" some residues can safely be divided to use as fuel. Apart from the more efficient use of biofuels, or a transition to modern fuels, India (and similarly placed countries) will be able to meet its needs for biomass fuels only through massive efforts in tree planting and more productive forst maintenance methods.

E N E R G Y PRICES Across South Asia there are huge differences in the price of biofuels, or other domestic fuels, and how these have changed over time. These

174

G. Leach

factors are basic to the management of energy demand, fuel substitutions and the energy transition, and the incentives for producing fuels. If firewood is cheap compared to kerosene or food, for example, urban demand for firewood may be stimulated but there will be little incentive for farmers to produce fuelwood rather than other commodities. This section briefly reviews two key aspects of domestic fuel price trends in the region.

Firewood prices Table 10 presents time trends for retail firewood prices in major urban centres of the four South Asian countries. 23-26 Prices are in constant currency (corrected for inflation) and expressed in USS (1975), corrected for purchasing power parity. The table demonstrates that, despite widespread concern about the firewood 'crisis', firewood prices have not been rising in South Asia as remorselessly as many people suppose. In Dahka, Bangladesh, they have hardly changed during 1970-83. In 10 major Indian cities they rose by 'only' 34% during 1970-82 (and in some cities have fallen in real terms by comparable amounts). In seven major Pakistan cities average prices rose steeply at the time of the first oil price shock but have not altered significantly TABLE 10 Urban Retail Firewood Price: US cents (1975) (corrected for purchasing power parity) k g - l 23-26

Bangladesh India Pakistan Sri Lanka

Bangladesh India Pakistan Sri Lanka

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

22"6 11.4 8" 1 2.8

23"8 12.6 7.3 3-3

23.5 12.5 10.1 3"2

22.5 14.0 9.9 3'8

21.6 14.8 9.7 4.9

20.4 15"1 9.4 6"8

1981

1982

1983

1984

Ratio: 1984/1970 a

24.0 16.1 10.4 6.1

26.9 15.2 11"1 5"9

24.5 -10"8 6"4

--10.7 6'8

1.08 1.33 1.32 2.43

~or latest year/1970. Bangladesh: Dahka. India: average of ten major cities. Pakistan: average of seven major cities. Sri Lanka: Colombo.

Household energy in South Asia

175

during the 1974-84 decade. Furthermore, in all three countries the most recent trends show a slight reduction in prices. Only in Colombo, Sri Lanka, was there a steep and fairly sustained rise in the real price of firewood, by a factor of 2.5 between 1970 and 1984. The table also points up the large price differences across the countries. These do much to explain the high per capita fuelwood use of Sri Lanka, the low consumption of Bangladesh and the intermediate values for India and Pakistan (see Table 1). Equally interesting is the tendency for price differences to lessen during the period. In Sri Lanka where prices have been much the lowest, they have risen the most, and in Bangladesh where prices have been highest, they have risen least. This suggests that prices have been adjusting to competitive levels during the past 15 years rather than responding to aggregate and abstract measures of fuel 'scarcity'. Kerosene versus firewood prices

As kerosene is the major alternative to woodfuels for most South Asians, its price has an important bearing on biofuel policies through its effect on biofuel-kerosene substitutions. However, the four countries show markedly different 'policies' for controlling kerosene prices. In India and Pakistan, kerosene has been so heavily subsidised that its price, in real terms, has altered very little since 1970. In India the highest real price was reached in 1976 when it was 37% greater than in 1970. Since then it has declined steadily since so that in 1984 it was only 3% above the 1970 level. In Pakistan the first major increase did not occur until 1979, when prices rose in a year from 87 to 116% of the 1970 figure. Again, the price has declined steadily since then and in 1984 was 36% above the 1970 value. In Bangladesh the trend was more erratic, with an early peak followed by a decline and a subsequent rise. Generally, prices have risen much more than in the first two countries: in 1984 they were 2.4 times the 1970 level in real terms. Sri Lanka is exceptional in the way it let kerosene prices soar. In 1984 they were 8.2 times higher in real terms than in 1970. However, there is a system of kerosene 'stamps' which allows poor families to buy up to one gallon (4.5 litres) of kerosene a month at cheaper rates. This amount barely covers the average consumption for lighting among low and middle income households. These trends have produced remarkable differences in the relative price of kerosene and firewood, as shown in Fig. 2. In Colombo, Sri Lanka, the kerosene price has shot ahead of the firewood price, although

176

G. L e a c h

~t U l.

Lanka

5rl

6

/ "0 0

o

/

5

/

8,

/ !

b-

!

e"

I

/

Iii I

7,, 40

2

O

\\~\

1972

!

BDnglndesh

II \

/

;

-~---~~

,"

•

" z - - - - .

,,~

"'~-----~.....t~....~-" 970

Fig. 2.

i

I

!

,,...~/- . . . . . .&r ~I

"8- - -e,

1974

_

""X

~]~""--~-----'m'----.m-----~ I nd 1 1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

Ratio of kerosene price to firewood price per unit energy purchased (urban retail markets). 23-2+'

erratically. In 1970 kerosene cost only 1.5 times more than firewood, but since 1981 it has cost from 5 to 6 times as much. In Dahka, Bangladesh, the kerosene:firewood ratio was fairly constant from 1973 to 1981 at 2-2.5:1 but has risen steeply in the past few years. In Pakistan, prices have kept more or less in line, with kerosene costing only 1.5-2.5 times as much as firewood. India, in contrast, has followed a cheap kerosene policy: for the 10 major cities considered here, the averaged kerosene price has mostly been well below 1.5 times the price of firewood. The 'correct' price relativities are hard to determine since they depend, apart from macro-economic considerations, on the costs of kerosene appliances and their thermal efficiencies compared to cooking with woodfuels. In rough terms, one would expect consumers to switch to kerosene if it cost less than 3 times as much as firewood per unit of delivered energy. Whether by design or accident, the opposing price trends of India and Sri Lanka have had the expected effect. As discussed in the next section, urban consumers in Sri Lanka have switched from kerosene to firewood for cooking since the early 1970s; in India they did the opposite. BIOMASS-MODERN FUEL TRANSITIONS Energy planning for the household sector is often based on either of two basic assumptions. The first assumption is that modern fuels will never

Household energy in South Asia

177

replace biofuels to any significant extent. The mass of rural people and the urban poor will always be deterred by the high costs of modern fuels and equipment, while delivering enough of these fuels to many thousands of rural communities will be impractical for decades to come. Consumption of biofuels per head will therefore change little, so that total demand will grow in line with population. This assumption has long been used by many developing countries, donor agencies and others. It is, for example, a basic assumption of the Indian Advisory Board on Energy's 1985 forecasts to the year 2004/527 and the UN FAO's widely quoted predictions of increasing fuelwood deficits in the Third World. 28 Such demand projections are often matched against c u r r e n t biofuel resources and inevitably point to increasing supply deficits and rates of deforestation. One recent exercise of this kind predicted that the forest area of Tanzania would crash to zero in 1990 as a result of a fuelwood demand rising exponentially in line with population. 29 On this view, biomass supply enhancement and demand reduction through more efficient use become the leading policy priorities. The opposite assumption is that a steady shift from biofuels to modern fuels will occur as an almost automatic consequence of economic growth. This change has occurred in all the older industrialised countries and is taking place now in many higher income developing countries. This evolution, so the argument goes, will in part be pushed by the increasing scarcity of biofuels as resources are depleted and competing uses for industry, construction and animal fodder raise the opportunity cost of burning them. It will also be pulled by the attractions of modern fuels and, with rising incomes, the growing ability of people to pay for and obtain them through improved energy distribution facilities. On this view the biofuel problem will gradually disappear and policies should be directed towards the development of modern fuel systems and their more efficient use. In fact, of course, both views will hold true to differing extents in different places. The real policy challenge is to know what mixtures of these extremes will apply to which locations, and how best to meet them through a variety of policies aimed at biofuels and modern fuels. Unfortunately this is not easily done, since there is little reliable trend data on household biofuel consumption, and hence on substitutions between biofuels and modern fuels. This section reviews the aggregate trend data for India and Sri Lanka. It shows that massive and rapid substitutions of biofuels by modern fuels have been occurring in urban India, while in Sri Lanka there appears to have been a transition in the other direction. These changes are consistent with the relative fuel price trends discussed above.

178

G. Leach

Sri L a n k a

In Sri Lanka 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 and Bank), which prices. 3° Table

there have been three nationwide surveys, in 1973, 1 9 8 1 - 8 2 , c o n d u c t e d by the same institution (the Central neatly coincided with major changes in relative fuel 11 gives some key data from these surveys. TABLE 11

Distribution of Households by Type of Main Cooking Fuel: Sri Lanka 3° Year

Urban (%)

Rural (%)

All island (%)

Firewood

1973 1978-79 1981-82

64.5 58.1 65"3

93"5 92.5 95.2

88"2 84.8 90"1

Kerosene

1973 1978-79 1981-82

28.4 30.6 14.0

4.1 6.5 2.5

8.6 11.8 4.5

LPG

1973" 1978-79 1981-82

Electricity

1978-79 1981-82

7.1 a 5.4 5.3 5.9 15.4

2.4" 0.3 0.3

3.2" 1.5 1.1

0.7 2.0

1.9 4.3

aLPG and electricity.

Before 1973 kerosene was cheap c o m p a r e d with firewood. Although kerosene prices increased sharply after 1 9 7 3 - 7 4 , firewood prices rose steadily through the 1970s so that by 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 , the period of the second survey, kerosene was again cheaper than firewood on a useful energy basis (i.e. about twice the price per unit of delivered energy). LPG and domestic electricity prices were also falling slightly in real terms. T h e s e trends encouraged a substantial shift a m o n g urban households from firew o o d to kerosene and other m o d e r n cooking fuels, and similar but slighter shifts in the rural sector. After 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 these trends were reversed. Sharp price increases and partial removal of kerosene subsidies p u s h e d the ratio of kerosene to firewood prices from 1"76:1 in 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 to 5:1 in 1 9 8 1 - 8 2 , the time of the third survey. T h e p r o p o r t i o n of urban households cooking with kerosene fell steeply f r o m about 31 to 14%, while those using firewood rose from 58 to 65%, or back to the 1973 figure. T h e r e was also a rise from nearly 6% to over 15% in urban households which c o o k e d with electri-

Household energy in South Asia

179

city, while reliance on LPG altered little. Similar changes occurred in the rural sector but with much smaller percentages using m o d e m fuels: dependence on cooking by firewood rose from 92.5% to just over 95%, reliance on kerosene fell by a factor of three and the use of electric cooking trebled. One serious consequence of these trends has been a steep rise in the energy costs of the poor, probably combined with a fall in the already low standards of lighting. According to the 1981-82 survey, 84.2% of all households relied on kerosene for lighting compared with only 4.5% for cooking. But 97% of the poorest 40% use kerosene for lighting, and for little else. Kerosene is also the main lighting source even for the most affluent 20%. Yet in the three years between the most recent surveys, per capita kerosene consumption fell by 38% across Sri Lanka (from 2.0 to 1-22 litres per capita a month) and by 36% in rural areas (1.90 to 1"23 litres per capita a month). Most of this fall must have been due to reduced consumption for lighting, which has not been compensated for by greater electricity use, despite fairly rapid progress in rural electrification. India

The Sri Lankan experience shows that quite large shifts into and out of biofuels can occur fairly rapidly due to pricing and other effects. The experience of India is that massive substitutions out of biofuels can occur if conditions favour them. In 1983-84 the National Council of Applied Economic Research conducted a large nationwide urban household survey4 comparable to its 1978-79 survey? The full results have not yet been released, but preliminary data show that very large changes have occurred in the mix of fuels used for cooking and heating during the five-year interval, when kerosene and LPG generally became cheaper compared with woodfuels. Table 12 summarises these changes. It records a massive switch out of firewood, mostly into kerosene but also bottled gas (LPG). In total the firewood share fell by a third from 42 to 27%, with every income group experiencing a drop. The fall was least for the lowest income group (by 11%, from 60 to 53.5%) but was progressively greater for higher income ranges: the high-middle income group had the largest reduction, from 17.4 to 9.9% -- a fall of 43%. The groups with the largest reductions were also those with the largest increases in the number of households, thus adding extra weight to the total scale of the transition. Other fuels, which refer to crop residues and electricity, also dropped, as did coke. The substitute fuels were kerosene and LPG, whose shares

180

G. Leach

TABLE 12 Fuel Shares for Cooking and Heating by Income: India, 1978-79 and 1983-843'4 (percentage shares) Income band." a

L

LM

M

HM

H

All

Firewood

1979 1984

60"0 53.5

40.9 30.8

25.1 17.9

17.4 9.9

12.1 9.6

42.4 27.4

Soft coke

1979 1984

12.8 6.4

20.2 18.0

23.6 17"9

16.7 15"2

17.3 8"3

18.4 15-3

Kerosene

1979 1984

13.2 23.8

21.3 36"9

21.5 40.2

22.0 38.2

18.9 32.8

18.7 35"7

LPG

1979 1984

0.8 1.2

4.6 4.6

14.2 15.7

26.9 27.9

32-9 39.3

6.6 11.5

Other

1979 1984

13.3 15.2

13.1 9.7

15.6 8.3

17.0 8.8

18.8 10.1

13.9 10.1

(Thousand households)

1979 1984

(7286) (4885)

(9895) (9298)

(4792) (9742)

(611) (2598)

(524) (1193)

(23 108) (27716)

qncomes (thousand Rupees [Rs. 1978-79] annually): L-Low (under 3); LM=Lowmiddle (3-6); M = middle (6-12); HM = High-middle (12-18 ); H = High (over 18). Shares are on a 'coal replacement' basis for cooking and heating. They therefore approximate to shares for useful heat, after adjustment for end-use efficiencies.

b o t h roughly doubled: k e r o s e n e f r o m 19 to 36% and LPG f r o m 6"6 to 11.5%. T h e m o v e into k e r o s e n e was quite evenly spread across all i n c o m e groups, but with L P G was mainly confined to the higher i n c o m e range. T h e high cost of L P G e q u i p m e n t e n s u r e d that the two poorest i n c o m e groups hardly used it in 1979 and did not increase their use during 1 9 7 9 - 8 4 . India: implications of a 'total transition'

T h e s e transitions away f r o m biomass obviously have major policy implications. If u r b a n w o o d f u e l c o n s u m p t i o n is going to decline, the n e e d for u r b a n w o o d f u e l solutions will also gradually wither away, while other priorities for energy policy will arise to take their place. T h e scale and pace of reductions in biofuels and the associated rise in the use of m o d e r n fuels are critical factors in these policy adjustments. As yet there is little firm evidence on which to assess these questions. However, a preliminary assessment can be m a d e for India using the survey data outlined above.

181

HousehoM energy in South Asia

TABLE 13 Fuel Consumption for Cooking and Heating: All-India 1978-79 (GJ year- 1)3 Income group:

Urban % of households

1

2

3

4

5

2.9

2.4

All

30.4

42-6

21'7

100

15.91 3.17 19.08

13"41 6.34 19.75

12'35 10'98 23'33

12.81 12.11 24.92

9"69 14.35 24.04

13"83 6.74 20"57

3.21 0.64 3"85

2.36 1.12 3.48

1.87 1'66 3.52

1'79 1"69 3.48

1.17 1.73 2"90

2.40 1'17 3.57

Per household Biofuels Modern fuels

Both types Per capita Biofuels

Modern fuels Both types Rural % of households

56.2

32.3

9'6

1.1

0'8

100

23"32 0-29 23.61

27"30 0.48 27.78

39'42 1'40 40.82

52'56 1'92 54-48

56"12 2.97 59"09

26"75 0.50 27.25

4'58 0.06 4.64

4'30 0.08 4-37

4"85 0.17 5-03

5"43 0-20 5-63

5"21 0"28 5"49

4'55 0'08 4.63

Per household Biofuels

Modern fuels Both types Per capita Biofuels

Modern fuels Both types

Total urban households: 24.07 million. Total rural households: 85' 16 million.

The relevant data from the Indian 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 survey are shown in Table 13. Considering the urban sector, where the major substitution of biofuels occurs, the table shows a definite tendency for total household cooking and heating fuels to increase with income, despite a massive shift from the use of biofuels to more efficient m o d e m fuels across the income range. As people replace biofuels by modern fuels they almost certainly change their cooking habits so as to offset some of the theoretical gains from greater end-use efficiency and/or increase greatly their energy use for other end uses such as water heating for bathing and washing dishes, and perhaps also space heating in some places. From these data one can estimate the effects of a total transition from biofuels to modern fuels. Given the lack of detailed information, the only way one can do this is to assume that the transition occurs through the adoption by the present rural population of urban patterns of energy use.

182

G. Leach

This does not imply a mass migration by the entire rural population to the cities, but only that rural people obtain the same access to m o d e r n cooking and heating fuels as the urban population. We must also assume that there are no effects related to changes in income or household size. In other words, each rural income group simply adopts the pattern of its urban counterpart. T A B L E 14

Effects of a Transition from Rural to Urban Household Energy Patterns (based on allIndia data for 1978-793 ) Income group."

Rural households (millions):

1

2

47.8

27.5

Per rural household (GJ year- ~) 1978-79 biofueis 23.32 1978-79 modern fuels 0.64

27"30 1.12

3

4

5

All

8.2

1"0

0.7

85.2

39.42 1.66

52.56 1.69

56.12 1.73

26"75 1.17

Change to urban pattern: biofuels -7"41 modern fuels +2.88

-13.89 +5"86

-27.07 +9.58

-39.75 + 10.19

All rural households (PJ year- ~) 1978-79 biofuels 1116

751

322

51

39

2279

-382 +161

-222 +79

-40 +10

-33 +8

- 1031 +396

Change to urban pattern: biofuels modern fuels

-354 +138

-46.43 -12.09 + 11.38 +4.64

T h e results are shown in Table 14. T h e r e is a reduction by about 45% in total biofuel consumption. In round figures, this falls from 2280 to 1250 PJ; i.e. from 143 to 78 Mtwe -- a saving of about 65 Mt. M u c h of this would be a saving of crop residues and dung which could be returned to the land to increase soil fertility and crop production. T h e penalty in additional c o n s u m p t i o n of m o d e m fuels is about 400 PJ a year, or 9.4 Mtoe. Most of the additional c o n s u m p t i o n would be in the form of p e t r o l e u m products, with perhaps some coal or coke. T h e extra 10 M t o e is a substantial fraction of India's total oil consumption, which was 29'7 Mt (32"7 Mtoe) in 1979 and 37"8 Mt in 1983-84. 31 But it is only about 10% of the 1979 total of 93 M t o e for all forms of 'commercial' primary energy, when hydro- and nuclear power are counted on a fuel equivalent basis. 32 If all the extra m o d e r n fuels had to be i m p o r t e d as oil or p e t r o l e u m products at USS 20 per barrel ($3-5 GJ-1), the i m p o r t bill would be USS 1400 million. This is close to 14%

Household energy in South Asia

183

of India's export earnings in 1979 (Rs, 8 3 8 0 0 million, or USS 10400 million). 33 These sums suggest that a major transition of this kind would not be impossible for India in macro-economic terms provided the economy and exports grow at reasonable rates and the transition is spaced out over a decade or more. But it is inconceivable, at present, for the mass of the people. What this emphasises is the huge disparity in the opportunities for solving energy problems both between the industrialised and developing countries and between sections of the community within the latter. T h e high income groups in all countries have made the biomass-modern fuel transition and have gained from it in greater convenience and reduced personal costs. For the majority of people in a country such as India the energy transition is not so much a matter of scarce energy supplies, but a more basic question of inequity.

REFERENCES 1. Parikh, J. (1982). Rural household energy consumption in Bangladesh: a critical assessment. Paper to ISPRA Course on National Energy Planning and Management, ISPRA, Varese, Italy (May 1982). 2. Douglas, J. (1981). Consumption and supply of wood and bamboo in Bangladesh, UNDP/FAO/Planning Commission Project BGD/78/010, Dahka. 3. Natarajan, I. (1985). Domestic fuel survey with special reference to kerosene, (2 volumes), National.Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi. 4. Natarajan, I. (1986). Personal communication -- National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi. 5. Federal Bureau of Statistics (1983). Household income and expenditure survey 1979, Government of Pakistan, Karachi. Data from original physical quantities, unpublished. 6. Central Bank of Ceylon (1985). Report on consumer finances and socioeconomic survey 1981/82, Colombo. 7. Wijesinghe, L. C. A. de (1984). A sample study of biomass fuel consumption in Sri Lanka households. Natural Resources, Energy and Science Authority of Sri Lanka, Colombo. 8. Sharma, R. & Bhatia, R. (1986). Basic energy needs of the low-income groups in India: analysis of energy policies and programmes. Draft (February 1986), Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi. 9. World Bank (1985). Test results on kerosene and other stoves for developing countries. Energy Paper 27, Washington, DC. 10. Kravis, I. B. et al. (1982). World product and income: international comparisons of real gross product, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. 11. World Bank ( 1983). World development report, Washington, DC. 12. Bowonder, B. (1983). Forest depletion: some policy options, Resources Policy, September 1983, 206-224.

184

G. Leach

13. Islam, M. N. (1986). Some observations of assessment of biomass fuel resources. Paper to Technical Workshop of Biomass Resource Assessment Project, Commonwealth Secretariat, London, April 1986. 14. Islam, M. N. (1980). Village resources survey for the assessment of alternative energy technology. Final draft report for International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dahka, September 1980. 15. Centre for Science and Environment (1985). The state oflndia's environment 1984-85: the second citizens' report, New Delhi. 16. National Fuelwood Study Committee (1982). Planning Commission, New Delhi. 17. Central Forestry Commission (1982). India's forests 1980, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. 18. Nanayakkara, V. R. (1986). Wood energy development in Sri Lanka. In: Report of the Technical Meeting, Bangkok, Thailand, 5-8 November 1985, Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia, UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Bangkok. 19. Fernando, G. B. A. (1986). Energy needs and supply. Paper to Public Affairs Forum, Sri Lanka Institute of Architects, 26 February 1986, from Ministry of Power and Energy, Colombo. 20. FAO (various). Production yearbook, Rome. 21. Hussain, R. W. (1985). Wood energy development in Pakistan. In: Report of the Technical Meeting, Bangkok, Thailand, 5-8 November 1985, Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia, UN Food and Agricultural Organisation, Bangkok. 22. Warner, F. (1982). Indo-Swedish Forestry Program II: 1982/83 to 1986/87 (background document). Swedish Embassy, New Delhi. 23. Bureau of Statistics (various). Statistical yearbook, Government of Bangladesh, Dahka. 24. Forest Research Institute (various). Timber price bulletins, Government of India, Dehra Dun. 25. Federal Bureau of Statistics (various). Statistical yearbook, Government of Pakistan, Karachi. 26. Central Bank of Ceylon (various). Economic and social statistics and price and wage statistics, Colombo. 27. Advisory Board on Energy ( 1985). Towards a perspective on energy demand and supply in India in 2004/05, Government of India, May 1985. 28. de Montalembert, M. R. & Clement, J. (1983). Fuelwood supplies in developing countries, Forestry Paper 42, FAO, Rome. 29. Nkonoki, S. & Sorensen, B. (1984). A rural energy study in Tanzania: the case of Bundilya village. Natural Resources Forum, 8, 51-62. 30. Fernando, P. D. J. (1985). A study on the consumption levels of energy in the household sector and its changes since 1973. Mimeo, July 1985, Statistics Department, Central Bank of Ceylon, Colombo. 31. Ministry of Energy (1985). Indian petroleum and petrochemical statistics 1983-84, Government of India, New Delhi. 32. Leach, G. et al. (1986). Energy and growth: a comparison of 13 industrial and developing countries, Butterworths, London. 33. World Bank (1983). World tables, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.