SE4All Status Report
•
1 like•608 views
SE4All Consultation Workshop 14 June 2015 Maien Vital
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Similar to SE4All Status Report
Similar to SE4All Status Report (20)
More from Energy for All | Asian Development Bank
More from Energy for All | Asian Development Bank (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
SE4All Status Report
- 1. SE4ALL Status Report for Asia-Pacific Marianne Joy Vital Access to Energy Expert (Consultant) Asian Development Bank
- 2. SESSION AGENDA III. Feedback and Discussion Key Points of Discussion II. Preliminary Findings Access to Energy Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy I. Overview of the report Background & Objectives Scope of the report Methodology
- 3. I. OVERVIEW OF REPORT
- 4. Objectives by 2030: SE4ALL Goals Ensuring universal access to modern energy services Doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency Doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
- 5. Monitor Asia-Pacific’s performance in reaching the SE4ALL goals • Regional performance and country-level accomplishments • Innovative practices, projects, and synergistic initiatives OUTPUT: status report every two years, each report centering on a particular theme. Background
- 6. Decade of Sustainable Energy for All: 2014–2024 • Raising awareness about the benefits of modern energy to women, children, and health as focus of 2014 and 2015 Partners: Background First Asia Pacific Status Report: energy-women- children-health nexus
- 7. Objectives of Report • Raise awareness on the SE4ALL goals1 • Monitor and assess achievements based on the SE4ALL targets2 • Present case studies on energy-women-children- health nexus3 • Provide analysis and recommendations to improve the enabling environments4 • Document issues, challenges, and opportunities, and provide for the next steps5
- 8. Scope of the report I. SE4ALL GOALS: WHERE ASIA-PACIFIC STANDS II. COUNTRY ACTION PROCESSES III. THE ENERGY-WOMEN-CHILDREN-HEALTH NEXUS IV. WAY FORWARD: COMMITMENTS AND PARTNERSHIPS FOREWORD ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION REFERENCES STATISTICAL APPENDIX PARTICIPANTS OF THE WORKSHOP Table of Contents
- 9. I. SE4ALL GOALS: WHERE ASIA-PACIFIC STANDS • Snapshot of the status of Asia-Pacific given targets and its most recent performance • Country-level discussions that provide the context of the performance as well as issues faced and best practices adopted Scope of the report
- 10. II. COUNTRY ACTION PROCESSES • Country experiences in the SE4ALL Country Action Processes Scope of the report
- 11. III. THE ENERGY-WOMEN-CHILDREN-HEALTH NEXUS • Two-fold discussion: o Disproportionate impact of energy on women and youth, particularly on their health o Opportunities for empowerment of women and children: what role they can play to improve the energy landscape? • Case studies: possible models for scale-up and replication in the region Scope of the report
- 12. IV. WAY FORWARD: COMMITMENTS AND PARTNERSHIPS Scope of the report SE4ALL Country Action Processes Map out various efforts Identify gaps and challenges Prioritize action areas
- 13. • Method of analysis • Trend analysis: from baseline period (1990-2010) to recent data (2012) • Compare performance with specific targets given SE4ALL goals Methodology • Data source • Primary: o Global Tracking Framework o World Bank World Development Indicators o World Health Organization o UNESCAP Statistical Yearbooks • Other data sources: o IEA’s World Energy Outlook o SE4ALL country RA/GA o Journals, articles, and other reference books related to SE4ALL goals
- 14. Global Tracking Framework • Consortium of different agencies led by the World Bank Group, International Energy Agency, Energy Sector Management Assistance Program • Data platform drawing on national data records for more than 180 countries, which together account for more than 95 percent of the global population Methodology
- 15. • Other sources of information • SE4ALL Consultation Workshop (Manila, 14 June 2015) o Solicit feedback from stakeholders as well as experts o Discussion on case studies of projects or initiatives on women, children, and health for scale-up and replication across the region • Contribution of partners • Circulation of draft for comments Methodology
- 16. Key Milestones and Estimated Completion Date Timelines 14 June 2015 • Consultation Workshop 3rd week July 2015 • Circulation of final draft for consultation 28–30 September 2015 • Launching of report
- 17. WHERE DOES ASIA-PACIFIC STAND? II. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
- 18. SE4ALL - Objective 1 Ensuring universal access to modern energy services
- 19. 4.2 Billion Population in Asia 1.8 Billion People without access to clean cooking 620 Million People without access to electricity ENERGY SITUATION IN ASIA-PACIFIC
- 20. Measuring energy access I. Energy Access 1. Access to electricity • Availability of electricity connection OR use of electricity as primary source for lighting • Computed as percentage (%) of population 2. Access to non-solid fuels • Signifies access to modern cooking solutions • Computed as percentage (%) of population that use non-traditional sources of energy
- 21. Source: World Bank. 2015. Global Tracking Framework 2015: Progress Toward Sustainable Energy. Summary Report. Some have already hit the 100% mark. * National average Economies that have reached 100% electrification, 2012* CWA Armenia EA China, People's Rep. of CWA Azerbaijan EA Hong Kong, China CWA Georgia EA Japan CWA Kazakhstan EA Korea, Rep. of CWA Kyrgyz Republic Pac Samoa CWA Tajikistan SA Maldives CWA Turkmenistan SEA Malaysia CWA Uzbekistan SEA Singapore SEA Thailand I. Energy Access A good number of countries are performing above target.
- 22. Source: World Bank. 2015. Global Tracking Framework 2015: Progress Toward Sustainable Energy. Summary Report. More push to meet the target and grow faster in the coming years. I. Energy Access Improvements in high- impact countries are critical. Electrification rate must be higher than population growth rate. * Absolute number of people added to the count of people that gained access to electricity. Doesn’t take into account the population growth effect.
- 23. Adding up the numbers, a substantial number of people in the region have no access to electricity. Source: International Energy Agency. Energy Access Database. World Economic Outlook. Accessed 13 May 2015. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/energyaccessdatabase/ I. Energy Access
- 24. Source: World Bank. 2015. Global Tracking Framework 2015: Progress Toward Sustainable Energy. Summary Report. Solid fuels remain primary use of fuel for cooking. Only five countries are fully using non-solid fuel for cooking. * National average Table 2. Countries that have 100% * access to non- solid fuel CWA Turkmenistan SEA Malaysia EA Japan SEA Singapore EA Korea, Rep. of I. Energy Access For those dependent on solid fuels, uptake of non- solid fuel is slow.
- 25. Source: World Health Organization. Global Health Observatory Data Repository. Accessed 13 May 2015. http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.imr Asia-Pacific accounts for 80% of the deaths attributed to household air pollution. I. Energy Access Why modernize fuel use for cooking and heating in households? Rest of the World, 848 Central and West Asia, 184 East Asia, 1,471 South Asia, 1,378 Southeast Asia, 375 Pacific, 5 Asia-Pacific, 3,413 Deaths from IAP, 2012 ('000)
- 26. Findings I. Energy Access Significant improvements but more can be done • 16/43 of the countries are on target in expanding access to electricity • 5/43 are on track in adopting non-solid fuels Asia-Pacific’s contribution to global energy poverty is significant • Almost 50% of global energy poverty come from Asia • 80% of the deaths attributed to household air pollution.
- 27. SE4ALL – Objective 2 Doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency
- 28. Measuring energy efficiency II. Energy Efficiency 1. Primary energy intensity – (energy supply) / (GDP, PPP) • Captures supply-side efficiency, and also overall energy system efficiency • Important for developing countries as it captures traditional sources of energy such as biomass 2. Final energy intensity – (final energy consumption) / (GDP, PPP or value-added, by sector) • Captures end-use efficiency • Better to use with disaggregated value added data by sector
- 29. From 2010, majority of countries in East Asia and South Asia were able to decrease their energy intensity levels. Source: World Bank. 2015. Global Tracking Framework 2015: Progress Toward Sustainable Energy. Summary Report. II. Energy Efficiency
- 30. Central & West Asia, Southeast Asia, and Pacific are showing mixed results from 2010. Source: World Bank. 2015. Global Tracking Framework 2015: Progress Toward Sustainable Energy. Summary Report. II. Energy Efficiency *2000-2010 instead of 1990-2010
- 31. II. Energy Efficiency Mixed results: on the whole, Asia-Pacific* is mostly improving energy intensity levels. • More than 60% of the countries have decreased primary energy intensity level from 2010 With incomplete data, the source of change in energy intensity is not clear. Some factors could have played a role: • Slowdown or decline in GDP growth during the financial/ economic crisis in the late 2000s • Structural shifts in economy such as decreasing or increasing share of energy-intensive industries Findings *Where data is available
- 32. SE4ALL - Objective 3 Doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
- 33. Measuring Renewable Energy share III. Renewable Energy 1. Renewable energy (RE) consumption • Includes renewable energy consumption of all technologies: hydro, modern and traditional biomass, wind, solar, liquid biofuels, biogas, geothermal, marine and waste 2. Total final energy consumption (TFEC) • The sum of consumption by the different end-use sectors. 3. RE share in TFEC • RE consumption/TFEC (%)
- 34. Declining share of RE in total final energy consumption in Asia-Pacific. Source: author’s estimates based on Global Tracking Framework 2015: Progress Toward Sustainable Energy. Summary Report. III. Renewable Energy Majority of RE consumption comes from South Asia and East Asia, primarily due to India and PRC, respectively.
- 35. Source: author’s estimates based on Global Tracking Framework 2015: Progress Toward Sustainable Energy. Summary Report. Traditional biofuel accounts for the largest share in Asia-Pacific’s RE consumption. III. Renewable Energy Indeed, countries dependent on RE mainly use traditional biomass (except for Tajikistan). Next popular are solar and hydro.
- 36. While on track, these countries have very low RE share, i.e., less than 10%. Source: author’s estimates based on Global Tracking Framework 2015: Progress Toward Sustainable Energy. Summary Report. III. Renewable Energy
- 37. III. Renewable Energy Overall decline of RE share in Asia-Pacific from 1990 to 2012. • RE cannot keep up with the energy appetite of emerging economies Traditional biomass is predominant RE source Limited number of countries are on track Findings
- 38. Conclusion • Asia-Pacific’s contribution to global energy poverty is significant • Almost 40% of countries in Asia-Pacific are on track in expanding electricity access Energy Access • Mixed results but Asia-Pacific is mostly improving energy intensity levels. • More than 60% of the countries have decreased primary energy intensity level from 2010 Energy Efficiency • Overall decline of RE share in Asia-Pacific from 1990 to 2012. • Traditional biomass is predominant RE source. • Limited number of countries are on track. Renewable Energy
- 39. III. FEEDBACK & DISCUSSION
- 40. Key Points of Discussion I. Scope of the report II. Methodology oData oMethod of analysis III. Preliminary findings
- 41. MORE INFORMATION About the SE4ALL Asia- Pacific Hub The Asia-Pacific hub is part of the global network to facilitate and coordinate the implementation of the SE4ALL Initiative at the regional level. It is led by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN ESCAP). SE4ALL Website and Social Media www.se4all.org FB: Sustainable Energy for All Twitter: @SE4ALL_AsiaPac FOCAL PERSONS Jiwan Acharya (ADB) Senior Climate Change Specialist (Clean Energy) jacharya@adb.org Manoj Kumar Khadka (UNDP) Technical Consultant for Energy Access manoj.kumar.khadka@undp.org Hongpeng Liu (UN ESCAP) Chief, Energy Security and Water Resources Section Environment and Development Division liu4@un.org
Editor's Notes
- UN General Assembly declared 2014-2024 as Decade of Sustainable Energy for All underscoring the importance of energy issues for sustainable development and for the elaboration of post-2015 development agenda. The years 2014 and 2015 are dedicated to the energy-women-children-health nexus, thus the first installment will give focus on raising awareness about the benefits of modern energy services to women and children, particularly on their health. For this pilot report, the SE4ALL Regional Hub of Asia-Pacific, led by ADB, UNESCAP and UNDP is working with different partners, such as ENERGIA, Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, and the UN Foundation’s Energy Access Practitioner Network.
- The report comprises three major sections: The chapter on SE4ALL goals will show the status of the region and its countries based on data available. It shows the baseline performance, the newest update coming from 2010, and the targets that countries need to achieve. This chapter talks about the experiences of countries in the country action processes. The thematic chapter centers on the nexus and incorporates case studies that address issues relating to women, children, and health in the energy sector. The ways forward chapter highlights the country action processes and institutional collaborations undertaken to achieve the goals. It includes the various efforts in the region and the partnerships formed that could help promote the agenda.
- This section takes a snapshot of the status of Asia-Pacific countries in each of the SE4ALL goals. It presents data starting from the period 1990 to 2010 as baseline, then moving to 2012 as most recent performance. Regional and country-level analysis will be applied, and country-specific nuances will be included.
- Discussion will be twofold: on the one hand, it will talk about the disproportionate impact of energy on women and youth, particularly on their health; on the other, it will talk about opportunities for the empowerment of these marginalized sectors, and what role they can play to improve the energy landscape. In discussing the disproportionate impact, this section will cover issues relating to indoor air pollution, the risks to health as evidenced by morbidity and mortality statistics, and how such risks are holding back development embodied in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Other than health, the relationship between energy poverty and income poverty will also be looked at, given the costs that arise from continued use of traditional sources of energy. Meanwhile, it looks at opportunities for the energy sector to improve welfare of women and children through clean and improved technologies as well as business models that have effectively mainstreamed gender considerations. It will also explore avenues where women can contribute to reaching the SE4ALL goals, in particular, participation in the energy supply chain. The discussions will be tied to the fulfillment of MDGs, linking energy with other development-related issues such as education, water and sanitation, food security, and rural development. Case studies will also be included in this section, serving as possible models for scale-up and replication in the region. Inputs will be coming from the developers/social enterprises/civil society organizations that have successfully implemented such projects/initiatives, as presented in the Consultation Workshop.
- This section will map out various efforts being undertaken across the Asia-Pacific region in achieving the SE4ALL goals, such as programs, initiatives, and regional partnerships as well as domestic partnerships that are inclusive and multi-stakeholder in nature. Commitments of governments, backed by policies and supportive frameworks, will be highlighted and linked with their respective country performance in meeting the goals. Gaps and challenges will also be brought up, providing some recommendations and possible actions to help address the same. Lastly, opportunities for the SE4ALL Action Agenda to play a more active role will be discussed to accelerate progress in meeting the SE4ALL goals in Asia-Pacific.
- Development of the Global Tracking Framework has been made possible through a unique partnership of international agencies active in the energy knowledge space. The report also benefited from two rounds of public consultation. The first round, which took place in October 2012, focused on the proposed methodology for global tracking. The second round, in February 2013, focused on data analysis. It was preceded by a consultation workshop held in conjunction with the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi in January 2013. The consultation documents reached more than a hundred organizations drawn from a broad cross-section of stakeholders and covering a wide geographic area. This report benefited greatly from the contributions of those organizations.
- Other inputs will be coming from stakeholders as well as experts that will be tapped through consultations. A workshop will be conducted to discuss case studies of projects or initiatives that serve as inspiration for scale-up and replication across the region. These projects should have a dimension that relate to women, children, and health. These case studies are subject in one of the sessions in this workshop.
- The first report is targeted to be released by end of September 2015. Its launching will coincide with the UN Summit for Adoption of the Post-2015 Development Agenda in New York on 28–30 September 2015.
- ADB feels that our region, developing Asia and the Pacific, is facing three major challenges: • Energy access—600 million people do not have access to electricity, and 1.8 billion have no access to modern fuels • Energy affordability—as even in countries and areas where access is feasible, the costs are often too high for many to benefit from energy • Energy sustainability—meeting demand while managing negative impacts such as CO2 emissions and air quality There are many facets to each of these challenges, such as concerns of energy security, and of course, the overarching threat of climate change, which threatens not only our region, but the world. However, SE4ALL offers a solution to these challenges, a solution which we can pursue as a partnership.
- Definitions: Electricity access is defined as availability of an electricity connection at home or the use of electricity as the primary source for lighting. Access to modern cooking solutions is defined as relying primarily on non-solid fuels for cooking. Solid fuels pertain to biomass and coal. Caveats: These are binary in nature: either you have access or you don’t—it doesn’t cover quality, efficiency, and availability. A person connected to the grid but only receives 6 hours of electricity a day is counted the same as a person enjoying 24 hours of electricity. Data sources come from national surveys, if not, utility data. There are missing data/information across the time series so statistical models were developed to estimate these missing data points. However, these models are supposedly the best-fit ones (i.e., minimizing predictive errors), and whereby available, the original numbers coming from the official data were used.
- There are 17 DMCs in Asia-Pacific that have met the target. Regionally, East Asia and Central and West Asia are well off in terms of electrification. In Southeast Asia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore are leading the pack. Thailand has progressed much since 1990 at 80%. Meanwhile, Malaysia just fully reached the target in 2012 from the 99% average electrification rate in 2010. However, Samoa still need to address remaining lack of electricity in rural areas. Samoa is the only country in the Pacific which has achieved the target. Given the 100% electrification rate target, countries need to grow at a prescribed rate every year (on the average) from the 2010 baseline data. 15 countries are on track in meeting the target 100% electrification rate. Most of them have surpassed the baseline growth rate and even the target growth rate per year. Also, most are above global average growth rate. In this group, Solomon Islands grew the fastest at 10%. The next fast-growing countries also came from the Pacific, showing large improvements in the region. The Philippines made the highest jump relative to its target growth rate of 0.94% a year as it grew 3% annually on the average from 2010. Bangladesh, one of the fastest-growing countries during the 1990-2010 period, slowed down, albeit marginally, from its CAGR of 4.7% a year. It grew only 4.4% annually on the average from 2010. Meanwhile, other countries have already achieved 100% target, but only in urban areas. These countries are Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Pakistan and Viet Nam, signalling the need for increased efforts for rural electrification. Other countries that show promise, even only in urban electrification are Mongolia, Indonesia, India, Lao PDR, and the Philippines. However, we must take into account the size of the rural sector, as it greatly weighs in on the national performance.
- There are still some countries that are off track in meeting the target. This is especially true for Cambodia and Nepal, which did not move at all from their 2010 levels. Most countries, meanwhile, still grew but fell short of the target annual growth. While Papua New Guinea has improved greatly, especially relative to its baseline performance, more needs to be done to grow at 9.95% a year to reach the target. There is more push needed especially since PNG is one of the high-impact countries. Improvements in high-impact countries, countries that have large access deficits in terms of absolute numbers OR have started with very low electricity access rates (GTF definition), mean a lot. In India, which topped the list of the high-impact countries identified by the GTF because of the number of people with deficit access, the growth rate of 2.6% for electrification led to a reduction of people with access deficit by 8%; roughly around 48 million people were given access to electricity. In Papua New Guinea’s case, which had a very low electrification rate, started at an estimated 1 M people with access to electricity in 2010 (roughly 15% of total population). In 2012, it was able to increase its electrification rate to 18%. Given population estimates during the period, the number of people with access to electricity has risen to 1.296 M people, a difference of almost 300,000 people (4% of total population in 2012) with just a 3 percentage point increase. However, given the population growth of the country, despite the increase in electrification rate, there was still an increase in the number of people with access defiicit. Two implications are derived from this: 1) Small improvements already benefit a lot so if efforts are increased, then the benefits are magnified; and 2) high-impact countries usually have a large population. In order to ensure faster results, rate of electrification must be faster than population growth.
- Asia alone houses more than 600 million of people with no access to electricity, almost as much as Africa’s, with the majority residing in South Asia.
- Apart from electricity, we look at the use of non-solid fuel as modern energy source. Most countries in the region (around 25) are increasingly adopting non-solid fuels, meaning more than 50% of their population, respectively already having access. Five countries are fully using non-solid fuel: Japan, Rep. of Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Turkmenistan. For countries whose majority (more than 50%) rely on solid fuels, or less than 50% of population having access to non-solid fuel, uptake of non-solid fuels has slowed down as compared to the baseline period. Average annual growth from 2010 to 2012 is lower, if not the same, from the baseline period of 1990-2010. However, cooking solutions should not necessarily be centered on fuels alone. Due to the development of improved cookstoves, issues relating to efficiency, pollution, and safety are being addressed. This could be the case why some countries remain reliant on solid fuels, albeit accompanied by appropriate cookstoves program, such as India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Lao PDR. As with electricity, access to non-solid fuel is also a problem in rural areas where there are challenges on both supply and demand side. On the supply side, distribution and marketing are hampered by accessibility of these households, particularly if they are in remote areas with insufficient connecting infrastructures. On the demand side, not only is income (or purchasing power) a factor, so do cultural preferences, education, and availability of simple technologies (Masera et al, 2000). Such factors need to be considered to assure smooth transition to cleaner fuels.
- Notwithstanding, the urgency and need to modernize cooking and heating for households remain a concern, especially in Asia-Pacific. It should also be noted that: 1. IAP ranks 4th on the global burden of disease risk factors (following highblood pressure, smoking, and alcohol use). In India and the rest of South Asia, this is the highest risk factor . In terms of lost healthy life years, IAP was the 2nd most important risk factor (Lim et al, 2012). 2. Moreover, it directly causes 4 million deaths a year, and approx 3.5 million premature deaths per year, and indirectly causes about 500,000 deaths due to secondhand cookfire smoke outdoors.
- 1. There are marked improvements in access to modern forms of energy. However, some countries are not meeting the targets—they are off-track and may need to compensate in the next coming years, that is, they should grow even higher than the target annual growth rate. 2. Regionally, Asia-Pacific remains burdened, especially when looking at the absolute number of people that remain energy poor. Moreover, because of the region’s population (it houses 60% of the world’s population), its contribution to global energy poverty is significant. 3. Amidst the negative impacts of energy poverty, and given the lackluster performance of the region, there might be some implications on countries’ efforts to real development. Notwithstanding health costs (an estimated $212 billion to $1.1 trillion a year , according to a UNEP report in 2000) that national health systems are burdened with, opportunity costs (resources diverted to non-productive use, missed livelihood opportunities, etc) and regression in human capital development (foregone investments in education, loss of lives, diseases that lessen productivity, etc) are serious issues.
- Energy efficiency is measured as the ratio between the useful output of the end-use service and the associated energy input. It is the relationship between how much energy is needed to power a technology (for example, a light bulb, boiler, or motor) and the end-use service (for example, lighting, space heating, or motor power) that the technology provides. In other words, something is more energy efficient if it delivers more services for the same energy input, or the same services for less energy input. Energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and readily available means to address numerous energy-related issues, including energy security, the social and economic impacts of high energy prices, and concerns about climate change. At the same time, energy efficiency increases competitiveness and promotes consumer welfare.
- Energy intensity is at best an imperfect proxy for energy efficiency, as it is realised in specific sectors and end uses. Aggregation presents a problem as different sectors and different services have different processes and energy requirements. There is a move to make the indicators as disaggregated as possible, albeit there are some issues such as complexity of such indicators that might make comparison among countries difficult. Still these indicators have some use. However, it would be incorrect to rank energy performance according to a country’s total final consumption per gross domestic product (GDP) or per capita given the many factors (e.g. climate, wealth, economic structure) influencing these indicators. 1. Primary energy intensity seeks to measure overall energy system efficiency. It is computed by summing up all energy resources like coal, lignite, peat, crude oil, NGL, natural gas, combustible renewables and waste, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, solar and heat from heat pumps extracted from the ambient environment. These resources are converted into gasoline, natural gas, electricity, and many other energy carriers. As defined by the IEA, total primary energy supply is made up of production+net imports-international marine and aviation bunkers+-stock changes. In other words, it is production at the source, or supply to users without transformation, of crude energy, that is, energy that has not been subjected to any conversion or transformation process. 2. On the other hand, individuals cannot impact the efficiency of conversion of primary energy sources into useful energy for consumers, including sectors such as refining or electricity generation. So this is a useful indicator for end-use efficiency. Still, the best way to make this indicator more accurate is to disaggregate by sector. Since there are no updates by sector, we only use the macro indicator (GDP) for now. Just as general guidelines: while the changes in the computed ratio leaves a lot of room for possible reasons (both energy supply and demand, as well as GDP have lots of factors), the overall target is to double the rate of its reduction by 2030. GTF team prescribes targets to be sourced from national plans. In this presentation, we are not using any targets yet, but just comparing the performance from baseline period to updates. It is, however, useful to compare its own performance over a short period of time, especially since economic structure doesn’t really change drastically. Another caution: data is collected by various international agencies, thus also based on different methodologies.
- Generally, there was more deterioration than improvement coming from the baseline period of 1990-2010. Most countries in Central and West Asia, which improved during the period 1990-2010, increased their energy intensity level in 2012. Meanwhile, Pakistan and Turkmenistan were improving significantly, with the rate of reduction in their energy intensity levels doubling. The Pacific, which was mostly on the uptrend in terms of final energy intensity during the baseline period, seems to be improving as most countries reduced their energy intensity level from 2010. Almost the same can be observed for primary energy intensity. Coming from either positive or flat changes in primary energy intensity during the period 1990-2010, most of the countries managed to reduce their levels in 2012 from 2010. In Southeast Asia, Brunei Darussalam continues to increase its energy intensity at an accelerating pace, a product perhaps of an increasing industry share in GDP. Thailand increased its final energy intensity level, turning around from its previous decline. But some were able to exceed their baseline performance for both primary and final energy intensity reduction--these are Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Lao PDR. Even for Samoa and Vanuatu, which were still increasing their final energy intensity levels, the rate of change has decelerated as compared to the baseline period. But for primary energy, the story was completely opposite—both countries managed to increase their energy intensities from 2010 to 2012 when energy intensity growth rates during baseline period was either marginal (for Vanuatu) or even decreasing (for Samoa). While South Asia’s performance is mixed, overall it is improving. The biggest improvement, at least in end-use efficiency, was seen in Bhutan, as it was able to turn around from increasing its final energy intensity level in the baseline period to decreasing it in 2012. In terms of primary energy intensity, Bhutan still was able to continue its downtrend, albeit slower than the baseline performance. Another good performance was seen in Nepal, which was able to accelerate its reduction both in final and primary energy intensity. Bangladesh, too, was exceeding its previous performance in reducing both final and primary energy intensities. Meanwhile, Maldives may still be increasing its final energy intensity level, but it was able to decelerate growth. The better news for the country is its ability to keep primary energy intensity level constant from 2010 to 2012, which is still an improvement compared to an increase during the baseline period. East Asia, on the other hand, continues to perform well as all economies maintained their downward trend in both primary and energy intensities, except Hong Kong, China. Japan and Mongolia are leading the way as they exceeded previous performance.
- Generally, there was more deterioration than improvement coming from the baseline period of 1990-2010. Most countries in Central and West Asia, which improved during the period 1990-2010, increased their energy intensity level in 2012. Meanwhile, Pakistan and Turkmenistan were improving significantly, with the rate of reduction in their energy intensity levels doubling. The Pacific, which was mostly on the uptrend in terms of final energy intensity during the baseline period, seems to be improving as most countries reduced their energy intensity level from 2010. Almost the same can be observed for primary energy intensity. Coming from either positive or flat changes in primary energy intensity during the period 1990-2010, most of the countries managed to reduce their levels in 2012 from 2010. In Southeast Asia, Brunei Darussalam continues to increase its energy intensity at an accelerating pace, a product perhaps of an increasing industry share in GDP. Thailand increased its final energy intensity level, turning around from its previous decline. But some were able to exceed their baseline performance for both primary and final energy intensity reduction--these are Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Lao PDR. Even for Samoa and Vanuatu, which were still increasing their final energy intensity levels, the rate of change has decelerated as compared to the baseline period. But for primary energy, the story was completely opposite—both countries managed to increase their energy intensities from 2010 to 2012 when energy intensity growth rates during baseline period was either marginal (for Vanuatu) or even decreasing (for Samoa). While South Asia’s performance is mixed, overall it is improving. The biggest improvement, at least in end-use efficiency, was seen in Bhutan, as it was able to turn around from increasing its final energy intensity level in the baseline period to decreasing it in 2012. In terms of primary energy intensity, Bhutan still was able to continue its downtrend, albeit slower than the baseline performance. Another good performance was seen in Nepal, which was able to accelerate its reduction both in final and primary energy intensity. Bangladesh, too, was exceeding its previous performance in reducing both final and primary energy intensities. Meanwhile, Maldives may still be increasing its final energy intensity level, but it was able to decelerate growth. The better news for the country is its ability to keep primary energy intensity level constant from 2010 to 2012, which is still an improvement compared to an increase during the baseline period. East Asia, on the other hand, continues to perform well as all economies maintained their downward trend in both primary and energy intensities, except Hong Kong, China. Japan and Mongolia are leading the way as they exceeded previous performance.
- Mixed results: on the whole, Asia-Pacific is mostly improving energy intensity levels. However, it is not clear whether the improvements owed to efficiency gains or simply because of change in economic activity and/or energy demand. In the absence of incomplete data that will allow decomposition analysis, we can only guess on the following reasons that could have affected the change in ratio. Slowdown in GDP growth if not declines especially during the financial/ economic crisis in the late 2000s – GDP is denominator. Moreover, decreased economic activity could also dampen energy demand Structural shifts could have been brought by the increasing globalization of economic activities. Others are becoming more of a manufacturing hub (in turn demands more energy), while others cater to services such as transportation and logistics. Adoption of RE technologies - IRENA found a correlation between EE and RE: doubling of EE is associated with doubling of RE. Could be because of the technical gains in the adoption of RE technologies, particularly those that are more efficient in terms of conversion to final electric energy as compared to fossil fuels. Moreover, modern RE for cooking through ICS also increases efficiency. In terms of transport, electric vehicles are 2-3 times more efficient as vehicles with internal combustion engines. In short, EE and RE enhance the other.
- Renewable energy comes from resources that can be naturally regenerated over time on a human scale.
- Just to differentiate between modern and traditional solid biofuel: Biomass harvested in a sustainable way—the so-called modern biomass—excludes traditional uses of biomass as fuelwood and includes electricity generation and heat production, as well as transportation fuels, from agricultural and forest residues and solid waste. On the other hand, “traditional biomass” is harvested in an unsustainable way and it is used as a non-commercial source—usually with very low efficiencies for cooking in many countries. (Goldemberg and Coehlo, 2004). IEA - total final consumption: the sum of consumption by the different end-use sectors. TFC is broken down into energy demand in the following sectors: industry, transport, buildings (including residential and services) and other (including agriculture and non-energy use). It excludes international marine and aviation bunkers, except at world level where it is included in the transport sector.
- There appears to be a downtrend in the share of RE consumption in total final energy consumption in Asia-Pacific. On the average, it fell by 1.6% annually from 1990 to 2010, albeit the decline decelerated to -0.68% from 2010 to 2012. Other regions that experienced a decline in the share of RE in its consumption are Latin America and the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa. India's primary source of RE is traditional biomass, followed by modern biomass, and then hydro. While PRC has a very diverse mix of RE technologies, traditional biomass also figures prominently, followed by hydro then solar.
- In terms of RE technology, the most used is traditional biofuel, although decreasing over time, with modern biomass also increasing slightly. On a good note, from 1990, the mix is getting more diverse. Looking at countries with the highest share in RE (and with about more than half of the TFEC is RE), there appears to be an overall dependence on traditional biomass, except for Tajikistan, which mostly relies hydro. Hydro and solar also comes second.
- In general, countries need to grow 3.5% a year on the average to reach the goal. Countries that have reached or exceeded the needed average annual growth rate of 3.5% are Kiribati, Singapore, Republic of Korea, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Japan. However, these are also countries that have a very low share of RE in their TFEC. Sadly, the rest of the countries in the region are missing the 3.5% target growth rate. Especially for countries whose performance during the baseline period are on the positive and at least 3.5%, most of them underwent a reversal from 2010 to 2012. Interestingly, these are countries in the Central and West Asia (most notably Azerbaijan, 12.39% to -4.96; Armenia, 8.09% to -14.37%; Georgia, 5.85% to -15.2%; Kyrgyz Rep., 5.37% to 0%; Mongolia, 3.67% to -7%; and Uzbekistan, 3.5% to -3.92%). As for the countries that are on track: Kiribati, while having the fastest growth, is mainly using traditional biomass. Singapore, understandably with its limited natural resource, is mainly using renewable waste/biogas. South Korea’s mix is more diverse – it uses all other RE technologies except traditional biomass. Kazakhstan’s hydropower figures prominently in its RE mix along with traditional biomass. Malaysia also mainly uses traditional biomass, followed by hydro and then modern fuels (bio and liquid). Japan likewise has a varied mix except traditional biomass and liquid biofuels, and relies mostly on hydro and solid biofuels.
- - There is an overall decline of RE share in Asia-Pacific from 1990 to 2012. Traditional biomass is primarily used, which does not bode well given how it contributes to unsustainable practices and health-related issues that burden women and children. The region is overall off-track in meeting this target.