and the Asian Development Bank.
REGIONAL OVERVIEW
Asia–Pacific comprises 58 economies across five subregions, with a population of 4.3 billion, representing 60% of the world’s population (table 10.1). The region includes highly industrialized and least-developed countries, rapidly growing econ-omies, extreme ranges of population sizes and geographic environments, and an uneven distribution of energy resources. In 2014, it accounted for 45.9% of global gross domestic product (GDP) (2011 PPP $), 51.4% of global energy supply, and 54.3%
1of the planet’s carbon dioxide emissions. The decisions and actions taken by Asia–Pacific economies will profoundly shape the pace of progress to the global sustainable energy goals. Several countries are already exhibiting leadership in shift-ing toward increasshift-ingly sustainable energy supply and use, though the energy chal-lenges remain substantial and markedly diverse.
10
140 • SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FOR ALL GLOBAL TRACKING FRAMEWORK Progress toward Sustainable Energy 2017
ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY
Regional progress
Electrification in the Asia–Pacific region grew the fastest compared to other regions in the last quarter-century, with the access rate rising from 70.2% in 1990 to 90.3% in 2014. The growth gave access to 70.7 million people each year — or more than the population of Thai-land (figure 10.1). Economies in Asia–Pacific, increasingly motivated by the link between energy and development, have been imple-menting policies and measures to provide elec-tricity to unserved populations. In 2014, nearly all economies yet to achieve universal access had identified at least one energy access target,
a situation in contrast to 2000, when only a few economies had begun to integrate the energy–development link into their national energy policies2 (figure 10.2).
Still, about 421.4 million people lacked access to electricity in 2014 (more than the population of Bangladesh and Indonesia com-bined). India had by far the biggest absolute deficit in access: 269.8 million people without electricity in 2014. And in several economies inadequate electricity supply or failing infra-structure caused unplanned outages and reg-ular load shedding. Improving the reliability and quality of electricity is an emerging policy priority, not only for economies with low access rates, but also for more advanced economies.
In urban areas, the access rate increased from 93.0% in 1990 to 98.7% in 2014 (figure 10.3). The share of urban population with access dropped slightly in 2010–12, when electrification was overtaken by urbanization, but picked up again in 2012–14. In 2014, about 27 million people in urban areas remained without access. The speed of urbanization3 is an important driver of electrification. As cities expand, rural populations move to urban areas already covered by the electricity grid, or to peri-urban areas where it is easier to expand the grid. In 2012–14, China’s rural population fell by 13.9 million a year, while its urban pop-ulation increased by 20.7 million a year. Coun-tries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, TABLE 10.1 Asia–Pacific economies by subregion
East and North-East Asia North and Central Asia The Pacific South-East Asia South and South-West Asia 1. China 7. Mongolia
1. Armenia 2. Azerbaijan 3. Georgia 4. Kazakhstan 5. Kyrgyzstan 6. Russian Federation 7. Tajikistan e 8. Turkmenistan f 9. Uzbekistan e
1. American Samoa a,b,c,e 2. Australia e
3. Cook Islands c,d,e,f 4. Fiji
5. French Polynesia b,c 6. Guam a,b,c,d,e,f
14. Northern Mariana Islands a,b,c,d,e,f
15. Palau d,e,f
16. Papua New Guinea 17. Samoa
18. Solomon Islands f 19. Tonga
20. Tuvalu d,e,f 21. Vanuatu
1. Brunei Darussalam e 2. Cambodia 3. Indonesia 4. Lao PDR 5. Malaysia 6. Myanmar 7. Philippines 8. Singapore e 9. Thailand 10. Timor-Leste f 11. Viet Nam
1. Afghanistan 2. Bangladesh 3. Bhutan 4. India
5. Iran (Islamic Rep. of) 6. Maldives
7. Nepal 8. Pakistan 9. Sri Lanka 10. Turkey b,e
a. Data on access to electricity not available.
b. Data on access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking not available.
c. Data on energy intensity not available.1
d. Data on total renewable energy consumption either not available or reported being zero.2 e. Data on traditional renewable energy consumption either not available or reported being zero.3 f. Data on modern renewable energy consumption either not available or reported being zero.4
1. In addition, data for energy intensity by sector was not available in 2014 for several countries: energy intensity in agriculture was not available for 26 countries; energy intensity in industry was not available for 21 countries; energy intensity in services was not available for 17 countries. For more details, see annex 4.1.
2. Renewable energy consumption data are based on databases of the International Energy Agency (IEA) Energy Data Center and United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD). When data for total, modern, or traditional renewable energy consumption is not available this may be due to either negligible consumption, or energy balance data not being available at the necessary level of detail, or uses of renewable energy that are not captured by official country statistics as reported to the IEA Energy Data Center and UNSD.
3. Ibid.Also, traditional renewable energy consumption is assumed to be only the consumption of solid biomass in the residential sector of non–Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries (that is, no traditional renewable consumption is assumed to occur in OECD countries). This IEA convention has been adopted in the Global Tracking Framework, due to the heavy reliance on the IEA data (see box 5.1 for further details).
4. Ibid.
and Thailand also encountered shrinking rural, and growing urban, populations.
The rural rate of access to electricity in Asia–Pacific rose from 63.3% in 1990 to 83.3%
in 2014. About 388.7 million rural people were still without electricity in 2014 — more than the populations of Indonesia and Japan
put together. Electrification in dispersed rural areas remains a challenge, because extending national grids to small numbers of house-holds is often considered economically unvi-able. Governments are increasingly turning to small, decentralized energy systems relying on renewable energy resources to meet power
needs in remote areas. These efforts have had mixed success due to the high upfront costs of renewable energy systems, questionable affordability of service, and difficulties in oper-ating and maintaining decentralized energy equipment. However, costs of solar energy have been coming down, while new business models are emerging, including ownership and operation of decentralized energy systems based on public–private partnerships.
Subregional trends
In most of the subregions in Asia–Pacific, access rates increased, and several approached universal access. Still, the Pacific subregion’s rate of access was flat (figure 10.4). The high-est gains in electrification are usually seen in countries with the lowest access rates, but as access rates increase, expansion tends to slow, suggesting that providing access to harder-to-reach populations needs stronger efforts. Of 54 economies in the region that reported elec-tricity access rates, 31 had achieved universal access or above 99% access to electricity by 2014, while in the other 23 economies access ranged widely from 20.3% to 98.5% (figure 10.5).
FIGURE 10.1 The Asia–Pacific region grew the fastest in access to electricity in 1990–2014, but the pace slowed in 2012–14
Share of population with access to electricity (%) Annualized change in share (percentage points)
–5.0
FIGURE 10.3 Access to electricity in Asia–Pacific has increased over the last 25 years, with the gap between urban and rural access gradually narrowing Annualized change (percentage points)
Annualized change in share of rural population Annualized change in share of urbanpopulation
Share of rural population with access to electricity Share of urban population with access to electricity
0 25 50 75 100 FIGURE 10.2 The number of Asia–Pacific economies with energy access targets climbed
sharply in 2000–14
Nuber of countriesAv
0
142 • SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FOR ALL GLOBAL TRACKING FRAMEWORK Progress toward Sustainable Energy 2017
In the East and North-East Asia subre-gion the rate of access to electricity rose from 89.1% in 1990 to 98.9% in 2014. The increase was impelled by China, which reached univer-sal access in 2014 and has more than 85%
of the subregion’s population. Two coun-tries suffer from inadequate infrastructure:
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (with an access rate of 32.4%) and Mongolia (85.6%) (see figure 10.5). In Mongolia, the challenge of electrification, given large terri-tory and small, dispersed and often nomadic populations, requires increasing decentralized energy systems.
The North and Central Asia subregion has long had electrification rates of 99% or higher due to energy systems built during the Soviet era, though deteriorating infrastructure threat-ens power supply in some areas. (Further country-level analysis is in the Europe, North America, and Central Asia regional chapter of this publication.)
In the Pacific subregion, the rate of access to electricity was a stable 82.8% in 1990–2014, but there were large differences among coun-tries. In 2014, 9 countries had universal or above 99% access, and 5 countries had rates between 70% and 99%. But in 4 countries,
rates were less than 50%: Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu.
Papua New Guinea, with the second largest population in the subregion, had the lowest access rate, 20.3%, in 2014 (see figure 10.5), but the country aims to increase its access rate to 70% by 2030 (Government of Papua New Guinea 2010). Developing island nations, with small populations scattered, in some cases, across hundreds of islands, are challenged to provide high-quality energy services.
The South-East Asia subregion lifted its rate of access to electricity rapidly from 62.6% in 1990 to 91.4% in 2014. Cambodia and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic made the big-gest gains in the period. In Lao PDR, the gov-ernment set clear targets for electricity access to be achieved by 2010 and 2020, through an aggressive grid extension program, backed up by off-grid electrification. Surplus revenues from exporting electricity from hydropower contributed to financing the national power grid expansion and connection program (World Bank 2012). In Cambodia, the access rate accelerated dramatically after 2010, thanks to efforts to expand grid infrastructure and, in rural areas, to disseminate home systems for solar power. The country implemented sev-eral programs supporting rural electrification:
The Power to the Poor Program (P2P) offered interest-free loans to cover connection fees and wiring costs; the Solar Home System Program provided subsidized systems in rural areas;
and the Program for Providing Assistance to Develop Electricity Infrastructure in Rural areas FIGURE 10.4 Access grew steeply across much of Asia–Pacific in 1990–2014, but the
trend was flat in the Pacific subregion
Share of population with access to electricity (%)
0
East and North-East Asia North and Central Asia
Pacific
South and South-West Asia South-East Asia
FIGURE 10.5 In 2014, 31 economies in Asia–Pacific had universal access, while access rates ranged widely over the other 23
0 25 50 75 100
Annualized change in share, 2012–14 (percentage points) Share of population with access to electricity (%)
Average regional share of population with access to electricity, 2014
–5 MarSri Lankshall Islands
a
Iran (Islamic R ep. of) KyrPalaugyzstan Cook Islands NeMaldivw Caledonia
es KazJapanakhstan
Hong K
helped private suppliers secure investment funds (Electricité du Cambodge 2014).
The South and South-West Asia subregion had Asia–Pacific’s fastest growth in the elec-tricity access rate in 1990–2014, from 47.4% to 81.7%. But the subregion also had the largest absolute access deficit in the region, 343.8 mil-lion people in 2014. Two-thirds of those without electricity lived in rural India, where electricity grid expansion has been difficult. For the future, India and Bangladesh — the two countries with the largest deficits — have introduced targeted access measures. India has stepped up its projected universal electrification of all vil-lages through joint Ministry of Power and State efforts (Government of India 2017), aiming to electrify all households by 2019. Bangladesh is targeting 96% access by 2020 (Government of Bangladesh 2015). Nepal’s rates of access grew at one of the quickest paces in the subre-gion in 1990–2014, accelerated in recent years by installations of mini- and micro-hydro and solar systems under the Rural Energy for Rural Livelihood Program (RERL 2015), and efforts at grid expansion (NEA 2015). In 2014, Nepal launched the Urban Solar Rooftop Program to mitigate impacts of frequent scheduled load shedding (AEPC 2016).
ACCESS TO CLEAN FUELS AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR COOKING
Regional progress
The Asia–Pacific had the second-lowest rate among all regions in 2014 of access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking (here
“clean cooking”), and was closer to the worst performer — the Africa region — than to bet-ter-performing regions. Asia–Pacific rate of access to clean cooking grew from 39.8% in 2000 to 51.2% in 2014, representing a yearly increase of 51 million new users, equivalent to the population of the Republic of Korea (figure 10.6).
Nearly 2.1 billion people in the Asia–Pacific region — 28.8% of the global population — relied on traditional fuels and technologies for cook-ing in 2014. India and China accounted for over two-thirds of Asia–Pacific’s population without access to clean cooking. The unserved popu-lation was concentrated in rural areas, where traditional solid biomass, in the form of wood, dung, and charcoal, is easily accessible at little or no monetary cost. In urban areas, modern cooking options such liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves are more readily available, fuel
supply chains better established, and electricity to power induction stoves more affordable.
Few governments have emphasized clean cooking, in contrast to electrification, and until recently, nongovernmental organizations pro-vided much of the impetus. But in recent years a few countries, such as India and Indonesia, have started to promote LPG through large-scale fuel and appliance programs to extend the market reach of fuel distribution and supplies. And a number of countries, such as Bangladesh, Kiri-bati, and Tuvalu have begun to promote clean cookstoves. Even when clean cooking is adopted in households, fuel stacking (use of mixed fuels for various cooking purposes) remains common, and ascertaining that clean cooking is being used appropriately is difficult. To support adoption of
clean cooking, strong government policies are needed to expand distribution networks and to ensure their affordability.
Subregional trends
All subregions in Asia–Pacific showed rising trends in access to clean cooking, but the pace is lagging across the region (figure 10.7). Out of 49 economies that reported clean cooking access rates, only 12 had achieved universal or above 99% access by 2014. Twenty-three countries had access rates below 50% (figure 10.8).
In the East and North-East Asia subregion, the rate of access to clean cooking reached 95.6% in 2014. China, with over 85% of the subregion’s population, had a rate of 57.2%, following a stable increase of 0.8 percentage FIGURE 10.6 In Asia–Pacific, growth of access to clean cooking was slow, and nearly 2.1 billion people were without access in 2014
0.00 Share of population with access to clean cooking (%) Annualized change in share (percentage points)
FIGURE 10.7 Though the rate of access to clean cooking in Asia–Pacific improved in 2000–14, it needs to rise much more
Share of population with access to clean cooking (%)
0
East and North-East Asia North and Central Asia
Pacific
South and South-West Asia
144 • SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FOR ALL GLOBAL TRACKING FRAMEWORK Progress toward Sustainable Energy 2017
points in 2000–14 (see figure 10.8). Cost of clean cooking remained a barrier for low-in-come households in China: in rural areas, coal is cheap and other biomass is nearly free. Unre-liability of the supply of commercial clean fuels also impeded adoption, while spread of biogas faced unreliability of feedstock supply and shortfalls in labor for maintaining production.
Cookstove production ramped up after 2005, but standardization was weak. Local govern-ments promoted improved cookstoves through demonstrations and awareness campaigns but were not entirely successful. To support faster adoption of clean cooking, better pricing and subsidy models are required (Shen et al. 2014).
Two other countries had low rates of access to clean cooking and, as their governments put little emphasis on improvement, even lower annual increases than China — the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea gained 0.2 percent-age points a year, and Mongolia 0.3 percent0.2 percent-age points a year in 2000–14.
The North and Central Asia subregion, with abundant gas supplies, had the highest rate of access to clean cooking in Asia–Pacific, with most countries having 90% access or more.
(Further country-level analysis is in the Europe, North America, and Central Asia regional chapter in this publication.)
In the Pacific subregion, rates of access to clean cooking in small island states varied.
The tiny nation of Nauru’s access rate grew the fastest in the subregion, from 76.1% in 2000 to 96.2% in 2014, due to heavily subsidized elec-tricity, which boosted use of electric cookers
(IRENA 2013). Papua New Guinea’s increase was also strong, from 13.5% to 31.3% in 2000–14. In other nations access was very low in 2014, as in Kiribati (3.2%) and the Solomon Islands (8.9%), and rates of change were very low and even negative in 2012–14 (see figure 10.8). Small island states lack domestic gas supplies and, often, adequate power infrastruc-ture, so fuel and technology options are limited, particularly for rural populations.
The South and South-West Asia subregion had the Asia–Pacific region’s lowest rate of access to clean cooking in 2014, 35.4%. The Maldives shot up to 99.5% in 2014 from 40.7%
in 2000 (an increase of 4.2 percentage points a year) due to rapid urbanization, the lack of traditional biomass (only about 3% of the Maldives is forested), and a well-established network of LPG distribution centers, enabling widespread use of LPG for cooking (Maldive Gas 2017). Bhutan’s growth was second fast-est after the Maldives — 2.1 percentage points a year — supported by awareness campaigns and promotion of fuel-efficient cookstoves and biogas (Government of Bhutan 2013), so that the rate of access reached 68.0% in 2014, up from 38.0% in 2000. Progress in Nepal and Pakistan was strong as well. Nepal conducted programs for improved cookstove distribution and offered subsidies for solar cookers (AEPC 2013). Pakistan supported development of biogas (RSPN 2014).
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka had access rates below 20%, which fell in 2012–14 (see figure 10.8). Afghanistan and
Sri Lanka have no government policy on clean cooking. Bangladesh had comprehensive clean cookstove policies but poor uptake of clean fuels and technologies. Cookstove design did not always meet user needs or preferences, pricing was a major obstacle, and willingness to pay remained low (Arif et al. 2011). Strong cultural preferences and lack of buy-in from the male population, which makes household financial decisions, further inhibited adoption (Miller and Mobarak 2011). In response, the government adopted the Country Action Plan for Clean Cookstoves in 2013 to develop a national network of improved cookstove sup-pliers and get non-cooking product distribution and wholesale chains, such as grocery shops, to add improved cookstoves, fuels, and other clean cooking appliances to their businesses.
Access to clean cooking in India, with 72%
of the subregion’s population, improved mod-erately (0.7 percentage point change a year in 2000–14) and reached 34.2% in 2014. In 2016, to expand LPG use beyond urban areas, the government introduced the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana program for replacing traditional cooking fuels with LPG by adding 50 million LPG connections to households below the pov-erty line and lending funds to women to buy LPG cookstoves.4 It is the world’s largest cash transfer program, reaching 150 million people.
To subsidize household fuels but prevent fund-ing leakage to other sectors, India is transferrfund-ing benefits directly to household bank accounts.
The South-East Asia subregion had the fast-est growth in Asia–Pacific of access to clean FIGURE 10.8 In 2014, 12 countries in Asia–Pacific had universal access to clean cooking
Annualized change in share, 2012–14 (percentage points) Share of population with access to clean cooking (%)
0 25 50 75 100
Average regional share of population with access to clean cooking, 2014
–2
MarPakistanshall Islands Philippines KazNauruakhstan Azerbaijan Maldiv
es
Iran (Islamic R ep. of)
NeJapanw Zealand Brunei D
arussalam Austr
alia
cooking, with a rate that more than doubled from 25.7% to 52.7% in 2000–14. Growth was led by Indonesia (the most populous country in the subregion), whose rate of access increased from 2.4% to 56.6% in 2000–14. Indonesia’s government and state oil and gas company started a massive program in 2007 to switch from kerosene to LPG in cooking, distributing free of charge an initial LPG stove (including the cylinder, regulator, and hose) and then subsidizing purchase of small LPG containers.
Viet Nam’s results were also strong, reaching 50.9% access to clean cooking in 2014, driven by rapid GDP growth, urban population growth, and a national policy adopted in 2007 setting targets — 50% access by 2010, 80% by 2020.
Viet Nam also publicized heavily the risks of indoor cooking with coal (Accenture 2012).
Several countries had access rates below 10% in 2014, and their progress was slow.
Myanmar and Timor-Leste had no policy on clean cooking. In the Lao PDR, clean cooking programs supported by aid agencies have yet to bear fruit.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Regional progress
Asia–Pacific had the highest energy inten-sity among all regions in 2014 (high energy intensity serves as a measurable proxy for low energy efficiency). Energy intensity declined steeply, however, from 9.1 MJ/2011 PPP $
Asia–Pacific had the highest energy inten-sity among all regions in 2014 (high energy intensity serves as a measurable proxy for low energy efficiency). Energy intensity declined steeply, however, from 9.1 MJ/2011 PPP $