NOT FOR QUOTATION WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR
ENERGY
USE
IN THE POST-HARYEST FOOD (PEIF) SYSTEM OF DEXJ3LOPING COUNTRIESJ.K.
P a r i k h S. SyedJune 1986 CP-86-21
C o l l a b o r a t i v e P a p e r s r e p o r t work which h a s not been performed solely a t t h e International Institute f o r Applied Systems Analysis and which h a s r e c e i v e d only limited review. Views o r opinions e x p r e s s e d h e r e i n d o not necessarily r e p r e s e n t t h o s e of t h e Insti- t u t e , i t s National Member Organizations, o r o t h e r organizations supporting t h e work.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 2361 Laxenburg, Austria
PREFACE
The extension of t h e food production system beyond t h e f a r m g a t e h a s been a matter of c o n c e r n t o t h e Food and Agriculture P r o g r a m of IIASA.
This post-harvest-food (PHF) system includes food processing, food t r a n - s p o r t , s t o r a g e and cooking s o as t o r e a c h t h e consumer in t h e final s t a g e .
I t i s c l e a r t h a t self-sufficiency in food would r e q u i r e e f f o r t s and investments not only in t h e food production b u t a l s o in t h e PHF system.
What are t h e r e s o u r c e requirements, in p a r t i c u l a r e n e r g y requirements, of t h e PHF system, is a question t h a t is addressed in t h i s p a p e r by J.Parikh and S.Syed f o r 90 developing c o u n t r i e s of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
The r e s u l t s indicate t h a t t h e e n e r g y r e q u i r e d in t h e PHF system, depending on t h e national c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , is 2 t o 4 times l a r g e r than t h e e n e r g y r e q u i r e d t o produce t h e food on t h e farm. T h e r e are o t h e r evidences which show t h a t l a b o r , investment and value added follow similar p a t t e r n s . Recent e x p e r i e n c e s in tackling t h e famine in Africa a l s o show t h a t t h e PHF system could b e a bottleneck.
I t i s hoped t h a t cross-country variations shown h e r e a s well as t h e v a r i a b l e s affecting t h e s e variations, e.g. income levels, urbanization, c r o p - ping p a t t e r n s , d i e t a r y p a t t e r n s , f o r e s t and fossil fuel availability and t h e like, will b e of i n t e r e s t t o a l l concerned with t h e food problem.
F e r e n c R a b a r
Food and Agriculture P r o g r a m
ABSTRACT
This a r t i c l e r e p o r t s on t h e methodology and r e s u l t s of t h e study on estimation of e n e r g y consumption in post-harvest-food system in developing c o u n t r i e s . The components of t h e PHF system are: food p r o c e s s i n g , t r a n - s p o r t a t i o n , s t o r a g e a n d cooking. The s t u d y h a s r a t h e r ambitious c o v e r a g e f o r 7 0 p r o c e s s e d commodities in 90 c o u n t r i e s of Africa, Latin America, F a r E a s t and N e a r E a s t . This was possible b e c a u s e of c o m p u t e r t a p e s a v a i l a b l e at FA0 f o r a wide v a r i e t y of d a t a r e q u i r e d f o r s u c h a n analysis. Of c o u r s e , e x t e n s i v e c h e c k i n g w a s r e q u i r e d f o r e a c h c o u n t r y b u t much of t h e a p p r o x i - mations remain, leading only t o b r o a d implications. Despite t h e difficulties with p r e c i s e d a t a , i t s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e t o draw t h e following conclusions from t h e a v a i l a b l e information: The post-harvest-food system r e q u i r e s 2 t o 4 times more e n e r g y t h a n t h e e n e r g y on f a r m s . Commercial e n e r g y i s o f t e n used f o r food p r o c e s s i n g , s u c h as milling, c r u s h i n g , and f w d t r a n s p o r t , a n d t o some e x t e n t f o r cooking. The s h a r e of commercial e n e r g y in t o t a l e n e r g y used in t h e PHF system r a n g e s between 22% in Africa t o 80% in Near East.
The l e v e l s of e n e r g y consumption in t h e PHF system d e p e n d s o n income lev- e l s and e x t e n t of urbanization and w h e t h e r a c o u n t r y h a s locally a v a i l a b l e fossil f u e l s or f o r e s t s . In addition, d i f f e r e n t components of t h e
PHF
system are s e n s i t i v e t o d i f f e r e n t p a r a m e t e r s . F o r example, e n e r g y in food pro- c e s s i n g d e p e n d s o n c r o p p i n g a n d d i e t a r y p a t t e r n s , w h e t h e r food i s e x p o r t e d o r imported, w h e r e a s food t r a n s p o r t d e p e n d s on t h e s i z e of t h e c o u n t r i e s a n d location of u r b a n areas with r e s p e c t to f a r m s . These p a r a m e t e r s are discussed h e r e f o r t h e f o u r world r e g i o n s as w e l l as f o r t h e 9 0 developing c o u n t r i e s as a whole. Country-specific insights are given g r a p h i c a l l y d u e t o l a c k of s p a c e t o r e p o r t a l l d a t a individually.W e a r e g r a t e f u l t o D r . J. Hrabovszky, f o r m e r l y s e n i o r a d v i s o r t o t h e A g r i c u l t u r e Department, who initiated t h i s study at FA0 a n d i s a co-author of t h e FA0 document on t h i s s u b j e c t , a n d t o G. Konda of FA0 f o r computeriz- ing t h e method of estimation. We are g r a t e f u l t o FA0 f o r t h e i r permission t o publish t h i s work.
Lilo Roggenland h a s kindly typed t h i s m a n u s c r i p t d e s p i t e much o t h e r p r e s s i n g work.
-
vii-
1.
IntroductionA comprehensive food system is not r e s t r i c t e d t o f a r m level production alone but extends beyond t h e farm g a t e t o include food processing, food t r a n s p o r t , s t o r a g e and cooking, r e f e r r e d t o in t h i s p a p e r as post-harvest-food (PHF) system.
The energy consumption as w e l l as employment and value added by t h e PHF system i s s e v e r a l times g r e a t e r than t h e farm level activities. Analyses from s e v e r a l developed c o u n t r i e s (Stout et al., 1979) indicate t h a t t h e t o t a l food system uses around 17-20 p e r c e n t of t o t a l energy use in t h e economies. Of this, usually around one-fifth t o one-quarter i s s p e n t on production on t h e f a r m and t h e remainder goes into post-harvest operations. Given t h i s substantial s h a r e of t h e PHF system in t h e t o t a l energy use, coming t o around 13-15 p e r c e n t of t o t a l energy use in developed countries, t h e question w a s raised: A r e t h e p a t t e r n s in t h e developing countries different? The arguments f o r less importance of t h e PHF system as compared t o t h e farm system r e s t e d on t h e f a c t s t h a t a l a r g e s h a r e of t h e food in developing countries i s consumed locally by t h e v e r y same people who produce i t and t h a t i t undergoes much less processing, packaging and cooling as compared t o t h e situa- tion in t h e developed countries.
The post-harvest food system i s dispersed in various economic s e c t o r s of t h e economy and t h e r e f o r e s t a n d a r d national accounts and energy accounts d o not provide directly available statistics. I t i s necessary t o s e p a r a t e out from t h e energy accounts of a number of economic s e c t o r s t h e s h a r e t h a t goes into t h e PHF system. Moreover, t h e differences t h a t exist between t h e developing countries in t h i s r e s p e c t and t h e f a c t o r s which c a u s e t h e s e differences are also of g r e a t i n t e r e s t . Once such knowledge i s available, i t should b e possible
to
improveenergy u s e planning, develop technologies f o r subsectors, and achieve more optimal energy u s e in a manner a p p r o p r i a t e t o national needs.
Consequently, t h e objectives of t h i s study are t o bring t o g e t h e r information
from various s o u r c e s within a n internally consistent accounting framework, t o identify t h e socio-economic v a r i a b l e s t h a t determine t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e PHF sys- tem, and t o fill t h e gaps of knowledge a b o u t t h e energy used in t h e PHF system.
The choice of t h e c o u n t r i e s f o r detailed t r e a t m e n t w a s based on t h e need t o obtain information from l a r g e , developing c o u n t r i e s (India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mex- ico, Pakistan, etc.) and, simultaneously, from a much l a r g e r g r o u p of small but typ- ically r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c o u n t r i e s (Cameroon, Kenya, Nicaragua, etc.) s o as t o cap- t u r e t h e i r common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
In t h e second p h a s e a simple accounting model was developed t h a t could b e applied t o all t h e 9 0 developing c o u n t r i e s in g e n e r a l , including t h e additional 66 c o u n t r i e s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e planned 90-country c o v e r a g e and to standardize t h e s o u r c e s and n a t u r e of t h e d a t a r e q u i r e d .
The t h i r d p h a s e w a s t o apply t h e model and analyze t h e r e s u l t s f o r 9 0 develop- ing c o u n t r i e s F o r t h e s a k e of consistency among countries, t h e study had t o b e done with international s t a t i s t i c s , b u t care w a s t a k e n t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e rigidity introduced in handling such a l a r g e g r o u p should not compromise t h e e a r l i e r esti- mates made from country statistics. The p r e s e n t a r t i c l e r e p o r t s a summary of t h i s l a s t p h a s e f o r which a full description i s available in Hrabovszky et al. (1984).
The 9 0 c o u n t r i e s c o v e r e d h e r e are t h e same as t h o s e chosen f o r t h e FA0 study entitled "Agriculture: Toward 2000", f o r which e n e r g y used in food production sys- tems had been estimated e a r l i e r .
While admitting t h a t t h i s e f f o r t will yield only a r e l a t i v e l y rough f i r s t approx- imation, i t should help t o draw attention t o t h e sensitive f a c t o r s f o r a v e r y impor- t a n t chain of t h e food system. Furthermore, such a n approximation will identify additional information which needs t o b e collected and analyzed f o r improved e n e r g y planning and management f o r t h e food system, and by implication f o r r u r a l e n e r g y systems and o v e r a l l e n e r g y systems. This will c a l l f o r more r e s e a r c h ,
- 3 -
special surveys and better categorization of general statistics.
2. Conceptual Framework and Overall Methodology
2.1. Description of the System
A l a r g e number of o p e r a t i o n s t a k e place a f t e r food commodities leave t h e farmgate and b e f o r e they r e a c h tho consumer's plate. They r a n g e from drying, milling, sorting, t r a n s p o r t i n g , packaging, storing, sometimes again t r a n s p o r t i n g and processing, marketing and finally cooking. They o c c u r in d i f f e r e n t o r d e r for d i f f e r e n t commodities and t h e o p e r a t i o n s also d i f f e r according t o d i e t a r y p a t t e r n s , income levels, locations and s o on. To simplify t h i s p i c t u r e , most of t h e activities are included in f o u r main components defined in t h e p r e s e n t study:
-
food processing-
food t r a n s p o r t-
food s t o r a g e-
household cookingThe methodology, t o some e x t e n t , i s a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d in P a r i k h (1985) which r e p o r t s on t h e r e s u l t s at detailed national level f o r f o u r c o u n t r i e s of South Asia.
However, s i n c e t h e p r e s e n t study deals with 90 countries, t h e p r o c e d u r e had t o b e d i f f e r e n t and needs t o b e illustrated briefly again.
For some commodities, packaging and marketing are important components which are included in t h e food processing f o r convenience. Two of t h e s e varia- tions are schematically illustrated in Figure 1 , which shows t h a t a portion of t h e commodities are d i r e c t l y k e p t by t h e r u r a l consumers who may t r a n s p o r t them through informal t r a n s p o r t such a bullock c a r t s , headloads, o r even s m a l l t r u c k s , involving no e n e r g y worth mentioning. The remaining food
-
t h e marketable s u r p l u s-
will b e c a r r i e d formally by railways o r t r u c k s o r by water t r a n s p o r t , often o v e r long distances. I t may b e s t o r e d a t convenient points and again t r a n - s p o r t e d by smaller vehicles to t h e r e t a i l e r s f o r urban and town consumers. Theo r d e r in which t h e s e o p e r a t i o n s t a k e place, a s shown in Figure 1 f o r two different variations, h a s little impact on energy accounting.
In t h i s p a p e r , t h e treatment of each component, r e g a r d l e s s of i t s importance in o t h e r r e s p e c t s , i s detailed only to t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t consumes e n e r g y .
A s f a r as e x p o r t s and imports of food commodities are concerned, two dif- f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s are possible:
(a) consider t h e total e n e r g y s p e n t f o r food consumed by t h e people: in t h i s case food consumed within t h e country, including imported food, t h a t is, t r a n s p o r t of imported food and i t s processing done elsewhere, but excluding e x p o r t e d food and i t s processing and t r a n s p o r t ;
(b) consider t o t a l e n e r g y s p e n t within t h e b o r d e r s of t h e country: in t h i s case food processed within t h e country i s t o b e taken into account. This means t h e exclusion of t h e e n e r g y used a b r o a d t o p r o c e s s imported food but includes t r a n s p o r t within t h e importer country and t h e e n e r g y s p e n t on e x p o r t e d food.
W e have chosen t h e second a p p r o a c h , r a t h e r t h a n t h e f i r s t , because i t i s more r e l e v a n t t o decisions at a national level on energy allocations.
In o r d e r t o a r r i v e at broad o r d e r s of magnitude, a number of generalizations and estimates had t o b e made while dealing with 90 countries and 70 commodities.
Some of t h e estimates had t o b e derived from limited and weak d a t a , along with indirect estimations o r inference. Even t h e d a t a r e p o r t e d in l i t e r a t u r e varied widely. T h e r e f o r e , when d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s were consulted, judgements had t o b e made in selecting them and consistency c h e c k s had t o b e applied.
2.2. Procedures Adopted for Energy Accounting
The following a r e t h e assumptions and p r o c e d u r e s adopted:
PROCESSING PRECEDES TRANSPORT TRANSPORT PRECEDES PROCESSING
VARIATION A VARIATION 8
Farmgate
v Rural Consumers
Rural I Transport Processing Cooking I
Consumers
I
I
Transport
Storage and Partial Processing
1J
L rProcessing
e.g.
milled rice, coru, some cooking
oil, sugar, milk products, co
e.g.wheat
Variation A: Processing of imported food is excluded and of exported food
included,
e.g.milling paddy.
Variation B: Processing of imported food included, and of exported food excluded, e.4. milling wheat
Figure 1. Sc:homntlc cllngram o f flows of
two
different types of food comnodltles(a) t h e quantities of energy considered were estimated as "final t?nc:c.gy use level"
n e t of losses in conversion and t r a n s p o r t :
(b) t h e energy considered was only d i r e c t energy (e.g. diesel oil used by machinery but not t h e energy embodied in t h e machinery). Energy consumed in t h e manufacture of bottles and cans, however, w a s included as this is a necessary ingredient of packaging and marketing and depends on technology choices;
(c) energy s o u r c e s used were divided into commercial and non-commercial energy sources. Commercial s o u r c e s included liquid fuels, gas, coal and electricity;
non-commercial s o u r c e s included wood and charcoal, bagasse, animal and o t h e r agricultural wastes;
(d) animate energy provided by humans and animals w a s not considered, p a r t l y because of s e v e r a l conceptual difficulties in adding animate biological energy t o inanimate energy, also because of i t s r e s t r i c t e d relevance f o r policy pur- poses;
(e) Once t h e different energy s o u r c e s used were accounted in t h e i r own physical units, i.e. kilo-watt-hours (kwh), tons of wood, l i t r e s of kerosene, e t c . , they were converted into a common unit in useful energy t e r m s taking into account t h e conventional efficiencies of each energy s o u r c e . For this purpose t h e unit of account chosen w a s t h e ton of oil replacement o r oil substitution units (TOR), r a t h e r than Joules, s o as t o r e l a t e t h e levels of energy consumption t o actual supply necessary. This is explained in detail below.
2.2.1.
Oil replacement units or oil substitution unitsEstimating t h e use of energy in terms of primary energy content
-
withoutconsidering i t s utilization efficiency
-
is likely t o give a wrong impression, espe- cially when a substantial portion comes from non-commercial (n.c.e.) s o u r c e s (J.P a r i k h , 1986). I t i s t h e r e f o r e b e t t e r t o compare and estimate in terms of useful energy. To account f o r especially low efficiencies of non-commercial e n e r g y s o u r c e s in useful e n e r g y t e r m s and y e t maintain physical units, t h e r e l a t i v e effi- ciencies were compared t o k e r o s e n e use. These conversion units, known as oil sub- stitution units are c o n s t r u c t e d to answer t h e question: how much k e r o s e n e would h a v e been used, if t h i s cooking had been done on k e r o s e n e s t o v e s ? Since t h e effi- ciencies of s t o v e s using n.c.6. and k e r o s e n e s t o v e s e n t e r into t h e p i c t u r e , t h e t a b l e h a s limited validity r e s t r i c t e d t o p r a c t i c e s in f u e l use in t h e developing coun- t r i e s . F o r example, if wood i s used f o r cooking, t h e oil r e q u i r e d is obtained by t h e following formula:
amount of wood used x h e a t value p e r unit of wood x wood-efficiency efficiency of oil use X h e a t value of oil
Table 1 below i s c o n s t r u c t e d f o r a v a r i e t y of non-commercial u s e s assuming a v e r a g e efficiencies as t h e y are used in t h e households of t h e developing coun- t r i e s . Thus, t h e c o n c e p t of useful e n e r g y u s e s a b s o l u t e efficiency, and t h e oil replacement c o n c e p t u s e s r e l a t i v e efficiencies (with r e s p e c t to oil). 1
Having discussed principles and p r o c e d u r e s concerning e n e r g y accounting, w e resume discussion on t h e f o u r components of t h e post h a r v e s t food system.
2.3. Food Processing
Food processing i s a n e c e s s a r y s t e p p r i o r to food consumption f o r s e v e r a l reasons:
-
-
to make food edible: Under t h i s c a t e g o r y come primary processing a c t i v i t i e s s u c h as f l o u r making, paddy husking, oil s e e d pressing, etc. In t h i s case, a l l t h e primary food commodities h a v e to b e p r o c e s s e d ;'1t should be stressed that this notion i s different from coal replacement units used in In- dia, where all sectors, 1.e. transport, industries, household, are assumed to have the same relative efficiencies and these efficiencies were those that prevailed two t o three de- cades ago.
Table 1 . Oil equivalent and replacement units f o r fuels f o r household cook- ing
1 lo9 1
Assumed efficiency1
Metric ton Tons of oil1
Joules1
in cooking1
oil equivalent* replacement Coal and CharcoalFuelwood solid 20-30% MC Bagasse
Dung Cakes Sawdust Agri-waste Kerosene LPG
Natural Gas
The above table was based on the following:
1 ton oil equivalent
-
10,180 ~ 1kcal* 0 ~1 calorie
-
4.1868 Joules Fuelwood: 1 M3-
725 kgCharcoal: 1 M3
-
167 kg1 ton coal equivalent
-
7000 x103 kcal*Source: Yearbook of World Energy S t a t i s t i c s (1979) and Hrabovszky e t el. (1984)
-
to preserve food: s o as t o s t o r e perishable food f o r longer periods, e i t h e r f o r t r a n s p o r t i n g i t elsewhere o r f o r consuming i t a t a l a t e r s t a g e-
t h e r e b y extending i t s use o v e r s p a c e and time.-
to make a l t e r n a t i v e d e r i v a t i v e s : p a r t l y f o r consumer p r e f e r e n c e s , p a r t l y f o r using all by-products, and p a r t l y f o r preservation purposes. More than one derivative may b e e x t r a c t e d from primary commodities, such as cheese, b u t t e r , e v a p o r a t e d milk and t h e like. Secondary processing activities, such as baking b r e a d , making noodles, and t h e like a l s o come under this category.The importance of t h e s e activities depends on income levels, consumers' p r e f e r e n c e , t h e volume of t h e commodity and t h e distance i t i s t o b e t r a n - s p o r t e d .
A p a r t i c u l a r plant may use various s o u r c e s , such as e l e c t r i c i t y , gas, o r oth- e r s simultaneously t o p r o c e s s a p a r t i c u l a r commodity. These a r e a l l e x p r e s s e d in terms of oil equivalent units. Thus, t h e method f o r deriving t h e estimates consisted
of t h e following steps: (a) S t a r t i n g from FA0 Supply Utilization Accounts (1980), which give amounts of processed commodities for e a c h country f o r 70 commodities, t h e s h a r e of t h e food commodity volume processed outside households is estimated;
(b) t h e volume of e a c h of t h e commodities p r o c e s s e d is t h e n multiplied by i t s r e s p e c t i v e a v e r a g e e n e r g y requirement coefficients; ( c ) f o r e a c h commodity t h e estimated e n e r g y use volume is n e x t converted into oil replacement units as d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r ; (d) t h e e n e r g y used by t h e 70 commodities i s t h e n a g g r e g a t e d into eight major groups. F o r example, f o r milk n e a r l y e i g h t d e r i v a t i v e s are included. A number of technical r e p o r t s are studied a n d e x p e r t s consulted, b e f o r e selecting e n e r g y consumption norms f o r e a c h commodity.
70
EPROC
=
(PC)lx(EFP), i =1where EPROC i s e n e r g y f o r food processing in TOR, (PC)* i s volume of t h e pro- c e s s e d commodity in tons, (EFP)I is t h e e n e r g y consumption r e q u i r e d t o p r o c e s s one unit of commodity.
Most food processing activities utilize commercial e n e r g y , i.e. coal, oil, g a s o r e l e c t r i c i t y , e x c e p t s u g a r c a n e processing o r paddy drying, where b a g a s s e 2 or r i c e husks may b e burned to provide all o r most of t h e r e q u i r e d energy. These bio- fuels are accounted s e p a r a t e l y and added only at t h e end using oil substitution units. Commodities p r o c e s s e d p r i o r to e x p o r t have b e e n included (fruit juice) as w e l l as imported commodities p r o c e s s e d after importing (wheat). The e n e r g y con- sumption norms are given in Table 2.
2.4. Food Transport
A s indicated in Figure 1, t h e t r a n s p o r t of t h e same food t a k e s place s e v e r a l times and quite often by d i f f e r e n t modes. These r a n g e from bullock c a r t s and bicy- cles to railways and t r u c k s . However, w e consider only t r a n s p o r t of long 'waste from sugar cane processing
Table 2. Energy consumption norms f o r food processing L i t r e s oil/
ton of pro- cessed p r o d u c t C e r e a l s : Rice milled
Wheat f l o u r Rye f l o u r Maize f l o u r Sorghum f l o u r Millet f l o u r
Other cereal flour Cassava f l o u r Pulses f l o u r V e g e t a b l e Soya oil
oils: Groundnut oil Sunflower oil Rapeseed oil Safflower oil Sesame oil Mustard oil Cotton oil Maize oil Ricebran oil Coconut oil Palm oil Olive oil F r u i t s and Tomato juice V e g e t a b l e s : Tomato p a s t e
Tomato peeled Vegetable p r o c . Vegetable f r o z e n Orange juice Orange juice conc.
G r a p e f r u i t juice Citrus juice Pineapple canned Pineapple juice Other f r u i t juice Fruit p r o c e s s e d Wine
L i v e s t o c k and Meat s l a u g h t e r e d milk p r o d u c t s : Meat p r o c e s s e d
Meat canned Pig s l a u g h t e r e d Bacon
Sausage
P o r k processed Lard
P o u l t r y
Poultry canned Milk past.
Milk ster.
Butter
Fish:
Sugar:
Other:
Cheese Skim milk
E v a p o r a t e d milk Canned milk Powdered milk Fish f r o z e n Frozen fillet F r e s h Fillet Fish canned Smoked fish S u g a r c e n t r . S u g a r non-centr.
B a k e r y b r e a d Bakery c a k e s Tea
Coffee cas.
Paddy d r y Paddy p a r b o i l e d Dry p a r b . paddy Alcoholic bev.:
o r 3 t o n s of wood o r 2.5 t o n of b a g a s s e 2.5 t o n of b a g a s s e o r 0.25 t o n s of wood o r 0.70 t o n s of wood o r 5 t o n s o f w o o d
o r 0.05 t o n s of r i c e h u s k s o r 0.15 t o n s of r i c e husks o r 0.14 t o n s of r i c e husks
- -
Som-cc: Hrabovszky e t al. (1984)
distances.
A method of estimation is developed based o n v a r i o u s assumptions including t h e following:
1. Estimation of volume t r a n s p o r t e d 2. Estimation of a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e s 3. Estimation of modes of t r a n s p o r t
4. Multiplication by e n e r g y coefficients t o o b t a i n e n e r g y used in food t r a n s p o r t . Figures f o r t o t a l and p e r c a p u t consumption of t h e s e commodities were t a k e n from FA0 Supply Utilization Account (1982). Data on non-agricultural populations are from t h e FA0 Production Yearbook (1983). Data on e x p o r t s are from FA0 T r a d e S t a t i s t i c s (1983).
The c a l c u l a t e d volume of food t r a n s p o r t e d i s t h e n multiplied by t h e a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e s t r a v e l e d t o c o n v e r t them into ton-km t r a n s p o r t e d by e a c h sub-mode.
Some c o u n t r i e s d o include in t h e i r published national s t a t i s t i c s d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t information on t h e a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e and a l s o on e a c h t y p e of goods t r a n s p o r t e d by
different modes. Although food commodities may not t r a v e l t h e same distance as o t h e r commodities, such a n approximation is essential due t o lack of data. How- e v e r , in t h e absence of such information, t h e e x t e n t of a v e r a g e distance was assumed based on t h e following information:
-
t h e distance between t h e main food producing regions and consuming regions;-
t h e distance from t h e p o r t of e n t r y of imported food t o t h e main consuming c e n t r e s of imported food;-
t h e distance of p o r t of e x i t f o r e x p o r t from t h e main c e n t r e s growing those e x p o r t e d commodities;-
t h e t o t a l length of t h e r o a d and railway network;-
t h e a r e a of t h e countryThe t h i r d s t e p identifies modes of t r a n s p o r t and t h e i r s h a r e s in t h e t o t a l national network. Road, railway and water are assumed t o be t h e major modes of food t r a n s p o r t (Parikh, 1981). Road and railway a r e f u r t h e r classified into:
ROAD Good r o a d
Bad r o a d RAILWAY E l e c t r i c
Diesel Steam
The s h a r e s of t h e r o a d network c a n b e termed as good r o a d and t h e s h a r e s of t o t a l railway network i s electrified, o r diesel powered are i n f e r r e d from using national and international d a t a s o u r c e s such as by t h e World Road Federation (1982) and International Railway Statistics (1982) and o r by making suitable assumptions from t h e d a t a of similar countries. The p e r c e n t a g e of bad r o a d and steam-powered railway i s considered residual. The t o t a l e n e r g y consumption by all t h e sub-modes could b e
TTV
x AD X SRD x [SGR x ERDG+
( I - S G R ) X ERDB]ETRAN
=
ton-kmI
r o a d t r a n s p o r t (2)+
SRW x [SRWC x ERWC+
SRWD X ERWD+
SRWE x ERWE]+
SWR X EWR railway t r a n s p o r t water t r a n s p o r tI
where TTV is total t r a n s p o r t e d volume in 1000 tons; AD is a v e r a g e distance in km;
SRD i s s h a r e of road; SGR i s s h a r e of good r o a d s in total r o a d t r a n s p o r t ; SRD, SRW and SWR a r e s h a r e s of r o a d , railways, and water t r a n s p o r t in t o t a l t r a n s p o r t ; SRWC, SRWD and SRWE are s h a r e s of coal diesel and e l e c t r i c i t y respectively in railway t r a n s p o r t , where e n e r g y consumed by each mode p e r ton-km is denoted ERWC, ERWD and ERWE respectively; ERDG, ERDB and EWR i s e n e r g y consumed on good and bad r o a d s and f o r water t r a n s p o r t p e r ton-km respectively.
2.5. Food Storage
Preliminary investigations in individual countries suggested t h a t v e r y little e n e r g y w a s r e q u i r e d f o r food s t o r a g e . For example, 800 TOE in Bangladesh, 35 TOE in Tanzania, 35,000 TOE in Brazil. Food i s s t o r e d in houses, warehouses, silos, and t h e like, requiring few lights and occasionally s t a t i o n a r y equipment f o r turning o v e r , loading and dispatching food. Cold s t o r a g e of course, r e q u i r e s e n e r g y but t h a t is of little significance in most developing countries. However, t h e e n e r g y f o r heating and chilling, f o r storing and preserving food had a l r e a d y been taken into account e a r l i e r in t h e food processing activities such as freezing, canning, e t c . The energy f o r r e f r i g e r a t i o n consumed in households, shops and cold s t o r a g e i s assumed to b e negligible in o u r analysis. Thus, food s t o r a g e , although a n important s t e p in t h e PHF system, i s neglected f o r energy-use calculations.
2.6. Household Cooking
This i s t h e l a r g e s t and, unfortunately, t h e l e a s t documented component in t h e l i t e r a t u r e . Household cooking in r u r a l a r e a s and in poor households of urban areas of developing countries i s often done by non-commercial e n e r g y s o u r c e s , i.e.
g a t h e r e d fuels such as wood, twigs, a g r i c u l t u r a l waste and animal dung, especially by low income g r o u p s ( s e e P a r i k h and Kromer, 1985). Data f o r t h e i r amounts, h e a t contents and efficiencies are obtained using a f e w s u r v e y s , available measurements and indirect methods and had t o b e cross-checked with o t h e r information a s much as possible.
2.6.1. E s t i m a t i o n o f n o n - c o m m e r c i a l energy
Insights obtained from r u r a l e n e r g y s u r v e y s of individual c o u n t r i e s ( s e e Hall, 1982; d e Montalembert and Clement, 1983; Wardle and Pontecorvi, 1981) helped us t o evaluate how much of s u c h fuels were being consumed f o r household cooking and how much f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s (manure, construction and fodder). However, f o r handling 90 c o u n t r i e s simultaneously, a method of estimating e n e r g y used in house- hold cooking had to b e developed which could b e applied t o a l l t h e countries. Total availability of fuelwood (and c h a r c o a l ) are t a k e n from t h e FA0 F o r e s t r y Yearbook.
Crop r e s i d u e s : t h e t o t a l availability of a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s i d u e s is estimated by mul- tiplying t h e t o t a l production of t h e c r o p commodities whose r e s i d u e s are used as fuel by t h e p e r unit r e s i d u e availability coefficient. The assumed coefficients f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t commodities are given in Table 3. Of c o u r s e , t h e r e are wide varia- tions between d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s of paddy or oil seeds, etc., b u t t o simplify t h e analysis only a n a v e r a g e value w a s taken for a l l c o u n t r i e s f o r a given c r o p .
Animal dung is estimated by considering dung coefficients p e r animal (World Bank, 1979) which are 1 , 0.75, 0.3, 0.15 and 0.005 f o r c a t t l e , h o r s e s , pigs, s h e e p and goats, and poultry, respectively. In a l l t h e t h r e e fuels, t h e potential availabil- ity i s k e p t as a n u p p e r limit. The lower limit could b e z e r o , if no t r a d i t i o n e x i s t s o r if o t h e r fuels adequately m e e t t h e cooking needs. Thus, t h e s u r v e y s and o t h e r information was used t o estimate t h e a c t u a l u s e within t h e s e u p p e r limits.
Table 3. Crop r e s i d u e coefficients f o r c r o p commodities
Coefficient p e r ton
Commodity of main p r o d u c t
Paddy 1.22
Wheat 1.00
Maize 2.00
Sorghum 2.00
Barley 1.00
S u g a r c a n e 0.30
Rye 1.00
Millet 2.00
Oats 1.00
Tobacco 0.80
Groundnuts 0.30
Sunflower 2.00
Cotton 3.00
Cotton s e e d s 0.25
Soya bean 1.00
J u t e 1.50
Cassava 0.40
Coconut oil 3.40
Coffee, b e r r i e s 1.00
C o c o a b e a n s 1.50
2.6.2. E s t i m a t i o n of c o m m e r c i a l energy
Even commercial e n e r g y f o r cooking in u r b a n areas and affluent r u r a l house- holds, such as k e r o s e n e , liquid petroleum gas (LPG), n a t u r a l g a s and, occasionally, e l e c t r i c i t y could not b e estimated directly.
Data f o r commercial e n e r g y s o u r c e s are obtained from t h e Yearbook of World Energy S t a t i s t i c s (1980) as well as national s t a t i s t i c a l publications. I t i s assumed t h a t t h o s e used f o r cooking are k e r o s e n e , LPG, n a t u r a l g a s and coal. The use of e l e c t r i c i t y f o r cooking a r e assumed to b e negligible.
In o r d e r to estimate t h e s h a r e s of t h e s e s o u r c e s f o r household cooking infor- mation w a s collected from national d a t a s o u r c e s of s e v e r a l c o u n t r i e s , w h e r e v e r available. Typically, n a t u r a l g a s used in households amounted to less than 5 p e r - c e n t of total consumption; most of i t went f o r power, industries and f e r t i l i z e r s . In t h e case of LPG, t h e s h a r e of households w a s around 40
-
8 0 p e r c e n t . All house-hold consumption of LPG and n a t u r a l g a s was assumed t o b e exclusively f o r cook- ing, b u t in t h e case of coal, p a r t of i t was a t t r i b u t e d t o heating. Accordingly, among t h e c o u n t r i e s using coal f o r household purposes, w e s e p a r a t e d t h e c o u n t r i e s t h a t r e q u i r e household heating. Depending on t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e i r climate and t h e p e r c e n t a g e of t h e population a f f e c t e d , a c e r t a i n quota (ranging from 8
-
40 p e r - c e n t ) was deducted f o r heating and t h e r e s i d u e a t t r i b u t e d t o food p r e p a r a t i o n .Kerosene: Depending upon t h e e x t e n t of electrification, k e r o s e n e is used f o r lighting and t o some d e g r e e f o r cooking. The s h a r e f o r cooking was estimated by subtracting t h e volume r e q u i r e d f o r lighting from t o t a l household consumption. A number of r u r a l e n e r g y s u r v e y s confirm t h a t t h e quantity of k e r o s e n e r e q u i r e d p e r p e r s o n annually f o r lighting i s about 4kg. Consequently t o obtain a country's t o t a l requirement of k e r o s e n e f o r lighting i t suffices to multiply t h e population without e l e c t r i c i t y by 4kg. In some c o u n t r i e s t h e household use of k e r o s e n e w a s r e p o r t e d t o b e l e s s t h a n 4kg p e r person. In such c a s e s , k e r o s e n e was e n t i r e l y allocated t o lighting.
The e n e r g y r e q u i r e d f o r cooking i s given by
ECOOK
=
(HF), x Sk x ECRk kwhere S is t h e s h a r e of t h e t o t a l available fuel used f o r cooking; HFk i s available household fuels of t y p e k (commercial and non-commercial); and ECRk i s e n e r g y content according t o oil substitution units given in Table 1.
Although t h e r e s u l t s of many village s u r v e y s c a r r i e d o u t by FA0 and t h o s e quoted by Hall et al. (1982) were consulted f o r checking purposes, t h e y were not d i r e c t l y c a r r i e d o v e r into t h e analysis. Many consistency c h e c k s were applied and t h e f i g u r e s were t e s t e d along with national energy balances, when available.
In some c a s e s , t h e s e l e c t e d commodity b a s k e t s were multiplied by t h e fuel r e q u i r e d p e r unit t o cook them, t o c h e c k e n e r g y use from t h e demand side r a t h e r
than supply. Finally, t h e s h a r e of household e n e r g y w a s c h e c k e d a g a i n s t t h e c o u n t r y ' s o v e r a l l consumption to see if i t was compatible with t h a t country's e n e r g y balances, income, population a n d similar indicators.
In s p i t e of t h e s e c h e c k s , some anomalies remain. F o r example, t h e consump- tion of bio-fuels i n many of t h e African c o u n t r i e s seems v e r y high a n d may include o t h e r uses, f o r example, r u r a l industries. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e f i g u r e s f o r k e r o s e n e f o r cooking in some of t h e oil-producing c o u n t r i e s , a n d S r i Lanka a n d Ghana a p p e a r t o b e v e r y high a n d it i s s u s p e c t e d t h a t k e r o s e n e assigned to house- hold cooking may b e d e v i a t e d toward t r u c k s , k e r o s e n e - o p e r a t e d r e f r i g e r a t o r s a n d o t h e r devices.
I t i s evident t h a t t h e total energy-use in t h e PHF system (EPHF) i s given by
EPHF
=
EPROC+
ETRAN+
ECOOK (4)w h e r e EPROC i s e n e r g y r e q u i r e d f o r processing; ETRAN i s e n e r g y r e q u i r e d f o r t r a n s p o r t ; a n d ECOOK i s e n e r g y r e q u i r e d f o r cooking.
3. Results of the Energy-Accounting Model for the PHF System
In t h e p r e s e n t c h a p t e r , t h e r e s u l t s of t h e energy-accounting model f o r t h e y e a r 1980 are discussed. Unfortunately, i t i s not possible t o include p r i n t o u t s of country-wise t a b l e s indicating all t h e numerical r e s u l t s . T h e r e f o r e , only regional a g g r e g a t e s are given supplemented by some observations of i n t e r e s t from indivi- dual countries. A s t h i s gives a n incomplete p i c t u r e , country-level r e s u l t s are included in histrograms indicating o r d e r s of magnitudes and p a t t e r n s . Even h e r e , only 5 0 major c o u n t r i e s are indicated while r e f e r r i n g t o .the full p a p e r by H r a - bovszky et al. (1984) f o r f u r t h e r details. The o u t l i e r s are discussed specially t o i l l u s t r a t e why t h e y d i f f e r from t h e rest of t h e countries.
3-1. General Information
In addition t o t h e inputs r e q u i r e d f o r individual sub-sectors, t h e r e i s a com- mon pool of d a t a used in t h e study as given in Table 4 These relate t o population, urbanization, t o t a l e n e r g y consumed within t h e country, area and f o r e s t area.
Although t h e y are taken from s t a n d a r d s o u r c e s as indicated in t h e footnotes, t h e y are given h e r e t o s e r v e as r e a d y r e f e r e n c e s f o r t h e r e a d e r s who may wish t o apply c r o s s c h e c k s o r t o c o n s t r u c t and v e r i f y c e r t a i n indicators of t h e i r own choices.
3.2. Energy in Post-Harvest Processing Industries
3.2.1. Food Volumes Processed
If accounted in unprocessed forms, t h e volumes a d d up t o 1,262 m t (of which 614 m t i s s u g a r c a n e alone). A s illustrated in Table 5 , in 1980, in Africa, Latin America, t h e Near E a s t and t h e F a r East, t h e food volumes p r o c e s s e d commer- cially, in t e r m s of output p r o d u c t s excluding home processing was 54, 196, 56 and 281 million tons (mt), respectively. A s f o r t h e 90-country sample as a whole, 587 m t of commodities were processed. A s shown in Table 5 , in p e r c a p i t a terms, t h i s
Table 4. General indicators f o r t h e f o u r regions and t o t a l
(1) Totz!
Population (2) S h a r e of Non-
Agric.Pop.
Indicatorst
(3) Area
(4) Total e n e r g y used with non-
comm. e n e r g y MTOR 70 302 103
(5) Total comm.
energy used MTOR 39 264 98 223
,
Units
t All indicators are calculeted for each country and then added or averaged for the world regions.
MTOR
-
millions of tons of oil replacement M-
Million- lo6
Source: F A 0 Production Yearbook (1981) and Yearbook of World Energy S t a t i s t i c s (1980)
amounted t o 0.15 tons in Africa, 0.56 tons in Latin America and 0.28 tons in t h e
Latin Near F a r
Africa America E a s t E a s t
Near E a s t and 0.22 tons in t h e F a r East, with a n a v e r a g e of 0.27 tons p e r person.
This c l e a r l y shows t h e importance of t h e d i e t a r y p a t t e r n s .
90 Countries Total o r Average
The s h a r e s of cereals in t h e t o t a l volume processed are t h e l a r g e s t , because grain constitutes t h e i r s t a p l e food, and most of t h e g r a i n c r o p s need t o b e pro- cessed. The s h a r e s of cereals are 65 p e r c e n t f o r Africa, 35 p e r c e n t f o r Latin America, 69 p e r c e n t f o r t h e N e a r E a s t and 77 p e r c e n t f o r t h e F a r East.
T h e r e a r e some country-specific f e a t u r e s in addition t o t h e above f a c t o r s . For example, s h a r e s of s u g a r in Mauritius i s 90 p e r c e n t and Cuba i s 78 p e r c e n t ; Colombia, Mexico and Argentina have high s h a r e s in livestock and some African countries, Brazil and S r i Lanka have high s h a r e s in cassava, coffee and tea respectively. Alcoholic b e v e r a g e s are v e r y important f o r Latin America and Africa compared t o t h e Near East and t h e F a r East, and this may b e due t o c u l t u r a l o r religious differences.
-
21-
Table 5. Energy f o r food processing and s h a r e s of d i f f e r e n t commodities
*The total or average for each geographic region does not include all the countries of the region b u t only those indicated in the l i s t in Annex 1.
All indicators are calculated for each country and then added or averaged for the world regions.
KCOR
-
kilograms of 011 replacement M-
Million-
10'Source: Hrabovszky e t al. (1984) Indicators*
(1) Total volumes p r o c e s s e d (2) Commercial
e n e r g y consumed (3) Total e n e r g y
consumed (4) S h a r e of
non-commercial (5) P e r c a p i t a (6) P e r ton of food
processed (7) S h a r e of e a c h
commodity in commercial/
t o t a l e n e r g y (8) C e r e a l s (9) S u g a r
(10) Vegetable oils (11) Fruits & veg.
(13) Livestock &
milk products (14) Fish
(15) Alcoh.bev.
(16) Other
The importance of livestock and milk products depends upon t h e d e g r e e of urbanization and income levels. For example, in Latin America and t h e Middle E a s t , it r a n k s second, whereas in t h e o t h e r two regions under study i t r a n k s t h i r d .
Units
10%
M
M X
KGOR KGOR%
%
%
%
%
% X X
3.2.2. Energy Consumption in Food Processing
The ranking of commodities in e n e r g y consumption need not follow t h e s a m e
Latin Near F a r
Africa America E a s t E a s t
54 196 56 281
1.8 7.4 2.0 5.9 3.4 19.7 2.5 17.2
46 62 21 66
9.4 56.6 12.3 13.5 62.3 100.8 44.8 61.2
26/17 11/5 30/27 25/10 5/42 1/62 22/35 0/63 27/15 8/3 12/10 27/9
2/1 1/1 2/2 1/0
9/5 47/18 24/19 16/5 0/15 o/o O/O 2/1 29/16 30/11 9/7 28/10
1/1 1/1 0.0 0.0
p a t t e r n as t h e volumes p r o c e s s e d because of t h e d i f f e r e n t e n e r g y consumption 90 Countries
Total o r Average
587 17.1 42.8 60 19.6 73.0
20/10 35/60 17/7
1/1 30/10 1/1 27/11 1/0
involved f o r e a c h commodity. Non-commercial energy i s mainly used in s u g a r c a n e
(bagasse). Some r i c e husk and t h e i r by-products are a l s o burned f o r h e a t neces- s a r y f o r drying. The rest of t h e processing, such as milling, freezing and canning, is done with commercial energy.
In Table 5, commercial and non-commercial e n e r g y are discussed s e p a r a t e l y . I t indicates t h a t in 1980 in Africa. 1.8 million TOR commercial e n e r g y w a s spent; in Latin America 7.4 million TOR; in t h e Near E a s t 2 million and in t h e F a r East 6 mil- lion. Although t h e differences among countries in e n e r g y in p e r t o n processed output (about 29 KGOR/ton a v e r a g e ) are v e r y small, t h e differences in p e r c a p u t consumption are l a r g e
-
being f o u r times higher in Latin America t h a n in Africa and F a r East. This happens because in Africa and F a r E a s t much of t h e food con- sumed does not even e n t e r t h e processing system (but t h e amounts which d o e n t e r i t consume similar amounts of e n e r g y p e r ton processed).The s h a r e s of individual commodities in t h e t o t a l energy consumed in t h e PHF system are interesting in t h a t livestock and milk p r o d u c t s are often in f i r s t o r second position, e x c e p t f o r Africa where such processed foods are consumed in smaller quantities, more being e a t e n in unprocessed form. Strangely enough, and e x c e p t f o r t h e Middle East, e n e r g y f o r producing alcoholic b e v e r a g e s i s t h e next highest
-
o r t h e f i r s t-
f o r Africa, and e x c e e d s energy consumption by c e r e a l s which are essential t o basic nutrition. This i s simply because b e v e r a g e s r e q u i r e twenty times more e n e r g y p e r t o n as a r e s u l t of t h e high quantity needed f o r bot- tling and bottles.The exceptions are t h e Philippines, Korea, Cyprus, Argentina, Congo, Gabon, Venezuela, where t h e s h a r e of alcoholic beverages is l a r g e compared with t h e regional a v e r a g e , whereas in Malaysia, Nigeria, Gambia, S i e r r a Leone, Paraguay and Sudan, t h e s h a r e of vegetable oil i s l a r g e .
Figure 2 illustrates how d i e t a r y and cropping p a t t e r n s and income levels determine t h e magnitude of t h e p e r c a p i t a energy f o r food processing.
L - E
0 k a
a E 2
€ 0 0 0 =u
E l e
- s z g
O O m 4 LL 0
Figure 2. Total energy in food processing
When non-commercial energy i s included t h e s h a r e of s u g a r i s t h e l a r g e s t
-
consuming as much as 35 t o 6 3 p e r c e n t of total energy use at t h e regional level and also f o r most individual countries growing sugarcane. This means a d e c r e a s e in t h e s h a r e s of o t h e r commodities. For Africa, Latin America, t h e Near East and t h e F a r East, t h e p e r caput total energy consumption r i s e s t o 9.4, 56.5, 12.4 and 19.6 KGOR/Cap and e n e r g y p e r ton processed r i s e s t o 62, 101, 45 and 6 1 KGOR/ton respectively. The s h a r e of non-commercial e n e r g y in total e n e r g y f o r food pro- cessing i s 46, 62, 21, and 66 p e r c e n t respectively.
For t h e 9 0 countries, t h e t o t a l e n e r g y s p e n t i s 43 MTOR and commercial e n e r g y 1 7 MTOR, giving p e r c a p u t 20 and 8 KGOR respectively. This amounts t o 7 3 and 29 KGOR p e r ton processed.
3.3. Patterns of Transport and Energy for Food Transport
Food commodities constitute t h e l a r g e s t item in all t r a n s p o r t in most develop- ing countries. A s mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e volumes of food t r a n s p o r t e d have been estimated from available d a t a on u r b a n population, t h e a v e r a g e distances and modes of t r a n s p o r t s . These t h r e e elements make up t h e p a t t e r n s of t r a n s p o r t p r e s e n t e d below, t o g e t h e r with t h e corresponding estimates of e n e r g y consump- tion.
3.3.1. Patterns of transport
-
volumes, distances and modesA summary r e l a t e d to t h e s e p a t t e r n s i s given in Table 6 f o r e a c h of t h e regions studied. The volumes t r a n s p o r t e d f o r Africa. Latin America, t h e Near East, and t h e F a r East, are 44, 156, 5 3 and 424 million tons, respectively. The a v e r a g e distances a r e respectively, 374, 500, 372 and 460 km. The s h a r e s of road:rail:water f o r Africa, Latin America and t h e Near East a r e not v e r y different from e a c h o t h e r e x c e p t in t h e F a r East where they a r e 42:52:6, bringing t h e 90 country a v e r a g e t o 63:31:7. This i s because India., Pakistan and Korea have high
s h a r e s of railways. The s h a r e s of water t r a n s p o r t a r e significant only in countries f o r t h e F a r East. A t a country level t h e s h a r e is e i t h e r z e r o o r 1 0 p e r c e n t if t h e r e is a c e n t r a l r i v e r o r coastal shipping. Correspondingly, t h e s h a r e s of r o a d and r a i l d e c r e a s e . The s h a r e s of good r o a d and bad r o a d also v a r y little between regions.
Total e n e r g y in t r a n s p o r t a p p e a r s t o depend on t h e following f a c t o r s :
-
population o r population density-
s h a r e of u r b a n population-
a v e r a g e distance-
t o t a l a r e a-
food e x p o r t s3.3.2. Energy Consumption for Food Transport
A s shown in Table 6 energy consumption f o r food t r a n s p o r t e d in 1980 i s estimated t o b e 1 million TOR in Africa; 5 million TOR in Latin America; 1 million TOR in t h e Near E a s t and 4 million TOR in t h e F a r East.
In terms of p e r c a p u t e n e r g y consumption, this means 3 KGOR p e r person in Africa, 15 KGOR in Latin America, 6 KGOR in t h e F a r E a s t and 3 KGOR in t h e Near East. However, in terms of p e r ton of food t r a n s p o r t e d this means 26, 33, 24 and 2 1 KGOR of t h e r e s p e c t i v e regions.
The s h a r e s of r o a d , r a i l and water in t h e e n e r g y consumption are approxi- mately 95:4:1 e x c e p t f o r t h e F a r E a s t where it is 78:21:1. This changed p a t t e r n as compared t o s h a r e of modes in volume t r a n s p o r t e d a r i s e s because i t t a k e s 4 t o 5 times more e n e r g y t o t r a n s p o r t one ton-km by r o a d compared t o r a i l t r a n s p o r t . Thus, a l r e a d y high s h a r e s of r o a d in t h e t o t a l volumes become even h i g h e r when e n e r g y consumption s h a r e s a r e compared.
The f a c t o r s mentioned above explaining t h e divergences from t h e a v e r a g e
Table 6. P a t t e r n s of food t r a n s p o r t and e n e r g y consumption
I n d i c a t o r s t
(1) Amounts t r a n s p o r t e d (2) Ton-km
(3) S h a r e of r a i l in t o t a l t r a n s p o r t (4) S h a r e of r o a d in
t o t a l t r a n s p o r t (5) S h a r e of good r o a d s
in r o a d t r a n s p o r t (6) Total e n e r g y s p e n t (7) S h a r e of e n e r g y s p e n t
in r o a d t r a n s p o r t
Units
Latin Near F a r Africa America E a s t E a s t
18%
1 0 tkm
% MTOR
90 Countries Total o r
(8) P e r c a p i t a I KGOR 3.1 14.8 6.2 5.1
(9) P e r ton t r a n s p o r t e d KGOR
1
25.5 33.2 23.5 2::;1
26.1t All i n d i c a t o r s a r e calculated f o r each c o u n t r y and t h e n added o r averaged f o r t h e world re- gions.
(1) Amounts t r a n s p o r t e d a r e derived b y multiplying share o f non-agriculture population. Total amounts o f 70 commodities a r e considered f o r each c o u n t r y .
(2) Obtained b y multiplying (1) w i t h average d i s t a n c e s .
( 3 ) + ( 4 ) S h a r e o f rail and road, when not available i n c o u n t r y s t a t i s t i c s i s i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e indica- t o r s such a s t o t a l t r a c k k i l o m e t e r s , railway wagons, road-km, number o f t r u c k s e t c . T h e remainder i n each i s done b y w a t e r t r a n s p o r t , i.e. b y coastal and r i v e r t r a n s p o r t .
(5) T h e s h a r e o f good roads i n t o t a l road t r a n s p o r t , I f not available, i s i n f e r r e d b y looking a t t h e s h a r e s o f asphalt o r paved roads i n t o t a l r o a d - k m T h e remainder i s assumed t o be t r a n - sported on bad roads.
(6) Total e n e r g y s p e n t is obtained b y
where t h e f i r s t , second and t h i r d t e r m s r e p r e s e n t rail, road and w a t e r t r a n s p o r t . T h e multi- pliers f o r each mode o f t r a n s p o r t a r e t h e e n e r g y norms.
(7) Energy s p e n t on road t r a n s p o r t divided b y t h e t o t a l energy given i n (6) (8) Energy f o r t r a n s p o r t per c a p i t a
-
(6) / population(9) Energy per t o n t r a n s p o r t e d
-
(6)/(1)become even more visible at individual c o u n t r y level. Indeed. while p e r c a p u t e n e r g y consumption v a r i e s more with p a r a m e t e r s such as e x p o r t
-
o r import-
urbanization and income levels, e n e r g y consumption p e r ton i s more sensitive t o a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e s (size of c o u n t r y and location of u r b a n c e n t r e with r e s p e c t t o f a r m a r e a s ) and modes of t r a n s p o r t . T h e r e f o r e , i t does not v a r y a s much from region t o region.
T h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s could b e confirmed e v e n m o r e by o u t l i e r s s u c h as India, Libya, Sudan, Mexico, Argentina, Tanzania, Angola with l a r g e a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e s a n d a number of small c o u n t r i e s with small d i s t a n c e s of 40 t o 150km. F o r example, Argentina, a n e x p o r t e r which r e q u i r e s 6 3 KGOR p e r c a p u t e n e r g y b u t only 49 KGOR p e r ton. On t h e o t h e r hand, Saudi Arabia, a n i m p o r t e r r e q u i r e s 8 KGOR p e r c a p u t b u t 2 8 KGOR p e r ton. In both c a s e s , t h e p e r c a p u t f i g u r e s d i f f e r m o r e widely t h a n p e r t o n f i g u r e s . The v a r i a t i o n s in p e r t o n f i g u r e s are mainly d u e t o d i f f e r - e n c e s in a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e s (and occasionally t o d i f f e r e n c e s in modes of t r a n s p o r t ) . F o r example, t h e a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e of t r a n s p o r t in Argentina i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y twice t h a t of Saudi Arabia.
3.4. Energy for Cooking
Cooking i s t h e l a r g e s t s u b - s e c t o r of t h e PHF system. A s shown in Table 7 , s h a r e s of non-commercial e n e r g y in t o t a l e n e r g y used f o r cooking a r e 85 p e r c e n t f o r Africa, 42 p e r c e n t f o r Latin America, 2 1 p e r c e n t f o r t h e Near E a s t a n d 7 8 p e r - c e n t f o r t h e F a r East. The s h a r e s of wood in non-commercial s u p p l i e s in t e r m s of million TOR are c l o s e t o 9 5 p e r c e n t o r more, e x c e p t in t h e Near E a s t . F o r t h e same r e g i o n s , t h e t o t a l u s e of e n e r g y f o r cooking i s 3 0 , 3 9 , 1 7 a n d 7 2 million TOR r e s p e c t i v e l y , with p e r c a p u t e n e r g y consumption of 82, 1 1 3 , 8 4 a n d 5 7 KGOR r e s p e c t i v e l y . The s h a r e s of cooking non-commercial e n e r g y in national u s e of non-commercial e n e r g y f o r a l l p u r p o s e s are f o r Africa 81 p e r c e n t , f o r Latin Amer- i c a 44 p e r c e n t , f o r t h e Near E a s t 7 2 p e r c e n t a n d f o r t h e F a r E a s t 7 7 p e r c e n t . The remaining non-commercial e n e r g y i s used f o r food p r o c e s s i n g , r u r a l i n d u s t r i e s and household heating.
The s h a r e s of commercial e n e r g y f o r cooking o u t of t o t a l commercial e n e r g y amount t o 11 p e r c e n t f o r Africa, 9 p e r c e n t f o r Latin America, 1 4 p e r c e n t f o r t h e Near E a s t a n d 7 p e r c e n t f o r t h e F a r E a s t . The s h a r e s f o r cooking, o u t of o v e r a l l e n e r g y s o u r c e s , amount t o 42, 13, 16 a n d 24 p e r c e n t r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r t h e f o u r
Table 7. E n e r g y f o r cooking
t All i n d i c a t o r s a r e calculated f o r each country and then added o r averaged f o r t h e world re- gions.
I n d i c a t o r s t (1) Total e n e r g y
used in cooking (2) S h a r e of commercial
in t o t a l e n e r g y (3) S h a r e of wood in
non-commercial
(4) S h a r e of e a c h r e s o u r c e used f o r cooking
a. k e r o s e n e b. wood c. a g r . w a s t e d. dung (5) P e r c a p i t a
cooking e n e r g y
(6) S h a r e of t o t a l cooking e n e r g y in t o t a l e n e r g y u s e (7) S h a r e of wood in
non-commercial e n e r g y u s e
(1) Includes cmmercial and non-commercial energy and given in million t o n s of oil replacement un- its (MTOR)
(4) S h a r e of cooking use in t o t a l use of each energy resource, i.e. t h e r e s t of kerosene is used f o r lighting and o t h e r purposes. The r e s t of fuel wood used f o r r u r a l industries. The r e s t of agricultural w a s t e f o r fodder, construction and other purposes. The r e s t of dung f o r manure and o t h e r purposes.
(5) Total natural gas + coal + LPG + kerosene used f o r cooking / national use of all commercial energy
Units
MTOR
%
%
%
%
%
% KGOR
%
%
(6)- (1)/(5) from Table 4. This is accounted in useful energy t e r m s which give low weights t o non-commercial energy uses. If accounted in primary energy t e r m s , t h e s h a r e may i n c r e a s e by a f a c t o r of two o r so.
regions.
Latin N e a r F a r Africa America E a s t E a s t
29.6 39.4 16.9 71.8
15.0 58.3 78.6 21.8
97.5 98.1 85.7 88.5
67.0 92.8 95.5 72.1
85.2 71.8 75.6 91.8
10.2 3.5 12.1 21.9
8.8 0.7 11.4 27.0
82.4 113.0 83.6 56.6
11.4 8.7 13.6 7.1
42 13 16 24
The e x t e n t of e n e r g y u s e f o r cooking d e p e n d s on:
90 C o u n t r i e s Total o r Average
157.8 35.8 92.2
82.8 85.1 14.0 14.5 72.4
9.0
21
-
e n e r g y availability, r e p r e s e n t e d by i n d i c a t o r s s u c h as f o r e s t area or fossil e n e r g y production;-
income level a n d urbanization-
d i e t a r y and cropping p a t t e r n s-
amount of food e x p o r t s ( o r imports)Figure 3 shows p e r c a p i t a use of energy used f o r cooking including non- commercial energy. I t demonstrates c l e a r l y how income levels, e n e r g y availability and food e x p o r t s determine t h e magnitudes.
9.5.
The
T o t a l P H F S y s t e mHaving examined t h e individual sub-sectors w e now t u r n t o t h e o v e r a l l PHF system. I t is evident t h a t t h e major f a c t o r s affecting t h e magnitude of e n e r g y con- sumption, s h a r e s of commercial energy and r e l a t i v e importance of individual sub- s e c t o r s are usually among t h e following:
-
population and i t s s h a r e of u r b a n population-
p e r c a p u t income-
d i e t a r y p a t t e r n s , grain, c a s s a v a and cropping p a t t e r n s (meat eaters o r s u g a r c a n e growers);-
size of t h e country o r magnitudes of t h e a v e r a g e distances-
food and e n e r g y i m p o r t e r s o r e x p o r t e r s-
e n e r g y availability (wood o r oil).3.5.1. Energy C o n s u m e d in the P H F S y s t e m
A s shown in Table 8 t o t a l e n e r g y consumed in t h e PHF system in 1980 in Africa, Latin America, t h e Near E a s t and t h e F a r E a s t works o u t t o b e 34, 64, 21 and 93 million TOR respectively. In p e r c a p u t t e r m s t h i s i s 95, 184, 102 and 73 KGOR f o r t o t a l e n e r g y and 20, 102, 182 and 20 KGOR respectively, f o r commercial e n e r g y alone. I t is evident t h a t f o r commercial e n e r g y t h e income e f f e c t s are more impor- t a n t than f o r t o t a l e n e r g y including non-commercial. I t should be pointed o u t t h a t t h e t o t a l e n e r g y f i g u r e s in t e r m s of primary e n e r g y would b e much l a r g e r
