EBMD: Analysis of the World Bank's Rural Energy and Development document

Analysis of the World Bank's Rural Energy and Development document

Concerning the World Bank publication: "Rural Energy and Development, Improving Energy Supplies for Two Billion People". we are pleased that this document reflects many of the views put forward by NGOs.

In particular, we note that the Rural Energy document:
* places energy within the much broader context of development in general and recognizes that many people do not benefit from conventional energy development;
* recognizes that strategies for improving access to energy must involve more than simple top-down dissemination of technology;
* states that "liberalizing energy markets ... may not be the complete answer" because "private companies have shown little interest in extending electricity supplies to rural areas" (p.5),
and
* recognizes that off-grid electrification is both feasible and desirable.

Further, we agree that "of all the renewable energy sources, biomass is the largest, most diverse, and most readily exploitable" and that "recuperation, more efficient production and rational use of biomass residues and forest resources requires the conversion of biomass into cleaner and more convenientfuels (gas, electricity, briquettes)" (p.61).
We are pleased with the emphasis placed on local management of biomass resources, and the recognition that investment in this sector "requires considerable knowledge of local ecology and natural resources and of communities, social units, and tenurial issues." with the bank, we believe that development of local institutional capacity is needed. (p.88)

However, we are unhappy with the portrayal of biofuels as "unhealthy" and "seriously inefficient". furthermore, we wish to take issue with the treatment of biomass as an energy source that will eventually be replaced by modern fuels. we challenge this portrayal for the following reasons.

1) It might seem reasonable to say that biofuels "...help trap the user in poverty. Gathering fuel and dung takes time - time that could be devoted to more productive activities" (p.1). However, for many rural people, once they switch to liquid petroleum gas (LPG) or grid electricity, they will have to spend time working to earn the money to pay for fuel that they were formerly getting for free. whether the new income-generating work is "more productive", is to some extent be a matter of definition. bringing people into the global market may serve the interests of some, but it does not necessarily serve the interests of local people.

2) The report "demonstrates" that biofuels are "a highly inefficient means of cooking compared with fuels such as LPG ... A kilogram of wood, for example, generates a mere tenth of the useful heat for cooking delivered by a kilogram of LPG" (p.1). While this may be true at the household level, it is not necessarily so for the full life cycle. It is likely that in most cases, more energy (human and other) goes into the production and transportation of one kilogram of LPG and its container, than the energy used to collect one kilogram of wood.

3) The report states that biofuels "can also damage people's health" (p.1). Again, this may be true at the household level - particularly when cooking on open fires - but people's health is also damaged in the production and distribution of non-biomass fuels. For example, many people have been forcefully displaced by large-scale hydro-electric dams and have suffered diseases linked to the dams' reservoirs; many people have seen their environment and health seriously damaged through oil exploration; many people's health--and lives--have been destroyed in coal mining; and many people have lost their lives or suffered health damage due to the production of nuclear power.

4) The report states that "The use of biofuels can also damage the environment" p.2). This statement is correct. However, the damage to the environment caused by biofuels is marginal compared to the much larger scale of environmental damage caused by other fuels (e.g. acid rain, climate change, local ecosystem destruction by large hydro-electric schemes, and oil spills at sea and on land.

5) The report claims that, "However quickly modern energy spreads in developing countries, dung, crop wastes, and wood will be used by tens of millions for decades to come" (p.7). The impression given by this statement is that biofuels are bad, but we will have to use them because there is no alternative solution for the poor in the next decades. Following on from this are proposals to create a more efficient and healthy use of biomass, such as improved biomass stoves, farm forestry and natural forest management. We do not disagree with these proposals. However, we feel that the Bank is missing the important point that biomass fuels can become "new and renewable" energy sources, provided that new technologies are developed and promoted by--among other actors--the MDBs themselves.

6) In the same vein, the report does not sufficiently distinguish between modern and traditional biofuels, giving the impression that, in the long run, biofuels will be phased out. We believe that wood can be produced sustainably given the right political, social and economic framework and that biofuels are one of the main options for the future, both in the South and in the North. For example highly efficient wood stoves exist for home heating, and dung--and other agricultural "wastes"--can be used very efficiently in biodigestors (and the residue used to fertilize fields).

Biomass is, of course, being used by billions of people. This is neither good nor bad per se, but depends on the local situation. If this is leading to deforestation then it is bad. if it is unhealthy and inefficient, this is also bad. but use of biomass is not intrinsically bad. wood can be converted to gas or liquid form. In Uruguay, for example, 90% of the industry switched from fuel OIL to wood during the oil crisis of the 1970s. This system was extremely efficient and the country was able to use a locally-produced fuel (as well as local technology) instead of imported oil. There were even talks at the time of building a dentroelectric power plant. currently, while Uruguay is (unfortunately) planting hundreds of millions of hectares of eucalyptus trees (supported by World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank loans), both Banks are promoting--as part of "regional integration"--the use of natural gas imported from Argentina and Bolivia instead of the locally produced wood. This is an indication of the bias in the World Bank's energy portfolio against biofuels and particularly against local solutions using local resources.

In sum, we believe that biofuels are potentially "sustainably renewable" and that they can also become "new" and "modern". Rather than viewing biofuels as part of a transition to the use of oil and gas, the World Bank should be actively promoting the use of biomass as a sustainable, renewable modern energy source.

To conclude, we wish to call the Bank's attention to the statement to the world solar summit submitted by the international network for sustainable energy: "among the most important lessons we have to offer ... is that while many renewable energy technologies have reached maturity, technology in and of itself cannot provide answers to pressing global problems. technology is only a valuable tool when it is in the hands of fully empowered people who wisely use the resources available to them for the benefit of all living things."

By Ann Heidenreich and Ricardo Carrere
MDB-Energy Project