Purpose of the Study
Wood Energy Today
Wood Energy Tomorrow
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission (APFC), at its meeting at Yangon in January 1996, agreed to a proposal for a Forestry Sector Outlook Study for the Asia-Pacific Region. The Study was to include considerations of wood energy demand and supply in the context of overall energy transitions in the region.
The present study on 'Wood Energy Today and Tomorrow' has been prepared by RWEDP to contribute to the Outlook Study. It mainly considers the 16 RWEDP member-countries in Asia, which are Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. The study links with the work initiated by FAO's Wood and Non-Wood Products Utilization Branch (FOPW) on Wood Energy Today and for the Future, which addresses the present wood energy situation at national, regional and international levels and possible wood energy scenario's for traditional as well as modern uses.
The study is aimed at policy makers in the forestry sector, but also touches upon policy issues in other sectors, e.g. agriculture, rural development, energy and environment. As yet, sufficient wood energy data are not available to enable woodfuels to be included in common energy modelling and supply-demand balancing. RWEDP is in the process of remedying this by continuing to collect and validate data. The study addresses energy issues only, and builds on available data on related subjects like population, land use, demand and supply of timber products, etc.
Role of Woodfuels
Sources of Woodfuels
The "Fuelwood Gap Theory" Rejected
Consumption of Woodfuels
Substitution
Environmental Aspects
Social Aspects
Data Availability
Prices
Policies
Woodfuels are an important commodity from forests and other tree production systems. Each year, the 16 RWEDP member-countries meet about 10,000 PJ of their total energy consumption by woodfuel (which averages to 30%, excluding China). It has been estimated that woodfuels represent an economic value of about 30 billion US$ per annum. The current financial value of total industrial roundwood production in the same countries is about US$25 billion per annum. In Asia, the consumption of woodfuels is increasing in absolute terms by about 1.6% each year, and this trend is likely to continue in the foreseeable future.
Woodfuels consist of woody biomass, i.e. stems, branches, twigs, etc., and saw dust and other residues from logging and wood processing activities, as well as charcoal from these sources. The primary sources of woodfuels are both forest and non-forest land. Forest and other wooded land includes natural forests (including degraded forests), scrub lands, wood and timber plantations and woodlots. Non-forest land here includes agriculture land, agro-forestry systems, waste land, line trees, home gardens, etc. The ratio between woodfuels originating from forest and non-forest land is generally not known, but data from 7 RWEDP member-countries indicate that about 1/3 of the woodfuels originates from forest land, and about 2/3 from non-forest land. Typically, non-commercial sources of woodfuels are located within a 20 km radius from the end-users, and commercial sources within a 100 km radius from the market.
Secondary sources of woodfuels are residues from logging and wood processing industries, but also recycled wood from construction activities, packing crates, pallets, driftwood, etc. In some areas recycled wood supplies as much as 20% of total woodfuels.
In the 1970s and 1980s it was generally assumed that all woodfuels originate from public forest land. This lead to the 'fuelwood gap theory' from which it was concluded that non-sustainable yields were taken from forests to meet wood energy demands. The theory resulted in the assumption that woodfuel use was a root cause of deforestation. But now, ample evidence exists to prove that the theory is false and that, except for localized areas, woodfuel use is not a main cause of deforestation. The indications are that a major cause of deforestation is the ongoing conversion of forest land into other land uses, particularly agriculture. This is generally carried out by planned forest clearing or results from gradual processes of forest encroachment.
Woodfuels are consumed mainly by rural populations, though substantial amounts are also consumed in most towns and cities. The larger part of the consumption is accounted for by households, but numerous industries and services are based on woodfuels. In the domestic sector consumption is spread over lower, middle and higher income groups. Even in conditions of increasing urbanization and fossil fuel penetration, the large majority of the households in Asia use wood or other biomass fuels. In all RWEDP countries total consumption is still increasing, and in several countries woodfuel consumption per capita is also increasing. In fact, consumption per capita is very site-specific and influenced by factors like climate, household size, availability and reliability of supply of the various fuels and their potential substitutes as well as their costs, the appliances required for utilization, and culture and tradition.
Most consumers in the domestic as well as the industrial and service sectors still avail themselves of relatively simple and inefficient technologies for combustion. Efforts are being made to disseminate improved technologies. Where successful, the efforts result in improved quality of life, particularly for women, or improved viability of traditional industries and services. However, as yet no evidence exists that the introduction of more efficient conversion technologies would have lead to reduced demand for woodfuels from any forest resource base.
Apart from wood, agricultural land produces biomass residues, part of which is available as fuel on an environmentally sustainable basis. At present, the main biomass fuels are crop residues like bagasse, rice husks and straw, coconut husks and shells, palm oil kernel, shells and fibre. Wood and other biomass fuels (as well as animal dung used for fuel) can substitute for each other, though most consumers have a general preference for wood over other biomass. In terms of energy content per ha per annum, the sustainable production of biomass residues available for fuel from plantations and agricultural land is about 30% of the sustainable yield of woodfuels from natural forest land. Non-sustainable production of potential woodfuels due to deforestation aggregated for the 16 RWEDP member-countries is about equal to the present woodfuel consumption (with variations per country from 10% to 1,400%). In RWEDP member-countries woodfuel represents about half of all biomass fuel consumption in energy units.
Woodfuels can also be substituted by fossil fuels, but this is not observed as a major or general trend in RWEDP member-countries (with notable exceptions). Rather, the current overall accelerated use of fossil fuels in Asia is mainly due to additional productive and consumptive activities in the modern sector of Asian economies. Such use is largely in addition to the wood/biomass fuels, rather than a substitute for them. The widely used term 'fuel transition' is often misleading, because what is actually going on is better described as 'fuel complementation'.
Adverse environmental impacts of woodfuel use are due to unsustainable extraction from environmentally sensitive areas, which can lead to degradation of watershed and catchment areas, loss of biodiversity and habitat, etc. However, if the supply source is properly managed, woodfuel can contribute positively to the local and global environment. Woodfuel is CO2 neutral, provided the rate of harvest equals the rate of re-growth. When wood and other biomass resources are properly valued by local populations their sustainable use contributes to the economical management of the local environment.
Wood is very beneficial for the global environment. It can be estimated that the net effect of woodfuel use in RWEDP member-countries in 1994 implied a saving of about 278,000 kton CO2 which otherwise would have been emitted into the global atmosphere. If LPG is the hypothetical replacement of woodfuel the CO2 saved will increase to 349,000 kton in 2010. These figures can be translated into costs avoided for recapturing the CO2 and amount to 14 billion US$ saved in 1994 by woodfuel use in Asia, and 17.5 billion US$ saved in 2010. If coal is the hypothetical replacement of woodfuel the figures would double.
Woodfuel supply implies labour for growing, harvesting, processing, wholesaling, transporting and retailing the product. Per unit of energy, the labour involved in these woodfuel businesses is about 20 times larger than for kerosene. Woodfuel business is the main source of income for about 10% of rural households, and for about 40% of their cash earnings. In times of hardship, or when harvests are insufficient for subsistence, the opportunity to generate income in woodfuel business provides a safety-net for poor persons, many of whom are women.
On the demand side, woodfuels are a basic commodity serving the daily needs of some 2 billion people in RWEDP member-countries. However, access to the fuels is very skewed. In areas or times of scarcity, landless and unemployed people and low-wage earners suffer from high prices or the non-availability of woodfuels.
Because of the site-specific and dispersed production and consumption of woodfuels (which are partly non-monetized), it is extremely expensive and time consuming to collect reliable and systematic data on woodfuel supply and demand. International organizations do not avail themselves of such data, and neither do most national organizations. Data on the same country published by different sources are largely conflicting e.g. by a factor 3 or more. This is true also for industrialized countries. Sometimes data published by the same national source are also conflicting. It is further noted that in energy balances published by national sources, data on the supply of woodfuels are usually worked back from stated consumption figures. Therefore, most supply figures do not provide independent sources of information.
Data published by FAO are derived from baseline estimates made before 1961. For the RWEDP member-countries, these estimates have been annually updated under the assumption that the population elasticity of consumption is 1.000. Occasional surveys under the World Bank/UNDP ESMAP programme in the early 1990s revealed discrepancies of more than 100% with the FAO data. (It should be noted that such an occasional survey in one country can cost several million US$.) Most country-level data on woodfuel consumption is based on ad-hoc surveys, and often industrial woodfuel consumption is not covered.
Prices of woodfuels vary, depending on markets. Part of the market is still not monetized (in most places some 70%). Commercial markets are generally found in cities and towns, but also in villages, where fuelwood is traded. Local prices are largely determined by opportunity costs of labour and resource availability, which generally does not reflect the real economic (including environmental) costs. A typical price in RWEDP member-countries is 40 US$ per ton. Stumpage fees can be anything between 0 and 20% of retail prices.
A significant increase in the usual price can be due to local scarcity, which implies that more time or labour is required to bring the fuel from a distant source to the consumption centres. For the more well-to-do consumers, price increases are generally not a reason for switching to fossil fuels (convenience of fossil fuels is) or another fuel. For poor consumers a price increase can be a reason to resort to cheaper, lower-grade biomass fuels.
Anecdotal evidence indicates some correlation between international oil prices and local retail prices of woodfuel. However, in general prices of woodfuels remain more or less constant in real terms. A very small fraction of woodfuels is for export, which fetches a relatively high price.
Both producers and consumers usually perceive woodfuels to be a by-product of wood products. This applies even in areas where woodfuel plantations or village woodlots have been established. The perception clearly contrasts with the real economic value of woodfuels as compared to wood products. The reason for the under-valuation of woodfuels may be that the benefits are largely dispersed over time and over numerous small consumers, and that the fuels are partly non-monetized. This is in contrast to the situation of wood products, where forest departments, logging and processing companies, as well as individuals benefit from concentrated cash-flows. In other words, there are few or no powerful stakeholders in woodfuel matters.
Policy makers in the forestry sector can facilitate the sustainable production and good use of woodfuels without undermining the conditions necessary for the production of wood products. Adequate policies also support environmental management and social development objectives. To this end a number of specific policy measures in the forestry sector are identified in the present document.
Trends in Demand
Prices
Trends in Supply Potential
Outlook for the Demand-Supply Balance
Supply Policies
As the available data are either patchy or invalidated, it is not possible to develop a reliable quantitative outlook on wood energy in Asia. However, important trends and qualitative aspects of anticipated wood energy developments until the year 2010 can be presented. Interpretation of the data collected under ESMAP has provided insights into the main mechanisms governing the supply and demand of wood energy. According to research conducted or commissioned by RWEDP these mechanisms still apply, and are likely to remain valid up to 2010.
The main trend on the demand side is the overall increase of consumption of woodfuels in all RWEDP member-countries by about 1.6% a year. The trends are based on extrapolations of time series of best available data which, in principle, incorporate influences of trends in relevant factors. The extrapolations do not take into account possible new effects of factors like accelerated urbanization, changes in household size and incomes, or culture and tradition because such data are simply not available. However, it is believed that the net effect of the combination of factors may be limited.
As no overall price elasticities for woodfuel consumption in traditional markets are known, it is not possible to base future demand estimates on trends in prices. In fact, it is likely that the overall price of woodfuels in real terms will remain more or less constant for the coming 5-10 years. Other biomass fuels may increasingly compete in traditional markets when their quality/price ratio improves. For modern applications, accelerated penetration of biomass fuels can be anticipated if, and when, fossil fuel prices increase substantially.
Major trends regarding the supply side relate to changes in land use, which differ for each country. The general trend in land use change is a decrease of natural forest area of about 3.6 million ha each year (1.2%), and an increase of agricultural land of 4.7 million ha each year (0.6%), aggregated for the 16 RWEDP member-countries. The net result is an increase in total forest and agricultural land of 1.1 million ha each year, which can be attributed to changes in other land uses (wasteland, etc.). Combined with an average doubling of productivity per ha for all biomass fuels from plantations and agricultural land, this should lead to an increase in the sustainable availability of total potential biomass fuels by 2010.
In addition, there will be a non-sustainable supply of potential woodfuels because of the ongoing process of converting forest land into agriculture and other land uses and commercial logging.
The overall trends in demand and potential supply of wood and other biomass fuels per country are presented in this document. The aggregated results for 16 RWEDP member-countries in Asia are presented in the following table.
Table S.1 - Consumption & supply of biomass fuels aggregated for the 16 RWEDP member-countries
|
RWEDP Region
|
1994 |
2010 |
||||
|
Area |
Mass |
Energy |
Area |
Mass |
Energy |
|
|
CONSUMPTION |
1000 ha |
kton |
PJ |
1000 ha |
kton |
PJ |
|
total woodfuels |
|
645,895 |
9,688 |
|
811,548 |
12,173 |
|
POTENTIAL SUPPLY
|
||||||
|
sust. woodfuel from forest land |
416,204 |
669,812 |
10,047 |
370,363 |
629,339 |
9,440 |
|
sust. woodfuel from agricultural areas |
876,933 |
601,407 |
9,021 |
971,062 |
692,088 |
10,381 |
|
sust. woodfuel from other wooded lands |
93,140 |
53,994 |
810 |
81,368 |
47,170 |
708 |
|
waste woodfuels from deforestation |
(4,253) |
605,565 |
9,083 |
(3,114) |
437,710 |
6,566 |
|
total potentially available woodfuels |
1,382,024 |
1,930,778 |
28,962 |
1,419,679 |
1,806,307 |
27,095 |
|
50% of crop processing residues |
876,933 |
218,915 |
3,458 |
971,062 |
322,024 |
5,105 |
|
total potentially available biomass fuels |
|
2,149,693 |
32,420 |
|
2,128,331 |
32,200 |
When reading the table it should be noted that aggregation over a wide region in Asia leads to hypothetical supply availability. In reality, fuelwood markets are extremely localized and fragmented. Still, some general observations can be made from the data presented.
From the table it is observed that by 2010 the sustainable aggregated potential supply of woodfuels still outweighs aggregated consumption. This positive balance does not depend on the accuracy of the estimates made, or on the assumptions incorporated into the estimates. A reasonable margin of error would still produce the same results. Moreover, the assumptions on supply potential are on the conservative side. Much more important than the potential supply as such is its geographical and social distribution, since consumers may not be able to use available resources due to physical, financial and social constraints. The same comment applies to the country balances which are presented in this document.
The table further illustrates that any deforestation process generates a large additional (potential) supply of woodfuels which, however, is not required for a positive balance of potential supply over consumption. If deforestation is due to conversion of forest land into agricultural land, the process would result in a sustainable increased supply of potential biomass fuels, because generally agricultural land has a higher biomass fuel productivity than forest land.
It is also observed that at present the sustainable potential supply of woodfuels from agricultural lands more or less can meet the consumption. The same applies for the aggregated sustainable potential supply from forest lands. However, the latter are more likely to be found in remote areas, whereas the former are generally closer to the rural consumers. This may explain that fact that most woodfuels originate from non-forest land, as shown by data for several countries. When looking at the total potential supply of biomass from agricultural lands, i.e. wood and crops residues together, it is observed that this can meet both the present and projected consumption.
From the table it is further observed that, overall, the potential supply of biomass fuels in the form of crop-processing residues is substantial. It should be noted that the estimate builds on (only) half of the processing residues, leaving all field residues (which are about 4 times the processing residues) untouched. Indeed, local shifts from wood to other biomass fuels can be anticipated to increase. This implies an immediate and increasing need for further development of cost-effective technologies for upgrading and combusting traditional fuels from crop residues, and for disseminating such technologies, and corresponding managerial systems. In the longer term there may be scope for expanding modern bio-energy fuels based on advanced R&D.
While the overall supply/demand balancing of wood and other biomass fuels in the region will not be a major concern, their distribution will. As in the 1990s, the scarcity of the fuels in localized areas and their unavailability to weaker consumer groups will remain serious problems. With on-going trends towards strengthening market mechanisms and widening gaps in income distribution, an increasing number of traditional woodfuel consumers both in the domestic and the small-scale industrial sector may become marginalized. Well-balanced and integrated forest policies can help to alleviate such problems.
Enhancement of supply in rural areas, where woodfuel is yet not a traded item, should be integrated into local farming and forestry management practices. Where woodfuel is mostly collected free of charge for subsistence, no prospect exists for its commercial production in the short-run. In such a circumstance, local people's participation in sustainable production and utilization of woodfuel from locally available resources (mostly from existing natural forest and shrub/scrub and waste lands, and from existing depleted natural forest and shrub/scrub lands) should be encouraged. These resources possess the potential to supply additional woodfuel production if management systems which ensure protection from open cattle grazing and fires are introduced. Also, tree planting in community wastelands could contribute to the development of new supply sources, as village or community woodlots. Therefore continuation of the prevailing programme of social/community forestry, which primarily aims to promote participatory forestry development schemes, may be the most feasible low-cost strategy to meet the basic subsistence energy needs of the poor and small farming communities in rural areas.
1. Wood energy is and will remain an important sub-sector in all RWEDP member-countries. The consumption of wood and other biomass fuels will increase in the foreseeable future.
2. Non-forest land will continue to be the main source of woodfuels. Wood energy use is not and will not be a general or main cause of deforestation.
3. The prime area of concern is not the availability of woodfuels as such, but their distribution to people in need.
4. The weaker groups in society, particularly women and children, are the ones who suffer most from restricted access to woodfuel sources.
5. In Bangladesh and Pakistan, as well in Nepal to some extent, present national aggregated woodfuel consumption may exceed potential national supply. National woodfuel shortages may be aggravated by 2010.
6. In India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam, aggregate national consumption in 1994 is not limited by aggregate potential supply, but this may be the case in 2010.
7. In most other RWEDP member-countries, residues from forests and crops represent an under-utilized potential to supplement woodfuel.
8. Localized woodfuel scarcities may occur in all countries.
9. The agricultural sector has a key role to play in supplementing woodfuels by enhancing woodfuel production on agricultural land.
10. The positive benefits of an integrated wood energy development strategy include: development of private, community woodlots in private and community owned lands which are currently not properly utilized; expansion of private-, farm-, and agro-forestry areas; and support to conservation of soil, water and biodiversity.
11. For this integrated strategy to be successful, a number of issues need to be addressed which impinge upon the mandates of various sectors including the forestry sector.
12. In areas of woodfuel scarcity, other biomass fuels are likely to increase in importance as complementary sources of energy.
13. As a first approximation it can be stated that woodfuel use is carbon neutral, i.e. there is no net emission of carbon into the environment.
14. Thanks to woodfuel use in Asia, potential environmental costs amounting to at least 14 billion US$ in 1994, for recapturing CO2 from the global environment were avoided. These will increase to 17.5 billion US$ in 2010.
1. The social, economic and environmental roles of woodfuels produced in both forest and non-forest areas should be recognized and woodfuels should be treated as an important sub-sector which needs to be developed.
2. Wood energy development should be integrated into rural energy supply strategies and pursued as a common task for all relevant sectors, e.g. agriculture, forestry, rural development, energy and industry sectors. Coordination among the sectors concerned should be strengthened.
3. Woodfuel should be seen as an important product in its own right rather than just as a by-product from agriculture land. Integrated woodfuel production on agriculture land should be promoted.
4. Current reforestation and afforestation efforts should be continued. Natural forest management with people's participation should get high priority in areas where woodfuel is not (yet) a tradable commodity.
5. Prevailing rules and regulations which hamper wood energy development should be reviewed. These relate to land ownership and holding, tree tenure, tree planting and harvesting in private and community lands, transportation and trade of wood and related products produced by the private sector or local communities.
6. The selection of fast-growing tree species for wood energy crops, identification of appropriate provenance to match specific conditions, and improvement of the survival and growth rates of trees at degraded sites and waste lands, should be supported by further R&D.
7. Infrastructure should be developed further in areas where woodfuel is already a traded item and where potential exists for supply enhancement to meet the existing and growing market demand.
8. The effective use of by-products and residues from wood industries, partly by converting them into modern wood energy, should be encouraged to reduce wood waste and supply additional fuels.
9. R&D for upgrading and combusting fuels from crop residues and other loose biomass should be promoted. Households as well as traditional industries should be encouraged to use them.
10. More key data on wood energy supply should be collected to support wood energy policies.
11. Wood energy databases should be established at regional, national and local levels. Private and public sector agencies related to wood energy development should be given access to information to support their activities.
12. Wood energy subjects should be integrated into the training curricula of relevant sectoral education and training programmes.
13. The priority within wood energy conservation programmes should be the supply of convenient, healthy and attractive household stoves at affordable prices, so as to reach the maximum number of wood energy users.
14. The cost-effectiveness of wood energy development projects in Asia in terms of global CO2 savings should be communicated to interested donor agencies.
