fuel for life: household energy and health

Household Energy and Health

WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Fuel for life : household energy and health.

"Written and coordinated by Eva Rehfuess"– Acknowledgements.

1. Air pollution, Indoor. 2. Wood fuels. 3. Energy policy. 4. Environmental health. 5. Socioeconomic factors. 6. Developing countries. I. Rehfuess, Eva. II. World Health Organization.

ISBN 92 4 156316 8 (NLM classification: WA 754)

ISBN 978 92 4 156316 1

© World Health Organization 2006All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel: +41

22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; email: [email protected]). Requests for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or for noncommercial

distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press, at the above address (fax: +41 22 791 4806; email: [email protected]).

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization

concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent

approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.

The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others

of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.

All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any

kind, either express or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages

arising from its use.

Printed in France

Household Energy and Health

cont

ents

Section 2: Household energy and theMillennium Development Goals

Foreword 4

Acknowledgements 5

Further reading 38

Annex 39

Household energy: three billion left behind 8Health at the heart of the matter 10The killer in the kitchen 12

Energizing the Millennium Development Goals 16Trapped by energy poverty 18Women and children overlooked 20Stripping our forests, heating our planet 22The need for a quantum leap 24

Coming clean: modern fuels, modern stoves 28Investing in household energy pays off 30Rolling out household energy programmes: learning from the past 32New household energy horizons 34

Section 3: The way forward

Section 1: Household energy, indoor airpollution and health

Key points

4 Fuel for Life: Household Energy and Health 5

nergy is essential to meet our most basicneeds: cooking, boiling water, lighting and

heating. It is also a prerequisite for good health– a reality that has been largely ignored by the worldcommunity.

More than three billion people still burn wood,dung, coal and other traditional fuels inside theirhomes. The resulting indoor air pollution isresponsible for more than 1.5 million deaths a year– mostly of young children and their mothers.Millions more suffer every day with difficulty inbreathing, stinging eyes and chronic respiratorydisease. Moreover, indoor air pollution andinefficient household energy practices are asignificant obstacle to the achievement of theMillennium Development Goals.

Fuel for life, food for thought. With this publicationwe draw attention to a serious neglected publichealth problem. Effective solutions exist and theeconomic case for taking practical solutions to scaleis just as strong as the humanitarian case. Makingcleaner fuels and improved stoves available tomillions of poor people in developing countries willreduce child mortality and improve women's health.In addition to the health gains, household energyprogrammes can help lift families out of poverty andaccelerate development progress.

We hope that Fuel for life will inspire and promptvigorous action to close the household energy gap.

Dr LEE Jong-wook Director-General

World Health Organization

EForeword

uel for life: household energy and health waswritten and coordinated by Eva Rehfuess (WHO).

It draws on many previously published as well aspreviously unpublished data. The latter include anupdated assessment of the burden of diseaseattributable to solid fuel use by Sophie Bonjour (WHO)and Annette Prüss-Üstün (WHO), solid fuel usepredictions by Sophie Bonjour and Eva Rehfuess, ananalysis of World Health Survey data on solid fuel useaccording to income quintiles by Nirmala Naidoo(WHO), and a cost-benefit-analysis of household energyinterventions by Guy Hutton (Swiss Tropical Institute),Eva Rehfuess, Fabrizio Tediosi (Swiss TropicalInstitute) and Svenja Weiss (Swiss Tropical Institute).

The following individuals provided valuable contributionsand comments on all or parts of this publication:

Grant Ballard-Tremeer, HEDON Household EnergyNetworkJamie Bartram, Public Health and Environment,WHOLiz Bates, The Intermediate TechnologyGroup/Practical ActionSophie Bonjour, Public Health and Environment,WHOVerena Brinkmann, German Technical Cooperation,GermanyNigel Bruce, University of Liverpool, EnglandLisa Büttner, Winrock InternationalDiarmid Campbell-Lendrum, Public Health andEnvironment, WHOJo Chandler, Shell Foundation, EnglandCarlos Corvalan, Public Health and Environment,WHOLaura Cozzi, International Energy AgencyCarlos Dora, Public Health and Environment,WHOBrenda Doroski, United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, United StatesCharles Gilks, HIV/AIDS, WHOBruce Gordon, Public Health and Environment,WHOMarlis Kees, German Technical Cooperation, GermanyAgnes Klingshirn, German Technical Cooperation,GermanyMarcelo Korc, WHO Regional Office for theAmericas/Pan American Health OrganizationMichal Krzyzanowski, WHO Regional Office for EuropeDaniel Mäusezahl, Swiss Agency for Developmentand Cooperation, SwitzerlandJohn Mitchell, United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, United States

F Maria Neira, Public Health and Environment,WHOHisashi Ogawa, WHO Regional Office for theWestern PacificKevin O'Reilly, HIV/AIDS, WHOAnnette Prüss-Üstün, Public Health andEnvironment, WHOPierre Quiblier, United Nations EnvironmentProgrammeSumeet Saksena, The East West Centre, United StatesHanspeter Wyss, Swiss Agency for Developmentand Cooperation, Switzerland

This publication was copy-edited by Susan Kaplan.Design and layout was provided by Paprika.

Photo credits: cover: Nigel Bruce; page 3: Nigel Bruce;page 5: Nigel Bruce; pages 7/8: Prabir Mallik, WorldBank; page 9: Curt Carnemark/World Bank; page 10:Ray Witlin/World Bank; page 10, black margin: NigelBruce; page 11: Karen Robinson/Practical Action;page 12, black margin: Nigel Bruce; page 13/14,black margin: Nigel Bruce; pages 13/14: CrispinHughes/Practical Action; page 15/16: DavidLederman/Photoshare; pages 17/18, black margin:Creative Collection; page 17: Nigel Bruce/PracticalAction; pages 19/20 black margin: NigelBruce/Practical Action; page 20 (top): NigelBruce/Practical Action; page 20 (bottom): MarkEdwards/Still Pictures; page 22 black margin: AnneTinker/Photoshare; page 22: Dominic Sansoni/WorldBank; page 23: Nigel Bruce/Practical Action; page 24,black margin: Nigel Bruce/Practical Action; pages25/26: Ray Witlin/World Bank; page 26, black margin:Jorgen Schytte/Still Pictures; pages 27/28: CurtCarnemark/World Bank; page 30 (top): NigelBruce/Practical Action; page 30 (bottom): NigelBruce; page 30, black margin: Nigel Bruce/PracticalAction; page 31: Nigel Bruce/Practical Action; page32, black margin: Creative Collection; page 33: NigelBruce; page 34: Nigel Bruce/Practical Action; page35: Dominic Sansoni/World Bank; page 36: CurtCarnemark/World Bank; page 36, black margin:Chandrakant Ruparelia/Photoshare; page 37: DanielleBaron/CCP/Photoshare.

This publication was made possible by the generoussupport of the Swiss Agency for Development andCooperation (SDC), the United Kingdom Departmentfor International Development (DFID), the SwedishInternational Development Agency (SIDA) and theNorwegian Agency for Development Cooperation(NORAD).

Acknowledgements

sect

ion1 Household

Energy, IndoorAir Pollutionand Health

76

8 Fuel for Life: Household Energy and Health 9

ooking as an enjoyable pastime and passionfor a privileged minority – on an electric range

or a gas stove in a stylish kitchen in New York, Parisor Tokyo. Cooking as a chore and threat to the livesof the great majority – on an open fire in a shabbyhut in rural Africa, south Asia or Latin America.

Worldwide, more than three billion people dependon solid fuels, including biomass (wood, dung andagricultural residues) and coal, to meet their mostbasic energy needs: cooking, boiling water andheating (Figure 1). Opening the door to their homesmakes for a hazy welcome: thick grey smoke fillsthe air, making breathing unbearable and bringingtears to the eyes. The inefficient burning of solidfuels on an open fire or traditional stove indoorscreates a dangerous cocktail of hundreds ofpollutants, primarily carbon monoxide and smallparticles, but also nitrogen oxides, benzene,butadiene, formaldehyde, polyaromatic hydro-carbons and many other health-damagingchemicals. Day in day out, and for hours at a time,women and their small children breathe in amountsof smoke equivalent to consuming two packs ofcigarettes per day. Where coal is used, additionalcontaminants such as sulfur, arsenic and fluorinemay also be present in the air.

Yet, these families are faced with an impossibledilemma: don't cook with solid fuels, or don't eat acooked meal. Being poor condemns half ofhumanity to dependence on polluting householdenergy practices. With increasing prosperity,cleaner, more efficient and more convenient fuelsare replacing, step-by-step, traditional biomassfuels and coal. Climbing up the energy ladder tendsto occur gradually as most low- and middle-incomehouseholds use a combination of fuels to meet theircooking needs (Figure 2).

The problem of indoor air pollution has been aroundsince the Stone Age, yet international developmentagendas still fail to recognize that missing out onclean energy equals missing out on life.

C

"The health of the people is really thefoundation upon which all their happinessand all their powers as a state depend."

Benjamin Disraeli,British statesman and writer (1804—1881)

Incr

easi

ng u

se o

f cle

aner

, mor

e ef

ficie

nt a

ndm

ore

conv

enie

nt fu

els

for c

ooki

ng

Increasing prosperity and development

Kerosene

Electricity

Natural gas

Solid fuels

Non-solid fuels

Very low income Low income Middle income High income

Ethanol, methanol

Gas, liquefied petroleum gas

Wood

Charcoal

Crop waste,dung

Coal

Household energy:three billion left behind

Figure 2: The energy ladder: household energy and developmentinextricably linked

0%–25%

26%–50%

51%–75%

76%–100%

Figure 1: Energy poverty in people's homesPercentage of population using solid fuels (MillenniumDevelopment Goal indicator 29), 2003 or latest available data

Reproduced with permission from: © Myriad Editions

SUFFICIENT

INSUFFICIENT

1110 Fuel for Life: Household Energy and Health

lack soot covers the walls of the dwelling. Itis the pollutants in this black soot, as well as

many invisible pollutants in the air, that women andchildren breathe in for many hours every day. Smallparticles (with a diameter of up to 10 microns(PM10)) are the most widely used indicator of thehealth hazard of indoor air pollution. Fine particles(with a diameter of up to 2.5 microns (PM2.5)) areable to penetrate deep into the lungs and appear tohave the greatest health-damaging potential. It isknown that these particles can cause inflammationof the airways and lungs and impair the immuneresponse, yet the precise mechanism by whichexposure to indoor air pollution translates intodisease is still unknown.

Burning solid fuels produces extremely high levelsof indoor air pollution: typical 24-hour levels ofPM10 in biomass-using homes in Africa, Asia orLatin America range from 300 to 3000 microgramsper cubic metre (µg/m3). Peaks during cooking maybe as high as 10 000 µg/m3. By comparison, theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency hasset the standard for annual mean PM10 levels inoutdoor air at 50 µg/m3; the annual mean PM10 limitagreed by the European Union is 40 µg/m3. Ascooking takes place every day of the year, mostpeople using solid fuels are exposed to levels ofsmall particles many times higher than acceptedannual limits for outdoor air pollution (Figure 3).The more time people spend in these highlypolluted environments, the more dramatic theconsequences for health. Women and children,indoors and in the vicinity of the hearth for manyhours a day, are most at risk from harmful indoor airpollution.

Since the mid-1980s, epidemiological studies havebeen investigating the impacts of exposure to indoorair pollution on health. The results of these studieshave recently been reviewed by WHO (Table 1).Inhaling indoor smoke doubles the risk ofpneumonia and other acute infections of the lowerrespiratory tract among children under five years ofage. Women exposed to indoor smoke are threetimes more likely to suffer from chronic obstructivepulmonary disease (COPD), such as chronicbronchitis or emphysema, than women who cookwith electricity, gas or other cleaner fuels. And coaluse doubles the risk of lung cancer, particularlyamong women.

B Moreover, some studies have linked exposure toindoor smoke to asthma; cataracts; tuberculosis;adverse pregnancy outcomes, in particular low birthweight; ischaemic heart disease; interstitial lungdisease, and nasopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers.New research is needed to shed light on howexposure to indoor smoke contributes to this longlist of health problems (see also Box 1).

Box 1: Better household energy practices to mitigate the HIV/AIDS crisis?

Winning the battle against HIV/AIDS calls for effective prevention and treatment. But it also requires that people maintain theirenergy levels and physical fitness. Household energy plays a crucial role in keeping patients and their caregivers going: It isindispensable for cooking safe, nutritious meals and for boiling water to ensure its safety for drinking. It is essential for preparinghot compresses, heating water for bathing and sterilizing utensils for patients. And it provides warmth for those who are ill andsuffering.

In Africa, wood tends to be scarce where collected and expensive where purchased. The incomplete combustion of biomass fuelsindoors produces dense smoke, a major contributor to respiratory problems – even more so among immunocompromised HIV/AIDSpatients. Therefore, more efficient, cleaner household energy practices can help families affected by HIV/AIDS as well as those notaffected by the disease to live a healthier life.

Adapted from:Gebert N. Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS: Participation or exclusion? Actors in the context of HIV/AIDS and project-induced measures (GTZ) for the optimized utilization ofsubsistence resources. German Technical Cooperation Programme for Biomass Energy Conservation in Southern Africa (GTZ ProBEC), in press. Available at:http://www.probec.org

1 Strong evidence: Many studies of solid fuel use in developing countries, supported by evidence from studies of active and passive smoking, urban air pollutionand biochemical or laboratory studies. Moderate evidence: At least three studies of solid fuel use in developing countries, supported by evidence from studies on active smoking and on animals.Moderate I: strong evidence for specific age/sex groups. Moderate II: limited evidence.

2 The relative risk indicates how many times more likely the disease is to occur in people exposed to indoor air pollution than in unexposed people.3 The confidence interval represents an uncertainty range. Wide intervals indicate lower precision; narrow intervals indicate greater precision.

Health outcome Evidence1 Population Relative risk2 Relative risk (95% confidence interval)3

Acute infections of the Strong Children aged 0–4 years 2.3 1.9–2.7lower respiratory tract

Strong Women aged ≥ 30 years 3.2 2.3–4.8Chronic obstructivepulmonary disease

Moderate I Men aged ≥ 30 years 1.8 1.0–3.2

Lung cancer (coal) Strong Women aged ≥ 30 years 1.9 1.1–3.5

Moderate I Men aged ≥ 30 years 1.5 1.0–2.5

Lung cancer (biomass) Moderate II Women aged ≥ 30 years 1.5 1.0–2.1

Asthma Moderate II Children aged 5–14 years 1.6 1.0–2.5

Moderate II Adults aged ≥ 15 years 1.2 1.0–1.5

Cataracts Moderate II Adults aged ≥ 15 years 1.3 1.0–1.7

Tuberculosis Moderate II Adults aged ≥ 15 years 1.5 1.0–2.4

Health at the heartof the matter

USEPA annual standard 50

3000

240

30

Berlin city centre Bangkok roadside Hut with open fire

USEPA, US Environmental Protection Agency.

Figure 3: Smoky streets, smoky homesTypical 24-hour mean levels of small particles (PM10) in micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3), early 2000s

Table 1: Health impacts of indoor air pollution


alaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and many otherdiseases compete for newspaper headlines –

and the attention of the public. How should decision-makers prioritize one health problem against another?

The burden of disease combines years of life lost due todeath with the years of life lost due to disability in asingle measure that applies across diseases and healthrisks. WHO investigates the contribution of a range of riskfactors, such as malnutrition, smoking and lack ofphysical activity, to the burden of disease. The results forthe year 2000 unveiled cooking as a dangerousundertaking and indoor air pollution from burning solidfuel as one of the top ten global health risks. The "kitchenkiller" turned out to be responsible for 1.6 million deathsand 2.7% of the global burden of disease. In poordeveloping countries, only malnutrition, unsafe sex andlack of clean water and adequate sanitation were greaterhealth threats than indoor air pollution.

This wake-up call placed indoor air pollution on theinternational public health agenda for the first time. Yet,the most recent and more accurate estimates showpractically no change. Globally, 1.5 million people diedfrom diseases caused by indoor air pollution in the year2002. This figure includes children who died frompneumonia and adults who died from chronic respiratorydisease and lung cancer – only those diseases for whichcurrent evidence for a link with indoor air pollution issufficient (see Table 1). What if indoor smoke also turns outto contribute to low birth weight and tuberculosis?

Reliance on polluting solid fuels (Figure 4) and inefficienthousehold energy practices varies widely around theworld, as does the death toll due to indoor smoke (Figure 5).In 2002, Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia ledwith 396 000 and 483 000 deaths due to indoor smoke,respectively. Widespread use of biomass and coal inChina plays a key role in chronic respiratory diseasesamong adults, and was responsible for a large share of the466 000 deaths in the Western Pacific in 2002.Although the majority of the population in Latin Americaand the Caribbean, the Eastern Mediterranean andEurope use gas and other cleaner fuels for cooking, thehealth burden disproportionately falls on the poorestcountries in these regions, and on the poorest membersof society among whom solid fuel use is still common (seeFigure 6 and Trapped by energy poverty).

Indoor air pollution continues to ravage ruralcommunities and poor urban dwellers. And it continues tobe largely ignored by the world community.

M

WHO

sub

regi

on

Deaths per 100 000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

WprB

SearD

SearB

EurC

EurB

EmrD

EmrB

AmrD

AmrB

AfrE

AfrD

Figure 5: ... translates into respiratory deathsDeaths attributable to indoor air pollution per 100 000 population, by WHO subregion1, 2002

1 WHO distinguishes between the following geographical regions: African Region (Afr); Region of theAmericas (Amr); Eastern Mediterranean Region (Emr); European Region (Eur); South-East Asia Region(Sear); Western Pacific Region (Wpr). WHO also differentiates between the following mortality strata: verylow child, very low adult (A); low child, low adult (B); low child, high adult (C); high child, high adult(D); high child, very high adult (E).

WHO

sub

regi

on

Percentage of population using solid fuels

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

WprB

SearD

SearB

EurC

EurB

EmrD

EmrB

AmrD

AmrB

AfrE

AfrD

Figure 4: Widespread solid fuel use ...Percentage of population using solid fuels, by WHO subregion1, 2003 or latest available data

1 WHO distinguishes between the following geographical regions: African Region (Afr); Region of theAmericas (Amr); Eastern Mediterranean Region (Emr); European Region (Eur); South-East Asia Region(Sear); Western Pacific Region (Wpr). WHO also differentiates between the following mortality strata: verylow child, very low adult (A); low child, low adult (B); low child, high adult (C); high child, high adult(D); high child, very high adult (E).

"Are we to decide the importance of issues byasking how fashionable or glamorous they are? Orby asking how seriously they affect how many?"

Nelson Mandela,South African statesman and winnerof the Nobel Prize for Peace (1918–)The killer in the kitchen

sect

ion 2 Household

Energy and the MillenniumDevelopmentGoals

1514

Figure 6: Poverty and energy poverty go hand in handPercentage of population using solid fuels in some of theworld's largest countries, by income quintiles in urban(top) and rural (bottom) locations, 2003


n September 2000, the largest-ever gatheringof Heads of State committed themselves to

making the right to development a reality foreveryone. The Millennium Declaration promotes acomprehensive approach that tackles a broad rangeof problems simultaneously. By 2015, the worldaims to have achieved eight goals for combatingpoverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmentaldegradation and discrimination against women.

There is no Millennium Development Goal onenergy. Yet, energy poverty is one of the manymanifestations of poverty and a prevailing feature ofdeprived rural and urban households in developingcountries (Figure 6). Lack of energy, in particularlack of access to modern cooking fuels andelectricity, already represents a bottleneck, holdingback progress towards achieving the goals. Ratherthan squeezing through the bottleneck, the UnitedNations Millennium Project proposes to confrontthe energy issue directly (see The need for aquantum leap). Improved energy services canreduce child mortality rates, improve maternalhealth, reduce the time and transport burden onwomen and young girls, and lessen the pressure onfragile ecosystems (Table 2).

Halving the number of people without effectiveaccess to modern cooking fuels by 2015 andmaking improved cooking stoves widely availablerepresents a stepping stone towards achieving theMillennium Development Goals.

I

"We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women andchildren from the abject and dehumanizing conditions ofextreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them arecurrently subjected."

United Nations Millennium DeclarationEnergizing the MillenniumDevelopment Goals

poorest quintile

richest quintile

Perc

enta

ge o

f rur

al p

opul

atio

n us

ing

solid

fuel

s

Bangla

desh

Brazil

China

Ethiop

iaInd

ia

Mexico

Russia

n Fed

eratio

n

South

Africa

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Millennium Development Goals Contribution of improved household energy practices

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger ◆ Saving time spent being ill or having to care for sick children will cut health care expenses and increase earning capacities.

◆ Where fuels are purchased, increasing fuel efficiency and thus cutting down on the quantity of fuel needed will ease constraints on already tight household budgets.

◆ Improved household energy technologies and practices will open up opportunities for income generation.

◆ Access to electricity will provide a source of light for economicactivities in the evening and a source of energy for operating, forexample, a sewing-machine or refrigerator.

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education ◆ With less time lost in collecting fuel and due to ill health, children will have more time available for school attendance and homework.

◆ Better lighting will allow children to study outside of daylight hours andwithout putting their eyesight at risk.

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women ◆ Alleviating the drudgery of fuel collection and reducing cooking time willfree women's time for productive endeavours, education and child care.

◆ Reducing the time and distance that women and girls need to travel to collect fuel will reduce the risk of assault and injury, particularly in conflict situations.

◆ Involving women in household energy decisions will promote gender equality and raise women's prestige.

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality ◆ Reducing indoor air pollution will prevent child morbidity and mortality from pneumonia.

◆ Protecting the developing embryo from indoor air pollution can helpavert stillbirth, perinatal mortality and low birth weight.

◆ Getting rid of open fires and kerosene wick lamps in the home can prevent infants and toddlers being burned and scalded.

Goal 5: Improve maternal health ◆ Curbing indoor air pollution will alleviate chronic respiratory problems among women.

◆ A less polluted home can improve the health of new mothers who spendtime close to the fire after having given birth.

◆ A more accessible source of fuel can reduce women's labour burdens and associated health risks, such as prolapse due to carrying heavy loads.

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases ◆ Lowering levels of indoor air pollution levels can help prevent 1.6million deaths from tuberculosis annually.

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability ◆ Where biomass is scarce, easing the reliance on wood for fuel throughmore efficient cooking practices will lessen pressures on forests.

◆ Moving up the energy ladder and using improved stoves can increase energy efficiency and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development ◆ Recognition in development agendas and by partnerships of the fundamental role that household energy plays in economic and social development will help achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

Table 2: Cracking the energy code

Perc

enta

ge o

f urb

an p

opul

atio

n us

ing

solid

fuel

s

Bangla

desh

Brazil

China

Ethiop

iaInd

ia

Mexico

Russia

n Fed

eratio

n

South

Africa

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 7: Energy – a major expenditurefor poor households


xtreme poverty remains a daily reality formore than 1 billion people who survive on

less than 1$ per day1. Being poor means getting uphungry in the morning, anxious where to findenough food to make it through to the evening (Box2). Being poor means being forced to accept anywork there is and being denied a good schooleducation. Being poor means living in anovercrowded smoky dwelling that lacks sufficientwater for drinking, hand-washing and personalhygiene. Being poor means not having the freedomto make choices.

Millennium Development Goal 1, to eradicateextreme poverty and hunger, represents the essenceof the Millennium Declaration. Dependence onpolluting inefficient household energy practicesstops people from breaking out of the vicious cycleof poverty.

Good health is crucial as household livelihoods relyon the health of family members. Being ill as aresult of indoor smoke or having to care for sickchildren reduces earnings and leads to additionalexpenses for health care and medication. Brokenbones, backache and snake bites endured duringfuel collection add to the problem. Reports fromwar zones and refugee camps provide sad testimonyof girls and women being assaulted when they leavethe relative safety of their homes to collect fuel.

Where fuel is purchased, for example in urbanslums in Africa and Asia, spending money on largequantities of inefficient fuels places severeconstraints on household budgets. Poor householdstend to spend a larger percentage of their incomeon energy than well-off households (Figure 7).Where fuel is collected, women and children losemany hours a week searching for wood branchesand twigs (Figure 8). Fuel collection is notnecessarily a daily task, as the duration andfrequency of collection varies depending on theavailability of wood for use as a fuel. In rural India,

ETrapped by energy poverty

for example, daily fuel collection time ranges fromonly 20 minutes per day in Andhra Pradesh to morethan one hour per day in Rajasthan, which is mostlycovered by desert. Cooking, serving foods andwashing the soot-laden pots adds to this timeburden, eating up about three hours of women'stime every day.

Alleviating the drudgery of collecting fuel far fromhome and easing the task of cooking throughownership of more efficient devices can freewomen's time for productive endeavours, education,child care and relaxation. With less time wasted oncollecting wood and being ill, children will havemore time available to attend school, do theirhomework and enjoy childhood. Finally, involvingwomen in household energy decisions promotesgender equality and empowers women. Owning aless-polluting stove raises a woman's prestige – bothby being a sign of wealth and, indirectly, throughproviding a soot-free kitchen environment.

poorest quintile

richest quintile

Perc

enta

ge o

f hou

seho

ld in

com

e sp

ent o

n en

ergy

Ethiop

iaInd

ia

South

Africa

Ugand

a

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Box 2: Too little wood for too many people: householdenergy and hunger

Where wood supplies are scarce, unsustainable harvesting of fuelendangers agricultural production and threatens a stable supplyof crops. Deforestation and ensuing erosion damage formerlyfertile fields; this is particularly true where trees are felled forcharcoal production to supply urbanizing areas of Africa withfuel. Resorting to dung as a lower-grade fuel interrupts thenormal composting process and diverts the dung from being usedas a natural soil fertilizer. In the absence of any chemicalfertilizers, this will ultimately reduce field productivity.

For these reasons, improving household energy practices will alsoboost agricultural productivity and food security. By restoringnatural soil fertility, they reduce expenditure on chemicalfertilizers. Higher fuel efficiency frees women's time for growingfood and tending animals.

1 $ Purchasing power parities (PPPs): These conversion ratesequalize the purchasing power of different currencies byeliminating the differences in price levels between countries.

Adapted with permission from:International Energy Agency, OECD. World EnergyOutlook 2002. Paris, International Energy Agency andOECD, 2002. Table 13.1.

Figure 8: Time ticking awayDaily hours that women spend collecting fuel in different Africangeographical settings, by country, 1990–2003

Hour

s pe

r day

Botswan

a

Burkina

Faso

Ethiop

iaGha

naKen

ya

Malawi

Namibi

aNige

r

Nigeria

South

Africa

Ugand

a

United

Repub

lic of

Tanzan

ia

Zambia

Zimba

bwe

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Sources:Dutta S. Energy as a key variable in eradicating extreme poverty and hunger: A gender andenergy perspective on empirical evidence on MDG 1. In: Gender as a key variable in energyinterventions. Draft background paper for ENERGIA/DfID/KaR Research Project R8346. 2005.Available at: http://www.energia.org/Hutton G, Rehfuess E, Tediosi F, Weiss S. Evaluation of the costs and benefits of household energyand health interventions at global and regional levels. Geneva, World Health Organization, in press.

Figure 10: African and South-East Asian children sufferdisproportionatelyDeaths in children aged under five years from pneumoniaand other acute infections of the lower respiratory tract dueto indoor air pollution, by WHO region, 2002


ver 10 million children aged under five yearsdie every year – 99% of them in developing

countries. "To reduce by two-thirds the under-fivemortality rate between 1990 and 2015" may be themost ambitious of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals.

Globally, pneumonia remains the single mostimportant child killer and is responsible for 2 milliondeaths every year (Figure 9). Newborns and infantsare often carried on their mother's back while sheis cooking, or kept close to the warm hearth.Consequently, they spend many hours breathingpolluted air during their first year of life when theirdeveloping airways and their immature immunesystems make them particularly vulnerable. Indoorsmoke is one of the underlying causes and toblame for nearly 800 000 child deaths annually.These deaths are not equally distributedthroughout the world: more than one third of thechild deaths due to indoor smoke, that is 358 000deaths, occur on the African continent, andanother 288 000 child deaths occur in South-EastAsia (Figure 10).

In most societies, women are in charge of cooking.Day after day, and often throughout the course of alifetime, they spend many hours in the vicinity ofthe fire or stove. The acrid smoke depositing soot intheir lungs is responsible for 511 000 of the 1.3million deaths due to COPD among womenworldwide per year. In contrast, only 173 000 of atotal of 1.4 million deaths from COPD among menare due to indoor smoke (Figure 11). Inefficienthousehold energy practices may be of particularsignificance to the health of pregnant women:carrying heavy loads during fuel collection maybring about prolapse during pregnancy, andexposure of the developing embryo to harmfulpollutants may lead to low birth weight as well asstillbirth.

Users of solid fuels in developing countries tend tobe poor and, especially in rural areas, are unlikelyto live in the vicinity of health care facilities. Theirability to afford medical treatment and to seekmedical care for themselves and their sick childrenis limited. Consequently, trying to reduce thenumber of deaths from pneumonia throughtreatment may not benefit the poorest of the poor.

O

"Her three children were blinking at me in the darkness from behind her skirt. Thewoman was extremely ill and had a racking cough, and I remember the blacknessinside the home and the stench of wood smoke which was overpowering."

Hilary Benn,currently Secretary of State for International Development,

United Kingdom, reminiscing about a visit to Northern Ethiopia

Women and childrenoverlooked

And, even if a child is successfully treated forpneumonia, he or she will have to return to a homewhere high levels of indoor air pollution prevail incombination with other threats to health, such asovercrowding and an inadequate diet.

In contrast, switching to cleaner fuels andincreasing fuel efficiency through better stoves canreduce health risks for all family members. Beyondcurbing respiratory problems, a more securehousehold energy situation enables water to beboiled and thus helps reduce the incidence ofwater-borne diseases. It can also increase thenumber of hot meals consumed per day and thusimprove food safety and nutrition. A closed, raisedstove prevents infants and toddlers falling into thefire or knocking over pots of hot liquid and beingburned or scalded.

Closing the household energy gap can therefore bea springboard for achieving the health-relatedMillennium Development Goals.

Figure 9: Pneumonia is a major child killerPercentage of deaths in children under five years of age, by cause, 2000–2003

Other, 7%

Tetanus, 7%

Diarrhoea, 3%

Sepsis, pneumonia, 26%

Asphyxia, 23%

Congenital, 8%

Preterm, 28%

Neonatal37%

Malaria8%

Diarrhoea17%

Pneumonia19%

Others10%

HIV/AIDS3%

Injuries3%

Measles4%

Causes of neonatal deaths

Undernutrition is an underlying cause of 53% of deaths among children under five years of age.

Num

ber o

f dea

ths

(000

)

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

WHO distinguishes between the following geographical regions: African Region(Afr); Region of the Americas (Amr); Eastern Mediterranean Region (Emr); EuropeanRegion (Eur); South-East Asia Region (Sear); Western Pacific Region (Wpr).

Afr Amr Emr Eur Sear Wpr

WHO region

Figure 11: Women most at riskDeaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due toindoor air pollution, by gender and WHO region, 2002

Num

ber o

f dea

ths

(000

)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

WHO distinguishes between the following geographical regions: AfricanRegion (Afr); Region of the Americas (Amr); Eastern Mediterranean Region(Emr); European Region (Eur); South-East Asia Region (Sear); Western PacificRegion (Wpr).

Afr Amr Emr Eur Sear Wpr

WHO regionWomen

Men


uman survival and prosperity are criticallydependent on the environment. Complex

ecosystems ensure a continuous supply of food andfresh water and provide wood and other naturalresources for our use. They regulate our climate andprotect us from floods and other natural disasters.Ecosystems have shown a remarkable capacity toaccommodate more and more of our needs, yet, thisvery foundation of our existence is now threatenedby population growth and the unsustainable use ofnatural resources.

2.4 billion people burn biomass fuels on a dailybasis to boil water and to cook food. As a result 2million tonnes of biomass are going up in smokeevery day. This may not pose a problem where thegrowth of new trees outpaces human demand. Yet,where wood is scarce and the population is dense,wood collection can put considerable pressure onforests. During the 1990s, forest plantationsrendered unproductive due to illegal cutting ofwood for fuel were a common sight in China andprovided the main motivation for the establishmentof the Chinese National Improved StovesProgramme (see Rolling out household energyprogrammes: learning from the past). Ingeographical hotspots in parts of Latin America andSouth-East Asia, alarming rates of deforestation areleading to land degradation and desertification.Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa havewitnessed the depletion of more than three quartersof their forest cover (Figure 12).

As plants, soils and oceans struggle to absorb risingemissions, carbon dioxide (CO2) is building up inthe atmosphere. This greenhouse gas is beginningto change our climate, leading to increasedtemperatures, changes in rainfall patterns and morefrequent extreme weather events. The use ofbiomass fuels and coal for cooking and heatingaccounts for between 10% and 15% of globalenergy use. Yet household use of these fuels doesnot feature prominently in discussions on globalwarming and climate change. Moreover, becausethey are classified as renewable sources of energy,it is mistakenly assumed that biomass fuels arealways harvested and used in a sustainable way.

The burning of biomass fuels in poor homes in thedeveloping world does not convert all fuel carboninto CO2 and water. Open fires and traditionalstoves tend to be highly inefficient and lose a large

H

"Over the last 50 years, humans have changed ... ecosystems morerapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time inhuman history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, freshwater, timber, fibre and fuel ... The degradation of ecosystem servicescould grow significantly worse during the first half of this century andis a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals."

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005

Stripping our forests,heating our planet

percentage of the fuel energy as so-called productsof incomplete combustion. These include thepotent greenhouse gas methane (CH4), which staysin the atmosphere for decades. When combiningthe emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases ina single index, wood, crop residues and dung scoremuch higher than fossil fuels, such as kerosene andliquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (Figure 13). Thisholds true, even where biomass fuels are renewablyharvested. Notably, to deliver the same amount ofenergy, dung used in a biogas digestor producesonly 1% of the greenhouse gas emissions of thoseproduced by dung burnt in a traditional stove (seeBox 6).

Introducing household energy practices that, inaddition to decreasing levels of indoor smoke, savefuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions canmake an important contribution to achievingMillennium Development Goal 7. This is why theproportion of the population using solid fuels is oneof the indicators used to assess progress towardsreversing the loss of environmental resources (seeFigure 1).

Figure 12: World's forests on the declinePercentage change in forest cover per year, 2000–2005

Reproduced with permission from:Food and Agricultural Organization. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra2005

> 0.5% decrease per year > 0.5% increase per year change rate below 0.5% per year

Grams carbon as CO2 per MJ delivered

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Biogas

LPG

Kerosene

Wood (sustainableharvesting)

Wood (unsustainableharvesting)

Crop residues

Dung

Figure 13: Household energy and global warming

Adapted with permission from:Smith KR, et al. Greenhouse implications of household stoves: an analysis for India. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment,2000, 25:741–763

20-year greenhouse gas emissions in grams carbon as CO2 emitted per megajoule (MJ)◆ based on established greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrogen dioxide (N2O);◆ based on established and additional greenhouse gases, carbon monoxide (CO) and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC).Emissions from different fuel/stove combinations in India were systematically assessed using a standardized cooking test.

establishedgreenhouse gases

additionalgreenhouse gases


nergy enables basic human needs to be met:cooking food, providing light and hauling water

from a well. Energy underlies all economic activity,such as growing crops, selling agricultural productsin a shop and delivering them to consumers.

The United Nations Millennium Project highlightsthe role of energy services, in particular, moderncooking fuels, as a prerequisite for development(see Energizing the Millennium DevelopmentGoals). It calls on countries to adopt the followingenergy target to pave the way for achieving theMillennium Development Goals: "By 2015, toreduce the number of people without effectiveaccess to modern cooking fuels by 50%, and makeimproved cooking stoves widely available". For thistarget to become a reality, 1.7 billion people willneed to gain access to LPG, natural gas, biogasand other modern fuels (Figure 14). In otherwords, every day, between now and 2015, theseenergy services will need to be extended to 485000 people. Reaching the target would still leave1.5 billion people cooking with solid fuels.

An ever-changing world adds to the challenge.Globally, 840 000 more people were using cleanerfuels in 2003 than in 1990, corresponding to adrop in solid fuel use from 58% to 52% of thepopulation. Yet, because of population growth, theactual number of people using solid fuels has notgone down but rather gone up by 170 000. Energypoverty goes hand in hand with lack of energyinfrastructure, such as a distribution network forLPG or an electricity grid. And lack of energyinfrastructure is a common feature of isolatedrural communities and rapidly growing urbanslums. Achieving the energy target requiresoutpacing population growth and reaching thosehardest to reach.

A way to escape energy poverty, a way to escapepoverty. According to the International EnergyAgency (IEA), we can only halve poverty by 2015if the number of people relying on traditionalbiomass for cooking and heating is reduced to lessthan 1.85 billion. According to the IEA's referencescenario, however, this number will increase to2.55 billion in 2015 (Figure 15). Electricity is

E

unlikely to become an important cooking fuel inmost developing countries in the foreseeablefuture. Yet, access to electricity has a profoundimpact on people's lives, and represents anecessary precondition to moving up thedevelopment ladder. Nevertheless the number ofpeople without electricity in 2015 will remainpractically unchanged and a long way from the 1billion required to halve the proportion of peopleliving on less than 1$ per day (Figure 15).

A rigorous acceleration of energy provision is neededto break the vicious cycle of energy poverty and lackof development in the world's poorest countries.

Figure 14: Trends in solid fuel usePopulation using solid fuels (millions), 1990, 2003 (mid-point) and 2015

Reproduced with permission from:International Energy Agency, OECD. WorldEnergy Outlook 2004. Paris, InternationalEnergy Agency and OECD, 2004. Figure 10.11.

Data for 2015 are based on:◆ a business-as-usual scenario that applies the observed annual increase in the

number of people with access to cleaner fuels from 1990 to 2003 to theperiod 2003 to 2015;

◆ the voluntary Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target proposed by the UNMillennium Project to halve the number of people without access to moderncooking fuels between 1990 and 2015.

Non-solid fuel users

Solid fuel users

mill

ion

peop

le

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

01990 2003 2015 2015 MDG

WHO region

People to gain accessto cleaner fuels toreach the voluntaryMDG energy target

Figure 15: Better access to household energy can lift people out of povertyMillion people in developing countries without electricity and relying on traditional biomass, 2002 and 2015

Data for 2015 are based on:◆ the International Energy Agency

(IEA) reference scenario;◆ the energy requirement to achieve

the Millennium Development Goal(MDG) target to halve poverty.

2002

2015 reference scenario

2015 MDG target

mill

ion

peop

le

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

People without electricity People relying on traditional biomass

People toswitch awayfrom traditionalbiomass toreach MDG

People to gainaccess toelectricity toreach MDG

The need for a quantum leap

sect

ion 3

The WayForward

2726


ractical solutions to the indoor smoke problemmust reduce pollution levels substantially to curb

disease. But first and foremost, interventions mustmeet the needs of users at least as well as the facilitiesthey started off with. Women should be able to preparetypical dishes with ease, as well as baking bread orfollowing other local customs. In cold regions, tacklingheating requirements should be part of the planningprocess. Beyond meeting the users' immediate energyneeds, interventions should also cut the amount of fuelneeded, minimize the risk of burns and relieve thedrudgery of women and children.

These interventions do exist (Table 3). Switching fromwood, dung or charcoal to more efficient modern fuels,such as kerosene, LPG and biogas, brings about thelargest reductions in indoor smoke. A study in ruralTamil Nadu, India, compared the levels of respirableparticles between homes where cooking was doneusing gas or kerosene and homes using wood or animaldung. Average pollution levels of 76 µg/m3 and 101µg/m3 in kitchens using kerosene and gas, respectively,contrasted with levels of 1500 to 2000 µg/m3 inkitchens where biomass fuels were used.

In many poor rural communities, however, access tothese alternatives is limited and biomass remains themost practical fuel. Here, improved stoves– provided they are adequately designed, installed andmaintained – can cut back indoor smoke levelsconsiderably. Cheap wood-burning stoves in East Africalower pollution by 50%; plancha stoves in LatinAmerica reduce indoor smoke levels by as much as90%. These stoves reduce a family's exposure to

P

Coming clean: modern fuels, modern stoves

harmful pollutants by optimizing combustion, ventingsmoke to the outside through a flue and chimney and,in some cases, reducing cooking times. A recent WorldBank study in Bangladesh found that stove locationand housing construction matter and that betterventilation of the cooking and living area may be apartial remedy. Eaves spaces, extraction through smokehoods (Box 3) and even keeping doors open duringcooking can curb levels of carbon monoxide andparticulate matter substantially.

Changing behaviours also plays a role in reducingexposure to indoor smoke. Drying fuel wood before useimproves combustion and lowers smoke production.Using lids on pots cuts cooking time. Young childrenwho are kept away from the smoking hearth breathe inless of the health-damaging pollutants. Such changesare unlikely to bring about reductions as great as thosefrom switching to a cleaner fuel or the installation of achimney stove, but they are important supportingmeasures for all interventions.

Yet, one crucial link is missing: By how much do weneed to lower pollution levels to make a real differenceto people's health? As illustrated above, severalintervention studies have documented a reduction inindoor air pollution levels, but have not made the linkwith health. To date, only one study has investigatedthe impact of an improved stove on childhoodpneumonia and women's respiratory health (Box 4).Therefore, we cannot yet draw clear-cut conclusionsabout which interventions are most effective in savingchildren's and women's lives. Additional research isurgently needed to answer this question.

Box 3: A hooded solution for a Maasai communityin rural Kenya

In Kenya, 96% of the population lack access to grid electricityand more than 80% of the population rely on solid fuels. Maasaiwomen in the Kajiado region cook and heat with wood, cattledung and crop residues. Fires are often kept smoulderingthroughout the day and night, leading to very high levels ofindoor smoke. The Intermediate Technology DevelopmentGroup/Practical Action (ITDG/Practical Action) has worked withlocal women to solve this problem.

Participatory approaches accompanied the solution frombeginning to end. Repeated talks with the Maasai communityrevealed the many health and social problems associated withindoor smoke. From a range of options, the women cooks decidedon a simple and affordable smoke hood as the solution that bestsuited their needs. Together with local artisans, ITDG/PracticalAction developed and tested a hood that draws smoke straightfrom the fire and out through the roof. Installed into people'shomes, this smoke hood cut down the concentration of respirableparticles by up to 80%, from more than 4300 µg/m3 to about1000 µg/m3.

Adapted from:ITDG/Practical Action. Reducing indoor air pollution in rural households in Kenya: workingwith communities to find solutions. The ITDG Smoke and Health Project, 1998–2001.Available at: http://www.itdg.org/docs/advocacy/smoke-project-report-kenya.pdf

Box 4: Testing the plancha stove in the highlandsof Guatemala

The first ever randomized controlled trial of an improved chimney stovehas just been completed in the province of San Marcos in WesternGuatemala. Researchers from the Universidad del Valle, the Universityof California at Berkeley, United States, and the University of Liverpool,England, are trying to find out whether the plancha stove makes a realdifference to the health of children and their mothers.

A new stove was installed in 250 homes in the small mountainouscommunity of San Lorenzo; 250 so-called control homes continued to cookon an open fire. Over a two-year period, all children aged less than 18months were assessed for pneumonia to compare the health of childrenliving in a home with a plancha stove with that of children living in a homewith an open fire. Every week, field workers visited the homes to identifyany sick children and to refer them to the study physicians for a thoroughexamination. The researchers also collected information on differencesbetween smoke levels, women's respiratory health, heart disease andchildhood asthma in the homes with and without the plancha stove.

The Guatemala trial represents the most sophisticated interventionstudy undertaken to date. The health and household energy communityis waiting with great interest for the results to shed light on how muchan improved stove can reduce childhood pneumonia.

Adapted from:University of California at Berkeley. Stove intervention study in the Guatemalan highlands.Available at: http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/guat/

Changing the source of pollution Improving the living environment Modifying user behaviour

Improved cooking devices Improved ventilation Reduced exposure by changing cooking practices◆ Improved stoves without flues ◆ Smoke hoods ◆ Fuel drying◆ Improved stoves with flues ◆ Eaves spaces ◆ Pot lids to conserve heat

◆ Windows ◆ Food preparation to reduce cookingAlternative fuel-cooker combinations time (e.g. soaking beans) ◆ Briquettes and pellets Kitchen design and placement of the stove ◆ Good maintenance of stoves,◆ Kerosene ◆ Kitchen separate from house reduces exposure chimneys and other appliances◆ Liquefied petroleum gas of family (less so for cook)◆ Biogas ◆ Stove at waist height reduces direct exposure Reduced exposure by avoiding smoke◆ Natural gas, producer gas of the cook leaning over fire ◆ Keeping children away from smoke◆ Solar cookers (e.g.in another room if available and◆ Modern biofuels (e.g. ethanol, plant oils) safe to do so)◆ Electricity

Reduced need for fire◆ Retained heat cooker (haybox)◆ Efficient housing design and construction◆ Solar water heating◆ Pressure cooker

Table 3: Getting rid of smoke and soot

"All scientific work is incomplete – whether it be observationalor experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset ormodified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon usa freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or topostpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time."

Sir Austin Bradford Hill, English epidemiologist

and statistician (1897–1991)


aking sound policy decisions is hard. Too manyproblems need to be tackled, and too many

priorities compete for too little money. This holds evenmore true for household energy, an issue that concernsmany sectors and tends to fall between the cracks ofresponsibilities: It is an energy problem, but it is not atraditional concern of the energy sector. It is a healthproblem, but the answer only partly lies within the healthsector. It is an environmental problem, but the environmentsector is often too isolated to put solutions into practice.

First and foremost, we need to identify those technicalfixes and strategies that can effectively solve the problem(see Coming clean: modern fuels, modern stoves andRolling out household energy programmes: learning fromthe past). Moreover, we should try to make the best useof scarce resources. One of the tools that can helpdecision-makers allocate their limited budgets iseconomic evaluation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis can help in judging thepotential return on investment in one health interventionagainst another. For example, how can the Ministry ofHealth make the best use of US$ 1 million to reducechild mortality due to pneumonia? Cost-effectivenessanalysis can help them to decide whether it is better toinvest in a new vaccination programme againstHaemophilus influenza b, one of the most commoninfectious agents causing pneumonia, or to scale upexisting efforts to treat sick children with antibiotics.WHO has applied this approach to interventions to reduceindoor air pollution (Table 4). The results should,however, be treated with caution, as cost-effectivenessanalysis only considers the benefits of these interventionsfrom the point of view of the health sector.

Cost-benefit analysis, on the other hand, values allbenefits against all costs from the point of view of societyas a whole. It is thus a more suitable tool for investigatinginvestments with many different impacts on people's lives.The Ministry of Finance may ask how it can best reducerural poverty over a ten-year timeframe? Should the toppriority be to intensify educational programmes for ruralchildren? Or is it best to provide people with access toelectricity, thus providing opportunities for evening studyand additional activities to generate income?

As highlighted in this publication, household energyinterventions bring about a wide range of benefits: theyimprove children's and women's health, save time andmoney, promote gender equality, reduce deforestationand curb greenhouse gas emissions. A cost-benefit

M

Investing in householdenergy pays off

"Strong reasons make strong actions."

William Shakespeare,English dramatist and poet

(1564–1616)

analysis, recently conducted by WHO, evaluated differentintervention scenarios for meeting the voluntary MDGenergy target (see The need for a quantum leap). Globally,the analysis shows a payback of US$ 91 billion a yearfrom the US$ 13 billion a year invested to halve thenumber of people cooking with solid fuels by providingthem with access to LPG by 2015. (For ethanol, due tohigher fuel prices and lower fuel efficiency, theinvestment increases to US$ 43 billion a year for thesame economic benefit.) Making improved stovesavailable, by 2015, to half of those still burning biomassfuels and coal on traditional stoves, would result in anegative intervention cost of US$ 34 billion a year as thefuel cost savings due to greater stove efficiency exceedthe investment costs. This generates an economic returnof US$ 105 billion a year over a ten-year period (Table 5).Time gains from reduced illness, fewer deaths, less fuelcollection and shorter cooking times, valued at GrossNational Income (GNI) per capita, account for more than95% of the benefits. There is debate on the appropriatevaluation of time. When these time gains areconservatively valued at 30% of GNI per capita for adultsand 0% of GNI for children, the economic paybackdecreases to US$ 31 billion a year for LPG and US$ 33billion a year for improved stoves.

A global cost-benefit analysis is highly dependent on dataquality and assumptions. To guide decision-making at thenational level, an analysis should be conducted for a givencountry or setting. Nevertheless, the global cost-benefitanalysis illustrates the enormous potential of householdenergy interventions and suggests that these are aworthwhile investment. It is time to roll out programmesthat can make a real difference to the lives of the poor andthat open up the road to the modern world.

Intervention scenarios:1 Providing 100% of the population with access to liquefied petroleum gas.2 Providing 100% of the population with improved stoves.3 Providing 50% of the population with liquefied petroleum gas and 45% with improved stoves.

Table 4: Improved stoves and clean fuels can be cost-effective health interventionsCost-effectiveness ratios for interventions to reduce indoor air pollution (International $ (I$) per healthy year gained), 2002

Intervention Africa The Americas Eastern Mediterranean Europe South-East Asia Western Pacificscenario

1

2

3

AfrD AfrE AmrB AmrD EmrB EmrD EurB SearB SearD WprB

Table 5: Remarkable returns from investing in household energyBenefits of household energy and health interventions (US$ million), by type of benefit, 2005

If 50% of the population cooking If 50% of the population cooking If 50% of the population cookingwith solid fuels in 2005 switch with solid fuels in 2005 switch with solid fuels in 2005 switchto cooking with liquefied to cooking with modern to cooking on an improvedpetroleum gas by 2015 biofuels by 2015 stove by 2015

Health care savings 384 384 65

Time savings due to childhood 1 460 1 460 510and adult illness prevented: school attendance days gained for children and productivity gains for children and adults

Time savings due to less time 43 980 43 980 88 100spent on fuel collection and cooking: productivity gains

Value of deaths averted among 38 730 38 730 13 560children and adults

Environmental benefits 6 070 5 610 2 320

Total benefits 90 624 90 164 104 555

Costs and benefits of different intervention scenarios were estimated using 2005 as the base year and a 10-year time horizon, taking into account demographic changes over this period. The analysis was conductedfor 11 WHO subregions to reflect variations in (i) the availability, use and cost of different fuels and stoves;(ii) disease prevalence; (iii) health care seeking as well as quality and cost of health care; (iv) the amountof time spent on fuel collection and cooking; (v) the value of productive time based on Gross NationalIncome per capita; and (vi) variations in environmental and climatic conditions. A 3% discount rate wasapplied to all costs and benefits. See Evaluation of the costs and benefits of household energy and healthinterventions at global and regional levels for a detailed description of the method and the results of a rangeof intervention scenarios by WHO subregion as well as of the sensitivity analysis.

6 270 11 050 14 050 7 500 24 200 11 020 17 740 15 120 7 350 1 410

500 730 - 5 880 - 7 800 - 1 180 610 32 240

3 750 6 440 16 330 6 770 - 9 780 19 870 8 970 4 280 1 570


million stoves rolled out in China!The Chinese National Improved

Stoves Programme is one of the big household energysuccess stories. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Chinesegovernment implemented the programme in adecentralized fashion, reducing bureaucratic hurdles andspeeding up financial payments. A commercializationstrategy helped to set up rural energy enterprises;national-level stove challenges generated healthycompetition. On the one hand, the central production ofcritical stove components, such as parts of thecombustion chamber, enforced quality control. On theother hand, the modification of general designs ensuredthat the stove would meet the needs of local users. Theprogramme thus managed to shift societal norms: mostbiomass stoves now on sale in China are improved stoves.

The last decades have witnessed many household energyinitiatives, ranging from ambitious government-runprogrammes, such as the Chinese programme, to small-scale community-led projects. Technologies promotedinclude smoke hoods (Box 3), improved stoves (Box 4and Figure 16), kerosene, LPG (Box 5), biogas (Box 6)and solar cookers. The Indian national programmedistributed more than 33 million stoves between 1983and 2000. In Africa, more than 5 million improvedstoves are now in use.

These initiatives have provided important insights intothe ingredients needed to promote household energysolutions successfully:

Social marketing can overcome the low awareness ofthe health risks of indoor air pollution and highlightthe numerous benefits of solutions.Involving users, in particular women, is crucial. Toooften, cooks fail to adopt, use or maintain equipmentprovided in intervention programmes, because it doesnot meet their needs.Local artisans, shops and markets should offer achoice of interventions. In this way, they can respondto different demands and abilities to pay.Micro-credit facilities and targeted subsidies canovercome financial barriers, in particular among thepoorest of the poor.Appropriate policies in the energy, health,environment and other sectors should make sure thatlocal projects do not operate in a vacuum (Table 6).

These lessons learnt from past programmes shouldguide the implementation of programmes in the future.

Rolling out householdenergy programmes: learning from the past

"It is often necessary to make decisions on the basis of informationsufficient for action, but insufficient to satisfy the intellect."

Immanuel Kant,German philosopher (1724–1804)

200 Box 5: How to promote new markets for liquefiedpetroleum gas

LPG is often perceived as an exclusively urban fuel. Yet, it is alsoan up-and-coming alternative in those rural areas where wood,charcoal or kerosene are already being purchased. The LPG RuralEnergy Challenge is dedicated to setting up viable markets andsupply chains in developing countries. In so-doing, this initiative,jointly run by the United Nations Development Programme and theWorld LPG Association, can draw on a few key lessons that havealready been learnt:

Micro-credit schemes should emphasize that switching to LPGmay ultimately cut expenditure and add to income generation.One-time subsidies on gas cookers may be an incentive for peopleto consider switching to a cleaner fuel and thus to become lifetimecustomers. Similarly, introducing smaller and more affordable gasbottles could remove barriers to adoption. LPG is very clean andfuel-efficient, yet there are concerns about the safe handling ofthis explosive gas. Awareness-raising among fuel sellers andconsumers and tougher regulations can ensure the correct refillingand transportation of gas bottles and, most importantly,contribute to the safe use of LPG. Government leadership indeveloping policies for successful market expansion of LPG isessential.

Adapted from:McDade S. Fueling development: the role of LPG in poverty reduction and growth.Energy for Sustainable Development, 2004, 8:74–81.

Box 6: The Nepal biogas programme

Biogas systems convert cattle dung and other animal orhuman wastes into methane. This flammable gas is a simple-to-use fuel for lighting and cooking: it burns cleanly andefficiently on a conventional low-pressure gas burner.

In Nepal, the Biogas Support Programme has installed morethan 120 000 biogas plants over the last 13 years. About 3%of Nepalese homes now benefit from much lower levels ofindoor air pollution. Moreover, 72% of the biogas plants areconnected to latrines, leading to improved cleanliness andreduced health risks in the vicinity of the home. The residualslurry is a valuable organic fertilizer.

This biogas programme was the first to be recognized underthe Clean Development Mechanism. It trades certifiedemission reductions; each operational biogas plant is worth4.6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. This success storypoints to new synergies between household energyprogrammes and efforts to reduce climate change (seeStripping our forest, heating our planet).

Adapted from:Netherlands Development Organization and Biogas Sector Partnership-Nepal.The Nepal Biogas Support Programme: a successful model for rural householdenergy supply in developing countries. Executive summary. 2004. Moreinformation is available at: www.snvworld.org and www.bsipnepal.org.np

Table 6: Policy instruments for effective household energy programmes

Policy instruments Examples

Information, education and communication ◆ Health professionals

◆ Community

◆ Schools

◆ Media

Taxes and subsidies ◆ Tax on fuels and appliances

◆ Subsidy on fuels and appliances

Regulation and legislation ◆ Air quality standards

◆ Design standards for appliances

Direct expenditures ◆ Public programme for provision of appliances

◆ Funding of finance schemes

Research and development ◆ Surveys

◆ Development and evaluation of interventions

◆ Studies of health impacts

◆ Research capacity development

Adapted from:Bruce N, et al. Indoor air pollution. In: Jamison DT et al., eds. Disease control priorities in developing countries. 2nd ed. New York,Oxford University Press, 2006.


ousehold energy projects and programmescurrently under way around the world have

set out to reach nearly 4 million households withimproved stoves by 2011 (Figure 16). Theseinitiatives should be accompanied by carefulevaluation and monitoring to answer twofundamental questions: Can the technical fixreduce indoor smoke levels, improve health andbring about other benefits? And, how can aprogramme reach a large number of households ina sustainable way?

To date, few household energy projects orprogrammes have undergone rigorous evaluation,and if they have, the results have been mixed. InIndia, improved stoves currently account for lessthan 7% of all stoves, many of them in poor workingorder due to improper installation and lack ofmaintenance. Even in Chinese householdsbenefiting from an improved stove, levels ofparticles and carbon monoxide still exceed thenational standard for indoor air. Consequently,despite the success of the Chinese programme, alarge proportion of the rural population is stillchronically exposed to high levels of harmfulpollutants. These findings suggest that improvedstoves are an important step towards reducingindoor smoke levels, but are probably not theultimate means to prevent 1.5 million deaths ayear. Moreover, improved stoves tend to shift theproblem outdoors: by venting smoke to the outsidethey contribute to ambient air pollution. A large-scale switch to cleaner fuels, on the other hand,eliminates nearly 100% of the health risk (Box 7).Beyond kerosene, LPG and biogas, latest-generationbiofuels may become a healthy and environmentallyfriendly cooking alternative in the future (Box 8).

Evaluating the impacts of projects and programmeswill shed light on how to fine-tune differenttechnical solutions to maximize their health, socialand environmental benefits. Compiling knowledgefrom around the world will generate a menu ofsolutions from which decision-makers at all levelscan choose. Learning from their experience willprovide a recipe for putting into action successful,large-scale programmes.

And, there are new opportunities on the horizon.Frequently, the same families who breathe pollutedair inside their homes also drink contaminatedwater and make do without even a simple latrine.

H

New household energy horizons

Lack of safe drinking-water and adequate sanitationis responsible for 1.7 million deaths from diarrhoeaevery year, mostly of young children. Indoor smokeis to blame for 1.5 million deaths from respiratoryillness every year. Again, young children bear thebrunt of the burden. Why not join forces to reducediarrhoea and respiratory disease in an integratedmanner?

In both cases, interventions at the household levelcan prevent disease and death because they areeffective, inexpensive and rapidly deployable.Generating demand among users and meeting thisdemand with a range of solutions is a challenge forimplementers of interventions to improve waterquality and sanitation as well as household energyuse. For both, the private sector plays a major rolein developing appropriate supply chains. And poorpeople often need to draw on micro-credit or tobenefit from targeted subsidies to be able to affordto make a change to their homes. In some locations,existing programmes to promote household watertreatment could be the entry-point for sensitizingfamilies about indoor air pollution. In others, asuccessful household energy programme couldprovide an organizational structure for introducingimprovements to water supplies and sanitation.

Exploiting these synergies to tackle two priority publichealth issues at once has an enormous potential tosave lives. And it puts people at the centre.

Figure 16: Taking improved stoves to scaleThousands of households to be reached by selected improved stove programmes (cumulative projection), 2005–2011

Num

ber o

f hou

seho

lds

to b

e re

ache

d (0

00) 4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Many improved stove programmes are currently under way around the world. Important implementingagencies include the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), the Intermediate Technology DevelopmentGroup/Practical Action, Winrock International, Development Alternatives and the Appropriate RuralTechnology Institute. Major agencies funding these programmes include the Dutch DevelopmentCooperation, the United Kingdom Department for International Development, the United Statesgovernment, the German Ministry for Development and the Shell Foundation.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Box 7: Cleaner fuels save lives

On average, 100 million more homes usingliquefied petroleum gas, biogas or modern biofuelsfor cooking would lead to:

473 million fewer men, women and childrenexposed to harmful indoor air pollution;282 000 fewer deaths from respiratory diseasesper year.

Box 8: Fuels of the future: biofuels and plant oils

"The use of plant oil as fuel may seem insignificant today.But such products can in time become just as importantas kerosene and these coal-tar-products of today."

Rudolf Diesel, German inventor of the diesel engine(1858–1913)

Rising oil prices and a global move towardsrenewable energy sources triggered the search forbiofuels, primarily as alternatives to diesel forrunning cars. Ethanol, usually obtained from theresidues from sugar production, is the most commonbiofuel. Methanol or "wood alcohol", its close relative,is currently derived from natural gas but can beproduced by gasifying biomass. The last few yearshave also witnessed experiments with a range ofdomestic plants, such as rape seeds, and wild oilplants, such as Jatropha curcas.

The development of biofuel stoves is a first step inpulling this "green gold" away from the automotivesector into the household sector. Field-testing ofsimple as well as more sophisticated technologies isunder way in several developing countries. The firstresults are promising: plant oils, ethanol andmethanol burn cleanly and are safe to use. Producedlocally at competitive prices, they may well turn intothe cooking fuels of the future.

aking household energysolutions to scale will overcome

a major barrier to achieving theMillennium Development Goals.Practical solutions to the household energyproblem do exist. Liquefied petroleum gas,biogas and other cleaner fuels represent thehealthiest alternative. Switching from atraditional stove to an improved stovesubstantially reduces indoor smoke. Improvedhousehold energy practices promote education,empower women, save the lives of children andtheir mothers and benefit our forests and ourclimate.

arefully documenting experiencewith solutions will serve to

maximize the health and broaderbenefits of large-scale programmes.Many household energy projects and programmesare currently under way around the world.Evaluating the impacts of these initiatives willshed light on how different technical solutionscould be fine-tuned to maximize their health,social and environmental benefits. Learning fromtheir experience will provide a recipe for puttinginto action successful, large-scale programmes.

very year, indoor air pollution from cooking withsolid fuels is responsible for 1.5 million deaths.

Indoor air pollution has dramatic consequences for health. Cookingwith wood, dung, coal and other solid fuels is a major risk factor forpneumonia among children and chronic respiratory disease amongadults, with more than two thirds of these deaths occurring in South-East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Every year, the killer in the kitchenis responsible for 1.5 million deaths. Curbing indoor air pollution willput an end to this needless loss of life.

rogress since 1990 has been negligible. To halve, by 2015, the population cooking

with solid fuels, 485 000 people need to gainaccess to cleaner fuels every day.Progress in access to modern cooking fuels since 1990 has beennegligible, as the small gains made are lagging behind populationgrowth. To halve, by 2015, the number of people without access tosuch fuels, 485 000 people will need to gain access to modernenergy services every day for the next 10 years. Innovative policyapproaches and a rigorous acceleration of investments is needed nowto save lives and enable development.

ealth and productivity gains can more than payfor lifting people out of energy poverty.

Investing US$ 13 billion per year to halve, by 2015, the number ofpeople worldwide cooking with solid fuels by providing them withaccess to liquefied petroleum gas shows a payback of US$ 91 billionper year. Making improved stoves available to half of those stillburning biomass fuels and coal on traditional stoves would result ina negative intervention cost of US$ 34 billion a year and generate aneconomic return of US$ 105 billion a year over a 10-year-period.Health and productivity gains make household energy solutionspotentially good value for money.

key

poin

ts E

P

H

T

C

36 37


AnnexCountry Total population Percentage of Percentage of Under-five Maternal mortality Carbon dioxide

(thousands) population living population using mortality rate rate per 100 000 emissions perbelow $1 (PPP) solid fuels per 1000 live live births capita (metric tons)

per day births

Year 2003 2003 or latest 2003 or latest 2003 or latest 2000 2002available data available data available data

Afghanistan 23 897 no data >95 257 1 900 0Albania 3 166 2 50 21 55 0.8Algeria 31 800 2 <5 41 140 2.9Andorra 71 no data <5 7 no data no dataAngola 13 625 no data >95 260 1 700 0.5Antigua and Barbuda 73 no data 46 12 no data 4.7Argentina 38 428 3 <5 20 82 3.5Armenia 3 061 13 26 33 55 1.0Australia 19 731 no data <5 6 8 18.3Austria 8 116 no data <5 5 4 7.8Azerbaijan 8 370 4 49 91 94 3.4Bahamas 314 no data <5 14 60 6.7Bahrain 724 no data <5 15 28 30.6Bangladesh 146 736 36 88 69 380 0.3Barbados 270 no data <5 13 95 4.6Belarus 9 895 0 19 17 35 6.0Belgium 10 318 no data <5 5 10 6.8Belize 256 no data 43 39 140 3.1Benin 6 736 no data 95 154 850 0.3Bhutan 2 257 no data no data 85 420 0.2Bolivia 8 808 14 25 66 420 1.2Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 161 no data 51 17 31 4.8Botswana 1 785 31 65 112 100 2.3Brazil 178 470 8 12 35 260 1.8Brunei Darussalam 358 no data no data 6 37 17.7Bulgaria 7 897 5 17 15 32 5.3Burkina Faso 13 002 45 >95 207 1 000 0.1Burundi 6 825 55 >95 190 1 000 0.0Cambodia 14 144 34 >95 140 450 0.0Cameroon 16 018 17 83 166 730 0.2Canada 31 510 no data <5 6 6 16.5Cape Verde 463 no data 36 35 150 0.3Central African Republic 3 865 67 >95 180 1 100 0.1Chad 8 598 no data >95 200 1 100 0.0Chile 15 806 2 <5 9 31 3.6China 1 311 709 17 80 37 56 2.7Colombia 44 222 8 15 21 130 1.3Comoros 768 no data 76 73 480 0.1Congo 3 724 no data 84 108 510 0.6Cook Islands 18 no data no data 21 no data 1.5Costa Rica 4 173 2 23 10 43 1.4Côte d'Ivoire 16 631 11 74 192 690 0.4Croatia 4 428 2 12 7 8 4.7Cuba 11 300 no data 21 8 33 2.1Cyprus 802 no data <5 5 47 8.3Czech Republic 10 236 2 <5 4 9 11.2Democratic People's Republic of Korea 22 664 no data no data 55 67 6.5Democratic Republic of the Congo 52 771 no data >95 205 990 0.0Denmark 5 364 no data <5 4 5 8.9Djibouti 703 no data 6 138 730 0.5

Further readingHousehold energy and the Millennium Development Goals

Rehfuess E, Mehta S, Prüss-Üstün A. Assessinghousehold solid fuel use – multiple implications forthe millennium development goals. EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives, 2006, 114(3):373–378.

United Nations. United Nations MillenniumDeclaration. New York, United Nations, 2000.

United Nations. The Millennium DevelopmentGoals Report. New York, United Nations, 2005.

United Nations Statistics Division. MillenniumDevelopment Goal Indicators Database. Available at:http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_goals.asp

United Nations Millennium Project. Investing indevelopment. A practical plan to achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. London, Sterling, VA, Earthscan andUnited Nations Millennium Project, 2005.

Economic analysis of household energy interventions

Mehta S, Shahpar C. The health benefits ofinterventions to reduce indoor air pollution fromsolid fuel use: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Energyfor Sustainable Development, 2004, 8:53–59.

Hutton G, Rehfuess E. Guidelines for conductingcost-benefit analysis of household energy andhealth interventions to improve health. Geneva,World Health Organization, in press.

Hutton G, Rehfuess E, Tediosi F, Weiss S. Evaluationof the costs and benefits of household energy andhealth interventions at global and regional levels.Geneva, World Health Organization, in press.

Household energy and climate change

Bond T, Venkataraman C, Masera O. Globalatmospheric impacts of residential fuels. Energy forSustainable Development, 2004, 8:54–66.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystemsand human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC,Island Press, 2005.

Smith KR, et al. Greenhouse implications of householdstoves: an analysis for India. Annual Review of Energyand the Environment, 2000, 25:741–763.

Household energy, indoor air pollution and poverty

Bruce N, et al. Indoor air pollution. In: Jamison DT et al.,eds. Disease control priorities in developing countries.2nd ed. New York, Oxford University Press, 2006.

International Energy Agency, OECD. World energy outlook2004. Paris, International Energy Agency and OECD, 2004.

United Nations Development Programme. Worldenergy assessment: energy and the challenge ofsustainability. New York, United NationsDevelopment Programme, 2000.

World Health Organization. Addressing the linksbetween indoor air pollution, household energy andhuman health. Based on the WHO-USAIDConsultation on the Health Impact of HouseholdEnergy in Developing Countries (Meeting Report).Geneva, World Health Organization, 2002.

World Health Organization. Addressing the impactof household energy and indoor air pollution on thehealth of the poor: implications for policy actionand intervention measures. Paper prepared for theCommission on Macroeconomics and Health.Geneva, World Health Organization, 2002.

Health impacts of indoor air pollution

Bruce NG, Perez-Padilla R, Albalak R. Indoor airpollution in developing countries: a majorenvironmental and public health challenge. Bulletin ofthe World Health Organization 2000, 78:1078–1092.

Smith KR, Mehta S, Feuz M. Indoor air pollution fromhousehold use of solid fuels. In: Ezzati M et al., eds.Comparative quantification of health risks: global andregional burden of disease attributable to selected majorrisk factors. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2004.

World Health Organization. World Health Report2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life.Geneva, World Health Organization, 2002.

Gordon B, Mackay R, Rehfuess E. Inheriting the world:the atlas of children's health and the environment.Geneva, World Health Organization, 2004.

World Health Organization. WHO air quality guidelines:global update 2005. Working Group Meeting, Bonn,Germany, 18–20 October 2005. In press.


Country Total population Percentage of Percentage of Under-five Maternal mortality Carbon dioxide(thousands) population living population using mortality rate rate per 100 000 emissions per

below $1 (PPP) solid fuels per 1000 live live births capita (metric tons)per day births


Annex

Madagascar 17 404 61 >95 126 550 0.1Malawi 12 105 42 >95 178 1 800 0.1Malaysia 24 425 2 <5 7 41 6.3Maldives 318 no data no data 72 110 3.4Mali 13 007 72 >95 220 1 200 0.0Malta 394 no data <5 6 21 7.5Marshall Islands 53 no data no data 61 no data no dataMauritania 2 893 26 65 107 1 000 1.1Mauritius 1 221 no data <5 18 24 2.6Mexico 103 457 10 12 28 83 3.7Micronesia, Federal States of 109 no data no data 23 no data no dataMonaco 34 no data <5 4 no data 6.2Mongolia 2 594 27 51 68 110 3.3Morocco 30 566 2 5 39 220 1.4Mozambique 18 863 38 80 147 1 000 0.1Myanmar 49 485 no data 95 107 360 0.2Namibia 1 987 35 63 65 300 1.1Nauru 13 no data no data 30 no data 10.8Nepal 25 164 39 80 82 740 0.2Netherlands 16 149 no data <5 5 16 9.4New Zealand 3 875 no data <5 6 7 8.7Nicaragua 5 466 45 58 38 230 0.7Niger 11 972 61 >95 262 1 600 0.1Nigeria 124 009 70 67 198 800 0.4Niue 2 no data no data no data no data 2.0Norway 4 533 no data <5 4 16 12.2Oman 2 851 no data <5 12 87 12.1Pakistan 153 578 13 72 98 500 0.7Palau 20 no data no data 28 no data 11.9Panama 3 120 7 33 24 160 2.0Papua New Guinea 5 711 no data 90 93 300 0.4Paraguay 5 878 16 58 29 170 0.7Peru 27 167 18 33 34 410 1.0Philippines 79 999 15 47 36 200 0.9Poland 38 587 2 <5 7 13 7.7Portugal 10 061 2 <5 5 5 6.0Qatar 610 no data <5 15 7 53.1Republic of Korea 47 700 2 <5 5 20 9.4Republic of Moldova 4 267 22 63 32 36 1.6Romania 22 334 2 23 20 49 4.0Russian Federation 143 246 2 7 21 67 9.9Rwanda 8 387 52 >95 203 1 400 0.1Saint Kitts and Nevis 42 no data <5 22 no data 2.8Saint Lucia 149 25 63 18 no data 2.4Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 120 no data 31 27 no data 1.6Samoa 178 no data 70 24 130 0.8San Marino 28 no data <5 5 no data 7.5Sao Tome and Principe 161 no data 95 118 no data 0.6Saudi Arabia 24 217 no data <5 26 23 15.0Senegal 10 095 22 41 137 690 0.4

Country Total population Percentage of Percentage of Under-five Maternal mortality Carbon dioxide(thousands) population living population using mortality rate rate per 100 000 emissions per

below $1 (PPP) solid fuels per 1000 live live births capita (metric tons)per day births


Dominica 79 no data 21 14 no data 1.5Dominican Republic 8 745 2 14 35 150 2.5Ecuador 13 003 18 <5 27 130 2.0Egypt 71 931 3 <5 39 84 2.1El Salvador 6 515 31 33 36 150 1.0Equatorial Guinea 494 no data no data 146 880 0.4Eritrea 4 141 no data 80 85 630 0.2Estonia 1 323 2 15 9 63 11.8Ethiopia 70 678 23 >95 169 850 0.1Fiji 839 no data 40 20 75 1.6Finland 5 207 no data <5 5 6 12.0France 60 144 no data <5 5 17 6.2Gabon 1 329 no data 28 91 420 2.6Gambia 1 426 54 >95 123 540 0.2Georgia 5 126 3 42 45 32 0.7Germany 82 476 no data <5 5 8 9.8Ghana 20 922 45 88 95 540 0.4Greece 10 976 no data <5 5 9 8.5Grenada 80 no data 48 23 no data 2.3Guatemala 12 347 16 62 47 240 0.9Guinea 8 480 no data >95 160 740 0.1Guinea-Bissau 1 493 no data 95 204 1 100 0.2Guyana 765 3 59 69 170 2.2Haiti 8 326 no data >95 118 680 0.2Honduras 6 941 21 57 41 110 0.9Hungary 9 877 2 <5 8 16 5.6Iceland 290 no data <5 4 0 7.7India 1 065 462 35 74 87 540 1.2Indonesia 219 883 8 72 41 230 1.4Iran, Islamic Republic of 68 920 2 <5 39 76 5.3Iraq 25 175 no data <5 125 250 3.0Ireland 3 956 no data <5 6 5 11.0Israel 6 433 no data <5 6 17 11.0Italy 57 423 no data <5 4 5 7.5Jamaica 2 651 2 45 20 87 4.1Japan 127 654 no data <5 4 10 9.4Jordan 5 473 2 <5 28 41 3.2Kazakhstan 15 433 2 5 73 210 9.9Kenya 31 987 23 81 123 1 000 0.2Kiribati 88 no data no data 66 no data 0.3Kuwait 2 521 no data <5 9 5 24.6Kyrgyzstan 5 138 2 76 68 110 1.0Lao People's Democratic Republic 5 657 26 >95 91 650 0.2Latvia 2 307 2 10 12 42 2.7Lebanon 3 653 no data <5 31 150 4.7Lesotho 1 802 36 83 110 550 no dataLiberia 3 367 no data no data 235 760 0.1Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 5 551 no data <5 16 97 9.1Lithuania 3 444 2 <5 11 13 3.6Luxembourg 453 no data <5 5 28 21.1


AnnexCountry Total population Percentage of Percentage of Under-five Maternal mortality Carbon dioxide

(thousands) population living population using mortality rate rate per 100 000 emissions perbelow $1 (PPP) solid fuels per 1000 live live births capita (metric tons)

per day births


Serbia and Montenegro 10 527 no data no data 14 11 4.4Seychelles 81 no data <5 15 no data 6.8Sierra Leone 4 971 no data 92 284 2 000 0.1Singapore 4 253 no data <5 3 30 13.8Slovakia 5 402 2 <5 8 3 6.8Slovenia 1 984 2 8 4 17 7.8Solomon Islands 477 no data 95 22 130 0.4Somalia 9 890 no data no data 225 1 100 no dataSouth Africa 45 026 11 18 66 230 7.4Spain 41 060 no data <5 4 4 7.3Sri Lanka 19 065 8 67 15 92 0.5Sudan 33 610 no data >95 93 590 0.3Suriname 436 no data no data 39 110 5.1Swaziland 1 077 8 68 153 370 0.9Sweden 8 876 no data <5 3 2 5.8Switzerland 7 169 no data <5 5 7 5.7Syrian Arab Republic 17 800 no data 32 18 160 2.8Tajikistan 6 245 7 75 95 100 0.7Thailand 62 833 2 72 26 44 3.7The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2 056 2 30 11 23 5.1Timor-Leste 778 no data no data 124 660 no dataTogo 4 909 no data 76 140 570 0.3Tonga 104 no data 56 19 no data 1.1Trinidad and Tobago 1 303 4 8 20 160 31.9Tunisia 9 832 2 5 24 120 2.3Turkey 71 325 2 11 39 70 3.0Turkmenistan 4 867 10 <5 102 31 9.1Tuvalu 11 no data no data 51 no data no dataUganda 25 827 85 >95 140 880 0.1Ukraine 48 523 2 6 20 35 6.4United Arab Emirates 2 995 no data <5 8 54 25.1United Kingdom 59 251 no data <5 6 13 9.2United Republic of Tanzania 36 977 49 >95 165 1 500 0.1United States of America 294 043 no data <5 8 17 20.1Uruguay 3 415 2 <5 14 27 1.2Uzbekistan 26 093 14 72 69 24 4.8Vanuatu 212 no data 79 38 130 0.4Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 25 699 14 5 21 96 4.3Viet Nam 81 377 2 70 23 130 0.8Yemen 20 010 16 42 113 570 0.7Zambia 10 812 64 85 182 750 0.2Zimbabwe 12 891 56 73 126 1 100 1.0

For further information on data sources and data limitations see:United Nations Statistics Division. Millennium Development Goal Indicators Database. Available at: http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_goals.asp

fuel for life: household energy and health

Documents