Clean Energy, 2020, 1–9
doi: 10.1093/ce/zkaa022
Advance Access Publication Date: 18 December 2020
Homepage: https://academic.oup.com/ce
Cooking-energy transition in Nepal: trend review
Dipti Paudel1, Marc Jeuland2,3 and Sunil Prasad Lohani1*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal
Sanford School of Public Policy and Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University Durham, USA
3
RWI-Leibniz Institute for Economic Research, Essen, Germany
1
2
*Corresponding author. E-mail: splohani@ku.edu.np
Abstract
Clean-cooking energy is key to meeting climate-mitigation goals and a range of development objectives,
especially for improving the well-being of women and children. Inefficient burning of solid biomass for cooking
releases household air pollution that is hazardous to health, while putting pressure on forest resources. This
paper provides an overview of the household-cooking-energy transition in Nepal to date. Despite numerous
efforts by the government and other actors to speed this transition, energy data spanning the years 2000–18
reveal that ~69% of households nationwide still rely on solid fuels for cooking today. The proportion of solid-fuel
users is especially high in rural regions, reaching >80%. Moreover, if the current rate of progress is not accelerated,
the use of solid fuels will remain high even in 2030, preventing the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG) 7. Cooking-fuel choices are heavily constrained by accessibility, demographic and socio-economic factors.
Thus, this paper recommends that evidence-based and integrated policies and strategies be urgently deployed to
foster a more effective and rapid transition towards clean energy, which is critical to achieving SDG 7.
Graphical Abstract
Household energy transition in Nepal
2030 SDG 7 energy access
target:
100% clean energy to all
69% population primarily rely
on solid fuels for cooking
About 18 000 premature
deaths attributed to HAP:
women and children at
especially high risk
Adverse impacts on
environment and economic
development
% solid fuel use
2020 status
SDG
target
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Keywords: solid fuel; clean energy; SDG; urban; rural; household
Received: 3 September 2020; Accepted: 28 October 2020
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of National Institute of Clean-and-Low-Carbon Energy
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
1
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ce/zkaa022/6041498 by guest on 22 December 2020
Review Article
2
|
Clean Energy, 2020, Vol. XX, No. XX
Introduction
1
Among these 3.8 million deaths, 27% are due to pneumonia, 18%
due to stroke, 27% due to ischaemic heart disease, 20% due to
COPD and 8% due to lung cancer.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ce/zkaa022/6041498 by guest on 22 December 2020
Clean energy is critically important for economic, social and
sustainable growth. Appropriate energy choices are paramount, since energy decisions influence Earth’s natural
ecosystem and its inhabitants. Sustainable Development
Goal (SDG) 7 aims to achieve universal access to affordable reliable and modern energy services by 2030 [1]. And,
although rapid advancements have occurred in the development of more affordable and clean-energy technologies
in the recent past, nearly 3 billion people in the world still
primarily rely on inefficient and polluting cooking systems [2]. A combination of traditional and polluting energy
sources is used by households worldwide, such as dung,
agricultural residues and fuelwood. Use of certain commercial fuels—termed as intermediate (namely charcoal
and kerosene)—also generates substantial household air
pollution (HAP), while the use of those deemed modern
(such as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), biogas, ethanol gel, dimethyl ether (DME) and electricity) does not [3].
This problem is acute in developing countries in Asia,
which are home to 65% of the global population (or 1.7 billion people) who lack access to clean fuels [4]). The energyconsumption mix of Nepal reflects this dominance of
traditional fuels, which comprised 68.6% of the country’s
energy consumption in 2018–19 [5]. The residential sector
(space heating, cooking, lighting) accounted for 42.6% of
the total energy consumption in 2018–19 and 69% of the
country’s population relies on solid biomass for cooking
[5]. Improved cooking stoves (ICS), LPG and biogas technologies are among the technologies being deployed to
reduce this dependence, whereas electricity and solar
cooking technologies remain uncommonly used [6].
In Nepal, the outcomes of unplanned biomass
harvesting and the associated inefficient energy conversion of combusting such sources are serious concerns
because they lead to adverse impacts on the environment, health and overall socio-economic development.
Incomplete combustion of solid fuel releases a diverse
mixture of particulate and gaseous species, including carcinogenic pollutants that include benzene, formaldehyde,
1,3-butadiene and styrene [7, 8]. The burning of solid fuels
is also a global-warming threat by releasing black carbon
(BC), a highly potent short-term climate-forcing agent. The
domestic combustion of solid fuels is estimated to be responsible for ~34% of total global BC emissions [9, 10]. A recent rural study from southern Nepal found that 80% of
BC emissions from biomass cookstoves escaped into ambient air [11]. Moreover, unsustainable wood extraction for
fuelwoods is a major driver of deforestation, soil degradation and erosion [12].
There is substantial evidence from both global and
Nepal-specific studies that long- and short-term exposures
to high levels of HAP damage health. These burdens are
especially concentrated among the women and children
in low- and middle-income countries who spend most
of their time in close proximity to polluting cookstoves
and household fuels. The World Health Organization estimates that, globally, 3.8 million premature deaths can be
attributed to HAP [13].1 In Nepal, HAP accounts for >18 000
such deaths [14]. More specifically, particulates released
by burning solid fuels account for 45% of all global deaths
from pneumonia among children under the age of 5 years
and 28% of all adult pneumonia deaths [13]. Consistently
with this disproportionate burden on young children, in
Nepal, acute lower respiratory infection is a major cause
of infant mortality [15]. Over the longer term, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and other illnesses are
linked to higher exposures to HAP, globally and in Nepal [8,
13, 16]. Studies have also documented strong correlations
between the use of solid fuel and health issues such as
eye irritation, cataracts, tuberculosis, dizziness, menstrual
problems and headache [17,18]. In addition, exposure to
CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood during
pregnancy and can retard the growth of fetuses, resulting
in intergenerational damage [8].
Expanding clean cooking could therefore help in
achieving a range of goals: reducing deforestation and
forest degradation, reducing emissions of major climateforcing agents including greenhouse gases and short-lived
climate pollutants, and improving health and household productivity. Yet, prior attempts to improve cooking
have shown relatively slow progress globally [4]. The development of proper plans and policies requires detailed
understanding of cooking-fuel-usage patterns among
households, the impacts of using dirty fuels and the confluence of factors that influence households’ fuel choices.
This paper contributes to addressing this planning process in multiple ways. First, we supplement the limited
literature on cooking-fuel-usage trends in Nepal. Behera
et al. (2015) previously discussed the Nepali cooking-fuel
transition, but relied on evidence from a single district
[19]. A much older study analysed cooking-fuel usage in
eight countries including Nepal, but the large set of countries analysed makes it challenging to extract the insights
most relevant to the Nepali context [20]. Giri and Goswami
bridge this gap with a specific focus on energy scenarios
in Nepal, but their work is based on a limited time period
(2010–11) [21]. This paper therefore widens the scope of
prior work by incorporating household data spanning the
range from 2000 to 2018, and considering cooking-fuelusage patterns in both rural and urban regions. Second, we
review the factors affecting cooking-fuel choices in Nepal
and discuss a projection of cooking-fuel usage in Nepal for
the year 2030. The goal of such projections is to help policymakers to understand the extent to which additional
policy intervention may be necessary if the energy-access
SDGs are to be achieved.
Paudel et al. |
1 Factors affecting
cooking-energy choices
quintiles, somewhat higher in the fourth and substantially
higher in the fifth [21]. Others, however, question the accuracy of this model, which they say is largely an artefact
of the lack of tracking of multiple fuels by many surveys,
since different fuels and technologies support somewhat
different cooking preparations [31].
Such critiques notwithstanding, costs and income remain important drivers of fuel choices. A cylinder of LPG
cost Nepalese Rupee (NRs) 1375 (12 USD)2 in Nepal as of
mid-2020 and, considering that this quantity is sufficient
for 30–60 days for a small family of four, such a household
would spend NRs 8250 (69 USD) per year on LPG [32]. Other
improved fuels also come with substantial costs: a typical
biogas plant with a service time of 15 years, for example,
costs NRs 30 000–40 000 (252–336 USD) after subsidies and
the annual cost for a household is thus about NRs 2700 (23
USD)—about three times lower than the cost of LPG. Given
that the per-capita income in 2018 was only NRs 103 335
[33], the installation cost of a biogas plant is considerable. Finally, regarding electricity, per-unit costs in Nepal
are higher than in many other South Asian countries [25],
which discourages households from adopting it for cooking
uses. Some have noted that electricity is actually a cheaper
cooking fuel than LPG [34], but that its supply is unreliable
and that households perceive it to be higher in cost. Female
household members are mostly responsible for cookingenergy usage in developing countries. They play an important role in collecting and choosing fuels at low-income
levels [35]. Education among household members also has
a positive link with the household’s willingness to choose
clean and efficient energy fuels [36]. With more education
among household members, there are better employment
opportunities, improved economic statuses of families
and awareness about clean-cooking fuel that assist them
in upgrading to cleaner and healthier methods of energy
usage. One study from Nepal reveals that the probability of
solid-fuel consumption (firewood particularly) is reduced
by 4% among households with literate household heads
[37]. Plans and policies implemented by the government
also play a vital role in the energy choices of households.
For the sustainable development of a country, it is important to adopt clean-cooking techniques.
2 Cooking-energy-usage pattern
in Nepal
Summaries of statistics related to cooking fuel, drawing on
the 2001 and 2011 Census rounds, are provided in Tables 1
and 2, respectively. In 2001, more than three-quarters of
the country’s population relied primarily on solid fuels for
cooking fuel. Among these solid-fuel users, two out of three
relied on firewood as the primary cooking fuel. Only 7.7%
of households were found to be using LPG as a primary
source for cooking at that time. The percentage of solid-fuel
2
1 USD equals NRs 119 (exchange rate July 2020).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ce/zkaa022/6041498 by guest on 22 December 2020
A variety of demographic factors, accessibility and
socio-economic conditions play a role in the choice of
cooking fuel among households [22–24]. A study representing all three ecological belts of Nepal revealed that
household size and livestock ownership, which influence both the supply (via dung production and effects on
fuel harvesting) and demand (cooking requirements for
people and animals), influence cooking-fuel choices [25].
In cold regions, the burning of firewood in a cooking stove
helps to keep homes warm and is thus another factor
encouraging the continued household preference for firewood. The same study also documented that households
with a biogas connection had 48% lower firewood dependence, while access to LPG and a gas stove reduced firewood
use by 26% [25]. With the increased quality and convenience of clean-cooking fuel, however, households that
choose improved technology may face higher costs. Thus,
low-income families often prefer firewood, dung and crop
residue; middle-income families often stack or combine
solid fuels, biogas and LPG; whereas high-income households that are less constrained by affordability prefer using
LPG and electricity [19].
Economic data on fuels reveal that LPG use costs >10
times the amount that typical households spend on an
amount of firewood with equivalent useful thermal energy in Nepal [26]. This is largely because firewood is usually collected from common resources for which access
is free of financial costs, although this does not account
for the significant opportunity cost of time spent in the
harvesting of firewood [27]. Electricity and LPG, the dominant fuels used by the rich, are both clean to use and
highly controllable in terms of output to perform different
cooking tasks, but they face their own supply challenges.
LPG, for example, is bulky to transport, involves high installation costs and is not easily accessible in areas with a
restricted infrastructure. Likewise, unreliable distribution
networks, the high initial cost of electric cooking appliances, restrictive tariff structures and a lack of awareness
among people appear as challenges impeding the wider
use of electricity for cooking purposes [28]. Firewood, crop
residue and dung do not come with these affordability and
infrastructure barriers.
Given the prior observations linking income to fuel
choices, prior authors have conceptualized the fuel transition using the notion of the energy ladder [29, 30].
According to this model, crop residues, animal waste and
firewood lie at the bottom; kerosene, biogas and charcoal
in the middle; and electricity and LPG are at the top. Cost
barriers—for fuel and equipment—increase as one climbs
the ladder. In Nepal, Giri and Goswami [21] observed a
dominance of biomass as the primary cooking-fuel source
in low-income countries up to the fourth quintile versus
minimal use of that source in the fifth quintile; primary
reliance on LPG was meanwhile low in the bottom three
3
4
|
Clean Energy, 2020, Vol. XX, No. XX
Table 1: Distribution of households by various sources of fuel
used for cooking by regions, Nepal, 2001 [38]
Table 2: Distribution of households by various sources of fuel
used for cooking by regions, Nepal, 2011 [39]
Source of fuel used for cooking in percentage
Source of fuel used for cooking in percentage
Area
Wood
LPG Biogas
Cow dung
13.7
7.7
1.7
10.1
34.1
9.8
27.3
4.0
1.8
1.7
2.5
11.5
3.2
16.0
12.8
0.4
8.9
7.7
0.1
1.9
1.7
0.7
0.1
21.5
users in rural areas was somewhat higher, at ~84%, and
only 5.7% of such households were primarily using cleancooking fuels (LPG or biogas). In urban areas, kerosene was
the most common primary cooking fuel, with ~34% of total
households using it, followed by firewood (33% of users)
and LPG (27%). The census data also reveal important regional differences: the population of the mountain region,
for example, relied much more heavily on firewood as the
primary fuel for cooking, at close to 96% (compared to 72%
of households in hills and 55% in the Terai (the low-lying
land at the foot of the Himalayas), where cow dung was
an important additional solid fuel). Less than 1% of households primarily used clean-cooking fuels in the mountain
region, compared to 11% and 9% in the hills and the Terai,
respectively. Electricity use for cooking was negligible at
the time.
By 2011, the share of solid-fuel users had barely declined
and about two-thirds of the country’s population were still
primarily reliant on firewood for cooking (Table 2). A total
of 74% of households were still the primary users of solid
fuels overall and this fraction rose to 86% in rural areas.
The share of users of clean fuels had risen to ~23%, although largely due to a shift in urban areas away from
kerosene and towards LPG. Thus, in urban areas, only 27%
were primarily reliant on solid fuels for cooking and ~70%
of households used clean-cooking fuels. A disaggregation
across ecological belts similar to that conducted above reveals that 95% of households in mountain regions still relied on solid fuels for cooking, versus 67% in the hills and
78.6% in the Terai regions.
A graphical comparison of primary clean and solid-fuel
usage in urban and rural Nepal at these 10-year intervals
is presented in Figs 1 and 2. The comparison reveals that
there has been progress in the usage of clean fuels in both
urban and rural areas, but the change is much more significant in urban regions, where the increase has exceeded
>40 percentage points. The usage of solid fuels has stayed
nearly constant in rural regions and overall. Unpacking
this somewhat more primary usage of LPG has increased
in both rural and urban areas, as kerosene has nearly
been replaced by this fuel. Throughout the country, the
Area
Cow
Wood Kerosene LPG dung Biogas Electricity
Total
64
Place of residence
Urban
25.7
Rural
73.1
Ecological belt
Mountain 94.8
Hill
67
Terai
56.5
1
21
10.4
2.4 0.1
2
0.8
67.7 1.5
9.9 12.5
1.8 0.1
2.6 0.1
0.5
1.1
1
3.1 0.4
29.4 0.1
15.2 22.1
0.2 0.3
1.6 0.1
3.5 0.1
percentage increase in LPG use was ~13.3% and this occurred alongside a decrease in the primary use of kerosene
of 12.7%. The sharp decrease in the use of kerosene is likely
attributable to the penetration and greater availability of
LPG, as well as its convenience, safety and emissions advantages over kerosene, especially in urban regions. Also,
the equalization of kerosene and diesel prices as set by
Nepal Oil Coroporation in 2008 caused an increase in the
price of kerosene, which may have encouraged households to abandon kerosene as a cooking fuel in favor of the
relatively cleaner and more consistently burning LPG alternative. The negligible transition towards clean cooking
observed in mountain regions may be due to the low availability and high transportation cost of clean-cooking fuels
such as LPG resulting from the complicated geographical
structure and difficult terrain of this region. The heat provided by hot flue gases from the burning of firewood in
these colder climates is another reason behind the preference for fuelwood in such areas. Developing alternative
heating techniques that better pair with clean-cookingenergy sources seems important to reduce this high reliance on firewood. In comparison, the hilly region and Terai
have seen a more substantial increase in the use of LPG;
these areas have experienced improved accessibility over
this period with the rapid development of the road infrastructure and improved awareness of modern fuels due to
educational and communications improvements over the
period. Further improvements in accessibility and efforts
to raise awareness about the value of energy transitions
remain vital, however, as large fractions of the populations
in all zones still face obstacles in obtaining clean fuels.
Overall, the variation in clean-energy access among rural
and urban regions reflects a range of affordability, awareness and accessibility challenges that help to explain why
clean-cooking access remains low in Nepal, especially in
rural regions.
To extend beyond 2011 and the last census, we can
analyse trends as obtained from the Annual Household
Survey of Nepal from 2012 to 2017 (Figs 3 and 4). These
figures reveal substantial variation over time, suggesting
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ce/zkaa022/6041498 by guest on 22 December 2020
Total
66.2
Place of residence
Urban
33.2
Rural
72.4
Ecological belt
Mountain 95.5
Hill
72.3
Terai
55.6
Kerosene
Paudel et al. |
90
% users in urban region
70
60
50
40
30
20
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
2012–13
2013–14
2014–15 2015–16
2016–17
Year
Total
Rural
2001
Urban
Solid
Clean
Fig. 3: Fuel-usage pattern in urban households of Nepal [42–46]
2011
Fig. 1: Urban and rural households using clean fuels in the years 2001
and 2011 [38, 39]
90
% households using sold fuel
80
80
70
60
50
40
30
higher, fourth and fifth quintile groups, while the first
three quintile groups (poor) primarily use solid fuels for
cooking. Electricity use for cooking purposes remains
surprisingly low. And, although a recent survey conducted by the World Bank in Nepal reveals that 95 out
of 100 households in Nepal have access to electricity,
only 72% have reliable, affordable and uninterrupted
supply for a significant part of the day. Even at this relatively high level and quality of electricity access, households rarely consider it to be a viable energy source for
cooking [41].
20
10
0
Total
Rural
2001
Urban
2011
Fig. 2: Urban and rural households using solid fuels in the years 2001
and 2011 [38, 39]
that the usage of clean fuel (mostly LPG) in urban areas
rose from 72% to 80% between 2012 and 2014, but then
decreased suddenly in 2015 and levelled off at ~58% in
2016–17. Trends in solid fuel mirror the change in LPG
and show a rise to nearly 42% in 2016–17. This recent
trend is concerning, but can largely be explained by several unfortunate events and policies. First, a large earthquake (measuring 7.8 on the Richter scale) devastated the
country in April 2015 and disrupted supply chains and
road infrastructure. Second, this event was followed by
an unofficial import blockade along the country’s south
border with India, which created an extreme shortage of
LPG and forced people to switch back to primary reliance
on solid fuels, mostly firewood [40]. The trend for rural
areas, where households were only primarily using clean
fuels at low levels, did not change substantially. Indeed,
>80% of households relied primarily on solid fuels
throughout the period, although a modest increase to a
peak of 89% occurred in 2015–16. Disaggregating these
results further, LPG usage is found to be dominant in the
3 Clean-cooking efforts through policies
and legal frameworks
Government, national and international communities,
local bodies and stakeholders have all made multiple efforts to help Nepali households to transition towards clean
fuels and cooking technologies, dating back to the 1950s.
For the safer and healthier use of biomass, ICS were first
introduced in the 1950s and the dissemination of biogas
began in the 1980s.
To ensure the promotion and development of sustainable energy, Nepal joined the UN Secretary General’s
Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative in 2012,
targeting the provision of clean energy to all by 2030. The
National Planning Commission, acting as a focal point
for the initiative, formulated action plans to achieve the
SE4ALL goal. Complementing the SE4ALL intiative, in 2013,
the Nepal government developed a national goal to provide Clean Cooking Solutions for All (CCS4ALL) by 2017
[33]. Concerning legislation, Part 4 of Article 51 of the
Consitution of Nepal (2015) states that the government will
adopt policies regarding the protection, promotion and
use of natural resources to guarantee appropriate, affordable and sustainable energy to citizens [47]. Various relevant policies and strategies include the Renewable Energy
Subsidy Policy (2000), Rural Energy Policy (2006), National
Energy Strategy (2013), Forest Policy (2015), Renewable
Energy Subsidy Policy (2016), Biomass Energy Strategy
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ce/zkaa022/6041498 by guest on 22 December 2020
% households using clean fuel
80
0
5
6
|
Clean Energy, 2020, Vol. XX, No. XX
90
% users in rural region
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0
2012–13
2013–14
2014–15 2015–16
2016–17
Year
Solid
Clean
Fig. 4: Fuel-usage pattern of rural households of Nepal [42–46]
(2017) and National Energy Efficiency Strategy (2018). All of
these have elements that seek to support the promotion
of clean and renewable-energy (RE) technologies including
for cooking, raising awareness, providing adoption subsidies and establishing more effective policy frameworks.
More specifically, the Rural Energy Policy of 2006 focuses on providing clean and affordable energy sources to
rural areas and protecting the environment by reducing
dependency on biomass. The Forest Policy of 2015 has as
its primary motive to increase afforestation and also devotes attention to the need for financial and technical support for households to aid their use of alternative energy
including biogas, bio-briquettes and ICS. The Renewable
Energy Subsidy Policy was first approved and implemented
in 2000 through the Alternative Energy Promotion Centre.
It was reviewed and amended four times until the latest
version from 2016. The Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy
prioritizes the use of the best available technology and
promotes affordability by reducing upfront adoption costs
through subsidies to increase the access, use and promotion of RE technologies including ICS. The Biomass Energy
Strategy 2017 meanwhile promotes biomass energy as a reliable, affordable and sustainable energy source to address
increasing energy demand in Nepal. It aims to raise public
awareness, develop markets and support technology dissemination that make more efficient use of biomass.
Given that the CCS4ALL was not successful in achieving
universal access by 2017, in part owing to the effects of
the devastating earthquake of 2015, the Biomass Energy
Strategy of 2017 envisaged attaining the CCS4ALL objective
by 2022 [48]. Finally, the National Energy Efficiency Strategy
of 2018 sets specific targets that aim to double the energyefficiency-improvement rate to 1.68% per year up to 2030
through policies, legal frameworks and specific promotion
programmes.
Reflecting these various policies, the Nepal Government’s
Budget has included substantial resources for RE promotion, protecting the environment and increasing clean
household-energy access. In addition, a ‘White Paper on
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ce/zkaa022/6041498 by guest on 22 December 2020
10
Energy, Water, and Irrigation: Present Situation and Future
Prospect’ was released by the Ministry of Energy and Water
resources in 2018 and sets a target of increasing household
electricity usage to 700 and 1500 kWh in 5 and 10 years,
respectively, and placing electric cookstoves in all households by 2030 [49].
With the help of these policies, legal frameworks
and other developmental programmes, Nepal has been
seeking to spur the adoption of LPG, biogas, electricity
and biomass-burning ICS, but the principal policy mechanism to do so has been biogas and ICS subsidy. Biogas
is seen as most relevant for rural regions. Fig. 5 depicts
the cumulative number of installed biogas plants and
ICS disseminated in Nepal since 2004 and shows that
>300 000 biogas plants and 1 million ICS have been installed over this period. This escalation in the number
of biogas plants and ICS suggests that the RE-subsidy
policy has been instrumental in increasing access to
clean cooking fuel by improving the affordability of this
technology in Nepal [50, 51]. However, in the absence of
precise data pinpointing the number of functional biogas
plants among the total installed plants (especially after
the destructive earthquake of 2015), it is difficult to assess whether this technology has been sustainable; indeed, the percentage share of primary users of biogas
(see Table 2) implies considerably lower sustained use
than these adoption numbers would suggest.
A comparison of the evolution in GDP per capita and in
access to clean cooking as shown in Figs. 6 and 7 reveals a
puzzle. Between 2000 and 2006, the average growth in GDP
per capita of Nepal was ~7.2%, while the average annual
percentage increase in access to clean cooking and technologies was 4.1%. After 2006, governmental policies and
strategies to facilitate clean cooking were increasingly
implemented and, on top of this, the average percentage
increase in GDP in Nepal was 8.8%, but the increase in
access to clean cooking slowed somewhat, to 3.8%. One
would expect that the implementation of policies and
strategies to facilitate clean energy and a more rapid increase in GDP per capita would have accelerated the pace
of increased access to clean cooking, but this was not the
case. Though correlational, this evidence suggests that
the policies and strategies adopted to increase access to
clean cooking energy are falling short. This appears especially true among the lower three income quintiles of
the population (Fig. 8). To be sure, affordability of clean
fuels would have increased in this period due to rising
incomes, but many households remain highly incomeconstrained. Well-researched and evidence-based policies
and interventions therefore appear essential if Nepal’s
energy-access goals are to be met. Supportive policies
should especially enhance the resilience of supply chains
for clean fuels and help those in poor and rural locations
to adopt better technology; such interventions are all the
more important given the setbacks experienced following
the earthquake of 2015.
7
1210 000
1060 000
910 000
760 000
610 000
460 000
310 000
160 000
10 000
2004
2006
2008
2010
Biogas plant
2012
Year
2014
2016
2018
Improved cooking stoves
1200
35
1000
30
% access to clean fules and
technologies
GDP per capita
Fig. 5: Total number of biogas plants and ICS installed in Nepal [50, 51]
800
600
400
200
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
Fig. 6: Change in GDP per capita in Nepal [52]
4 Cooking-energy-usage trends
Given the observed decrease in the usage of kerosene
and biomass as seen in current cooking trends, we can
expect that these fuels will continue to decline. Yet, current trends show that this progress is slow and therefore
point to a strong need for interventions that spur the
transition to clean-cooking fuel if the SDG 7 of universal
access to clean fuel by 2030 is to be achieved. The slow
progress is especially evident among the bottom three
income quintiles, who also tend to be more rural and
face particular affordability and supply-chain challenges
in accessing clean fuels. Integrated rural and humandevelopment policies that raise incomes, awareness
and aspirations, and more tailored policies that support
clean-energy technologies will thus be necessary to accelerate the slow overall rate of progress. These policies
should address the multidimensional aspects of access
and solutions, and should be based on regional context
and geography, as well as inclusive and gender-sensitive
discussions with local stakeholders. Complementary
solutions like electricity coupled with biogas and LPG,
or solar with biogas and biomass ICS, and improved
technology-financing schemes and incentives (tax and
subsidies) could further encourage the shift towards
clean cooking.
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
Fig. 7: Percentage access to clean cooking fuels in Nepal [53]
5 Conclusion
Using solid fuels harms health and the environment.
Together with accessibility, socio-economic and demographic aspects and preferences for household heating
have played a vital role in determining energy choices in
Nepal. Comparing energy-usage data throughout the study
period (2001–16) reveals that solid fuels had remained the
dominant choice of cooking fuel in the country, in spite
of numerous efforts to spur the adoption of clean solutions. This dependency on biomass is even greater in rural
regions. In fact, throughout the period of analysis, the
greatest changes have been in the use of kerosene, which
decreased significantly to negligible levels owing to its
successful replacement by LPG and to the increase in the
relative price of kerosene. Electricity as a cooking-energy
choice remains unimportant, despite high rates of access to
electricity and abundant hydropower-generation options.
Concerning who adopts clean fuels, we noted that primary
LPG usage is high especially among the fifth income quintile, though the trend in access is strongly positive also
for the fourth quartile. The first three quintile groups still
heavily rely on solid fuels for cooking, however, and are
making progress at much lower rates, such that the overall
transition to clean cooking has been slow. Given this slow
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ce/zkaa022/6041498 by guest on 22 December 2020
Cumulative number of installations
Paudel et al. |
8
|
Clean Energy, 2020, Vol. XX, No. XX
100
90
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Year
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Fig. 8: Percentage solid-fuel usage by different quintiles in Nepal [42–46]
transition thus far, it is clear that evidence-based policies
must be formulated, implemented and further evaluated
to support an accelerated leap towards clean cooking, in
order to achieve SDG 7 and its myriad social benefits.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge EnergizeNepal Project for
financial support (ENEP-RENP-II-18-01).
Conflict of Interest
None declared
References
[1] Sustainable Development Goals, Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/
goal7 (24 January 2020, date last accessed).
[2] Economic and Social Council. Special edition: progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals 2019. 2019. https://
unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2019/secretary-general-sdgreport-2019--EN.pdf (25 January 2020, date last accessed).
[3] IEA. World Energy Outlook 2006. 2006. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2006 (29 January 2020, date last
accessed).
[4] IEA. 2019. SDG 7: Data and Projections. https://www.iea.org/
reports/sdg7-data-and-projections/access-to-clean-cooking
(17 April 2020, date last accessed).
[5] Ministry of Finance. 2019. Economic survey 2018/2019.
https://mof.gov.np/uploads/document/file/compiled%20economic%20Survey%20english%207-25_20191111101758.pdf (29
January 2020, date last accessed).
[6] Alternative Energy Promotion Centre. Progress at a glance: a
year in review 2018/19. 2019. https://www.aepc.gov.np/documents/annual-progress-report-aepc (22 February 2020, date
last accessed).
[7] Zhang J, Smith KR. Household air pollution from coal and
biomass fuels in China: measurements, health impacts, and
interventions. Environ Health Perspect, 2007, 115:848–855.
[8] Sinha SN. Air Pollution from Solid Fuels. In Nriagu J (ed).
Encyclopedia of Environmental Health. 2nd edn. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 2019, 49.
[9] Bond TC, Bhardwaj E, Dong R, et al. Historical emissions of
black and organic carbon aerosol from energy-related combustion, 1850–2000. Global Biogeochem Cycles, 2007, 21:1–16.
[10] Dang J, Li C, Li J, et al. Emissions from solid fuel cook stoves in
the Himalayan Region. Energies, 2019, 12:1–15.
[11] Adhikari S, Mahapatra PS, Pokheral CP, Puppala SP. Cookstove
smoke impact on ambient air quality and probable consequences for human health in rural locations of southern
Nepal. Int J Environ Res Pub Health, 2020, 17:550.
[12] Shvidenko A. Deforestation. In Jorgensen SE, Fath B (eds).
Encyclopedia of Ecology. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2008, 853.
[13] World Health Organisation. Household air pollution and
health 2018. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/
detail/household-air-pollution-and-health (25 January 2020,
date last accessed).
[14] Clean Cooking Alliance. Accelerating clean household energy
in urban Nepal 2017. https://www.cleancookingalliance.org/
events/403.html (26 May 2020, date last accessed).
[15] Lohani SP. Biomass as a source of household energy and indoor air pollution in Nepal. IJEE, 2011, 2:74–78.
[16] Raspanti GA, Hashibe M, Siwakoti B, et al. Household air pollution and lung cancer risk among never-smokers in Nepal.
Environ. Res, 2016, 147:141–145.
[17] Ingale LT, Dube KJ, Sarode DB, et al. Monitoring and respiratory
health assessment of the population exposed to cooking fuel
emissions in a rural area of Jalgaon district, India. Asia Pac J
Public Health, 2013, 25:463–475.
[18] Oguntoke O, Adebulehin AT, Annegarn HJ. Biomass energy
utilisation, air quality and the health of rural women and children in Ido LGA, south-western Nigeria. Indoor Built Environ,
2013, 22:528–534.
[19] Behera B, Rahut DB, Jeetendra A, Ali A. Household collection
and use of biomass energy sources in South Asia. Energy, 2015,
85:468–480.
[20] Heltberg R. Fuel switching: evidence from eight developing
countries. Energy Econ, 2004, 26:869–887.
[21] Giri M, Goswami B. Determinants of household’s choice of fuel
for cooking in developing countries: evidence from Nepal. J
Dev Pract Practice, 2018, 3:137–154.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ce/zkaa022/6041498 by guest on 22 December 2020
% solid fuel usage
80
Paudel et al. |
[40] BBC News. Nepal blockade: six ways it affects the country
2015. 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35041366
(19 March 2020, date last accessed).
[41] World Bank. First of its kind world bank survey on quality
of electricity access in Nepal shows remarkable progress:
challenges persist on clean cooking 2019. 2019. https://
www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/11/19/
f i r s t - o f - i t s - k i n d - wo r l d - b a n k - s u r vey - o n - q u a l i t y - o f electricity-access-in-nepal-shows-remarkable-progresschallenges-persist-on-clean-cooking (26 April 2020, date last
accessed).
[42] Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal.
Annual household survey 2012/13. 2016. https://cbs.gov.
np/wp-content/upLoads/2018/12/Annual-HouseholdSurvey-2012–13.pdf (12 March 2020, date last accessed).
[43] Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal. Annual household survey 2013/14. 2016. https://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/upLoads/2018/12/Report-on-Annual-Household-Survey-2013–141.
pdf (17 February 2020, date last accessed).
[44] Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal. Annual
household survey 2014/15. 2017. https://cbs.gov.np/annualhousehold-survey-report-2014–15/ (17 February 2020, date
last accessed).
[45] Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal. Annual
household survey 2015/16. 2018. https://cbs.gov.np/annualhousehold-survey-2015_16/ (17 February 2020, date last
accessed).
[46] Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal. Annual
household survey 2016/17. 2018. https://cbs.gov.np/annualhousehold-survey-2016_17/ (17 February 2020, date last
accessed).
[47] Constitution of Nepal, Nepal Law Commission. 2015. http://
www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/archives/category/documents/prevailing-law/constitution/constitution-of-nepal (17
February 2020, date last accessed).
[48] National Planning Commission. Nepal: Rapid Assessment and
Gap Analysis 2013. 2013. https://npc.gov.np/images/category/
SE4ALL_RA_GA_Report_As_published.pdf (8 March 2020, date
last accessed).
[49] Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation. Present
Situation and Future Roadmap of Energy, Water Resources
and Irrigation Sector (White Paper) 2018. 2018. https://cip.nea.
org.np/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/KMS-6-white-paper-onenergy-water-resources-and-irrigation-sector.pdf (8 March
2020, date last accessed).
[50] Alternative Energy Promotion Centre, Ministry of Energy, Water
Resources and Irrigation, Government of Nepal. 2020. https://
www.aepc.gov.np/statistic/biogas-plant (8 March 2020, date
last accessed).
[51] Alternative Energy Promotion Centre, Ministry of Energy,
Water Resources and Irrigation, Government of Nepal. 2020.
https://www.aepc.gov.np/statistic/improved-cooking-stove
(20 March 2020, date last accessed).
[52] World Bank. GDP per capita, Nepal. 2020. https://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=NP (20
March 2020, date last accessed).
[53] World Bank. Access to clean fuels and technologies for
cooking, Nepal. 2017. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
EG.CFT.ACCS.ZS (20 March 2020, date last accessed).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ce/zkaa022/6041498 by guest on 22 December 2020
[22] Lewis JJ, Pattanayak SK. Who adopts improved fuels and
cookstoves? A systematic review. Environ Health Perspect, 2012,
120:637–645.
[23] Jeuland MA, Bhojvaid V, Kar A, et al. Preferences for improved
cook stoves: Evidence from rural villages in north India.
Energy Econ, 2015, 52:287–298.
[24] Rahut DB, Ali A, Mottaleb KA, Aryal JP. Wealth, education and
cooking-fuel choices among rural households in Pakistan.
Energy Strateg Rev, 2019, 24:236–243.
[25] Sigdel B. Growing energy demand in India: Nepal’s hydropower export potentialities. Socio-Economic Development
Panorama, 2007, 1:91–105.
[26] Pokharel S. Energy economics of cooking in households in
Nepal. Energy, 2004, 29:547–559.
[27] Heltberg R, Arndt TC, Sekhar NU. Fuelwood consumption and
forest degradation: a household model for domestic energy
substitution in rural India. Land Econ, 2000, 76:213–232.
[28] Vaidya A. Promoting electric cooking in Nepal: opportunities and challenges 2020. 2020. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/339237483_Promoting_electric_cooking_in_
Nepal_Opportunities_and_Challenges (27 January 2020, date
last accessed).
[29] Hosier RH, Dowd J. Household fuel choice in Zimbabwe: an
empirical test of the energy ladder hypothesis. Res Energy,
1987, 9:347–361.
[30] Leach G. The energy transition. Energy Policy, 1992, 20:116–123.
[31] Masera OR, Saatkamp BD, Kammen DM. From linear fuel
switching to multiple cooking strategies: a critique and
alternative to the energy ladder model. World Dev, 2000,
28:2083–2103.
[32] The Rising Nepal. LPG price goes up by Rs. 25 per cylinder.
https://risingnepaldaily.com/nation/lpg-price-goes-up-by-rs25-per-cylinder (20 April 2020, date last accessed).
[33] World Bank. Investment prospectus for clean cooking in
Nepal: a roadmap to national goal of providing clean cooking
solutions for all 2017. 2017. http://documents.worldbank.org/
curated/en/916571494854063344/pdf/Investment-prospectusfor-clean-cooking-solutions-in-Nepal-a-roadmap-tonational-goal-of-providing-clean-cooking-solutions-for-all.
pdf (25 February 2020, date last accessed).
[34] Koirala S. Is electricity cheap enough to replace cooking gas?
2019.
https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2019/09/03/is
electricity-cheap-enough-to-replace-cooking-gas (24 April
2020, date last accessed).
[35] Reddy BS, Srinivas T. Energy use in Indian household sector:
an actor-oriented approach. Energy, 2009, 34:992–1002.
[36] Rao NM, Reddy BS. Variations in energy use by Indian households: an analysis of micro level data. Energy, 2007, 32:143–153.
[37] Sharma B. Household fuel transition and determinants of firewood demand in Nepal. Econ J Dev Issues, 2019, 25:83–95.
[38] Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal. Population
Census 2001. 2002. https://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/upLoads/2018/12/Chapter-05-Houseing-and-HouseholdCharacteristics-and-Famil.pdf (10 March 2020, date last accessed).
[39] Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal. National
Population and Housing Census 2011. 2012. https://unstats.
un.org/unsd/demographic-social/census/documents/Nepal/
Nepal-Census-2011-Vol1.pdf (10 March 2020, date last
accessed).
9