The Port Olry Biofuel Project in Vanuatu – a Pacific Case Study Household Survey Report

The Port Olry Biofuel Project in Vanuatu – A Pacific Case Study Household Survey Report

Final Version – September 2010

Prepared by

Thomas Lynge Jensen 1 Environment and Energy Specialist UNDP Pacific Centre (PC)

1 The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), its Executive Board or its members states.

Contents Acknowledgements ...... 4 1. Background ...... 5 2. Methodology for Household Survey ...... 5 2.1 Baseline Information ...... 5 2.2 Surveyor Training ...... 5 2.3 Survey Design ...... 6 2.4 Survey Size and Household Selection ...... 6 2.5 Survey Implementation ...... 7 2.6 Data Entry ...... 7 2.7 Data Analysis and Report Writing ...... 8 3. Key Survey Results and Conclusions ...... 8 4. Key Recommendations ...... 10 4.1 Project Identification, Planning and Design ...... 10 4.2 Future Household Energy Questionnaires ...... 10 Annex A: Survey Results, Question by Question ...... 12 A.1 Roof of Main House ...... 12 A.2 Walls in Main House ...... 12 A.3 Number of Buildings in the Compound ...... 12 A.4 Approximate Distance between the Main House and the most distant Building ...... 13 A.5 Ownership of the House ...... 13 A.6 Travel Time in Minutes to the Market ...... 13 A.7 Main Means of Getting to the Market ...... 14 A.8 Number of People living in the House most of the Year ...... 14 A.9 Number of People Living in the House in Each Age Group ...... 15 A.10 Is the House Occupied by about the same Number of People all year around? ...... 15 A.11 Number of Weeks a Year the House is Typically Vacant with no one at Home ...... 15 A.12 Relatives that do not live with you but send Money from Time to Time ...... 15 A.13 Frequency Relatives send Money ...... 16 A.14 Share of Household Income coming from Relatives ...... 16 A.15 Monthly Household Income ...... 17

A.16 Use of Electricity to Make Money ...... 17 A.17 Regularity of Monthly Income ...... 19 A.18 Monthly Expenditure Pattern ...... 20 A.19 Electric Lights (main-grid) in all Structures of the Household ...... 21 A.20 Number of Electric Lights (main-grid) that are on most of the Time after dark every Day and the Period of Time they are on ...... 21 A.21 Electrical Appliances that are connected to the Electricity Grid and used in the Household ...... 22 A.21 Average Monthly Expenditure for Electricity ...... 23 A.22 Most Important Electrical Appliances in Household Currently ...... 24 A.23 Next Electrical Appliance Aspire for ...... 25 A.24 Kerosene Wick Lamps used Regularly ...... 26 A.25 Kerosene Pressure Lamps used Regularly...... 26 A.26 Reason for using Kerosene Lamps despite having Electricity ...... 26 A.27 Cooking Fuels ...... 27 A.28 Accessibility of Main Cooking Fuel ...... 27 A.29 Affordability of Main Cooking Fuel ...... 28 A.30 Monthly Expenditure on Kerosene ...... 29 A. 31 Number of Disposable batteries used in Battery Operated Electrical Appliances...... 29 A. 32 Disposable batteries bought in a month ...... 30 A.33 Importance of Electricity to the Family ...... 30 A. 34 Importance of 24-hours Electricity ...... 30 A.35 Perceived Positive aspects of having electricity in the village ...... 31 A. 36 Perceived Negative aspects of having electricity in the village ...... 32 A. 37 Comparison of before and after the bio-fuel power system ...... 33 A. 38 Preferred institutional set-up for power supply ...... 33 A.40 Main Source of Drinking Water ...... 34 A.41 Sanitary Facilities ...... 34 Annex B: Survey Questionnaire...... 35 References ...... 46

Acknowledgements The author would first and foremost like to acknowledge the three surveyors and their hard work over the three days period the survey was undertaken in Port Olry. Therefore a special tank yu tumas goes to: Moli Janjea and Kennedy Kaltavara from the Government of Vanuatu Energy Unit and Sakaraia Daniel from the Sanma Provincial Government. In addition the author would like to thank the other team members, i.e. Rupeni Mario (Team Leader), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and Iese Toimoana, Renewable Energy Engineer, Pacific Power Association (PPA) for truly great team work before, during and after the mission to Vanuatu.

The energy household survey in Port Olry, including this report, has benefitted significantly from recent United Nations (UN) supported household surveys in Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Samoa and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). In addition the format of this report overall follows the format of the Preparatory Phase of the Samoa Photovoltaic Electrification Programme – Survey Report (UNDP, 2008) which was prepared by Dr. Herbert Wade et al for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The author found the format of the Samoa survey report very useful, in particular the annex Survey Results, Question by Question .

A first draft version of this report was sent to key stakeholders and different resource people for comments. Peter Johnston, Environmental and Energy Consultants, Ltd and Rupeni Mario provided comments and their inputs are very much appreciated. Most of the comments have been incorporated; however the views expressed in this final version are those of the author.

1. Background A Pacific Regional Group on Food Security and Climate Change was established in October 2008 with the overall goal of assessing and regionalizing the recommendations of the June, 2008 international High- Level Conference on Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy. Founded by the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) with the support of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Pacific Regional Group on Food Security and Climate Change decided in its meeting of July 2009 in Vava’u, Tonga, to undertake three case studies on bio-fuel. The Government of Vanuatu, SPREP via the Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abatement through Renewable Energy Project (PIGGAREP), FAO, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Pacific Power Association (PPA) are collaborating in undertaking one of the three case studies in Vanuatu specifically of a bio-fuel project in Port Orly on the island of Santo.

According to the Terms of Reference (TOR) the objectives of the Port Olry assignment are to:

i) Undertake an independent assessment /evaluation of the Port Orly Biofuel Project; and, ii) Assess the technical, economic, markets, institutional, social and environmental opportunities and constraints of biofuel in Vanuatu with the view to replicate successful experiences.

In the TOR it is specified that a ‘Comprehensive Report on findings from a socio-economic household survey’ is one of the deliverables, which is this report.

2. Methodology for Household Survey

2.1 Baseline Information One of the methods used to determine the size of a rural electrification project is to carry out a needs survey of the prospective recipients of the project. 2 However it is unclear to the evaluation team if a pre- installation household survey and pre-feasibility/feasibility study were carried out by UNELCO 3 as part of the project preparations. Thus unfortunately baseline information was not available and therefore it is not possible to assess what (if any) changes have occurred in the village due to the introduction of the (biofuel) power system. However some information concerning past energy supply and demand in Port Olry is available in the report Biofuel Energy from Coconut in the Pacific Islands – The Lory Cooperative Pilot Project prepared by Aurelie Leplus, in January 2003. Concerning the overall socio-economic situation as well as sources of energy for cooking and lighting some pre-installation information including at provincial level are available in the main report of the 2006 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES).

2.2 Surveyor Training Before the evaluation mission an Interviewer Protocol that was prepared for a UNDP supported household energy survey in RMI in 2008 4 was shared with the surveyors. In addition two training sessions (approximately two hours each) including detailed walk-through of the questionnaire were undertaken by the author in Luganville before the team went to Port Olry, both on the island of Espiritu

2 UNESCO, 2003, p. 35 (See ‘References’ at the end of this report) 3 UNELCO is the Vanuatu power utility, a private company in the French Suez group. 4 Jensen, Thomas Lynge, June 2008

Santo. Furthermore a one-to-one training session including detailed walk-through of the questionnaire was undertaken with the third surveyor in Port Olry, Monday morning 19 June.

2.3 Survey Design The full questionnaire is available at Annex B. The questionnaire has 49 questions some of which included sub-questions. 5 Different aspects were covered in the questionnaire including: the ownership and use patterns of electrical lighting and appliances; other energy sources for household use; the relative importance to the recipients of lightning, refrigeration, video, and other common uses of electricity; the income and expenditure patterns for the households; the use of electricity for income generation at household levels; priorities for the future purchase of electrical appliances; and perceived benefits and disadvantages of having electricity.

The questionnaire was based on those used successfully in earlier United Nations (UN) supported household energy surveys in other Pacific Island Countries (PICs), specifically in Fiji (2005), Solomon Islands (2006), Samoa (2007/2008) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (2008). Thus this survey including the design benefitted significantly from the experiences gained in the delivery and analysis of these four earlier surveys, but a number of minor changes were made to fit the situation in Port Olry. In addition a new question relating to accessibility and affordability of primary cooking fuel where added, which showed some surprising results.

The questions used must be in the local language as this will assist all questions be asked in the same manner, which will reduce surveyor bias and increase overall accuracy. 6 7 Therefore while the questionnaire was first prepared in English each question subsequently was translated into Bislama. 8

2.4 Survey Size and Household Selection A general rule for small randomly based surveys is that no less than 15% of the total number of units, or 20 units, whichever is larger, should be surveyed. 9 Available information before the evaluation mission stated that there are 238 households in Port Olry. 10 Therefore a minimum of 36 households were to be surveyed. To be on the safe side 39 households were covered. Subsequently through records made available by the Parish Committee it was found that as of end of June 2010 there were 282 customers connected to the power grid in Port Olry. Of these 16 are not households (including churches, schools, stores/cooperatives, butchery, the restaurant, community house, podium (for village performances), and the health clinic) and one household has been deleted in from the customer sheet (presumably disconnected): thus as of end of June 2010 there were 264 households connected to the power grid in Port Olry. As 39 households were interviewed this means that 14.8% of the relevant households in the village were surveyed.

5 However question 23 (How many lights are left on all night on a regular basis?) was not asked as it turned out that the power was not on after 11 pm until morning. In addition question 25 (Method of payment?) turned out to be redundant since all payment is done using prepaid meters. 6 UNESCO, 2003, p. 39 7 Surveyors should not do an on-site translation which can be a disaster as this increases the risk of inaccuracy in the survey. If each surveyor on the spot have to translate each of the questions then we are open to biases and incorrect or at least inconsistent understanding of the questions. 8 However as part of energy survey work undertaken in Port Olry in 2002 it was mentioned that ‘Surveys were translated into Bislama, which is an imprecise language’ (Leplus, Aurelie, 2003, p.28) 9 UNESCO, 2003, p. 37 10 Pacific Institute of Public Policy, November 2008, p. 15

When the survey units are similar in nature, in particular when there are a very large number of them, random selection is the method usually chosen. Any selection method that ensures a genuinely random selection of survey recipients is satisfactorily. 11 Due to lack of information before the evaluation mission enabling identification of specific households it was not possible to randomly pick out (manually or electronically) names, pre-paid power meter ID number, location or some other unique identifier. Therefore it was decided to select the households to be interviewed via the basic ‘random-walk’ methodology. In this case the surveyors started at a randomly selected household in different parts of the village and subsequently going left counter-clock wise they interviewed every fourth household they encountered. Port Olry is divided into five (5) sectors. Subsequently through records made available by the Parish Committee it was found that as of 30 June 2010 there were the following number of grid- connected households in each of the five sectors: 62 in Sector 1 (24%), 78 in Sector 2 (30%), 38 in Sector 3 (14%), 46 in sector 4 (17%), and 40 in Sector 5 (15%). For the 39 households surveyed the sectors of the household in question were recorded for all (but one) with the distribution as follows: two in Sector 1 (5%), 16 in Sector 2 (42%), four in Sector 3 (8%), nine in Sector 4 (24%), and seven in Sector 5 (18%). Therefore although the survey included households in all sectors in the village there was a significant over-representation of households in Sector 2 & 4 and significant under-representation of households in Sector 1. It is unclear if this has any significant implications vis-à-vis how representative the survey results are, but this seems unlikely (e.g. there were no indications including visual or otherwise that the village population in some sections was wealthier or poorer (material wise) than the average for the village).

2.5 Survey Implementation The survey was carried out over three days in the period Saturday the 17 to Tuesday 20 July 2010. 12 The survey team consisted of three people who worked full time and one additional surveyor who assisted with a few households. On average the time spent on an interview was 47 minutes (ranging from 25 minutes for the shortest to two hours for the longest). All the households that were approached agreed to participate in the survey. During the survey period the weather ranged from sunshine to light rain, but overall the weather had minimal influence on the survey. 13 Each of the interviewed households were located using GPS; however this information is yet to be processed, i.e. a map is not yet available.

2.6 Data Entry The survey data was entered by the author (taking two work days) into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The template was based on the data entry template that was prepared by the Samoa Electric Power Corporation (EPC) as part of the comprehensive household survey that was undertaken in 2007/2008.

As part of the data entry some inconsistent responses were identified. However consistency overall seems acceptable. Nevertheless many instances were identified where although the surveyors clearly meant ‘0’, ‘x’ was recorded instead.14 In addition several times boxes are left blank, although all answer boxes were to have an entry (which was stressed during the trainings).

11 UNESCO, 2003, p. 37 12 No survey on Sunday. 13 E.g. if there is heavy rain for extended periods of time there is a risk that the communication between the surveyor and the person being interviewed will be affected negatively due to excessive noise (in particular on houses with iron roofs). 14 “0” means that the corresponding figure is of relevance, but having magnitude of 0 level, whereas ‘x’ is entered in the following cases: a) if the respondent does not know the answer; b) if the respondent does not answer for some reason; or c) if the question does not apply to that household. 7

2.7 Data Analysis and Report Writing The data were analyzed by the author (taking a total of five work days). No dedicated software (such as Statistical Package for Social Sciences) was used. As part of the data analysis few data ‘outliers’ (data items that clearly are wrong and are far from the cluster) were identified. Thus it seems that overall the quality of the survey was satisfactory.

3. Key Survey Results and Conclusions Please refer to Annex A for the detailed findings. The main findings from the survey in Port Olry include:

§ Approximately 1/3 of the household have income from remittances. Around 20% of the surveyed households informed the surveyor that ‘some but not a lot’ of their household income comes from relatives living elsewhere.

§ The overall average monthly household income (excluding remittances) was Vatu (VUV) 88,536.26 (ranging from VUV3,000-340,500). This income comes mainly from selling produce from the household property, fishing and from being a public employee.

§ 90% of the households surveyed have irregular monthly income levels. o Based on the very varying income levels the prepayment system in place to pay for electricity seems like an appropriate choice.

§ 20% of the surveyed households informed that they some way or the other use electricity for income generation. o This finding is in line with results from UN supported household surveys in Fiji (2005), the Solomon Islands (2006), Samoa (2007/2008) and RMI (2008) where the percentages ranged from 0-20%, i.e. it seems that a limited number of households in PICs use electricity for income-generating activities.

§ The major expenditure items in the surveyed households are food, ‘transport, fuel or fares’ and school fees. o The reported average monthly expenditure for electricity were VUV1,672 (ranging from VUV200-8,000). Compare to other items, electricity is not among the major expenditure items. However it should be noted that currently the power supply is limited as follows: a) from Monday to Saturday there are 9-hours of power (from 6-9 am and from 5-11 pm); and b) on Sundays there are 15-hours of power (from 6 am to 9 pm).

§ 90% of the surveyed households in Port Olry do not report any expenditure on kerosene and 90% do not use kerosene lamps regularly. The seemingly very limited overall household demand for kerosene for lighting is likely due to the introduction of the power system. o This change is positive since using kerosene for lighting is less efficient than using electricity, i.e. with kerosene rural low-income villagers pay more for substandard illumination. In addition kerosene lamps pose health and safety risks.

§ The most frequently used electrical appliances in the surveyed households are for lighting, entertainment - i.e. TV and DVD - and communication - i.e. to charge mobile phones. The most

important electrical appliance currently in the households is overwhelmingly light and the second most important is video/DVD. o The following were mentioned in a UNDP report from 2007: ‘Surveys of remote rural areas [in the Pacific Island Countries] indicate that even with full grid electrification, few households use more energy than is provided by a much less-expensive PV installation…’.15 Thus considering the limited demand for electricity in Port Olry it leads to the question whether other technical options in particular solar PV would have been more appropriate.

§ The most desired electrical appliance is a refrigerator. Half of the surveyed households indicate that the next appliance that is aspired for is either a refrigerator or a freezer. o If these wants materialize this would increase demand and thus assist addressing the low load factor.

§ Nearly all households use wood as the main cooking fuel and around ¼ households use a secondary cooking fuel of which other types of biomass are the most frequently used fuel. o However a few households occasionally use gas, electricity and kerosene as supplementary cooking fuels.

§ Over 60% of the households reported that access to the main cooking fuel - i.e. wood - is a problem. o Recently it has been stated that there does not appear to be an immediate shortage of fuelwood in Vanuatu, especially in the rural areas. 16 While it seems that most families in Port Olry own land that are used for coconut plantations and cattle farming for many families their land with the wood used for cooking is not in the immediate vicinity of the households. 17 o Contradictory to common perceptions this finding indicates that there possibly are other rural areas in Vanuatu where access locally to fuelwood is a problem.

§ Over 40% of the households reported that the costs associated with the main cooking fuel - i.e. wood - is a problem. o While there are no direct monetary costs as such associated with the firewood for many households there are indirect monetary costs related to processing (e.g. hire of chainsaw, axe and manpower) and in particular transportation (e.g. car hire to bring it from the plantation to the households).

§ All households but one responded that electricity is ‘very important’ to the family. o Several positive aspects of having electricity in the village were mentioned by the respondents including: improved living conditions; better quality lighting than from kerosene; enabled more convenient illumination than from kerosene; enabled entertainment and information via TV, DVD, and stereo; reduced usage of kerosene lanterns and the associated high costs; enabled students to do homework in the

15 UNDP, 2007, p. 36 16 SPREP, 2005, p. 27 17 Concerning access to fuelwood factors include if the area in question are heavily wooded as well as customary land ownership and resource access rights. . Also some islands in the Pacific may have a high percentage of immigrants from other islands who do not have land rights. 9

evenings; improved the storage of food; and supported establishment of small businesses. o However at the same time several negative aspects of having electricity in the village were mentioned including: additional cash requirement; very high tariff (VUV150/kWh); safety issues; limited hours of power supply; suboptimal power quality sometimes damage the electrical appliances; noise from entertainment systems such as stereos; and less socializing.

§ 90% of the households informed that 24-hours electricity is ‘very important’.

§ The respondents prefer either UNELCO or the Village Committee as being the institution responsible for the power supply whereas very few would like the government to be in charge. o The Port Olry biofuel power project was initially set up to be operated and managed by an ‘association’ with technical assistance including training from UNELCO. The ‘Association’ is defunct and de facto the responsibilities are now taken over by the Parish Committee.

4. Key Recommendations

4.1 Project Identification, Planning and Design § Where appropriate reflect the findings from the energy household survey in Port Olry – as well as the lessons learned from the Port Olry project – in the planning and design of future rural electrification projects and programs in Vanuatu. o In particular this is the case for the nine biofuel projects that have been funded by the EU Energy Facility (EUEF), but yet to be implemented as well as other possible future biofuel based rural electrification projects and programs.

§ For all rural electrification projects in Vanuatu (and elsewhere) undertake comprehensive household surveys. The primary use of a user survey is to determine what energy is being used and to help in determining how much of this energy can reasonable be replaced by electricity from a rural electrification project. Under the best of conditions, a user survey carried out prior to electrification will provide a good basis for predicting the minimum use of electricity after electrification.18 o Such surveys in addition to other types of consultations with community stakeholders will provide critical information on the top development priorities of the communities in question. E.g. the need for proper sanitation facilities and clean and safe drinking water vis-à-vis the need for (very costly) main grid quality power supply.

4.2 Future Household Energy Questionnaires While the questionnaire overall seemed to work satisfactorily the following recommendations are made for future surveys in Vanuatu covering electrified household where the surveyor chooses to use the current questionnaire as a basis:

18 UNESCO, 2003, p. 44

§ Cover page . Include boxes on: a) gender of interviewee; and b) if interviewee is the same as the financial decision maker in the household; § Cooking fuels . Keep questions on availability and affordability of main cooking fuel (as these showed some surprising results); § Monthly expenditures. Include items on: a) ‘’kava’; and b) ‘candles’; § List of grid-connected electrical appliances. Include ‘mobile phone’ as a category as many households uses power to recharge their mobile phones; § Existing cost associated with energy. Include separate question on monthly household consumption of candles (covering quantity and expenses); § Lights (grid powered) . If power not is supplied at night (i.e. from midnight) exclude the question ‘How many lights are left on all night on a regular basis?’

Annex A: Survey Results, Question by Question Below are reported the results from most of the questions included in the survey. For several of the questions results are summarized and in addition comments are provided for what the author considers the most interesting ones.

A.1 Roof of Main House Construction of Roof Percent of Households Wooden 0% Thatched 31% Iron 69% Concrete 0

Result The majority of the roofs in the main house are iron, but a significant proportion has thatched (traditional) roofs. The latter could be due to limited income - or a willingness to live a more traditional lifestyle.

A.2 Walls in Main House Construction of Walls Percent of Households Wooden 26% Thatched 10% Iron 3% Concrete 61% Open 0%

Result The majority of the houses surveyed have concrete walls in the main house, but a significant portion has walls made of wood, thatch or iron. The latter could be due to limited income - or a willingness to live a more traditional lifestyle.

A.3 Number of Buildings in the Compound Number of Buildings Percent of Households 1 41% 2 41% 3 13% 4 2.5% 5 2.5%

Result The majority of households consist of one or two buildings, but a few have three or more.

A.4 Approximate Distance between the Main House and the most distant Building Approximate Distance Percent of in Meters Households 0-5 44% 6-10 38% 11-15 15% 16-30 3%

A.5 Ownership of the House Ownership Percent of Households Owned by occupants 94% Lent by relatives of 3% friends (no payment) Rented 3%

Result Nearly all of the surveyed people in Port Olry own the house they live in.

A.6 Travel Time in Minutes to the Market Travel Time in Minutes Percent of to a Market to Sell Households Goods 0-10 8% 11-30 25% 31-60 8% ‘x’ 59%

Result There is a small market in Port Olry and around 1/3 of the respondents informed that they use up to 30 min to travel to a market to sell produce. The few respondents that informed it takes them ‘one hour’, likely are traveling to Luganville (i.e. the provisional capital) where the main market on Santo is. However the majority of people responded with an ‘x’. As mentioned ‘x’ is only entered in the following cases: a) if the respondent does not know the answer; b) if the respondent does not answer for some reason; or c) if the question does not apply to that household. It is likely that in this case the reason is the latter, i.e. most households do not produce goods that are sold in a market place. 19

Since market access is a key to profitability for a business the longer the time it takes to go to a market to sell goods the lower probability of being able to use electricity for productive uses. 20 The new sealed road to Luganville will soon be finalized and thus transportation time and costs are likely to be reduced.

19 To some extent this is corroborated by the fact that the majority of households do not use electricity for income generating purposes. 20 Wade et al, 2008, p. 50

A.7 Main Means of Getting to the Market Main Means of Getting Percent of to the Market Households Bus 3% Other person’s truck 3% Taxi 3% Own car or truck 0% Walking 33% Bicycle 0% Boat 0% ‘x’ 59%

Result As mentioned there is a small market in Port Olry and the main means of getting there is by foot. When going to the main market in Luganville it is via different means of transport including bus, other person’s truck or taxi. None of the respondents reported using own car (according to a key informant there is only five privately owned vehicles in Port Olry, which are all pick-up trucks). The overall percentage as well as the specific respondents with ‘x’ is the same as in A.6, which is reassuring data quality wise.

A.8 Number of People living in the House most of the Year Number of Percent of People Living in Households the House Most of the Year 1 2.5% 2 10% 3 8% 4 26% 5 10% 6 8% 7 15% 8 5% 9 2.5% 10 5% 11 2.5% 12 2.5% 13 0% 14 0% 15 2.5%

A.9 Number of People Living in the House in Each Age Group Number of Percent 0- Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Persons 10 years 11-18 19-35 36-50 51-65 over 65 old years old years old years old years old years old 0 28% 51% 28% 48% 57% 85% 1 26% 18% 26% 26% 33% 13% 2 23% 23% 28% 23% 10% 2% 3 13% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 4 0% 0% 10% 3% 0% 0% 5 7% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0%

A.10 Is the House Occupied by about the same Number of People all year around? Same Occupants all Percent of Year Households No 26% Yes 74%

Result Around ¾ of the households surveyed expects to have the same occupants most of the time. This indicates that most of the households surveyed are not a temporary residence.

A.11 Number of Weeks a Year the House is Typically Vacant with no one at Home Same Occupants all Percent of Year Households Always occupied 69% 1 week 3% 2 weeks 8% 3 weeks or more 10% ‘x’ 10%

A.12 Relatives that do not live with you but send Money from Time to Time Relatives send Money Percent of from Time to Time Households Yes 31% No 67% ‘x’ 2%

Result According to the main report on the 2006 HIES, on average 24.9% of rural households in Vanuatu had ‘Gifts received’, 21 which is along the findings of this energy survey, i.e. while the majority of households

21 Vanuatu National Statistics Office, p. 35

do not have income from remittances approximately 1/3 do. This indicated that a significant minority of households have problems meeting living costs.

A.13 Frequency Relatives send Money Frequency Relatives Percent of send Money Households Weekly 3% Monthly 8% 2-3 month intervals 5% 3-6 month intervals 5% Every year 5% At the time of special 5% holidays ‘x’ 69%

Result The frequency that households receive money from relatives varies. This indicates that expenses covered by remittances tend to be spread throughout the year.

A.14 Share of Household Income coming from Relatives Share of Household Percent of Income coming from Households Relatives Most of our money 0% comes from relatives living elsewhere Around half of our 5% money Less than half but still 5% quite a bit Some but not a lot 20% ‘x’ 70%

Result None of the households get most of their money from remittances, but a few get half or less of the income from relatives living elsewhere. Around 20% of the surveyed households informed that ‘some but not a lot’ of their household income comes from relatives living elsewhere.

A.15 Monthly Household Income

Source of Household Income

Retired with pension 0% Other 11% Public employee 20% Fishing 15% Private Make employee or handicrafts for own business sale 11% 0% Selling Causal worker chickens, 2% pigs and Selling crops, Craftsman other fruit or coconuts 1% animals products 11% 29%

Result The overall average monthly household income (excluding remittances) was VUV88,536.26 (ranging from VUV3,000-340,500). Household income comes mainly from selling produce from the household property, fishing and from being a public employee.

According to the main report on the 2006 HIES, the average monthly household income in rural areas in Vanuatu is Vatu 53,500. 22 The figure in the energy survey is significantly higher. In this context it should be noted that Port Olry is the second biggest rural village in Vanuatu and that the provincial capital Luganville - that is the only area outside of the national capital that is considered urban in Vanuatu - is relatively easy accessed (e.g. from Port Olry there is around one hour drive on the new tar sealed road).

A.16 Use of Electricity to Make Money Regularity of Monthly Percent of Income Households Someone in household 20% uses electricity to make money No one in household 80% uses electricity to make money

22 Vanuatu National Statistics Office, p. 35

Result 20% of the surveyed households informed that they use electricity some way or the other for income generation. Below are some of the specific comments by respondents as to how household use electricity for income generating activities:

§ ‘Two bungalows - lights’ § ‘Deep freezer for selling chicken wings’ § ‘Welding’ § 'Compressor (tire repair) /elect welding' § ‘Sewing clothes’ § ‘Ice block: butchery, fish & meat’

Comment It should be noted that this survey were not specifically designed to assess income generation and surveyed only households. However this finding is in line with results from UN supported household surveys in Fiji (2005), the Solomon Islands (2006), Samoa (2007/2008) and RMI (2008), i.e. it seems that a limited number of households in PICs uses electricity for income-generating activities. The percentages range from 0-20%, with details as follows: 23 24

§ Rural village (i.e. Port Olry) in Vanuatu with access to limited hours of main grid quality power = 20% of households uses electricity for income-generating activities; § Different rural areas in Samoa with access to 24-hours of main grid quality power = less than 10% of households uses electricity for income-generating activities; § Different rural areas in Fiji: i) areas with access to 24-hours of main grid quality power = 12-18% of households uses electricity for income-generating activities; ii) areas with access to limited hours of diesel based main grid quality power = less than 5% of households uses electricity for income-generating activities; and iii) areas with access to 24-hours DC power from solar photovoltaic (PV) stand alone home systems (SHSs) = close to 0% of households uses electricity for income-generating activities; § Two urban areas in RMI (Majuro and Ebeye) with access to 24-hours of main grid quality power = 11.5% of households uses electricity for income-generating activities; 25 and, § Two rural villages in Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands (Sukiki and Makaruka) that used to have access to 24-hours DC power from solar PV SHSs = 18% of households uses electricity for income-generating activities. 26

Thus in PICs it is not clear that the provision of modern energy sources increases wealth (defined in a strictly monetary sense). 27 Although it is obvious that the provision of modern energy sources can increase the opportunities for wealth generation, other factors such as poor market access, lack of available capital, low skill levels, etc often prevent the development of income generating activities that take advantage of newly available energy sources. In other words access to modern or improved energy services is necessary but is far from sufficient to move people out of hardship/poverty - without the

23 Jensen, Thomas, 2009, pp. 3-4 24 Wade, Herbert & Kenneth Bulhite, 2006, p. 65 25 Majuro = 13.2% and Ebeye = 8.3% 26 A total of 73 households were covered in the survey and according to the survey summary in Annex B ’13 respondents said yes, 24 said no’ to the question ‘When the solar was working, did you use the electricity to make money?’(Wade, Herbert & Kenneth Bulhite, 2006, p. 65). 27 This paragraph is taken from Jensen, Thomas, 2009, p. 4

other essential factors of market access, capital availability, business skills and associated resources there is a very high probability that the opportunities are lost. Thus it takes a mix of activities to make economic development happen. Furthermore this indicates that in PICs the provision of modern energy sources in general and electricity in particular should not be justified primarily in the expectation of income generation. However this is not a problem per se as there are many other entry points for provision of modern energy services as legitimate as income generation, such as being a critical component in provision of basic social services, improving the standard of living/quality of life and addressing local health and safety issues particularly for women and children associated with the use of traditional biomass for cooking and liquid fuels (such as kerosene) for lighting.

However while rural electrification has the potential to increase the well being of rural dwellers and to help support economic and social development it also tends to increase the flow of cash out of rural communities due to the need to pay electric bills and to buy and maintain the appliances that make the electricity useful. 28 Although providing electrical services does reduce the cash outlay for kerosene for lighting and for batteries (in radios and other appliances) providing electricity access almost always results in increased cash outlay for the community compared to the un-electrified condition unless the energy is heavily subsidised. This problem of cash flowing out of the community due to the addition of rural electricity is generally understood by the international development community and their response has been to try to associate energy delivery projects with the development of income generating activities (usually called “productive use” activities) that can pay the cost of the energy supply and even result in increased cash income relative to the pre-electricity conditions. 29 It is unclear if such income generating activities (to counter the cash requirements to pay for the electrical appliances and the power bill) were considered and implemented as part of the Port Olry bio-fuel project.

A.17 Regularity of Monthly Income Regularity of Monthly Percent of Income Household s About the same every 10% month Typically a few months 36% with much less than average income Typically a few months 46% with big income and many small

Result 90% of the households surveyed have irregular income levels. Below are some of the specific comments by respondents as to why household income varies:

§ ‘Copra seasons, rough weather to fishing’ § ‘Price of copra fluctuate’ § ‘Depends on customers. Sometimes parties, customers spend a lot of money’ § ‘Depends on number of nuts falling per month’ § ‘Cattle sold every 4 years’

28 UNDP, 2005, p. 28 29 UNDP, 2005, p. 28

Thus income from most households is seasonal and irregular. Based on the very varying income levels the prepayment system in placed seems like an appropriate choice.

A.18 Monthly Expenditure Pattern Expenditure Categories and Percentage of Respondents for Each Category

Amount in

Vatu

Water Water Food or fuel Transport fares School Fees Clothes Health Kerosene Batteries Tobacco and Church community & to relatives Gifts friends Taxes mail & Telephone, miscellaneous or house/land Rent payment Charcoal petroleum Liquefied (LPG)gas Other 0 13 0 5 33 2 5 90 23 54 5 26 79 11 97 94 87 77 1-500 64 5 5 3 5 49 5 48 7 48 10 3 5 0 0 0 0 501-1000 20 0 13 12 25.5 28 2 26 3 23 13 5 3 0 0 3 3 1001-2000 3 8 18 0 25.5 16 2 3 0 3 21 5 9 0 3 5 8 2001-3000 0 0 10 0 10 2 0 0 3 7 10 5 1 0 3 3 3 3001-4000 0 5 3 18 10 0 0 0 11 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 5 4001-5000 0 13 10 7 8 0 0 0 7 5 7 0 3 0 0 3 0 5001-6000 0 10 7 0 8 0 0 0 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 6001-7000 0 5 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7001-8000 0 5 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8001-9000 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9001-10000 0 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Over 10000 0 43 18 15 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 3

Result The major expenditure items in the surveyed households are food, ‘transport, fuel or fares’ and school fees.

In a master thesis on Port Olry from January 2003 it is stated that ‘…lighting is mainly provided by kerosene lamps and torches’ 31 and according to the main report on the 2006 HIES, 83% of all households in rural Vanuatu use kerosene lamps.32 However 90% of the surveyed households in Port Olry do not have any expenditure on kerosene. Please refer to A.24, A.25, A.27 and A.30 for data that support this finding. This indicates that the limited consumption of kerosene for lighting (unless kerosene is provided as a gift and/or bartered) very likely is due to the introduction of the power system.

Comment Reduction in the usage of kerosene lamps are important for several reasons including: 33

§ People in hardship pay more for energy services because using kerosene for lighting is less efficient than using modern fuels. In some PICs, surveys suggest that rural low-income villagers pay more for substandard energy services including kerosene for lighting (and batteries for radios) than it would cost to provide basic electrification; and,

30 Several in this ‘other’ category were expenditure on ‘kava’. That kava was not included as a separate expenditure was an oversight and should be reflected as a separate category in future energy surveys in Vanuatu 31 Leplus, Aurelie, 2003, p. 31 32 Vanuatu National Statistics Office, p. 49 33 UNDP, 2007, p. 12, 19, 25 and 38

§ The use of liquid fuel for lighting is common in those PICs with largely un-electrified rural areas. Although these fuels including kerosene are cleaner than biomass (which is still widely used for lighting in PNG and some other rural areas of Melanesia) they still pose health and safety risks. Apart from exposure to the fumes from inefficient kerosene (and benzene) appliances, in rural Melanesia, wick-type kerosene lighting and cooking appliances have caused many household fires and resulted in serious injuries and burns. Women and children are the main sufferers.

A.19 Electric Lights (main-grid) in all Structures of the Household Number Percentage with Percent with of Lights Fluorescent Lights Incandescent Bulbs 0 3% 92% 1 20% 3% 2 33% 3% 3 17% 3% 4 12% 0% 5 3% 0% 6 3% 0% 7 3% 0% 8 3% 0% 9 0% 0% 10 3% 0%

Result On average the surveyed households (including all structures belonging to such) has 2.8 florescent lights and 0.15 incandescent bulbs. Formulated another way: over 9/10 of the households use at least one florescent light and over 9/10 of the households do not use any incandescent bulbs.

A.20 Number of Electric Lights (main-grid) that are on most of the Time after dark every Day and the Period of Time they are on Number of Percentage of Lights on After Households Dark 0 13% 1 36% 2 28% 3 10% 4 8% 5 5%

Hours lights Percentage of are switched Households on 0 2% 1 2% 2 2% 3 2% 4 2% 5 41% 6 16% 7 26% 8 2% ‘x’ 5%

Result Over 80% of the households have the lights on between 5-7 hours after dark. It should be noted that currently the power supply is limited as follows: a) from Monday to Saturday there are 9-hours of power with power from 6-9 am and from 5-11 pm; and b) on Sundays there are 15-hours of power with power from 6 am to 9 pm.

A.21 Electrical Appliances that are connected to the Electricity Grid and used in the Household Percentage of Surveyed Households using the named Electrical Appliances (i.e. not Battery Operated)

Number Radio TV Video/DVD Refrigerator freezerDeep machine Washing or CD cassette Stereo, player Computer game instrument Musical Conditioner Air Microware oven Rice cooker Iron or water kettle Electrical boiler fanCeiling machine Sewing fan or floorTable stand 1Other 2Other 0 95 64 33 97 90 100 69 97 97 100 100 95 97 95 90 100 95 90 69 87 1 5 36 67 3 10 31 3 3 5 3 5 10 5 10 23 13 2 5 3 4 5 3

Result Note that the categories ‘Other 1’ and ‘Other 2’ include appliances such as portable torches, hair clipper, toaster, subwoofer and mobile phones. However the by far the most numerous appliance in this category were mobile phones, i.e. for battery charging.

Overall the most frequently used electrical appliances in the surveyed households are for lighting, entertainment - i.e. TV and DVD - and communication - i.e. to charge mobile phones.

Comment As mentioned in section 2 (Methodology for Household Survey) it is unclear if a pre-feasibility/feasibility study were carried out by UNELCO as part of the project preparation. Thus it is not clear how demand

were estimated for key end-users in Port Olry (i.e. households and institutions) and what different resources and technical options were considered as part of assessing technical feasibility. In a UNELCO document from 2006 in addition to the main 40 kW CNO generator (estimated to cost VUV10.415 million) a 40 kW backup diesel generator (estimated to cost VUV1.6 million) was proposed to be installed as part of a ‘Stage 2’ of the project.34 Considering the current situation with poor engine load factor (in July 2010 during the field visits the load factor was max 29% and min 14%) it is unclear what the rational was for this second generator (in particular of such relatively large capacity).

Nevertheless based on the limited number of end-use equipment and the associated low demand for electricity (and the obvious benefit of hindsight) it raises the question whether another type of rural electrification option would have been more appropriate. The following were concluded in a UNDP report from 2007: 35

‘The provision of solar energy can be a viable option in the more remote islands of the Pacific. Grid extensions into remote areas almost always cost much more per household than do home sized solar PV systems. Surveys of remote rural areas indicate that even with full grid electrification, few households use more energy than is provided by a much less-expensive PV installation and there are hardly any instances of the use of the extra capacity available from the grid supply to develop local income generating businesses. Diesel based mini-grids are even less likely to be cost-effective since they can rarely be operated for more than a few hours a day, due to the very high fuel and repair costs typical in remote areas of the Pacific. Thus financing mechanisms that allow rural households with money income (plantation workers, government employees, shop owners, etc.) suitable finance to obtain solar PV should be developed as an alternative to high cost subsidies for grid extensions and local mini-grid construction’

A.21 Average Monthly Expenditure for Electricity

Amount in Percentage of Vatu Surveyed Households 0 0% 1-500 20% 501-1000 25% 1001-2000 31% 2001-3000 3% 3001-4000 8% 4001-5000 5% 5001-6000 0% 6001-7000 0% 7001-8000 3% ‘x’ 5%

34 UNELCO, 2006 35 UNDP, 2007, p. 36

Result The reported average monthly expenditure for electricity were VUV1,672 (ranging from VUV200-8000). Compare to other items (in A. 18 Monthly Expenditure Pattern) electricity is not among the major expenditure items.

A.22 Most Important Electrical Appliances in Household Currently

The Most Important Electrical Appliance in the Households 100 80 60 40 Percentage 20 0 Lights TV Refrigerator Freezer x' Appliance

The Second Most Important Electrical Appliance in the Households 60 50 40 30 20 Percentage 10 0

Appliance

The Third Most Import Electrical Appliance in the Households 70 60 50 40 30

Percentage 20 10 0

Appliance

Result The most important electrical appliance currently in the households is overwhelmingly light and the second most important are video/DVD.

A.23 Next Electrical Appliance Aspire for Next Electrical Appliance Aspired for 40 35 30 25 20 15

Percentage 10 5 0

Appliance

Result The most desired electrical appliance is a refrigerator. Half of the surveyed households indicate that the next appliance that is aspired for is either a refrigerator or a freezer. If these wants materializes this would increase demand and thus assist addressing the low load factor.

A.24 Kerosene Wick Lamps used Regularly Number of Percentage of Kerosene Wick Households Lamps 0 90% 1 8% 2 2%

Result 90% of households do not use kerosene wick lamps regularly.

A.25 Kerosene Pressure Lamps used Regularly Number of Percentage of Kerosene Households Pressure Lamps 0 100% 1 0% 2 0%

Result No households use kerosene pressure lamps regularly.

A.26 Reason for using Kerosene Lamps despite having Electricity For the few households that use kerosene lamps on a regular basis below are included some of the responses for why such are used:

§ ‘When the lights go off at 12:00 pm…They have a small daughter about a few months old. They use kerosene lamp in case the baby needs attendance after 12:00 pm’ § ‘Lights only in main house but not the kitchen. After lights off and when lights on the kitchen lights is kerosene light' § ‘Handicap at home therefore need kerosene lamp during absence of electricity' § ‘Use lamp when power is off’

A.27 Cooking Fuels Percentage of Surveyed Households

Cooking Fuels Main fuel Second fuel Third fuel Fourth fuel Fifth fuel Wood 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% Charcoal 3% 8% 0% 0% 0% Kerosene 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Gas 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% Coconut husks/ 0% 23% 8% 3% 0% shells 0% Electricity 0% 5% 0% 3% 3% ‘x’ 0% 56% 90% 94% 97%

Result Nearly all households use wood as the main cooking fuel. This finding is fully in line by the Vanuatu 2006 HIES where according to the main report the ‘…use of wood or coconut shells for cooking was almost universal in rural areas’. 36 Around ¼ households uses a second cooking fuel of which other biomass (i.e. coconut husks/shells and charcoal) are the most frequently used fuel. However a few households occasionally use gas, electricity and kerosene as cooking fuels.

Comment In an ESMAP study from 2003 it is stated that ‘Evidence from a growing number of countries is showing multiple fuel to be fairly common…Thus a large number of households simultaneously use a variety of cooking fuels… [F]uel use better resembles a menu choice in which households choose both high-cost and low-cost items depending on their budget, preferences, and needs’. 37

A.28 Accessibility of Main Cooking Fuel

Access to the Percentage of main cooking Households fuel a problem

Yes 62% No 38%

36 Vanuatu National Statistics Office, p. 49 37 ESMAP, 2003, p. 11

Result Over 60% of the households reported that accesses to the main cooking fuel - i.e. wood - are a problem.

Comment While it seems that most families in Port Olry own land used for coconut plantations and/or cattle farming for some this land is not in the immediate vicinity of the households, i.e. the land with available fuel-wood are not in walking distance (where carrying large volumes/heavy loads of wood would be possible/desirable).

In a SPREP energy sector report on Vanuatu from 2005 the following is stated: ‘There does not appear to be an immediate shortage of fuelwood in Vanuatu, especially in the rural areas. In the urban centres of Port Vila and Luganville, with about 27% of Vanuatu's population, fuelwood is beginning to appear in the marketplace, possibly as an indication of the onset of diminishing freely available supply sources in the vicinity’. Contradictory to common perceptions the findings from the Port Olry suggest that there possibly are other rural areas in Vanuatu where access to biomass for cooking including fuel-wood locally is a problem.

A.29 Affordability of Main Cooking Fuel

Price of the Percentage of main cooking Households fuel a problem

Yes 44% No 56%

Result Over 40% of the households reported that the ‘price’ (costs) associated with the main cooking fuel - i.e. wood - are a problem. This is related to the access problem mentioned above. Below are included some of the responses for why cost is an issue:

§ 'Vehicle hire to transport firewood' § '1000 VT/month - car hire for firewood…This person cuts firewood a couple of distance away from the village. He hires vehicles at 1000 VT/trip to bring the firewood to the village. The firewood will last for 1 month' § '1000 VT to hire chainsaw per day. 1000 VT to hire transport vehicle' § '1000 VT/vehicle per months, chainsaw, axe to cut…Spends money on vehicle hire, chainsaw hire & manual labor using axe to split firewood' § 'Transport cost 1000VT/trip' § '2000 VT/month to transport firewood to my house…One trip last for a month' § '200 VT/trip. A wood trip can last 4 months. 50 VT/month to transport firewood to village' § '1000 VT/month to transport wood. 1000 VT/month to buy chain saw' § '1000 VT/month to bring wood to house' § '700 VT/vehicle for 2/3 months' and 'This person collects firewood away from village. He spends 700 VT/vehicle per trip and the woods last for 2-3 months at a time'

Thus while there are no direct monetary costs associated with the firewood as such for many there are indirect monetary costs related to processing (e.g. hire of chainsaw, axe and manpower) and transportation (e.g. car hire) in particular.

A.30 Monthly Expenditure on Kerosene

Amount in Percentage of Vatu Surveyed Households 0 91% 1-100 0% 101-200 0% 201-301 0% 300-400 5% 401-500 2% 501-600 2%

A. 31 Number of Disposable batteries used in Battery Operated Electrical Appliances Percentage of Surveyed Households using the named Battery Operated Appliances

Number of Batteries Portable lights Radios Cassette player CD/MPG3 player andToys games Musical instruments Other 0 20% 95% 94% 92% 100% 100% 95% 1 3% 5% 2 12% 5% 5% 3 5% 3% 4 30% 3% 5 6 13% 7 3% 8 5% 3% 9 10 11 12 3% 13 14 3% 15 16 3%

Result 80% of the surveyed households use portable battery operated lights.

A. 32 Disposable batteries bought in a month

Amount in Percentage of Vatu Surveyed Households 0 18% 1-4 49% 5-9 18% 10-14 5% 15-19 5% 20-24 0% >25 5%

A.33 Importance of Electricity to the Family Importance of Percentage of electricity to the Households family Having electricity is 97% very important to us We like having 3% electricity but it is not really required It is not important 0% to us

Result All households but one responded that electricity is ‘very important’ to the family.

A. 34 Importance of 24-hours Electricity Importance of Percentage of 24-hours Electricity Households Very important 90% Nice but not very 8% important It is not important 2% to us

Result Currently the power supply is limited as follows: a) from Monday to Saturday there are 9-hours of power with power from 6-9 am and from 5-11 pm; and b) on Sundays there are 15-hours of power with power from 6 am to 9 pm. 90% of the households informed that 24-hours electricity is ‘very important’.

A.35 Perceived Positive aspects of having electricity in the village Below are included most of the responses on positive aspects of having electricity in Port Olry:

§ 'To change lifestyle & improve living standard' § 'Better lighting' § 'Gives one step up on living condition' § 'Attracts children to stay and home watching videos, etc; rather than going to other homes, and all over the place' § 'Welder can work in his workshop. No need to pay kerosene…[and to] look for kerosene lamp' § ‘You just press switch and electricity lights the building. Children can be well educated, learn computer. Children can watch movie quietly. Children can study' § 'It is good for my business/shop' § 'In the evening when I return home from working hard in the garden, it is easy for me to just press the switch and light comes on. I don’t need to find matches, kerosene and firewood to light fire and illuminate the house interior, which is an added burden' § 'It is more easy to buy your own DVD player to watch movies instead of going to houses that have generator sets' § 'Reduces purchase of kerosene. Kerosene is expensive compared to electricity. We can use computer, karaoke systems, etc' § ‘Light is strong to tell stories…At first we use kerosene lamps today life is good, inside houses is lit all night long' § 'Makes life good' § 'Improved living, encourage to stay longer in the night conversation' § 'No hard work, you just turn switch on and light come on. You don’t need to work the kerosene lamp to get light' § ‘Good for business (good to run business), 2) easy to use, turn on switch instead of looking for kerosene lamp, 3) when you come back from garden and tired, you just cook rice or boil kettle - very easy' § 'Kerosene cost a lot, for a month, it cost over 500 VT. Electricity is very cheap' § 'Cost less than kerosene at this stage than before' § 'Children can do homework during night and other things can be done under the light in the night' § 'Improve lighting at home, stay a bit longer than before' § 'Kerosene so expensive, improve lighting, children to study in the evening' § 'Change livelihood & increase standard of living' § 'Easy access to light, assist students to carry out their homework & access to learning process in their schools' § 'Studies for students, video for school. Easy, no need for kerosene/matches. Now you just need to turn switch on' § 'Less use of kerosene' § 'Improve living conditions through better lighting, etc' § 'Improve living standards in the village' § 'Living standards improved, less expensive on kerosene' § 'More lightings in the community' § 'To improve storage of refrigerated goods' § 'Improved living & encourage to…make small business' § 'To improve living standards'

§ ‘It improves living standards of the population' § 'Improve living - more advantage than before'

Result Several positive aspects of having electricity in the village were mentioned by the respondents. To summarize they include:

§ Improved living conditions § Better quality lighting than from kerosene lanterns § Enabled more convenient illumination than with kerosene lamps § Enabled entertainment and information via TV, DVD, stereo and karaoke § Reduced the need for kerosene lanterns and the associate high costs § Enabled students to do homework in the evening § Improved storage of food § Supported establishment of small businesses A. 36 Perceived Negative aspects of having electricity in the village Below are included most of the responses on negative aspects of having electricity in Port Olry:

§ ‘Another burden or bill and technology impacts (dangerous to use)' § ‘People make a lot of noise with music' § 'Price is too expensive compared to town' § ‘Works only for a short time. Meat can rot inside deep freezers. We cannot watch movies all night' § ‘Paying bills is what not like (150 VT/kWh), too expensive' § 'Sometimes the generator cannot run/malfunction - and we stay in the dark' § 'It does not run 24-hours. If it runs 24-hours we can do all sorts of business with it' § 'Electricity is expensive to use' § 'Too much noise at night to rest properly, especially people who are drunk' § 'Risk to children…touching light bulbs when they are wet (rainy)' § 'Too bright light' § 'Too bright!' § 'Less social meeting. People watch more TV - less to Nakamal. Too much entertainment - noisy' § 'Increase in tariffs makes life expensive' § 'Very expensive tariffs - 150 VT/kWh' § 'Damage to electrical appliances' § 'Should have 24 hrs service to improve investment' § 'Becomes an expensive commitment' § 'Families takes too much time watching DVD/videos that contribute to the amount paid each month'

Result Several negative aspects of having electricity in the village were mentioned by the respondents. To summarize they include:

§ An additional cash requirement § Safety issues § Limited hours of power supply

§ Suboptimal power quality sometimes damage electrical appliances § Noise from entertainment systems such as stereos § Less socializing

A. 37 Comparison of before and after the bio-fuel power system Percentage of Households Better now because we make more 15% money Better now because we are more 59% modern in our life No real difference before and after 10% Worse now because the bio-fuel power 3% system has caused a lot of problems Worse now because we spend too much 0% time working collecting coconuts and processing copra Other 13%

Result Over half of the respondents inform they are ‘better now because we are more modern in our life’.

A. 38 Preferred institutional set-up for power supply

Better Job of Percentage of Operating and Households Maintaining Electricity Supply at your House UNELCO 49% Government 8% Village Committee 43%

Result The Port Olry bio-fuel power project was initially set up to be operated and managed by an ‘association’ with technical assistance including training from UNLECO. The ‘association’ is defunct and de facto the responsibilities are taken over by the Parish Committee. The respondents prefer either UNELCO or the Village Committee as being the institutions responsible for the power supply whereas very few would like the government to be in charge.

A.40 Main Source of Drinking Water Main Source of Percentage of Drinking Water Households Own well 0% Rain water tank 87% Public water tap or well 0% Piped water into the 0% house from public system Other 13%

A.41 Sanitary Facilities Sanitary Facilities at Percentage of Home Households Water sealed or flush 77% toilet with the house Pit latrine with the 8% house Facilities shared with 5% the other households Beach or bush 0% Other 10%

Annex B: Survey Questionnaire

References

ESMAP, Household Energy Use in Developing Countries – A Multicountry Study, October 2003

Jensen, Thomas Lynge, Energy User Needs Assessment through Energy Site Surveys, Experiences from a Recent Energy Survey in Samoa and Introduction to the RMI Survey Questionnaires , Energy Survey Training Workshop, Majuro, Marshall Islands, June 2008

Jensen, Thomas Lynge , Energy and Poverty in the Pacific Island Countries – Challenges and the Way Forward, Regional Energy Officials Meeting (REM), Nuku’alofa, Kingdom of Tonga, April 2009

Leplus, Aurelie, Biofuel Energy from Coconut in the Pacific Islands – The Lory Cooperative Pilot Project, January 2003

Pacific Institute of Public Policy, Social and Economic Impact of Introducing Telecommunications throughout Vanuatu – Research Findings Report , November 2008

SPREP, Pacific Regional Energy Assessment 2004 – Vanuatu National Report, 2005

UNDP, Pacific Rapid Assessment and Gap Analysis, Final Report (Unpublished) , 2005

UNDP, Energy and Poverty in the Pacific Island Countries – Challenges and the Way Forward , 2007

UNELCO Ltd, Port Olry – Devis Estimatifs , 2006

UNESCO, Solar Photovoltaic Project Development , 2003

Vanuatu National Statistics Office, Main Report on the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2006

Wade, Herbert et al, Preparatory Phase of the Samoa Photovoltaic Electrification Programme – Survey Report , prepared for UNDP, Final Draft, November 2008

Wade, Herbert & Kenneth Bulhite, Solomon Islands Country Assessment – Policy Study on Regional Mapping of Options to Promote Private Investments in Alternative Energy Sources for the Poor ’, prepared by Winrock for UNDP, Draft, 2006