LEAP: A Descrip the LDC Energy Alternatives Planning System

ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT I N AFRICA 8

LEAP :

A D E S C R I P T I O N OF THE LDC ENERGY ALTERNATIVES PLANNING SYSTEM

Paul D. Rask in

Pub1 i shed by

THE BEIJER INSTITUTE The Royal Swedish Academy o f Sc iences Stockholm, Sweden

and THE SCANDINAVIAN INSTITUTE OF AFRICAN STUDIES Uppsal a, Sweden

The s e r i e s "Energy, Environment and Development i n A f r i c a " i s pub- l i s h e d j o i n t l y by t h e B e i j e r I n s t i t u t e and t h e Scandinavian I n s t i - t u t e o f A f r i c a n Stud ies , w i t h f i n a n c i a l suppor t f rom t h e Swedish I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development A u t h o r i t y (SIDA). Th i s book, t oge the r w i t h a s e r i e s o f companion volumes, r e p o r t s on a B e i j e r I n s t i t u t e study, t h e "Kenyan Fuelwood P r o j e c t " , undertaken j o i n t l y w i t h t h e Government o f Kenya.

ISSN 0281-8515 ISBN 91-7106-247-5

@ The B e i j e r I n s t i t u t e and t h e Scandinavian I n s t i t u t e o f A f r i c a n Stud ies 1986

P r i n t e d i n Sweden by Bohusl aningens AB, Uddeval l a 1986

This Volume presents t h e LEAP (LDC Energy A l t e r n a t i v e s P lann ing)

System, a computer ized energy i n f o r m a t i o n management system

s p e c i f i c a l l y developed f o r energy p lann ing i n deve lop ing coun t r i es .

The need f o r such a comprehensive data hand l i ng system grew ou t o f t h e

work w i t h t he Kenyan Fuelwood P r o j e c t (KFP), an energy p lann ing s tudy

c a r r i e d o u t j o i n t l y by t h e Kenyan i 4 i n i s t r y o f Energy and t h e B e i j e r

I n s t i t u t e (see Volume 1 i n t h i s s e r i e s ) . The f i r s t v e r s i o n o f LEAP

was used f o r p o l i c y a n a l y s i s and p r o j e c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e KFP, and t h e

System has s ince then been e x t e n s i v e l y developed, r e v i s e d and r e f i n e d

i n t o a comprehensive, u s e r - f r i e n d l y p lann ing t o o l . LEAP i s a l ready

ope ra t i ng i n a few deve lop ing c o u n t r i e s and i s now be ing i n s t a l l e d i n

o the rs . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t has been a p p l i e d t o energy s e c t o r a n a l y s i s

i n severa l more T h i r d World coun t r i es , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n t o

fuelwood and r u r a l energy issues.

I am deeply indebted t o t h e au tho r o f t h i s Volume, Dr. Paul Raskin,

f o r a l l t h e work he has pu t i n t o i t s p repa ra t i on . I am a l s o indebted

t o Dr. Phi1 O'Keefe who managed the Kenyan Fuelwood P r o j e c t and p layed

a l a r g e p a r t i n t h e i n i t i a l stages o f t he development o f LEAP. I a l s o

wish t o thank my Deputy D i r e c t o r , Dr. Lars K r i s t o f e r s o n , f o r h i s

involvement i n t h i s work.

Funding f o r t h e Kenyan 1,loodfuel P r o j e c t was made a v a i l a b l e f rom t h e

Government o f t he Nether lands (IIBZ), t he Government o f t h e Federal

Republ ic o f Germany (GTZ/GATE) and the Government o f t h e Un i ted S ta tes

o f America (U.S.A. I.D. ) . I n a d d i t i o n , fund ing f o r t h e development

and re f inement o f LEAP has been prov ided by SIDA ( t h e Swedish

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development A u t h o r i t y ) , U.S.A.I.D., t h e B e i j e r I n s t i t u t e ,

and ESRG ( t h e Energy Systems Research Group).

Gordon T. Goodman

B e i j e r I n s t i t u t e

November 1985

ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA

Other t i t l e s i n t h i s s e r i e s :

1. Energy and Development i n Kenya: Oppor tun i t i es and Cons t ra in t s P. O'Keefe, P. Raskin and S. Bernow (Eds)

2. SADCC: Energy and Development t o t he Year 2000 J.T.C. Simoes (Ed)

3. Energy and Development i n Southern A f r i c a : SADCC Country Stud ies , P a r t I P. 0 ' Keefe and B. Munslow (Eds)

4. Energy and Development i n Southern A f r i c a : SADCC Country Stud ies , P a r t I 1 P. O'Keefe and B. Munslow (Eds)

5. Manufac tur ing I n d u s t r y and Economic Development i n t h e SADCC Count r ies R. Peet

6. Wood, Energy and Households: Perspect ives on Rural Kenya C. Barnes, J. Ensminger and P.OIKeefe (Eds)

7. Energy Use i n Rura l Kenya: Household Demands and Rura l Transformat ion R. Hos ier

Ack now1 edgement

LEAP was created t o per form energy p r o j e c t i o n s and p o l i c y assessments f o r t h e B e i j e r I n s t i t u t e ' s Kenya Fuelwood P r o j e c t i n Kenya. I t was f u r t h e r enhanced and read ied f o r t r a n s f e r t o developing coun t r y p lann ing agencies th rough fund ing support f rom t h e Swedish I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development Agency and t h e Un i ted S ta tes Agency f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development. LEAP a p p l i c a t i o n s have subsequent ly taken p lace i n a dozen coun t r i es .

Whi le t oo numerous t o name here, scores o f energy p lanne rs and researchers -- surveyors, f o r e s t e r s , s t a t i s t i c i a n s , economists, s c i e n t i s t s , and engineers -- have made s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s . E x p l i c i t acknowledgement i s due Stephen Bernow and David White, my co-workers a t ESRG; Pro fessor Gordon Goodman, Dr. La rs K r i s t o f e r s o n , and Dr. Ph i1 O'Keefe o f t he B e i j e r I n s t i t u t e whose con t i nu ing guidance and suppor t have been e s s e n t i a l ; and P a t r i c k Nyoike and L i n c o l n B a i l e y o f t he Kenya M i n i s t r y o f Energy and Regional Development f o r h e l p i n g t o make i t a l l work on the ground. F i n a l l y , thanks t o Faye Camardo who typed a t hank less manuscr ip t i n her usual superb way.

Paul D. Raskin

-i .

CONTENTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONTENTS i

L I S T O F T A B L E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L I S T O F F I G U R E S iii

P a r t I: WHAT I S LEAP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . BACKGROUND 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . OBJECTIVES 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . LEAPSTRUCTURE 7 4 . USING LEAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

P a r t I 1 : THE CORE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

5 . DEMAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 6 . TRANSFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 7 . RESOURCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3

P a r t 111: THEMACROPROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

8 . DEMOGRAPHIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 9 . AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . ECONOMIC 1 0 5

P a r t I V : SCENARIO ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1

11 . CREATING SCENARIOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2 1 2 . COSTING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3

L I S T OF TABLES

T a b l e N o . P a g e

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SAMPLE BRANCH L I S T STRUCTURE 1 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DEMAND PROGRAM CALCULATIONS 2 0 3 WOOD M I L L I N G AND HARVESTING CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . 3 0 4 CHARCOAL K I L N MODULE CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ETHANOL MODULE CALCULATIONS 3 6 6 BIOGAS MODULE CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 7 ELECTRIC MODULE CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 8 O I L AND GAS MODULE CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 47 9 COAL AND COKE MODULE CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 SAMPLE OF LAND TYPE SET 66

11 LAND USE ADJUSTMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 1 2 WOOD PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 1 3 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . 81 1 4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROGRAM CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0 1 5 AGRICULTURE PROGRAM CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 1 6 ECONOMIC PROGRAM ECONOMY-WIDE CALCULATIONS . . . S . . 108 1 7 ECONOMIC PROGRAM INCOME D I S T R I B U T I O N CALCULATIONS . . 1 1 5 18 POLICY CONTRIBUTIONS TO CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN

WOOD REQUIREMENTS AND S U P P L I E S . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 1 1 9 DEMAND EQUIPMENT COST CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 5 2 0 PRIMARY ENERGY RESOURCE COST CALCULATIONS . . . . . . 1 3 7 2 1 ENERGY TRANSFORMATION COST CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . 1 3 9 2 2 WOOD RESOURCE COST CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 3

L I S T OF FIGURES

F i g u r e N o . LEAP MODEL . GENERAL STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 SAMPLE LEAP MENUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LEAP MENU STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 OVERVIEW OF DEMAND PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 HYPOTHETICAL A C T I V I T Y LEVELS FOR A PORTION OF THE

DEMAND STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 SAMPLE BRANCH STRUCTURE . LEAP DEMAND . . . . . . . . . 18 SAMPLE REPORT: NATIONAL END-USE FUEL CONSUMPTION . . . 2 1 SAMPLE REPORT: FUEL CONSUMPTION BY LEVEL . . . . . . . 2 2 SAMPLE REPORT: F I N A L CONSUMPTION FOR EACH REPORTING

Y E A R B Y L E V E L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 10 SAMPLE REPORT: PROJECTED FUEL REOUIREMENTS BY SECTOR . . 2 5

OVERVIEW OF TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 COMPARATIVE CONVERSION E F F I C I E N C I E S FOR FUELWOOD AND

CHARCOAL I N KENYA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 PETROLEUM BALANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 SAMPLE REPORT: TOTAL FUEL REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . 5 3 SAMPLE REPORT: RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . 5 4 SAMPLE REPORT: F O S S I L AND BIOMASS ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

I N PHYSICAL U N I T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 SAMPLE REPORT: AGGREGATE ENERGY BALANCE . . . . . . . . 5 6 SAMPLE REPORT: WOOD M I L L I N G AND HARVESTING MODULE . . . 5 7 SAMPLE REPORT: CHARCOAL K I L N MODULE . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 SAMPLE REPORT: BIOGAS MODULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 SAMPLE REPORT: ETHANOL MODULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9 SAMPLE REPORT: E L E C T R I C I T Y MODULE . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0 SAMPLE REPORT: O I L AND GAS MODULE . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 SAMPLE REPORT: COAL AND COKE MODULE . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 OVERVIEW OF RESOURCE PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 SAMPLE LAND D I V I S I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 PRIMARY WOOD RESOURCE FLOWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 NATURAL FORESTS WOOD SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9 SAMPLE REPORT: LAND USE PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 SAMPLE REPORT: AGRICULTURAL PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . 8 5 SAMPLE REPORT: WOOD STOCKS AND SUPPLIES . . . . . . . . 8 6 SAMPLE REPORT: WOOD SUPPLY AND DEMAND BALANCES . . . . 8 7 SAMPLE REPORT: POPULATION BY SUBAREA AND COHORT . . . . 9 3 SAMPLE REPORT: SUFfMARY POPULATION PROJECTIONS . . . . . 9 4 SAMPLE REPORT: SUPNARY HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS . . . . . 9 5 SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF AGRICULTURE MACRO PROGRAM . . 9 7

L I S T OF F IGURES ( C o n t i n u e d )

F i g u r e N o .

SAMPLE REPORT: REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS . 101 SAMPLE REPORT: SOURCES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS . . . . 1 0 2 SAMPLE REPORT: CROP PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 3 SAMPLE REPORT: LIVESTOCK PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . 1 0 4 ECONOMY-WIDE MODEL RESOURCE FLOWS . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7 SAMPLE REPORT: ECONOMY-WIDE PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . 1 1 7 SAMPLE REPORT: GDP BY SECTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 SAMPLE REPORT: INCOME D I S T R I B U T I O N PROJECTIONS . . . . 1 1 9 SAMPLE REPORT: A C T I V I T Y I N D I C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0 PETROLEUM IMPORTS FOR INTERNAL DEMAND . I L L U S T R A T I V E

BASE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 5 NATIONAL WOOD REPORT DEMAND AND SUPPLY . I L L U S T R A T I V E

BASE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 6 WOOD SUPPLY AND DEMAND . BASE DEMAND . BASE RESOURCE .

REGION I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 8 WOOD SUPPLY AND DEMAND . BASE DEMAND . BASE RESOURCE .

REGION I 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 9 CLOSING THE WOOD GAP . WOOD SUPPLY AND DEMAND . . . . . 1 3 2 SAMPLE REPORT: FUEL AND RESOURCE CHANGES . . . . . . . 1 4 7 SAMPLE REPORT: COST IMPACTS BY CATEGORY . . . . . . . . 1 4 8 SAMPLE REPORT: COST/BENEFITS SUPNARY AND FOREIGN

EXCHANGE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 9

P a r t I : WHAT I S LEAP?

1. BACKGROUND

The LDC Energy A l t e r n a t i v e s P lann ing (LEAP) System i s a com- p u t e r i z e d framework f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f energy p o l i c y and p lann ing o p t i o n s i n deve lop ing coun t r i es . LEAP i s designed as a f l e x i b l e and access ib le t o o l t o enable energy p lanners and decis ion-makers t o i d e n t i f y and q u a n t i f y t h e long- range i m p l i c a t i o n s o f energy p o l i c y a1 t e r n a t i v e s .

I n des ign ing and execut ing an e f f e c t i v e energy plan, t h e p lanner must cons ider wide- ranging issues -- f u e l sources and p r i ces , r u r a l energy s t r a t e g i e s , env i ronmenta l and land-use t r a d e o f f s , management o f energy demands and conservat ion , and changing economic and demographic pa t te rns . E s t a b l i s h i n g an opt imal s e t o f energy p o l i c i e s and investment programs r e q u i r e s a cons iderab le amount o f da ta ga the r i ng and an a n a l y t i c framework f o r assessing a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s .

A computer ized mode l l i ng system can be ve ry u s e f u l i n energy p lann ing . A p r o p e r l y designed system can serve t h r e e major f u n c t i o n s : (1) as an i n f o r m a t i o n bank and guide t o data development i n e s t a b l i s h - i n g n a t i o n a l energy accounts; ( 2 ) as an ins t rument f o r long- term p r o j e c t i o n s o f supplyldemand c o n f i g u r a t i o n s under a l t e r n a t i v e development scenar ios; and ( 3 ) as a v e h i c l e f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and e v a l u a t i n g p o l i c y and technology op t i ons w i t h respec t t o near and long- term supplyldemand balance, c a p i t a l requirements, cos t s and b e n e f i t s and f o r e i g n exchange impacts.

The LEAP System was c rea ted t o p rov ide such c a p a b i l i t i e s . Wi th i t t h e a n a l y s t may develop n a t i o n a l energy accounts and p i c t u r e s o f t h e f u t u r e e v o l u t i o n o f energy supplyldemand balances w i t h as much d e t a i l as da ta a v a i l a b i l i t y permi ts . Fur ther , i t p rov ides a framework f o r more d e t a i l e d da ta development as p lann ing needs become more r e f i n e d . I t can be used t o e s t a b l i s h p r o j e c t i o n s o f impo r t r e q u i r e - ments, l and use impacts, e l e c t r i c power p l a n t c a p a c i t y needs, t h e s t a t u s o f biomass resources, and o the r key consequences o f a l t e r n a t i v e energy scenar ios.

The LEAP user begins by e s t a b l i s h i n g a base l i ne scenar io ( o r "Base Case"); i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a "business-as-usual ' ' f o r e c a s t i n c o r p o r a t i n g c u r r e n t t r ends and f i r m energy plans. The f o r e c a s t s a l l o w p lanners t o examine t h e e v o l u t i o n o f energy accounts and t o i d e n t i f y t h e l o c a t i o n , t im ing , and magnitude o f p o t e n t i a l problems i n t h e base l i ne supp ly and demand balances. LEAP can then be used t o t e s t a l t e r n a t i v e p o l i c y scenar ios t o address these problems, and eva lua te and compare t h e i r phys i ca l and economic consequences. Among t h e p o l i c y a l t e r n a t i v e s cou ld be:

- wood supp ly increases (e.g., long- term programs t o increase p roduc t i on th rough managed woodlots, r e f o r e s t a t i o n p r o j e c t s , urban g reenbe l t s )

- domestic o i l p roduc t i on (e.g., increased r e f i n e r y capac i t y o r domestic crude e x t r a c t i o n )

- e f f i c i e n c y improvements (e.g., cooking stoves, charcoa l k i l n s , automobiles, i n d u s t r i a l b o i l e r s )

- f u e l sw i t ch ing (e.g., charcoal t o pet ro leum products, f o s s i l f u e l s t o e l e c t r i c i t y , o i l t o c o a l )

- e l e c t r i c system p lann ing (e.g., a l t e r n a t i v e genera t ing c a p a c i t y plans, r u r a l e l e c t r i f ~ c a t i o n )

- l and use (e.g., mix between use o f h i gh p o t e n t i a l land f o r food, f u e l , e x p o r t c rops)

- non-convent ional sources (e.g., s o l a r heat ing , wind d r i v e n i r r i g a t i o n , b iogas app l i ca t i ons , e thano l , producer gas)

- i nc reas ing a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y (e.g., mechanizat ion, i r r i g a t i o n )

The LEAP s t r u c t u r e a l lows f o r cons iderab le freedom i n t he s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f long- range energy scenar ios. The user may vary t h e t i m e frame, d e t a i l e d consumption pa t te rns , l i nkages t o p r imary energy sources, demographic and economic growth p ro jec t i ons , e l e c t r i c gene ra t i on system c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , pe t ro leum supp ly assumptions, l and use, wood a v a i l a b i l i t y , and so f o r t h .

I n shor t , LEAP can he lp p r o v i d e q u a n t i t a t i v e i n d i c a t i o n s o f l i k e l y f u t u r e t r o u b l e spots i n a c o u n t r y ' s energy system, t h e promis- i n g areas f o r p o l i c y i n t e r v e n t i o n , and t h e p h y s i c a l and economic consequences o f implement ing a1 t e r n a t i v e energy s t r a t e g i e s . The system has been s p e c i f i c a l l y designed f o r use i n deve lop ing coun t r i es , p a r t i c u l a r l y those whose energy budget remains h e a v i l y dependent on biomass, i n c l u d i n g wood f u e l s .

Three major f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e d e c i s i o n t o c r e a t e such a p lann ing t o o l : f i r s t , t h e p r a c t i c a l need f o r an a n a l y t i c framework; second, t h e emergence o f h i gh capab i l i t y / l o w c o s t microcomputer hardware; and t h i r d , t h e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r o f a w e l l - designed, computer-based system can c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s e l f - r e l i a n c e and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f LDC energy p lann ing.

The need f o r energy p lann ing so f twa re f i r s t arose as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r i n t h e con tex t o f a comprehensive energy assessment o f Kenya.* There, d e t a i l e d analyses were t o be performed o f biomass requirements and a v a i l a b i l i t y , t h e t i m i n g and magnitude o f f u t u r e problems o f biomass i n s u f f i c i e n c y and wood stock d e p l e t i o n were t o be i d e n t i f i e d , and p o l i c y o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r addressing p r o j e c t e d energy- re la ted problems were t o be evaluated, a1 l i n t h e con tex t o f a comprehensive n a t i o n a l energy assessment. To process t h e l a r g e and expanding da ta base needed f o r such ana l ys i s and t o per form numerous scenar ios and eva lua t i ons , t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f sys temat ic computer-based energy i n f o r m a t i o n management and p lann ing became apparent. Software was

*The Kenya Fuelwood P r o j e c t (1980-82) was conducted under t h e j o i n t auspices o f Kenya's M i n i s t r y o f Energy and t h e B e i j e r I n s t i t u t e o f t h e Royal Swedish Academy o f Science.

r e q u i r e d which prov ided a d e t a i l e d cons ide ra t i on o f r u r a l energy issues ( land- use pa t te rns , fuelwood s tocks and y i e l d s , b ioenergy op t i ons , e t c . ) as we1 l as t reatment o f convent iona l "commercial f u e l " issues. Since, upon review, no adequate system was found, t h e development o f LEAP was embarked on.

A t t h e same time, t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a new genera t ion o f power fu l smal l computers ("microcomputers" ) meant t h a t such a system cou ld be implemented on r e l a t i v e l y inexpens ive hardware. Th is impor tan t breakthrough i n computer technology r a i s e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y , f o r t h e f i r s t t ime, o f wide d isseminat ion o f s o p h i s t i c a t e d energy p lann ing software. Fur ther , i t was r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e process o f t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e energy p lann ing system t o t h e LDC government presented an impor tan t and unprecedented o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g o f l o c a l energy p lann ing s t a f f . I t appeared t h a t a system l i k e LEAP could, i n many LDCs, c o n t r i b u t e t o more thorough ongoing management o f data, b e t t e r c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h i n government on goa l s and assumptions, more t i m e l y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p r i o r i t i e s f o r ac t ion , and g e n e r a l l y more e f f e c t i v e decis ion-making. The development o f LEAP was thus conceived as an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t he b u i l d i n g o f n a t i o n a l energy p lann ing capac i t i es .

2. OBJECTIVES

The fundamental goal o f energy p lann ing i s t o e s t a b l i s h a s e t o f e f f e c t i v e p o l i c y ob jec t i ves , program measures, and a workable investment s t r a t e g y f o r ach iev ing those ob jec t i ves . S u f f i c i e n t energy sources must be a v a i l a b l e f o r both t h e modern sectors , which g e n e r a l l y r e l y p r i m a r i l y on commercial ( o f t e n imported) f u e l s , and t r a d i t i o n a l sec tors , which con t i nue t o depend h e a v i l y on indigenous biomass energy. P o l i c y i n i t i a t i v e s and investment dec i s i ons must i n v a r i a b l y be made under severe f i n a n c i a l c o n s t r a i n t s . Consequently, t h e accura te and t i m e l y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f investment p r i o r i t i e s becomes c r u c i a l . For example, a commitment t o a convent iona l , c a p i t a l - i n t e n s i v e energy supp ly p r o j e c t may be l e s s c o s t e f f e c t i v e i n meeting n a t i o n a l socio-economic o b j e c t i v e s than a package o f d ispersed smal l- sca le measures. Such t r a d e o f f s need t o be eva luated i n an i n t e g r a t e d framework.

A l l t h e bas ic s t r a t e g i e s f o r a d j u s t i n g energy f l o w s t o meet changing needs -- f u e l s w i t c h i n g , indigenous resource development, conservat ion , new and renewable energy op t i ons -- must be blended i n t o a comprehensive plan. Th i s p lan should be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p a r a l l e l p l ans and p r o j e c t i o n s emerging from o the r governmental u n i t s addressing such areas as a g r i c u l t u r e p o l i c y , f o r e s t r y programs, demographic pa t te rns , and economic t a r g e t s . The development o f an e f f e c t i v e energy p lan i s thus n e c e s s a r i l y a demanding and ongoing a c t i v i t y .

I d e a l l y , energy p lann ing should be c a r r i e d o u t by l o c a l personnel w i t h i n t h e app rop r i a te government agency. The b u i l d i n g o f and r e 1 iance on l o c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s t o per form energy p1 anning s t rengthens indigenous i n s t i t u t i o n s and thus c o n t r i b u t e s t o development. I t a l l ows f o r c o n t i n u i t y and i n t e q r a t i o n o f t h e ~ l a n n i n q orocess which cannot be achieved through dependence on t r a n s ' i t o r y f o r e i g n experts. And, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h respec t t o bioenergy opt ions , l o c a l p1 anning p laces ana l ys t s more f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e c o u n t r y ' s p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n s and customs i n t h e f o r e f r o n t o f dev i s i ng p o l i c i e s f o r b lend ing conservat ion and f u e l - s w i t c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n t o l o c a l l i f e s t y l e s .

Cu r ren t l y , t h e fundamental importance o f n a t i o n a l energy p lann ing i s n o t u n i v e r s a l l y recognized. The p recond i t i ons f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g an adequate p lann ing c a p a b i l i t y a re r a r e l y met. These i nc lude an i n s t i t u t i o n a l commitment t o t he p lann ing process -- sys temat ic c o l l e c t i o n and process ing o f data, p e r i o d i c rev iew and update o f goa ls and issues, a c t i v e rev iew o f program elements -- and t h e a t t r a c t i o n o f h i g h q u a l i t y s t a f f i n s u f f i c i e n t numbers t o sus ta in se r i ous planning. Furthermore, e x t e r n a l f und ing has f r e q u e n t l y been used f o r i n d i v i d u a l energy supp ly p r o j e c t s whose j u s t i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n a comprehensive p o l i c y framework may be dubious. Meanwhile, t h e ongoing p r o j e c t o f b u i l d i n g t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s and "human c a p i t a l " f o r c r e a t i n g such a framework has o f t e n been neglected.

LEAP, as a microcomputer-based energy p lann ing and account ing system, seeks t o f a c i l i t a t e p lann ing, promote the t r a i n i n g o f governmental s t a f f , p rov ide a s t r u c t u r e f o r da ta development and

management, and a l l o w t h e agency respons ib le f o r energy p lann ing t o eva lua te and p r i o r i t i z e new p o l i c y and techno logy i n i t i a t i v e s . Whi le n o t a s u b s t i t u t e f o r i n t e l l i g e n t and imag ina t i ve energy program development, a t o o l such as LEAP can he lp t h e decision-maker t o i d e n t i f y , eva lu te , and defend proper approaches.

Given t h i s pe rspec t i ve , LEAP was developed as a t o o l which would c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f governmental p l ann ing s t a f f i n a l l aspects o f energy p lann ing -- data development, energy account ing, p r o j e c t i o n s o f supp ly and demand, and assessments o f a1 t e r n a t i v e energy s t r a t e g i e s f o r bo th t h e modern and r u r a l sec tors . To be e f f e c t i v e f o r t h i s purpose, c e r t a i n broad design c r i t e r i a need t o be s a t i s f i e d : t h e so f twa re must be comprehensive, f l e x i b l e , expandable, and " u s e r - f r i e n d l y . "

F i r s t , t o p rov ide an adequate p lann ing framework, t h e so f twa re needs t o be comprehensive, t r a c i n g energy f l o w s back f rom t h e p o i n t o f end-use consumption th rough t h e t rans fo rma t i on o f energy forms t o p r imary energy resources and imports. I n p a r t i c u l a r , i t needs t o address the spec ia l problems o f t h e r u r a l sec tor , such as fuelwood s u f f i c i e n c y , land-use pa t te rns , and p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r b ioenergy programs. Whi le fuelwood and o t h e r biomass f u e l s remain o f g r e a t importance i n most deve lop ing coun t r i es , t hey have n o t rece i ved commensurate program e f f o r t . The legacy o f piecemeal energy p o l i c y development, l ack o f coo rd ina ted p lann ing, i n s u f f i c i e n t focus on long- te rm r u r a l energy needs, and a t t r a c t i o n t o l a r g e c a p i t a l - i n t e n s i v e p r o j e c t s r e q u i r e s urgent a t t e n t i o n . P rope r l y designed sof tware can acce le ra te t he process by p r o v i d i n g a s t r u c t u r e f o r deve lop ing data, ana l yz ing t h e s i t u a t i o n , and cap tu r i ng t h e i n t e r p l a y between r u r a l energy pa t te rns , commercial f u e l a v a i l a b i l i t y , demographic and land- use trends, a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , and n a t i o n a l economic performance. Fur ther , t h e r u r a l energy p i c t u r e needs t o be examined a t a h i g h degree of s p a t i a l d i sagg rega t i on i n order t o capture r e l e v a n t l o c a l f a c t o r s such as e c o l o g i c a l cond i t i ons , wood cover c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a g r i c u l t u r e p rac t i ces , fuelwood a c c e s s i b i l i t y , and so on.

As w e l l as be ing comprehensive, t he so f tware must be f l e x i b l e . A major goal was t o b u i l d a program which cou ld be used i n a wide v a r i e t y o f c o u n t r i e s and a p p l i c a t i o n s . Custom-made programs f o r each coun t r y would be p r o h i b i t i v e l y expensive, time-consuming and unnecessary. Also, t h e use o f common data and program s t r u c t u r e s can be va luab le f o r m u l t i - c o u n t r y r e g i o n a l energy i n i t i a t i v e s ; p a r a l l e l da ta se t s can f a c i l i t a t e t he exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n and j o i n t p lann ing. Therefore, t h e model needs t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y f l e x i b l e t o enable t h e user t o r e f l e c t t h e p a r t i c u l a r energyuse, geographic, and e c o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e coun t r y app l y i ng t h e system. The i dea i s t o supp ly t h e canvas, brush, and drawing lessons so t h a t t h e users can p a i n t t h e i r own p i c t u r e s o f t h e i r energy landscapes.

T h i s i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o another impor tan t o b j e c t i v e : t he software must be expandable. As p lanners enhance t h e i r da ta base, as t h e des i red l e v e l o f d e t a i l increases, as new energy- re la ted issues emerge w i t h t ime, i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t he new i n f o r m a t i o n can be

i nco rpo ra ted w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g changes i n t h e computer sof tware. The programs need t o be usable over a wide range o f needs.

T y p i c a l l y , t h e f i r s t a p p l i c a t i o n s i n a g iven coun t r y may employ o v e r l y aggregate and perhaps incomplete data, w h i l e t he i n i t i a l p r o j e c t i o n s and analyses may be r e l a t i v e l y s u p e r f i c i a l . General ly, s o l i d q u a n t i t a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e o n l y f o r aggregate consumption o f and sources f o r commercial f u e l s . But as one moves e i t h e r t o noncommercial f u e l s (e.g., fuelwood, cha rcoa l ) o r t o d isaggregated energy use (e.g., breakdowns by economic sec to rs and end-uses) t he e x i s t i n g da ta base becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y u n r e l i a b l e o r undeveloped. Indeed, one o f t h e p r imary e a r l y o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e compu te r i za t i on o f energy i n f o r m a t i o n i s t o e s t a b l i s h da ta development needs and procedures. Then over t ime as t h e da ta f ounda t i on grows and t h e l e v e l o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n increases, more d e t a i l e d analyses can be performed.

F i n a l l y , a major design o b j e c t i v e f o r LEAP was t o make t h e system ext remely u s e r - f r i e n d l y . Whi le r e q u i r i n g a bas i c conceptual f ounda t i on i n t h e elements o f energy ana lys is , LEAP does n o t r e q u i r e any p rev ious computer exper ience. Instead, i t r e l i e s h e a v i l y on i n t e r a c t i v e prompts t o t h e user, menu-driven command design, " s o f t " d a t a e n t r y systems, and d e t a i l e d suppo r t i ng m a t e r i a l s such as a Use r ' s Guide, data development sheets, and background documentation.

3. LEAP STRUCTURE

LEAP i s an i n t e r a c t i v e computer ized system c o n s i s t i n g o f seven programs: t h r e e " core" energy f o r e c a s t i n g programs, t h r e e "macro" programs f o r r e l a t e d socioeconomic analyses, and one " c o s t i n g " program f o r c a l c u l a t i n g t h e impacts o f a l t e r n a t i v e energy scenar ios. The programs can be r u n independent ly, o r i n concer t , as des i red. Some o f t h e b a s i c i n t e r l i n k s a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 1.

A t t h e core o f t h e system l i e t h e bas i c energy account ing and f o r e c a s t i n g programs: Demand ( f o r t r a c k i n g t h e f i n a l f u e l requ i rements by sec tor , subsector, end-use and dev ice) , Transformat ion ( f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e p r imary resource requ i rements assoc ia ted w i t h f i n a l demands by t a k i n g account o f i n te rmed ia te convers ion processes, imports, and expo r t s ) , and Resource ( f o r p r o j e c t i n g l and use changes and biomass product ion , a v a i l a b i l i t y , and u t i l i z a t i o n ) . These core programs are descr ibed i n d e t a i l i n P a r t 11.

While t h i s core group o f programs can be run alone, LEAP a l s o i nc ludes t h r e e macro programs which can be used t o p rov ide a s e l f - c o n s i s t e n t s e t o f bas i c socioeconomic f o recas ts . The macro program f o r e c a s t s may then be used as da ta i n p u t s i n t o t h e core programs, f o r t h e purpose o f p r o j e c t i n g energy demands.

The macro programs inc lude: t h e Demographic program ( a coho r t / s u r v i v a l model f o r p r o j e c t i n g r e g i o n a l urban and r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n and households f o r user se lec ted f e r t i l i t y / m o r t a l i t y scenar ios) , t h e A g r i c u l t u r e program ( f o r t r a c k i n g t h e p roduc t i on o f a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities, biomass wastes, and land a l l o c a t i o n s , s u b j e c t t o consumption and expo r t t a rge ts , l and a v a i l a b i l i t y and p r o d u c t i v i t y assumptions), and t h e Economic program ( f o r f o r e c a s t i n g n a t i o n a l economic scenar ios and c a l c u l a t i n g gross domest ic product , s e c t o r a l ou tputs , income d i s t r i b u t i o n , imports, and expor ts ) . The macro programs are descr ibed i n d e t a i l i n P a r t 111.

An impor tan t aspect o f LEAP i s t he d i s t i n c t i o n between a " base l i ne" scenar io, on t h e one hand, and a l t e r n a t i v e " p o l i c y " scenar ios, on t h e o the r hand. Th i s d i s t i n c t i o n corresponds t o two fundamental quest ions t h e p lanner needs t o ask: where a re we going now? where cou ld we be go ing w i t h d i f f e r e n t p o l i c i e s ?

The f u n c t i o n o f t h e base l i ne scenar io ( r e f e r r e d t o i n LEAP as the Base Case) i s t o answer t h e f i r s t quest ion. I t i s conceived o f as a ' lbusiness-as-usual" scenar io, a p r o j e c t i o n o f t he f u t u r e energy accounts o f t h e coun t r y o r r e g i o n under cons ide ra t i on . The Base Case i nco rpo ra tes c u r r e n t l y i d e n t i f i a b l e t r ends i n economic and demographic pa t te rns , resource a v a i l a b i l i t y , f u e l p r i c e s and choices, and energy sec to r c o n s t r u c t i o n and development plans.

Beyond p r o j e c t i n g energy supp ly and demand based on c u r r e n t t r ends and p o l i c i e s , t h e Base Case prov ides a y a r d s t i c k aga ins t which t h e e f f e c t s o f a l t e r n a t i v e " p o l i c y " scenar ios may be assessed. P o l i c y scenar ios t r ans fo rm t h e base l i ne p r o j e c t i o n s by b lend ing i n a wide range o f p o s s i b l e measures a f f e c t i n g t h e consumption, d e l i v e r y ,

conversion, and sources o f energy.* These a i d i n p r o v i d i n g answers t o t h e second fundamental ques t i on posed above. That i s , " P o l i c y Case" scenar ios are used t o exp lo re t h e e f f e c t s o f a h y p o t h e t i c a l s e t o f energy measures and t o i d e n t i f y a c t i o n s and investments needed t o achieve a more d e s i r a b l e f u t u r e than t h e Base Case p r o j e c t i o n s .

The core programs a re used t o e s t a b l i s h p r o j e c t i o n s f o r bo th t h e Base Case and t h e P o l i c y Case(s).** The costs o f each a l t e r n a t i v e P o l i c y Case a r e then eva luated by LEAP'S f i n a l component, t h e Cost ing program. Th i s program sumnarizes t h e s h i f t s i n energy consumption and resource requ i rements and t r a c k s t h e t i m e stream o f cos t s and b e n e f i t s assoc ia ted w i t h t h e va r i ous elements o f t h e p o l i c y scenar io, as w e l l as t h e i r f o r e i g n exchange requirements and impacts. The use o f t h e core programs t o produce P o l i c y Cases and t h e use o f t h e Cost ing program, a r e descr ibed i n P a r t I V .

* A l t e r n a t i v e scenar ios may a l so be used t o per form s e n s i t i v i t y analyses, i .e . , r uns i n which key v a r i a b l e s used t o e s t a b l i s h t h e Base Case p r o j e c t i o n s a re a l t e r e d t o r e f l e c t u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e i r f u t u r e values. The responsiveness o f ou tputs t o changes i n i n p u t s i s va luab le i n determin ing an u n c e r t a i n t y range o f p1 aus i b l e long- term outcomes.

**The macro programs a l s o a re designed t o p rov ide m u l t i p l e scenar ios o f economic and demographic f u t u r e s . These a l t e r n a t i v e s may be used as i n p u t s i n deve lop ing P o l i c y Cases o r s e n s i t i v i t y es t imates .

F i g u r e 1

LEAP MODEL-GENERAL STRUCTURE

LAND WOOD STANDING AGRICULTURAL CROP B USE SHIFTS SUPPLY INOOD STOCKS OUTPUT ANIMALWASTE

4. USINGLEAP

One o f t h e des ign o b j e c t i v e s mentioned e a r l i e r was t o make t h e system access ib le and easy t o use f o r a l l energy p lanners , even those w i t h o u t p rev ious exper ience w i t h computers. To t h i s end, a LEAP User ' s Guide has been created which p rov ides step-by- step i n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h e development o f r e l e v a n t data, t h e f i l l i n g o u t o f LEAP " da ta formsN, and t h e runn ing o f programs.

The ac tua l sessions a t t he computer -- t y p i c a l l y , a desktop microcomputer such as t h e I B M PC, Wang PC, O l i v e t t i PC, o r comparable machines -- a re " i n t e r a c t i v e " . The program prompts t he user t o supply c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n and responds t o i n f o r m a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n s p rov ided by t h e user.

The f i r s t s tep i n us ing LEAP i s t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f da ta and t h e f i l l i n g i n o f some o f LEAP'S data forms. The Use r ' s Guide, which descr ibes the r e q u i r e d data, and the LEAP Data Development Booklet , which i s a workbook o f b lank data forms and i n s t r u c t i o n a l notes, a i d i n t he key task o f comp i l i ng t he da ta base.

The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f da ta wi 11 t y p i c a l l y be an i n i t i a l c o n s t r a i n t t o ach iev ing d e t a i l e d ana l ys i s . But weaknesses o r incompleteness i n t h e c o u n t r y ' s h i s t o r i c da ta base should no t be a d e t e r r e n t t o t he adopt ion o f fo rmal and sys temat ic computer-based procedures. To t h e con t ra ry , t h e adopt ion o f such procedures can he lp s t r u c t u r e and promote b e t t e r da ta ga the r i ng e f f o r t s . The recommended approach i s t o beg in w i t h t h e a v a i l a b l e " o f f - t h e - s h e l f " i n fo rma t i on . The f i r s t LEAP ou tpu ts may be o f l i m i t e d d e t a i l and accuracy b u t w i l l p rov ide guidance i n determin ing where data development i s needed.

Once the data forms have been f i l l e d in , t h e r e s t i s easy: e n t e r i n g t h e data i n t o t h e computer, per forming computer runs, and p r i n t i n g ou tpu t r e p o r t s i s a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d process. Data i s entered d i r e c t l y onto screens which are f a c s i m i l e s o f t he hard copy data forms. The computer prompts t he user f o r t he r i g h t fo rm o f data and p rov ides e r r o r messages i f data i s unreasonable o r o u t s i d e a range acceptab le t o t h e programs. These fea tu res he lp keep data e n t r y e r r o r s a t a minimum.

To h e l p gu ide the user through a l l t h e steps necessary t o use t h e computer, LEAP con ta ins a h ie ra rchy o f "menus.' These menus are l i s t s o f o p t i o n s f rom which t h e user chooses, i n order t o i n s t r u c t the computer what t o do next . For example, t h e f i r s t menu which appears on t h e te rm ina l i s t h e LEAP Master Menu, shown i n F igu re 2. I f one o f t h e f i r s t t h r e e choices on t h e Master Menu i s selected, t h e computer d i s p l a y s t he menus fo r data e n t r y ( a l s o shown i n F igu re 2), c a l c u l a t i o n s , o r output . Depending on the o p t i o n se lec ted, one o r more f u r t h e r menus w i l l f o l l o w ask ing f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rma t i on .

A schemata o f t he o v e r a l l menu s t r u c t u r e i s shown i n F igure 3 below.

-11-

FIGURE 2

SAMPLE LEAP MENUS

L E A P M A S T E R H E N U 7

Country / Region Label: KAMBlA

F1 - Enter LEAP Data

F2 - Run LEAP Program

F3 - P r i n t and Disp lay LEAP Output

F9 - Change Country / Region

F10 - Q u i t LEAP

, Press the appropr ia te Funct ion Key t o make a se lec t i on .

The LEAP Master Menu appears i n i t i a l l y .

I Country 1 Region Label: UMBIA

F1 - Demand Base Data (Forms: D-1, D-2) F2 - Demand Scenario Data (Form : DS- l ) F3 - Energy Category Data (Forms: 8-1, 8-2, 8-3)

F4 - Transformation Base Data (Farm?: T - l and TM-*) F5 - Transformation Scenario Data (Farm : TS- l ) I F6 - Resource Base Data (Forms: R - l , R-2, R-3) F7 - Resource P ro jec t i on Data (Forms: RS-l t h r u RS-7) I F8 - Costing Data (Forms: C - l t h r u C - 5 )

F11 - Demographic Data F12 - A g r i c u l t u r a l Data F13 - Economic Data

(Forms: P - l t h r u P-4) (Form: A - l t h r u A-3) (Forms: E - l t h r u E - 4 )

Press the appropr ia te Funct ion Key t o se lec t t he category. (F11 = S h i f t F1, F12 = S h i f t F2, F13 = S h i f t F3)

(Press F10 t o r e t u r n t o t he Master Menu.)

Appears when F 1 i s pressed a t t h e Master Menu.

FIGURE 3

LEAP MENU STRUCTURE

Enter LEAP Exit LEAP

Each LEAP program produces severa l r epo r t s . These f a l l i n t o two major ca tegor ies : Echo Reports and Resu l ts Reports. As t he name imp l i es , Echo Reports p rov ide reco rds o f t h e LEAP c a l c u l a t i o n s w h i l e t h e Resu l ts Reports p rov ide the outcomes o f those c a l c u l a t i o n s .

P a r t 11: THE CORE PROGRAMS

The core programs o f t h e LEAP system -- Demand, Transformat ion , and Resource -- a re designed t o rep resen t t h e v a r i e t y o f energy demands, p r imary resource requirements, domestic supp l i es , expo r t s and impor ts , which toge the r comprise t he network o f energy f l o w s o f a count ry . The Demand program accounts f o r t h e f i n a l consumption of energy when a g i ven s e r v i c e o r end-use i s p rov ided (e.g., l i g h t i n g , heat ing , water pumping, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ) . The Transformat ion program accounts f o r a l l i n te rmed ia te conversion processes (e.g., e l e c t r i c a l gene ra t i on and t ransmiss ion, o i l r e f i n i n g , b iogas p roduc t i on ) i n determin ing p r imary resource requirements. The Resource program focuses on biomass resources w i t h i n reg ions, e c o l o g i c a l zones, and landuse categor ies , t r a c k i n g p o t e n t i a l supp l ies , o f f t a k e and n e t p ro- duct ion .

As discussed above, t h e Core programs have two f u n c t i o n s i n t h e energy assessment process, F i r s t , they a re used t o produce Base Case f o r e c a s t s o f evo l v i ng supp ly and demand pa t te rns . Second, they may be used t o a l t e r Base Case forecasts t o produce va r i ous a l t e r n a t i v e scenar ios ( P o l i c y Cases). The d e s c r i p t i o n s i n t he sec t i ons below r e f e r t o t h e Base Case c a l c u l a t i o n s al though, as w i l l be discussed i n P a r t I V , t h e genera t ion o f a l t e r n a t i v e scenar ios i s q u i t e s i m i l a r .

5. DEMAND

Overview

The Demand program i s t h e f i r s t component o f t h e main body o f LEAP. I t uses economic, demographic, and energy use in format ion t o compute and r e p o r t f i n a l energy requirements. These d e t a i l e d ou tpu ts a re passed t o t he o t h e r Core programs (Transformat ion and Resource) and t o t h e Cost ing program f o r f u r t h e r process ing. F igu re 4 shows these r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

FIGURE 4

OVERVIEW OF DEMAND PROGRAM

Macro Models (optional) & Other sources

Demand

Program

Final Demand

Requirements

Transformation, Resource & Costing Progams

The purpose o f t h e Demand program i s t o c a l c u l a t e t h e demands f o r va r i ous energy commodities under a s p e c i f i e d s e t o f cond i t i ons . The user p rov ides i n f o r m a t i o n about present and f u t u r e l e v e l s o f soc io- economic parameters, such as popu la t ion , i n d u s t r i a l ou tput , gross domest ic product, equipment use, e t c .

T h i s approach i s based on disaggregated data; energy requirements a t t he p o i n t o f consumption are used as t he b u i l d i n g b locks i n c o n s t r u c t i n g a complete p i c t u r e o f a n a t i o n a l energy system. Such an approach pe rm i t s more accura te demand p r o j e c t i o n s , and prov ides a c l e a r q u a n t i t a t i v e framework f o r f o r m u l a t i n g and eva lua t i ng p o l i c y o p t i o n s by t r a c k i n g energy use impacts a t t h e l e v e l o f user equipment, f u e l choice, and behav ior .

The degree o f d i sagg rega t i on employed i n a LEAP ana l ys i s i s a t t h e u s e r ' s d i s c r e t i o n . I n some sectors , g r e a t d e t a i l on energy use may n o t be requ i red , e i t h e r because p lann ing i n t e r e s t s l i e elsewhere o r because the s e c t o r ' s r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n i s smal l . As p lann ing needs become more ex tens i ve and r e f i n e d , and as data bases are developed, t h e f u l l power o f t he d isaggregated framework can be employed. For g r e a t e r d isaggregat ion , i t i s o f t e n d e s i r a b l e t o engage i n spec ia l da ta ga the r i ng e f f o r t s , t a i l o r e d t o s p e c i f i c energy us ing sectors . For example, a r u r a l survey o f biomass usage p a t t e r n s cou ld p r o v i d e new data f o r more d e t a i l e d ana l ys i s i f fuelwood shortages were a n t i c i p a t e d .

The end-use demand s t r u c t u r e i s based on a h i e r a r c h y o f f o u r l e v e l s : 1) Sector, 2) Subsector, 3 ) End-use, 4 ) Device/Fuel . The sec to rs and components a re de f i ned by t h e LEAP user, and may be m o d i f i e d a t any t ime. For example, one m igh t d e f i n e a sec to r as "Urban Households," a subsector as "High Income," an end-use as "Cooking," and devices f o r t h i s end-use as " E l e c t r i c Range," "Gas Stove," Wood Stove," "Charcoal Stove," etc. Another example cou ld be " I n d u s t r i a l " sector, " S t e e l " subsector, "Process Thermal" end-use, and dev ices such as " O i l Bo i l e r , " " E l e c t r i c Arc Furnace," "Coal B o i l e r , " e t c . As t he magnitude o f these components change over t ime, t h e assoc ia ted energy consumption a l so changes. Thus, by i n c o r p o r a t i n g f o recas ts o f demographic changes, income s h i f t s , end-use sa tu ra t i ons , dev i ce e f f i c i e n c i e s , f u e l mix, economic output , process components, equipment f ue l s , etc., one can p r e d i c t t he r e s u l t i n g energy requ i rements as t hey change over t ime.

A p a r t i a l f l o w diagram f o r t he urban household sec tors i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e Demand s t r u c t u r e i s d i sp layed i n F igu re 5. Assoc ia ted w i t h each l e v e l o f t h i s h i e r a r c h y i s an a c t i v i t y measure (e.g., number o f households, f r a c t i o n i n an income group, f r a c t i o n which have space heat ing , f r a c t i o n w i t h o i l hea te rs ) .

As one moves down a branch t o an end-use device, these a c t i v i t y measures, which may change over t ime, are m u l t i p l i e d t o compute t he end-use s tock . For example, t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l a c t i v i t y l e v e l s i n F igu re 5 imply t ha t , o f t he 1,000,000 urban households, 20% are h igh income; of those, 90% have some form o f space heat ing ; o f those w i t h heat ing , 50% use o i l heat. So the number o f o i l heaters i n t h e h igh- income urban sec to r i s 1,000,000 X 20% X 90% X 50% = 90,000, and

energy demand i n t h i s branch i s 90,000 t imes t h e average o i l use per o i l heater . Changing t h e a c t i v i t y l e v e l o f any element i n t h i s l i n k produces a change i n t h e energy demand. A f t e r t he energy f o r each end p o i n t i s c a l c u l a t e d i n t h i s fashion, t h e f u e l requirements are then aggregated back up t h e s t r u c t u r e t o t h e t o t a l end-use f u e l demands. A l l o f t h i s may be d i sp layed i n g rea te r o r l esse r d e t a i l i n t h e p r i n t e d r e p o r t s prov ided by t h e LEAP system.

FIGURE 5

HYPOTHETICAL ACTIVITY LEVELS FOR A PORTION OF THE DEMAND STRUCTURE

Heating 90% ,. Oil Heat 50%

Gas Range 40%

URBAN

Kerosene 20%

1 000 000

SECTOR SUBSECTOR END-USE DEVICE

S t r u c t u r e

The i n p u t da ta f o r t h i s model i s o rgan ized i n t o two major ca tego r i es as shown i n F i g u r e 4, Base data and Scenar io data. The Base d a t a con ta ins b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e coun t r y o r r e g i o n being s tud ied, s p e c i f i e s t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l branch s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e a n a l y s i s and con ta ins t h e base l i ne da ta on t h e branch a c t i v i t i e s . The Scenar io d a t a s p e c i f i e s changes and a d d i t i o n s t o t h e Base da ta se t .

A number o f spec ia l terms are employed i n t h e Demand program; some o f them have been i n t roduced i n f o r m a l l y , above, b u t w i l l now be more f o r m a l l y def ined.

Branch S t r u c t u r e - A h i e r a r c h y o f f o u r l e v e l s (Sector, Subsector, End-Use, and Device) i s de f i ned through a usercreated Branch S t ruc tu re . For example, a n a t i o n a l ( o r r e g i o n a l ) da ta s e t may c o n t a i n severa l sectors, each o f which con ta ins i t s own group o f subsectors. Each subsector may have one o r more end-uses, and each end-use must have a t l e a s t one dev ice . The diagram i n F i g u r e 6 g ives a s i m p l i f i e d example. The s t r u c t u r e i s e n t i r e l y f l e x i b l e and expandable; t h e user c reates t h e s t r u c t u r e w h i l e c r e a t i n g t h e Base da ta f i l e . The data i s entered as a one-dimensional l i s t s t a r t i n g f rom t h e top and working down and t o t he l e f t th rough t h e t ree ; t h e branch s t r u c t u r e shown i n F i g u r e 6 would be entered as shown i n Table 1.

A c t i v i t y Leve l s - Each branch has A c t i v i t y Leve l s assoc ia ted w i t h i t which n u m e r i c a l l y rep resen t t h e l e v e l o r measure o f a c t i v i t y o f each branch; f o r example, t h e number o f households, t h e f r a c t i o n i n a g i ven income group, t h e s a t u r a t i o n o f a r t i f i c i a l l i g h t i n g , and the f r a c t i o n s o f these which use e l e c t r i c l i g h t s , p a r a f f i n lamps, e t c . These a c t i v i t i e s e x i s t a t each l e v e l o f t h e h i e r a r c h y rep resen t i ng whatever measure the user cons iders most app rop r i a te f o r t h a t branch. Of ten the A c t i v i t y Leve l w i l l be a number o f households, veh ic les , businesses, etc., a t t h e Sector l e v e l , and a f r a c t i o n o r percentage a t each lower l e v e l .

The A c t i v i t y Leve l s are m u l t i p l i e d down through t h e h i e r a r c h y t o c a l c u l a t e t h e A c t i v i t y M u l t i p l i e r assoc ia ted w i t h each branch. For example, t h e A c t i v i t y M u l t i p l i e r f o r a subsector i s t he p roduc t o f t h e A c t i v i t y Leve l s f o r t h a t subsector and t h e sec to r t o which i t belongs; e.g., t h e A c t i v i t y M u l t i p l i e r f o r t h e "High Income" subsector would be t h e number o f "Urban Households" which belong t o t h e "High Income" category, o r 200,000 i n F igu re 5. The A c t i v i t y M u l t i p l i e r f o r t h e Device " O i l Heat" i n F igu re 5 i s 90,000, as mentioned above.

F i n a l Demand - F i n a l demand i s c a l c u l a t e d a t t h e Device l e v e l and aggregated t o h ighe r l e v e l s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e . The Device A c t i v i t y M u l t i p l i e r (90,000, i n t he example) i s m u l t i p l i e d by t h e Device consumption l e v e l (average o i l use per o i l hea te r i n high- income urban households) t o c a l c u l a t e t he consumption assoc ia ted w i t h t h a t device-end use-subsector- sector combinat ion. Then the f i n a l demand assoc ia ted w i t h a h i g h e r - l e v e l ca tegory i s t h e sum o f t h e lower l e v e l demands t h a t branch below it.

Index Years - The i n p u t da ta may change w i t h t ime: f o r example, t h e number of urban households, r e a l GDP c o n t r i b u t i o n f rom a

p a r t i c u l a r i n d u s t r y , o r t h e stock o f motor v e h i c l e s a re t ime- vary ing va r i ab les . The p lanner would o f t e n l i k e t o assume steady growth i n such va r i ab les , w i t h o u t having t o e n t e r each y e a r ' s p r o j e c t e d va lue sepa ra te l y . Th is i s accomplished by p r o v i d i n g values f o r t h ree conven ien t l y se lec ted index years ("base," "mid," and "end"). The va lues f o r o t h e r years are then es t imated by l i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n ,

FIGURE 6

SAMPLE BRANCH STRUCTURE LEAP DEMAND

Level

National

Branches

NATION I

Sub sectol

11 LOVJ INCOME

Fnd use [piqizr~ r G q q p q G q rG+q -1

TABLE 1

SAMPLE BRANCH L I S T STRUCTURE

L e v e l L e v e l B ranch Number Name - - Name

1 SFCTOR Urban Households 2 SUBSECTOR H i g h Income 3 ENDUSE L i g h t i n g 4 DEVICE E l e c t r i c L i g h t s 3 ENDUSE Cooking 4 DEVICE Kerosene S t o v e 4 DEVICE Wood S t o v e 2 SUBSECTOR Low Income 3 ENDUSE Cooking 4 DEVICE Wood S t o v e 1 SECTOR R u r a l Housho lds 2 SUBSECTOR All Income 3 ENDUSE Cook ing 4 DEVICE Open F i r e

I 3 ENDUSE I . i gh t ing l 4 DEVICE Kerosene Lamp

The Demand program base data thus i d e n t i f i e s t he f o l l o w i n g bas ic i n fo rma t i on : t he name o f t h e coun t r y ( o r r e g i o n ) being considered, t h e index years, t h e o u t p u t r e p o r t i n g years, and the energy u n i t s used t o express energy f i g u r e s (e.g., g i ga - j ou les , m i l l i o n Btu 's , o r any o t h e r conven ient u n i t ) . I t a l s o con ta ins t h e branch d e s c r i p t i o n s w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g da ta f o r each branch:

1. H ie ra rchy l e v e l number 2. Branch name 3. A c t i v i t y l e v e l s ( f o r t h e t h r e e index yea rs ) 4. A c t i v i t y s c a l i n g f a c t o r * 5. A c t i v i t y name

For t h e Device l e v e l on l y :

6. Fuel index 7. Average f u e l consumption

The scenar io da ta i s used t o modi fy Base Case da ta i n developing a l t e r n a t i v e demand scenar ios. The r e p o r t i n g ca tegory data serve t o d e f i n e t he f i n a l f u e l s (e.g., e l e c t r i c i t y , kerosene, fuelwood, e t c . ) , t h e p r imary energy forms (e.g., crude o i l , hydropower, biomass, e t c . ) , and t h e more aggregate "balance sheet" ca tego r i es f o r sumnariz ing n a t i o n a l energy accounts. These may be f l e x i b l y se lec ted by t h e user t o match t h e p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n o f t he coun t r y o r r e g i o n under ana l ys i s .

The bas i c mathematical r e l a t i o n s h i p s are shown i n Table 2. F i n a l energy demands f o r a g i ven dev ice i n a g i ven year a re computed by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e " a c t i v i t y " l e v e l s f o r each o f t h e f o u r l e v e l s i n t he h i e r a r c h y -- sector , subsector, end-use, dev ice - - t imes the es t imated average f u e l consumption f o r each device. These f i g u r e s are then combined t o p rov ide t h e consumption by f u e l t ype f o r each o f t he l e v e l s o f t he h ie ra rchy .

The f l e x i b i l i t y i n d e f i n i n g the types o f dev ices and t h e changing dev i ce m u l t i p l i e r s ( t h a t i s , f r a c t i o n o f end-users us ing dev ice) a l l ows one t o capture scenar io assumptions regard ing, f o r example, f u e l swi tch ing, conservat ion, and new equipment pene t ra t i on . Consequently, i f the re i s s u f f i c i e n t da ta i n a g iven coun t r y t o develop such p r e d i c t o r s o f use and ownership l e v e l s as p r i c e and income e l a s t i c i t i e s , these may be i nco rpo ra ted i n t h e LEAP s t r u c t u r e th rough adjustments i n t h e end-use o r dev ice m u l t i p l i e r s .

- *For c ~ n v e n i e n c e - - ~ d a t a en t r y , a c t i v i t y l e v e l s o f , say, 1,000,000

i n t h e base year, 3,000,000 i n t he mid year, and 6,000,000 i n t he end year may be entered s imply as 1, 3 and 6. The s c a l i n g f a c t o r then t e l l s LEAP t o i n t e r p r e t these as m i l l i o n s .

TABLE 2

DEMAND PROGRAM CALCULATIONS

Ind i ces

t Year i Branch h ie ra rchy l a b e l ( l = s e c t o r , P=subsector, 3=end use,

4=device) f End use f u e l t ype

Va r i ab les

COMD Average f u e l consumption per dev ice FUSE T o t a l f u e l consumption f o r sec to r /dev i ce branch AMULT A c t i v i t y m u l t i p l i e r ( i n t e r p o l a t e d between index year

data va lues)

Equat ions

For a g i ven branch: 4

FUSEf,t = COMDf X AMULTi ,t i = l

Resu l t s

The Demand program produces t h r e e echo r e p o r t s and f o u r r e s u l t s repo r t s . The echo r e p o r t s p rov ide a hard-copy r e c o r d o f t he da ta which has been entered. These r e p o r t s p l a y a u s e f u l r o l e i n documenting and checking i n p u t data. The f i r s t Demand r e s u l t s r e p o r t (DR-1) s u m a r i z e s t he t o t a l end-use f u e l consumption over t ime, as shown i n F i g u r e 7 below.

-21-

FIGURE 7

SAMPLE REPORT: NATIONAL END-USE FUEL CONSUMPTION

CWNTRY: KAMEIA SCENARIO: BASE CASE

REPORT: DR-l

NATIONAL END-USE FUEL CONSUMPTION ( MILLIONS OF GlGAJOULES )

YEAR 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

PETROL 25.27 35.44 45.62 55.09 61.50 AVGAS .45 .53 .60 .66 .72 KEROSENEIJETFUEL 12.38 16.73 21.06 26.52 32.03 OIESELIGAS OIL 21.07 27.30 33.53 42.51 51.48 RESIDUALIFUELOIL 19.23 26.32 33.39 39.95 45.31 LPG/BOTTLED GAS .96 1.45 1.89 2.60 3.24 PETROCHEMICALS 1.52 2.55 3.59 6.04 8.49 COAL 2.80 3.80 4.79 8.33 13.01 NATURAL GAS 2.12 3.57 5.02 8.45 11.89 ELECTRICITY 5.82 8.84 11.93 16.53 21.22 FUELWOOD 207.84 251.51 294.11 347.43 398.78 CHARCOAL 24.45 34.22 43.65 58.93 74.10 UOOO NONFUEL 6.54 8.83 11.13 15.06 18.99 CROP RESIDUE 7.65 9.60 11.57 14.45 17.34 DUNG 1.66 1.93 2.18 2.52 2.83 WIND . l 7 l .27 .33 .39 SOLAR .41 .67 1.01 1.77 2.75 ETHANOL .OO .OO .OO 5.96 14.97 B l OGAS .20 .36 .57 .84 1.15 PRWUCER GAS . l 1 . l 6 .21 .28 .35

GRAND TOTAL: 340.64 434.03 526.12 654.21 780.54

The n e x t r e s u l t s r e p o r t i s t h e more d e t a i l e d "Fuel Consumption by Leve l " (DR-2) a t t h e user- se lec ted l e v e l o f d e t a i l . When runn ing t h e Demand program one may s e l e c t one o f t h r e e l e v e l s o f d e t a i l f o r t h i s r e p o r t . They are: 1) sector , 2) subsector, and 3 ) end-use. F igu re 8 below shows a p a r t i a l o u t p u t f o r t h e f u e l s used a t t h e sec to r l e v e l o f d e t a i l . The subsector l e v e l would show more disaggregated f i g u r e s than these sec to r r e s u l t s , whereas t h e end-use l e v e l would show f u e l use a t an a d d i t i o n a l l e v e l o f d e t a i l .

F I G U R E 8

SAMPLE REPORT: F U E L CONSUMPTION BY L E V E L

CWHTRY: KAMBIA SCENARIO: BASE CASE

REPORT: D R - 2 ( SECTOR 1

FUEL CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR ( MILL IONS OF G IGAJWLES )

- - LEVEL / YEAR - - 1985 l990 1995 2000 2005

.... SECTOR - - - - - URBAN HWSEHOLD 21.52 35.31 48.99 71.84 94.81

KEROSENE/JETFUEL 2.91 4.80 6.71 9.92 13.20 LPG/BOTTLED GAS .79 1.23 1.61 2.26 2.85 ELECTRICITY 2.09 3.20 4.13 5.62 6.85 FUELVOOD 3.04 5.27 7.71 11.65 15.83 CHARCOAL 12.70 20.81 28.84 42.39 56.08

.-.. SECTOR - - - - - RURAL HOUSEHOLD 167.82 200.29 231.83 270.25 308.00

KEROSENE/JETFUEL 4.19 4.99 5.77 6.73 7.68 FUELVOOD 150.50 180.08 209.00 244.13 278.80 CHARCOAL 9.24 10.43 11.36 12.54 13.47 CROP RESIDUE 2.04 2.48 2.94 3.49 4.06 DUNG 1.66 1.93 2.18 2.52 2.83 BIOGAS .20 .36 .57 .84 1.15

...- SECTOR - - - - - AGRICULTURE

PETROL OIESELIGAS O I L ELECTRICITY FUELVOOD WIND SOLAR PRODUCER GAS

-.-- SECTOR - - - - - LARGE INDUSTRY 78.34

KEROSENE/JETFUEL 3.64 RESIDUAL/FUELOIL 16.14 LPG/BOTTLED GAS .l7 PETROCHEMICALS 1.52 COAL 2.80 NATURAL GAS 2.12 ELECTRICITY 1.42 FUELVOM) 38.11 VWO NONFUEL 6.54 CROP RESIDUE 5.61 SOLAR .27

Resu l t s Report DR-3 shows the " F i n a l Consumption" f o r each r e p o r t i n g year. Th i s r e p o r t a l s o has t h r e e p o s s i b l e l e v e l s o f d e t a i l which a re se lec ted when runn ing the program, as f o r t h e prev ious r e p o r t . A sample i s shown i n F igu re 9 d isaggregated t o t h e subsector l e v e l . I n t h i s r e p o r t , t he f u e l s a re l i s t e d i n t h e h o r i z o n t a l d i r e c t i o n grouped under t h e "Repor t ing Categor ies" which are t h e user- se lec ted aggregate l a b e l s used o n l y f o r t he purposes o f t r a c i n g n a t i o n a l energy f l o w s i n t h e "energy balance" format. Report DR-3 and r e p o r t TR-5 (descr ibed i n Sec t i on 6 ) together p rov ide t h e energy accounts f o r a g i ven year f rom p r imary sources through energy conversions and losses t o f i n a l consumption.

FIGURE 9

SAMPLE REPORT: FINAL CONSUMPTION FOR EACH REPORTING YEAR BY LEVEL

COUNTRY: K A M B I A SCENARIO: BASE CASE

REPORT: D R - 3 ( 1 9 8 5 ) - - . . . - . . F I N A L CONSUMPTION FOR 1 9 8 5 BY SUBSECTOR - - - - - - - -

( M I L L I O N S OF G I G A J W L E S )

CRUDE PETRO COAL/ NATURAL HYDRO/ ELEC- COMMERC WOOD CHAR BlOMASS WINO/ TO O I L P R W COKE GAS GEO/NUC T R l C l T Y U W D FUEL COAL SOLAR **

URBAN HWSEHOLD . 0 0 3 . 7 0 . 0 0 .OO .OO 2 . 0 9 .OO 3 . 0 4 1 2 . 7 0 .OO .OO 2 1 INCOME GRWP 1 .oo . 0 8 .DO .DO .oo .oo .oo . 5 a . 2 9 .oo .oo INCOME G R W P 2 .OO .75 .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO 1 . 0 7 2 . 7 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 INCOME G R W P 3 .OO . 9 7 .OO .OO .OO . 0 7 .OO . 8 9 3 . 8 8 .OO .OO INCOME G R W P 4 .OO 1 . 4 9 .OO .OO .OO . 6 2 .OO . 4 4 4 . 8 3 .OO .OO INCOME G R W P 5 .OO . 4 0 .OO .OO .OO 1 . 3 9 .OO .05 1.01 .DO .OO

RURAL HOUSEHOLD .OO 4 . 1 9 .DO .OO .OO .OO .DO 1 5 0 . 5 0 9 . 2 4 3 . 8 9 .OO 1 6 7 1NCGRCY.JP 1 .OO . 4 7 .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO 2 4 . 7 1 . l 7 . 6 7 .OO 2 I N C G R W P 2 .OO 2.01 . 0 0 .OO .OO .OO .OO 7 7 . 4 6 3 . 5 2 1 .58 .OO 8 I N C G R W P 3 .OO 1 . 7 1 .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO 4 8 . 3 3 5 .55 1 . 6 4 .OO 5

AGRICULTURE . 0 0 7 . 6 4 .OO .OO .OO . 5 8 .OO 2 .OO . l1 . 3 1 8 LARGE FARMS .OO 7 . 6 4 .OO .OO .OO . 5 8 .OO .OO .OO .OO . l 5 SMALL FARMS .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO . 2 2 .OO . l 1 . l 7

LARGE INDUSTRY .OO 2 1 . 4 6 2 . 8 0 2 . 1 2 .OO 1 . 4 2 6 . 5 4 3 8 . 1 1 .OO 5 . 6 1 . 2 7 7 8 FOOO PROCESSING . 0 0 3 . 4 2 1 .04 .OO .OO .53 .OO 3 7 . 8 7 .OO 5 . 6 1 . 2 7 4 CHEMICALS .OO 2 . 3 3 . 2 7 2 . 1 2 . 0 0 . 0 7 .OO .OO . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 PAPER .OO 1 . 8 0 . 5 5 .OO .OO . 0 9 2 .45 . 2 5 .OO .OO .OO CONSTRUCTION .OO 1.11 .OO .OO .OO . 0 3 4 . 0 8 .OO .OO .OO .OO OTHER INDUSTRY .OO 1 2 . 7 9 . 9 4 .OO .OO . 7 1 .OO .DO .OO .OO .OO 1

INFORMAL INDSTRY BREUING,FCOD.ETC POTTERY/BRICK BLACKSMITH B U I L D I N G POLES

TRANSPORTATION V E H I C L E / P R I V A T E V E H I C L E S / P U B L I C R A I L A I R STEAMSHIPS

COMMERCIAL SCHCOLSIHOSPITAL O F F I C E S HOTELS

TOTAL DEMAND

The l a s t Demand r e s u l t s r e p o r t i s t he " P ro jec ted Fuel Requirementsu (DR-4), a sample o f which i s shown i n F igu re 10 f o r pe t ro leum products. Th i s may be produced f o r each o f t h e user- se lec ted r e p o r t i n g ca tegor ies ; it p rov ides t h e scenar io p r o j e c t i o n s f o r a g i ven end-use fue l , broken down by sec to r requirements. Th is a l l ows one t o examine p r o j e c t e d s h i f t s i n s e c t o r a l consumption f o r a g i ven f u e l .

FIGURE 10

SAMPLE REPORT: PROJECTED FUEL REQUIREMENTS BY SECTOR

CWNTRY: KAMBIA SCENARIO: BASE CASE

REPORT: DR-4 (PETRO PRDD

PROJECTED SECTOR END-USE FUEL REQUIREMENTS: PETRO PRW (MILLIONS OF GIGAJOULES )

URBAN HWSEHOLD 3.70 6.03 8.32 12.18 16.05

RURAL HOUSEHOLD 4.19 4.99 5.77 6.73 7.68

AGRICULTURE 7.64 8.73 9.82 10.90 11.99

LARGE INDUSTRY 21.46 29.84 38.23 46.30 53.23

INFORMAL INDSTRY .OD .OO .OO .OO .DO

TRANSPORTATION 43.25 59.84 76.44 101.71 126.98

TOTAL DEMAND 80.88 110.33 139.M 179.32 217.75

6. TRANSFORMATION

Overview

The Transformat ion program s i t s between the Demand and t h e Resource programs i n t h e LEAP model ing system. Th is program takes t h e f i n a l demand requirements c a l c u l a t e d by t he Demand program and computes the p r imary resource requirements, a f t e r a d j u s t i n g f o r impor ts and expo r t s . These are then passed on t o t he Resource program. (These r e l a t i o n s h i p s are shown schemat i ca l l y i n F igu re 11.)

I n a n a t i o n a l energy system, f u e l s f o r t he va r i ous end uses a re produced f rom a v a r i e t y o f resources. The Transformat ion program c a l c u l a t e s those resource requirements by s i m u l a t i n g t h e ope ra t i on o f t h e energy sec to r o f t h e economy. The t rans fo rma t i on processes can be f a i r l y complex (as i n t h e case o f e l e c t r i c a l genera t ion , f o r example), i n v o l v i n g a v a r i e t y o f equipment, processes, f u e l s , and resources. An a d d i t i o n a l comp l i ca t i on i s t h a t t r ans fo rma t i on processes themselves may r e q u i r e f u e l s as i npu ts which increases t o t a l energy demand. Th is , i n tu rn , a f f e c t s t h e ou tpu t requ i rements o f o t h e r t r ans fo rma t i on processes. For example, e l e c t r i c a l gene ra t i on may consume pet ro leum products, which then a f f e c t s r e f i n e r y ope ra t i ons and/or impor t requ i rements .

The major t r ans fo rma t i on processes are t r e a t e d by LEAP through s p e c i a l i z e d modules. Four modules analyze biomass f u e l s , w h i l e t h r e e dea l w i t h t h e major commercial f u e l s . The s p e c i a l i z e d t rans fo rma t i on modules, which w i l l be discussed i n d e t a i l below, i n c l u d e ha rves t i ng and m i l l i n g o f wood f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n and commercial processes, charcoa l k i l n s , e thano l , biogas, e l e c t r i c i t y , o i l and n a t u r a l gas, and coa l and coke. I n add i t i on , t h e r e i s a s imple " gene r i c " s t r u c t u r e f o r c e r t a i n t r ans fo rma t i on processes which may supplement or , i f des i red, s u b s t i t u t e f o r these spec ia l t r ans fo rma t i on modules. These take i n t o account d i s t r i b u t i o n and convers ion e f f i c i e n c y losses ( i f any) and are used, e.g., f o r conve r t i ng fuelwood i n t o wood resource requirements.

S t r u c t u r e

The Transformat ion program uses f o u r i n p u t f i l e s and creates t h r e e types o f ou tput . The i n p u t f i l e s are: (1) t he r e s u l t s o f t he demand c a l c u l a t i o n s , ( 2 ) t he t r ans fo rma t i on base data, (3 ) data f o r c r e a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e scenar ios, and ( 4 ) balance sheet r e p o r t i n g data. The outputs are: (1) an echo o f t h e t r ans fo rma t i on i n p u t data, ( 2 ) va r i ous repo r t s , and ( 3 ) t he r e s u l t s o f t h e t r ans fo rma t i on processes, f o r use by t h e Resource and Cost ing programs.

-27-

F I G U R E 11

OVERVIEW OF TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM

User Created From

Demand Program l

Final Demand Requirements

Resource and Costing Programs

The fundamental f u n c t i o n o f t h e t r ans fo rma t i on processes i s t o conve r t p r imary energy i n p u t s i n t o f i n a l f u e l requirements. F i n a l demands as computed by t h e Demand program are f i r s t ad jus ted t o take es t imated d i s t r i b u t i o n losses i n t o account.* I n a d d i t i o n , t he f u e l i n p u t requirements t o t h e energy sec to r i t s e l f (e.g., pe t ro leum t o e l e c t r i c a l gene ra t i on ) must be inc luded.

Once the gross f u e l ou tpu t requirements a re es tab l i shed , t h e model s imula tes t h e ope ra t i on o f t he va r i ous energy t rans fo rma t i on processes t o meet these requirements. Each o f t he t r ans fo rma t i on modules embodies a unique s e t o f c a l c u l a t i o n s and da ta and e x i s t s as a separa te sub rou t i ne w i t h i n t he Transformat ion program. I f no consumption o f a g i ven f u e l i s i nc luded i n f i n a l demand, then t h e corresponding t rans fo rma t i on module i s n o t ac t i va ted .

Wood M i l l i n g and Harves t i ng Module

One o f t h e main o b j e c t i v e s o f LEAP i s t o a l l o w f o r an i n v e n t o r y o f t he sources and uses o f wood resources i n a g iven coun t r y o r reg ion. A c e n t r a l concern f o r energy p o l i c y i n most developing c o u n t r i e s i s t he long- term s u f f i c i e n c y o f wood f o r f u e l s t o meet e v o l v i n g demands f o r energy. Th is i nc ludes both t h e d i r e c t use o f wood i n households, smal l and l a r g e i ndus t r y , a g r i c u l t u r e , and b u i l d i n g s , and t h e i n d i r e c t use o f wood through t h e conversion o f wood t o o t h e r biomass f u e l forms. The most impor tan t o f these c u r r e n t l y , t h e p y r o l i t i c convers ion o f wood t o charcoal , i s t r e a t e d sepa ra te l y i n t h e " charcoa l module" discussed below.

However, t h e r e a re impor tan t competing nonfue l uses f o r t r e e s which must be cons idered i n a f u l l account ing o f wood supplyldemand balances. One d i s t i n g u i s h e s these i n t h e LEAP system by i n c l u d i n g t h e nonfue l wood demands w i t h t h e Demand program as a spec ia l f u e l type (un less renamed, LEAP c a l l s t h i s ca tegory "wood nonfue l "). The p r imary demand f o r t h i s " f u e l " i s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n products , e.g., t h e ou tpu ts o f wood m i l l i n g f a c i l i t i e s .

The f u n c t i o n of t h e wood m i l l i n g and ha rves t i ng module i s t o l i n k t h e f i n a l demand f o r "wood non fue l " t o t o t a l s tand ing whole t r e e ha rves t i ng requirements. There i s , i n general , a double conversion from f o r e s t t o f i n a l demand. F i r s t , t h e t r e e i s f e l l e d by f o r e s t r y opera t ions , w i t h t h e smal l stem woody biomass l e f t behind as f o r e s t "waste." Second, t h e r e s u l t i n g "roundwood" i s processed i n t o wood products a t wood m i l l s w i t h a d d i t i o n a l wood waste.

* S p e c i f i c a l l y , d i s t r i b u t i o n l o s s f r a c t i o n s (DL) are en te red f o r each f u e l which r e f e r t o f r a c t i o n o f f u e l produced t h a t i s l o s t i n d i s t r i b u t i o n . The l o s s increases f i n a l end-use f u e l demands (TOTCMD). When t h e f u e l requirements o f t h e t r ans fo rma t i on processes themselves a re i nc luded (TOTTR), t h e gross f u e l ou tpu t requirements f rom t h e t ransformat ion processes become: GRSCMD = TOTCMD/(l-DL) + TOTTR.

The module t r a c k s t h i s t w o f o l d convers ion process and takes account, as w e l l , o f t he p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some o f t h e waste l e f t i n t h e f o r e s t o r wood m i l l i s ( o r cou ld be) c o l l e c t e d f o r fuelwood uses. The mathematical r e l a t i o n s h i p s are sumnarized i n Table 3. Note t h a t t h e concept o f "wood m i l l , " i n a d d i t i o n t o s i g n i f y i n g ca tego r i es o f wood-products i n d u s t r i e s , i s used g e n e r i c a l l y here f o r any f a c i l i t y which conver ts roundwood t o nonfue l f i n a l wood products . For example, one cou ld t r e a t t h e p u l p and paper i n d u s t r y by d e f i n i n g a nonfue l wood "demand" f o r p u l p and paper ou tpu ts under t h a t i n d u s t r i a l subsector i n t h e Demand program. Th is would then be conver ted t o roundwood and s tand ing t r e e requ i rements i n t h i s module by c r e a t i n g a p u l p and paper " m i l l " category. The use o f wood res idues t o f u e l t h e p u l p and paper process i t s e l f o r o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n s would be captured here as w e l l .

Charcoal K i l n Module

Fuelwood i s a p r imary energy source i n many deve lop ing coun t r i es . Often, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r u r a l areas, i t i s consumed d i r e c t l y i n wood stoves f o r a v a r i e t y o f household, i n d u s t r i a l and commercial a p p l i c a t i o n s . I n many coun t r i es , however, wood i s n o t o n l y consumed d i r e c t l y by end-users. Instead, some o f i t i s f i r s t conver ted t o charcoa l and then t ranspo r ted t o p r i m a r i l y urban demand centers .

There are a number o f reasons why charcoa l may ga in a s u b s t a n t i a l share o f t h e urban f u e l market. It i s more compact and eas ie r t o t r a n s p o r t than fuelwood; many users cons ider i t more a t t r a c t i v e than fuelwood f o r cooking, so i t s use i s o f t e n c o r r e l a t e d w i t h r i s i n g urban incomes; i t i s a source o f income f o r a d ispersed group o f en t repreneurs i nvo l ved i n t h e p roduc t i on and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f charcoal a long t h e supp ly r o u t e s t o urban markets.

Charcoal i s produced by hea t i ng wood i n a low oxygen environment. I n such a " p y r o l y s i s " process, t h e r e w i l l be s u b s t a n t i a l losses o f wood i n t he convers ion t o charcoa l . For example, i n t r a d i t i o n a l " e a r t h k i l n s " used i n va r i ous forms throughout t h e wor ld, t h e charcoa l o u t p u t i s t y p i c a l l y o f t h e order o f 10% o f t h e wood i n p u t by weight. Th i s apparent i n e f f i c i e n c y o f charcoal versus d i r e c t wood use i s , however, m i t i g a t e d by two f a c t o r s . F i r s t , t h e energy d e n s i t y o f charcoa l i s about double t h a t o f wood a t approx imate ly 33 g iga jou les / tonne. Second, a t t he end-use, charcoal stoves tend t o be more e f f i c i e n t than wood stoves. Th is i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F igu re 12 where 100 u n i t s o f fuelwood energy are t r aced through t o t h e u s e f u l energy de l i ve red " t o t h e p o t " f o r t y p i c a l conversion e f f i c i e n c i e s found i n Kenya.

TABLE 3

WOOD MILLING AND HARVESTING CALCULATIONS

I n d i c e s

t = Year ( = l i n base y e a r ) f = M i l l t y p e : each l i n k e d t o a f i n a l " f u e l " t y p e ( i .e . , one

o r more wood n o n f u e l t y p e s d e f i n e d i n t h e Demand p rogram)

V a r i a b l e

MILEFF

WSTMIL WEXP,WIMP GRSCMD

FINREQ

WDCONV RNDREQ WASTEM HRVEFF

TREE

WASTEH WFRMIL WFRHRV

RDEXP,RDIMP FUELW

E f f i c i e n c y o f m i l l ( p r o d u c t ou tpu t / roundwood i n p u t b y w e i g h t )

F r a c t i o n o f m i l l was te c o l l e c t e d f o r f u e l use Wood p r o d u c t e x p o r t s and i m p o r t s ( b y w e i g h t ) Demand f o r f i n a l wood p r o d u c t ( f i n a l demand p l u s

d i s t r i b u t i o n l o s s e s ) N e t f i n a l wood p r o d u c t o u t p u t f r o m d o m e s t i c

sources Wood c o n v e r s i o n f a c t o r (e.g., 16.3 g i g a j o u l e s / t o n n e ) Roundwood r e q u i r e m e n t s (m i l l i n p u t s ) Wood was te i n m i l l p r o c e s s i n g E f f i c i e n c y o f h a r v e s t i n g ( roundwood o u t p u t / t o t a l

biomass f i l l e d b y w e i g h t ) T o t a l s t a n d i n g biomass h a r v e s t e d f r o m n a t i o n a l

sources f o r wood u s i n g i n d u s t r i e s F o r e s t was te f r o m t r e e h a r v e s t i n g Waste f r a c t i o n c o l l e c t e d f o r f u e l w o o d f r o m m i l l i n g Waste f r a c t i o n c o l l e c t e d f o r f u e l w o o d f r o m

h a r v e s t i n g Roundwood e x p o r t s and i m p o r t s Fuelwood c o l l e c t e d f r o m m i l l i n g and h a r v e s t i n g

was te

E q u a t i o n s

Compute t o t a l wood p r o d u c t f i n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s :

Roundwood r e q u i r e m e n t s :

TABLE 3

WOOD MILLING AND HARVESTING CALCULATIONS ( C o n t i n u e d )

Mill waste:

WASTEMf,t = RNDREQf,t - FINREQf9t

T o t a l s t a n d i n g t r e e r e q u i r e m e n t s

TREEt = (C RNDREQf,t)/HRVEFF + RDEXPt - RDIMPt f

F o r e s t waste:

WASTEHt = TREEt - C RNDREQf,t f

Waste f o r f u e l w o o d :

FUELWt = WDCONY X C WFRMILf,t X WASTEMf,t + WDCONV X f

WFRHRVt X MASTEHt

-32-

FIGURE 12

COMPARATIVE CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES FOR FUELWOOD AND CHARCOAL IN KENYA

Source: O'Keefe, P - , e t al:, Ener y and Development ~IJ Kenya, The Scandanavian I n s t i t u t e o f A f r i c a n d i e c U p p s a l a , Sweden,

Nevertheless, charcoa l remains l e s s e f f i c i e n t than t h e d i r e c t use o f fuelwood; perhaps two t o t h r e e more t imes wood i s r e q u i r e d per u n i t o f end-use s e r v i c e (e.g., cooking o r space hea t i ng ) . Th i s i n e f f i c i e n c y i s o f concern i n areas exper ienc ing d e p l e t i n g wood sources, e s p e c i a l l y where growing urban popu la t i ons are l i k e l y t o l ead t o r a p i d growth i n charcoal demands. I n such instances, t he e x p l o r a t i o n o f p o l i c i e s t o induce more e f f i c i e n t charcoa l stoves, f u e l swi tch ing, and b e t t e r k i l n s w i l l be o f i n t e r e s t .

W i t h i n t h e LEAP s t r u c t u r e , scenar ios i n c o r p o r a t i n g a l t e r a t i o n s i n charcoal s tove e f f i c i e n c y o r f u e l choices would be handled i n t he Demand program. The purpose o f t h e charcoal k i l n module i s t o t r a c k bo th c u r r e n t t r ends i n k i l n techno log ies and t o i n v e s t i g a t e t he i m p l i c a t i o n s o f phasing i n more p r e f e r a b l e k i l n designs. Cu r ren t l y , t h e r e are a wide range o f k i l n techno log ies i n use o r under development rang ing from v a r i e t i e s o f t he t r a d i t i o n a l e a r t h k i l n ( e f f i c i e n c i e s o f about 25% on an energy bas i s ) , t o b r i c k k i l n designs (about 40%), and more s o p h i s t i c a t e d conver ters such as r e t o r t s which can achieve energy e f f i c i e n c i e s i n excess o f 60%.* The i d e a l techno logy mix w i l l depend on cons ide ra t i ons o f r e l a t i v e c a p i t a l , ope ra t i ng and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs, and the f e a s i b i l i t y o f b lend ing more commercial ope ra t i ons i n t o t r a d i t i o n a l charcoal p roduc t i on i n d u s t r i e s .

Therefore, t h e k i l n module a l lows the user t o d e f i n e the ca tego r i es o f k i l n techno log ies and e f f i c i e n c i e s i n use o r a n t i c i p a t e d i n t h e Base Case and a d d i t i o n a l ca tego r i es f o r t h e f o rma t i on o f P o l i c y Case scenar ios .

The mathematical r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r t h e k i l n module are shown i n Table 4. The t o t a l demand f o r charcoal -- f i n a l demand p l u s losses i n d i s t r i b u t i o n -- i s converted t o requirements f o r wood feedstocks f o r one o r more k i l n ca tegor ies . The k i l n ca tego r i es a re se lec ted t o f i t "business-as-usual" t rends i n Base Case p r o j e c t i o n s and, i n po.1 i cy scenar io runs, t o r e f l e c t p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e k i l n techno log ies . For completeness, t h e impor t and expo r t o f charcoal i s a l lowed f o r i n t he module. I n r e a l i t y , such exchanges are o n l y a p o s s i b l e long- term cons idera t ion , s i nce the re i s v i r t u a l l y no i n t e r n a t i o n a l charcoal t r a d e f rom o r t o LDCs a t p resent .

---.p

kKr i s to fe rson , L. e t a l . , Renewable Energy f o r Developing Count r ies : A Review, Vol, B., The B e i j e r I n s t i t u t e , Stockholm, 1984.

TABLE 4

CHARCOAL KILN MODULE CALCULATIONS -

Ind i ces

t Year ( = l i n base yea r ) k K i l n type r Wood resource l a b e l ( i d e n t i f i e d w i t h g i ven k i l n t ype )

Va r i ab les

EXP, IMP CHCONV TRDNET GRSCMD

REQNET KLNFRAC

KLNEFF

OUTPUT KLNOUT WOOD

Expor t ( i m p o r t ) o f charcoa l ( by we igh t ) Charcoal energy conversion (e.g., 33.1 g iga jou les / t onne Net f o r e i g n t r a d e (energy u n i t s ) Gross demand f o r charcoal ( f i n a l demand p l u s

d i s t r i b u t i o n l osses ) Net charcoa l ou tpu t requirements f rom domest ic k i l n s F r a c t i o n o f t o t a l ou tpu t f rom k i l n types (sums t o

1.0 over k i l n types k ) K i l n e f f i c i e n c y ( r a t i o o f energy o f charcoa l

produced t o energy o f feedstock) Output f rom k i l n types (energy u n i t s ) K i l n ou tpu ts by we ight Wood resources r e q u i r e d f o r each k i l n t ype

(energy u n i t s )

Equat ions

Compute n e t t rade:

TRDNETt = CHCONV X (IMPt - EXPt)

Net requ i rements :

K i l n ou tpu ts :

OUTPUTk,t = KLNFRACk,t X REQNETt

Wood resource requ i rements :

where sum i s over a l l k i l n types us ing resource r.

Ethanol Module

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e biomass uses t r e a t e d i n t he wood m i l l i n g / ha rves t i ng and charcoa l modules, t h e t r ans fo rma t i on program a l so addresses two l e s s f a m i l i a r biomass f u e l s , a l coho l f u e l s and biogas. Th i s module t r a c k s t h e convers ion o f biomass i n p u t s t o e thano l f i n a l demands.

The a t t r a c t i o n o f a l coho l f u e l s i s t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r s u b s t i - t u t i n g indigenous and renewable biomass resources f o r c o s t l y , impor ted petroleum-based f u e l s f o r use i n i n t e r n a l combustion engines. I n t e r n a l combustion engines a re used w ide l y i n deve lop ing c o u n t r i e s f o r such a p p l i c a t i o n s as pumping, m i l l i n g , and smal l- sca le power product ion . But t he p r imary r o l e f o r a l coho l i n a deve lop ing c o u n t r y ' s energy mix i s as a f u e l f o r veh i c l es .

I n ana l yz ing an a l coho l f u e l use w i t h t h i s module, two s i m p l i - f i c a t i o n ~ a re adopted. F i r s t , a l though t h e module may i n p r i n c i p l e be used f o r any a l coho l f u e l , t h e focus i s on e thano l p roduct ion . Methanol may one day p l a y a major r o l e i n deve lop ing coun t r y energy budgets, b u t i t s e a r l i e r stage i n t h e development and commerc ia l iza t ion process makes t h a t u n l i k e l y u n t i l t h e nex t century . On the o the r hand, e thano l i s a proven f u e l which may be used i n unmodi f ied s p a r k - i g n i t i o n engines i n blends up t o 15 t o 20% w i t h gaso l i ne and, as demonstrated on a l a r g e sca le i n B r a z i l , may be used as t h e s o l e f u e l i n m o d i f i e d engines.

Second, w h i l e a v a r i e t y o f biomass feedstocks can be used i n t h e p roduc t i on o f e thano l , t h e model r e f e r s e x p l i c i t l y t o sugarcane and molasses as p o s s i b l e feedstocks. The more promis ing p o s s i b i l i t i e s tend t o occur where l a r g e amounts o f biomass ( t y p i c a l l y , sugarcane) can be produced a t low cos t and where su rp lus molasses i s a v a i l a b l e f rom sugar p roduc t i on m i l l s . The use o f s tarches such as cassava o r corn, o r c e l l u l o s e s such as wood o r a g r i c u l t u r e res idues, r e q u i r e s more complex convers ion processes. Furthermore, sugarcane process ing generates i t s own source o f f u e l , t h e cane r e s i d u e c a l l e d bagasse, and has r e l a t i v e l y h i g h energy y i e l d per hec ta re o f growing land.

The key computa t iona l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t he module are sumnarized i n Table 5.

TABLE 5

ETHANOL MODULE CALCULATIONS

Ind i ces

t Year ( = l i n base y e a r ) f Feedstock l a b e l ( u s u a l l y l=sugarcane, Z=molasses )

CAP CAPBY ADD RET CONV

STKCON ENCON GRSCMD EVOL ETHSUP FDSTKl FDSTK2

Capac i ty ( m i l l i o n l i t e r s e thano l ou tpu t per yea r ) Capac i ty i n base year Capaci ty a d d i t i o n s Capac i ty r e t i r e m e n t s Conversion e f f i c i e n c y ( r a t i o o f energy o f n e t e thano l

ou tpu t t o energy o f feedstock i n p u t ) Feedstock energy d e n s i t i e s (e.g., GJ per tonne i n p u t ) Ethanol energy d e n s i t y (e.g., GJ per l i t e r ) Demand f o r e thano l ( f i n a l demand p l u s d i s t r i b u t i o n losses) Ethanol requ i rements ( l i t e r s ) Supply o f e thano l f rom each convers ion process Feedstock i n p u t requirements (energy con ten t ) Feedstock i n p u t requirements (we igh t )

Equat ions I Compute t o t a l o u t p u t capac i ty : l

L

CAPf,t = CAPBYf + C (ADDf,, - RETf,,) ' r= 2

Ethanol requ i rements (volume):

EVOLt = GRSCMDt/ENCON

Supply by process (volume):

ETHSUPf,t = (CAPf, t/CCAPf,t) X EVOLt f

(Maximum va lue of ETHSUPf,t i s CAPf,t)

Feedstock i n p u t s (energy con ten t ) :

Feedstock i n p u t ( p h y s i c a l ) :

FDSTK2f,t = FDSTKlf,t/STKCONf

Biogas Module

Biogas i s de r i ved f rom t h e fe rmen ta t i on o f o rgan i c m a t e r i a l i n an oxygen- de f i c i en t environment ( " anaerob ic d i g e s t i o n " ) . Biogas i s composed p r i m a r i l y o f methane (CHq) and carbon d i o x i d e (C021 a t approx imate ly 55% and 452, r e s p e c t i v e l y . I n p r i n c i p l e , t h e feedstock can be drawn f rom a wide range o f b iodegradable ma t te r i n c l u d i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l wastes, i n d u s t r i a l e f f l u e n t s and mun ic ipa l re fuse. However, t h e p r imary focus o f research and t h e bu lk o f ac tua l exper ience i n deve lop ing coun t r i es has been w i t h smal l- sca le r u r a l a p p l i c a t i o n s where the major i n p u t s are animal dung and human excrement ( " n i g h t s o i l " ) .

The use o f b iogas d i g e s t e r s i n v i l l a g e s and farms can be respons ive t o t h r e e separate r u r a l needs. F i r s t , o f course, biogas can p rov ide f u e l f o r cooking and l i g h t i n g ( o r t o combustion f o r e l e c t r i c i t y and mo t i ve power) and thereby serve as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o o t h e r f u e l s , e s p e c i a l l y t o fuelwood i n areas exper ienc ing d e p l e t i o n o f t h e s tand ing wood s tock . Second, t h e f e rmen ta t i on process leaves a r e s i d u a l s l u r r y which i s r i c h i n n u t r i e n t s and can be r e t u r n e d t o t he l and as a c rop f e r t i l i z e r . Th i rd , b iogas p roduc t i on dest roys disease- produc ing pathogens found i n manures, thus c o n t r i b u t i n g t o p u b l i c hea l t h .

Most o f t h e b i o d i g e s t e r s i n t he wo r ld opera te i n a s i n g l e country, China (some seven m i l l i o n b iod iges te rs ) , where a biogas program i s perce ived as impor tan t i n reduc ing pressure on wood resources and i n combating disease. Whi le o t h e r c o u n t r i e s have a c t i v e programs, e s p e c i a l l y I n d i a and South Korea, most deve lop ing c o u n t r i e s have ve ry l i t t l e exper ience w i t h biogas i n s t a l l a t i o n s . An a c t i v e government R&D r o l e may be necessary t o t a i l o r u n f a m i l i a r b iogas techno log ies -- which i n c l u d e a wide v a r i e t y o f p o s s i b l e designs, s izes , and ope ra t i ng c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s -- t o l o c a l needs and p r a c t i c e s . I n a d d i t i o n , where i nd i ca ted , t h e government may need t o promote biogas through educa t i ona l campaigns, s t a r t - u p f i nanc ing , and f o l l o w - up maintenance. Perhaps the most d i f f i c u l t cha l lenge t o biogas development i s t o f i n d approaches which b lend acceptab ly i n t o r u r a l f a rm and community l i f e s t y l e pa t te rns .

The computat ions i n t h e biogas module a re sumnarized i n Table 6 f o r l i n k i n g the i n p u t s o f o rgan i c m a t e r i a l (dung) t o t he biogas requ i rements as computed i n t he Demand program. Whi le biogas p roduc t i on i s n o t y e t i n use i n most count r ies , i t should be considered i n any comprehensive rev iew o f energy a l t e r n a t i v e s . I n c l u s i o n o f b iogas i n p o l i c y scenar ios a l l ows f o r cons ide ra t i on o f t h e energy and cos t i m p l i c a t i o n s i n t he c o s t i n g program under a wide range o f assumptions.

-38-

TABLE 6

BIOGAS MODULE CALCULATIONS --

--p--

I nd i ces

t Year ( = l i n base y e a r ) a Animal t ype supp ly ing dung

Va r i ab les

BGMC BG P

GRSCMD

BGCONV

DGFRAC

REQDNG DRY D

DUNG ANIM DNGCNV

DUNERGY BGEFF DIGCAP

Biogas requirements ( m i l l i o n cub i c me te rs l yea r ) Output o f b iogas f rom each major dung source

( m i l l i o n cu.m./yr) Gross demand f o r biogas ( f i n a l energy demand p l u s

d i s t r i b u t i o n l osses ) Biogas energy conversion f a c t o r (e.g., 24 g i g a j o u l e s /

1000 cu.m.) F r a c t i o n o f b iogas p roduc t i on supp l i ed by animal dung

type Dung requ i rements ( thousand d r y tonnes) D iges te r conversion r a t i o s (cu.m. o u t p u t t o Kg d r y

dung i n p u t ) Dry dung ou tpu t per day (Kg) Number o f animals needed f o r supp ly ( thousands) Dung energy conversion f a c t o r (e.g., 15 g iga jou les

per tonne dung) Dung energy i n p u t requirements Average d i g e s t e r energy e f f i c i e n c y T o t a l d i g e s t e r p roduc t i on capac i t y ( m i l l i o n cu.m./day)

Compute biogas o u t p u t requirements: I=- BGMCt = GRSCMDt,/BGCONV/1000

Output by dung source:

BGPast = DGFRAC, X BGMCt

Dung requ i rement :

-39-

TABLE 6

BIOGAS MODULE CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Animal requ i rement :

ANIM,, = REQDNG,, t / (365 X DUNG,)

Energy i n p u t o f dung:

DUNERGYt = DNGCNV X ZREQDNG,,t a

D iges te r energy e f f i c i e n c y :

BGEFFt = GRSCMDt/DUNERGYt

D iges te r capac i t y :

DIGCAPt = BGMCt/365

E l e c t r i c i t y Supply Module

The o b j e c t i v e o f e l e c t r i c supp ly p lann ing i s t o meet t h e p r o j e c t e d requ i rements f o r e l e c t r i c i t y i n a t i m e l y and c o s t - e f f e c t i v e manner. Based on p r o j e c t i o n s o f demand ( " l o a d f o r e c a s t s " ) , a power supp ly p lan i s developed c o n s i s t i n g o f va r i ous power p l a n t s and a t r ansm iss ion and d i s t r i b u t i o n l i n e network which i s adequate t o meet e l e c t r i c a l energy gene ra t i on requirements. I n a d d i t i o n t o meet ing average energy demands, t h e system shou ld be capable o f meet ing peak l oad demands, t h a t i s , t h e requirements f o r power. To ensure system r e l i a b i l i t y , some rese rve margin i s needed (because n o t a l l genera t ing u n i t s a re a v a i l a b l e f o r use a t a l l t imes ) .

Many power sources can be considered i n p lann ing the e l e c t r i c supp ly system. However, t h e usual goa l o f " l e a s t c o s t " power p lann ing i m p l i e s t h a t , o f t h e many p o s s i b l e supp ly scenar ios, t h e one se lec ted should r e l i a b l y meet demands a t t h e lowest genera t ion costs. Th is r e q u i r e s accura te f o r e c a s t s o f bo th e l e c t r i c i t y genera t ion and c a p a c i t y requirements, and knowledge o f t h e h o u r l y v a r i a t i o n i n t h e l oad ( " l o a d shape1'). Cons t ruc t i on o f new u n i t s must be scheduled t o match t h e growing load over t ime. A d d i t i o n a l l y , op t ima l system p lann ing r e q u i r e s "demand-side" programs t o promote more e f f i c i e n t end-use o r " l oad management" equipment, s i nce the costs f o r such equipment a re o f t e n l e s s than the marg ina l cos ts o f e x t r a genera t ion .

I n p r a c t i c e , t h i s i d e a l can o n l y be approached. Long c o n s t r u c t i o n lead t imes f o r l a rge- sca le power f a c i l i t i e s , u n c e r t a i n t y i n p r o j e c t i n g f i n a l p l a n t c a p i t a l cos t s and long- term f u e l costs, and d i f f i c u l t i e s i n accu ra te l y f o r e c a s t i n g demands make e l e c t r i c i t y p lann ing an i nexac t exe rc i se . A t t h e same t ime, t he importance o f t h e e l e c t r i c sec to r f o r development and, conversely, t h e se r i ous economic p e n a l t i e s which can r e s u l t f rom poor p lans and investments, p u t a premium on ach iev ing t h e bes t p o s s i b l e p lann ing.

The LEAP e l e c t r i c i t y module a l l ows f o r t h e s imu la t i on o f a l t e r n a t i v e e l e c t r i c a l supp ly p lans i n t he con tex t o f i n t e g r a t e d n a t i o n a l energy account ing. Factors t o be considered, as prov ided by t h e Demand program, may i n c l u d e va r i ous scenar ios f o r demand management, e l e c t r i f i c a t i o n , and f u e l sw i t ch ing so t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e e l e c t r i c i t y supplyldemand matches may be analyzed. Thus, c o n s t r u c t i o n o p t i o n s may be assessed f a r i n advance on a p r e l i m i n a r y basis. Supplementary eng ineer ing and e l e c t r i c system a n a l y s i s would of course be r e q u i r e d t o r e f i n e t h e f i n d i n g s i n t o a s p e c i f i c investment plan.

The E l e c t r i c i t y module computations are descr ibed i n Table 7. LEAP r e q u i r e s data c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e p roduc t i on o f e l e c t r i c i t y : t h e name o f each p l a n t ( o r group o f p l a n t s ) , base year genera t ion and capac i t y , t h e c a p a c i t y and year a f f e c t e d o f power p l a n t a d d i t i o n s and r e t i r e m e n t s ( o r r e r a t i n g s ) , capac i t y f a c t o r s , economic d i spa tch order , p l a n t e f f i c i e n c i e s , expo r t s o f e l e c t r i c i t y , base year peak demands, and minimum rese rve margin t a rge ts .

Then a f o u r - p a r t c a l c u l a t i o n i s c a r r i e d o u t (as shown i n Pa r t s A-D o f Table 7 ) . F i r s t ( P a r t A), LEAP attempts t o s a t i s f y t h e f o r e c a s t s o f e l e c t r i c i t y demand i n each year, us ing e x i s t i n g p l a n t s i n

d ispa tch order . Next, ( P a r t B) , t h e unmet e l e c t r i c i t y needs ( i f any) a re c a l c u l a t e d f o r each year. Then ( P a r t C ) , a schedule o f investment i n new p l a n t s i s produced; each new p l a n t i s i d e n t i f i e d e i t h e r as a "base load" ( h i g h c o n s t r u c t i o n cos t bu t low runn ing cos ts ) o r as a "peak load" ( low c o n s t r u c t i o n cost, h i g h runn ing cos ts ) f a c i l i t y . F i n a l l y ( P a r t D ) t he f u e l requ i rements are c a l c u l a t e d f o r each power p l a n t type.

O i l and Gas Module

The p r imary f u n c t i o n o f t h i s module i s t o match t h e f i n a l demands f o r o i l and gas t o t h e i r sources, e i t h e r domest ic o r f o re ign . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e r o l e o f bo th e x i s t i n g and planned pet ro leum r e f i n e r i e s f o r conve r t i ng crude o i l feedstocks i n t o f i n a l pe t ro leum products and expor ts i s considered. Also, t he e f f e c t s o f p r o j e c t e d l e v e l s o f crude o i l and n a t u r a l gas p roduc t i on on n a t i o n a l energy accounts i s considered and o i l and gas expor ts ( i f any) are f o recas t , based on scenar ios o f f u t u r e product ion , The main elements compris ing the pet ro leum balances a re schematized i n F igu re 13.

Petroleum supp l i es and demand are o f c r i t i c a l importance f o r deve lop ing coun t r i es . For those expo r t i ng o i l , n a t i o n a l economic h e a l t h may depend on proper management o f t h e o i l resource endowment. For those c o u n t r i e s dependent on o i l imports, t h e p r i c e jumps s ince 1973 have undermined genera l economic development. There a re many issues which a r i s e i n dev i s i ng a pet ro leum sec to r p lan, i n c l u d i n g t h e s t r a t e g y and c o n t r a c t u a l arrangements f o r resource exp lo ra t i on , t h e cos t t r a d e- o f f s between r e f i n e r y c o n s t r u c t i o n ( o r upgrade) and r e f i n e d p roduc t imports, t h e cho ice o f r e f i n e r y type, and t h e r o l e o f p r i c i n g and o t h e r p o l i c i e s t o manage a t r a n s i t i o n t o more d e s i r a b l e f u e l s and more e f f i c i e n t use o f o i l .

TABLE 7

ELECTRIC MODULE CALCULATIONS

Ind i ces

t Year ( = l i n base yea r ) p P l a n t t ype d D ispatch c l a s s p r P l a n t t ype des ignated as "peaker" f o r make-up power

c a l c u l a t i o n s b P l a n t t ype des ignated as "base load" f o r make-up power

c a l c u l a t i o n s

Va r i ab les

TELGEN GRSCMD EXP ELCONV

ELCAP BYGEN ELMCF

GSCALE ELGEN MELGEN ORD GENDC DEND RESMRG

CAPREQ PEAKBY PEAK BYCAP ADD RET DELMW DELEN REMGEN

REMCAP ADDCF

FUEL

ELEFF

T o t a l annual e l e c t r i c i t y gene ra t i on requ i rements (GWH*) Gross demand f o r e l e c t r i c energy ( f i n a l demand p l u s losses) Exported e l e c t r i c i t y (GWH) Converts f rom demand model energy u n i t s t o GWHs

(e.g., 0.277 X 10-3 GWH/gigajoule) Capac i ty by p l a n t type (MW*) Base year gene ra t i on by p l a n t type Average annual capac i t y f a c t o r : gene ra t i on (GWH)/

capac i t y ( M W ) X 8.76 (hours per year i n thousands) Scales BYGEN t o match e l e c t r i c i t y requ i rements i n base year Generat ion by p l a n t type (GWH/year) Maximum gene ra t i on by p l a n t type (GWHlyear) D ispatch o rde r Generat ion by d i spa tch c l a s s Marg ina l d i spa tch c lass Minimum rese rve margin ( c a p a c i t y r e q u i r e d i n excess

o f demand f o r r e l i a b i l i t y d i v i d e d by peak demand) Capac i ty r e q u i r e d t o meet minimum rese rve t a r g e t (MW) Base Year peak demand i n megawatts (MW) Peak demand p r o j e c t i o n s (MW) Base year c a p a c i t y by p l a n t t ype (MW) Capac i ty a d d i t i o n s (MW) Capac i ty r e t i r e m e n t s (MW) A d d i t i o n a l capac i t y o f designated peaker and baseload (MW) A d d i t i o n a l genera t ion o f des ignated peaker and baseload (GWH) Remaining genera t ion requirements a f t e r d i spa tch o f

s p e c i f i e d p1 ant Remaining capac i t y requ i rements beyond s p e c i f i e d p l a n t Equ i va len t capac i t y f a c t o r o f a d d i t i o n a l l y r e q u i r e d

genera t ion and capac i t y Fuel i n p u t requirements t c gene ra t i ng f a c i l i t i e s i n

energy u n i t s (e.g., g i g a j o u l e s ) P l a n t e f f i c i e n c y , r a t i o o f energy i n resources o r

f u e l i n p u t t o the energy o f e l e c t r i c i t y o u t p u t

l *GWH = g igawat t- hour = 106 KWH; MW = mi l 1 i o n wat ts .

TABLE 7

ELECTRIC MODULE CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Equat i ons-

4. Generat ion

Compute gene ra t i on requirements:

TELGENt = ELCONV X GRSCMDt + EXPt

Ad jus t u s e r - s p e c i f i e d base year p l a n t genera t ion :

GSCALE = TELGEN1/ZBYGENp P

ELGENp,l = GSCALE X BYGENp

Maximum genera t ion :

MELGENp,t = ELCAPp,t X ELMCFp X 8.76

( l a s t f a c t o r i s hours per year i n thousands)

P o t e n t i a l gene ra t i on f rom g i ven d i spa tch c l a s s :

GENDCd,t = xMELGENp, P

where sumnation i s over a l l p such t h a t ORDp = d.

For each year, d i spa tch p l a n t s i n p r i o r i t y order ( i .e. , d= l , 2, e t c . ) u n t i l demand i s met:

DEND

Then, sca le back gene ra t i on f rom marg ina l d i spa tch c lass : DEND-1

CsCALEt = (TELGENt - GENDC~,~)/GENDDEND,~ d = l

/ MELGENp, t ELGENp,t = CSCALEt X MELGENp,t f o r ci 1 ; DEN;

l. 0

TABLE 7

ELECTRIC MODULE CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

B. Peak Load and Capac i ty

Peak demand:

PEAKt = (GRSCMDt/GRSCMD1) X PEAKBY

Capac i ty requirements:

P l a n t c a p a c i t i e s : t

ELCAPp,t = BYCAPp + C (ADDp,, - RETp, ,) -1 =2

C. Make-up Generat ion and Capac i ty

De f i ne unmet energy and capac i t y requ i rements ( i f any):

R E M G E N ~ = T E L G E N ~ - C G E N D ~ , ~ d

REMCAPt = CAPREQt - 1 ELCAPp,t P

De f i ne average " capac i t y f a c t o r " o f unmet genera t ion and capac i t y requ i rements :

ADDCFt = REMGENt/(8.76 X REMCAPt)

Then, i f ADDCF ( ELMCFpr ( o r REMGEN=O), o n l y peaker u n i t s a re needed:

DELMWpr, t = REMCAPt

DELENpr,t = REMGENpr,t

I f ADDCF 2 ELMCFb ( o r REMCAP=O), use baseload u n i t s t o s a t i s f y genera t ion requ i rements :

DELENb,t = REMGENt

DELMWb,t = DELENb,t/(ELMCFb X 8.76)

-45-

TABLE 7

ELECTRIC MODULE CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Otherwise, t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s apply:

DELENpr,t + DELENb,t = REMGENt

DELMWpr,t + DELMWb,t = REMCAPt

and

DELENb,t = 8.76 X ELMCFb X DELMWb,t

DELENpr,t = 8.76 X ELMCFpr X DELMWpr,t

So l v i ng :

DELMWb,t = (ADDCFt - ELMCFpr)/(ELMCFb - ELMCFpr)

X REMCAPt

DELMW pr, t = REMCAP t - DELMW b, t

(ELMCFb > ELMCFpr by d e f i n i t i o n )

and DELEN i s g i ven by t h e second s e t o f above equat ions.

D. Fuel Requirements

I n p u t f u e l by p l a n t type:

FUELp,t = ELGENp,t/ELEFFp/ELCONV

FIGURE 13

PETROLEUM BALANCES

Exp_o~_t_ed Crude - -

d Refined

Imported Crude

Imported Refined Domestic Use Refined

LEAP i s designed t o t r a c k t he main parameters o f t h e o i l sec to r so t h a t major o p t i o n s may be cons idered w i t h i n an i n t e g r a t e d p lann ing framework. Complementary p o l i c y analyses, da ta development, and perhaps s p e c i a l i z e d computer models f o r , e.g., op t ima l r e f i n e r y ope ra t i ons are necessary t o t r a n s l a t e broad t a r g e t s and p lans i n t o concre te programs and p r o j e c t s .

The mathematical r e l a t i o n s h i p s are presented i n Table 8. Requirements f o r a user- se lec ted a r r a y o f pe t ro leum p roduc t types -- e.g., p e t r o l , avgas, kerosene, gas o i l ( d i e s e l ) , r e s i d u a l , LPG, pet rochemica ls -- a re computed as t h e combinat ion o f f i n a l demands f o r these products, d i s t r i b u t i o n losses, and energy sec to r requirements, p a r t i c u l a r l y f rom t h e e l e c t r i c supp ly module ( P a r t A). Re f i ne ry ope ra t i ons a re s imu la ted ( P a r t B). Here, a range o f scenar ios may be developed accord ing t o a l t e r n a t i v e schedules f o r r e f i n e r y capac i t y add i t i ons , r e t i r emen ts , and upgrades. Two r e f i n e r y opera t ions p o l i c i e s are a l lowed f o r : (1) f u l l u t i l i z a t i o n o f r e f i n e r y capac i t y o r ( 2 ) u t i l i z a t i o n o n l y up t o t h e p o i n t o f meet ing domestic demands f o r major pet ro leum products ( p e t r o l , kerosene, gas o i l and r e s i d u a l ) . T h i s l a t t e r s t r a t e g y may be i n d i c a t e d i n cases where excess r e f i n e r y c a p a c i t y e x i s t s and i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o l i m i t bo th t h e l e v e l o f crude impor t s and r e e x p o r t a t i o n o f r e f i n e d products which exceed domestic requirements. F i n a l l y , crude requ i rements ( P a r t C), crude and r e f i n e d impor ts and expo r t s ( P a r t D) , and n a t u r a l gas balances ( P a r t E) are computed.

TABLE 8

OIL AND GAS MODULE CALCULATIONS

Ind i ces

t Year (=l i n base yea r ) j Pet ro leum p roduc t t ype g Na tu ra l gas

Va r i ab les

REFCAP

BYPROD REFEFF

REFLOS REFRAC

REFPRD REFCRU PRDCNV

OPER GASPRD

GASCNV

DOMCRU CRUCNV

GRSCMD

ESDMD

ADMD OILDMD OPFRAC TOTPRD CRUIMP,

CRUEXP REFIMP,

REFEXP GASDMD

NGDMD NGIMP,

NGEXP

T o t a l r e f i n e r y c a p a c i t y a v a i l a b l e (1,000 tonnes lyear maximum ob ta inab le o u t p u t )

Ac tua l t o t a l r e f i n e r y ou tpu t i n base year (1,000 tonnes) Re f i ne ry e f f i c i e n c y ( r e f i n e d p roduc t ou tpu ts /

crude o i l i n p u t ) Petroleum losses i n r e f i n i n g ope ra t i on F r a c t i o n a l r e f i n e r y y i e l d s by p roduc t t ype ( o u t p u t

o f g i ven p r o d u c t / t o t a l o u t p u t by we ight ) R e f i n e r y outputs by p roduc t type Crude i n p u t requirements t o r e f i n e r y (1,000 tonnes/year) Conversion f a c t o r s f o r pe t ro leum products f rom

phys i ca l u n i t s t o energy (e.g., g i ga jou les / t onne ) Swi tch v a r i a b l e determin ing r e f i n e r y ope ra t i ons s t r a t e g y Na tu ra l gas p roduc t i on f rom domestic sources

(mi 11 i o n cu.m./year) Conversion f a c t o r f o r n a t u r a l gas (e.g., 39.3

gigajoules/1,000 cu.m.) Crude p roduc t i on f rom domestic sources (1,000 tonnes l yea r ) Conversion f a c t o r f o r crude o i l (e.g., 45.4 g i g a j o u l e s /

tonne) F i n a l f u e l demand p l u s losses i n energy u n i t (e.g.,

g i g a j o u l e s ) A d d i t i o n a l demands f rom o t h e r t r ans fo rma t i on modules

(i.e., energy sec to r demands) T o t a l energy demand f o r pet ro leum products T o t a l domest ic o i l demand i n 1,000 tonnes lyear Operat ing f r a c t i o n ( t o t a l p roduct ou tpu t / capac i t y ) T o t a l pe t ro leum o u t p u t (1,000 tonnes)

Net crude o i l impor ts ( o r expo r t s )

Net pet ro leum p roduc t impor ts ( o r e x p o r t s ) Na tu ra l gas requ i rements i n energy u n i t s (e.g.,

g i g a j o u l e s ) Na tu ra l gas requirements ( m i l l i o n cu.m.)

Net n a t u r a l gas impor ts ( o r expo r t s )

TABLE 8

OIL AND GAS MODULE CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Equat ions:

A. Requirements

Compute pet ro leum demands:

B. Re f i ne ry Operat ions

Base year :

OPFRACl = BYPROD/REFCAPl

REFPRDj,l = REFRACj,l X OPFRACl X REFCAPl

I f r e f i n e r y f u l l y u t i l i z e d i n f u t u r e (OPER = " yes" ) :

REFPRDj,t = REFRACj,t X REFCAPt

OPFRACt = 1.0 f o r t > 1

I f r e f i n e r y u t i l i z e d t o meet domestic requirements (OPER = "no") :

OPFRACt = MAX (OILDMDj,t/REFPRDj,t) f o r t > 1 J

where j runs over p e t r o l , kerosene, gas o i l ( d i e s e l ) , and r e s i d u a l p roduc t ca tego r i es (OPFRAC by d e f i n i t i o n has a maximum va lue o f 1.0).

REFPRDj,t = OPFRACt X REFRACj,t X REFCAPt

TABLE 8

OIL AND GAS MODULE CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

C. Crude Requirements

T o t a l ou tput :

TOTPRDt = CREFPRDj,t j

Inpu t :

REFCRUt = TOTPRDtIREFEFFt

Losses :

REFLOSt = REFCRUt - TOTPRDt

D. Impor ts and Expor ts

Crude:

CRUIMPt = REFCRUt - DOMCRUt i f > 0

CRUEXPt = DOMCRUt - REFCRUt i f > 0

Ref ined petroleum:

REFIMPj,t = OILDMDj,t - REFPRDj,t i f > 0

REFEXPj,t = REFPRDj,t - OILDMDj,t i f > 0

E. Na tu ra l Gas Balances

Compute demands i n energy and phys i ca l u n i t s :

GASDMDt = GRSCMDg,t + ESDMDg,t

NGDMDt = GASDMDt/(GASCNV X 1000)

Impor ts and expor ts :

NGIMPt = NGDMDt - GASPRDt i f > 0

NGEXPt = GASPRDt - NGDMDt i f > 0

Coal and Coke Module

I n c e r t a i n deve lop ing coun t r i es , t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f coa l f o r o i l i s a p o s s i b l e s t r a t e g y f o r reduc ing o i l dependency. Count r ies e x p l o r i n g enhanced coa l p roduc t i on and u t i l i z a t i o n need t o take care t h a t f avo rab le development arrangements are s t ruck w i t h f o r e i g n e x p l o r a t i o n and min ing concerns, t h a t t h e necessary i n f r a s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e product ion , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and u t i l i z a t i o n o f coa l be developed i n a t i m e l y way, and t h a t environmental impacts are a t acceptable l e v e l s .

Th i s module presents t he consequences o f a l t e r n a t i v e assumptions rega rd ing the l e v e l o f coa l and coke product ion , impor ts , and exports. Of ten the assumptions made about coa l use i n t he Demand program must be reviewed f o r cons is tency w i t h t h e p roduc t i on scenar ios assumed here. P a r t i c u l a r l y impor tan t are assumptions about f u e l - s w i t c h i n g i n such a p p l i c a t i o n s as i n d u s t r i a l b o i l e r s , e l e c t r i c genera t ion , and perhaps cooking.

The o b j e c t i v e , again, i s t o a l l o w f o r t h e b u i l d i n g o f a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t i o n s o f coa l supp ly and demand balances i n t o scenar ios and t h e assessment o f a l t e r n a t i v e coa l sec to r investment op t i ons w i t h i n an i n t e g r a t e d p lann ing framework, Cons iderab ly more d e t a i l e d geo log i ca l , eng ineer ing , and economic eva lua t i ons would, o f course, be needed t o supplement such broad p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e s and t r a n s l a t e them i n t o concre te p r o j e c t s .

The bas i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s s e t t i n g up t h e coa l balances i n LEAP a re presented i n Table 9. F i n a l demands are prov ided from Demand program ou tpu ts f o r coke and va r i ous p o s s i b l e coa l f u e l types ( i n some cases, i t may be o f i n t e r e s t t o break coa l demands down i n t o va r i ous grades). D i s t r i b u t i o n losses are added i n t h e Transformat ion program i n t h e usual way and t h e coa l requ i rements f o r cok ing ope ra t i ons are a l so computed t o a r r i v e a t t o t a l coa l requirements. These requirements a re matched aga ins t assumed l e v e l s o f coa l ou tpu ts t o a r r i v e a t ba lanc ing impor t and expo r t es t imates f o r f u t u r e years. I n t h e base year, a coa l /coke " s tock adjustment" i s computed which balances demands, ou tpu t , and e x p o r t l i m p o r t assumption and p rov ides a u s e f u l cons is tency check on these f i g u r e s . F i n a l l y , resource requirements, expressed i n energy u n i t s , a re de r i ved t a k i n g i n t o account es t imates o f coa l used d i r e c t l y i n m in ing ope ra t i ons and l o s t as s lag .

TABLE 9

COAL AND COKE MODULE CALCULATIONS

I n d i c e s I t Year ( = l i n base y e a r ) f Coal f u e l types c Coke

Va r i ab les

CONVCL, CONVCK

PDBYCL, PDBYCK

IMBYCL, IMBYCK

EXBYCL, EXBYCK

PRDEFF

COKEFF

ADD,RED

GRSCMD

ESDMD

COLDMD

COKDMD COLCOK COLREQ

COLPRD COLEXP COL IMP STKAD J EXP, IMP COAL

Conversion f a c t o r s (e.g., g i g a j o u l e s l t o n n e ) f o r coa l and coke

Domestic ~ r o d u c t i o n o f coa l (coke) i n base year (1000 tonnes)

Impor ts o f coa l (coke) i n base year (1000 tonnes)

Expor ts of coa l (coke) i n base year (1000 tonnes)

Process e f f i c i e n c y f o r coa l m in ing ( coa l p roduc t sh ipped lcoa l mined)

Process e f f i c i e n c y f o r cok ing (coke product shipped/ coa l i n p u t )

Add i t i ons ( r e d u c t i o n s ) o f coa l domestic p roduc t i on (1000 tonnes l yea r )

F i r a l f u e l demands p l u s losses i n energy u n i t s (e.g., g i g a j o u l e s )

A d d i t i o n a l demands f rom o t h e r t r ans fo rma t i on modules (i.e., energy sec to r demands)

Domestic coa l demand (1000 tonnes/year) , n o t i n c l u d i n g coking requ i rements

Domestic coke demand (1000 tonnes l yea r ) Coal i n p u t t o cok ing p roduc t i on T o t a l coa l requirements, i n c l u d i n g cok ing i n p u t s

(1000 tonnes lyear ) Product ion f rom domestic mines (1000 tonnes l yea r ) Coal/coke expo r t s (1000 tonnes) Coa l lcoke impor ts (1000 tonnes) Base year stock adjustments (1000 tonnes) Expor ts ( i m p o r t s ) o f coa l /coke i n energy u n i t s T o t a l domest ic coa l mined (energy u n i t s )

TABLE 9

COAL AND COKE MODULE EQUATIONS (Cont inued)

Equat ions

Compute requirements:

C C O L D M D ~ = f ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f , t + ESDMD~,~)/(CONVCL X 1000)

where:

COLCOKl = PDBYCK/COKEFF

T o t a l coa l p roduct ion : t

COLPRDt = PDBYCL + C (ADDi - REDi) i =2

Coal/coke impor ts and expor ts :

(base y e a r )

COLEXPl = EXBYCL + EXBYCK

COLIMP1 = IMBYCL + IMBYCK

STKADJ = COLRE41 - COLPRDl + (COLEXPI - COLIMP1)

( t > l )

COLEXPt = COLPRDt - COLREQt ( i f > 0 )

COLIMPt = COLREQt - COLPRDt ( i f > 0 )

Resource requ i rements :

COALt = (COLPRDt X CONVCL X 1000)/PRDEFF

EXPt = COLEXPt X CONVCL X 1000

IMPt = COLIMPt X CONVCK X 1000

Resul ts

As was t h e case f o r t h e Demand program, t h e ou tpu ts o f t he Transformat ion program p rov ide two types o f ou tpu t r e p o r t s . The "echo" r e p o r t s are f o rma t ted sumnaries o f t h e i n p u t data. These r e p o r t s may be compared w i t h LEAP i n p u t da ta sheets developed by t h e user, and are u s e f u l f o r documenting, checking, and c o r r e c t i n g data se ts .

The " r e s u l t s 1' r e p o r t s c o n s i s t o f f i v e sumnary t a b l e s s p e c i f y i n g resource requ i rements and t h e l i n k s t o f i n a l demands, and s p e c i a l i z e d sumnaries f o r each t rans fo rma t i on module.

The f i r s t r e s u l t s r e p o r t , End-Use Fuel Consumption (TR-l) , sumnarizes t h e q u a n t i t i e s o f r e q u i r e d enduse f u e l s as computed by t he Demand program and i s i d e n t i c a l t o r e p o r t DR-1 (see F igu re 7) . These f i g u r e s p rov ide the i n i t i a l i n p u t s t o t h e Transformat ion program by e s t a b l i s h i n g , f o r t he se lec ted demand scenar io, t h e end-use f u e l q u a n t i t i e s which must be s a t i s f i e d over t ime. The second r e p o r t (TR-2) i s shown i n F igu re 14 and i nc ludes t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n losses and t h e energy i n d u s t r y consumption.

FIGURE 14

SAMPLE REPORT: TOTAL FUEL REQUIREMENTS

COUNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: T R - 2

TOTAL FUEL REQUIREMENTS ( M I L L I O N S OF GIGAJOULES 1 INCLUDES D I S T R I B U T I O N LOSSES AND ENERGY INDUSTRY

YEAR 1 9 8 5 1 9 9 0 1995 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5

A L L SECTORS FUEL PETROL AVG AS KEROSENElJETFUEL DIESEL/GAS O I L RESIDUAL/FUELOIL LPG/BOTTLED GAS PETROCHEMICALS COAL NATURAL GAS E L E C T R I C I T Y FUEL!&CD CHARCOAL !&CD NONFUEL CROP RESIDUE DUNG U l N D SOLAR ETHANOL BIOGAS PRODUCER GAS

GRAND TOTAL:

The nex t r e p o r t (TR-3, shown i n F igu re 15) sumnarizes t h e resources r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e demands g i ven i n t h e p rev ious r e p o r t . These a re de f i ned as t h e p r imary domest ic energy sources u t i l i z e d p l u s impor ts o f bo th p r imary and secondary sources. These a re conver ted through t h e " t rans fo rma t i on processes" t o f u e l s f o r domestic consumption and expor ts .

FIGURE 15

SAMPLE REPORT: RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

COUNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: T R - 3

ENERGY RESOURCES I N M I L L I O N S OF G I G A J W L E S DOMESTIC SOURCES, IMPORTS, AND EXPORTS

YEAR 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

CRUDE O I L COAL NATURAL GAS HYDRO GEOTHERMAL MOOD FOR FUELWD WWO FOR CHARCL COMMERCIAL WOOD BlcMASS WIND/SOLAR CRUDE IMPORTS P. PRO0 IMPORTS COAL IMPORTS GAS IMPORTS ELECTRIC IMPORTS UOOD IMPORTS P. PROD EXPORTS COAL EXPORTS WOOO EXPORTS CHARCOAL EXPORTS

TOTAL DOMESTIC REQUIREMENTS:

The f o u r t h r e p o r t (TR-4 shown i n F igu re 16) again sumnarizes resource requirements f o r c e r t a i n resource ca tego r i es se lec ted by t h e user, t h i s t ime i n terms o f phys i ca l q u a n t i t i e s ,

FIGURE 16

SAMPLE REPORT: FOSSIL AND BIOMASS ENERGY REQUIREMENTS IN PHYSICAL UNITS

COUNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: T R - 4

ENERGY RESOURCES I N PHYSICAL U N I T S DOMESTIC SOURCES, IMPORTS, AND EXPORTS

CATEGORY U N I T S 1 9 8 5 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5

CRUDE O I L COAL NATURAL GAS WOOD FOR F U E L M UOoD FOR CHARCL CWMERCIAL WODO BlOMASS CRUDE IMPORTS P. P R W IMPORTS COAL IMPORTS GAS IMPORTS ELECTRIC IMPORTS WWD IMPORTS P. PROD EXPORTS COAL EXPORTS WOW EXPORTS CHARCOAL EXPORTS

THWSAND TONNES THWSAND TONNES M I L L I O N METERS3 THWSAND TONNES THOUSAND TONNES THOUSAND TONNES THOUSAND TONNES THWSAND TONNES THWSAND TONNES THOUSAND TONNES M I L L I O N M3 GWH THOUSAND TONNES THOUSAND TONNES THOUSAND TONNES THOUSAND TONNES THWSAND TONNES

The nex t r e p o r t , Aggregate Energy Balance (TR-51, i s presented i n F igu re 17. Th is r e p o r t shows the f l o w s o f resources through the t rans fo rma t i on processes t o meet t he f i n a l requirements. Here t he resources and end-use f u e l s a re aggregated i n t o user-def i ned balance sheet r e p o r t i n g ca tegor ies . The top s e c t i o n shows t h e resources and t h e i r o r i g i n s , t h e m idd le s e c t i o n shows t h e energy f l o w s i n and o u t o f t h e va r i ous t rans fo rma t i on processes, and t h e f i n a l sec t i on shows the end-use demands t h a t are met. These l a s t numbers match those f rom the Demand r e p o r t DR-3. Combining r e p o r t s DR-3 and TR-5 p rov ides a d e t a i l e d f l o w from resources through conversions t o d isaggregated end- use demand.

-56-

F IGURE 17

SAMPLE REPORT: AGGREGATE ENERGY BALANCE

COUNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: TR-5 (1985)

........ AGGREGATE ENERGY BALANCE FOR 1985 - - (MILLIONS OF GIGAJOULES

CRUDE PETRO COAL/ NATURAL HYDRO1 ELEC- COMMERC WOOD CHAR BIOMASS WINO/ TOTAL OIL PROD COKE GAS GEO/NUC TRICITY U000 FUEL COAL SOLAR *****

............................................................................................................................

INDIGENOUS .OO .OO .OO .OO 4.45 .OO 14.58 306.30 .OO 9.88 3.58 338.80 IMPORTS 143.27 10.16 2.86 2.12 .OO .79 .08 .OO .OO .OO .OO 159.29 EXPORTS .OO -44.63 .OO .OO .OO .OO - .77 .OO .OO .OO .OO -45.39

............................................................................................................................ TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 143.27 -34.47 2.86 2.12 4.45 .79 13.89 306.30 .OO 9.88 3.58 452.69 ............................................................................................................................

MILL AND HARVEST .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .00 -7.22 2.41 .OO .OO .OO -4.81 KILNS .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO -98.77 24.69 .OO .OO -74.08 BIOGAS .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO - . l 6 .OO - . l 6 ELECTRIC GENERAT .00 -5.66 .OO .OO -4.45 5.82 ,00 .00 .00 .OO .OO -4.29 OIL AND GAS -143.27 125.21 .OO .02 .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO -18.04 SMALL WIND POWER .OO .OO .00 .00 .OO .00 .OO .OO .OO .OO - .66 - .66 SOLAR COLLECTION .00 .00 .OO .OO .OO .OO .00 .OO .OO .OO -2.34 -2.34 GASIFICATION .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO - . l 1 .OO - . l 1 DIST LOSSES .OO -4.21 -.06 -.02 .OO -.79 - . l 3 -2.10 -.25 .OO .OO -7.56

TOTAL FINAL CONSUMPTION .DO 80.88 2.80 2.12 .OO 5.82 6.54 207.84 24.45 9.61 .58 340.64 .............................................................................................................................

(One r epo r t f o r each repor t ing yea r . )

The s p e c i a l i z e d r e p o r t s f o r each module (1) echo back i n p u t data i n f o r m a t i o n and ( 2 ) sumnarize t h e main ba lanc ing r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r each major conversion process. The l a t t e r " r e s u l t s " r e p o r t s are i l l u s t r a t e d below f o r a s i m p l i f i e d sample da ta s e t f o r t h e seven t r a n s f o r m a t i o n modules discussed above i n F igures 18 through 24, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

FIGURE 18

SAMPLE REPORT: WOOD MILLING AND HARVESTING MODULE

COUNTRY: KAMBIA OEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: TR-M2

..... WOOD MILLING AND HARVESTING ( THOUSAND TONNES ) - - - - -

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 MILLING

ALL WOOD MILLS DOMESTIC DEMAND 409.2 552.9 696.6 942.8 1189.0 EXPORTS-IMPORTS 35.0 42.5 50.0 55.0 60.0 . ............................. MILL WTPUT 444.2 595.4 746.6 997.8 1249.0 WASTE 74.0 74.4 62.2 83.2 104.1 FOR FUEL VOOD 74.0 124.0 186.7 249.5 312.2

.............................. RWND UOW REQ 592.2 793.9 995.5 1330.5 1665.3

ROUND WOO HARVESTING MILL REQUIREMENT 592.2 793.9 995.5 1330.5 1665.3 EXPORTS-IMPORTS 7.0 9.5 12.0 14.5 17.0

.............................. TOTAL REQUIRED 599.2 803.4 1007.5 1345.0 1682.3 WASTE 221.4 247.3 248.1 248.4 207.2 FOR FUEL WOM) 73.8 148.4 248.1 414.0 621.5

.............................. TIMBER REQUIRED 894.4 1199.1 1503.7 2007.4 2510.9

F I G U R E 19

SAMPLE REPORT: CHARCOAL K I L N MODULE

COUNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: TR-M3

..... CHARCOAL DEMAND & SUPPLY (THOUSANDS OF TONNES) - - - - -

DW.IESTIC DEMAND 746.0 1044.2 1332.0 1798.2 2261.2 EXPORTS-IMPORTS .O 15.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

.............................. TOTAL REQUIRED 746.0 1059.2 1362.0 1838.2 2311.2

K l L N OUTPUT EARTHEN K I L N 746.0 900.4 953.4 1102.9 1155.6 IMPROVED K I L N .O 132.4 340.5 597.4 924.5 RETORT K I L N - 0 26.5 68.1 137.9 231.1

.............................. TOTAL PRODUCED 746.0 1059.2 1362.0 1838.2 2311.2

F I G U R E 2 0

SAMPLE REPORT: B IOGAS MODULE

COVNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: TR-M4

..... BIOGAS PRWUCTIOH - .

BIOGAS GENERATED I N M I L L I O N S OF GIGA-JMJLES I N M I L L I O N CUBIC METERS

DIGESTER CAPACITY (THOUSAND C U B I C METERS/DAY)

DUNG USED (THOVS TONNES) BEEFIDRAUGHT D A I R Y SWINE FOUL SHEEPIGOAT HUMAN

ANIMAL SWRCES (THWSANDS) BEEFIDRAUGHT D A I R Y S U l H E FOUL SHEEPfGOAT HUMAN

DIGESTER E F F I C I E N C Y

F I G U R E 21

SAMPLE REPORT: ETHANOL MODULE

CWNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: TR-M1

..... ETHANOL DEMAND AND PRODUCTION ( M I L L I O N L I T E R S ) -.

TOTAL DEMAND .D .O . O 2 7 2 . 7

TOTAL CAPACITY .D .O .D 4 5 0 . 0

PRODUCTION (BY TYPE) FROM SUGARCANE .O .O .O 121.2 FROM MOLASSES .O . O .D 1 5 1 . 5

TOTAL .O .O .D 2 7 2 . 7

FEEDSTOCK REQUIREMENTS ( M I L L I O N TONNES) SUGARCANE .O .D .O 1 .9 MOLASSES .O .O .O .5

FIGURE 22

SAMPLE REPORT: E L E C T R I C I T Y MODULE

CWNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAUO: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: TR-M5

ELECTRICAL GENERATION (MU CAPACITY & GVH GENERATION)

TYPE I YEAR 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

ELEC. IMPORTS CAPACITY (MW) 30. 30. 80. 80. 80. GEHERAT. (GUN) 220. 237. 631. 631. 631.

HYDRO POUER CAPACITY (MW) 300. 600. 600. 850. 850. GENERAT. (GWH) 1237. 2536. 2628. 3584. 3723.

GEOTHERMAL CAPACITY (MW) 0. 0. 45. 45. 100. GENERAT. (GUH) 0. 0. 110. 0. 263.

CCMBUST TURBINES CAPACITY (MU) 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. GENERAT. (CWH) 25. 0. 0. 0. 19.

DIESEL ELEC. CAPACITY (MU) 19. 19. 20. 20. 20. GENERAT. (GUH) 25. 16. 18. 17. 18.

OIL STEAM CAPACITY (MU) 93. 93. 93. 93. 241. CEHERAT. (GUH) 330. 0. 379. 0. 1057.

COAL STEAM CAPACITY (MU) 0. 0. 0. 150. 150. GENERAT. (CWH) 0. 0. 0. 986. 986.

-TOTAL ELECTRIC- CAPACITY (MU) 464. 764. 860. 1260. 1463. GENERAT. (GUM) 1837. 2789. 3766. 5217. 6696.

RES MARGIN (MU) 164. 309. 245. 408. 370.

- . . . . - . ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION - - - - - - -

EUERGY DEMAUD (GUH) DOMESTIC 1617. 2454. 3314. 4591. 5893. T&D LOSSES 220. 335. 452. 626. 804.

TOTAL 1837. 2789. 3766. 5217. 6696.

F I G U R E 23

SAMPLE REPORT: O I L AND GAS MODULE

CWNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: TR-M6A

-..- O I L AND GAS PRODUCTION ( THOUSAND TONNES ) - - - -

YEARS 1985 1990 1995 2000

".F. SWRCES - - - IMPORTED CRUDE 3157.9 3589.5 3766.7 3216.7 DOMESTIC CRUDE .O 200.0 400.0 950.0 IMPORTED REFINED 231.2 416.7 473.1 949.2 TOTAL SOURCES 3389.1 4206.2 4639.8 5115.9

....- USES ....-- DOMESTIC DEMAND 2140.8 2736.6 3597.0 4292.0 EXPORTED REFINED 1090.4 1280.1 876.1 657.2 REFINERY LOSS 157.9 189.5 166.7 166.7 EXPORTED CRUDE .O .O .O .O TOTAL USED 3389.1 4206.2 4639.8 5115.9

REFINERY OPERATION CAPACITY 3600.0 3600.0 4000.0 4000.0 PRODUCTION 3000.0 3600.0 4000.0 4000.0

U T l L FACTOR ( X ) 83.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

-. . NATURAL GAS DEMAND AND SUPPLY ( M I L L I O N M3) - -

DOMESTIC DEMAND 53.0 90.0 126.0 213.0 DOMESTIC SUPPLY .O 63.0 126.0 213.0 NAT GAS IMPORTS 53.0 27.0 .O .O MAT GAS EXPORTS .O .O .O .O

CWNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAUD: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: T R - W 8

.... PETROLEUM PRODUCT BALANCES C THOUSAND TONNES ) - - - -

REPORTING YEAR: 1985 - - PRWUCT - - DEMAND X P R O U C T I O N + IMPORTS - PETROL 605.19 420.00 185.19 AVGAS 10.83 .OO 10.83 KEROSENEIJETFUEL 322.08 450.00 .OO DIESEL/GAS O I L 530.07 600.00 .00 R E S I D U A L I F U E L O I L 615.87 1500.00 .OO LPGIBOTTLED GAS 21.62 30.00 .OO PETROCHEMICALS 35.17 .OO 35.17

PRWUCT TOTALS 2140.84 3000.00 231.19

EXPORTS .oo .oo

127.92 69.93 884.13 8.38 .oo

1090.36

( P a r t i a l )

F I G U R E 24

SAMPLE REPORT: COAL AND COKE MODULE

COUNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRAUSFOR: BASE CASE REPORT: TR-M7

. . . F . . . COAL PROJECTIONS ( IN THWSAND TONNES - - - - - - - -

- TOTAL MINED .OO .OO 250.00 1500.00 1500.00 - MINING LOSSES .OO .OO 50.00 300.00 300.00

MET PRWUCTIDN .OO .OO 200.00 1200.00 1200.00

IMPORTS 97.64 132.27 .OO .OO .OO

BASEYEAR STK ADJ .OO

TOTAL SOURCES 97.64 132.27 200.00 1200.00 1200.00

.... REQUIREMENTS - - - -

- DIRECT USES 97.64 132.27 166.89 289.99 452.98 - FOR COKING .00 .00 .OO .OO .00 - ELECTRIC GENER. .OO .OO .OO 318.73 318.73

TOTAL DOMESTIC 97.64 132.27 166.89 608.72 771.72

- EXPORTS .OO, .OO 33.11 591.28 428.28

TOTAL REQUIRED 97.64 132.27 200.00 1200.00 1200.00

7. RESOURCE

Overview

The LEAP Resource program complements t h e Demand and Transforma- t i o n programs by p r o v i d i n g fo recas ts o f l and- re la ted resource l e v e l s . Both food and wood resource supply/demand balances are p r o j e c t e d over t ime, depending upon such f a c t o r s as n a t i o n a l and r e g i o n a l demographic land-use pa t te rns , a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y , f ood consumption l e v e l s , s tocks and y i e l d s o f wood resources on d i f f e r e n t landtypes, and wood resource p o l i c y measures.

P o l i c y measures cou ld i n c l u d e a v a r i e t y o f wood p r o j e c t s such as r u r a l woodlots, urban green b e l t s , managed f o r e s t p l a n t a t i o n s , and ag ro- fo res t r y . The program inc ludes l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s t o measure the impact o f wood resource a c c e s s i b i l i t y and i n t e r - r e g i o n a l charcoal t r a n s a c t i o n s on r e g i o n a l and n a t i o n a l supply/demand balances. S h o r t f a l l s and surp luses a re es t imated as they evolve, and app rop r i a te l and use p o l i c i e s (e.g., wood resource p r o j e c t s o r se t t l emen t schemes) can be considered.

The LEAP Resource program can be employed on a 's tand- a lone ' bas i s i f des i red, but, more t y p i c a l l y , fuelwood, charcoa l , and c o n s t r u c t i o n wood resource requirements assoc ia ted w i t h Demand and Transformat ion program scenar ios are passed t o t h e Resource program. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n on resource requirements i s then combined w i t h base year data and f o r e c a s t i n g assumptions, as i n d i c a t e d i n t he Resource program f l o w diagram o f F igu re 25.

F I G U R E 25

OVERVIEW OF RESOURCE PROGRAM

Program

Resource / ~ e q ~ ~ ~ r c r n a > t ~ I Resource

Prolectlon Data Resource

fiesource Prayram

I

The Resource program i s b u i l t on an i n v e n t o r y o f land areas, c l a s s i f i e d i n a t h r e e- l e v e l h i e ra rchy . The county ( o r o the r area) under cons ide ra t i on i s d i v i d e d i n t o reg ions, each r e g i o n i s f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o zones, and each zone i s d i v i d e d i n t o l and types. For example, t h e f i r s t l e v e l cou ld be t h e prov inces o f a count ry . The second l e v e l t y p i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e s e c o l o g i c a l zones w i t h i n a p rov ince based, f o r example, on the annual r a i n f a l l . The t h i r d l e v e l i d e n t i f i e s common land types, g e n e r a l l y based on l and usage such as smal l farming, grazing, n a t u r a l f o r e s t , e t c . As f o r t he Demand program, one s e l e c t s and names t h e reg ion, zone, and land use ca tego r i es which most u s e f u l l y r e f l e c t t he phys i cd l and economic p a t t e r n s and data a v a i l a b i l i t y i n t h e coun t r y ( o r o the r area) under cons ide ra t i on .

The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme r e f l e c t e d i n t he Resource program i s shown v i s u a l l y i n F igu re 26 f o r an i l l u s t r a t i v e s e t o f land types. Land types may be s p e c i f i e d i n as much d e t a i l as needed f o r accu ra te l y r e f l e c t i n g c u r r e n t and f u t u r e cond i t i ons . An example o f t h e k i nds o f land-use ca tego r i es t h a t may be c rea ted i s presented i n Table 10. I n s e l e c t i n g zones, a major cons ide ra t i on i s a v a i l a b i l i t y o f data. A conven ient s e t o f e c o l o g i c a l zones cou ld be (1) High P o t e n t i a l , ( 2 ) Medium P o t e n t i a l , ( 3 ) Semi-Arid, and ( 4 ) A r i d , based p r i m a r i l y on annual r a i n f a l l .

The p r o j e c t i o n o f land-use needs and t h e compe t i t i on between l and uses prov ides t h e s t r u c t u r a l f ounda t i on f o r t he eva lua t i on o f resources. Th i s a n a l y t i c framework i s use fu l , s ince t h e combined o b j e c t i v e s o f s a t i s f y i n g f u e l and food requirements f o r a growing popu la t i on , c o n t r o l l i n g t he l e v e l o f food and f o s s i l f u e l imports, and meet ing a g r i c u l t u r a l expo r t t a r g e t s can p lace competing pressures on land-use. Furthermore, i n areas where biomass i s a s i g n i f i c a n t source of f u e l s , degradat ion o f t h e s tand ing stock o f t r e e s may have complex nega t i ve repercuss ions f o r s o i l q u a l i t y , erosion, and a g r i c u l t u r a l ou tputs . Consequently, energy resource issues and p o l i c y p lann ing a re bound up w i t h a g r i c u l t u r a l , land-use, and f o r e s t r y p lann ing i n t h e count rys ide. LEAP i s s t r u c t u r e d t o r e f l e c t these i n t e r a c t i o n s .

S t r u c t u r e

The Resource program p r o j e c t i o n s are based on th ree fundamental processes: ( 1 ) l and conversions, ( 2 ) changes i n wood supply cond i t i ons , and ( 3 ) resource a l l o c a t i o n s t o meet demands. Land convers ions are t r e a t e d both through exogenous i n p u t s (wood p r o j e c t s , expansion o f a g r i c u l t u r e ) and through model- dr iven c a l c u l a t i o n s (e.g. se t t l emen t expansion based on demographic p r o j e c t i o n s ) . Supply c o n d i t i o n s are t r e a t e d through the a v a i l a b l e s tocks and annual y i e l d s a t t h e reg ion/zone/ landtype l e v e l . The a l l o c a t i o n o f wood resources, th rough bo th ha rves t i ng o f annual y i e l d s and c u t t i n g o f s tocks (where necessary) i n access ib le lands, i s c a l c u l a t e d on a r e g i o n a l basis, t a k i n g l o c a l fuelwood and charcoal demands, i n t e r - r e g i o n a l charcoal exchanges, and n a t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n wood demand i n t o account. Th is process a f f e c t s wood resources through s tock c u t t i n g and consequent

reduction of y ie lds , and through regrowth of depleted stocks when annual y ie lds exceed demand.

F I G U R E 26

LANDTYPES SAMPLE LAND D I V I S I O N S ZONES

A.High potential

1 .Urban settlement 5.Uncropped B.Medium 2.Small farms 6.Reserves potential 3.Large farms 7.Savannah C.Semi-arid 4.Natural forest 8.Desert D.Arid

National Border --- - --- Regional Boundary - --

Ecological Zone Boundary Landtype Boundary

TABLE 10

SAMPLE OF LAND TYPE SET

N a t u r a l F o r e s t *Managed F o r e s t *Woodlot P l a n t a t i o n *Urban Greenbe l t

Urban S e t t l e m e n t R u r a l S e t t l e m e n t Smal l Farm Domest i c Food Smal l Farm E x p o r t Food Smal l Farm Domest i c Non-Food Smal l Farm E x p o r t Non-Food L a r g e Farm Domest i c Food L a r g e Farm E x p o r t Food L a r g e Farm Domest ic Non-Food L a r g e Farm E x p o r t Non-Food G r a z i n g Uncropped A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Savannah Reserves Water B o d i e s P a s t o r a l D e s e r t

* p o l i c y p r o j e c t s

F i g u r e 27 i l l u s t r a t e s some o f t h e p r i m a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r wood s u p p l y w i t h i n a r e g i o n . Managed f o r e s t s a r e h a r v e s t e d t o s u p p l y c o n s t r u c t i o n wood demand, w i t h t h e r e s i d u a l made a v a i l a b l e f o r l o c a l f u e l use. Land c l e a r i n g f r o m f o r e s t c o n v e r s i o n s p r o v i d e s an a d d i t i o n a l source o f wood f u e l . A c c e s s i b l e wood g r o w t h i s used as r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e r e m a i n i n g demand w i t h i n each r e g i o n . I f t h e r e i s s u r p l u s g rowth , t h e n d e p l e t e d s t o c k s w i l l be r e p l e n i s h e d ; o t h e r w i s e t h e a c c e s s i b l e s t a n d i n g s t o c k w i l l be c u t as r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e demand. F i g u r e 28 shows t h i s p rocess i n more d e t a i l f o r n a t u r a l f o r e s t s .

Land Use Computations

The l and account ing system o f LEAP i s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . Base year data i s r e q u i r e d t o p a i n t t h e proper p i c t u r e o f t h e s p a t i a l cha rac te r- i s t i c s o f t he coun t r y ( o r o t h e r area), us ing the region/zone/ land-use area breakdowns as descr ibed e a r l i e r . The l and a l l o c a t i o n s a re v a r i e d over t ime w i t h i n t h i s s t r u c t u r e according t o t h e p lann ing and t r e n d assumptions i nco rpo ra ted i n t o a g iven land-use scenar io. I n add i t i on , se t t l emen t lands requirements are d r i v e n e x p l i c i t l y by demographic data. Set t lement lands are those occupied by such uses as b u i l d i n g s , roads, c i t y and v i l l a g e areas, and o the r " b u i l t M environments. The fundamental r e l a t i o n s h i p s are shown i n Table 11. The program performs a number o f checks on t h e reasonableness o f t h e assumption se ts (e.g., do l and conversions c a l l f o r more o f a g i ven l and use type than i s a v a i l a b l e ? ) and p rov ides messages t o gu ide t h e user i n r e v i s i o n s ,

F I G U R E 27

PRIMARY WOOD RESOURCE FLOWS

MANAGED FORESTS OTHER WOODLANDS

Construction

Regional Fraction of Construction Wood Demand

Local Fuelwood

-69-

F I G U R E 28

NATURAL FORESTS WOOD SUPPLY

Natural Forests

+ Demand

-70-

TABLE 11

LAND USE ADJUSTMENTS

Ind i ces

t Year (=l i n base year f o r Resource program) r Region z Zone i Land type

Va r i ab les ( i n p u t )

AREA

DAREA RPOP UPOP RINT UINT SOSTR

SOSTU

UAURB UARUR

Land use by reg ion, zone and l and t ype (e.g., i n 1000 hec ta res ) . I n p u t f o r base year.

Land convers ion by reg ion , zone and landtype Rura l popu la t i on by r e g i o n Urban popu la t i on by r e g i o n Rural se t t l emen t d e n s i t y Urban se t t l emen t d e n s i t y Rural se t t l emen t p r i o r i t y m a t r i x ( s p e c i f i e s 3 landtypes

i n p r i o r i t y o rde r ) Urban se t t l emen t p r i o r i t y m a t r i x ( s p e c i f i e s 3 landtypes

i n p r i o r i t y o r d e r ) T o t a l unad jus ted urban se t t l emen t l and by r e g i o n To ta l unadjusted r u r a l se t t l emen t l and by r e g i o n

Va r i ab les ( c a l c u l a t e d )

AREA Land use by reg ion, zone and landtype i n areas (e.g., 1000 hectares)

REQSTR T o t a l requ i rements f o r r u r a l s t t l emen t l and REQSTU To ta l requ i rements f o r urban se t t l emen t l and DSTR Demand f o r r u r a l se t t l emen t l and i n each zone DSTU Demand f o r urban se t t l emen t l and i n each zone ADDSTR A d d i t i o n a l requirements, r u r a l by r e g i o n ADDSTU A d d i t i o n a l requirements, urban by r e g i o n

Equat ions

A. Bas ic I t e r a t i o n

TABLE 11

LAND USE ADJUSTMENTS (Continued)

i . Settlement Land Adjustments

Total required settlement land:

Incremental requirements for settlement land by region:

(Required additions less than zero are treated as zero.)

Distribute by zone:

These incremental demands are met by converting land from the landtypes specified in the settlement priority matrix to the urban and rural settlement landtypes (SOSTU and SOSTR, respectively).

Unadjusted regional estimates:

where "it' signifies rural and urban settlement land categories in the first and second sumations, respectively.

Wood Product ion

The h e a r t o f t h e Resource program t r e a t s t h e supp ly o f and demand f o r wood on a d isaggregated s p a t i a l bas is . The program c a l c u l a t e s r e g i o n a l wood demands, and wood resource and supply, f rom each l and t y p e f o r each year. Th i s cons i s t s o f severa l d i s t i n c t sec t ions :

1. de te rm ina t i on o f demand 2. c a l c u l a t i o n o f a v a i l a b l e wood resources and 3. a l l o c a t i o n o f resources t o meet demands.

The computat ions a re descr ibed i n Tab le 12.

An impor tan t data i t e m i s t h e "wood a c c e s s i b i l i t y f r a c t i o n u

(WDACC). Th i s represents t h e maximum f r a c t i o n o f t h e y i e l d s (and s tocks ) t h a t can, i n p r i n c i p l e , be c o l l e c t e d t o meet demands. It r e f e r s t o t h e f r a c t i o n o f wood resources p o t e n t i a l l y u t i l i z a b l e under base case socio-economic c o n d i t i o n s and wood c o l l e c t i o n pat terns . Several f a c t o r s may keep these f r a c t i o n s below 1.0. F i r s t , wood resources may be f a r f rom demand centers . Second, l e g a l o r t e n u r i a l c o n s t r a i n t s may r e s t r i c t access t o l and (e.g., parks and reserves o r p r o t e c t e d p r i v a t e farmlands whose wood resources a re h e l d o f f t h e market) . Th i rd , h a r v e s t i n g t o o l s may be inadequate t o u t i l i z e whole t r ees . For example, i f f o r a g i ven l and t ype i n a g i ven zone, o n l y 60% i s c l o s e enough t o wood users t o be exp lo i t ed , and, o f t ha t , o n l y 80% i s l e g a l l y accessible, and o n l y 50% can be c u t due t o t o o l l i m i t a t i o n , then t h e a c c e s s i b i l i t y f a c t o r would be t h e product o f t hese t h r e e f a c t o r s (.6 X .8 X . 5 = .24). F i n a l l y , i n a subarea (p rov ince ) where t h e a c c e s s i b i l i t y i s near 1.0 based on t h e above cons ide ra t i ons b u t where popu la t i on d e n s i t i e s a re low, t h e r e may be i n s u f f i c i e n t demand t o u t i l i z e wood y i e l d s . The proper measure o f a c c e s s i b i l i t y i n t h i s case would be wood demand per area (popu la t i on d e n s i t y t imes wood requirements per person) d i v i d e d by average wood y i e l d s per area. T y p i c a l l y a g r i c u l t u r a l l and w i l l have an a c c e s s i b i l i t y c l ose t o 1.0, w h i l e remote f o r e s t o r bush areas would have a much lower a c c e s s i b i l i t y value.

TABLE 12

WOOD PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS

Ind i ces

t Year ( = l base year f o r Resource program) r Region z Zone i Land t ype

Va r i ab les

AREA CHWOOD CHTRAN

CNWOOD DAREA FWOOD LENCY L RPOP UPOP WDACC

WDGRW WDPRGR

WDSTK WLSTK

WLYLD WINDSK

WINDYD

( i n p u t ) l Land areas (see Table 11) Charcoal wood needs ( f r om Demand) Charcoal t r a n s p o r t a t i o n m a t r i x ( f r a c t i o n charcoal

demand i n one r e g i o n supp l i ed by another ) Cons t ruc t i on wood needs ( f rom Demand) Change i n l and areas (see Table 11) Fuelwood needs ( f r om Demand) Wood p r o j e c t c y c l e l e n g t h Regional r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n Regional urban p o p u l a t i o n Wood a v a i l a b i l i t y f r a c t i o n (maximum f r a c t i o n of

c o l l e c t i b l e wood) Annual wood growth f rom base year s tocks Wood growth s c a l i n g f a c t o r ( o p t i o n a l l y app l i ed t o

a d j u s t s tocks f o r , e.g,, b e t t e r f u t u r e f o r e s t management)

Wood s tock per l and area i n base year (e.g., tonnes/ha) Wood p r o j e c t s tock per l and area by p r o j e c t v i n tage

(e.g., tonnes/ha) Wood p r o j e c t y i e l d s per l and area (e.g., tonnes/ha) Woodlot s tand ing s tock changes (pe rm i t s e x p l i c i t

assumptions on user- designated base year wood lo ts ) Woodlot y i e l d changes (pe rm i t s e x p l i c i t assumptions

on user-designated base year wood lo ts )

Va r i ab les ( c a l c u l a t e d )

AVAIL A v a i l a b l e r e g i o n a l wood y i e l d s f rom non- pro jec t source ASTOCK Access ib le s tand ing s tock f rom land types o the r than

p r o j e c t s and managed f o r e s t s CAREA Cleared f o r e s t l and CWD Wood requirements f o r r e g i o n a l charcoa l requ i rements CWDTOT Wood f o r r e g i o n a l charcoa l p roduc t i on ( i n c l u d e s

e f f e c t s o f r e g i o n a l expo r t s and impor t s )

TABLE 12

WOOD PKODUCTION CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

CWNATS Cons t ruc t i on wood n a t i o n a l supp l i es CWYLD Cons t ruc t i on wood y i e l d s ( f r o m "managed f o r e s t s " ) CONWD Product ion requ i rements f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n wood by reg ion CWS Const ruc ion wood supp ly by r e g i o n EXCESS Unused y i e l d s a v a i l a b l e FRCUT F r a c t i o n o f a v a i l a b l e s tocks c u t ( f r om non- p ro jec t l and

types FWD Fuelwood requirements by r e g i o n REG C o n t r i b u t i o n t o woodcut f r a c t i o n (WDCUT) f rom stock

regene ra t i on RFRAC F r a c t i o n o f a v a i l a b l e supp l i es f rom non-wood p r o j e c t

lands t h a t a re harvested SFRAC R a t i o o f t o t a l n a t i o n a l wood shortage t o n a t i o n a l

p r o j e c t surp luses STAND Standing wood s tock by reg ion, zone, and l and type STOCK Standing wood SUPPLY Wood supp l i ed t o meet demands f rom va r i ous l and types SURPL Regional surp luses o f a v a i l a b l e wood WDCUT F r a c t i o n woodstocks c u t ( i n i t i a l l y zero, up t o a maximum

o f WDACC) WLVINT Wood p r o j e c t l and areas by v i n tage ( r o l l e d over

a t c y c l e end) WNEED Wood requirements t o meet r e g i o n a l fuelwood and charcoal

p roduc t i on requirements WOODY A v a i l a b l e wood y i e l d WPT To ta l supp l i es f rom wood p r o j e c t s WYM Maximum a v a i l a b l e sus ta inab le supp ly ( i n c l u d e s

e f f e c t s o f p rev ious c u t t i n g ) YMAX Maximum sus ta inab le growth assuming no wood stock

reduc t i ons

Equat ions

A) Regional Wood Demands

Compute end-use fuelwood requ i rements :

FWDr,t = (RPOPr,t/~RPOPr,t) X FWOODt r

-75-

TABLE 12

WOOD PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Wood f o r charcoa l :

CWDr,t = (UPOPr,t/CUPOPr ,t) X CHWOODt r

Adjustment f u r t h e r f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f charcoal f rom one r e g i o n t o another:

(Regional c o n s t r u c t i o n wood demands a re c a l c u l a t e d below.)

B) Regional Wood Resources

Standing wood s tock :

(Note: For l and types where user has chosen t o e x p l i c i t l y en te r f u t u r e s tock l eve l s , s u b s t i t u t e WINDSKr,,,i,t f o r WDSTK here and i n equat ions below.)

Wood s tock over zones:

Maximum sus ta inab le y i e l d s (assuming no stock r e d u c t i o n ) :

YMAXr,z, i, t = AREAr,z, i, t X WDGRWr, z, i

X WDPRGRi,t

For l and types i n which user has chosen t o e x p l i c i t l y en te r f u t u r e y i e l d s :

Fo ld i n woodcut f r a c t i o n t o compute ac tua l y i e l d s (equat ions f o r WDCUT a r e below):

TABLE 12

WOOD PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Access ib le y i e l d s :

WOODYr, i ,t = 1 YMAXr,Z, i, t X CWDACCr, ,, i - WDCUTr, ,, i ,tI Z

For t he spec ia l case o f t h e l and type l abe led w i t h "FUN" (unmanaged n a t u r a l f o r e s t s ) , i t i s assumed t h a t up t o h a l f t h e access ib le s tocks may be removed ( t h i nned ) w i t h o u t decreasing y i e l d s , i.e., t h e WDCUT term i n t h e above equat ion i s rep laced by FCUT i n t he f o l l o w i n g fash ion ( w i t h i n d i c e s suppressed):

I f WDCUT < WDACCIP

Then FCUT = 0

E lse FCUT = 2 X (WDCUT - WDACCl2)

C) Wood Resources f rom Wood P r o j e c t s

Wood p r o j e c t s a re cha rac te r i zed by a l i f e c y c l e t ime, LENCYL, and assoc ia ted s tocks and y i e l d vec tors , WLSTK and WLYLD. Another v a r i a b l e a l s o keeps t rack o f t h e l and areas o f va r i ous types and vintages, WLVINT.

Compute s tock and y i e l d s : t

( " V " s i g n i f i e s v in tage, i - e . , year o f p r o j e c t i n i t i a t i o n )

D) Supp l ies

Cons t ruc t i on wood i s a spec ia l ca tegory which i s supp l i ed o n l y f rom t h e l and type w i t h i = "FMG" ( f o r e s t managed).

Compute t o t a l n a t i o n a l y i e l d :

CWYLDt = XWOODYr, i,t (where i r e s t r i c t e d t o managed r f o r e s t s )

TABLE 12

WOOD PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Na t i ona l supp l i es (CWNATSt) a re s e t a t minimum o f y i e l d s (CWYLD) and requirements (CNWOODt).

A l l o c a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n wood p roduc t i on requ i rements and supp l i es by reg ion :

Fuelwood requirements ( f o r bo th d i r e c t burn ing and charcoal p roduc t i on ) f o r each reg ion :

Fuelwood supp l i es f rom va r i ous sources.

F i r s t , f rom wood p r o j e c t s :

SUPPLYr,i,t = WOODYr,i,t f o r i = Wood P r o j e c t s

Then f rom c leared, unmanaged f o r e s t s ("FUN") n o t conver ted t o managed f o r e s t types ("FMG", "MNFR", "MFFR"), a wood supp ly c r e d i t i s taken.

Cleared area:

CAREAr,z,t = DAREAr,z, i=FUN, t ' ?DAREAr,z,i ,t 1

( f o r i = managed f o r e s t i n sumnation)

Then supp l i es f rom wood c l e a r i n g :

TABLE 12

WOOD PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Next, wood f rom remain ing l and types i s considered.

Supply f rom access ib le y i e l d s :

Harvested supply:

where RFRAC i s t h e r a t i o o f remain ing wood requirements (WNEED l e s s supp l i es f rom wood p r o j e c t s and f o r e s t c l e a r i n g ) d i v i d e d by a v a i l a b l e supp l i es (AVAIL) unless t h i s r a t i o i s g rea te r than 1.0 i n which case RFRAC = 1.0.

I f wood demand s t i l l remains, t h e penu l t imate source o f supply i s f rom c u t t i n g t h e s tand ing t r e e s tocks f rom non-managed and non-wood p r o j e c t landtypes.

T o t a l s tocks a v a i l a b l e f rom non wood p r o j e c t l and types:

Supp l ies f rom s tocks a l l o c a t e d t o l and types:

where FRCUT i s t h e r a t i o o f remain ing needs (WNEED l e s s supp l i es a l ready computed) d i v i d e d by a v a i l a b l e s tocks (ASTOCK) un less t h i s r a t i o i s g r e a t e r than 1.0 i n which case FRCUT = 1.0.

I f a s h o r t f a l l remains (WNEED g r e a t e r than sum o f supp l i es ) , a f i n a l adjustment a l l ows f o r t h e shipment o f wood p r o j e c t surp luses f rom one r e g i o n t o another.

TABLE 12

WOOD PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

+

T o t a l wood p r o j e c t supp l i es :

WPTr,t = CSUPPLYr,i,t (over wood p r o j e c t s ) i

T o t a l su rp lus a v a i l a b l e (no s tock c u t t i n g ) :

EXCESSr,t = AVAILr,t X (1-RFRACr,t)

I f EXCESS 2 WPT, t h e su rp lus a v a i l a b l e t o o t h e r reg ions i s equal t o t o t a l wood p r o j e c t supp l i es (SURPL = WPT). If EXCESS < WPT, then o n l y a p o r t i o n o f p r o j e c t supp l i es i s a v a i l a b l e t o o t h e r reg ions (SURPL = EXCESS). O f course, SURPL = 0 when t h e r e i s s tock c u t t i n g .

Then t h e n a t i o n a l t o t a l su rp lus (TOTSURt = cSURPLr,t) and s h o r t f a l l (TSHORTt) are compared:

SFRACt = TSHORTt/TOTSURt ( o r 1.0 whichever i s l e s s )

And t h e wood supp ly f rom va r i ous l and types i s increased t o make up f o r p r o j e c t ou tpu ts expor ted t o o the r reg ions :

SUPPLYr, i ,t = SFRACt X SURPLr, t/EXCESSr, t

X [WOODYr, i ,t - SUPPLYr, i ,tI

The p r o j e c t surp luses a re a l l o c a t e d t o o t h e r reg ions i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i r share o f t he n a t i o n a l shortage.

E ) Wood C u t t i n g and Regenerat ion

Compute f r a c t i o n o f o r i g i n a l s tand ing s tock removed i t e r a t i v e l y :

WDCUTr, Z, i ,t = WDCUTr, z, i ,t-l + FRCUTr,t

X (WDACCr,z,i - WDCUTrYZ,i,t-1)

- REGr,z,i,t

( no te WDCUT 5 WDACC) --

-80-

TABLE 12

WOOD PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

where REG c o r r e c t s f o r p o s s i b l e regene ra t i on :

REGr,Z,i,t = (WOODYr,i,t - SUPPLYr,i,t)/(WDSTKr,z9i

X AREAr,z,i, t = l )

(REG computed o n l y i f g rea te r than zero)

A g r i c u l t u r e Product ion

Th is p a r t o f t h e Resource program computes gross n a t i o n a l a g r i c u l t u r a l balances based on assumptions about t rends i n popu la t i on growth, n u t r i t i o n a l improvement, land-use pa t te rns , p r o d u c t i v i t y , and a g r i c u l t u r a l expor ts . The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s p a r t o f t h e program i s t o p rov ide a cross-check on t h e cons is tency o f energy scenar ios w i t h t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f food p o l i c y and land-use requirements over t ime. A more d e t a i l e d ba lanc ing o f a g r i c u l t u r e resources and requirements i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e A g r i c u l t u r e program (descr ibed below i n Chapter 9).

The p r imary c a l c u l a t i o n s are shown i n Table 13. The program f i r s t compares p r o j e c t i o n s o f a g r i c u l t u r a l ou tpu ts t o requirements, t a k i n g i n t o account assumed t rends i n land-use, c a l o r i c in take, and a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y . P r o j e c t i o n s o f expor ts and impor ts are computed. Though t h e a lgo r i t hms a r e n o t e x p l i c i t l y shown on Table 13, LEAP a l lows f o r scenar ios i n which lands p r i m a r i l y devoted t o a g r i c u l t u r a l p roduc t i on a re converted t o combined food and woodfuel (and perhaps fodde r ) p roduc t i on through va r i ous "agro f o r e s t r y " programs. Adjustments t o both food and woodfuel y i e l d s from such convers ions may be r e f l e c t e d i n program i n p u t s as exp la ined i n t he LEAP User 's Guide.

TABLE 13

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS

Ind i ces

t Year (=l base year f o r Resource program) r Region z Zone i A g r i c u l t u r a l l and types

Va r i ab les ( i n p u t )

AREA

AGFPRD

AGFEXP

AGNFEX

AGPRGR

BY IMP POP CIGR

Land area by reg ion, zone, and a g r i c u l t u r a l l and types (computed i n o t h e r Resource subprograms)

Base year t o t a l food crop p roduc t i on ( i n thousand tonnes) by a g r i c u l t u r a l l and t y p e

Base year f ood crop expor ts ( i n thousand tonnes) by a g r i c u l t u r a l l and type

Base year non- food a g r i c u l t u r a l expo r t s ( i n thousand tonnes) by a g r i c u l t u r a l l and type

A g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y index, measures ou tpu t per u n i t a rea (e.g., tonnes/ha) indexed t o 1.0 i n base year

Base year n a t i o n a l food impor ts ( thousand tonnes) Popu la t ion (passed f rom o t h e r Resource subprograms) C a l o r i c i n t a k e m u l t i p l i e r (base year = 1.0) r e f l e c t i n g

changes i n per c a p i t a food consumption f rom base year l e v e l S

Va r i ab les ( c a l c u l a t e d )

FPROD T o t a l f ood p roduc t i on ( i n c l uding food expo r t s ) FEXP T o t a l food expo r t s NFEXP T o t a l non- food expo r t s DCON Domestic ( n a t i o n a l ) food consumption PROD T o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l p roduc t i on AGLAND T o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l l and by l and t ype FIMP Pro jec ted food impor ts (=BYIMP i n base yea r ) AVPROD Average aggregate p r o d u c t i v i t y ( o u t p u t / u n i t area) OPIND Output i n d i c a t o r f o r change i n aggregate p r o d u c t i v i t y

-82-

TABLE 13

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Compute t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r e p roduc t i on i n base year :

FPRODl = CAGFPRDi

Domestic food demand:

DCONl = FPRODl + BYIMP - FEXPl

DCONt = CIGRt X (POPt/POPl) X DCONl

T o t a l l and devoted t o a g r i c u l t u r a l landtype:

AGLANDi , t = C AREAr, ,, j , t r,z

A g r i c u l t u r a l p roduc t i on :

FPRODt = C(AGLANDi, t/AGLANDi, 1) X AGPRGRi ,t X AGFPRDi i

FEXPt = C(AGLANDi, t)AGLANDi, 1 ) X AGPRGRi ,t X AGFEXPj i

NFEXPt = z(AGLANDi, t/AGLANDi, 1) X AGPRGRi ,t X AGNFEXj i

PRODt = FPRODt + FEXPt + NFEXPt

FIMPt = DCONt - (FPRODt - FEXPt)

Aggregate change i n a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y :

AVPRODt = (FPRODt + NFEXPt)/CAGLANDi,t i

Resu l t s

I n t h e standard fash ion, t h e Resource program ou tpu ts are organ ized i n t o two sets. The s i x "echo" r e p o r t s p rov ide sumnaries o f t h e i n p u t data. The " r e s u l t s " r e p o r t s c o n s i s t o f f o u r sumnary t ab les .

The f i r s t r e s u l t s r e p o r t , Land Use P r o j e c t i o n s (RR- l), sumnarizes t h e l and area breakdowns by reg ion, zone, and l and t ype as w e l l as p r o v i d i n g n a t i o n a l aggregates. A p a r t i a l sample i s presented i n F igu re 29. The second r e p o r t , A g r i c u l t u r e P r o j e c t i o n s (RR-21, shows t h e l and areas devoted t o a g r i c u l t u r e , as w e l l as es t imates o f a g r i c u l t u r a l p roduct ion , and p r o j e c t i o n s o f food imports, expor ts , and requ i rements (see F i g u r e 30 f o r a sample). The t h i r d s e t o f r epo r t s , Wood Stocks and Supp l ies (RR-31, p rov ides a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f wood resources and p roduc t i on f o r each r e p o r t i n g year as i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 31. The f o u r t h r e p o r t , Wood Supply and Demand Balances (RR-41, i s a supp ly and demand balance t a b l e which sumnarizes t h e sources o f wood demand and supp ly and es t imates supp ly s h o r t f a l l s as i l l u s t r a t e d f o r a s i n g l e subarea i n F igu re 32.

FIGURE 29

SAMPLE REPORT: LAND USE PROJECTIONS

COUNTRY: KAMEIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE RESWRCE: B a s e C a s e

REPORT: RR- 1 (R IFT VALLEY PROV)

LAND USE PROJECTIONS FOR R I F T VALLEY ( 1000 HECTARES )

ZONE I LANDTYPE 1985 1990 1995

HIGH POTENTIAL 2626. LARGE FARM FOOD 124. 299. 474. L F EXP: TMP CPS 85. 115. 145. L F EXP: PRM CPS 48. 98. 148. LARGE FARM UNCV 1288. 1027. 766. SMALL FARM FOOD 117. 192. 267. SF EXP: TMP CPS 3. 3. 3. SF EXP: PRM CPS 4. 4. 4. SMALL FARM UNCV 403. 308. 212. URBAN SETTLEMENT 7. 13. 19. RURAL SETTLEMENT 72. 92. 113. PARKSIRESERVES 87. 87. 87. NATURAL FOREST 286. 286. 286. VOODLOT 15. 15. 15. CDMMERC. FOREST 87. 87. 87.

MEDIUM POTENTIAL 832. LARGE FARM FOOD 36. 36. 36. L F EXP: TMP CPS 30. 30. 30. LARGE FARM UNCV 410. 404. 398. SMALL FARM FOOD 16. 16. 16. SF EXP: TMP CPS 1. 1. 1. URBAN SETTLEMENT 1. 2. 3. RURAL SETTLEMENT 20. 26. 32. PARKS/RESERVES 28. 28. 28. NATURAL FOREST 183. 183. 183. RANGELAND 107. 106. 105.

LGU POTENTIAL 13425. URBAN SETTLEMENT l. 1. 2. PARKS/RESERVES 447. 447. 447. NATURAL FOREST 183. 183. 183. SAVANNAH BUSH 6795. 6794. 679L : SAVANNAH GRASS 5999. 5999. 5999.

ALL ZONES 16883. LARGE FARM FOOD 160. 335. 510. L F EXP: TMP CPS 115. 145. 175. L F EXP: PRM CPS 48. 98. 148. LARGEFARMUNCV 1698. 1431. 1164. SMALL FARM FOOD 133. 208. 283. SF EXP: TMP CPS 4. 4. 4. SF EXP: PRM CPS 4. 4. 4.

PROV

SMALL FARM UNCV 403. 308. 212. 114. 16. URBAN SETTLEMENT 8. 16. 24. 38. 52. RURAL SETTLEMENT 92. 118. 145. 175. 204. PARKS/RESERVES 562. 562. 562. 562. 562. NATURAL FOREST 653. 653. 653. 653. 653.

( P a r t i a l )

F I G U R E 30

SAMPLE REPORT: AGRICULTURAL PROJECTIONS

COVNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE RESOURCE: B a s e C a s e

REPORT: RR- 2

---.- AGRICULTURAL PROJECTIONS - - - -

1 9 8 5 1 W O 1 W 5 2000 2005 AREAS ( 1 0 0 0 HECTARES )

LARGE FARM FOOD L F EXP: TMP CPS L F EXP: PRH CPS LARGE FARH UNCV SMALL FARH FOOD SF EXP: TMP CPS SF EXP: PRM CPS SMALL FARM UNCV AGRO-FORESTRY

TOTAL AGRIC. LAND

FMX) SOURCES PROD FOR HOME MKT

(THWSAND TONNES) FOOD IMPORTS

(THWSAND TONNES)

F020 CONSUMPTION TO lAL REQUIREMENIS

( IHWSAND TONNES) AVER. PER CAPITA

(CALORIES/DAY)

AGRICULTURE EXPORTS (THWSAND TONNES)

RELATIVE PRWUCTION (PER LAND UNIT )

FIGURE 31

SAMPLE REPORT: WOOD STOCKS AND S U P P L I E S

COUNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE RESOURCE: Base Case

REPORT: RR-3 (RIFT VALLEY PROV)

UOOO STOCKS AND SUPPLIES (MILLION TONNES) FOR RIFT VALLEY PROV

1985 1990 1995 2000 SOURCE BY LANDTYPE: STOCK SUPPLY STOCK SUPPLY STOCK SUPPLY STOCK SUPPLY

LARGE FARM FOOD 1.61 . l 1 3.15 .26 3.94 .42 3.45 .61 LF EXP: TMP CPS 1.15 .08 1.33 . l 1 1.32 . l 4 1.01 . l 8 LF EXP: PRM CPS .51 .03 .94 .08 1.16 . l 2 1.01 . l 8 LARGE FARM UNCV 17.02 1.12 12.90 1.06 8.43 .90 4.09 .73 SMALL FARM FOCO 1.27 .04 1.91 .08 2.38 . l 1 2.56 . l5 SF EXP: TMP CPS .04 .OO .04 .OO .03 .OO .03 .OO SF EXP: PRM CPS .04 .OO .04 .OO .03 .OO .03 .OO SMALLFARMUNCV 3.95 . l 3 2.88 . l 1 1.81 .08 .83 .05 URBAN SETTLEMENT .04 .OO .09 .OO . l 3 .OO .20 .OO RURAL SETTLEMENT 1 .01 . l 4 .01 . l 4 .O1 . l 1 .02 PARKVRESERVES 12.65 .05 12.51 .07 12.24 .09 11.83 . l 2 NATURAL FOREST 69.28 .27 68.49 .40 67.04 .53 64.79 .69 VOM)LOT 2.30 .24 2.30 .24 2.30 .24 2.30 .24 COMMERC. FOREST 13.79 .33 13.79 .44 13.79 .55 13.79 .74 SAVANNAH BUSH 146.77 2.84 138.36 4.02 122.99 5.09 99.12 6.70 SAVANNAHGRASS 29.99 .50 28.28 .75 25.14 .W 20.26 1.34 RANGELAND 2.32 .07 2.09 . l 0 1.69 . l 3 1.08 . l 6

....- ..... .-... -.... ..... -.... ..... ...-. .-- TOTALS - - - 302.85 5.83 289.22 7.74 264.57 9.41 226.49 11.90

DEMAND ON RESOURCES 5:83 7.74 9.41 11.90

SUPPLY SHORTFALL .OO .OO .OO .OO

ANNUAL WOOD GRGWTH ACCESSIBLE 4.14 3.87 3.29 2.53 TOTAL 8.36 8.06 7.44 6.67

2005 STOCK SUPPLY

(One Subarea Shown)

F I G U R E 32

SAMPLE REPORT: WOOD SUPPLY AND DEMAND BALANCES

CWNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: BASE CASE RESWRCE: Base Case

REPORT: RR-4 (RIFT VALLEY PROV)

bXXX) SUPPLY AND DEMAND BALANCES FOR RIFT VALLEY PROV

1985 1990 1995 2000 USE CATEGORY - FUEL COMM/ FUEL COMM/ FUEL COMM/ FUEL COMM/

WOOO CONST UOOD CONST CONST VOOD CONST

DEMANO ON WOOO RESWRCES FROM WITHIN AREA 3.80 5.26 6.54 8.42 FROM OTHER AREAS 1.70 '2.05 2.32 2.74 ........................................

TOTAL 5.50 .33 7.30 .44 8.86 .55 11.16 .74

SUPPLY SOURCES VoOD PROJ YIELDS .OO .OO .OO .OO

2005 FUEL COMM/ WOOD CONST

OTHER YIELDS 3.64 .33 3.30 .44 2.60 .55 1.49 .74 .24 .92 OTHER STOCKS 1.82 4.01 6.26 9.67 .OO

.................................................. TOTAL 5.50 .33 7.30 .44 8.86 .55 11.16 .74 .24 .92

SHORTFALL .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO 12.97 .OO

(One Subarea Shown)

P a r t 111: THE MACRO PROGRAMS

LEAP i s a p rospec t i ve system: i t t r a c k s t h e energy p i c t u r e i n a g i ven coun t r y ( o r r e g i o n ) over t ime. As such i t r e q u i r e s many assumptions about t h e f u t u r e course o f t h e economy o f t h e area under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n order t o p rov ide a s e l f - c o n s i s t e n t scenar io o f e v o l v i n g demographic and economic pa t te rns , an a n c i l l a r y s e t o f t h r e e "Macro Programs" has been developed f o r use w i t h LEAP ( o r as a stand- a lone system).

The Macro programs -- Demographic, A g r i c u l t u r e , and Economic -- may be run sepa ra te l y o r l i n k e d together f o r a more comprehensive ana l ys i s . The f u l l procedure i s t o run t h e Demographic program t o c a l c u l a t e popu la t i on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , then t h e A g r i c u l t u r e program t o c a l c u l a t e a g r i c u l t u r a l p roduct ion , impor ts and expor ts , and f i n a l l y t h e Economic program t o develop economic scenar ios i n l i g h t o f t h e o t h e r r e s u l t s .

Whi le i t o f f e r s a s e l f - c o n s i s t e n t scenar io o f economic and demographic i n p u t s t o t h e r e s t o f LEAP, runn ing t h e Macro system i s e n t i r e l y o p t i o n a l . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e requ i red i n p u t s may be i n t roduced d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e core programs. The dec i s i on t o use one o r more o f t h e macro programs i s i n f l u e n c e d by t h e q u a l i t y o f e x i s t i n g demographic and economic i n fo rma t i on .

8. DEMOGRAPHIC

The Demographic program s imula tes i n a d e t a i l e d f ash ion a c o u n t r y ' s o r group o f c o u n t r i e s ' popu la t i on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and growth over an extended t ime per iod . I t can e i t h e r stand a lone o r be used along w i t h t h e A g r i c u l t u r e and Economic programs. The Demographic program performs a coho r t based popu la t i on ana l ys i s , by break ing t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i n t o d i s t i n c t age groups (male and female) cha rac te r i zed by g roup- spec i f i c f e r t i l i t y , m o r t a l i t y and m i g r a t i o n ra tes . D i v i s i o n i n t o reg ions and u rban / ru ra l i s a l so t r e a t e d i n t h e ana lys is . F i n a l l y , urban and r u r a l household f o rma t i on i s c a l c u l a t e d f o r each reg ion .

The program proceeds year-by-year, t o c a l c u l a t e new b i r t h s , deaths, and s u r v i v a l r a tes , a p p r o p r i a t e l y aging t h e popu la t i on f rom coho r t t o cohor t . The number o f urban and r u r a l households i n each r e g i o n i s then de r i ved f rom t h e c a l c u l a t e d popu la t i ons by means o f household s i z e t r ends s p e c i f i e d by t h e user.

The data (and r e s u l t s ) can be s p e c i f i e d along severa l dimensions:

1 ) sex (male/ female) 2 ) age group (up t o 18 coho r t s ) 3 ) subarea (up t o 9) 4 ) se t t l emen t ( u r b a n / r u r a l ) 5 ) t ime.

C a l c u l a t i o n s beg in f rom a base year -- g e n e r a l l y t h e most recen t year o f d e t a i l e d demographic data, which need no t correspond t o t he Core program base year. C e r t a i n data such as f e r t i l i t y and m o r t a l i t y r a t e s a re s p e c i f i e d both f o r t h e base year and a des ignated f u t u r e year. The values f o r i n te rmed ia te years a re l i n e a r l y i n t e r p o l a t e d f rom the s p e c i f i e d values. The age cohor ts and subregions are s t r u c t u r e d t o correspond most conven ien t l y t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a v a i l a b l e da ta and t o match t h e r e g i o n a l breakdowns which t h e user may have s t r u c t u r e d i n t o t he LEAP core program scenar ios.

The mathematical r e l a t i o n s i n t he Demographic model are sumnarized i n Table 14. L i v e b i r t h s are computed i n terms o f f e r t i l i t y l e v e l s and trends. S u r v i v a l r a t e s a re a p p l i e d and m i g r a t i o n p a t t e r n s i nc luded t o a r r i v e a t popu la t i on and household est imates.

TABLE 14

DEMOGRAPHIC PROGRAM CALCULATIONS

t Year ( = l i n base yea r ) c Cohorts S Female/male ( l = fema le ) r Regions ("subareas") U Urban/ rura l ( l =u rban )

I Var iab les ( i n p u t )

SURV

COH

FERT

FFERT

UHSIZE, RHS I ZE

POPBY UPOPBY URBFRA RMIGR

ASMIGR

Cohort s u r v i v a l r a t e : f r a c t i o n o f those who en te r a coho r t who s u r v i v e t o en te r t h e nex t one ( b y subarea)

Number o f years i n each coho r t (e.g., i f a coho r t i s age 15-20, then va lue i s 6 )

F e r t i l i t y : average annual l i v e b i r t h s per female i n subarea and coho r t

F e r t i l i t y m u l t i p l i e r sca les t h e base year f e r t i l i t i e s ( = l i n base yea r )

Urban ( r u r a l ) persons per household Base year popu la t i on by cohor t , sex, and subarea Base year urban popu la t i on by subareas F r a c t i o n o f each subarea 's popu la t i on t h a t i s urban Annual m i g r a t i o n f o r each subregion expressed as a f r a c t i o n

o f n a t i o n a l popu la t i on (+/- f o r i n f l o w / o u t f l o w ) Age/sex m i g r a t i o n f r a c t i o n s : p r o p o r t i o n o f migrants

which f a l l i n t o each coho r t by sex (sum t o 1.0)

Va r i ab les ( c a l c u l a t e d )

POP Popu la t i on by reg ion, cohor t , sex ( = POPBY f o r t = l ) BIRTHS Number o f b i r t h s i n subarea BABES Number o f b i r t h s i n subarea by sex ASURV Annual s u r v i v a l r a t e POPS Number o f s u r v i v o r s i n t o t h e nex t year POPM Regional popu la t i on a f t e r m i g r a t i o n POPIN Popu la t ion e n t e r i n g coho r t annua l l y ( b y cohor t ,

sex, and subarea) POPWOM Na t i ona l popu la t i on be fo re t a k i n g account o f m i g r a t i o n POPNAT Na t i ona l popu la t i on REGPOP Popula t ion by subarea MIGR Net m i g r a t i o n i n t o o r o u t o f r e g i o n UPOP, RPOP Urban ( r u r a l ) popu la t i on

URBHH, RURHH Urban ( r u r a l ) households

TABLE 14

DEMOGRAPHIC PROGRAM CALCULATIONS (Continued)

Equations

Compute births:

BIRTHSr,t = FFERTt X FEKTr,c X POPr,c,s,t,l (s=l)

and assign to female and male births

BABESr,s,t = BIRTHSr,t X { '49 for S = .51

Annual survival rate:

ASURVr,c,s,t = 1.0 - (1 - SURVr,c,~,t)/COHc

and survivors:

I POPSr,c,s,t = ASURVr,c,s, t X POPr,c,s, t-l

POPWOMt = C POPSr,c,S,t r,c,s

1 Net migration:

I MIGRr,t = RMIGRr,t X POPWOMt

I allocated to age cohort by sex to adjust population:

POPMr,c,s,t = POPSr,c,s,t + ASMIGRc,S X MIGRr,t

Approximate population entering cohort in year t:

POPINr,c,s,t = (POPMr,c-l, s,t/COHc-1 + POPMr,c,s,tlCOHc)li

Population becomes:

-92-

TABLE 14

DEMOGRAPHIC PROGRAM CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

except f o r spec ia l f i r s t cohor t :

POP,, 1, S, t = POPMr, 1, S, t + BABE%, S, t - POPINr,2,s, t

Regional popu la t i ons :

Urban and r u r a l popu la t i ons :

UPOPr,t = URBFRAr,t X REGPOPr,t

RPOPr,t = REGPOPr,t - UPOPr,t

where URBFRAr,l = UPOPt3Yr/REGPOPr,l

Households:

URBHH,, = UPOPr,t/UHSIZEt

RURHHr,t = RPOP, ,t/RHSIZEt

Resul ts

The Demographic program produces s i x r e p o r t s . Three a re "echo" r e p o r t s p r o v i d i n g fo rma t ted sumnaries o f i n p u t data. They are p r i m a r i l y used f o r c o r r e c t i n g and documenting runs. Samples o f t h e t h r e e " r e s u l t s " r e p o r t s which s u m a r i z e t h e ou tpu ts o f t he demographic computat ions are presented below.

The f i r s t (PR-1) d i s p l a y s t he p r o j e c t i o n s o f popu la t i on by subarea and coho r t f o r each o f t h e " r e p o r t i n g years" se lec ted by t h e user ( o u t p u t f o r a s i n g l e year i s presented i n F i g u r e 33). The second (PR-2) g i ves p r o j e c t i o n s and growth r a t e s f o r t o t a l , urban, and r u r a l popu la t i ons f o r each subarea sepa ra te l y and f o r t h e whole coun t r y ( o r r e g i o n ) as i l l u s t r a t e d i n F igu re 34. The t h i r d (PR-3) prov ides s i m i l a r i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t he number o f households r a t h e r than popu la t i on (see F igu re 35 f o r a sample).

FIGURE 33

SAMPLE REPORT: POPULATION BY SUBAREA AND COHORT

COHORTS 0 - 4 5 - 9

1 0 - 14 15 - 19 2 0 - 24 25 - 29 3 0 - 34 3 5 - 39 4 0 - 44 45 - 49 5 0 - 54 5 5 - 5 9 6 0 - 6 4 6 5 - 6 9 7 0 - 74 75 - 79 8 0 - 84

TOTALS

CASE : - DECLINING MORTALITY. DECLINING FERTILITY . REPORT: PR-1 ( 1 9 7 9 )

***g BASE YEAR DATA ECHO REPORT * * * *

- - - - - 1979 REGIONAL POPULATION ( THOUSANDS )

NAIROBI NYANZA N-EAST EAST CENTRAL COAST

123. 493. 61 . 507. 439. 235. 9 0 . 426 . 57 . 452. 409. 205. 6 9 . 378 . 53 . 378. 356. 151. 88 . 320 . 46. 309. 264. 139.

133. 218 . 36 . 213. 168. 130. 108. 164. 26. 173. 138. 112. 7 3 . 127. 24. 138. 115. 85 . 45 . 9 9 . 15. 102. 91 . 6 6 . 34 . 9 3 . 18. 94 . 75. 55 . 2 4 . 8 7 . 9 . 73 . 59. 46. 16. 6 7 . 11. 78 . 53 . 35 . 10. 5 2 . 4 . 52 . 42. 25. 6 . 42 . 7 . 41 . 35 . 20.

CASE C4

WEST RIFT TOTAL

FIGURE 34

SAMPLE REPORT: SUMrlARY POPULATION PROJECTIONS

CASE : - DECLINING MORTALITY. DECLINING FERTILITY - CASE C4 REPORT: PR-2

- - - SUMMARY POPULATION PROJECTIONS ( THOUSANDS ) - - - -

YEAR

1979 URBAN RURAL

TOTAL

1980 URBAN RURAL

TOTAL

1985 URBAN RURAL

TOTAL

1990 URBAN RURAL

TOTAL

1995 URBAN RURAL

TOTAL

NAIROBI

828. 0 .

828.

882. 0 .

882.

1190. 0 .

1190.

1549. 0 .

1549.

1935. 0 .

1935.

NYANZA

208. 2436. 2644.

245. 2493. 2738.

459. 2749. 3208.

728. 2968. 3696.

1058. 3161. 4219.

EAST

233. 2479. 2712.

250. 2559. 2809.

347. 2976. 3323.

468. 3436. 3904.

618. 3950. 4568.

CENTRAL

129. 2217. 2346.

139. 2293. 2432.

201. 2716. 2916.

282. 3233. 3516.

390. 3859. 4249.

CDAST

407. 936.

1343.

446. 968.

1415.

683. 1127. 1811.

991. 1266. 2257.

1371. 1365. 2736.

WEST

106. 1727. 1833.

121. 1772. 1893.

210. 1993. 2202.

321. 2218. 2539.

459. 2454. 2914.

2000 URBAN 2330. 1459. 212. 801. 529. 1821. 630 RURAL 0 . 3330. 398. 4517. 4584. 1414. 2704

TOTAL 2330. 4789. 610. 5318. 5113. 3236. 3333

4VERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES 1979 - 2000

URBAN 5.05% 9.72% 6 . 18% 6.05% 6.95% 7.40% 8.87% RURAL 0.00% 1.50% 1.14% 2.90% 3.52% 1.99% 2.16%

TOTAL 5.05% 2.87% 2.36% 3.26% 3.78% 4.28% 2.89%

RIFT TOTAL

F I G U R E 35

SAMPLE REPORT: SUFYvlARY HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS

CASE: - D E C L I N I N G MORTALITY. D E C L I N I N G F E R T I L I T Y - CASE C 4 REPORT: P R- 3

-.. SUMMARY HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS ( THOUSANDS ) - - -

YEAR N A I R O B I NYANZA N-EAST EAST CENTRAL COAST WEST

1979 URBAN 188. 47. 14. 53. 29. 92. 24. RURAL 0. 406. 52. 413. 369. 156. 288.

TOTAL 188. 453. 66. 466. 399. 248. 312.

1980 URBAN 201. 56. 15. 57. 32. 102. 28. RURAL 0. 417. 53. 428. 384. 162. 296.

TOTAL 201. 473. 68. 485. 415. 264. 324.

1985 URBAN 278. 107. 22. 81. 47. 159. 49. RURAL 0. 469. 59. 508. 464. 192. 340.

TOTAL 278. 576. 80. 589. 510. 352. 389.

1990 URBAN 370. 174. 30. 112. 67. 236. 77. RURAL 0 . 517. 64. 599. 563. 221. 387.

TOTAL 370. 691. 94. 711. 631. 457. 463.

1995 URBAN 472. 258. 41. 151. 95. 335. 112. RURAL 0 . 562. 68. 703. 687. 243. 437.

TOTAL 472. 821. 109. 854. 782. 578. 549.

2000 URBAN 582. 365. 53. 200. 132. 455. 157. RURAL 0 . 606. 72. 821. 834. 257. 492.

TOTAL 582. 970. 125. 1022. 966. 712. 649.

IVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES 1979 - 2000

URBAN 5.53% 10.22% 6.67% 6.53% 7.44% 7.89% 9.36% RURAL 0.00% 1 .92% 1 .56% 3.33% 3.95% 2.41% 2.58%

TOTAL 5.53% 3.69% 3. 11% 3.81% 4.30% 5.14% 3.55%

TOTAL

525. 2168. 2693.

578. 2251. 2829.

903. 2693. 3595.

1334. 3188. 4521.

1883. 3732. 5614.

2561. 4313. 6873.

9. AGRICULTURE

The Agriculture program provides a simple representation of national agricultural activity and its evolution over time. It can be run independently or as part of the Macro program structure. Information provided by this program can also be used to develop inputs to drive the agricultural sector's activity in the Demand program. In addition, the land-use requirements associated with a given national agricultural future can be used in the land-use projections of the Resource program.

The program projects the demand for and supply of various agri- cultural products. The categories of agricultural products and farm animal types are created by the user. Then, based on assumptions about population growth (which may be automatically provided by the Demographic program), per capita consumption trends, agricultural productivity, future export levels, and so on, the program projects agricultural production and imports needed to meet domestic food requirements, land projections, fodder needs and production, and harvest losses.

The main relationships in the Agriculture program are shown schematically in Figure 36. Land is brought into production as needed to meet final domestic consumption and export projections, subject to land-use constraints and future agriculture productivity assumptions. Imports are allowed to close the gap between domestic requirements and production. The draught animal population is determined both by the level of the agricultural activity and targeted levels of mechanization. Power harvest crop losses and agriculture output devoted to fodder for livestock and draught animals are included in establishing gross requirements for biomass. In addition to balancing crop supply and demands over time, the program estimates crop residues and animal wastes -- figures which may be of interest in developing rural energy scenarios with the core programs.

The Agriculture program calculations are presented in Table 15.

-97 -

FIGURE 36

SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF AGRICULTURE MACRO PROGRAM

Population 7

-98-

TABLE 15

AGRICULTURE PROGRAM CALCULATIONS

Ind i ces

t Year (=l i n base yea r ) a A g r i c u l t u r e p roduc t (and l and ) type s L i ves tock (an imal ) type

Va r i ab les ( i n p u t )

AGP

CL BY CNSUME

DABY DBY

DADFRC

DUNG EXP FABY FEED FODRAT IMPBY LOSS POP RESRAT

Var iab les

ALOSS CC CL R D D A DGPRD FA

FDREQ FNCON FOD

Outout oer u n i t area ( r e l a t i v e t o base year index va lue b f 1:o,

To ta l l and area a v a i l a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l p roduc t i on (cropped o r uncropped)

Crop lands i n base year ( b y p roduc t t ype ) F r a c t i o n a l change i n per c a p i t a consumption over base

year l e v e l D r a f t animals i n base year Domestic demands by a g r i c u l t u r a l t ype i n base year

( m e t r i c tonnes) D r a f t animal displacement f a c t o r (decrease i n r e q u i r e -

ments f o r d r a f t animals per hec ta re r e l a t i v e t o base y e a r )

Dung p roduc t i on per animal ( tonnes/year ) A g r i c u l t u r e p roduc t expo r t s ( tonnes) L i ves tock i n base year ( " food an imals" ) Feed requirements per animal ( tonnes/year ) Fodder t o c rop r a t i o A g r i c u l t u r e p roduc t impor ts i n base year Post- harvest l o s s f r a c t i o n Popu la t ion (may be prov ided by Demographic program) Residue t o c rop r a t i o

( c a l c u l a t e d )

Post ha rves t a g r i c u l t u r e losses Crop l and p r o j e c t i o n s Cropland requirements Domestic demand D r a f t animal p r o j e c t i o n s Dung p roduc t i on P r o j e c t i o n s o f animal used f o r end products (meat,

m i l k , wool, e t c . ) Animal feed requirements Domestic food p roduc t i on n e t o f losses Fodder produced

TABLE 15

AGRICULTURE PROGRAM CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

GREQ Gross requ i rements IMP Impor ts of a g r i c u l t u r a l ( o r animal based) products LS T o t a l l i v e s t o c k p r o j e c t i o n s PROD T o t a l p roduc t i on ( i n c l u d e s post- harvest l osses ) RES Residue produced SHTFL Product ion s h o r t f a l l TFD T o t a l f i n a l demand

Equations

Compute t o t a l p roduc t requirements:

Gross a g r i c u l t u r e requirements and post- harvest losses:

Base year product ion :

Cropland requ i rements t o f u l l y meet domestic demands:

Scale back due t o l and c o n s t r a i n t s :

TABLE 15

AGRICULTURE PROGRAM CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Farmland ou tpu ts :

PRODa,t = (CLa,t/CLBYa) X AGPa,t X PRODa,l

RESa,t = PRODa,t X RESRATa

FODa,t = PRODa,t X FODRAT,

C o n t r i b u t i o n t o f i n a l demands:

FNCONa,t = PRODa,t X (1 - LOSSa)

Animal and animal p roduc t p r o j e c t i o n s :

FAs,t = FABY, X (GREQs, t /GREQs, t ) /AGPs, t

LSs,t = DAs,t + FAs,t

PRODs,t = (GREQs,t/GREQs, 1) X PRODs, 1

Feed requirements and dung p roduc t i on :

FDREQs,t = LSs,t X FEEDS

DGPROs,t = LSs,t X DUNGs

Product ion s h o r t f a l l and impor t requ i rements f o r a g r i c u l t u r e and animal products :

SHTFLa,t = GREQa,t - PRODa,t

IMPa,t = SHTFLa,t X (1 - LOSSa)

R e s u l t s

The A g r i c u l t u r e p rogram produces, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e u s u a l d a t a echoes, f o u r r e s u l t s r e p o r t s . The f i r s t two (AR-1 and AR-2) t o g e t h e r p r o v i d e a b a l a n c e s h e e t f o r a g r i c u l t u r e s u p p l i e s and demands by p r o d u c t t y p e . The f i r s t d i s p l a y s p r o j e c t i o n s o f r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r d o m e s t i c demands and e x p o r t s w h i l e t h e second matches t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s t o d o m e s t i c s u p p l i e s and i m p o r t s . Samples o f t h e s e a r e g i v e n i n F i g u r e s 37 and 38, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

FIGURE 37

SAMPLE REPORT: REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

DEMOGRAP : - D E C L I N I N G M O R T A L I T Y . D E C L I N I N G F E R T I L I T Y - CASE C 4 AGRIC: D A T A B A S E (AGRICULTURAL D A T A ) ; B ASE C A S E

R E P O R T : A R - l

A G R I C U L T U R A L REQUIREMENTS - DOMESTIC & EXPORT (THOUSAND TONNES)

- T O T A L R E O U I R E O

D O M E S T I C T O T A L C E R E A L S B E A N S / P U L S E S ROOT CROPS COTTON COFFEE T E A MEAT D A I R Y P R O 0 SUGAR F R U I T / V E G PYRETHEUM M I S C

EXPORT T O T A L C E R E A L S B E A N S / P U L S E S ROOT CROPS COTTON COFFEE T E A MEAT D A I R Y PROD SUGAR FRUIT/VEG PYRETHEUM M I S C

F I G U R E 38

SAMPLE REPORT: SOURCES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

OEMOGRAP: A G R I C :

REPORT: A R - 2

- T O T A L S U P P L I E D -

D O M E S T I C PROD. C E R E A L S B E A N S / P U L S E S ROOT CROPS COTTON COFFEE T E A MEAT D A I R Y PROO SUGAR FRUIT/VEG PYRETHEUM M I S C

I M P O R T S C E R E A L S B E A N S / P U L S E S ROOT CROPS COTTON COFFEE T E A MEAT D A I R Y PROO SUGAR F R U I T / V E G PYRETHEUM M I S C

- O E C L I N I N G M O R T A L I T Y . O E C L I N I N G F E R T I L I T Y - D A T A B A S E ( A G R I C U L T U R A L D A T A ) : BASE CASE

CASE C 4

SOURCES OF A G R I C U L T U R A L S U P P L I E S (THOUSAND TONNES)

( A L L Q U A N T I T I E S ARE AFTER D I S T R I B U T I O N L O S S E S )

The t h i r d A g r i c u l t u r e program r e p o r t (AR-3) prov ides more d e t a i l by p roduc t type. S p e c i f i c a l l y , gross p roduc t i on i s disaggregated i n t o f i n a l human consumption, fodder consumption, and post- harvest losses; biomass res idue es t imates are d isp layed; and p r o j e c t i o n s o f l and areas used i n p roduc t i on are given. An i l l u s t r a t i v e ou tpu t i s shown below i n F igu re 39.

FIGURE 39

SAMPLE REPORT: CROP PROJECTIONS

OEMOGRAP: - DECLINING MORTALITY, DECLINING FERTILITY '- CASE C4 AGRIC: DATA BASE (AGRICULTURAL DATA); BASE CASE

REPORT: AR-3

CROP PROJECTIONS - - PROOUCTION, RESIOUES. LAND AREA - -

1980 1985 1990 -ALL CROP TYPES-

PRODUCTION (THOU TONNES) 8462 .5 10474.8 12399 .3 FOR F INAL CONSUMPTION 5112 .2 6405.8 7 6 2 9 . 0 FOR FOODER 7 5 . 0 95 .4 113.8 POST-HARVEST LOSSES 3 2 7 5 . 3 3973.7 4656 .5

RESIDUE5 15200 .7 19013.4 22523 .0 LANO AREA ( M I L L HA) 2 . 8 3 .2 3.5

CEREALS PROOUCTION (THOU TONNES) 2686 .2 3445 .6 4107 .1

FOR FINAL CONSUMPTION 2184 .0 2801.5 3339 .3 FOR FODDER 5 8 . 0 74 .4 8 8 . 7 POST-HARVEST LOSSES 4 4 4 . 2 569 .7 6 7 9 . 1

RESIOUES 5 2 5 6 . 4 6742 .5 8036 .9 LAND AREA ( M I L L HA) 1 .5 1 .B 1 . 9

BEANS/PULSES PROOUCTION (THOU TONNES) 2 2 7 . 3 274 .4 323 .4

FOR FINAL CONSUMPTION 199.8 241 .2 2 8 4 . 2 FOR FODDER 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 POST-HARVEST LOSSES 27 .5 33 .2 39.1

RESIOUES 3 4 1 . 0 411.6 4 8 5 . 0 LAND AREA ( M I L L HA) 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 .5

ROOT CROPS PROOUCTION (THOU TONNES) 1384.6 1709.6 2045 .9

FOR FINAL CONSUMPTION 1244 .5 1536 .6 1838.9 FOR FODDER 1 7 . 0 2 1 . 0 25 . 1 POST-HARVEST LOSSES 123.1 152 .0 181 .9

RESIDUE5 2 7 3 5 . 2 3377 .2 404 1 .5 LANO AREA ( M I L L HA) 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2

COTTON PROOUCTION (THOU TONNES) 3 4 . 0 41 .4 4 9 . 0

FOR FINAL CONSUMPTION 32 .3 39 .3 4 6 . 5 FOR FODDER 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 POST-HARVEST LOSSES 1 . 7 2 . 1 2 . 4

RESIOUES 8 3 . 3 101.3 120 .0 LAND AREA ( M I L L HA) 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2

A f i n a l r e p o r t (AR-4) prov ides l i v e s t o c k p r o j e c t i o n s . These i n c l u d e es t imates o f t h e number o f head, feed requirements, and dung p roduc t i on as shown i n F igu re 40.

FIGURE 40

SAMPLE REPORT: LIVESTOCK PROJECTIONS

OEMOGRAP : - DECLINING MORTALITY. DECLINING FERTILITY - CASE C4 AGRIC: DATA BASE (AGRICULTURAL DATA): BASE CASE

REPORT: AR-4

LIVESTOCK PROJECTIONS

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 NUMBER (MILL ION HEAD)

CATTLE 10 .1 12.9 15.7 19 .4 23.3 COW 6 . 7 8 . 6 10.6 13 .1 15.7 GOATS 15.5 1 8 . 0 20.7 2 4 . 1 27.6 SHEEP 8 . 0 9 . 3 10.7 12.4 14.3 PIGS 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 POULTRY OXEN OONKEYS CAMELS

FEED REQUIREMENT (THOUSAND TONNES) CATTLE 29745 .3 37805 .0 46222 .7 57130 .9 68496.3 COW 19830 .2 2 5 3 3 0 . 0 31074 .0 38517.5 46272.9 GOATS 7148 .4 8302 .3 9507 .5 11069.2 12696.4 SHEEP PIGS POULTRY OXEN DONKEYS CAMELS

DUNG PRODUCT CATTLE COW GOATS SHEEP PIGS POULTRY OXEN OONKEYS CAMELS

268 .6 343 .1 1536.7 1841.9

5 9 5 . 0 7 1 3 . 1 2 6 9 3 . 0 3228 .0

ION (THOUSAND TONNES) . 9105 .7 11573 .0 6070 .5 7754 . 1 2175 .6 2526.8 1125.3 1307 .0

3 . 0 3 .8 120 .9 154.4 4 7 0 . 7 5 6 4 . 2 182 .2 218 .4 824 .4 988 .1

10. ECONOMIC

Overview

This program is designed to provide broad long-run projections of alternative economic scenarios for the country (or other area) under consideration. There are severe constraints to model simulation of economic development.

First, there is no consensus on the proper theoretical founda- tions for macroeconomic modelling. As has been the case with other disciplines in their formative scientific stages, a wide variety of incompatible approaches have been attempted to account for the main driving relationships of economic growth in developing countries. Second, the statistical information upon which one may wish to base detailed mathematical relationships is often spotty, unverified, or unreliable. Finally, the real-world uncertainties with respect to internal policies, world economic patterns, and a host of other fac- tors undermine attempts to create high-confidence, non-controversial economic forecasts.

The more modest objective here is to take account of aggregate national accounting identities and aggregate resource flows to provide a broad framework for self-consistent scenario building. The input data requirements were kept minimal and, in particular, data intensive statistical estimation techniques, such as those employed in econometric and input/output based model ling, are not included. As with all other aspects of the LEAP system, if more detailed analyses are available from other models and sources, the results may be used in the design of macroeconomic scenarios.

The Economic program consists of a sequence of four separate sections. First, the "economy-wide" model accepts data for such items as gross domestic product, taxes, imports, exports, etc., and values for such parameters as depreciation, capital/output ratios, and price projections. It also may accept various data from the Demographic and Agriculture programs. It generates projections of global measures of economic activity and performance such as output, income, imports, exports, and GDP per capita. The other three Economic program sections take these economy-wide outputs and, respectively, disaggregate the results into user-selected sectoral and subsectoral categories, develop income distribution trends, and prepare "activity measures" for use in the LEAP core programs.

The Economy-W ide Model

The main flows in the economy-wide model are illustrated schematically in Figure 41. The mathematical relationships are sumnarized in Table 16. The program requires various descriptive data as well, such as currency name and scale factors (e.g., million pounds), year in which real values of outputs are measured (e.g,,

constant 1983 Pounds), and title of scenario run for formatting and labelling outputs.

The model begins with agricultural calculations. The assumed physical levels of agricultural imports, exports and production (from the Agriculture program or a user-defined scenario) are converted to monetary terms, and the needed agricultural investment is calculated using the agricultural capital-output and depreciation ratios.

In the non-agricultural, or modern, sector, the model assumes investment-driven growth. Total investment is a specified fraction of GDP; modern sector investment is total investment minus agricultural and inventory investment. One year's modern sector investment determines the next year's modern sector GDP, via the sector's capital-output and depreciation ratios.

The foreign trade calculations assume that both oil and other non-agricultural imports are specified fractions of modern sector GDP. The needed growth of non-agricultural exports is then derived, in order to meet a user-defined target date by which total imports and exports must balance. Finally, private consumption is a residual; it is what remains of total resources (GDP plus imports minus exports) after subtracting investment and government consumption (again, a fraction of GDP).

The economy-wide model also calculates tax revenues from taxes on both GDP and imports. And it accepts different assumed rates of inflation in each category of imports and exports, creating a price deflator which is applied to domestic production.

The ratios used in the model-sectoral capital-output and depreciating investment/GDP, imports/GDP, tax rates, etc. -- are entered by the user, for both a base and a final year. Linear interpolation is applied to generate values for intermediate years.

L.,",..,, , , ..L"L , ,"uLL

Resource F lows

ts Agr~c. Exports Other Exports

Indirect taxes

I Consumption Consumption

L - - - - - - - J Agriculture Modern Stock Investment Investment Adjustment

TABLE 16

ECONOMIC PROGRAM ECONOMY-WIDE CALCULATIONS

Ind i ces

t Year (=l i n base y e a r )

Va r i ab les ( i n p u t )

ACORAT

MCORAT TRANS

AGDPBY MGDPBY AIMPBY PIMPBY OIMPBY AEXPBY OEXPBY TAXIND IMPDUT INVBY STKAD J STKGDI GDIFR PRCBY GVCBY DGCOMF ADELTA MDELTA ROIL RFIMP

RAEXP

ROTHER MEET AGOUT* FDIMP* FDEXP* POP *

A g r i c u l t u r e sec to r c a p i t a l - t o - o u t p u t r a t i o (measures increase i n ou tpu t r e s u l t i n g f rom inc rease i n c a p i t a l i nves ted )

Modern sec to r ( n o n- a g r i c u l t u r e ) c a p i t a l - t o - o u t p u t r a t i o Net non-product t r a n s f e r s f rom t h e r e s t o f t h e wor ld

i n c l u d i n g c u r r e n t remi t tances, un requ i t ed t rans fe rs , f a c t o r payments t o abroad and c a p i t a l account changes

A g r i c u l t u r e sec to r GDP i n base year Modern sec to r GDP i n base year A g r i c u l t u r e impor ts i n base year Petroleum impor ts i n base year Other impor ts i n base year (non-petroleum) A g r i c u l t u r e expo r t s i n base year Other expor ts i n base year ( n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l ) Non- import du t y i n d i r e c t taxes i n base year Impor t d u t y i n base year T o t a l investments i n base year Stock adjustment i n base year Average s tock adjustment t o GDI r a t i o Average GDI as a f r a c t i o n o f GDP P r i v a t e consumption i n base year S t a r t i n g year government consumption Change i n government consumption f r a c t i o n o f GDP A g r i c u l t u r a l sec to r d e p r e c i a t i o n f a c t o r Modern sec to r d e p r e c i a t i o n f a c t o r O i l average annual r e a l p r i c e growth r a t e A g r i c u l t u r a l impo r t average annual r e a l p r i c e

growth r a t e A g r i c u l t u r a l expo r t average annual r e a l p r i c e growth

r a t e Other impor t average annual r e a l p r i c e growth r a t e Calendar year when expo r t s meet impor ts A g r i c u l t u r a l p roduc t i on i n a r b i t r a r y p h y s i c a l u n i t s Food impor t s i n a r b i t r a r y phys i ca l u n i t s A g r i c u l t u r a l expor ts i n a r b i t r a r y phys i ca l u n i t s Popu la t i on ( m i l l i o n s )

*These may be ob ta ined f rom A g r i c u l t u r a l subprogram

TABLE 16

ECONOMIC PROGRAM ECONOMY-WIDE CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Va r i ab les ( c a l c u l a t e d )

AGINV MS I NV GDPAG GDPMOD GDPTOT AIMP OILIMP OTHIMP TOTIMP AEXP RLAEXP RLOEXP TOTEXP NATSAV FSAV PCOMP GCOMPF GCOMP INDTAX OTHIND TRIMP DEFLAT TOTRES GD I DSTOCK

A g r i c u l t u r e sec to r investments Modern sec to r investments A g r i c u l t u r e sec to r GDP Modern sec to r GDP T o t a l GDP A g r i c u l t u r a l impor ts O i l impor ts Other impor ts T o t a l impor ts A g r i c u l t u r a l expo r t s A g r i c u l t u r a l expo r t s i n r e a l p r i c e s Other expo r t s i n r e a l p r i c e s T o t a l expo r t s Na t i ona l savings Fore ign savings P r i v a t e consumption Government consumption as a f r a c t i o n o f GDP Government consumption T o t a l i n d i r e c t taxes I n d i r e c t taxes o t h e r than impor t d u t i e s Tax r a t e on impor ts D e f l a t i o n f a c t o r T o t a l resources Gross domest ic investment Change i n n a t i o n a l s tock o f goods and

equipment

Equat ions

A. A g r i c u l t u r e sec to r c a l c u l a t i o n s

Compute GDP:

GDPAGt = AGDPBY X (AGOUTtlAGOUT1)

A g r i c u l t u r a l investments:

TABLE 16

ECONOMIC PROGRAM ECONOMY-WIDE CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

p - - - - - - -

A g r i c u l t u r a l impor ts i n monetary u n i t s ( r e a l p r i c e changes no t y e t i nc luded ) :

AIMPt = AIMPBY X (FDIMPt/FDIMPl)

Expor ts grow w i t h phys i ca l p roduc t i on :

AEXPt = AEXPBY X FDEXPt/FDEXPl

o r , expressed i n r e a l p r i c e s :

R L A E X P ~ = A E X P ~ X ( 1 + R A E X P ) ~ - 1

B. I n i t i a l i z a t i o n :

Fore ign savings:

FSAVl = TOTIMP1 - TOTEXPl

where:

TOTIMP1 = AIMPBY + PIMPBY + OIMPBY

TOTEXPl = AEXPBY + OEXPBY

Modern sec to r investment:

MSINVl = INVBY - AGINVl

To ta l GDP:

GDPTOTl = MGDPBY + AGDPBY + TAXIND + IMPDUT

TRIMP = IMPDUTITOTIMPl

C. I n d u c t i v e c a l c u l a t i o n s

Non- ag r i cu l t u re GDP:

GDPMODt+l = (1-MDELTA) X GDPMODt + MSINVtIMCORATt

TABLE 16

ECONOMIC PROGRAM ECONOMY-WIDE CALCULATIONS ( C o n t i n u e d )

Grow i m p o r t s o f o i l and o t h e r p r o d u c t s :

T o t a l i m p o r t s i n r e a l p r i c e s :

TOT IMP^+^ = (I+ROIL)~ X OIL IMP^+^ + (~+RFIMP)~

X A I M P ~ + ~ + ROTHER HER)^ X OTHIMP~+~

Grow o t h e r i n d i r e c t t a x e s w i t h GDP:

OTHINDt+l = OTHINDt X GDPTOTt+l/GDPTOTt

(OTHIND1 = TAXIND)

and c a l c u l a t e t o t a l i n d i r e c t t a x e s :

INDTAXt+l = OTHINDt+l + TRIMP X TOTIMPt+l

T o t a l GDP:

D. A d j u s t e x p o r t s t o a c h i e v e t r a d e b a l a n c e t a r g e t :

D e f i n e :

O t h e r e x p o r t s a r e c o n s t r a i n e d t o meet f o r e i g n e a r n i n g s r e q u i r e m e n t s :

RLOEXPt+l = CLOSEt X (TOTIMPt+l - TRANSt+l

- RLAEXPt+l - RLOEXPt) + RLOEXPt

TABLE 16

ECONOMIC PROGRAM ECONOMY-WIDE CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

E. Misce l laneous v a r i a b l e s

T o t a l expor ts :

TOTEXt = RLAEXPt + RLOEXPt

Fore ign savings ( e x c l u s i v e o f non-product t r a n s f e r s ) :

FSAVt = TOTIMPt - TOTEXPt

Na t i ona l savings based on savings- investment i d e n t i t y (non- product t r a n s f e r s n o t i nc luded ) :

NATSAV t = GDI t - FSAVt

where:

GDIt = GDIFR X GDPTOTt

Modern sec to r c a p i t a l fo rmat ion :

MSINVt = GDIt - AGINVt - DSTOCKt

where:

DSTOCKt = STKGDI X GDI t

T o t a l resources:

TOTRESt = GDPTOTt + TOTIMPt - TOTEXPt

Government consumption:

GCOMPt = GCOMPFt X GDPTOTt

where:

GCOMPFt = GVCBYlGDPTOT1 + DGCOMFt

P r i v a t e consumption:

PCOMPt = TOTRESt - GCOMPt - GDIt

-113-

TABLE 16

ECONOMIC PROGRAM ECONOMY-WIDE CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

1 F P r i c e d e f l a t o r

I where:

( K = l f o r no r e a l p r i c e changes; K=2 f o r r e a l p r i c e changes i n scenar io under cons ide ra t i on . )

Other C a l c u l a t i o n s

The economy-wide model computes t o t a l s f o r n a t i o n a l p roduct ion . The nex t s tep i s t h e decomposi t ion o f these aggregate f i g u r e s i n t o s e c t o r a l and subsectora l c o n t r i b u t i o n s . Th is i s accomplished i n LEAP by d e f i n i n g t h e sec to ra l / subsec to ra l s t r u c t u r e (e.g., a sec to r may be "manufactur ing" and t h e subsectors " t e x t i l e s , " "wood products," e tc . ) and base year values f o r each o f these. The growth o f each sector may be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e growth o f c e r t a i n aggregate v a r i a b l e s (popula- t i o n , modern o r a g r i c u l t u r e sec to r GDP, personal o r government con- sumption) o r may be exogenously de f i ned . The r e s u l t i n g p r o j e c t i o n s a re renormal ized ( sca led up o r down) t o ensure cons is tency w i t h t he app rop r i a te t o t a l s : subsectora l ou tpu ts add t o s e c t o r a l ou tputs and t h e l a t t e r add t o n a t i o n a l ou tputs . The computations, which are s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , a re n o t shown here.

The t h i r d sec t i on o f t he Economic program computes the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f income on a per c a p i t a bas i s f o r r u r a l and urban popu la t i ons . Th i s i s u s e f u l when one wishes t o use income d i s t r i b u t i o n as a subsectora l des igna t i on i n t h e Demand program. For example, an "Urban Household" sector may be d i v i d e d i n t o "High," "Medium," and 'Low" income subsectors t o b e t t e r r e f l e c t v a r i a t i o n s i n energy equipment ownership and uses. Then, i n f o r m a t i o n i s needed on t h e q u a n t i t y i n each subsectora l category, e.g., i f t h e sec to ra l " a c t i v i t y l e v e l " i s t he number o f urban households, then the subsec to ra l a c t i v i t y l e v e l s would be the f r a c t i o n i n each income category, now and i n t h e f u t u r e .

The income d i s t r i b u t i o n c a l c u l a t i o n s , shown on Table 17, p rov ide rough es t imates on ly ; where p o s s i b l e more d e t a i l e d f i e l d da ta should be r e l i e d upon. Separate income d i s t r i b u t i o n curves a re developed f o r t h e urban and r u r a l popu la t i ons cha rac te r i zed by t h e mean and median incomes f o r each group. A log-normal f u n c t i o n i s used t o approximate income d i s t r i b u t i o n s i nce i t has t h e skewed p a t t e r n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f such d i s t r i b u t i o n s :

Income per capita

TABLE 17

ECONOMIC PROGRAM INCOME DISTRIBUTION CALCULATIONS

t Year ( = l i n base yea r ) s Demographic sec to r (1 = urban, 2 = r u r a l )

da r i ab les ( i n p u t )

PCAPBY SPLIT SKEW

NUMBRK

BREAK PCOMP POP UPOP

Average per c a p i t a income i n base year R a t i o o f urban mean and r u r a l mean per c a p i t a incomes Measure o f d i s t r i b u t i o n skewness, de f i ned as r a t i o o f

median t o mean f o r each sec to r Number o f income group boundar ies (income groups minus

one Income boundar ies f o r income d i s t r i b u t i o n breakdowns Personal consumption ( f r om economy-wide model) T o t a l popu la t i on ( f r om economy-wide model) Urban popu la t i on

Var iab les ( c a l c u l a t e d )

DISINC To ta l d isposab le income MEAN Mean per c a p i t a income (urban and r u r a l ) RPOP Rura l p o p u l a t i o n INFRAC F r a c t i o n i n each income group ing (urban and r u r a l )

Equat ions

Compute incomes:

DISINCt = (PCOMPt/PCOMP1) X PCAPBY X POP1

Per c a p i t a income means:

where:

TABLE 17

ECONOMIC PROGRAM INCOME DISTRIBUTION CALCULATIONS ( C o n t i n u e d )

Income medians:

D e f i n e income f r a c t i o n s u s i n g log- norma l f u n c t i o n :

where I i s income, F ( I ) i s f r a c t i o n o f p o p u l a t i o n w i t h incomes between I and I + d I , and t h e n o r m a l i z a t i o n c o n d i t i o n i s s a t i s f i e d ( ~ F ( I ) ~ I = ~ ) . S and U a r e t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n and mean o f l o g I, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Two p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e l o g- n o r m a l f u n c t i o n a re :

MEAN(I) = ~ I - F ( I ) ~ I = exp ( u + s ~ / ~ )

MEDIAN( I ) = exp(U) ( d e f i n e d b y F ( I ) d I = 1 / 2 ) JMED1 AN

The income means and medians a r e used t o f i x t h e paramete rs (U,S), t h e n F ( I ) i s i n t e g r a t e d between income break p o i n t s t o compute INFRAC f o r u rban and r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n s .

Resul ts

The Economic program produces r e p o r t s echoing back the i n p u t data, and f o u r " r e s u l t s " repo r t s . The f i r s t r e p o r t (ER-1) prov ides ou tpu ts f rom the economy-wide p r o j e c t i o n s . The nex t r e p o r t (ER-2) sumnarizes t h e GDP d isaggregat ion computations. The t h i r d (ER-3) g i ves t h e ou tpu ts on income d i s t r i b u t i o n .

The f i n a l r e p o r t conver ts p r o j e c t i o n s o f va r i ous economic i n d i c a t o r s i n t o " a c t i v i t y ind ices ," r a t i o s o f mid and end year values t o base year values. I n t h i s form, they can be used i n t he c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e i n p u t data t o t h e core programs s ince the " a c t i v i t y " data i s g e n e r a l l y s t r u c t u r e d the re t o r e q u i r e base year i n f o r m a t i o n and p r o j e c t i o n s f o r two f u t u r e years. Samples o f these r e p o r t s are presented i n F igu res 42 t o 45 below.

FIGURE 42

SAMPLE REPORT: ECONOMY-WIDE PROJECTIONS

OEMOGRAP : - D E C L I N I N G M O R T A L I T Y . D E C L I N I N G F E R T I L I T Y - A G R I C U L T : D A T A B A S E ( A G R I C U L T U R A L D A T A ) : B A S E CASE ECONOMIC: ECONOMIC D A T A FOR BASE CASE

REPORT: E R - 1

ECONOMY-WIDE P R O J E C T I O N S

CASE C 4

GR RATE 1980 1985 1990 1995

P O P U L A T I O N ( M I L L I O N S ) T O T A L 3.8% 16.0 19.9 23.9 28 .9 RURAL 2.9% 13.5 15.9 18.3 21.0 U R B A N 7.2% 2.5 4 . 1 5.6 7 .9

GOP ( M I L L I O N 1980 KENYA POUNOS) T O T A L 4.8% 2638.7 3364.8 4246.6 5373.4 A G R I C U L T U R E 4.1% 688.1 851.7 1015.2 1276.2 N O N- A G R I C U L T U R E 5.1% 1540.4 1982.8 2554.1 3247.6 I N D I R E C T T A X E S 4.9% 410.2 530.3 677.3 849.6

GOP PER C A P I T A (1980 KENYA POUNDS) T O T A L 0.9% 165.1 168.8 177.8 185.8

RESOURCES A N 0 E X P E N D I T U R E S ( M I L L I O N 1980 KENYA POUNDS) GOP 4 .8% 2638.7 3364.8 I M P O R T S 5 .1% 1051.0 1397.9 EXPORTS 6.9% 734.8 1081.9 T O T A L RESOURCES 4.2% 2954.9 3680.8 P R I V A T E C O N S U M P T I O N 4.0% 1640.9 2169.1 GOVERNMENT CONSUMPTION 5.3% 533.8 697.5 GROSS D O M E S T I C I N V E S T M E N T 3.9% 767.1 814.3

B A L A N C E OF PAYMENTS ( M I L L I O N 1980 KENYA P O U N D S ) . TRAOE B A L A N C E I G O O D S A N 0 N F S ) * * * * % -316.2 -316.1 NON-PRODUCT TRANSFERS ( N E T ) * * * * % 244.0 183.0 I N C R E A S E I N RESERVES ****% -72.2 - 133.1

FIGURE 43

SAMPLE REPORT: GDP BY SECTOR

OEMOGRAP: - D E C L I N I N G M O R T A L I T Y . D E C L I N I N G F E R T I L I T Y - CASE C 4 A G R I C U L T : D A T A B A S E ( A G R I C U L T U R A L D A T A ) : B A S E CASE ECONOMIC: ECONOMIC DATA FOR B A S E CASE

R E P O R T : E R - 2

GROSS D O M E S T I C PRODUCT BY OUTPUT SECTOR ( M I L L I O N 1 9 8 0 KENYA POUNDS)

1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0

T R A D I T I O N A L ECON 1 2 8 . 9 1 9 9 . 4 2 9 3 . 1

A G R I C U L T U R E 6 7 3 . 7 1 0 2 9 . 0 1 6 1 0 . 2

M I N I N G / O U A R R Y I N G 5 . 6 9 . 6 1 6 . 2

C O N S T R U C T I O N 9 4 . 3 1 4 5 . 9 2 1 4 . 4

GOVT S E R V I C E S 3 2 5 . 5 5 6 9 . 1 9 7 9 . 2

TRANSPORT/COMM F . I . R . E . OTHER S E R V I C E S

M A N U F A C T U R I N G F 0 0 0 T E X T I L E S WOOD PRODUCTS P A P E R C H E M I C A L S RUBBER P L A S T I C C L A Y / G L A S S N O N- M E T A L M E T A L TRANSPORT E O U I P M I S C E L L A N E O U S

M I S C E L L A N E O U S

GOP A T FACTOR COST I N D I R E C T T A X E S GDP A T MARKET P R I C E

FIGURE 44

SAMPLE REPORT: INCOME DISTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS

OEMOGRAP : - D E C L I N I N G M O R T A L I T Y . D E C L I N I N G F E R T I L I T Y - CASE C 4 A G R I C U L T : DATA B A S E ( A G R I C U L T U R A L O A T A ) ; B A S E CASE ECONOMIC: ECONOMIC DATA FOR _ BASE CASE

R E P O R T : E R - 3

INCOME D I S T R I B U T I O N P R O J E C T I O N S

U R B A N F R A C T I O N I N I N T E R V A L

INCOME I N T E R V A L 1 9 8 0 ' 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 ( 1 9 8 0 KENYA POUNOS / C A P I T A )

L E S S T H A N 3 5 . 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 8 FROM 3 5 . TO 1 0 4 . 0 . 2 3 0 . 2 6 0 . 2 8 FROM 1 0 4 . TO 2 0 7 . 0 . 2 6 0 . 2 6 0 . 2 7 FROM 2 0 7 . TO 6 2 1 . 0 . 3 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 3 0 OVER 6 2 1 . 0 . 1 2 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 8

R U R A L F R A C T I O N I N I N T E R V A L

INCOME I N T E R V A L 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 ( 1 9 8 0 KENYA POUNOS / C A P I T A )

L E S S T H A N 1 7 . 0 . 1 6 0 . 1 9 0 . 2 2 FROM 1 7 . TO 6 7 . 0 . 5 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 1 OVER 6 7 . 0 . 3 5 0 . 3 0 0 . 2 7

FIGURE 45

SAMPLE REPORT: A C T I V I T Y I N D I C E S

DEMOGRAP : - D E C L I N I N G M O R T A L I T Y . D E C L I N I N G F E R T I L I T Y - CASE C 4 A G R I C U L T : D A T A B A S E (AGRICULTURAL D A T A ) : B A S E C A S E E C O N O M I C : ECONOMIC D A T A FOR B A S E CASE

REPORT! E R - 4

S E L E C T E D A C T I V I T Y I N D I C E S ( I N D E X E D TO 1 I N 1 9 8 0 )

GD P 1 . 6 0 9 2 . 5 5 9 T R A D I T I O N A L ECON 1 . 5 4 6 2 . 2 7 3 A G R I C U L T U R E 1 . 5 2 7 2 . 3 9 0 MINING/OUARRYING C O N S T R U C T I O N .

TRANSPORT/COMM F . I . R . E . OTHER S E R V I C E S

M A N U F A C T U R I N G FOOD T E X T I L E S WOO0 PRODUCTS PAPER C H E M I C A L S RUBBER P L A S T I C C L A Y / G L A S S N O N- M E T A L M E T A L TRANSPORT E Q U I P M I S C E L L A N E O U S

M I S C E L L A N E O U S

P O P U L A T I O N U R B A N RURAL

PER C A P I T A INCOME U R B A N R U R A L

A G R I C U L T U R A L OUTPUT D O M E S T I C MARKET EXPORT

P R I V A T E C O N S U M P T I O N 1 . 4 9 4 2 . 2 0 4 GOVERNMENT CONSUMPTION 1 . 6 8 9 2 . 8 1 2

P a r t IV: SCENARIO ANALYSIS

The concept o f t h e scenar io i n long- range n a t i o n a l energy p lan- n ing was i n t roduced i n Sec t i on 1. The p r imary f u n c t i o n o f scenar io ana l ys i s i s t o ask a s e r i e s o f "what i f " quest ions concerning the f u t u r e determinants o f energy supply and demand. I n f o r m u l a t i n g a scenar io, one creates a f u t u r e p i c t u r e o f t h e energy system which i nc ludes hypotheses (perhaps t a c i t ones) on economic, demographic, technology, f u e l p r i c e , energy p o l i c y , and behav io ra l va r i ab les . I n ana l yz ing it, one seeks t o c l a r i f y t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a range o f p o s s i b l e f u t u r e s and t o assess the m e r i t s o f pursu ing c e r t a i n scenar ios i n p r a c t i c e .

'Consequently, t h e r e a re two p r imary goa ls i n scenar io ana l ys i s . F i r s t , i t p rov ides a method f o r t e s t i n g t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f energy f o r e c a s t s and eva lua t i ons t o v a r i a t i o n s i n i n p u t va r i ab les . Since long- range p1 anning i s , o f course, s u b j e c t t o unce r ta in t y , i t i s impor tan t t o understand the consequences o f a range o f p l a u s i b l e outcomes. S e n s i t i v i t y analyses are h e l p f u l i n des ign ing p lans which a re r e l a t i v e l y r e s i l i e n t aga ins t a reasonable range o f p o s s i b l e f u t u r e s . LEAP i s designed so t h a t s e n s i t i v i t y runs may be e a s i l y performed through p e r t u r b i n g one o r more i n p u t s t o t h e Base Case scenar io o r by c r e a t i n g e n t i r e l y new da ta se ts .

The second key f u n c t i o n o f scenar io ana l ys i s i s t o eva luate p o l i c y op t i ons by asking what t h e consequences would be f o r f u e l requirements, consumer costs, f i n a n c i a l resources, f o r e i g n exchange, t h e environment, and so on. A p r imary o b j e c t i v e o f LEAP, i t may be r e c a l l e d , i s t o p rov ide a sys temat ic framework f o r such eva luat ions . The manner o f t r e a t i n g these issues i n LEAP i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e nex t two sect ions .

11. CREATING SCENARIOS

Overview --

The s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r scenar io e v a l u a t i o n i s t h e development o f a Base Case p r o j e c t i o n , us ing the core programs as descr ibed i n P a r t I 1 o f t h i s document. As we have seen, t h e p r o j e c t i o n s may be d r i v e n by economic and demographic outputs o f a corresponding macroeconomic Base Case as descr ibed i n P a r t 111.

The Base Case i nco rpo ra tes i n f o r m a t i o n on c u r r e n t energy usage and supp ly p a t t e r n s and develops long- run p r o j e c t i o n s o f those p a t t e r n s based on c u r r e n t l y i d e n t i f i a b l e t rends i n , e.g., economic, demographic, land-use, f u e l choice and p o l i c y va r i ab les . The Base Case serves as a "business-as-usual" p r o j e c t i o n and a re fe rence p o i n t f o r e s t i m a t i n g evo l v i ng energy demands and resource requirements.

The i n i t i a l s tep i n t he scenar io b u i l d i n g process i s a ca re fu l examinat ion o f t h e Base Case ou tpu t repo r t s . Th i s serves t o i d e n t i f y t h e problems which a re found t o a r i s e over t h e t ime ho r i zon o f t h e Base Case ana l ys i s . The impor tan t sec to rs and f u e l types c o n t r i b u t i n g t o supplyldemand mismatch emerge f rom such an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Poss ib le issues i n c l u d e t h e need f o r new r e f i n e r y o r e l e c t r i c a l genera t ing capac i ty , t h e need t o expand o r i n t e n s i f y a g r i c u l t u r a l p roduct ion , t h e pressure on s tand ing s tocks o f wood resources, and t h e requirements f o r a d d i t i o n a l sources o f wood. The ana l ys t can then proceed t o c o n s t r u c t p o l i c y scenar ios which address these problems, c o n s i s t i n g o f e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l measures o r i n t e g r a t e d packages o f op t ions .

S t r u c t u r e

Scenar io runs are generated through a s e r i e s o f s p e c i a l l y t a i l o r e d scenar io data se t s which are used t o mod i f y Base Case assumptions. I n e n t e r i n g scenar io i n fo rma t i on , t h e user i s prompted t o supp ly i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each o f t h e core programs which i s used t o mod i f y e x i s t i n g p r o j e c t i o n s . I n o the r words, scenar io p r o j e c t i o n s are Base Case runs ad jus ted t o r e f l e c t changes i n demand, t rans format ion , and resource assumptions. The core program c a l c u l a t i o n s are then repeated, us ing t h e m o d i f i e d data.

The v a r i e t y o f scenar ios t h a t can be created i n t h i s manner i s immense. For example, by changing t h e branch s t r u c t u r e assumptions (see Sect ion 5 ) , one may r e f l e c t t h e f u l l range o f demand-side p o s s i b i l i t i e s : f u e l swi tch ing, conservat ion , changes i n i n d u s t r i a l processes o r b u i l d i n g energy use, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n modes and l eve l s , and so on. A d d i t i o n a l l y , by a l t e r i n g t h e " a c t i v i t y l e v e l s " f o r va r i ous sec to rs and subsectors, t h e energy demand i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a l t e r n a t i v e economic and demographic scenar ios -- perhaps generated f rom macroprogram scenar io runs -- may be exp lored.

A t t h e same time, a wide range o f energy p r o j e c t s may be i n c o r - po ra ted by mod i f y i ng t h e t rans fo rma t i on assumptions (Sec t i on 6) . One

may i n c l u d e a l t e r n a t i v e power system expansion plans, petroleum r e f i n e r y c o n s t r u c t i o n o r upgrade, e thano l p l a n t add i t i ons , indigenous f o s s i l f u e l p roduc t i on l e v e l s , charcoal k i l n techno log ies , and so on.

Furthermore, resource scenar ios use the core program s t r u c t u r e descr ibed i n Sec t i on 7 and thus may r e f l e c t a l t e r n a t i v e assumptions rega rd ing land-use pa t te rns , and wood stocks, y i e l d s , and a v a i l a b i l - i t y . I n p a r t i c u l a r , th rough resource scenar ios one may exp lore p o s s i b l e p r o j e c t s t o enhance the q u a n t i t y o f a v a i l a b l e wood (e.g., r e f o r e s t a t i o n , ag ro fo res t r y , urban greenbe l ts , e t c . ) i n areas i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e Base Case p r o j e c t i o n s as f a c i n g long- term wood d e f i c i t s .

I n c e r t a i n cases, p01 i c y scenar ios may i n c l u d e a s i n g l e element such as a proposed power p l a n t ( o r group o f d ispersed renewable genera tors) , a r e f i n e r y upgrade, a wood p r o j e c t , o r a conservat ion program. The p r o j e c t i o n s based on such scenar ios, when compared t o t h e unperturbed Base Case r e s u l t s , i s o l a t e the e f f e c t s o f i n d i v i d u a l energy i n i t i a t i v e s and a l l o w f o r t he assessment o f t h e i r cos t s and b e n e f i t s .

On t h e o the r hand, t h e r e a re t imes when one may wish t o cons ider p o l i c y scenar ios a f f e c t i n g many aspects o f energy demand and supply. For example, e l e c t r i f i c a t i o n scenar ios i n v o l v e adjustments t o t he e v o l v i n g mix o f household end-uses, investments i n e l e c t r i c sec tor gene ra t i on and d i s t r i b u t i o n equipment, and, u l t i m a t e l y , increments i n va r i ous p r imary energy requirements. O r , scenar ios t o avo id de- f o r e s t a t i o n may i n c l u d e f u e l swi tch ing, wood s tove and charcoal k i l n e f f i c i e n c y improvements, and wood supply p r o j e c t s . Low o i l scenar ios would have a d i f f e r e n t s e t o f e f f e c t s . There are c l e a r l y m u l t i p l e p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r b u i l d i n g system-wide energy scenar ios.

Whether s imple o r complex, scenar ios are c a l c u l a t e d i n t he same manner as t he Base Case by LEAP. Except f o r t a k i n g i n t o account t he i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f scenar io- ad jus ted data, t h e mathematical r e l a t i o n - sh ips are t h e same as a l ready descr ibed f o r t h e core and macro programs and w i l l n o t be repeated here.

The r e s u l t s o f scenar io p r o j e c t i o n are presented i n a s e t o f o u t p u t r e p o r t s which are i d e n t i c a l t o those i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e e a r l i e r d i scuss ion o f t he core and macro programs. The o n l y d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t t h e t a b l e s are l a b e l l e d by t h e user- supp l ied scenar io name. I n add i t i on , t h e r e i s a spec ia l "echo" r e p o r t which sumnarizes t he adjustments t o Base Case assumptions which d e f i n e t h e scenar io.

I l l u s t r a t i o n

As we have seen, t h e r e i s a v i r t u a l l y u n l i m i t e d number o f scena- r i o s t h a t may be exp lored w i t h i n t h e LEAP s t r u c t u r e . For purposes o f i l l u s t r a t i o n , cons ider a s i m p l i f i e d example which focuses on the problems o f ( 1 ) reduc ing o i l impor t requirements and (2) reduc ing the burden on domest ic wood resources.

For example, suppose a Base Case p r o j e c t i o n has been performed i n which domestic o i l requ i rements increase r a p i d l y (as was t h e s i t u a t i o n i n t he t e s t da ta s e t used t o produce the sample LEAP r e p o r t s i n t h i s

volume) and t h a t meet ing these requ i rements shou ld e n t a i l s u b s t a n t i a l increases i n economica l ly burdensome o i l impor ts (see F igu re 46). Suppose f u r t h e r t h a t t h e most r a p i d increases a r i s e i n t he urban households, l a r g e i ndus t r y , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and commercial sec tors . Economic and demographic t rends govern t h e magni tudes o f t h e va r i ous s e c t o r a l increases; e.g., r u r a l t o urban m ig ra t i on . O f these sectors , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and l a r g e i n d u s t r y dominate o v e r a l l o i l consumption and t h e r e f o r e deserve s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i n deve lop ing demand p o l i c y .

Wi th respec t t o wood resources, t h e i l l u s t r a t i v e Base Case p r o j e c t i o n s presented g r a p h i c a l l y i n F i g u r e 47 show t h a t demands a re expected t o r i s e r a p i d l y , and both s h o r t f a l l s and d e p l e t i o n o f stand- i n g s tocks on a n a t i o n a l and r e g i o n a l bas i s can be expected. Wood resource requirements, dominated by r u r a l household fuelwood demand and urban household charcoa l demand throughout t h e f o r e c a s t per iod , a re shown t o increase by about 150 pe rcen t f rom 1980 t o 2000. As a consequence, by t h e end o f t h e cen tu ry a se r i ous s h o r t f a l l -- more than h a l f o f expected requirements -- would a r i se , d e s p i t e s u b s t a n t i a l c u t t i n g o f s tand ing s tocks . The a l t e r n a t i v e s -- t r a v e l i n g long d i s tances and f u r t h e r d e p l e t i n g stocks, cooking w i t h o the r f u e l s , (e.g., kerosene, c rop and animal wastes), o r s imply do ing w i t h l e s s -- each have i nhe ren t problems.

Whi le i n f o r m a t i o n such as presented i n F igures 46 and 47 i l l u s - t r a t e s t he genera l t rends, i t i s necessary t o examine t h e subsector, end-use, and dev i ce / f ue l p a t t e r n s as i n d i c a t e d i n LEAP ou tpu t r e p o r t s t o more s p e c i f i c a l l y l o c a t e t he major sources o f o i l and wood demands and t h e p l a u s i b l e p o l i c y op t i ons t h a t can reduce these demands. Targets f o r s p e c i f i c subsectors and end-uses can be based upon both t h e i r r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o demand, and e v a l u a t i o n o f t he l i k e l i h o o d o f p o l i c y e f f e c t i v e n e s s (e.g., p u b l i c versus p r i v a t e sec to r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , c e n t r a l versus d ispersed techno log ies) as w e l l as c o s t and o the r impacts.

Rap id l y i nc reas ing o i l impor ts cou ld be addressed by bo th demand- s i d e and supp ly- s ide p o l i c y measures. On the demand side, f o r example, improved i n d u s t r i a l process e f f i c i e n c i e s , sw i t ch ing from o i l t o coa l where feas ib le , and i nc reas ing t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e f l e e t o f p u b l i c and p r i v a t e automobi les cou ld be promis ing op t i ons s ince they t a r g e t those sec to rs which c o n t r i b u t e most t o o i l demand. On the supp ly s ide, such p o s s i b i l i t i e s as t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f renewable resources (e.g., h y d r o - e l e c t r i c , geothermal, wind and so la r ) , indigenous f o s s i l f u e l s , biomass a p p l i c a t i o n s (e.g., t h e use o f producer gas o r e thano l ) , r e f i n e r y upgrades o r add i t i ons , and so on, may a l l be i n t e r e s t i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s t o cons ider over t ime.

-125-

F I G U R E 46

PETROLEUM IMPORTS FOR I N T E R N A L DEMAND

I L L U S T R A T I V E BASE CASE

40

30

million tonnes

20

10

1'

FIGURE 47

NATIONAL WOOD REPORT DEMAND AND SUPPLY

ILLUSTRATIVE BASE CC"

TOTAL DEMAND

TOTAL SUPPLIED

SUPPLIED FROM STOCKS

SUPPLIED FROM YIELD

Low o i l scenar io b u i l d i n g would r e q u i r e b lend ing a s e t o f demand and supp ly t a r g e t s t h a t , i d e a l l y , s a t i s f y t h e t h ree c r i t e r i a o f tech- n i c a l r ea l i sm, s o c i a l c o s t e f f ec t i veness , and i n s t i t u t i o n a l achieva- b i l i t y . Then, more concre te assessments and " a c t i o n p lans" cou ld be i n i t i a t e d t o nav iga te t h e coun t r y toward reduced o i l dependency.

S i m i l a r l y , bo th demand-side and supp ly- s ide wood- related p o l i c y measures can b e developed t o avo id o r reduce t h e problems i l l u m i n a t e d by t he Base Case p r o j e c t i o n s . Among t h e demand r e d u c t i o n p o l i c i e s t h a t a re cons idered i n t h i s i l l u s t r a t i o n are improved wood stoves, improved charcoa l stoves, and improved charcoa l k i l n s . The impacts o f t a r g e t s f o r these p o l i c i e s can be measured by s imple m o d i f i c a t i o n o f severa l o f t he LEAP Demand and Transformat ion i npu ts . From t h e r a t h e r d i r e n a t i o n a l r e s u l t s shown i n F igu re 47, i t i s apparent t h a t , even w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l demand reduc t i on , t h e r e would be a need f o r increased wood supp l ies . Here t he issues o f bo th when and where these are needed are impor tant . Th is i s because i t takes t ime t o develop new wood resources and because such resources must, i n general , be p rov ided where they a re needed. To these ends, one must examine the r e g i o n a l wood supplyldemand r e p o r t s p rov ided by t h e LEAP resource program.

L e t us cons ider t h e scenar io t rea tment o f wood s h o r t f a l l s i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l . F igures 48 and 49 show g r a p h i c a l l y t he t ime development o f wood supply, demand and s h o r t f a l l f o r two h y p o t h e t i c a l reg ions. The f i r s t r eg ion i s exper ienc ing a severe wood c r i s i s , w i t h c u t t i n g f rom t h e s tand ing s tocks p r o v i d i n g over a t h i r d o f t h e supp ly i n t he base year. With stock reduct ion , f u t u r e growth p o t e n t i a l i s decreased, and wood supp ly u l t i m a t e l y co l l apses c i r c a 1995 when the l a s t o f t h e a v a i l a b l e s tocks have been c leared. The second r e g i o n i s i n much b e t t e r cond i t i on . No s u b s t a n t i a l c u t t i n g o f t h e wood s tocks i s p r o j e c t e d u n t i l t h e e a r l y 1990s, and no s h o r t f a l l a t a l l i s a n t i c i p a t e d through t h e year 2000 when t h e annual growth p l u s some s tock c u t t i n g i s adequate t o meet demand.

I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e f i r s t r eg ion i s i n much g rea te r need f o r enhanced wood product ion . The nex t s tep i s determin ing what k i nds o f p r o j e c t s t o implement and a t what magnitudes. Fores ters , agronomists, and development expe r t s can he lp determine which schemes a re appro- p r i a t e f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r count ry , reg ion, and ecology. One then needs t o look a t t h e land-use p a t t e r n s w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r r e g i o n and decide which wood p r o j e c t s are f e a s i b l e w i t h i n t h a t con tex t . The app rop r i a te l and conversions are combined t o c rea te scenar io i n p u t s t o LEAP, and t h e resource model i s employed t o eva lua te t he consequences. The wood resource p o l i c i e s used i n t h i s i l l u s t r a t i o n i n c l u d e agro- f o r e s t r y , r e p l a n t e d f o r e s t s , managed n a t u r a l f o r e s t s , per i- urban p l a n t a t i o n s , and i n d u s t r i a l f u e l p l a n t a t i o n s . More than 3 m i l l i o n hectares o f l and are assumed t o be brought under these schemes by t h e year 2000.

million tons

-128-

F I G U R E 48

WOOD SUPPLY AND DEMAND BASE DEMAND - BASE RESOURCE

REGION I

/ SHORTFALL

Total demand --X- Harvested growth -0- Total supplied 0 Accessible growth

Total growth A External demand

-129-

F I G U R E 49

WOOD SUPPLY AND DEMAND BASE DEMAND - BASE RESOURCE

REGION I 1

- Total demand -e- Harvested growth --A-- Total Supplies 0 Accessible growth

Total Growth A External demand

The r e s u l t s o f p o s s i b l e wood demand r e d u c t i o n and wood supply enhancement p o l i c i e s a re shown i n Table 18 and F igu re 50. The o r i g i n a l year 2000 s h o r t f a l l ( o r gap) between wood supp l ies and requ i rements o f about 31 m i l l i o n tonnes i s reduced t o zero w i t h rough l y equal c o n t r i b u t i o n s f rom the demand and supply s i d e p o l i c y measures. I n t h i s i l l u s t r a t i o n , a gap o r s h o r t f a l l i s shown t o p e r s i s t th roughout t h e r e s t o f t h e century , u n t i l i t i s f i n a l l y e l i m i - nated by t h e year 2000. Once a bas i c p o l i c y program, such as t h e i l l u s t r a t i o n here, i s chosen, t h e LEAP model can then be used t o t e s t o t h e r bo th sho r t - te rm and long- term p o l i c y measures which cou ld complement t h i s bas i c program.

W i t h i n t h e LEAP s t r u c t u r e , i t i s t h e j o b o f t h e Cost ing program, t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e n e x t sec t i on , t o compute and sumnarize t he phys i ca l and economic consequences o f implement ing a l t e r n a t i v e scenar ios.

TABLE 18

POLICY CONTRIBUTIONS TO CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN WOOD REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES

YEARS

Base Case Gap 9.8 30.6

Demand Reduct ion P o l i c i e s Improved Wood Stoves 0.8 Improved Charcoal Stoves 4.3 Improved Charcoal K i l n s 0.5

Demand T o t a l 5.6 15.2

Supply Enhancement P o l i c i e s Ag ro- fo res t r y 3.2 7.1 Replanted Fo res t s 0.0 5.0 Managed Fo res t s 1.2 1.7 Per i- urban P l a n t a t i o n s 0.0 3.7 I n d u s t r i a l Fuel P l a n t 0.0 0.6 Increased Na tu ra l Y i e l d s 1.1 8.0 Decreased Wood Stock Dep le t ions -7.5 -10.7

Supply T o t a l -2.0 15.4

P o l i c y Case Gap 6.2 0.0

( A l l q u a n t i t i e s are i n m i l l i o n s o f m e t r i c tonnes.)

-132-

F I G U R E 5 0

CLOSING THE WOOD GAP

WOOD SUPPLY AND DEMAND

million tons

per year

12. COSTING PROGRAM

As we have seen, by us ing the core programs o f LEAP -- Demand, Transformat ion, and Resource as d r i ven , o p t i o n a l l y , by t h e macro- programs -- one p r o j e c t s f u t u r e energy f l o w s and es t imates o f energy requ i rements . Such p r o j e c t i o n s are performed, t y p i c a l l y , f o r a Base Case and a s e t o f one o r more P o l i c y Case scenar ios . The f u n c t i o n o f t h e Cost ing program i s t h e q u a n t i f i c a t i o n o f bo th t h e phys i ca l and economic impacts o f moving f rom one f u t u r e scenar io ( u s u a l l y a Base Case) t o another.

For va r i ous energy convers ion techno log ies , u n i t c o s t da ta can be p rov ided f o r c a p i t a l cos t s and genera t ing cos ts . Savings depend upon t h e s p e c i f i c technology. I f more e f f i c i e n t o i l consuming equipment i s i n t roduced i n i ndus t r y , savings w i l l depend upon t h e amount o f o i l saved and t h e p r i c e o f o i l . I f f u e l sw i t ch ing were t h e p o l i c y , then t h e c o s t o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l i s taken i n t o account. For Resource p o l i c i e s , c a p i t a l cos ts , genera t ing cos ts , ha rves t i ng costs, t r a n s- p o r t a t i o n costs, and l and a re t r e a t e d separa te ly . The va lue o f t he b e n e f i t o f increased wood supply o r reduced stock d e p l e t i o n may be measured accord ing t o t h e u s e r ' s choice; e.g., market p r i ces , shadow p r i ces , t h e p r i c e o f competing fue l s , e t c . F i n a l l y , each cos t element, and t h e r e f o r e t o t a l p01 i c y scenar io incrementa l costs, can be assigned a f o r e i g n exchange f r a c t i o n (e.g., f o r crude o i l t h i s cou ld approach loo%, w h i l e f o r fuelwood i t cou ld approach zero). Thus, t he Cost ing Program w i l l asc r i be t o each p o l i c y scenar io i t s t o t a l costs, t o t a l d i r e c t b e n e f i t s ( f u e l savings, e t c . ) and f o r e i g n exchange impacts ( b o t h incrementa l a d d i t i o n s and reduc t i ons ) on an annual and cumula t ive bas is .

The Cost ing program uses seven i n p u t da ta f i l e s . There a re t h ree o u t p u t f i l e s f rom t h e Demand, Transformat ion and Resource programs, f o r each o f t h e two scenar ios t o be compared. The o the r i n p u t f i l e con ta ins va r i ous cos t data and some p u r e l y d e s c r i p t i v e data i n f o r m a t i o n which i s used i n t h e program r e p o r t s . A f t e r read ing the f i l e o f cos ts and d e s c r i p t i v e data, t h e Cost ing program compares two d i f f e r e n t scenar ios a t t h e demand, t r ans fo rma t i on and resource l e v e l s , ass ign ing costs t o incrementa l changes i n o u t p u t a t each l e v e l , and r e p o r t s c o s t / b e n e f i t r e s u l t s .

The f i l e o f cos t s and d e s c r i p t i v e da ta con ta ins both genera l da ta c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r " cos t scenar io" assumed ( t h e scenar io approach app l i es here as w e l l ) and s p e c i f i c c o s t r e l a t e d i npu ts . The genera l d a t a i nc ludes a l a b e l i d e n t i f y i n g t h e c o s t scenar io f o r use on o u t p u t repo r t s , t h e monetary u n i t s t o be employed, and t h e assumed i n f l a t i o n and d i scoun t ra tes . The l a t t e r f a c t o r i s used f o r d i scoun t i ng t ime streams o f monetary cos t s and b e n e f i t s i n t o common "present va lue" equ i va len ts t o take account o f t h e t ime va lue o f money. Also, cos t s may be entered f o r s p e c i a l i z e d investments r e l a t e d t o t h e p o l i c y scenar io being analyzed which a re n o t n a t u r a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e LEAP co re program s t r u c t u r e . These cou ld inc lude, f o r example, i n f r a s t r u c t u r e investments such as a p o r t upgrade, p i p e l i n e , road, o r r u r a l e l e c t r i c d i s t r i b u t i o n system t h a t m igh t be r e q u i r e d t o achieve c e r t a i n energy scenar ios .

However, t h e bu lk o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d by t h e Cost ing program i s used t o t r a c k t he equipment and energy cos ts assoc ia ted w i t h scenar ios. For convenience, t h e procedures f o r t he cos t c a l c u l a t i o n s are descr ibed i n f o u r separate sec t i ons below, t r e a t i n g demand equipment cos ts , p r i m a r i l y f u e l requirements, f u e l conversion, and s p e c i f i c wood resource costs.

i. Demand equipment

The demand equipment c o s t i n g opera tes by app l y i ng u n i t cos ts t o any branch l e v e l des i red . T y p i c a l l y , one wishes t o compare end-use equipment cos t s (branch l e v e l 4 ) . LEAP s imply counts t h e number o f u n i t s i n t h e two scenar ios , and computes d i f f e r e n c e s over t ime, t a k i n g account o f t h e need t o rep lace u n i t s as they wear out. Then, u n i t cos t s are app l i ed t o these d i f f e r e n c e s t o compute scenar io cos ts and b e n e f i t s . For example, i n a scenar io r e p l a c i n g some f r a c t i o n o f convent iona l stoves w i t h more e f f i c i e n t ones, t h e scenar io equipment cos t s would be the cos ts o f t h e more e f f i c i e n t stoves w h i l e t he b e n e f i t s would be t h e avoided costs o f convent iona l stoves. However, more s u b t l e c o s t i n g can be obta ined by e n t e r i n g cos t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r h i g h e r l e v e l branches (e.g., sec tor o r subsector ) i f one wishes t o i n c l u d e investment cos t s f o r achieving, say, h ighe r growth i n c e r t a i n manufac tur ing subsectors o r a d d i t i o n a l housing i n rese t t l emen t scenar ios . The c a l c u l a t i o n s are documented i n Table 19.

ii. Pr imary f u e l requ i rements

The procedures above account f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n end-use equipment (more gene ra l l y , " a c t i v i t y " ) costs assoc ia ted w i t h a g i ven scenar io. The o the r major component o f cos t d i f f e r e n c e s i s t he l e v e l o f f u e l consumption. Fuel costs, i n tu rn , may be conven ien t l y d i v i d e d i n t o p r imary energy resource cos ts and the costs o f conversion t o f i n a l f u e l forms. Pr imary energy resource costs concern such i tems as d o m e s t i c a l l y supp l i ed crude o i l o r coa l , and imported energy commodities (wood- related cos ts may be t r e a t e d here o r i n t h e spec ia l wood c o s t i n g s e c t i o n discussed below).

The energy resource cos t c a l c u l a t i o n s are s u m a r i z e d i n Table 20. I n essence, annual d i f f e r e n c e s i n resource requirements f o r the two scenar ios over t h e t ime ho r i zon o f t h e p r o j e c t i o n s a re m u l t i p l i e d by t h e resource costs , s u i t a b l y ad jus ted f o r assumed i n f l a t i o n ra tes , and account i s taken o f t h e f o r e i g n exchange requirements f o r these resources.

TABLE 19

DEMAND EQUIPMENT COST CALCULATIONS

Ind i ces

t Year ( = 1 i n base yea r ) s Demand scenar io l a b e l (1 o r 2) a A c t i v i t y l e v e l

Va r i ab les ( i n p u t )

DEMACT A c t i v i t y measures f rom demand program: product o f a c t i v i t y m u l t i p l i e r s down t o branch (see Table 2 ) ; f o r l e v e l 4 branches, t y p i c a l l y t h e number o f devices.

FEXFRA F r a c t i o n o f cos t s p a i d i n f o r e i g n exchange INF Annual i n f l a t i o n r a t e L Equipment l i f e t i m e ( yea rs ) f o r de termin ing replacement

schedule UCOST U n i t c o s t expressed i n base year monetary u n i t s per DEMACT

u n i t s (as de f i ned i n Cost ing program); t y p i c a l l y , c o s t per dev i ce when r e f e r r i n g t o device/end-use branches (Level 4 i n Demand da ta )

Var iab les ( c a l c u l a t e d )

ADDACT Annual increment i n a c t i v i t y measure d i f f e r e n c e s between scenar ios

COST Annual c o s t f o r each branch e f f e c t e d by scenar io DELACT D i f f e r e n c e i n a c t i v i t y measures between scenar ios FEXCST Fore ign exchange c o s t REP Replacements, e.g., equipment r e t i r e d a f t e r one

l i f e t i m e TOTADD To ta l a d d i t i o n a l u n i t s i n c u r r i n g cos ts i n g iven year

Equat ions

Compute scenar io d i f f e r e n c e s by branch:

Annual increment:

-136-

TABLE 19

DEMAND EQUIPMENT COST CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

I nc lude annual replacements:

TOTADD,,t = ADDACT,,t + REP,,t

where:

REP,, t = TOTADD,, t - ~ (=O i f t < L )

Branch cos ts or b e n e f i t s (depending on s ign ) :

COST,, = TOTADD,, X UCOST, X ( 1 + 1 ~ ~ ) t - l

FEXCSTa,t = COSTa,t X FEXFRA,

-137-

TABLE 20

PRIMARY ENERGY RESOURCE COST CALCULATIONS

t Year ( = l i n base yea r ) s Demand scenar io l a b e l ( 1 o r 2) r Resource type

/ a r i a b l e s ( i n p u t )

FEXFRA F r a c t i o n o f resource costs p a i d i n f o r e i g n exchange RPG Average annual r e a l p r i c e growth o f resources over

t ime ( p o s i t i v e o r nega t i ve decimal f r a c t i o n ) I NF Annual genera l i n f l a t i o n r a t e (decimal f r a c t i o n ) RCOST Resource c o s t (e.g., 1980 Pounds/gigajoules) RESREQ Resource requ i rements i n energy u n i t s (domest ic

pr imary, impor ted pr imary, and imported f i n a l f u e l )

l a r i a b l e s ( c a l c u l a t e d )

ADORES Annual increment i n resource requ i rement d i f f e r e n c e s between scenar ios

DELRES D i f f e r e n c e i n resource requirements between scenar ios FEXCST Fore ign exchange cos t NETCST Net resource c o s t ( o r b e n e f i t ) impact o f scenar io

Equat ions

Compute scenar io d i f f e r e n c e s i n resource requirements:

Annual increment:

Resource cos ts o r b e n e f i t s (depending on s i g n ) :

NETCSTr,t = ADDRESr,t X RCOSTr X ( 1 + INF + R P G ~ )

iii. Fuel convers ion

The c o s t i n g procedures descr ibed above r e f l e c t , r e s p e c t i v e l y , the d i f f e r e n c e s i n end-use equipment and i n p r imary energy resource requirements. Another major cos t impact i s assoc ia ted w i t h d i f f e r i n g requ i rements f o r energy conversion processes which t rans fo rm resource requ i rements t o f i n a l f u e l s . These costs are captured i n LEAP b j again computing t ime streams o f scenar io d i f f e r e n c e s -- t h i s t ime f o r energy sec to r p r o j e c t s and ou tpu ts as f o r e c a s t by t h e Transformat ion program -- and app l y i ng assumed c a p i t a l and ope ra t i ons costs.

The c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r energy convers ion costs are sumnarized i n Table 21. The two components, c a p i t a l - r e l a t e d and ope ra t i ng (or " r e c u r r e n t " ) costs, a re descr ibed s e q u e n t i a l l y . For t he c a p i t a l - r e l a t e d costs, c a p a c i t y increments ( a d d i t i o n s and/or s u b t r a c t i o n s ) f o r t h e va r i ous p r o j e c t types a re f i r s t ca l cu la ted . Then, t h e investment cos t s a re computed by app l y i ng u n i t cos t da ta s u i t a b l y i n f l a t e d t o the year t h e p r o j e c t c o n s t r u c t i o n i s completed. The u n i t cos t s shoulc r e f l e c t a l l d i r e c t c o n s t r u c t i o n cos ts and any c a p i t a l i z e d f inance costs . The investment cos t s are then annua l ized over an assume6 c a p i t a l r ecove ry p e r i o d by app l y i ng a cap i t a l - recove ry r a t e ( " i n t e r e s t " ) , an es t ima te o f t he average r e t u r n t o lenders and/or e q u i t y ho lde rs i n t h e p r o j e c t a long w i t h assoc ia ted taxes t h a t must be p a i d on p r o j e c t earnings, i f any. The annua l i za t i on ( " f i x e d charge f a c t o r " ) i s based on a s tandard annu i t y r a t e ("mortgage formula1' ) .

The ope ra t i ng cos ts a re a l s o de r i ved by computing scenar io impacts on energy sec to r ou tpu ts and app l y i ng u n i t cos ts . These costs are assumed t o be recovered i n t h e year i ncu r red . The p r o j e c t types f o r c o s t i n g m i r r o r those a v a i l a b l e i n t h e Transformat ion program. These a r e sumnarized below along w i t h t h e phys i ca l u n i t s used i n measuring c a p i t a l cos t s and ope ra t i ng costs, r e s p e c t i v e l y :

P r o j e c t types

Ethanol p l a n t s Wood m i l l s Charcoal k i l n s Biogas u n i t s Power p l a n t s O i l r e f i n e r i e s Crude o i l f i e l d Na tu ra l gas f u e l Coal mine Coking p1 ants

Capaci ty u n i t

1000 L i / y r 1000 Tn/yr 1000 Tn/yr Cu.M. /day K i l o w a t t 1000 Tn/yr 1000 Tn/yr M i l l i o n Cu.M./yr 1000 Tn/yr 1000 Tn/yr

Product ion u n i t

1000 L i t e r 1000 Tonnes 1000 Tonnes 1000 Cu.M. MWH (thousand KWH) 1000 Tonnes 1000 Tonnes M i l l i o n Cu.M. 1000 Tonnes 1000 Tonnes

I n a d d i t i o n , as mentioned above, energy sec to r investments t h a t do not f a l l conven ien t l y w i t h i n t h i s s t r u c t u r e may be i nc luded through d i r e c t i n p u t s o f cos t s i n " spec ia l cos t vec tors ."

TABLE 21

ENERGY TRANSFORMATION COST CALCULATIONS

Ind i ces

t Year (=l i n base yea r ) S Scenar io l a b e l (1 o r 2) i P r o j e c t t y p e

Va r i ab les ( i n p u t )

CAP P r o j e c t c a p a c i t i e s ( f r om Transformat ion program) FEXFRC F r a c t i o n o f c a p i t a l c o s t pa id f o r i n f o r e i g n exchange FEXFRP F r a c t i o n o f p roduc t i on cos t p a i d f o r i n f o r e i g n exchange INF Annual i n f l a t i o n r a t e INT Annual " i n t e r e s t " r a t e on c a p i t a l cos t s (decimal

f r a c t i o n ) r e f l e c t i n g cos ts o f borrowed funds and/or r e t u r n on investment

PER Recovery p e r i o d f o r c a p i t a l - r e l a t e d costs (e.g., amor t i za t i on o f o r i g i n a l investment p l u s i n t e r e s t / r e t u r n )

PRD Product ion l e v e l S

UNCAPC C a p i t a l cos t s i n base year monetary u n i t s (as de f i ned i n Cost ing program) per u n i t o f c a p a c i t y

UNPRDC Product ion cos ts i n base year monetary u n i t s per u n i t o f ou tpu t (assumed recovered i n year i ncu r red )

Va r i ab les ( c a l c u l a t e d )

ADDCAP ADDPRD ANNCAP CAPCST DELCAP

DELPRD FCF

FEXCSC FEXCSP PRDCST TOTCAP TOTPRD

Annual increment i n c a p a c i t i e s between scenar ios Annual increment i n p roduc t i on l e v e l s between scenar ios Anua l ized c a p i t a l cos t s C a p i t a l investment by p r o j e c t D i f f e r e n c e i n energy conversion c a p a c i t i e s between

scenar ios D i f f e r e n c e i n p roduc t i on l e v e l s between scenar ios F ixed charge f a c t o r app l i ed t o c a p i t a l investment

t o conve r t t o annua l ized stream o f cos ts ("mortgage formula" )

Fore ign exchange impacts o f c a p i t a l investments Fore ign exchange impacts o f p roduc t i on cos ts Product ion cos ts by p r o j e c t T o t a l c a p a c i t y - r e l a t e d cos t impact per year f o r scenar io T o t a l p roduc t i on cos t impact per year f o r scenar io

TABLE 2 1 ( C o n t i n u e d )

ENERGY TRANSFORMATION COST CALCULATIONS

Equat ions :

Compute s c e n a r i o d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a p a c i t y :

DELCAPi,t = CAPs=2,i,t - CAPs=l , i , t

Annual c a p a c i t y a d d i t i o n s ( o r s u b t r a c t i o n s ) between s c e n a r i o s :

ADDCAPi,t = DELCAPi,t - DELCAPi,t- l

C a p i t a l inves tment :

CAPCSTi,t = ADDCAPi,t X UNCAPCi X ( 1 + INF)~-'

A n n u a l i z e d c a p i t a l c o s t :

ANNCAPi,t = FCFj X CAPCSTi,t ( f o r y e a r s a f t e r a d d i t i o n , e l s e 0 )

where:

FCFi = I N T i / ( l - ( 1 +

T o t a l s c e n a r i o c a p i t a l c o s t impac ts :

TOTCAPt = 1 ANNCAPi , t i

S c e n a r i o d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o d u c t i o n :

DELPRDi,t = PRDs=2,i,t - PRDs=l , i , t

Annual p r o d u c t i o n d i f f e r e n c e inc rements between s c e n a r i o s :

ADDPRDi,t = DELPRDi,t - DELPRDi,t- l

P r o d u c t i o n c o s t impac ts o f s c e n a r i o :

PRDCSTi ,t = ADDPRDi ,t X UNPRDCi X ( 1 + I N F ) ~ - ~

T o t a l s c e n a r i o p r o d u c t i o n c o s t impac ts :

TOTPRDt = CPRDCSTi , t i

F o r e i g n exchange impac ts :

FEXCSCi,t = FEXFRCi X ANNCAPi,t

FEXCSPi,t = FEXFRPi X PKDCSTi,t

i v . Wood resource cos ts

A f i n a l f e a t u r e o f t h e Cost ing program pe rm i t s more d e t a i l e d t r ea tmen t o f wood resource f o r scenar ios f ocus ing on wood p o l i c y impacts. I f ac t i va ted , these es t imates s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s o f wood resource cos ts r e f l e c t e d i n Tab le 20 above.

The c a l c u l a t i o n s , as sumnarized i n Table 22, i n c l u d e th ree components. The f i r s t , "General Wood Costs, ' t r a c k s p o s s i b l e scenar io impacts on t h r e e aspects o f wood resources: (1) t h e q u a n t i t y o f wood supp l i es taken f rom convent iona l sources (nonconvent iona l sources are descr ibed below), ( 2 ) t he magnitude o f t h e wood s h o r t f a l l ( t h e gap between requirements and a v a i l a b l e supp l i es as computed i n t h e Resource program), and ( 3 ) t he amount o f s tock c u t t i n g .

For t h e purposes o f c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s o f t h e scenar io, a c o s t may be assigned t o each o f these impacts. The f i r s t c o s t f a c t o r i s assoc ia ted w i t h t h e cos t o f wood supp l ies , expressed e i t h e r i n market p r i c e o r shadow-priced t o r e f l e c t r e a l " s o c i a l " costs, depending on t h e a n a l y s t ' s purpose i n per forming the c o s t i n g exe rc i se .

The second c o s t f a c t o r , r e l a t i n g t o t h e e f f e c t s o f c l o s i n g the gap between wood requirements and suppl ies , should r e f l e c t t h e cos ts o f doing w i t h o u t s u f f i c i e n t wood supp l ies , t y p i c a l l y i n t h e r u r a l s e t t i n g . The response t o wood shortages cou ld i n c l u d e t h e use o f s u b s t i t u t e commercial f u e l s (e.g., kerosene), i n f e r i o r noncommercial f u e l s (e.g., a g r i c u l t u r e waste, animal dung), o r s imply doing w i thou t . The c o s t assoc ia ted w i t h t h e s h o r t f a l l i s , t he re fo re , r e l a t e d t o t h e s o c i a l cos t s o f these types o f responses t o inadequate wood supp l i es . Such cos ts can i n c l u d e t h e d i r e c t expense f o r a d d i t i o n a l f u e l ; t h e impact on a g r i c u l t u r e when t h e use o f dung and a g r i c u l t u r e waste as f u e l s removes s o i l n u t r i e n t s ; and t h e d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f t h e q u a l i t y o f l i f e r e s u l t i n g f rom fuelwood shortages. I t i s c l e a r l y d i f f i c u l t t o p lace a monetary va lue on such costs . I n p r a c t i c e , a proxy c o s t might be used such as t h e cos t o f a s u b s t i t u t e commercial f u e l .

The t h i r d genera l wood c o s t f a c t o r , t h e va lue o f reduc ing wood s tock c u t t i n g , i s a l s o d i f f i c u l t t o q u a n t i f y . I t i s , i n p r i n c i p l e , r e l a t e d t o t he va lue p laced on avo id ing wood s tock reduc t i ons and, as such, i s a measure o f t he e c o l o g i c a l o r o the r long- term b e n e f i t s o f p rese rv ing the wood endowment i n t h e count rys ide. The repercuss ions o f d e f o r e s t a t i o n w i l l depend on environmental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t he a f f e c t e d area, such as t h e r o l e o f t h e t r e e cover i n s o i l p r e s e r v a t i o n and water r e t e n t i o n .

The second component o f t h e wood resource c a l c u l a t i o n s shown i n Tab le 22 i s f o r "Wood P r o j e c t Costs." Nonconvent ional wood p r o j e c t s may have been de f i ned w i t h i n t h e Resource program by ass ign ing land areas over t ime t o such ca tego r i es as ag ro- fo res t r y , wood p l a n t a t i o n s , urban greenbe l ts , e t c . Values may be assigned f o r investment ( " c a p i t a l " ) , ope ra t i ons and maintenance, ha rves t i ng , and d i s t r i b u t i o n costs, The c a p i t a l cos t s a re entered as annual f i g u r e s over t h e l i f e - c y c l e o f t h e p r o j e c t so t h a t i t i s necessary t o keep t rack o f t he v i n tage (year o f s t a r t - u p ) f o r each p r o j e c t . The concept o f " p r o j e c t " here r e f e r s t o a l l t h e s p e c i a l i z e d wood growing e f f o r t s as de f i ned i n

t h e scenar io . So i t could, i n f a c t , r e f e r t o m u l t i p l e e f f o r t s o f a s i m i l a r t ype (e.g., " a g r o f o r e s t r y " cou ld r e f e r t o a s e t o f countrywide a c t i v i t i e s t o combine t r e e and crop growing).

The f i n a l component o f t h e wood resource cost ing , 'Land and A g r i c u l t u r a l Output Impacts," recogn izes t h a t scenar ios which assume s h i f t s i n l and a l l o c a t i o n s and a g r i c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n s cou ld have a d d i t i o n a l cos ts assoc ia ted w i t h these s h i f t s . Through these r e l a - t i o n s h i p s one may ass ign o p p o r t u n i t y cos t s t o such l and conversions, i n c l u d i n g t h e va lue o f any s h i f t s i n t h e q u a n t i t y o f domestic a g r i - c u l t u r e o u t p u t and o f expor ted o r impor ted a g r i c u l t u r a l colnmodities.

-143-

TABLE 22

WOOD RESOURCE COST CALCULATIONS

t Year (=l i n base y e a r ) v V in tage (year wood p r o j e c t commences) s Scenar io (1 o r 2) p P r o j e c t t ype i Land types a A g r i c u l t u r a l p roduc t source (domest ic, impor t , expo r t )

Va r i ab les ( i n p u t )

AGVAL Value assigned t o a g r i c u l t u r a l o u t p u t f o r domestic product ion , impor t s and expor ts

AGPRD A g r i c u l t u r a l q u a n t i t i e s domestic product ion , impor ts , and expor ts ( f r om Resource program)

FXCAP Wood p r o j e c t f o r e i g n exchange f r a c t i o n -- c a p i t a l cos t s FXOM Wood p r o j e c t f o r e i g n exchange f r a c t i o n -- ope ra t i ng and

maintenance cos ts FXDIS Wood p r o j e c t f o r e i g n exchange f r a c t i o n -- d i s t r i b u t i o n

FXHRV Wood p r o j e c t f o r e i g n exchange f r a c t i o n -- ha rves t i ng cos ts INF General r a t e o f i n f l a t i o n LAND Land areas by l and types ( f r om Resource program) LANDDC Land o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t assoc ia ted w i t h scenar io s h i f t s

o f l and a l l o c a t i o n s NEWWP New wood p r o j e c t s ( l a n d area) OPTCST Wood s h o r t f a l l c o s t (monetary u n i t s per tonne) RDUCST Value o f avoided wood s tock c u t t i n g (monetary u n i t s per

SUPCST Wood supp ly cos t s f rom convent iona l sources, e.g., f rom o t h e r than wood p r o j e c t s (monetary u n i t s per tonne)

WDGAP S h o r t f a l l i n meet ing wood requirements i n scenar ios f rom Resource program ( tonnes)

WDSKCT Wood s tock c u t t i n g i n scenar ios f rom Resource program

WDSUP Wood supp l i es i n scenar ios f rom Resource program ( tonnes) WPCAPC Wood p r o j e c t c a p i t a l cos t s ( investments) f o r each year

o f t h e p r o j e c t ( i n monetary u n i t s per l and u n i t , e.g., Poundslha) -- repeats a f t e r l i f e t i m e (WPLT)

WPLT Wood p r o j e c t l i f e t i m e ( c a p i t a l cos t s repea t a f t e r t h i s pe r i od w i t h r e p l a n t i n g )

WPJPRD Wood p r o j e c t p roduc t i on f rom Resource program ( tonnes) WPJLND Land area devoted t o wood p r o j e c t s f rom Resource program

-144-

TABLE 22

WOOD RESOURCE COST CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

WPPCOM Wood p r o j e c t p roduc t i on cos ts -- ope ra t i ng and maintenance costs ( i n monetary u n i t s per l and u n i t , e.g., Pounds/ha)

WPPCHV Wood p r o j e c t p roduc t i on cos ts -- ha rves t i ng cos ts ( i n monetary un i t s / t onne wood produced)

WPPCDI Wood p r o j e c t p roduc t i on cos ts -- d i s t r i b u t i o n cos ts ( i n monetary un i t s / t onne wood)

Va r i ab les ( c a l c u l a t e d )

DELLND Scenar io s h i f t s i n l and a l l o c a t i o n s DELAG Scenar io s h i f t s i n a g r i c u l t u r a l p roduct ion , impor ts

and expo r t s DELWGP Scenar io impact on wood s h o r t f a l l (decrease i n gap) DELWPL A d d i t i o n a l wood p r o j e c t l and i n scenar io DELWPP A d d i t i o n a l wood p r o j e c t p roduc t i on i n scenar io DELWSK Scenar io impact on s tock c u t t i n g DELWSP Scenar io impact on wood supp l i es PRJCC C a p i t a l c o s t assoc ia ted w i t h t ype o f wood p r o j e c t PRJDIS D i s t r i b u t i o n cos ts assoc ia ted w i t h t ype o f wood p r o j e c t PRJHV Harvest ing cos ts assoc ia ted w i t h t ype o f wood p r o j e c t PRJOM Operat ing and maintenance cos ts assoc ia ted w i t h type o f

wood p r o j e c t PRJFEX Wood p r o j e c t f o r e i g n exchange scenar io impacts TOTAGC T o t a l scenar io c o s t o f s h i f t s i n a g r i c u l t u r a l q u a n t i t i e s TOTLOC T o t a l scenar io o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t o f s h i f t i n l a n d

a1 l o c a t i o n s WGPCST Scenar io c o s t c r e d i t ( o r p e n a l t y ) f o r decreasing wood

s h o r t f a l l WSKCST Scenar io c o s t c r e d i t ( o r p e n a l t y ) f o r decreasing stock

c u t t i n g WSPCST Scenar io c o s t impact o f change i n supp l i es f rom

convent iona l sources

Equat ions

A. General Wood Costs

Compute scenar io changes i n wood supply, wood s h o r t f a l l , and stock dep le t i on :

TABLE 22

WOOD RESOURCE COST CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

and assoc ia ted scenar io cos t s ( o r b e n e f i t s ) :

W S P C S T ~ = D E L W S P ~ X SUPCST X ( 1 + 1 ~ ~ ) t - l

W G P C S T ~ = D E L W G P ~ X OPTCST X ( 1 + INF)~-1

W S K C S T ~ = D E L W S K ~ X RDUCST X ( 1 + INF)~-1

B. Wood P r o j e c t Costs

A d d i t i o n a l p r o j e c t l and and output :

DELWPLp,t = WPJLNDp,s=2,t - WPJLNDp,s=l,t

DELWPPp,t = WPJPRDp,s=z,t - WPJPRDp9s=l,t

Wood p r o j e c t s by v i n tage year:

NEWWPp,t = DELWPLp,t - DELWPLp,t-l

C a p i t a l cos ts : t

PRJCCp,t = C NEWWPLp,, X WPCAPCp,t-v+l X (1 + I N F ) ~ - ~ v = l

Product ion and d i s t r i b u t i o n cos ts :

P R J O M ~ , ~ = D E L W P L ~ , ~ X W P P C O M ~ X ( 1 + INF)~-1

P R J H V ~ , ~ = D E L W P P ~ , ~ X W P P C H V ~ X ( 1 + 1 ~ ~ ) t - l

P R J D I S ~ , ~ = D E L W P P ~ , ~ X W P P C D I ~ X ( 1 + INF)~-1

Fore ign exchange costs :

PRJFEXp,t = FXCAP X PRJCCp,t + FXOM X PRJOMp,t

+ FXHRV X PRJHVp,t + FXDIS X PRJDISp,t

C. Land and A g r i c u l t u r a l Output Impacts:

Oppo r tun i t y cos t s o f l and s h i f t s :

DELLNDi,t = LANDi,s=z,t - LANDi,s=l,t

TOTLOCi ,t = DELLNDi ,t X LANDOCi X ( 1 + 1NFI t - l

-146-

TABLE 22

WOOD RESOURCE COST CALCULATIONS (Cont inued)

Impacts o f scenar io s h i f t s i n a g r i c u l t u r a l q u a n t i t i e s :

DELAGa,t = AGPRDa,,,2,t - AGPRDa,s=l,t

TOTAGC,,~ = DELAG,, X AGVAL,,~ X ( 1 + INF)~-1

I l l u s t r a t i v e Cost ing program r e p o r t s showing comparisons between t h e Base Case and scenar io f o r f u e l and resource changes, cos t and b e n e f i t s , and f o r e i g n exchange impacts are presented i n F igures 51 through 53.

FIGURE 51

SAMPLE REPORT: FUEL AND RESOURCE CHANGES

CWNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: HIGHER EFF # l VS. BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: TEST # l BASE CASE RESWRCE: TEST CASE # l

REPORT: CR-1 Base Case

COST SCENARIO: SAMPLE DATA

** FUEL AND RESWRCE CHANGES ( MILLION GIGAJOULES ) **

REPORTING YEARS 1990 1995 2000 2005

FINAL CONSUMPTION KEROSENE/JETFUEL -.03 2 -.54 -.98 ELECTRICITY .OO .04 .09 . l 7 FUELVOOD CHARCOAL

RESWRCE REQUIREMENTS CRUDE OIL 7.99 13.61 29.49 45.34 UWO FOR FUELWD -1.80 -13.00 -23.00 -35.30 UOM) FOR CHARCL -3.90 -5.00 -9.70 -15.60 UIND/SOLAR .DO . l 1 .21 .21 - - IMPORTS ( Pos i t i ve = Increase ) - - CRUDE IMPORTS -8.00 -13.60 -29.50 -45.38 P. PROO IMPORTS -00 .OO .OO -1.04 - - EXPORTS ( Negative = Increase ) - - P. PRO0 EXPORTS -.D2 - . l 9 -.57 .50 - - USER ADDITIONS - -

WOO PRODUCTION PROJECTS .DO 3.91 5.87 9.78 OTHER YIELDS . l 0 .81 2.95 2.35 STOCK CUTTING -4.77 -11.98 -23.54 -17.39 TOTAL -4.67 -7.26 -14.72 -5.26

** AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY CHANGES (THWSAND TONNES ) **

OOMEST lC IMPORT

REPORTING YEARS 1990 1995 2000 2005

NON-FWD EXPORT

FIGURE 52

SAMPLE REPORT: COST IMPACTS BY CATEGORY

COUNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: HIGHER EFF #l VS. BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: TEST #l BASE CASE RESOURCE: TEST CASE #l B a s e C a s e

REPORT: CR-3

COST SCENARIO: SAMPLE DATA

***** COST/BENEFIT SUMMARY "***

REPORTING YEARS CUMULATIVE TO: 1990 1995 2000 2005 1990 2000

** TOTAL ** COSTS 47.4 110.3 303.0 631.6 50.4 1544.2 BENEFITS 61.2 159.8 503.9 1131.6 64.8 2386.8 "NET COST* -13.9 -49.6 -200.9 -500.0 -14.5 -842.6

BEN!COST RAT IO 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.3 1.5

** DISCOUNTED TOTAL (M ILL ION 1985 US DLRS ) ** COSTS 29.4 42.5 72.5 93.9 31.5 523.7 BENEFITS 38.0 61.6 120.6 168.2 40.7 792.9 "NET COST* -8.6 -19.1 -48.1 -74.3 -9.3 -269.2

***** FOREIGN EXCHANGE IMPACTS (M ILL ION US DLRS ) W***

REPORTING YEARS CUMULATIVE TO: 1990 1995 2000 2005 1990 2000

END USE EQUIP .2 .5 .9 1.5 .2 5.9 TRANSFORM EQUIP .O .7 1.6 1.6 .O 5.1 TRANSFORM O&M .D .O 1 .l .O .3 RESOURCE REP -54.7 -139.8 -451.4 -1017.5 -54.7 -2115.8 RESOURCE PROJECTS .O .4 .7 1.5 .O 3.9 F(XX, IMPORTS .O -.l -.4 -1.2 .O -1.6 AGRlC EXPORTS .O .O .O .O .O .O

** TOTAL ** -54.4 -138.2 -448.6 -1013.9 -54.4 -2102.2

FIGURE 53

SAMPLE REPORT: COST/BENEFITS SUMvlARY AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE IMPACTS

CDUNTRY: KAMBIA DEMAND: HIGHER EFF # l VS. BASE CASE

TRANSFOR: TEST # l BASE CASE RESOURCE: TEST CASE # l Base Case

REPORT: CR-2

COST SCENARIO: SAMPLE DATA

***"** COST IMPACTS BY CATEGORY (MILLION US DLRS ) ******

REPORTING YEARS CUMULATIVE TO: 1590 1995 2000 2005 1990 2000

END USE EQUIPMENT NEW 1.5 4.1 7.9 14.8 1.5 44.6 AVOIDED .3 1 .D 2.4 5.2 .3 12.5 *NET COST* 1.2 3.2 5.5 9.6 1.2 32.1

TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES NE\( COSTS

EQUIPMENT .O 2.3 5.3 5.3 .O 16.9 OgM .O 1 .2 .3 .D 1 .o

TOTAL .O 2.4 5.5 5.6 .O 17.9 AVOIDED COSTS

EQUIPMENT .O .O .O .O .O .O O&M .O .O .O .O .O 1

TOTAL .O .O .O .O .O 1 *NET COST* .O 2.4 5.5 5.5 .O 17.8

UODD PROJECTS CAPITAL .l .2 .4 .8 1 2.5 O&M .O 3.1 6.0 12.6 .O 31.1 LAND USE .D 1 .2 .4 .O 1.2

TOTAL .l 3.3 6.6 13.8 .l 34.8

AGRIC IMPtEXP CHANGES *NET COST* .O -.l -.4 -1.2 .O -1.6

SPECIAL COSTS New P ipe l i ne 3.0 3.0 .O .O 6.0 30.0

TOTAL 3.0 3.0 .O .O 6.0 30.0

RESWRCE REQUIREMENTS COSTS 42.7 97.5 283.4 598.5 42.7 1418.4 BENEFITS

NON-VOOO 59.0 149.5 480.4 1092.5 59.0 2259.4 PROJECT VOM) .O 1.6 3.0 6.4 .O 15.6 OTHER VOOO 1.6 6.6 15.1 24.7 4.6 83.2 VWD STOCK .4 1.2 3.0 2.8 1.0 16.0

*NET COST* -18.2 -61.4 -218.1 -527.9 -21.8 -955.8

ENERGY. E1"L'VIKONhltr:lC'lC'I AND If t-C'EI,OPMEN'T fN AFRIC"IZt 14, a 5erresof new title5 puhfl\hed jolntl) h! t h e Bc~jer Institute and the ScanLti~~,r\rran lnstrttttc of Afr~car~ Studrec.

'I'he Beijer Institute ('I he Iziternar~crri,~l Inlrtttutc for knergq and I luinan Eccrltrgy), a daughter Instirutlorr t r Z the Royal Swedish hcadelzly of Scier~ccs, i \ concerned with energy and the human env~rannlent Among its rcsexch actrvttrelt the Xnstitutc has focilrsed 11s interest\ on a series of energv planning 3tudies In rlfrican countrjes. highi~pl~ting the cructal importarlce of t u e l ~ t ~ o d supply and demarrd, issue\ of rurttl developtnent and interactlon6 between the tradltianal and modern \ectors of the economy.

Ttre Scandinavian Institute OF Africm Studies (SIAS) promotes Afrtcan studies among scholars in the Nordtc countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), I t is located in Ijppsala and financed through goser ntnenr funds from the Nordic countries. SXAS encourages and initiates rescarch on and instruction about develitpmenr r\cue.c iri Africa: disseminates information about current African affairs xhrough ctrnfererrccs. .seminars and lectures as \\c11 as by publications. SlAS has the ~ > n l > Ilbrary in the Nordic countries s p e c ~ ~ t l ~ ~ i n g on modern Africa.

Many developingca~rr~rrre\, not least tn Airtc;t, have been hard hit by rhc tlcruhle "energy crisis"' uf threatened Itlelwoud .;upply and the increasing burdcri ~ r f o l f

importc. During the last decade energy provi\iorr ha.; become a vitallq importdnr issue so that energy is ncrw regarded as a basic faaor (1% production ranklng rn Importance wtth the classrcal cornponcnrl. i'ind. labour arid capital C'arcful and ~nnnvatr\e energy pfanntng has become a ncce\slty for sticcessful dctcltrprnen~

The Berjer fnstatute's work in Keny~i and In the nine courltrlos of thc. Southcrilt Afrtcan L>evetrrpment CO-ordinat~tlil C'tinfercnce (SADC'C) has beert unctcrta- ken jirrntt) wrth Kenya'\ Mlrltrtry itf kncrgy and SADC'C'c Enerp; Scctcrr respecrrvely This ha\ led to a srumber ol. rleu policy lnntiatitcs. Wc hope rhcrr thi.~ CXI)L"~ICIICC from Soutlrcrrl ,rind .i:,t:a.;iurrt Afrtca mrli probe useful r r i a wrdcr COllteYt.

This series will report ctn the methodtrlcrgy ancl fzndings of the Kenqan and SADCC studies, Other titles will fcrltow The publicaticln of tlre sexier, ""Energy, Envirsnmer~c and Ueveiopn~ent in Africa" is sponsored by ahr: Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA).

ISSN 0281-8515 ISBN 91-71%-247-5