RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Hyun Jin Choi, Bryan Bonsuk Koo ©2024 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Publication date: September 2024 Disclaimer This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Report and Cover design: Lauren Kaley Johnson, GCSPM, The World Bank Group Text Layout: Duina Reyes Cover photo: © World Bank Rwanda Energy Team CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi ABBREVIATIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Access to Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Gender Analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Refugee Household Analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Access to Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Access to Clean Cooking.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii 1. INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv 1.1 Country Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Methodology: The Multi-Tier Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Access to Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3 Survey Implementation in Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Survey Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.1 Assessing Household Access to Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Electricity Access by Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Evaluating Electricity Access Using the Multi-Tier Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Use of Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.2 Improving Electricity Access.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Providing Electricity Access to Households without Electricity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Improving Access to the National Grid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.3 Policy Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 i RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework 3. ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.1 Assessing Households’ Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Access to Modern Energy Cooking by Technology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Stove Stacking.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Evaluating Access to Modern Energy Cooking Using the Multi-Tier Framework .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.2 Improving Access to Modern Energy Cooking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Expanding the Use of Improved Biomass Stoves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 LPG Stoves as a Clean Cooking Option, with High Fuel Cost as a Barrier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.3 Policy Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4. GENDER ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.1 Rwanda Gender Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.2 Electricity Access .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.3 Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.4 Policy Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5. REFUGEE HOUSEHOLD ANALYSIS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5.1 Background.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Refugee Integration Policies in Rwanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Energy Access in Refugee Camps.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5.2 Access to Electricity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Electricity Access by Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Evaluating Electricity Access Using the Multi-Tier Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Use of Electrical Appliances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Use of Off-Grid Solar Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.3 Access to Clean Cooking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5.4 Policy Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 ANNEX 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 ANNEX 2 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 ANNEX 3 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 ANNEX 4 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 ANNEX 5 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 ANNEX 6 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 ANNEX 7.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 REFERENCES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 ii BOXES BOX 1 • TYPOLOGY OF OFF-GRID SOLAR DEVICES AND TIER CALCULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 BOX 2 • MINIMUM ELECTRICITY REQUIREMENTS, BY ELECTRICITY ACCESS TIER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 BOX 3 • HOLISTIC CRITERIA TO MEASURE ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 BOX 4 • COOKSTOVE TYPOLOGY FOR RWANDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 BOX 5 • ELECTRICITY ACCESS OF RWANDA’S PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 BOX 6 • USE OF STOVES AMONG RWANDAN EDUCATION FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 TABLES TABLE 1 • Appliances by load level and the associated Capacity Tiers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TABLE 2 • Distribution of sample households by province and locality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TABLE 3 • Sample distribution for refugee camps and host communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 TABLE 4 • Why households would not accept an offer of a solar device .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 TABLE A3.1 • MTF Electricity Tier matrix for the analysis of the Rwanda’s public institution survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 TABLE A4.1 • Electricity end-user tariffs for residential customers in Rwanda.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 TABLE A5.1 • Solar products considered in the willingness-to-pay survey module.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 TABLE A6.1 • Improved cookstoves considered in the willingness-to-pay survey module. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 TABLE A7.1 • Cookstoves in Rwanda.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 FIGURES FIGURE 1 • Electricity access in Rwanda, by locality (2016 vs 2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 FIGURE 2 • Electricity access, by technology (2016 vs 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 FIGURE 3 • Distribution of off-grid technologies, by locality (2022) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 FIGURE 4 • Provincial electricity access, by technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 FIGURE 5 • Distribution of off-grid technologies, by province .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 FIGURE 6 • Access to electricity-providing technologies, by Ubudehe category (nationwide) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 FIGURE 7 • MTF Electricity Tier matrix for the Rwanda survey analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 FIGURE 8 • Nationwide household distribution of aggregate Electricity Tier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 FIGURE 9 • Household distribution based on electricity-providing technology, by aggregate Electricity Tier (2022).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 FIGURE 10 • Household distribution of aggregate Electricity Tier (rural/urban). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 FIGURE 11 • Provincial household distribution of aggregate Electricity Tier .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 FIGURE 12 • Household distribution of Capacity Tier, by locality (2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 FIGURE 13 • Household distribution based on electricity-providing technologies in rural areas, by Capacity Tier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 FIGURE 14 • Nationwide household distribution of all-day Availability Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 iii RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 15 • Primary electricity source, by all-day Availability Tier (nationwide, 2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 FIGURE 16 • Household distribution of all-day Availability Tier, by locality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 FIGURE 17 • Nationwide household distribution of evening Availability Tier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 FIGURE 18 • Nationwide household distribution of Reliability Tier.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 FIGURE 19 • Nationwide household distribution of Quality Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 FIGURE 20 • Nationwide household distribution of Formality Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 FIGURE 21 • Nationwide household distribution of Health and Safety Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 FIGURE 22 • Monthly grid consumption, by locality (kWh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 FIGURE 23 • Nationwide monthly grid consumption in 2022, by Ubudehe category and locality (kWh). . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 FIGURE 24 • Years of grid connection, by Ubudehe category and locality (year).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 FIGURE 25 • Nationwide grid consumption, by years of grid connection (kWh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 FIGURE 26 • Monthly grid expenditure (RWF). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 FIGURE 27 • Monthly grid expenditure, by Ubudehe category and locality (RWF).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 FIGURE 28 • Highest load levels of the appliances used by grid-connected households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 FIGURE 29 • Appliance use among grid-connected households, by load level.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 FIGURE 30 • Appliance use among households relying on the national grid as the primary electricity source, by locality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 FIGURE 31 • Share of households without any source of electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 FIGURE 32 • Nationwide use of dry-cell flashlights/lanterns, by households’ electricity access status.. . . . . . . . . . . . 29 FIGURE 33 • Share of villages with grid access, by locality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 FIGURE 34 • Grid connection status of households in villages where grid access is available (nationwide).. . . . . . 30 FIGURE 35 • Reasons why unelectrified households do not have a grid connection despite its availability in their villages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 FIGURE 36 • Unelectrified households’ willingness to pay for solar devices (nationwide).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 FIGURE 37 • The most serious issues with electricity from the national grid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 FIGURE 38 • Distribution of Reliability Tier across grid-connected households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 FIGURE 39 • Distribution of Reliability Tier across grid-connected households, by province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 FIGURE 40 • Distribution of the Quality Tier across grid-connected households .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 FIGURE 41 • Nationwide backup sources for lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 FIGURE 42 • Issues with households’ main solar devices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 FIGURE 43 • Electricity access of public institutions, by technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 FIGURE 44 • Primary cookstove, by locality (2022).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 FIGURE 45 • Use of LPG stoves .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 FIGURE 46 • Primary cookstove, by province.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 FIGURE 47 • Primary cookstove type, by Ubudehe category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 FIGURE 48 • Fuels for primary stoves, by locality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 FIGURE 49. Fuel use, by primary stove. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 FIGURE 50 • Primary cookstove of education facilities (nationwide) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 FIGURE 51 • Number of cookstoves stacked, by locality .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 FIGURE 52 • Stacked stoves of households with two stoves.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 iv FIGURE 53 • Primary stoves of households with two stoves, by stove kept aside (nationwide). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 FIGURE 54 • MTF Cooking Tier matrix for the Rwanda energy survey analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 FIGURE 55 • Household distribution of aggregate Cooking Tier, by locality (2022).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 FIGURE 56 • Nationwide household distribution of Exposure Tier (2022).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 FIGURE 57 • Households’ primary cookstoves, by Exposure Tier (2022).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 FIGURE 58 • Households in Exposure Tiers 0 and 1, cooking indoor without any ventilation systems .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 FIGURE 59 • Household distribution of Convenience* Tier, by locality (2022).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 FIGURE 60 • Household distribution of Availability Tier, by locality (2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 FIGURE 61 • Household distribution of cooking Safety Tier, by locality (2022).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 FIGURE 62 • Willingness to pay for an improved firewood cookstove (nationwide).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 FIGURE 63 • Why households are not willing to pay for an improved stove (nationwide). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 FIGURE 64 • Share of villages with LPG availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 FIGURE 65 • LPG stove adoption of households in villages where LPG is available, by locality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 FIGURE 66 • Nationwide distribution of households, by sex of household head.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 FIGURE 67 • Household distribution based on Ubudehe category, by sex of household head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 FIGURE 68 • Education and employment of household head, by sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 FIGURE 69 • Marital status of household head, by sex.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 FIGURE 70 • Access to electricity-providing technologies, by sex of household head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 FIGURE 71 • Access to electricity technologies, by sex of household head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 FIGURE 72 • Primary cookstove, by sex of household head.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 FIGURE 73 • LPG stove adoption, by sex of household head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 FIGURE 74 • Frequency of cooking, by sex of household head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 FIGURE 75 • Electricity access among refugee households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 FIGURE 76 • Distribution of off-grid technologies, by type of household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 FIGURE 77 • Electricity access among host communities and refugee settlements, by refugee camp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 FIGURE 78 • Use of off-grid technologies, by refugee camp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 FIGURE 79 • Distribution of refugee and host community households based on aggregate Electricity Tier.. . . . . . . 63 FIGURE 80 • Electricity technology of refugee households in each aggregate Electricity Tier.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 FIGURE 81 • Distribution of refugee and host community households across the all-day Availability Tier .. . . . . . . 64 FIGURE 82 • Appliance use among refugee households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 FIGURE 83 • Number of solar devices .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 FIGURE 84 • Up-front payment for the main solar device, by technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 FIGURE 85 • Most serious issues with the main solar device, by technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 FIGURE 86 • Primary cookstoves of refugee households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 FIGURE 87 • Primary cookstoves of refugee households, by camp .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 FIGURE 88 • Cooking fuel use among refugee households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 FIGURE 89 • Cooking fuel among refugee households, by stove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 FIGURE A1.1 • Household distribution of Ubudehe category, by locality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 FIGURE A2.1 • Barriers to household grid connections (2016 vs 2022).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 v RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report delivers findings from a comprehensive energy survey carried out in Rwanda in mid-2022 by the Centre for Economic and Social Studies Ltd (CESS Ltd), under contract to the World Bank. The energy survey was based on the methodology developed under the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) for Energy Access, a global initiative technically and financially supported by the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) and administered by the World Bank. The survey findings have been analyzed and presented in this report by World Bank staff from ESMAP and the Rwanda energy team. The authors for this report were Hyun Jin Choi (Data Analyst Consultant) and Bryan Bonsuk Koo (Energy Specialist). The field coordinator for the energy survey was Marina Brutinel (Energy Consultant), and the report was peer reviewed by Juan Carlos Parra Osorio (Senior Economist), Rutu Dave (Senior Energy Specialist), and Clementine Umugwaneza (Energy Specialist). Review, feedback, and editing were also provided by Norah Kipwola (Senior Energy Specialist), Yabei Zhang (Senior Energy Specialist), Arun Singh (Energy Specialist), Unurtsetseg Ulaankhuu (Energy Specialist Consultant), Meskerem Mulatu Legesse (Gender Specialist Consultant), Clara Galeazzi (Consultant), and Crispin Pemberton-Pigott (Senior Technical Consultant). Copyediting services were provided by Steven Kennedy, and design services were provided by Lauren Kaley Johnson and Duina Reyes. This study is part of the Analyses to Improve Energy Access and Operational and Financial Performance of Energy Services Delivery in Rwanda (PASA, P177429). It was prepared with financial and technical support from the ESMAP. ESMAP is a partnership between the World Bank and over 20 partners to help low- and middle-income countries reduce poverty and boost growth through sustainable energy solutions. ESMAP’s analytical and advisory services are fully integrated within the World Bank’s country financing and policy dialogue in the energy sector. Through the World Bank (WB), ESMAP works to accelerate the energy transition required to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 7 to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. It helps to shape WB strategies and programs to achieve the WB Climate Change Action Plan targets. The support provided by ESMAP and the MTF team for the Rwanda Energy Survey is gratefully acknowledged. This study was also co-financed by the Italian Ministry of Environment and Energy Security (MASE) through the Single Donor Trust Fund “AGREED.” The MASE’s financial support is greatly appreciated. The team would like to thank the Government of Rwanda, especially the Ministry of Infrastructure, for its enthusiasm and support for the project and valuable comments on the survey results. Acknowledgments also extend to Amare Gebre Egziabher (Senior Environmental Coordinator) at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who greatly supported a survey conducted in refugee camps in Rwanda. Finally, the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR) offered invaluable support of survey preparations and also approved the report. vi ABBREVIATIONS EA enumeration area ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program GDP gross domestic product GoR Government of Rwanda kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt-hour LED light-emitting diode LPG liquefied petroleum gas MECS modern energy cooking services MINEMA Ministry in charge of Emergency Management MTF Multi-Tier Framework NISR National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda RE4R Renewable Energy for Refugees RWF Rwandan franc SHS solar home system SLS solar lighting system W watt WTP willingness to pay UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees US$ United States dollar vii RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective on June, 2022) Currency Unit = Rwandan Franc (RWF) US$ 1 = RWF 1,023 viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings from a national energy survey conducted in Rwanda in June 2022, which followed up on an inaugural energy survey conducted in 2016. The survey captured the status of access to electricity and clean cooking among Rwandan households, including those of refugees, and also among public institutions. Survey results were analyzed using the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) for Energy Access, which measures energy access across six levels (Tier 0 to Tier 5) instead of evaluating it based on a binary definition, having access or not, and explores the multi-dimensional nature of energy access and the diverse technologies and sources that can provide it. Findings from this analysis based on full-spectrum data can inform energy policy designs in Rwanda, empower data-driven policy making, and aid in advancing toward Goal 7 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations: to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all by 2030. The MTF measures electricity access in Rwanda using six attributes: electricity capacity, number of hours during which electricity is available across an entire day and specifically in the evening, reliability of connection, voltage quality, formality of connection, and safety. For each attribute, households are placed in a tier depending on the level of service. The lowest tier score achieved across the six attributes is a household’s final tier classification, or the aggregate Electricity Tier. Households are classified from Tier 0 (no access) to Tier 5 (full service). Households classified as Tier 1 or above for their aggregate Electricity Tier have electricity access but at a level and quality that might need improvement. Tier 0 households do not have any access to electricity or have electricity whose capacity or availability is too low to be considered. Using a similar approach, access to clean cooking is evaluated based on four attributes: exposure to pollutants from emissions during cooking activities, cooking convenience, stove safety, and fuel availability. The lowest tier score achieved by a household among the four attributes becomes its final tier classification, or the aggregate Cooking Tier. Households are classified from Tier 0 to Tier 5. Households in aggregate Tier 2 or above have access to clean cooking services (aggregate Tiers 4 and 5) or at least have improved cooking services in the transition to clean cooking (aggregate Tiers 2 and 3).1 Households at Tiers 0 and 1 are not considered as having access to clean cooking services since their health and safety are critically threatened by their cooking activities. Tier 2 is no longer promoted through the World Bank programs starting from 2024. 1 ix RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY The second national energy survey in Rwanda shows that electricity access improved significantly; the percentage of Rwandan households with access to at least one source of electricity nationwide increased from 28.6 percent in late 2016 to 63.9 percent in mid-2022.2 While major progress was made in rural electrification, rural-urban disparity in electricity access remained large in 2022. Marked growth in rural electricity access, from 17.5 percent to 57.9 percent, was registered over 2016–22, but by 2022 the rural access rate remained 33.7 percentage points lower than the urban access rate of 91.6 percent. Lack of electricity access remains a challenge for rural areas. The national grid is the most prevalent electricity source, especially in urban Rwanda, including the City of Kigali. Nationwide, 50.7 percent of households relied on the national grid as their primary electricity source in 2022, more than double the share in 2016. In rural areas, 42.2 percent of households relied on the grid as their primary electricity source in 2022, versus 89.3 percent of urban households. Across regions, 93.8 percent and 54 percent of households in the City of Kigali and Eastern Province, respectively, were connected to the grid. In all other provinces, less than half of the population was grid-connected. Off-grid technologies, especially solar solutions, serve as effective electricity sources for Rwanda’s rural households, of which 15.7 percent rely on them as their primary electricity source. A much smaller proportion of urban households, 2.4 percent, choose these solutions. Solar lighting systems (SLSs) are the most popular off-grid technology in Rwanda, besides solar lanterns. In most provinces, at least 1 household in 10 uses off-grid technologies, whereas the proportion is negligible in the City of Kigali. Electricity access is low among households that are socioeconomically more vulnerable. Ubudehe Category 13 shows the highest share of households without electricity access and the lowest proportion of households with grid access. The share of national grid-connected households grows as the Ubudehe category increases, but the share of households without any electricity source falls. Nationwide, 58.9 percent of households have electricity access at the level of Tier 1 or higher based on the MTF analysis. The remaining households either do not have access to any electricity sources, or the capacity and/or availability of the electricity they receive are/is too low to be considered as having access. About half of rural households have Tier 1 or higher electricity access, while the share is much larger, 90.9 percent, among urban households. Analysis of individual electricity attributes shows a need to improve the overall quality of electricity, including its availability, reliability, and voltage quality. Although access to the national grid grew substantially between 2016 and 2022, the consumption of grid electricity remained low. The monthly average grid consumption of Rwandan households was 16.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh), lower than the average consumption in nearby East African countries like Kenya (48.6 kWh) and Uganda (42 kWh). By locality, urban households consumed 28.6 kWh of electricity on average per month, while rural households consumed 11.3 kWh. Despite being connected to the national grid, households often do not leverage the capacity available to them from the grid and use mostly low-load devices. The 5th Rwanda Population and Housing Census in 2022 showed that 61% of Rwandan households nationwide have electricity access (NISR 2023). 2 The Ubudehe system of categorization was used by the Government of Rwanda to determine Rwandan households’ eligibility for social protection interventions, 3 including public works, direct support, community-based health insurance, and education grants. Category 1 indicates the highest degree of socioeconomic vul- nerability, which decreases up through Category 4. As of 2024, the Government of Rwanda was transitioning away from the Ubudehe classification and adopting a new system to identify beneficiaries of social protection programs (Nkurunziza 2023). When the energy survey was implemented in mid-2022, the Ubudehe cate- gories of households were available to be analyzed. x Executive Summary For unelectrified households in villages where access to the national grid is available, the cost burden of an initial connection is the major barrier to grid connection. Despite a 2017 policy allowing households to apply for a grid connection at no initial cost and repay the fee over time from power purchases (Rwanda Energy Group 2017), almost half of unelectrified households with grid access find initial connection costs expensive. Interrupted service is a common issue faced by the majority of Rwandan households connected to the national grid. Of households with grid connections, 57 percent experience either 4–14 outages per week, or fewer than 4 interruptions, however, lasting longer than 2 hours in total in a typical week. Households using an off-grid solar solution as their primary electricity source report limited electricity availability, low capacity, and poor light quality as common challenges. Among households using solar home systems, 16.7 percent report the burden of recurrent device-related costs as a challenge. Among Rwanda’s public institutions, the rate of electricity access is high; they predominantly use the grid as their main electricity source. All Rwandan health facilities have electricity access, and 98.5 percent use grid electricity. Electricity access in education facilities is relatively lower, at 86.3 percent. Among schools with access to electricity, 85.6 percent rely on the national grid, while the rest use off- grid solar technologies. ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES Clean cooking practices were rare in Rwanda as of 2022. Only about 4 percent of households cooked with clean stoves like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves or electric stoves; 67.2 percent were still using three-stone/open-fire stoves or traditional/locally built stoves that mostly burn firewood. Clean stoves are used mostly in urban areas; their rate of use is highest in the City of Kigali. In 2022, 19 percent of urban households used LPG stoves for cooking—a sharp increase from 1.7 percent in 2016. However, only 0.6 percent of rural households had adopted LPG stoves. More than one-fifth of households in the City of Kigali cooked with LPG stoves, whose use outside the capital was negligible. Households in higher Ubudehe categories tend to use cleaner stoves. The use of LPG stoves and manufactured biomass stoves is highest among Category 3 households, with the share declining among households in lower categories. Wood is the predominant cooking fuel, especially in rural areas, where it is used for cookstoves by almost 90 percent of households, compared with an urban share of about 20 percent. In urban areas, charcoal is the most prevalent fuel, used by 73.5 percent of households. Most households are exposed to threats from unhealthy cooking practices. The analysis using the MTF shows that in 2022, only about 4 percent of households nationwide had access to clean cooking. On overwhelming majority, 92 percent, of households were classified at Tiers 0 and 1 for cooking; this suggests that most Rwandan households continue to be exposed to threats from unhealthy cooking practices. Among rural households, 97 percent lie between Tiers 0 and 1, whereas the share is 69 percent in urban areas. Although urban areas have better access to clean cooking, with a higher proportion of Tier 5 households (19 percent) than in rural areas (0.6 percent), clean cooking access remains low overall. xi RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Improved firewood cookstoves and LPG stoves could be options to expand clean cooking practices; however, their low affordability could hamper the transition. Most households using either three- stone/open-fire stoves or traditional biomass are willing to pay for an improved firewood cookstove either in a lump sum or in installments, especially when the stoves are cheaper. However, households not willing to pay for improved stoves report affordability as a barrier. LPG stoves can be suggested as clean cooking options to households in urban areas, where they are commonly available, but the high fuel cost would pose a barrier. GENDER ANALYSIS Male-headed households are predominant at 75.4 percent nationwide. The gender ratio is similar across rural and urban areas. Ubudehe Category 1 shows a higher share of female-headed households than male-headed households, indicating that female-headed households are poorer. Male household heads are more likely to be educated and employed than their female counterparts. A gender gap exists in access to electricity and modern energy cooking solutions. Electricity access is lower among female-headed households than male-headed households by about 10 percentage points. Grid adoption is higher among male-headed households also by about 10 percentage points. Off-grid technology use is similar across the sexes. The status of clean cooking access does not differ significantly by the sex of the household head. Male heads are slightly more likely to adopt LPG stoves than their female counterparts if the stoves are available (with a difference of 9.4 percentage points). Female household members are more involved in cooking activities in Rwanda. While 75.2 percent of female household heads are cooking for their family every day, the rate is only 6.6 percent for male heads; 70.7 percent of male heads do not cook for their families. Also, female household members spend on average 86 minutes cooking every day, whereas male members spend only 17 minutes; this indicates that female household members would benefit the most from improved cooking practices. REFUGEE HOUSEHOLD ANALYSIS Refugees in Rwanda are accommodated in five settlements under the management of the Rwanda Ministry in charge of Emergency Management (MINEMA) in collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): the Mahama and Nyabiheke camps in the Eastern Province, the Kiziba camp in the Western Province, and the Kigeme and Mugombwa camps in the Southern Province. ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY Across the five refugee settlements, 38.3 percent of households have access to at least one electricity source—a share lower than the 57.4 percent seen in the host communities surrounding the refugee camps. While the host communities and refugee settlements are adjacent, access to the national grid is available only to host communities, whereas the refugee households mainly rely on off-grid solutions (37.9 percent) for electricity, especially on solar lanterns (17.6 percent) and other SLSs (13.1 percent). xii Executive Summary Mugombwa and Kigeme camps have relatively low electricity access. All camps, except Kiziba and Nyabiheke, show a major access disparity with their host communities. The use of SLSs is the highest in Nyabiheke, while the use of solar lanterns is the highest in Mahama. Only about 15 percent of refugee households have Tier 1 or higher electricity access based on the analysis using the MTF although 38.3 percent of refugee households have access to at least one electricity source. In contrast, 49 percent of households in host communities have Tier 1 or higher electricity access. Almost 40 percent of host community households have Tier 3 to Tier 5 electricity access, due to their connections to the national grid, whereas almost no households in refugee settlements are in that tier range. The analysis using the MTF confirms, again, the clear disparity in electricity access between refugee settlements and host communities despite their close proximity. While 34.7 percent of refugee households with electricity sources receive 4-8 hours of electricity in an entire day, 19.9 percent receive fewer than 4 hours. Refugee households use primarily low-load electrical appliances, and phone chargers are the most common appliances. Most refugee households paid for their main solar devices rather than obtaining them for free. Households using solar lanterns most commonly made a lump sum payment for the solar devices, whereas households using SLSs often paid in installments. Short duration of service and the inability to power large appliances were reported as the most serious challenges by refugee households using solar lanterns or SLSs. Almost 20 percent of households using solar lanterns reported that their devices malfunctioned too often, while almost 10 percent of households using SLSs reported the same issue. ACCESS TO CLEAN COOKING Of households in the refugee camps, 62.1 percent have access to clean stoves, more specifically, LPG stoves. The rate is significantly higher than among non-refugee households; only 4 percent of Rwandan households and 0.3 percent of host community households use LPG stoves. LPG stoves’ adoption in refugee camps is explained by the intervention of the UNHCR. The use of LPG stoves is observed only in Mahama and Mugombwa, where the UNHCR distributed LPG cookers and fuel to replace the use of firewood. In other camps, households predominantly use biomass stoves for cooking. In line with the high rate of LPG stove adoption, LPG is the most used fuel; 63.7 percent of households in refugee camps use it. Wood is also commonly used for cooking; 22.8 percent of refugee households use firewood, either purchased or collected. Charcoal use is comparatively low; 13.5 percent of refugee households use charcoal for their traditional/locally built stoves and manufactured biomass stoves. xiii 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 COUNTRY CONTEXT Without energy, it is challenging, if not impossible, to promote economic growth, overcome poverty, and support human development. Energy access is thus a precondition to many development goals. Indeed, sustainable energy is the focus of Goal 7 of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals: to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all by 2030. The Government of Rwanda, steadfastly committed to maximizing energy access benefits for its people, has therefore collaborated with the World Bank to put findings from the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) survey into practice and obtain guidance on setting access targets, policies, and investment strategies for energy access. Rwanda is one of the rapidly growing low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Its gross domestic product (GDP) increased steadily from the early 2000s, reaching 13.3 billion current US dollars in 2022 (World Bank, n.d.b). Rwanda’s annual GDP growth in 2021/22 was 8.2 percent (World Bank, n.d.c). Electricity access in Rwanda improved rapidly entering the 2010s. In 2014, 19.8 percent of its population had electricity access (World Bank, n.d.a), and the rate increased to 28.6 percent in 2016, according to the energy survey from 2016 (Koo et al. 2018). In 2022, the second MTF energy access survey conducted in Rwanda indicated that 63.9 percent of households had access to at least one source of electricity—a substantial rise from 2016. 1.2 METHODOLOGY: THE MULTI-TIER FRAMEWORK The Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), a global knowledge and technical assistance program of the World Bank, in consultation with multiple development partners,4 has developed the MTF to measure energy access in a detailed manner. Unlike the traditional binary measurement of energy access—revealing, for example, either electricity access or the lack of it, and the use or not of clean fuels when cooking—the MTF approach involves a multi- level measure of energy access provided by any technology or fuel, based on a set of attributes that capture key characteristics of energy supply affecting the user experience. Each attribute is assessed separately in tiers, and the lowest applicable tier achieved among the attributes is a household’s aggregate tier, ranging from Tier 0 (no access) to Tier 5 (full service) (Bhatia and Angelou 2015). Grounded in the MTF, the global energy survey was developed to capture countries’ energy access situations. The energy survey collects data on access to electricity and modern energy cooking services (MECS), including households’ primary energy sources; the challenges with these energy sources; energy-related spending; and people’s willingness to pay for the national grid connection, off-grid energy service, and improved cooking solutions. The data collected are then analyzed using the MTF approach. A key issue that the survey explores is the nature of the The development partners include organizations such as Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Lighting Africa, Practical Action, Clean 4 Cooking Alliance, the UN Development Programme, the UN Industrial Development Organization, and the World Health Organization. 1 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework barriers that prevent a household from moving to a higher tier of access to electricity and clean cooking. By capturing full-spectrum data, the analysis empowers policy makers to pursue data-informed energy policies and to design interventions that remove barriers, so households can graduate to higher tiers. ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY Access to electricity is defined by analyzing the following seven electricity attributes based on responses to the energy survey: • Capacity. The capacity of electricity supply (or peak capacity) is a system’s ability to provide a certain amount of electricity to operate various appliances, ranging from a few watts for light-emitting diode (LED) lights and mobile phone chargers to several thousand watts for space heaters or air conditioners. The capacity is estimated based on the supply source (for example, grid power is considered ≥2,000 W) and/or the appliances used by a household (table 1). Capacity is measured in watts for grids, mini-grids, and fossil-fuel-powered generators, and in watt-hours for rechargeable batteries and off-grid solar devices. • Availability. Availability of supply refers to the amount of time during which electricity is available. It is measured via two separate indicators: hours per day (during each 24-hour period) and the number of hours per evening (defined as the 4 hours after sunset). • Reliability. Reliability of supply is a combination of the frequency and duration of unexpected disruptions. • Quality. Quality refers to the absence of severe voltage fluctuations that can damage a household’s appliances. Electrical appliances generally require a specific voltage to operate properly. Low or fluctuating voltages can damage appliances and even result in electrical fire. Low voltage supply or voltage fluctuations tend to result from an overloaded distribution system or from long-distance, low-tension cables connecting spread-out households to the grid. The survey does not measure voltage fluctuation directly but uses incidents of appliance damage as a proxy. • Affordability. Affordability of electricity services is determined by comparing the price of a standard electricity service package (1 kWh of electricity per day or 365 kWh per year) with household expenditure. The price of the package is determined from the prevailing lifeline tariff. An electricity service is considered unaffordable for any household that needs to devote more than 5 percent of its expenditure to it. • Formality. A household’s grid connection could be defined as informal if it uses electricity from the grid but does not pay anyone for it. The formality of the grid connection is important since it ensures that the electricity authority is paid for the services provided, besides providing for the safety of electrical lines. Households may well be reluctant to disclose such information in a survey. The survey therefore infers information on formality from indirect questions that respondents may be more willing to answer, for example, what method a household uses to pay its electricity bills. • Health and Safety. This attribute refers to injuries to household members from using electricity in the 12 months preceding the survey. An injury could mean a limb injury or even death due to a burn or electrocution. Such injuries can result not just from faulty internal wiring (an exposed bare wire, for example) but also due to improper use of electrical appliances or negligence. Electricity access is considered safe when users have not suffered any significant or lasting injury from their electricity supply. 2 1. Introduction For the analysis of the energy survey in Rwanda, electricity access was measured using six attributes instead of seven—Capacity, Availability, Reliability, Quality, Formality, and Safety; this is because the survey did not collect data to analyze the Affordability attribute. For each attribute, households are placed in a tier depending on the level of service as defined by the different thresholds (see figure 7 for the thresholds in the multi-tier matrix for measuring electricity access). The lowest tier value obtained by a household among the attributes becomes that household’s aggregate Electricity Tier, reflecting its level of electricity access. Households in Electricity Access Tier 0 receive electricity for fewer than 4 hours a day (or fewer than 1 hour per evening) or have a primary energy source with less than 3 W capacity (see box 2 for the minimum requirements, by Electricity Access Tier). Tier 1 refers to households that have limited access to small amounts of electricity supplied by any technology, even a small solar lighting system, for a few hours a day, enabling electric lighting and phone charging. TABLE 1 • Appliances by load level and the associated Capacity Tiers Capacity tier Load level Indicative electric appliances typically needed to power the load Task lighting, radio, lightbulb or incandescent lightbulb, Very low load fluorescent tube, compact fluorescent lamp, light-emitting TIER 1 (3–49 W) diodes (LEDs), smartphone (Internet phone) charger, regular mobile phone charger Black-and-white television, computer, fan, flat-screen Low load color television, regular color television, DVD, printer, TIER 2 (50–199 W) electronic tablet, satellite dish Indoor air cooler, refrigerator, water pump, rice cooker, Medium load sewing machine, electric water cooler, freezer, electric hot TIER 3 (200–799 W) water pot or kettle, blender, electric food processor High load Washing machine, electric iron, microwave oven, electric TIER 4 (800–1,999 W) toaster, dishwasher, electric hairdryer Very high load Space heater, electric water heater, solar-based water TIER 5 (2,000 W or more) heater, electric stove Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015. Note: W = watt. 3 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework BOX 1 • TYPOLOGY OF OFF-GRID SOLAR DEVICES AND TIER CALCULATION In this report, solar devices are classified into three types based on the number of light bulbs and the type of appliance or electricity service used by a household: solar lanterns, other solar lighting systems (SLSs), and solar home systems (SHSs).a This typology is also used to measure electricity access under the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) approach, especially the Capacity attribute. • Solar lanterns power a single light bulb and could possibly power a radio and/or enable phone charging. Under the MTF methodology, the Capacity Tier for a solar lantern is computed based on the household size, so as to capture the number of household members relying on the service and the ability to power a radio and/or enable phone charging. • SLSs power two or more light bulbs and could possibly power a radio and/or enable phone charging. However, SLSs cannot power any other appliances. The Capacity Tier for an SLS is computed based on the household size and the ability to power a radio and/or enable phone charging. • SHSs power two or more light bulbs and appliances such as televisions, irons, microwaves, or refrigerators (see table 1 for the load level associated with each Capacity Tier). a Note that the definition of SHSs in the analysis in this report is different from how Rwanda’s Ministry of Infrastructure defines it. The ministry defines SHSs to be off-grid solar photovoltaic systems that include multiple, two or more, light points (Rwanda Ministry of Infrastructure 2022). However, based on the definition in this report, solar devices that could power two or more light bulbs could be SLSs or SHSs depending on the ability to power electrical appliances other than a radio and/or enable phone charging as described in box 1. 4 1. Introduction BOX 2 • MINIMUM ELECTRICITY REQUIREMENTS, BY ELECTRICITY ACCESS TIER the Tiers MEASURING ENERGY ACCESS: THE TIERS Improving attributes of energy supply leads to higher tiers of access. Improving attributes of energy supply leads to higher tiers of access. TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 4HRS 4HRS 8HRS 16HRS 23HRS Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Electricity is not available or Electricity is available for at least Electricity is available for at is available for less than four four hours a day, including at least four hours a day, including hours a day (or less than one least one hour per evening, and at least two hours per evening, hour per evening). Households the capacity is sufficient to power and capacity is sufficient to cope by using candles, task lighting and phone charging power low-load appliances as kerosene lamps, or battery- or a radio. Sources that can be needed during that time, such powered devices, such as used to meet these requirements as multiple lights, a television, flashlights and radios. include an SLS, a solar home or a fan (see Table 1). Sources system (SHS), a mini-grid (a that can be used to meet small-scale, isolated distribution these requirements include network that provides electricity rechargeable batteries, an SHS, a to local communities or a group of mini-grid, and the national grid. households), and the national grid Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Electricity is available for Electricity is available for at Electricity is available for at at least eight hours a day, least 16 hours a day, including least 23 hours a day, including 4 including at least three hours at least four hours per evening, hours per evening, and capacity per evening, and capacity is and capacity is sufficient to is sufficient to power very high sufficient to power medium- power high-load appliances load appliances as needed load appliances as needed as needed during that time, during that time, such as air during that time, such as such as a washing machine, conditioners, space heaters, a refrigerator, freezer, food iron, hairdryer, toaster, and vacuum cleaners, and electric processor, water pump, rice microwave. There are no long stoves. The most likely source cooker, or air cooler (see Table or frequent unscheduled for meeting these requirements 1). In addition, the household interruptions, and the supply is the national grid, though a can afford a basic consumption is safe. The grid connection generator or mini-grid might package of 365 kilowatt- is legal, and there are no suffice as well. hours per year. Sources that voltage issues. Sources that can be used to meet these can be used to meet these requirements include an SHS, a requirements include diesel- generator, a mini-grid, and the based mini-grids and the national grid. national grid. Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015. Note: HR = hour. 5 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES Besides stoves and fuel technologies, different contextual factors contribute to the household cooking experience. These factors include human behavior (for example, who cooks, and what is cooked and how, for how long, and how often), housing conditions (for example, kitchen location, arrangement and size of rooms, construction materials, and quality of ventilation), and other types of energy demands that may equally contribute to household air pollution (for example, lighting, space heating, and water heating). Other dimensions of household choice, adoption, and adherence—including economic conditions (for example, income/affordability and proximity to fuel markets)—should also be captured. MECS integrate technical and contextual attributes that consider users’ cooking experience, environment, and the market and energy ecosystems in which they live. MECS define access to modern cooking energy based on six attributes: (i) Exposure, (ii) Efficiency, (iii) Convenience, (iv) Safety, (v) Affordability, and (vi) Fuel Availability (ESMAP 2020): • Exposure. This attribute is used to assess personal exposure to pollutants from cooking activities, which depends on both stove emissions and ventilation in the cooking area. Higher tiers indicate lower exposure. • Efficiency. The combination of combustion and heat transfer efficiency determines a cookstove’s efficiency. • Convenience. This attribute is measured by the time spent by a household collecting or purchasing fuel and preparing the fuel and stove for cooking. • Safety. Safety is measured by the severity of the injuries caused by a stove over the past year. • Affordability. This attribute is used to measure the share of the household budget for cooking fuel. Cooking fuel is considered affordable if a household spends less than 5 percent of its total expenditure on it. Higher tiers indicate proportionally lower spending. • Availability. This attribute is used to assess the availability of households’ primary fuel when needed for cooking purposes. The Rwanda energy survey did not collect data that make it possible to analyze efficiency and affordability. Thus, access to clean cooking was measured based on just four attributes: Exposure, Convenience, Availability, and Safety. Each attribute is scored across six tiers (Tiers 0–5), and these tiers are measured using one or more indicators, each spanning a lower and upper threshold (see figure 54 for detailed metrics). 6 sectorwide aspirations. Utilizing these analytical tools, this report presents newly compiled evidence and in-depth insights. These can contribute to better-informed sector decision-making and the design and delivery of more effective 1. Introduction solutions that accelerate progress toward meeting the aspirations of the SDG 7.1 target. BOX 3FIGURE • HOLISTIC Holistic Criteria ES.1 CRITERIA to Measure TO MEASURE Access ACCESS to Modern TO MODERN Energy ENERGY COOKING SERVICES Cooking Services Performance-based, Attributes critical to Assessment of technical attributes that understanding the household MECS access across shape most definitions of user’s cooking context the six attributes “clean” cooking solutions AFFORDABILITY AFFORDABILITY EMISSIONS EXPOSURE CONVENIENCE CONVENIENCE SAFETY SAFETY EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY AVAILABILITY AVAILABILITY Note: “Exposure” considers the contextual factors of ventilation and contact time, in addition to the technical attribute of “emissions.” Source: ESMAP 2020. Note: “Exposure” considers the contextual factors of ventilation and contact time, in addition to the technical attribute of “emissions.” MECS = modern energy cooking services. xviii BOX 4 • COOKSTOVE TYPOLOGY FOR RWANDA Cookstoves in Rwanda are classified as follows (annex 7): Three-stone/open-fire stoves balance a pot on three stones. The pot sits on the flames, with the fuel placed on the ground. In general, these stoves use firewood and have a low combustion temperature. The fire of these stoves is exposed, causing heat to be lost to the ambient air. Traditional stoves (biomass, artisan, or self-built stoves) typically use conventional material to insulate the fire, and the pot rests above the flames. These stoves are also made locally using available, low- cost materials and fuels, reflecting cultural practices. Improved cookstoves (biomass manufactured stoves) The conventional improved cookstove is a wood, charcoal, or pellet stove with an insulated combustion chamber. The pot sits above the fuel. Kerosene cookstoves use kerosene or a liquid as fuel. Clean fuel stoves use clean and efficient fuels, such as liquefied petroleum gas, electricity, or biogas. 7 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework 1.3 SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION IN RWANDA The Rwanda energy survey conducted in June 2022 included field surveys whereby households and public institutions were interviewed on electricity access and clean cooking along with information on respondents’ socioeconomic backgrounds. SURVEY SAMPLING Household Survey The MTF household survey included two types of household samples from two sampling frames: nationally representative household samples and refugee household samples. Nationally Representative Sample To draw a nationally representative sample, a complete list of Rwandan households from the Rwanda Population and Housing Census Report 2012 (RPHC 2012), provided by the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, was used as the sampling frame. Enumeration areas (EAs) from the sampling frame were stratified into host communities of refugee camps, which referred to EAs within 5 km of refugee settlements, and non-host communities. EAs in non-host communities were stratified by urban and rural areas in each province, and the number of EAs were allocated proportional to the estimated population size (table 2). In total, 223 villages were selected in the first-stage sampling. In the second stage of sample selection, based on households’ electrification status from the listing, households in the EAs were stratified as electrified and non-electrified. A predetermined number of households, 18, were selected randomly in each EA. Of these, 50 percent were expected to be grid-electrified households and 50 percent non-grid-electrified households. In this report, responses from 4,000 non-host community households have been analyzed. To sample host communities, a total of 56 EAs were randomly selected from among the communities within 5 km of each camp. Then in each village, 18 households were selected randomly (table 3). Responses from 1,006 households in host communities have been analyzed. TABLE 2 • Distribution of sample households by province and locality Province Allocation of sample villages Household allocation Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total City of Kigali 39 10 49 702 180 882 Southern Province 18 27 45 324 486 810 Eastern Province 21 24 45 378 432 810 Northern Province 16 22 38 288 396 684 Western Province 18 28 46 324 504 828 Total 112 111 223 2,016 1,998 4,014 Source: CESS Ltd. 2022a. 8 1. Introduction Households in Refugee Camps The refugee household survey was conducted in all five refugee camps in Rwanda: the Mahama and Nyabiheke camps in the Eastern Province, the Kiziba camp in the Western Province, and the Kigeme and Mugombwa camps in the Southern Province. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Rwanda provided the list of segments in the refugee camps and the population size per segment. An exhaustive list of refugee households in the five camps was used for the sampling frame. To sample refugee households, first 39 segments of refugee camps were selected; in each segment, 18 refugee households were selected randomly (table 3). In the report, the responses of 700 refugee households have been analyzed. TABLE 3 • Sample distribution for refugee camps and host communities Sample size of Sample size of refugee camps host community households Refugee camps Segments Households EAs Households Mahama 9 153 7 126 Kigeme 8 139 12 216 Kiziba 8 139 11 198 Nyabiheke 8 139 13 234 Mugombwa 7 130 13 234 Total 39 700 56 1,008 9 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Map 1 shows the spatial distribution of household samples. MAP 1 • Distribution of households sampled for the Rwanda energy survey 30°00'E 30°30'E 31°00'E 1°00'S HOUSEHOLDS SURVEYED PROVINCE CAPITALS 54 150 NATIONAL CAPITAL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES UGANDA 250 PROVINCE BOUNDARIES 350 INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES 425 484 NYAGATARE 29°00'E BURERA 1°30'S MUSANZE 1°30'S GICUMBI Gicumbi NYABIHU NORTH (Byumba) GATSIBO RUBAVU DEM. REP. GAKENKE EAST OF RULINDO CONGO GASABO TANZ ANIA Lac Kivu NGORORERO KAYONZA RUTSIRO KIG ALI KAMONYI KIGALI Rwamagana WEST 2°00'S MUHANGA NYARUGENGE KICUKIRO RWAMAGANA 2°00'S Karongi (Kibuye) KARONGI RUHANGO NGOMA BUGESERA KIREHE NYANZA SOUTH Nyanza NYAMASHEKE NYAMAGABE 2°30'S 2°30'S HUYE RUSIZI GISAGARA BURUNDI NYARUGURU IBRD 47109 | FEBRUARY 2023 This map was produced by the Cartography Unit 0 10 20 Miles of the World Bank Group. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of the World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal 0 10 20 Kilometers status of any territory, or any endorsement or 29°00'E 29°30'E 30°00'E 30°30'E acceptance of such boundaries. Source: World Bank 2023. Public Institutions Survey The public institutions survey targeted all health centers and education facilities in the selected villages from the first-stage stratification of the household survey. In total, interview responses from 196 education centers and 281 health facilities across Rwanda were analyzed. 10 11 2. ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY 2.1 ASSESSING HOUSEHOLD ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY ELECTRICITY ACCESS BY TECHNOLOGY Nationwide As of mid-2022, nationwide, 63.9 percent of Rwandan households had access to at least one source of electricity;5 this was 35.3 percentage points higher than the access rate assessed from the 2016 energy survey (Koo et al. 2018) (figure 1). A large increase in electricity access was observed, especially in rural areas. In 2022, 57.9 percent of rural households had access to sources of electricity, a 40.4 percentage point improvement over the rate in 2016. Among urban households, 91.6 percent had access to at least one electricity source in 2022, whereas the rate was 78.7 percent in 2016. Although electricity access improved significantly in rural areas by 2022, there remains a substantial access gap of 33.7 percentage points between rural and urban areas, highlighting a need to focus on rural electrification. FIGURE 1 • Electricity access in Rwanda, by locality (2016 vs 2022) Electricity Access, by locality 91.6% 78.7% 63.9% 57.9% 28.6% 17.5% Nationwide Rural Urban 2016 2022 Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. Almost half of Rwandan households had access to the national grid as their primary electricity source in 2022. The share of households relying on the national grid as their primary electricity source more National grid than doubled between Off-grid 89.3% 2016 and 2022 (figure 2). The use of the national grid increased significantly especially in rural areas. In 2022, 42.2 percent of rural households relied 75.8% on the national grid, a 30.2 percentage point growth over 2016. Grid access grew 13.5 percentage 50.7% 5 This is based on households’ primary electricity source. The options for primary electricity source in the survey were the national grid, off-grid tech- 42.2% nologies (mini-grids, generators, solar lanterns, other solar lighting systems [SLSs], solar home systems [SHSs], and rechargeable batteries), dry-cell batteries, or no electricity. Households that reported relying on dry-cell batteries as their primary electricity source were not considered to have elec- tricity along with those who chose the “no electricity” option. 23.5% 13.3% 15.7% 12.0% 13 5.1% 5.5% 2.9% 2.4% RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Electricity Access, by locality 91.6% points among urban households, of which 89.3 percent relied on the grid in 2022. Although grid access improved significantly among rural households, their grid rate remains less 78.7%than half of the rate among urban households. 63.9% 57.9% Off-grid technologies serve as effective electricity sources for rural households, as made evident by the noticeable increase in their use.6 In 2016, only 5.5 percent of rural households relied on off-grid solutions, whereas the share grew to 15.7 percent in 2022 (figure 2). The adoption of off-grid solutions was negligible in urban areas in 2022, as it had been in 2016. 28.6% 17.5% Among off-grid solutions, solar devices have been widely adopted. Households using solar lanterns, other solar lighting systems (SLSs), or solar home systems (SHSs) as their primary electricity sources represent a 12.4 percent share nationwide. SLSs are used the most by 7.6 percent of households (figure Nationwide Rural Urban 3). Among rural households, 14.6 percent rely on solar solutions, 12.4 percentage points higher than the 2016 2022 share in urban areas. Mini-grids and rechargeable batteries are rarely used. FIGURE 2 • Electricity access, by technology (2016 vs 2022) National grid Off-grid 89.3% 75.8% 50.7% 42.2% 23.5% 13.3% 15.7% 12.0% 5.1% 5.5% 2.9% 2.4% Nationwide Rural Urban Nationwide Rural Urban 2016 2022 2016 2022 Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. FIGURE 3 • Distribution of off-grid technologies, by locality (2022) Off-grid Technology Distribution, by locality (2022) 8.9% 7.6% 2.6% 2.6% 3.1% 2.2% 1.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.7% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0% Nationwide Rural Urban Mini-grid Solar lantern Solar lighting system Solar home system Rechargeable battery Source: World Bank 2022. 5.4% 0.8% 27.4% Off-grid technologies in the survey include mini-grids, generators, solar lanterns, other SLSs, SHSs, and rechargeable batteries. Note that no Rwandan household 6 46.1% 43.8% 45.1% adopts generators as its primary electricity source, based on the survey’s result. No Electricity 18.6% 14 10.6% Off-grid 15.7% 13.6% 93.8% National Grid 2. Access to Electricty By Province Across all provinces, the national grid is the most prevalent electricity source. Nevertheless, the City of Kigali, Rwanda’s capital, has the highest number of households relying on the national grid as their primary electricity source; these households represent a 93.8 percent share, which is far larger than elsewhere (figure 4). In the Eastern Province, 54 percent of households rely on the national grid as their main source of electricity, whereas less than half of the population in the Southern, Western, and Northern provinces do so. This shows that future grid expansions should focus outside the City of Kigali. Off-grid solutions are commonly used in most areas outside the City of Kigali (figure 4). The Eastern Province has the highest share of households Off-grid relying on Technology Distribution, byoff-grid technologies, 18.6 percent. Across locality (2022) provinces, the most common off-grid technology is SLSs, besides solar lanterns, and their adoption 8.9% substantially does not differ7.6% by region Off-grid (figure Technology 5). Theby Distribution, use of SHSs (2022) is slightly more prevalent in the locality Eastern Province than in other provinces, but 8.9% the solution is used by a small number of Rwandan overall. households 7.6% 2.6% 2.6% 3.1% 2.2% Access rates are particularly low in the Southern, Western, and Northern provinces. 1.3% While 5.4 and 27.4 0.3% of households in the percent 0.6% City of 0.4% and the Eastern Kigali 0.7% Province, 0.2% 0.4% are without respectively, 0.5% 0% electricity, 2.6% 2.6% 3.1% 2.2% the share is above 40 percent in the Southern, Western, and Northern provinces 1.3% (figure 4). It is crucial 0.3% Nationwide 0.6% 0.4% Rural 0.7% Urban 0.5% 0% to target the three lagging provinces to boost electricity access. 0.2% 0.4% Mini-grid Solar lantern Solar lighting system Solar home system Rechargeable battery Nationwide Rural Urban Mini-grid FIGURE Solar lantern 4 • Provincial Solar electricity lighting system access, Solar home system by technology Rechargeable battery 5.4% 0.8% 27.4% 5.4% 46.1% 43.8% 45.1% 0.8% 27.4% No Electricity 46.1% 18.6% 43.8% 45.1% 13.6% 10.6% Off-grid 15.7% No Electricity 18.6% 93.8% National Grid 13.6% 10.6% Off-grid 15.7% 54.0% 42.6% 44.3% 93.8% 38.2% National Grid 54.0% 42.6% 44.3% 38.2% City of Kigali Southern Western Northern Eastern Source: World Bank 2022. City of Kigali Southern Western Northern Eastern 0.1% FIGURE 5 • Distribution of off-grid technologies, by province 0.8% 0.1%6.1% 2.0% Rechargeable battery 0.8% 1.9% 6.1% Solar home system 2.0% Rechargeable battery 1.9% 8.9% 1.9% Solar lighting system 1.2% 9.6% Solar home system 8.4% 1.9% Solar lantern 8.9% Solar lighting system 8.4% 1.2% 9.6% 6.7% Mini-grid Solar lantern 2.9% 2.9% 0.3% 2.9% 0.5% 1.0% 0.3% 6.7%0.9% Mini-grid 2.9% 2.9% 0.3% City of Kigali Southern Western Northern Eastern 2.9% 0.5% 1.0% 0.3% 0.9% City of Kigali Southern Western Northern Eastern Source: World Bank 2022. 25.5% 15 38.4% 54.6% 27.4% 46.1% 43.8% 45.1% No Electricity 18.6% RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework 13.6% 10.6% Off-grid 15.7% 93.8% National Grid By Ubudehe Category 42.6% 44.3% 54.0% 38.2% The Government of Rwanda has been using a socioeconomic categorization mechanism called Ubudehe to determine Rwandan City of Kigali eligibility for Northern households’ Western Southern social protection interventions, including public Eastern works, direct support, community-based health insurance, and education grants (Rwanda Ministry of Local Government 2018).7 Under the Ubudehe system, households were periodically categorized according to their poverty and vulnerability status as perceived by their communities (NISR 2015). The Ubudehe classification includes four categories, Category 1 to 4, in ascending0.1%order. Category 1 is the most socioeconomically vulnerable and Category 4 the least. 0.8% 6.1% 2.0% Rechargeable battery The energy survey collected the Ubudehe information 1.9% of households and allowed data to be analyzed Solar home system by category. The survey data allowed analysis of Category 1 to Category 3, while Category 4 households 1.9% offered too few observations to allow analysis. 8.9% Solar lighting system 8.4% 1.2% 9.6% Solar lantern The analysis shows that the Ubudehe categorization was strongly correlated with electricity access and access to the grid. Not surprisingly, when the category 6.7%increased, the percentage Mini-grid of households connected to the 2.9% national grid increased, while the share of households without 0.3% 2.9% 2.9% any electricity sources 1.0% 0.9% declined (figure 0.5% 6). 0.3% City of Kigali Southern Western Northern Eastern FIGURE 6 • Access to electricity-providing technologies, by Ubudehe category (nationwide) 25.5% 38.4% 54.6% 13.1% No Electricity 13.9% Off-grid 13.0% National Grid 61.4% 47.7% 32.4% Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Source: World Bank 2022. Note: Ubudehe Category 4 was not analyzed due to the low number of observations. As of 2024, the Government of Rwanda was transitioning away from the Ubudehe classification and adopting a new system to identify beneficiaries of social pro- 7 tection programs (Nkurunziza 2023). When the second energy survey was implemented in mid-2022, the Ubudehe categories of households were available to be analyzed. 16 2. Access to Electricty EVALUATING ELECTRICITY ACCESS USING THE MULTI-TIER FRAMEWORK Using the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF), households’ level of electricity access is assessed based on six attributes, as shown in figure 7. The lowest tier score achieved by a household across the six attributes becomes that household’s final tier classification, or the aggregate Electricity Tier. Households above Tier 0 in all attributes are classified above aggregate Electricity Tier 0. These households have electricity access, but its level and quality might need improvement. Households at aggregate Electricity Tier 0 barely have electricity access. They are at this tier because they either do not have access to any source of electricity at all, or are at Tier 0 for the Capacity and/or Availability attribute, meaning they receive electricity but its capacity and/or availability are/is too substandard to be considered as access (figure 7). In the following paragraphs, distributions of Rwandan households based on the aggregate tier will be presented first, and the tier distribution by each attribute will be discussed. FIGURE 7 • MTF Electricity Tier matrix for the Rwanda survey analysis TIER SCORE ATTRIBUTE TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 Capacity <3 W 3–49 W 50–199 W 200–799 W 800–1,999 W ≥2 kW Day <4 hrs - 4–8 hrs 8–16 hrs 16–22 hrs ≥23 hrs Availability Evening <1 hr 1–2 hrs 2–3 hrs 3–4 hrs - 4 hrs (4–14 disruptions) (Disruptions or ≤3) Reliability Disruptions - (Disruptions and > 14 ≤3 and (Duration <2 Duration ≥2 hrs) hrs) With voltage No voltage Quality - - issues issues Formality - Informal - Formal Had past Safe, no Safety - - accidents accidents Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015. Note: Tier score range is different for each attribute. A gray cell or block refers to a tier or tiers that do not need to contribute to the relevant score range. For example, a binary/bipolar situation will require only two tiers, and hence, the apparently discontinuous or partial sequences of tiers illustrated. The Affordability attribute is excluded from the table since it was not included in the analysis of the survey in Rwanda. hr = hour; kW = kilowatt; W = watt 17 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Aggregate Electricity Tier The MTF analysis shows that as of 2022, nationwide, 58.9 percent of Rwandan households had electricity access at the level of Tier 1 or above (figure 8). Compared with 2016, the share of households in the same tier range grew 32.1 percentage points in 2022. Nationwide, 41.1 percent of Rwandan households remained at Tier 0 in 2022, with barely any electricity access. Rwandan households in higher aggregate tiers predominantly rely on the national grid as their primary electricity source. Lower-tier households mainly use solar devices. As shown in figure 9, Tier 3 or higher households predominantly rely on the national grid. Despite a grid connection, some households are at Tier 2 to Tier 4, indicating that they face quality issues with their grid electricity. The use of solar technologies is common among Tier 1 and 2 households (figure 9). Among Tier 2 households, 58.3 percent use SHSs as their primary electricity source, and 88.6 percent of Tier 1 households adopt SLSs other than solar lanterns. Most Tier 0 households do not have any source of electricity, and about 12 percent use electricity from solar devices of limited capacity and/or availability. FIGURE 8 • Nationwide household distribution of aggregate Electricity Tier 41.1% 5.6% 3.8% 15.8% 20.6% 13.1% 2022 41.1% 5.6% 3.8% 15.8% 20.6% 13.1% 73.2% 2.1% 10.3% 7.8% 3.7% 2.8% 2022 2016 73.2% 2.1% 10.3% 7.8% 3.7% 2.8% 2016 Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 electricity-providing technology, by aggregate FIGURE 9 • Household distribution based on0.2% Electricity Tier (2022) 0.4% 1.9% 8.9% 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% 1.9% No electricity 8.9% 58.3% 0.5% Dry-cell battery Rechargeable battery 87.2% No electricity 58.3% 98.9% 100% 98.1% Solar home system 88.6% Dry-cell battery 0.2% Solar lighting system Rechargeable battery 87.2% Solar lantern 98.9% 100% 98.1% Solar home system 0.6% 88.6% 41.6% Mini-grid 0.2% Solar lighting system 0.1% 0.8% National grid Solar lantern 6.3% 5.0% 0.6% 2.5% 41.6% Mini-grid TIER 0 0.1% TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 National grid 0.8% 6.3% 5.0% 2.5% TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 Source: World Bank 2022. 18 0.2% Solar lighting system Solar lantern 0.6% 41.6% Mini-grid 0.1% 2. Access to Electricty 0.8% National grid 6.3% 5.0% 2.5% TIER 0 Tier distributionTIER 1 by localityTIER TIER 2 that, shows 3 electricity while TIER TIER 4 access in5rural areas improved markedly between 2016 and 2022, a large rural-urban disparity remained. In 2022, 51.9 percent of rural households had electricity access at Tier 1 or above, 36.3 percentage points more than in 2016 (figure 10). In urban areas, the growth was 13.5 percentage points. Although electricity access showed the largest improvements over time in rural areas, the share of rural households with electricity access remained 39 percentage points lower than in urban areas. FIGURE 10 • Household distribution of aggregate Electricity Tier (rural/urban) 2.1% 3.7% 5.0% 9.3% 11.0% 1.8% 3.0% 30.5% 17.3% Tier 5 26.3% Tier 4 14.6% 4.1% Tier 3 6.6% 35.4% 84.4% 34.5% Tier 2 Tier 1 3.7% 48.1% 1.9% 21.6% Tier 0 22.6% 2.4% 1.0% 9.1% 2016 2022 2016 2022 Rural Urban Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. The gap in the level of electricity access between the City of Kigali and the rest of the country is considerable. In the City of Kigali, 94.5 percent of households are classified above aggregate Tier 0, while in the Eastern Province, households with electricity access represent a much lower share, 66.3 percent, and the share is only about 50 percent in all other provinces (figure 11). FIGURE 11 • Provincial household distribution of aggregate Electricity Tier 5.5% 0.4% 2.1% 21.6% 41.3% 29.1% City of Kigali 51.3% 7.3% 3.1% 12.2% 17.0% 9.2% Southern 50.6% 4.9% 4.6% 13.2% 16.8% 9.9% Western 49.2% 5.5% 2.9% 15.5% 17.2% 9.7% Northern 33.7% 7.1% 5.3% 19.3% 20.0% 14.6% Eastern Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: World Bank 2022. 39.4% 7.0% 2.5% 0.1% 51.0% 19 Nationwide 2.9% 5.5% 0.4% 2.1% 21.6% RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework 41.3% 29.1% City of Kigali 5.5% 0.4% 2.1% 21.6% 51.3% 41.3% 7.3% 3.1% 12.2% 17.0% 29.1% 9.2% By Attribute Southern City of Kigali 50.6% 51.3% 7.3%4.6% 4.9% 3.1% 13.2% 12.2% 16.8% 17.0% 9.9% 9.2% Capacity Western Southern 49.2% 5.5% 2.9% 15.5% 17.2% 9.7% The Capacity attribute represents 50.6% the ability to provide 4.9% electricity 4.6% 13.2%to power appliances. 16.8% As of 2022, 9.9% Northern capacity Westernwas more of an issue in rural Rwanda. As shown in figure 12, while capacity is high for almost 90 percent of urban households,33.7% 49.2%at 2,000 W or above, 7.1% 5.3% the 5.5% share 15.5% 19.3% 2.9% is only 42.5 20.0% 17.2% in rural percent 14.6% areas. The 9.7% high share Eastern Northern of rural households below Tier 3 for the Capacity attribute includes mostly those without any electricity sources and those using off-grid solar solutions with limited capacity (figure 13). Changes in tier 33.7% 7.1% 5.3% 19.3% 20.0% 14.6% distribution over time Tiercould 0 not Tier be captured 1 Tier to due 2 a lack of data Tier 3 on the Capacity Tier 4 attribute Tier 5 from 2016. Eastern FIGURE 12 • Household Tier 0 distribution Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier, byTier of Capacity locality 3 (2022) Tier 4 Tier 5 39.4% 7.0% 2.5% 0.1% 51.0% Nationwide 39.4%46.1% 7.0% 2.5% 8.2% 2.9% 0.2% 51.0%42.5% 0.1% 0.05% Nationwide Rural 8.8% 1.3% 46.1% 2.9% 0.2% 8.2% 89.5% 42.5% 0.5% 0.05% Urban Rural 8.8% 1.3% 0.5% 89.5% Tier 0 (<3 W) Tier 1 (3 W and <50W) Tier 2 (50 W and <200 W) Urban Tier 3 (200 W and <800 W) Tier 4 (800 W and <2,000 W) Tier 5 (2,000 W ) Source: World Bank 2022. Tier 0 (<3 W) Tier 1 (3 W and <50W) Tier 2 (50 W and <200 W) Note: W = watt. Tier 3 (200 W and <800 W) Tier 4 (800 W and <2,000 W) Tier 5 (2,000 W ) FIGURE 13 • Household distribution based on electricity-providing technologies 0.4% in rural areas, by Capacity Tier No electricity 0.4% Dry-cell battery electricity battery Rechargeable No 41.9% Solar home Dry-cell system battery 42.2% Solar lighting system Rechargeable battery 41.9% Solar lantern Solar home system 42.2% 0.6% Mini-grid 0.3% Solar lighting system 7.1% National grid 1.9% Solar lantern 2.1% 2.9% 0.2% 0.05% 0.5% Tier 0 (45.6%) Tier 1 (8.7%) Tier 2 (2.9%) Tier 3 (0.2%) Tier 4 (0.05%) Tier 5 (42.5%) Mini-grid 0.6% 0.3% 7.1% National grid 1.9% 2.1% 2.9% 0.2% 0.05% 0.5% Tier 0 (45.6%) Tier 1 (8.7%) Tier 2 (2.9%) Tier 3 (0.2%) Tier 4 (0.05%) Tier 5 (42.5%) Source: World Bank 2022. 20 2. Access to Electricty Availability The Availability attribute considers households that have at least one source of electricity. It captures electricity availability over the entire day and specifically in the evening, from 6 to 10 pm. All-day availability improved by 2022. As shown in figure 14, nationwide, 71.8 percent of Rwandan households with electricity access received at least 23 hours of electricity per day in 2022, which increased by 22.2 percentage points from 2016. Most households receiving electricity supply over such long hours use the national grid as their primary electricity source (figure 15). By locality, in both rural and urban areas, the share of households receiving electricity for 23 hours or more in the whole day increased noticeably in 2022 (figure 16). Available evening hours of electricity also increased in 2022 compared with 2016, but the improvement was smaller than for all-day availability. As shown in figure 17, in 2022, nationwide, 78.2 percent of households had 4 hours of electricity in the evening, 6.3 percentage points more than in 2016. FIGURE 14 • Nationwide household distribution of all-day Availability Tier 4.6% 5.6% 6.4% 11.6% 71.8% 2022 5.9% 7.0% 10.1% 27.5% 49.6% 2016 Tier 0 (<4 hours) Tier 2 (4–8 hours) Tier 3 (8–16 hours) Tier 4 (16–22 hours) Tier 5 (≥23 hours) Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. FIGURE 15 • Primary electricity source, by all-day Availability Tier (nationwide, 2022) Tier 5 (≥23 hours) 42.5% 56.8% 0.4% 1.7% Tier 4 (16–22 hours) 66.4% No electricity 2.8% 87.5% Dry-cell Tier battery 3 (8–16 hours) 0.1% 24.2% 0.5% Generator 0.1% 0.4% Tier 2 (4–8 hours) 0.2% Rechargeable battery 11.8% 12.3% 30.8% Solar home system 8.0% 9.4% Tier 0 (<4 hours) 11.3% 8.4% 0.1% 66.3% 2.0% Solar lighting system 7.3% 2.7% 10.3% 0.4% 1.0% 10.8% 0.7% 6.1% 1.4% 0.5% Solar lantern 0.5% 0.8% 2.5% 2016 2022 2016 2022 Mini-grid 2.4% 3.7% 0.8% Rural Urban 2.1% National grid 1.7% 0.7% Tier 0 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 (<4 hours) (4–8 hours) (8–16 hours) (16–22 hours) (≥23 hours) 0.4% 4.6% 16.8% 78.2% Source: World Bank 2022. Note: A broken graph for Tier 5 to indicate the scale difference. 2022 3.1% 21.3% 71.9% 3.7% 21 2016 32.9 5.9% 7.0% 10.1% 27.5% 49.6% 2016 2016 Tier 0 (<4 hours) Tier 2 RWANDA ENERGY (4–8 hours) SURVEY Tier | Insights into 3 (8–16 energy hours) access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Tier 0 (<4 hours) Tier 2 (4–8 hours) Tier 3 (8–16 hours) Tier 4 (16–22 hours) Tier 5 (≥23 hours) Tier 4 (16–22 hours) Tier 5 (≥23 hours) FIGURE 16 • Household distribution of all-day Availability Tier, by locality Tier 5 (≥23 hours) 42.5% Tier 5 (≥23 hours) 42.5% 56.8% Tier 4 (16–22 hours) 66.4% 56.8% Tier 4 (16–22 hours) 66.4% 87.5% 87.5% Tier 3 (8–16 hours) 24.2% Tier 3 (8–16 hours) 24.2% Tier 2 (4–8 hours) Tier 2 (4–8 hours) 11.8% 12.3% 30.8% 11.8% 12.3% 30.8% 8.0% 9.4% Tier 0 (<4 hours) 11.3% 8.4% Tier 0 (<4 hours) 11.3% 8.0% 8.4% 9.4% 2.0% 7.3% 2.7% 10.3% 2.7% 0.7% 2.0% 7.3% 6.1% 0.5% 0.7% 10.3% 1.4% 6.1% 1.4% 0.5% 2016 2022 2016 2022 2016 2022 2016 2022 Rural Urban Rural Urban Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. FIGURE 17 • Nationwide household distribution of evening Availability Tier 0.4% 4.6% 16.8% 78.2% 0.4% 4.6% 16.8% 78.2% 2022 2022 3.1% 21.3% 71.9% 3.1% 3.7% 3.7% 21.3% 71.9% 2016 2016 Tier 0 (<1 hour) Tier 1 (1–2 hours) Tier 2 (2–3 hours) Tier 3 (3–4 hours) Tier 5 (4 hours) Tier 0 (<1 hour) Tier 1 (1–2 hours) Tier 2 (2–3 hours) Tier 3 (3–4 hours) Tier 5 (4 hours) Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. 56.7% 43.4% Reliability 56.7% 43.4% 2022 2022 The Reliability 8.3% attribute shows how frequently 68.4% electricity from the national grid 23.3% and mini-grids is interrupted in a typical week. Reliability improved substantially by 2022 compared with 2016. As shown 8.3% 68.4% 23.3% 2016 18, by 2022, no household experienced more than 14 outages per week, and the proportion of in figure 2016 households at Tier 5 for the Reliability attribute increased by 20.1 percentage points. Yet more than half of households Tierstill experienced 3 (>14 4–14 electricity interruptions) interruptions, Tier 4 (4–14 or interruptions) or fewer (<4 than 4and interruptions interruptions, >2 hours) however, Tier 3 (>14 interruptions) lasting 2 hours in total in a typical week. Tier 4 (4–14 interruptions) or (<4 interruptions and >2 hours) Tier 5 (<4 interruptions and <2 hours) Tier 5 (<4 interruptions and <2 hours) Quality The Quality attribute captures the voltage quality of electricity from the national grid and mini-grids in the 12 months preceding the survey. Quality improved between 2016 and 2022, but not significantly. As shown in figure 19, in 2022, 14.7 percent of households nationwide experienced voltage fluctuations, a 6.2 percentage point reduction compared with 2016. 22 8.0% 9.4% Tier 0 (<4 hours) 11.3% 8.4% 7.3% 2.7% 2.0% 10.3% 0.7% 6.1% 1.4% 0.5% 2. Access to Electricty 2016 2022 2016 2022 Rural Urban Formality The Formality attribute tells whether households formally use their electricity from the national grid and mini-grids, paying official service providers or their authorized representatives. In Rwanda, most households formally use their electricity service (figure 20). 16.8% 78.2% 0.4% 4.6% 2022 Health and Safety 3.1% 21.3% 71.9% 3.7% attribute represents electricity safety based on households’ experience of bodily The Health and Safety or death from electricity in the 12 months preceding the survey. The analysis shows that electricity injury2016 is generally safe in Rwanda. In 2022, 99.8 percent of households found electricity safe, a 4.5 percentage point improvement over 2016 (figure 21). Tier 0 (<1 hour) Tier 1 (1–2 hours) Tier 2 (2–3 hours) Tier 3 (3–4 hours) Tier 5 (4 hours) FIGURE 18 • Nationwide household distribution of Reliability Tier 56.7% 43.4% 2022 8.3% 68.4% 23.3% 2016 Tier 3 (>14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4–14 interruptions) or (<4 interruptions and >2 hours) Tier 5 (<4 interruptions and <2 hours) Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. FIGURE 19 • Nationwide household distribution of Quality Tier 14.7% 85.3% 2022 14.7% 85.3% 20.9% 79.1% 2022 2016 20.9% 79.1% 2016 Tier 3 (Voltage issues) Tier 5 (No voltage issues) Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. Tier 3 (Voltage issues) Tier 5 (No voltage issues) 2.8% 97.2% FIGURE 20 • Nationwide household distribution of Formality Tier 2022 2.8% 97.2% 1.7% 98.3% 2022 2016 1.7% 98.3% 2016 Tier 3 (Informal) Tier 5 (Formal) Tier 3 (Informal) Tier 5 (Formal) 99.8% Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. 0.2% 2022 0.2% 99.8% 23 4.7% 95.3% 2022 2016 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Tier 3 (Informal) Tier 5 (Formal) FIGURE 21 • Nationwide household distribution of Health and Safety Tier 0.2% 99.8% 14.7% 85.3% 2022 2022 4.7% 95.3% 20.9% 79.1% 2016 2016 Tier 3 (Not safe) Tier 5 (Safe) Tier 3 (Voltage issues) Tier 5 (No voltage issues) Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. USE OF ELECTRICITY 2.8% 97.2% 2022 National Grid 1.7% 98.3% 29.2 28.6 Although access to the national grid grew substantially by 2022 (figure 2), the average consumption of 2016 grid electricity remained low. In 2022, nationwide, Rwandan households consumed 16.8 kWh of electricity per month on20.8average (figure 22), lower than the average consumption in nearby East African countries like Kenya (48.6 kWh) and Uganda (42 kWh) 16.8 (Dubey Tier 3 Tier 5 ESMAP, et al. 2020; (Informal) (Formal) forthcoming). The nationwide lower grid consumption in 9.9 11.3 to 2016 was due to major grid expansion in 2022 relative rural areas. In 2022, 68.3 percent of grid-connected Rwandan households were rural households with 0.2% 99.8% low average grid consumption of 11.3 kWh (figure 22). The nationwide average grid consumption in 2022 was lowered 2022 due to the high share of rural households with low use of grid electricity. By locality, 4.7% Nationwide electricity Rural consumption shows large 95.3% urban-rural Urban urban households disparity. In 2022, consumed 2016 2022 2016 2.5 times more electricity than rural households (figure 22). Across Ubudehe categories, urban households consumed more grid electricity than rural households (figure 23). Tier 3 (Not safe) Tier 5 (Safe) Grid consumption does not differ substantially among rural households, unlike urban households, by Ubudehe classification (figure 23). This suggests that the wealth level of rural households might not be the major factor behind their low grid consumption. Grid consumption tends to rise over time with longer periods of connection. Rural households in most Ubudehe categories have been connected to the grid for less than five years, a short duration for grid consumption to increase (figures 24 and 25). FIGURE 22 • Monthly grid consumption, by locality (kWh) 29.2 28.6 20.8 16.8 11.3 9.9 Nationwide Rural Urban 2016 2022 Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. 24 (<4 hours) (4–8 hours) (8–16 hours) (16–22 hours) (≥23 hours) 2. Access to Electricty FIGURE 23 • Nationwide monthly grid consumption in 2022, by Ubudehe category and locality (kWh) 32.9 22.3 20.1 14.0 11.0 11.9 10.8 9.2 N/A Nationwide Rural Urban Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Source: World Bank 2022. Note: The consumption of Category 1 households in urban areas was not analyzed due to the small sample size. FIGURE 24 • Years of grid connection, by Ubudehe category and locality (year) 9.5 8.0 9.5 6.7 8.0 4.9 6.7 4.9 4.1 3.8 3.5 4.9 4.9 4.1 3.8 3.5 N/A Nationwide Rural N/A Urban Nationwide Category 1 Rural 2 Category Category 3 Urban Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Source: World Bank 2022. Note: The number of grid connection years for Category 1 households in urban areas was not analyzed due to the small sample size. FIGURE 25 • Nationwide grid consumption, by years of grid connection (kWh) 28.3 24.0 28.3 24.0 18.7 18.7 13.5 13.5 1 –5 years 6–10 years 11 –15 years 16 –20 years 1 –5 years 6–10 years 11 –15 years 16 –20 years Source: World Bank 2022. 25 4,656 4,596 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework 28.3 In 2022, nationwide, Rwandan households spent on average 24.0 2,267 Rwandan francs (RWF), equivalent to approximately US$2, on grid electricity (figure 26). Rural households spent RWF 1,164 (~US$1) on grid 18.7 electricity, whereas urban households spent almost four times as much. 13.5 Household expenditure on grid electricity dropped significantly between 2016 and 2022, especially in rural areas (figure 26). The rural decrease may be explained by a change in the tariff scheme in 2017 from a flat rate to a block structure, with a lifeline tariff for electricity consumption below 15 kWh per month (ESRF 2019; RURA 2015, 2016). In 2022, the end-user tariff for households consuming less than 15 kWh per month was 1 –5 about half the tariff years in 2016 (RURA 2015, 6–10 years 2020). 11 –15 Rural households years 16 –20consumed years 11.3 kWh monthly on average in 2022, as shown in figure 22, suggesting that many would have benefited from the reduced tariff. A large share of grid-connected households are in rural areas, as mentioned earlier; the reduction in average rural grid expenditure might explain the sharp decline in the nationwide average. By Ubudehe category, while monthly grid expenditure does not differ substantially among rural households, it shows clear distinctions for Category 2 and 3 urban households (figure 27), corresponding to their consumption differences described in figure 23. FIGURE 26 • Monthly grid expenditure (RWF) 4,656 4,596 3,514 2,267 2,010 1,164 Nationwide Rural Urban 2016 2022 Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. FIGURE 27 • Monthly grid expenditure, by Ubudehe category and locality (RWF) 5,494 3,224 2,913 1,692 1,147 1,139 1,246 868 N/A Nationwide Rural Urban Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Source: World Bank 2022. Note: The monthly grid expenditure of Category 1 households in urban areas was not analyzed due to the small sample size. 68.3% 10.0% 1.1% 19.9% 0.8% 26 Nationwide 2. Access to Electricty Most grid-connected households still use low-load devices and do not leverage the high capacity 5,494 available from the national grid. Connecting households to the grid brings them to Capacity Tier 5, assuming 2,000 W or higher electricity capacity. While 50.7 percent of households nationwide should have access to a grid connection as shown in figure 2, the share of households using devices demanding less 5,494 than 50 W as the highest-load-level appliance is 68.3 percent (figure 28). Households 3,224 using appliances 2,913 represent only a 0.8 percent share. demanding 2,000 W or more This is specifically the case for rural households. Although 42.2 percent of rural households 1,692 3,224 are on the grid, which would provide high-capacity 1,147 2,913 electricity 1,246 2), 84.2 percent use devices with load levels 1,139 (figure 868 below 50 W as their highest-load-level appliances (figure 28). Among urban households, while it is more common to have appliances demanding higher loads, only 2.3 N/A 1,692 percent use appliances requiring 1,147 1,246 2,000 W or more. This could imply that many Nationwide Rwandan 868Rural 1,139 households do not own Urbanappliances to leverage the capacity level, or households might Category 1 suppress their Category 2 appliance use Category 3 because they cannot afford the expected electricity payment. N/A Nationwide Rural Urban Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 FIGURE 28 • Highest load levels of the appliances used by grid-connected households 68.3% 10.0% 1.1% 19.9% 0.8% Nationwide 84.2% 68.3% 8.6% 0.4% 10.0% 1.1% 6.8% 19.9% 0.8% Rural Nationwide 35.1% 12.8% 84.2% 2.7% 47.1% 2.3%6.8% 8.6% 0.4% Urban Rural 35.1% 12.8% 2.7% 47.1% 2.3% Very low load (3 W≤ and <50W) Urban Low load (50 W≤ and <200 W) Medium load (200 W≤ and <800 W) High load (800 W≤ and <2,000 W) Very high load (2,000 W≤) Source: World Bank 2022. Very low load (3 W≤ and <50W) Low load (50 W≤ and <200 W) Medium load (200 W≤ and <800 W) High load (800 W≤ and <2,000 W) Very high load (2,000 W≤) Urban households benefit more than rural households from available electricity by using more devices at varied load levels (figure 29). In both rural and urban areas, typical mobile phone chargers and compact fluorescent light bulbs are the most widely used electrical appliances (figure 30). The use of incandescent light bulbs and dry-cell battery-based flashlights is especially common among rural households, whereas the use of smartphone chargers and electric irons is high among urban households. 96.6% 99.6% FIGURE 29 • Appliance use among grid-connected households, by load level 56.0% 99.6% 96.6% 48.9% 24.4% 12.8% 56.0% 6.6% 2.3% 48.9% 1.7% 0% Rural Urban24.4% 12.8% Very low load (3 W≤ and <50W) Low 6.6%load (50 W≤ and <200 W) Medium load (200 W≤ and <800 W) 2.3% 1.7% 0% High load (800 W≤ and <2,000 W) Very high load (2,000 W≤) Rural Urban Very low load (3 W≤ and <50W) Low load (50 W≤ and <200 W) Medium load (200 W≤ and <800 W) High load (800 W≤ and <2,000 W) Very high load (2,000 W≤) Source: World Bank 2022. 27 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 30 • Appliance use among households relying on the national grid as the primary electricity source, by locality Typical mobile phone charger 70.4% 68.9% 52.8% Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb 64.3% 16.2% Smartphone charger 58.9% Electric iron 6.6% 48.8% Radio/CD players/sound system 18.6% (without using dry-cell battery) 34.1% 35.4% Incandescent light bulb 28.9% 4.4% Flat color TV 25.4% Computer 1.5% 20.9% 6.4% Typical color TV 19.6% 1.1% Electric hot water pot/kettle 15.8% 0.4% Refrigerator 15.3% Radio 13.5% 11.6% LED light bulb 10.2% 10.9% 2.4% VCD/DVD 9.1% Torch/flashlight/lantern (dry-cell) 22.9% 8.8% 1.5% Black & white TV 7.5% 0.2% Electric food processor/blender 7.2% Internet modem/router 0.2% 6.6% 1.2% Fluorescent tube Rural 5.9% Urban Source: World Bank 2022. Note: LED = light-emitting diode. 42.2% 36.1% 8.4% Nationwide Rural Urban 28 Radio 13.5% 11.6% LED light bulb 10.2% 2. Access to Electricty 10.9% 2.4% VCD/DVD 9.1% 2.2 IMPROVING ELECTRICITY Torch/flashlight/lantern ACCESS 8.8% (dry-cell) 22.9% 1.5% Black & white TV 7.5% 0.2% Electric food processor/blender PROVIDING ELECTRICITY ACCESS TO HOUSEHOLDS 7.2% WITHOUT ELECTRICITY Internet modem/router 0.2% In Rwanda, a lack of electricity access is particularly 6.6% a challenge in rural areas. As shown in figure 31, 42.2 percent of rural households, but only 8.4 1.2% percent not have access to of urban households, doRural Fluorescent tube 5.9% any source of electricity. More than half of the households without electricity instead Urban rely on dry-cell flashlights (figure 32). FIGURE 31 • Share of households without any source of electricity 42.2% 36.1% 8.4% Nationwide Rural Urban Source: World Bank 2022. FIGURE 32 • Nationwide use of dry-cell flashlights/lanterns, by households’ electricity access status 53.3% 17.6% Without electricity With electricity Source: World Bank 2022. Eighteen households in each targeted village were interviewed during the survey. In this analysis, a village was assumed to have grid availability when at least 1 of the 18 surveyed households was connected to the national grid. Based on this assumption, the survey shows that, nationwide, 80.6 percent of villages have access to the grid (figure 33). However, 37.2 percent of the households in those villages are not connected to the grid, even though the villages have grid availability (figure 34). Of the households without a grid connection, 78.4 percent do not have any source of electricity, and 21.5 80.6% 19.4% percent rely on off-grid solutions. Nationwide 76.6% 23.5% Rural 99.2% 0.8% Urban 29 Village with grid access Village without grid access Without electricity With electricity RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 33 • Share of villages with grid access, by locality 80.6% 19.4% Nationwide 80.6% 19.4% 76.6% 23.5% Nationwide Rural 76.6% 23.5% 99.2% 0.8% Rural Urban 99.2% 0.8% Urban Village with grid access Village without grid access Village with grid access Village without grid access Source: World Bank 2022. *Note: If at least 1 household out of 18 sample households in a village was connected to the grid, the village was assumed to have grid access in this analysis. FIGURE 34 • Grid connection status of households in villages where grid access is available (nationwide) Connected to the grid Not connected to the grid 62.8% 37.2% Connected to the grid Not connected to the grid 62.8% 37.2% Main Source of Households Not Connected to the Grid in Villages with Grid Access Off-grid solutions 21.5% No electricity 78.4% Source: World Bank 2022. For unelectrified households in villages with grid availability, the high cost of the initial connection is the major barrier to having a grid connection (figure 35).8 This result implies that the connection cost could still be a burden for households even though they can apply for a grid connection at no initial cost and repay the connection fee in installments along with power purchases under the connection policy from 2017 (Rwanda Energy Group 2017).9 Households living beyond the standard connection distance of 37 meters should also pay the cost for the extension of the electricity network; remote households may thus not be able to afford the additional charges (Rwanda Energy Group 2017). It is also possible that the implementation of the connection policy is deficient, or households might not be aware of it. 8 This is based on the same assumption as for figure 33. If at least 1 of the 18 households in a sampled village has access to the national grid, the village is consid- ered to have grid availability. 9 According to the connection policy, households have three options to pay the connection fees (Rwanda Energy Group 2017). The first option is to pay up front in full. The second option is a household making any down payment that it proposes and paying the remainder along with power purchases in the future. At each power purchase, 50 percent of the paid amount is used to repay the balance of the connection fee. For example, in Rwanda, households pre-pay for their elec- tricity. Therefore, 50 percent of the pre-payment is used to repay for the connection fee, and households receive the amount of electricity for the other 50 percent of the payment. The last option is making zero down payment and repaying the connection fee along with power purchases. Again, at each power purchase, 50 percent of the amount paid is used to repay the balance of the connection fee. 30 2. Access to Electricty FIGURE 35 • Reasons why unelectrified households do not have a grid connection despite its availability in their villages 30.3% Grid is too far from household/ 31.5% not available 12.3% 48.0% Cost of initial connection 47.0% is too expensive 62.6% 6.7% Submitted application and 6.7% waiting for connection 6.8% 30.3% Grid is too far from household/ 3.1% 31.5% not available Renting, 12.3% 2.7% Landlord decision 9.7% 48.0% Cost of initial connection 3.3% 47.0% too expensive isMonthly fee is too expensive 3.4% 62.6% 2.1% 6.7% Submitted application and 6.7% 8.6% Nationwide waiting for connection 6.8% Other 8.8% Rural 3.1% 6.4% Urban Renting, Landlord decision 2.7% 9.7% Source: World Bank 2022. 3.3% Monthly fee is too expensive 3.4% Households without electricity were asked whether they are willing to pay for SHSs, at different capacity 2.1% levels randomly assigned to them at various price points (annex 5). Not surprisingly, households are 8.6% Nationwide more likely to purchase an SHS under Other 8.8% all types of payment plans when offered lower price points (figure Rural 36). When a high-capacity SHS 6.4% of a higher price range is offered, a major share of the population is Urban not willing to pay for it. The share of households willing to pay in installments remains low and does not change significantly when price points are high. Among households not willing to pay for the solar devices offered, 96.2 percent did not accept an offer because they could not afford the payment (table 4). To offer off-grid solar solutions 38.2% to households without electricity sources, measures to relieve the 49.0% price burden on them should be considered. 69.2% Never 77.1% 81.1% 81.1% FIGURE 36 • Unelectrified households’ willingness to pay for solar devices (nationwide) 14.9% 24 months 12 months 16.0% 21.6% 6 months 38.2% 11.3% 9.8% 15.6% 10.4% Up front 49.0% 5.4% 13.5% 3.7% 1.5% 7.7% 3.0% 1.4% 19.8% 4.7% 14.2% 69.2% 0.5% 2.2% 4.9% Never 6.7% 77.1% 5.9% 4.7% 81.1% 5.0% 81.1% 14.9% RWF 15,000 RWF 45,000 RWF 82,500 RWF 215,000 24 months RWF 245,000 RWF 282,500 Tier 1 (Low capacity) Tier 2 (High capacity) 12 months 16.0% 21.6% 6 months 11.3% 9.8% 15.6% 10.4% Up front 5.4% 13.5% 1.5% 7.7% 3.7% 3.0% 1.4% 19.8% 4.7% 14.2% 0.5% 2.2% 4.9% 6.7% 5.9% 4.7% 5.0% RWF 15,000 RWF 45,000 RWF 82,500 RWF 215,000 RWF 245,000 RWF 282,500 Tier 1 (Low capacity) Tier 2 (High capacity) Source: World Bank 2022. Note: RWF = Rwandan franc. 31 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework TABLE 4 • Why households would not accept an offer of a solar device Why not accept an offer? Cannot afford the payment. 96.2% I already have electricity for my needs. 1.4% Maintenance/servicing for the device is not available. 0.8% Other 1.5% Source: World Bank 2022. IMPROVING ACCESS TO THE NATIONAL GRID Challenges with Electricity from the National Grid For about half of grid-connected households, the quality of the electricity from the grid and its high costs are concerns. As shown in figure 37, 20.2 percent of households connected to the national grid reported unpredictable interruptions as their most serious concern. More than 1 out of 10 grid-connected households found electricity too expensive, and 7.3 percent of households considered voltage fluctuations to be the most serious issue. FIGURE 37 • The most serious issues with electricity from the national grid Other Low/high voltage issues or voltage fluctuations 5.8% 7.3% Unpredictable interruptions No issues 20.2% 56.1% High cost of electricity 10.5% Source: World Bank 2022. As identified in figure 37, electricity 57.0% interruptions are a common issue: 57 percent 43.0%of households relying the national grid as the primary electricity source experience either 4–14 outages per week, or fewer onNationwide than 4 interruptions but lasting longer than 2 hours in total per week (figure 38). Across provinces, the share of households at Tier 4 for the Reliability attribute is similar, but it is comparatively higher in the Southern and Western provinces Tier 4 (4–14 (figure interruptions) or (<4 39). fluctuation Voltageand interruptions Tier 5a >2 hours) is also concern (<4 for some interruptions and <2 households. hours) Nationwide, about 15 percent of Rwandan households on the grid experience voltage issues, based on the Quality Tier distribution (figure 40). 54.9% 45.1% City of Kigali 32 63.5% 36.5% Southern 56.1% High cost of electricity 10.5% 2. Access to Electricty High cost of electricity 10.5% High cost of electricity FIGURE 38 • Distribution of Reliability Tier across grid-connected 10.5% households 57.0% 43.0% Nationwide 57.0% 43.0% Nationwide 57.0% 43.0% Tier 4 (4–14 interruptions) or (<4 interruptions and >2 hours) Tier 5 (<4 interruptions and <2 hours) Nationwide Source: World Bank 2022. Tier 4 (4–14 interruptions) or (<4 interruptions and >2 hours) Tier 5 (<4 interruptions and <2 hours) FIGURE 39 • Distribution 54.9% of Reliability Tier 4 (4–14 interruptions) Tier across or (<4 interruptions grid-connected and >2 hours) Tier 5 (<4 45.1% households, interruptions by <2 and province hours) City of Kigali 54.9% 45.1% 63.5% 36.5% City of Kigali 54.9% 45.1% Southern 63.5% 36.5% City of Kigali 62.8% 37.2% Southern 63.5% 36.5% Western 62.8% 37.2% Southern 53.2% 46.8% Western 62.8% 37.2% Northern 53.2% 46.8% Western 52.1% 47.9% Northern 53.2% 46.8% Eastern 52.1% 47.9% Northern Eastern 52.1% 47.9% Tier 4 (4–14 interruptions) or (<4 interruptions and >2 hours) Tier 5 (<4 interruptions and <2 hours) Eastern Tier 4 (4–14 interruptions) or (<4 interruptions and >2 hours) Tier 5 (<4 interruptions and <2 hours) Source: World Bank 2022. Tier 4 (4–14 interruptions) or (<4 interruptions and >2 hours) Tier 5 (<4 interruptions and <2 hours) 14.8% 85.2% FIGURE 40 • Distribution 14.8% of the Quality Tier across grid-connected 85.2% households 14.8% Tier 3 (Voltage issues) Tier 5 (No voltage issues) 85.2% Tier 3 (Voltage issues) Tier 5 (No voltage issues) Tier 3 (Voltage issues) Tier 5 (No voltage issues) Source: World Bank 2022. During grid outages, households mainly rely on mobile phone lights, dry-cell lighting sources, and candles as backup sources for lighting. As shown in figure 41, nationwide, the highest share of households use mobile phone lights during grid outages, and 21.4 percent and 16.8 percent of households, respectively, use dry-cell battery/rechargeable flashlights and candles. 33 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 41 • Nationwide backup sources for lighting Others No backup sources 3.9% Candle 13.4% 16.8% Others No backup sources 3.9% Candle 13.4% 16.8% Dry-cell batteries/ rechargeable flashlight Mobile phone light 21.4% 44.5% Dry-cell batteries/ Source: World Bank 2022. rechargeable flashlight Mobile phone light 21.4% 44.5% Challenges with Electricity from Off-Grid Solar Solutions The short duration of electricity service, poor quality of light, and low power capacity are major concerns with all types of solar devices (figure 42). The share of households facing issues is slightly lower for SHSs than the other technologies, although some households using SHSs are instead burdened by the recurrent costs related to these devices.10 Specifically, 16.7 percent of households using SHSs shoulder 0.05% a cost burden, about 11 percentage0.04%points higher than for solar lanterns or SLSs. 1.3% 0.7% 3.5% 4.2% 4.0% 10.3% 10.5% FIGURE 42 • Issues with households’ main 6.0% solar devices Others 5.4% 6.2% 16.7% 0.05% 6.7% Battery issues 0.04% 1.3% 10.0% 0.7% 3.5% 4.2% Does not work well in bad 10.2% 4.0% 10.3% 8.3% weather/rain 10.5% 6.0% 13.1% 7.5% Others Breaks down too often 5.4% 6.2% 16.7% 6.7% 22.0% BatteryRecurrent issues cost related to solar 14.3% device is too high 10.0% 22.8% Does not work well in bad 10.2% 8.3% Cannot power large appliances weather/rain 13.1% 7.5% down too Breaks Quality of often light 22.0% Recurrent cost related Duration to solar of service too short 14.3% 42.3% device is too high 41.6% 22.8% 32.4% No issues Cannot power large appliances Quality of light Solar lantern Solar lighting system Solar home system Duration of service too short 41.6% 42.3% 32.4% No issues Solar lantern Solar lighting system Solar home system Source: World Bank 2022. The survey question did not specify the recurrent costs. 10 34 2. Access to Electricty BOX 5 • ELECTRICITY ACCESS OF RWANDA’S PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS Rwanda’s education and health facilities have overall high electricity access, although access is lower among education centers. As shown in figure 43, nationwide, 100 percent of health facilities are electrified; the access rate is 13.7 percentage points lower among education facilities. The use of grid electricity is prevalent among both types of public institution, whereas off-grid solar solutions are used more by education facilities. Solar technologies are used by 14.4 percent of Rwanda’s schools, a share 12.9 percentage points higher than that among health facilities. FIGURE 43 • Electricity access of public institutions, by technology Health Facilities Solar home system 1.5% National grid 98.5% Electricity Access 100% Education Facilities Solar lighting system Solar lantern 5.3% 2.7% Solar home system National grid 6.4% 85.6% Nationwide Electricity Access 86.3% Source: World Bank 2022. 28.9% 38.3% 28.9% 3.9% 0.1% Nationwide 33.9% 42.9% 22.6% 0.6% Rural 35 5.9% 17.5% 57.2% 19.0% 0.4% RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework 2.3 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS EXPAND RURAL ELECTRIFICATION Electricity access improved significantly in Rwanda between 2016 and 2022, especially in rural areas. However, the survey shows a persistent, large urban-rural access disparity. To close the gap, electrification of rural areas should be targeted. INCREASE ACCESS TO THE NATIONAL GRID IN PROVINCES OTHER THAN THE CITY OF KIGALI As noted earlier, electricity access and grid connections are lagging in all areas outside the City of Kigali. This suggests a need to distribute future grid expansions to areas outside the City of Kigali, besides expanding electricity access particularly in the Southern, Western, and Northern provinces, where access is relatively low. IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY OF GRID ELECTRICITY The survey demonstrates that nationwide, 57 percent of grid-connected households experience frequent outages in a week. More than one out of five grid-connected households reported electricity interruptions as the most serious issue with their grid electricity. These findings underscore the need to improve the connection quality of the national grid. EVALUATE THE COST OF CONNECTING TO THE NATIONAL GRID The survey shows the high cost of the initial grid connection as the most important barrier to having a grid connection for almost half of the unelectrified households in villages with grid availability. Households could still find the connection cost high, even if they can spread their payment under the connection policy from 2017. For remote households, the additional charges for network extension could be a burden. To understand and identify major challenges to households, all aspects of the cost burden should be examined further. Also, the implementation of the connection policy from 2017 should be reviewed and evaluated. Households might have reported the cost barrier to a grid connection because the policy’s implementation was deficient. It could be that the households failed to benefit from the policy because it may have been insufficiently advertised. The policy’s implementation should be assessed and improved as needed. ADDRESS THE HIGH COST OF ELECTRICITY Based on the survey, the high cost of grid electricity was identified as the most serious challenge by more than 1 out of 10 grid-connected households. To reduce the cost of electricity, Rwanda’s least-cost power generation plan should be implemented. 36 37 3. ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES Health Facilities Solar home system 1.5% National grid 98.5% 3.1 ASSESSING HOUSEHOLDS’ ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES Education Facilities ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY Solar lighting systemCOOKING BY TECHNOLOGY Solar lantern 5.3% 2.7% Solar home system National grid Nationwide 6.4% 85.6% In Rwanda, clean cooking practices are still rare. Nationwide, the largest share of households cook with either three-stone/open-fire stoves or traditional/locally built stoves (figure 44). Clean cooking solutions such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves and electric stoves are barely used.11 Stove choices show large urban-rural differences. While three-stone/open-fire stoves and traditional stoves are more prevalent as primary cookstoves among rural households, more than half of urban households use more advanced manufactured biomass stoves, and 19 percent use LPG stoves (figure 44). The penetration of LPG stoves increased significantly in 2022 compared with 2016 when only 1.7 percent of urban households used them (figure 45). FIGURE 44 • Primary cookstove, by locality (2022) 28.9% 38.3% 28.9% 3.9% 0.1% Nationwide 33.9% 42.9% 22.6% 0.6% Rural 5.9% 17.5% 57.2% 19.0% 0.4% Urban Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove LPG stove Electric stove Other Source: World Bank 2022. Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. In the survey, the options for primary stove were three-stone/open-fire stove, traditional/locally built stove, manufactured biomass stove, kerosene 11 stove, LPG stove, electric stove, solar cooker, or any other. The survey showed that no Rwandan households use solar cookers. 39 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 45 • Use of LPG stoves 19.0% 3.9% 0.6% 1.7% 0.3% 0% Nationwide Rural Urban 2016 2022 19.0% Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 3.9% By Province 25.9% 46.4% 0.6% 1.7% 23.3% 0.5% 3.9% 0.3% 0% City use The of clean stoves of Kigali is limited to the City of Kigali.Rural Nationwide 12 As shown in figure 46, 23.8 percent of households Urban in the City of Kigali use LPG 29.7% stoves or electric stoves 27.5%2016 as their primary cookstoves, 41.3% and 46.4 percent use 1.6% 2022 manufactured biomass stoves. By contrast, in all other provinces, three-stone/open-fire stoves and Southern stoves are predominant, and the use of clean stoves is insignificant. traditional 42.4% 36.3% 19.8% 1.5% FIGURE 46 • Primary cookstove, by province Western 3.9% 34.8% 25.9% 47.9% 46.4% 23.3% 0.5% 0.5% 16.7% Northern City of Kigali 23.8% 29.7% 50.4% 27.5% 24.4% 41.3% 1.4% 1.6% Eastern Southern 42.4% 36.3% 19.8% 1.5% Three-stone/Open fire stove Western Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove LPG stove Electric stove Other 34.8% 47.9% 16.7% 0.5% Northern 23.8% 50.4% 24.4% 1.4% 19.1% 38.4% 35.5% 6.9% 0.1% Eastern Category 3 31.6% 40.4% 25.9% 2.0% Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove Category 2 LPG stove Electric stove Other 43.8% 34.5% 21.1% 0.6% Source: World Bank 2022. Category 1 Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 19.1% 38.4% 35.5% 6.9% 0.1% Three-stone/Open fire stove Category 3 Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove Kigali has been at the center of the clean Kerosene fuel transition. stove MinistryLPG Rwanda’s stove of Environment bannedElectric stove the supply and use of charcoal in Kigali in 2020 (Nkurunziza 31.6% 40.4% 25.9% 2.0% 12 2020), and Kigali has been one of the priority targets for the Government of Rwanda for the accelerated rollout of LPG (Global LPG Partnership, KfW, and European Union 2021). Category 2 40 43.8% 34.5% 21.1% 0.6% Category 1 Western 34.8% 47.9% 16.7% 0.5% 3. Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services Northern 23.8% 50.4% 24.4% 1.4% By Ubudehe Category Eastern The use of clean stoves is positively correlated with Ubudehe classifications. The use of LPG stoves and manufactured biomass stoves as the primary cookstoves tended to be higher among households Three-stone/Open in higher Ubudehe fire stove categories (figure Traditional/Locally 47), whereas built stove three-stone/open-fire Manufactured stoves and biomass stove stoves traditional were more adopted by households in lower Ubudehe categories. LPG stove Electric stove Other FIGURE 47 • Primary cookstove type, by Ubudehe category 19.1% 38.4% 35.5% 6.9% 0.1% Category 3 31.6% 40.4% 25.9% 2.0% Category 2 43.8% 34.5% 21.1% 0.6% Category 1 Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove Source: World Bank 2022. Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. Rural households heavily consume wood, whereas charcoal is widely consumed in urban areas (figure 48). The use of wood is high among rural households, where three-stone/open-fire stoves and traditional stoves are more prevalent, as shown in figure 44, which mainly burn firewood (figure 49). A high share of rural households collect wood rather than purchase it (figure 48). On the other hand, in urban areas, where manufactured biomass stoves are more prevalent, charcoal consumption is high (figures 48 and 49). FIGURE 48 • Fuels for primary stoves, by locality 16.3% 62.5% 19.9% 0.9% 0.4% Nationwide 18.4% 70.9% 0.1% 10.2% 0.4% Rural 4.6% 16.2% 73.5% 0.1% 5.5% Urban Wood purchased Wood collected Charcoal Kerosene Crop residue/Plant biomass Processed biomass (pellets)/Woodchips Source: World Bank 2022. 41 1.2% 3.1% 11.9% Crop residue/Plant biomass Processed biomass (pellets)/Woodchips 16.3% 62.5% 19.9% 0.9% 0.4% Nationwide RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework 18.4% 70.9% 0.1% 10.2% 0.4% FIGURE 49. Fuel use, by primary stove Rural 16.2% 4.6% 1.2% 73.5% 3.1% 0.1% 5.5% 11.9% Urban 50.8% Processed biomass Wood purchased Wood collected Kerosene (pellets)/Woodchips Charcoal 89.6%Crop residue/Plant biomass 66.8% Crop Processed biomass residue/Plant biomass (pellets)/Woodchips Charcoal 29.3% Wood collected Wood purchased 21.3% 9.3% 16.8% Three-stone/ Traditional/ Manufactured Open fire stove 1.2% Locally built stove biomass stove 3.1% 11.9% Source: World Bank 2022. 50.8% Processed biomass (pellets)/Woodchips BOX 6 • USE OF STOVES AMONG RWANDAN EDUCATION Open fire/three-stone FACILITIES 89.6% 66.8% Crop residue/Plant biomass 19.3% Built-in place Charcoal 80.7%of Rwandan schools preparing meals use just one cookstove (World Bank Nationwide, 98.8 percent 2022). Firewood-burning built-in-place stoves are predominant, used 29.3% Wood collected by 80.7 percent of these schools (figure 50). Regardless of stove type, all education facilities use firewood for their stoves. Schools spend Wood purchased on average RWF 129,087 (~US$126) monthly on firewood, 21.3% and the average consumption is 14.4 steres (World Bank 2022). 9.3% 16.8% Three-stone/ Traditional/ Manufactured Open fire stove Locally built stove biomass stove FIGURE 50 • Primary cookstove of education facilities (nationwide) Open fire/three-stone 19.3% Built-in place 80.7% All stoves use firewood as the main fuel. Source: World Bank 2022. 42 3. Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services STOVE STACKING Households’ stacking more than one cookstove could reflect their desire to transition to improved stoves or a need for backup cookstoves. Stove stacking is not common in Rwanda. Most households own just one stove. Only 11.6 percent of households have two cookstoves stacked, and a negligible share stack three stoves (figure 51). Stacking is more common in urban areas than rural areas. The share of urban households with two stoves is roughly two times higher than the share of rural households with two. FIGURE 51 • Number of cookstoves stacked, by locality 87.7% 11.6% 0.7% Nationwide 89.2% 10.1% 0.8% Rural 80.7% 18.8% 0.5% 87.7% 11.6% 0.7% Urban Nationwide One stove Two stove Three stove 89.2% 10.1% 0.8% Source: World Bank 2022. Rural Nationwide, households 9.3% with two stoves most 46.2% commonly stack traditional 80.7% 33.7% stoves and 18.8%manufactured 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 10.1% biomass stoves (figure 52). LPG stoves are stacked by 10.1 percent of households. The highest share Urban Nationwide of rural households stack traditional stoves, whereas urban households most commonly keep aside 12.7%and LPG stoves. manufactured stoves 55.7% 29.0% 0.4% 2.2% One stove Two stove Three stove Rural FIGURE 52 • Stacked stoves 22.8% of households with two stoves 0.5% 29.5% 1.0% 45.2% 1.1% 9.3% 46.2% 33.7% 0.3% 0.3% Urban 0.1% 10.1% Nationwide 12.7% 55.7% 29.0% 0.4% Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass 2.2%stove Rural Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove Other 1.0% 22.8% 45.2% 0.5% 29.5% 1.1% Urban Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove Other Source: World Bank 2022. 0.3% 6.0% Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 32.2% Electric stove LPG stove 60.4% 87.3% Manufactured biomass stove 46.8% Traditional/Locally built stove 0.3% Three-stone/Open fire stove 6.0% 33.3% 21.0% 43 32.2% 12.7% Electric stove Traditional/ Manufactured LPG stove LPG stove One stove Two stove Three stove RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework 9.3% 46.2% 33.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 10.1% Nationwide While some households with two cookstoves transitioned to an improved cookstove, the high fuel cost 0.4% led some to 12.7% 55.7% continue using a high-emission, inefficient stove. As shown 29.0% in figure 53, 60.4 percent of 2.2% households Rural stacking traditional stoves use manufactured biomass stoves as their primary cookstove. In this case, the households transitioned to an improved cookstove. However, 33.3 percent use three- 1.0% 22.8% 45.2% 0.5% 29.5% 1.1% stone/open-fire stoves as their primary cookstove, which are likely to be unhealthy and less-efficient. Among households Urban keeping aside manufactured biomass stoves, almost one-third transitioned to cleaner LPG stoves as their primary cookstoves, whereas the rest relied on traditional cookstoves. All households stacking LPG stoves use a less-efficient stove as their primary cookstove. Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove High fuel cost is the most important Kerosene stove reason households LPG stove owning Electric stove an improved Other cookstove continue using a high-emission, less-efficient one. The survey shows that all households stacking traditional stoves and LPG stoves, and 99.6 percent of households stacking manufactured biomass stoves do not use them most of the time due to the expensive fuel. This suggests that to increase clean cooking in households, it will be crucial to identify inefficiencies that drive up fuel costs and/or provide financial assistance to reduce the burden from fuel price. FIGURE 53 • Primary stoves of households with two stoves, by stove kept aside (nationwide) 0.3% 6.0% 32.2% Electric stove LPG stove 60.4% 87.3% Manufactured biomass stove 46.8% Traditional/Locally built stove Three-stone/Open fire stove 33.3% 21.0% 12.7% Traditional/ Manufactured LPG stove Locally built biomass stoves Source: World Bank 2022. Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. EVALUATING ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING USING THE MULTI-TIER FRAMEWORK In the analysis using the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF), access to clean cooking among Rwandan households is measured using four attributes (shown in figure 54). The lowest tier across the four attributes becomes a household’s final tier classification, or the aggregate Cooking Tier. If a household scores Tier 2 or higher in all cooking attributes, then its final tier will also be Tier 2 or above. Being at Tier 2 or higher indicates access to clean cooking services (aggregate Tiers 4 and 5) or at least improved cooking services in the transition to clean cooking (aggregate Tiers 2 and 3).13 Households at Tiers 0 and 1 are not considered to have access to clean cooking services since their health and safety are critically threatened by cooking activities. The tier distributions of the attributes to evaluate access to clean cooking were not compared between 2016 and 2022 because the tier computation methodologies were unique to each analysis. Tier 2 is no longer promoted through the World Bank programs starting from 2024. 13 44 3. Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services FIGURE 54 • MTF Cooking Tier matrix for the Rwanda energy survey analysis TIER SCORE ATTRIBUTES  TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 International Organization for Standardization’s voluntary performance >1030 ≤1030 ≤481 ≤218 ≤62 ≤5 targets on emissions >18.3 ≤18.3 ≤11.5 ≤7.2 ≤4.4 ≤3.0 (default ventilation) PM2.5 (mg/MJd) CO (g/MJd) Exposure High Ventilation >1489 ≤1489 ≤733 ≤321 ≤92 ≤7 PM2.5 (mg/MJd) >26.9 ≤26.9 ≤16.0 ≤10.3 ≤6.2 ≤4.4 CO (g/MJd) Low Ventilation >550 ≤550 ≤252 ≤115 ≤32 ≤2 PM2.5 (mg/MJd) >9.9 ≤9.9 ≤5.5 ≤3.7 ≤2.2 ≤1.4 CO (g/MJd) Fuel acquisition & - ≥7 <7 <3 <1.5 <0.5 preparation time (hr/week) Convenience Stove preparation time - ≥10 <10 <5 <2 (min/week) Safety (Harm from stove) Death - Serious Minor - None Availability (Fuel availability) - Rarely Sometimes Mostly Always Source: ESMAP 2020. Note: The tier score range is unique for each attribute. A gray cell or block refers to a tier or tiers that do not need to contribute to the relevant score range. For example, a binary/bipolar situation will require only two tiers, and hence, the apparently discontinuous or partial sequences of tiers illustrated. The Efficiency and Affordability attributes are excluded from the table since they were not included in the analysis of the survey in Rwanda. hr = hour; min = minutes. Aggregate Cooking Tier As of 2022, the majority of Rwandan households did not have access to clean cooking. Nationwide, 92 percent of households were in aggregate Cooking Tiers 0 and 1, suggesting that most households were exposed to threats from unhealthy cooking practices (figure 55). This highlights the need to advertise healthy cooking practices and expand improved cookstove options for households nationwide. More rural households, which commonly use firewood-burning three-stone/open-fire stoves and traditional stoves, lack access to clean cooking than urban households. Among rural households, 97 percent without access to clean cooking are at Tiers 0 and 1; among urban households, the share is 28 percentage points lower. Urban areas have a larger share of households at aggregate Cooking Tier 5 than do rural areas. 45 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 55 • Household distribution of aggregate Cooking Tier, by locality (2022) 3.9% 57.6% 34.4% 0.3% 3.8% Nationwide 62.2% 34.8% 0.2% 0.6% 2.2% Rural 36.5% 32.5% 11.2% 0.8% 19.0% Urban Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: World Bank 2022. By Attribute 57.6% 26.7% 1.1% 4.1% 7.6% 3.0% Cooking Exposure Nationwide 62.2% 27.6% 0.4% 0.6% The Exposure attribute captures the health impacts of cooking activities based on3.3% 6.0% cookstove emissions and ventilation Rural in cooking areas. Households cooking indoors using high-emission stoves (for example, three-stone/open-fire stoves and traditional biomass stoves) without proper ventilation are placed in 36.5% 22.4% 15.2% 4.3% 19.9% low tiers of this attribute. 1.9% 3.9% 57.6% 34.4% 0.3% Urban 3.8% analysis shows that cooking activities jeopardize the health of most Rwandan households, who TheNationwide are exposed to a high-pollutant cooking environment. Nationwide, about 84 percent of households are Tier 0 Tier 1 62.2% Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 34.8% Tier 5 0.6% 0.2% at Tiers 0 and 1 for the Exposure attribute (figure 56). The survey demonstrates 2.2% these households that commonly cook with three-stone/open-fire stoves or traditional stoves (figure 57) with no ventilation Rural system (for example, no chimneys or hoods) (figure 58). 36.5% 32.5% 11.2% 0.8% 19.0% About one-fifth Urban of urban households are at Tier 5, likely due to their use of clean stoves (figures 44 and 56). Nevertheless, 58.936.3% percent of urban households are46.6% 17.2% at Tiers 0 and 1, showing that the highest urban share ofTier 0 households are exposed to harmful cooking environments. An 89.8 percent share of Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 in the same tier range. rural households are 29.8% 40.0% 30.2% Tier 1 FIGURE 56 • Nationwide household 45.1% distribution of Exposure Tier (2022) 54.4% 0.5% Tier 2 57.6% 26.7% 1.1% 4.1% 7.6% 3.0% Nationwide 100% Tier 3 62.2% 27.6% 0.4% 0.6% 6.0% 3.3% 2.1% 96.4% 1.6% Rural Tier 5 36.5% 22.4% 15.2% 4.3% 19.9% 1.9% Urban Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Sources: Koo et al. 2018; World Bank 2022. 46 36.3% 46.6% 17.2% Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 3. Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services FIGURE 57 • Households’ primary cookstoves, by Exposure Tier (2022) 36.3% 46.6% 17.2% Tier 0 29.8% 30.2% 40.0% Tier 1 0.5% 45.1% 54.4% Tier 2 100% Tier 3 2.1% 96.4% 1.6% Tier 5 Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove Source: World Bank 2022. Note: Primary stove distribution for Exposure Tier 4 not available due to limited data. LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. FIGURE 58 • Households in Exposure Tiers 0 and 1, cooking indoor without any ventilation systems 99.8% 63.8% Tier 0 Tier 1 Source: World Bank 2022. Note: Ventilation systems in this analysis do not include windows. Convenience 75.9% 0.4% 4.0% 16.6% 3.1% Nationwide This attribute assesses the convenience of households’ cooking activities. The assessment is based on preparation time, including acquiring fuel and preparing 82.9% the cookstove. For most Rwandan households, 2.6% 0.4% 0.6% fuel and stove preparation are time-consuming activities. A high proportion 13.5% of Rwandan households, especially in rural areas, spend seven hours or more per week on acquiring fuel and preparing their Rural stoves (figure 59). The nationwide high share of Tier 1 households 44.2% for the Convenience 30.6% 5.7% 0.2% attribute would 19.4% be explained by rural households’ heavy reliance on three-stone/open-fire stoves and traditional stoves, collected wood as the fuel. Cooking is more convenient in urban than in rural areas; a higher which use Urban share of urban households are above Tier 1. Urban households’ lower reliance on stoves using collected wood and higher use of LPG stoves are the likely reasons for their comparatively higher Convenience Tier. Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 10.2% 20.6% 51.1% 18.1% 47 Nationwide TierRWANDA 0 Tier 1 access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy FIGURE 59 • Household distribution of Convenience* Tier, by locality (2022) 75.9% 0.4% 4.0% 16.6% 3.1% Nationwide 82.9% 2.6% 0.4% 0.6% 13.5% Rural 44.2% 30.6% 0.2% 19.4% 5.7% 99.8% Urban Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 63.8%Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: World Bank 2022. 10.2% * Convenience Tier20.6% Chart 51.1% 18.1% Nationwide TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 11.1% Tier 0 22.7% 50.5%Tier 1 15.7% Fuel acquisition & Rural preparation time - ≥7 <7 <3 <1.5 <0.5 Convenience (hr/week) 5.2% 8.5% Stove preparation 54.2% 32.1% - ≥10 <10 <5 <2 0.4% 4.0% time (min/week) 75.9% 3.1% Urban 16.6% Nationwide Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015. Tier 2 (Rarely available) 82.9% Tier 3 (Sometimes available) 2.6% 0.4% 0.6% Fuel Availability 13.5% Tier 4 (Mostly available) Tier 5 (Always available) Rural This attribute captures the availability of fuel among households using three-stone/open-fire stoves 44.2% 30.6% 0.2% 19.4% and traditional/locally built stoves in the 12 months preceding the survey. 5.7% Fuel availability is more of an issue for rural Urban households, among which firewood use is high. As shown in figure 60, fuel is rarely 1.0% 1.9% or sometimes available 97.2% for 33.8 percent of rural households. The share is 13.7 percent among urban households. Nationwide Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier distribution FIGURE 60 • Household 0 (Death) of 2Availability Tier by 3 (Serious injury)Tier, Tier locality (2022) (Minor injury) Tier 5 (None) 10.2% 20.6% 51.1% 18.1% Nationwide 11.1% 22.7% 50.5% 15.7% Rural 5.2% 8.5% 54.2% 32.1% Urban Tier 2 (Rarely available) Tier 3 (Sometimes available) Tier 4 (Mostly available) Tier 5 (Always available) Source: World Bank 2022. 1.0% 1.9% 97.2% 48 Nationwide 11.1% 22.7% 50.5% 15.7% Rural 3. Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services 5.2% 8.5% 54.2% 32.1% Safety Urban The Safety attribute focuses on the primary cookstove. The safety assessment is based on records of any harm or injury in the 12 months preceding Tier 2 (Rarely the survey. available) In 2022, cookstoves Tier 3 (Sometimes available) were generally safe in Rwanda. Nationwide, most households are at Tier Tier 4 (Mostly available) 5 for the Safety attribute Tier 5 (Always available) (figure 61). FIGURE 61 • Household distribution of cooking Safety Tier, by locality (2022) 1.0% 1.9% 97.2% Nationwide Tier 0 (Death) Tier 2 (Serious injury) Tier 3 (Minor injury) Tier 5 (None) Source: World Bank 2022. 3.2 IMPROVING ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING EXPANDING THE USE OF IMPROVED BIOMASS STOVES While improved biomass cookstoves could be offered as options to expand clean cooking practices in Rwanda, low affordability and a lack of awareness pose barriers to adoption. In the survey, households currently using three-stone/open-fire stoves or traditional biomass stoves were asked whether they were willing to pay for an improved firewood cookstove with higher fuel efficiency and less emissions at different price points. As shown in figure 62, 83.8 percent of these households were willing to pay for an improved firewood cookstove at RWF 2,500 (~US$2.4), in full or in installments. Additionally, 73.6 percent of the households showed a willingness to purchase a firewood stove at RWF 7,500 (~US$7.3). For households not willing to accept the offer of an improved cookstove, affordability is the challenge. More than three-fourths of such households reported their inability to afford such a cookstove (figure 63); 16 percent said they were not willing to accept an improved stove because they did not need one. To increase clean cooking practices in Rwanda, it would be crucial to relieve the cost burden due to the transition to improved cookstoves and launch campaigns to raise awareness of clean cooking practices. FIGURE 62 • Willingness to pay for an improved firewood cookstove (nationwide) 16.2% 26.4% 2.5% 11.6% Never 6.9% 10.6% Over 24 months 13.7% 11.6% Over 12 months Over 6 months 59.2% 41.4% Paying in full RWF 2,500 RWF 7,500 Source: World Bank 2022. Note: RWF = Rwandan franc. 49 RWF 2,500 RWF 7,500 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 63 • Why households are not willing to pay for an improved stove (nationwide) Fuel for this stove is unreliable Other 7.3% 0.7% Cannot afford the payment Do not need an improved cookstove 76.1% 16.2% 16.0% 26.4% 2.5% 11.6% Never 6.9% 10.6% Over 24 months 13.7% 11.6% Over 12 months Over 6 months 59.2% 41.4% Paying in full RWF 2,500 RWF 7,500 Source: World Bank 2022. 79.3% LPG STOVES AS A CLEAN COOKING OPTION, WITH HIGH FUEL COST AS A BARRIER While LPG cookstoves could be a clean cooking option for Rwandan households, especially in urban Fuel for this stove is unreliable Other areas where the availability of LPG is high, high fuel costs would pose a barrier. In this analysis, a 0.7% 7.3% village was assumed to have access to LPG stoves when at least 1 of the 18 surveyed households used Cannot afford the payment LPG stoves. Based on this assumption, the survey shows a high share, 79.3 percent, of LPG stove access Do not need an improved 21.3% cookstove 76.1% in urban areas, compared with an 8.5 percent share in rural villages (figure 64). While 31.4 percent of 16.0% urban households with stove availability use LPG stoves as their primary cookstoves, 11 percent of rural 8.5% households with access to LPG stoves use them (figure 65). To increase clean cooking practices among households, promoting the use of LPG stoves could be effective, especially in urban areas, where the LPG adoption rate is higher. Nationwide Rural Urban However, fuel cost would hinder the expansion of LPG stoves. As mentioned earlier, under stove stacking, all households owning LPG stoves but keeping them aside reported high fuel prices. To expand the use of LPG stoves, it will be crucial to provide the financial means to relieve the cost burden posed by fuel. FIGURE 64 • Share of villages with LPG availability 79.3% 21.3% 8.5% Nationwide Rural Urban Source: World Bank 2022. Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 50 3. Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services FIGURE 65 • LPG stove adoption of households in villages where LPG is available, by locality 31.4% 24.7% 11.0% Nationwide Rural Urban Source: World Bank 2022. Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 3.3 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 75.4% 24.6% LAUNCH AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS TO ENCOURAGE CLEAN COOKING PRACTICES Nationwide The measurement of access to clean cooking based on the MTF reveals a threat from unhealthy cooking practices to most Rwandan households, of head92 percent which Male Femaleare Tiers 0 and 1 for their final Cooking Tier head classification. There is a need to promote campaigns to advertise and educate on clean cooking practices, their health impacts, and their cost-effectiveness, besides stimulating demand for improved cookstoves. Since the use of clean cooking methods is negligible outside the City of Kigali, promoting campaigns in the lagging regions as well as the City of Kigali will be crucial. ACCELERATE CLEAN FUEL ADOPTION IN URBAN AREAS Following the increase in LPG stoves’ penetration in urban areas from 2016 to 2022, the Government of Rwanda should accelerate this transition and implement policies and launch campaigns to encourage urban households to switch from traditional biomass stoves to cleaner alternatives, such as electric stoves and LPG stoves. 1.7% 1.3% 0.1% 0.2% LOWER THE COST BURDEN OF FUELS FOR IMPROVED COOKSTOVES 28.9% 41.8% Don't know/Don't have one The survey shows that all households keeping aside LPG stoves and 99.6 percent of households stacking Category 4 manufactured biomass stoves do not use them most of the time because of the high fuel cost; instead, 40.3%threats. they use less clean stoves, which heighten their exposure to health To reduce Category 3 the cost burden practices among households, factorsCategory from fuels and promote clean cooking45.7% driving2up fuel costs should be identified and measures to relieve the cost burden should be studied and implemented. Category 1 29.3% 10.7% AND PROMOTE RESEARCH Male DEVELOPMENT ON head EFFICIENT AND AFFORDABLE CLEAN Female head COOKING SOLUTIONS The survey shows that nationwide, the highest share, 67.2 percent, of Rwandan households still cooked with three-stone/open-fire stoves or traditional/locally built stoves in 2022. LPG stoves could barely be an option for some households to switch to a better-performing stove, since their availability is mainly limited to urban areas, and the fuel cost is high. Instead, affordable, efficient cooking options should be available to households. There is a need to initiate research and development of affordable clean cooking solutions in collaboration with local experts and manufacturers. 51 4. GENDER ANALYSIS 31.4% 24.7% 11.0% 31.4% 24.7% 4.1 RWANDA GENDER OVERVIEW 11.0% Nationwide Rural Urban Nationwideheads are more common In Rwanda, male household Rural than female heads. As shown in figure 66, Urban 75.4 percent of households are male headed, and 24.6 percent are female headed.14 The ratio does not differ substantially across the rural-urban divide; 27.2 percent of urban households are female headed, versus 24.1 percent of rural households. 75.4% 24.6% FIGURE 66 • Nationwide distribution of households, by sex of household head Nationwide 75.4% 24.6% Nationwide Male head Female head Male head Female head Source: World Bank 2022. More female-headed households are socioeconomically vulnerable than male-headed households. Three times as many female-headed households as male-headed households are in Ubudehe Category 1 (figure 67). FIGURE 67 • Household distribution based on Ubudehe category, by sex of household head 1.7% 1.3% 0.1% 0.2% 28.9% 41.8% Don't know/Don't have one 1.7% 1.3% 0.1% 0.2% Category 4 28.9% 41.8% 40.3% CategoryDon't 3 know/Don't have one 45.7% CategoryCategory 2 4 40.3%CategoryCategory 1 3 29.3% 10.7% 45.7% Category 2 Male head Female head Category 1 29.3% 10.7% Source: World Bank 2022. Male head Female head The 5th Rwanda Population and Housing Census in 2022 showed that nationwide, 28.9 percent of Rwandan households were female headed. By locality, 14 26.4 percent and 29.9 percent of urban and rural households, respectively, were female headed (NISR 2023). 53 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Male household heads are more likely to be educated and employed than female heads. While 75.7 percent of male households attended school, the share is lower by 25.2 percentage points among female heads (figure 68). Also, more than half of male heads were employed in the seven days preceding the survey, whereas the employment rate among female heads was 27.1 percentage points lower.15 FIGURE 68 • Education and employment of household head, by sex Ever attended school Employed in the past seven days 75.7% 50.5% 52.3% 25.2% Ever attended school Employed in the past seven days 75.7% Male head Female head Male head Female head 52.3% Source: World Bank 2022. 50.5% Male heads are more likely to be married than female heads. Among male heads, 93.3 percent were 2.2% 25.2% married, with or without a legal certificate, 3.0% whereas just 22.2 percent of female heads were married 0.8% (figure 69). Women tend to head households when they do not have a spouse. Among female heads, 0.5% 0.2% 58.6 percent were widows, 9.4 percent were single, and 7 percent were separated, while a smaller share had of male headsMale the separated head marital Female status. head Male head Female head 26.0% Widow/Widower 58.6% Single FIGURE 69 • Marital status of household head, by sex Separated 2.2% 3.0% Divorced 0.8% 0.5% Married polygamous 0.2% 9.4% Married monogamously 67.3% 7.0% 26.0% without a certificate 1.6% Widow/Widower 1.3% Married monogamously 58.6% Single with a legal certificate 11.9% Separated 10.3% Divorced Male head Female head Married polygamous 9.4% Married monogamously 67.3% 7.0% without a certificate 1.6% 1.3% Married monogamously with a legal certificate 11.9% 10.3% Male head Female head Source: World Bank 2022. 33.5% 44.1% 68.8% 13.6% 78.9% No Electricity 12.4% Off-grid Employed status includes doing any work for pay, doing any kind of business, farming, or other activities to generate income, even if only 15 for one hour. 5.3% 53.0% National Grid 54 4.5% 43.5% 25.9% 16.6% 33.5% 58.6% Single Separated Divorced 4. Gender Analysis Married polygamous 9.4% Married monogamously 4.2 ELECTRICITY ACCESS 67.3% 7.0% 1.6% without a certificate 1.3% Married monogamously with a legal certificate 11.9% While electricity access among female- and male-headed households showed similar improvements over 2016–2022, access was lower among female-headed households. 10.3% Among female-headed households, 55.9 percent had access toMale head one electricityFemale at least source, about 11 percentage points lower than the share head of male-headed households with access (figure 70). The difference is mainly due to the households’ grid rate. Among female-headed households, 43.5 percent rely on the national grid as their primary source of electricity, whereas the rate is higher, by about 10 percentage points, among male-headed households. Access to off-grid solutions does not differ much between the two groups, and for both, solar lighting systems are the commonly used off-grid technology (figure 71). FIGURE 70 • Access to electricity-providing technologies, by sex of household head 33.5% 44.1% 68.8% 13.6% 78.9% No Electricity 12.4% Off-grid 5.3% 53.0% National Grid 4.5% 43.5% 25.9% 16.6% 2016 2022 2016 2022 Male head Female head Source: World Bank 2022. FIGURE 71 • Access to electricity technologies, by sex of household head 7.9% 6.6% 2.0% 2.8% 2.8% 1.9% 0.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.2% Mini-grid Solar lantern Solar lighting Solar home Rechargeable system system battery Male head Female head Source: World Bank 2022. 26.7% 40.6% 28.3% 0.1% 4.2% Male head 35.4% 31.1% 30.5% 0.1% 3.0% Female head Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove 55 27.3% RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework 4.3 ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES The use of clean cookstoves by sex of household head does not differ significantly among households. The difference in the share of male- and female-headed households using liquefied petroleum gas 7.9% (figure 72). Both male- and female-headed households (LPG) stoves and electric stoves is only negligible6.6% rely heavily on three-stone/open-fire 2.0% 2.8% stoves and traditional 2.8%biomass 1.9% stoves. 0.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.2% 7.9% 6.6% households are Male-headedMini-grid more Solar likely to lantern adopt Solar LPG stoves lighting than Solar 2.8% female-headed home households. In villages Rechargeable 1.0% 2.0% 2.8% 1.9% 0.1% are available, 27.3 percent of male-headed households use LPG where LPG stoves system system 0.2% stoves nationwide, battery 0.7% whereas the proportion is 9.4 percentage points lower Male head among female-headed households (figure 73). Female head Mini-grid Solar lantern Solar lighting Solar home Rechargeable system system battery FIGURE 72 • Primary cookstove, by sex of Male household head head Female head 26.7% 40.6% 28.3% 0.1% 4.2% Male head 26.7% 40.6% 28.3% 0.1% 4.2% 35.4% 31.1% 30.5% 0.1% 3.0% Male head Female head 35.4% 31.1% 30.5% 0.1% 3.0% Female head Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove Source: World Bank 2022. Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 27.3% FIGURE 73 • LPG stove adoption, by sex of household head 17.9% 27.3% 17.9% Male head Female head Male head Female head Source: World Bank 2022. 6.6% 9.9% 2.5% 6.3% 4.0% 70.7% Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. Male head In Rwanda, female 9.9% 2.5% 6.3% 6.6% household heads cook more often for their70.7% 4.0% families than male heads. As shown in 75.2% 1.7% 0.4% 8.3% figure 74, 75.2 percent and 6.6 percent of female and male heads, 13.4% 1.0% cook every day for their respectively, Male head Female head and 70.7 percent of male heads reported never cooking. households, 0.4% 8.3% 75.2% 13.4% 1.0% 1.7% In accordance with the findings outlined above, Everyday female A few times household in a week members Once a week spend more time on Female head cooking and preparing for it than Amale members. On few times in a month a typical day, Once a month female Nevermembers spend on average 86 minutes on preparing the fuel and stove along with cooking, whereas male members spend only Everyday A few times in a week Once a week 17 minutes. The greater presence of female household members in cooking activities suggests that A few times in a month Once a month Never improvements in the cooking environment will benefit them most. 56 4. Gender Analysis Male head Female head FIGURE 74 • Frequency of cooking, by sex of household head 6.6% 9.9% 2.5% 6.3% 4.0% 70.7% Male head 0.4% 8.3% 75.2% 13.4% 1.0% 1.7% Female head Everyday A few times in a week Once a week A few times in a month Once a month Never Source: World Bank 2022. 4.4 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Gender-targeted financing mechanisms are required to increase off-grid solar solutions for female- headed households. Gender-targeted subsidies for improved cookstoves could significantly improve access to such stoves. Female household members spend more time collecting and preparing cooking fuel and spend more time in the cooking space. They would thus benefit the most from switching to improved cookstoves. Cookstove-related promotion campaigns and dissemination efforts should be adequately tailored to both a male and female audience, taking into account the contextual situations of urban and rural settings. 57 5. REFUGEE HOUSEHOLD ANALYSIS 5.1 BACKGROUND Rwanda has been hosting refugees for over two decades since the arrival of Congolese refugees after civil war broke out in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1996 (UNHCR 2021). Today, Rwanda continues providing refugee protection in coordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (MINEMA, n.d.); as of the end of June 2024, 134,272 refugees and asylum seekers, predominantly from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi, were registered in the five refugee settlements of Rwanda: the Kigeme, Kiziba, Mahama, Mugombwa, and Nyabiheke camps (map 2). MAP 2 • Refugee settlements of Rwanda RWANDA TOTAL FORCIBLY DISPLACED POPULATIONS AND UNHCR PRESENCE As of 30 June 2024 UNHCR Branch Office TOTAL POPULATION 134,272 UNHCR Sub-Office UGANDA Refugees 114,691 UNHCR Field Office UNHCR Field Unit Asylum Seekers 12,710 Refugee Camp Others of Concern 6,380 Refugee Centre Nyabiyeke Camp 11,866 New arrivals (Pending Kijote TC 491 Urban Refugee Registration) NORTHERN PROVINCE Kabarore FU AGE BREAKDOWN Nkamira RC 5,161 49% 47% 4% 0-17 years 18-59 years 60 + years EASTERN Kigali PROVINCE DEMOCRATIC 8,871 WESTERN Kigali CO REPUBLIC PROVINCE OF CONGO Lake Kivu POPULATION BREAKDOWN Karongi FO KIGALI CITY SOUTHERN PROVINCE 82,262 Nyamata 51,134 Gashora TC Kiziba Camp 2,005 (ETM) Kirehe SO 14,633 654 Mahama Camp 654 222 63,733 DR Congo Burundi ETM Other Huye FO Huye Nyarushishi TC Kigeme Camp 760 TANZANIA 14,695 Mugombwa Camp Spatial Reference 11,894 For more info: https://data2.unhcr.org/en/country/rwa Name: GCS WGS 1984 GCS: GCS WGS 1984 Contact : rwakireg@unhcr.org Disclaimer: 0 16 32 Kilometers BURUNDI The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Source: UNHCR 2024. 59 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework REFUGEE INTEGRATION POLICIES IN RWANDA The Government of Rwanda (GoR) has actively implemented policies for refugees’ protection and their inclusion in Rwanda’s society. In 2016, it announced four commitments for the inclusion of refugees in the national system at the Leader’s Summit for Refugees in New York: helping camp-based refugees graduate from assistance programs and increasing formal access to employment opportunities, providing all refugees with ID cards, integrating refugee children into national education systems, and granting urban refugees access to national health insurance systems (MINEMA, n.d.). In 2018, the GoR signed on to adopt the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework, which provides for a more comprehensive, predictable, and sustainable response that benefits both refugees and the host community (UNHCR 2018). To ensure an improved standard of living for refugees and host communities, in February 2019, the GoR established the Strategic Plan for the Inclusion of Refugees (2019–24), which assesses the baseline status for achieving the four commitments from 2016; identifies challenges and strategic objectives; and establishes prioritized activities, a financial strategy, and a monitoring framework (Global Compact on Refugees, n.d.b). During the Global Refugee Forum, the four commitments were renewed, and the topic of refugee integration was extended to the environment and energy. The GoR pledged to “undertake environmental protection and rehabilitation in refugee hosting areas” and “ensure sustainable use of natural resources by providing clean and renewable energy solutions in refugee and host community households” (UNHCR 2020; MINEMA 2022). In 2021, Rwanda’s Ministry in charge of Emergency Management (MINEMA) developed the Economic Inclusion Strategy (2021–24) jointly with the UNHCR. The strategy aims at helping refugees graduate and move out of poverty (UNHCR, n.d.). Today, MINEMA works closely with government branches and the UNHCR toward fulfilling the commitments and objectives (Global Compact on Refugees, n.d.b). ENERGY ACCESS IN REFUGEE CAMPS Access to electricity and clean cooking has been promoted for refugee households in recent years. The UNHCR has installed solar streetlights in refugee locations since 2017 (UNHCR 2022), and the development of a solar market system16 under the Renewable Energy for Refugees (RE4R) project led by Practical Action, a global charity, and UNHCR from April 2017 to February 2022 increased households’ access to solar home systems (SHSs)17 in the Gihembe,18 Kigeme, and Nyabiheke camps (Practical Action, n.d.). Access to clean cooking among refugee households has grown due to the distribution of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders, fillings, and cookers by the UNHCR to households in the largest refugee camps of Mahama and Mugombwa, in response to the GoR’s ban on firewood in refugee camps in 2018 (UNHCR 2022). Also, many refugee and host community households transitioned to an improved cooking solution during 2019–21 with the UNHCR’s support (UNHCR 2022). The survey shows that, as of mid-2022, 38.3 percent of refugee households across the five camps had at least one source of electricity, and 62.1 percent of refugee households had access to cooking with LPG. 16 The market-based approach included assisting private sector companies to adapt business models for refugee markets and global advocacy, strengthening and supporting markets, and promoting economic activity for refugees and host communities (Practical Action, n.d.). 17 Note that the definition of an SHS in the RE4R project is based on the system’s components (Practical Action 2021). That is different from how an SHS is defined in this report, based on the service level (box 1). 18 Refugees in the Gihembe camp were relocated to the Mahama camp by December 2021 due to the environmental hazards caused by eroded ravaging ravines and old infrastructures (MINEMA 2021). 60 5. Refugee Household Analysis 5.2 ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY ELECTRICITY ACCESS BY TECHNOLOGY Across all refugee settlements, 38.3 percent of households had access to at least one electricity source—19.1 percentage points less access compared with host community households (figure 75). Only host communities, not refugee households, can access the grid, even though host communities surround refugee settlements at a close distance. Among host community households, 40.5 percent rely on electricity mainly from the national grid, whereas almost no refugee household has grid access and predominantly relies on off-grid technologies, more specifically, solar lanterns and other solar lighting systems (SLSs) (figure 76). FIGURE 75 • Electricity access among refugee households 13.2% 16.9% 13.2% 16.9% 50.9% 40.5% 37.9% 50.9% 0.4% 40.5% 37.9% Rwandan Households (64.1%) Host Community (57.4%) Refugee (38.3%) Off-grid Grid 0.4% Rwandan Households (64.1%) Host Community (57.4%) Refugee (38.3%) Source: World Bank 2022. Off-grid Grid Note: The household types were mutually exclusive. FIGURE 76 • Distribution of off-grid technologies, by type of household 17.6% 13.1% 17.6% 9.9% 7.5% 13.1% 5.2% 6.2% 9.9% 2.1%7.5% 2.6% 1.8% 0.3% 0.6% 0% 0.1% 6.2% 1.1% 5.2% 0% 2.1% 2.6% Rwandan Households 1.8% Host community Refugee 0.3% 0.6% 0% 0.1% 1.1% 0% Mini-grid Solar lantern Solar lighting system Solar home system Rechargeable battery Rwandan Households Host community Refugee Mini-grid Solar lantern Solar lighting system Solar home system Rechargeable battery Source: World Bank 2022. Note: The household types were mutually exclusive. 61 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into Distribution of Host Community Households energy access Distribution in Rwanda of Refugee using the Multi-Tier Framework Households 21.0% Across camps, electricity 42.1% access is especially 36.1%in Mugombwa and low Kigeme (figure 77). In all camps 36.8% 50.6% 51.7% 2.6% 56.9% except Kiziba and Nyabiheke, a major access gap exists relative to host communities. This60.3%gap is mainly because grid access is available only to host communities. The use of SLSs is 76.4% the highest in Nyabiheke, 14.5% 88.1% and the use of solar lanterns is the highest in Mahama (figure 78). 23.3% 21.4% 14.1% 76.5% 63.2% 49.5% FIGURE 77 • Electricity 34.6% access among host and communities43.1% refugee settlements, by refugee 39.0% 28.0% 34.2% camp 23.6% 0.7% 11.9% Kiziba Nyabiheke Kigeme Mahama Mugombwa Kiziba Nyabiheke Kigeme Mahama Mugombwa (Karongi (Gatsibo) Distribution of (Nyamagabe) (Kirehe) Host Community (Gisagara) Households (Karongi (Gatsibo) (Nyamagabe) Distribution (Kirehe) of Refugee Households (Gisagara) District) District) 21.0% No electricity Off-grid National grid 42.1% 36.1% 36.8% 50.6% 51.7% 2.6% 56.9% 60.3% 76.4% 14.5% 88.1% 23.3% 21.4% 14.1% 76.5% 63.2% 49.5% 43.1% 34.6% 34.2% 39.0% 28.0% 23.6% 0.7% 11.9% Kiziba Nyabiheke Kigeme Mahama Mugombwa Kiziba Nyabiheke Kigeme Mahama Mugombwa (Karongi (Gatsibo) (Nyamagabe) (Kirehe) (Gisagara) (Karongi (Gatsibo) (Nyamagabe) (Kirehe) (Gisagara) District) District) No electricity Off-grid National grid Source: World Bank 2022. Note: The names of districts are in parentheses following the names of the refugee camps. The graphs are arranged by the year of the camps’ establishment in ascending order: from Kiziba, the oldest, to Mugombwa, the newest. FIGURE 78 • Use of off-grid technologies, by refugee camp 46.5% 26.0% 22.2% 13.9% 10.4% 10.0% 11.4% 7.5% 7.1% 6.9% 4.9% 4.1% 2.4% 0% 0% 0% 1.4% 0% 1.4% 0.7% 0% 1.4% 0% 1.6% 0.8% Kiziba (Karongi Nyabiheke (Gatsibo) Kigeme (Nyamagabe) Mahama (Kirehe) Mugombwa District) (Gisagara) Mini-grid Solar lantern Solar lighting system Solar home system Rechargeable battery 46.5% Source: World Bank 2022. Note: Names of districts of refugee camps in parentheses. Graphs ordered by the year of the camp establishment in ascending order: from Kiziba, 26.0% 22.2% 13.9% 10.4% 10.0% 11.4% 7.5% 7.1% 6.9% 4.9% 4.1% 2.4% 0% 0% 0% 1.4% 0% 1.4% 0.7% 0% 1.4% 0% 1.6% 0.8% Kiziba (Karongi Nyabiheke (Gatsibo) Kigeme (Nyamagabe) Mahama (Kirehe) Mugombwa 62 District) (Gisagara) Mini-grid Solar lantern Solar lighting system Solar home system Rechargeable battery 5. Refugee Household Analysis the oldest, to Mugombwa, the newest. EVALUATING ELECTRICITY ACCESS USING THE MULTI-TIER FRAMEWORK An assessment using the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) also confirms that most refugee households do not have electricity access. Although 38.3 percent of refugee households have at least one electricity source (figure 75), only about 15 percent across all camps have an electricity service level that can be considered as having access, falling in aggregate Tier 1 or above (figure 79). The remaining refugee households are Tier 0, because they do not have an electricity source at all, or barely have electricity, which is of substandard capacity and/or whose availability is low. Among the refugee population, 23.7 percent is at Tier 0 despite being connected to a solar technology (figure 80). The analysis using the MTF again highlights the clear access disparity between refugee settlements and host communities despite their proximity. Compared with refugee settlements, the share of Tier 1 or higher households is larger among host communities, by 34.4 percentage points (figure 79). Also, while Tiers 3 and 5 households do not exist in the refugee camps, almost 40 percent of host community households are in this tier range due to their connections to the national grid (figure 79; World Bank 2022). These findings suggest that electricity access should be improved in the refugee camps, and based on their proximity to host communities, connecting the national grid could be an alternative worth considering. FIGURE 79 • Distribution of refugee and host community households based on aggregate Electricity Tier 85.4% 9.1% 5.1% 0.4% Refugee 85.4% 9.1% 5.1% 0.4% 51.0% 7.1% 3.1% 12.1% 11.7% 15.0% Refugee Host community 51.0% 7.1% 3.1% 12.1% 11.7% 15.0% Host community Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: World Bank 2022. Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 FIGURE 80 • Electricity technology of refugee households in each aggregate Electricity Tier No electricity Rechargeable battery 61.7% No electricity Solar home system Rechargeable battery Solar lighting system 61.7% Solar home system Solar lantern 1.1% Solar lighting system Grid 6.2% 1.1% Solar lantern 1.1% 16.4% 6.8% Grid 6.2% 1.2% 5.1% 0.4% 1.1% Tier 0 (85.4%) Tier 1 (9.1%) Tier 2 (5.1%) Tier 3 (0.4%) 16.4% 6.8% 1.2% 5.1% 0.4% Tier 0 (85.4%) Tier 1 (9.1%) Tier 2 (5.1%) Tier 3 (0.4%) 19.9% 34.7% 21.1% 7.9% 16.4% 63 Refugee 19.9% 34.7% 21.1% 7.9% 16.4% Refugee 51.0% 7.1% 3.1% 12.1% 11.7% 15.0% No electricity Host community RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Rechargeable battery 61.7% Solar home system Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: World Bank 2022. Solar lighting system More than half of refugee households with at least one electricity source receive Solarless than eight lantern hours of electricity per day (figure 1.1% 81). About 20 percent of households receive less than 4 hours of Grid 6.2% electricity in an entire day. On the other hand, more than two-thirds of host community households with electricity sources receive electricity 231.1% hours or more per day. The No survey shows that 93 percent electricity 16.4% 6.8% of these households adopt the national grid 5.1% electricity 0.4% as their primary 1.2% source (World Bank 2022). Rechargeable battery Tier 0 (85.4%) 61.7% Tier 1 (9.1%) Tier 2 (5.1%) Tier 3 (0.4%) Solar home system FIGURE 81 • Distribution of refugee and host community households across the all-day Availability Tier Solar lighting system Solar lantern 19.9% 34.7% 21.1% 7.9% 16.4% 1.1% Grid Refugee 6.2% 1.1% 16.4% 10.1% 6.0% 6.8% 7.8% 10.0% 66.1% 1.2% 5.1% 0.4% Host community Tier 0 (85.4%) Tier 1 (9.1%) Tier 2 (5.1%) Tier 3 (0.4%) Tier 0 (<4 hours) Tier 2 (4–8 hours) Tier 3 (8–16 hours) Tier 4 (16–22 hours) Tier 5 (≥23 hours) 19.9% 34.7% 21.1% 7.9% 16.4% Source: World Bank 2022. Refugee 6.0% 10.1% 7.8% 10.0% 66.1% Typical mobile phone charger 39.0% USE OF ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES Host community Smartphone/internet phone charger 17.4% Refugee households use primarily low-load electrical appliances. Phone chargers are the most common, and a small number of 0 Tier refugee households (<4 hours) Tier 2 use light bulbsTier (4–8 hours) and radios 3 (8–16 (figure 82). hours) Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb 10.5% Tier 4 (16–22 hours) Tier 5 (≥23 hours) FIGURE 82 • Appliance use among refugee households Incandescent light bulb 6.5% Typical mobile phone charger Radio 5.0% 39.0% 17.4% 3.6% Smartphone/internet phone charger LED light bulb Radio/CD Compact fluorescent players/sound light (CFL) bulb system 10.5% 2.1% (without using dry-cell battery) Incandescent light bulb 6.5% Radio 5.0% LED light bulb 3.6% Radio/CD players/sound system 2.1% (without using dry-cell battery) Source: World Bank 2022. Note: CD = compact disc; LED = light-emitting diode. 64 5. Refugee Household Analysis USE OF OFF-GRID SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES Most refugee households rely on just one solar device for electricity (figure 83). The survey shows that many refugee households using solar lanterns obtained their devices for free, and among the households that paid for their lanterns, a large share made a lump-sum payment up front (figure 84). Of the refugee households using SLSs, the largest share paid for their solar devices in installments. FIGURE 83 • Number of solar devices Three 3.8% Two Three 9.4% One 3.8% Two 86.8% 9.4% One 86.8% Source: World Bank 2022. 40.3%for the main solar 18.5% FIGURE 84 • Up-front payment device, by technology 41.2% 40.3% 18.5% 41.2% Solar lantern Solar lantern 16.6% 65.1% 18.4% 16.6% 65.1% 18.4% Solar lighting system Solar lighting system Lump sum payment Installments Obtained for free Lump sum payment Installments Obtained for free Source: World Bank 2022. Note: Due to the small sample size, households using solar home systems were excluded in this analysis. No issue 25.1% 30.6% Does not work well in No issue bad weather/rain 5.3% 25.1% 30.6% 5.9% Does not work well in 6.7% Battery issues 19.6% 5.3% bad weather/rain 9.8%5.9% Quality of light 6.7% Battery issues 19.6% Breaks down too often 16.3% 14.7% Quality of light 9.8% 2.2% Cannot power large appliances 16.3% 6.4% Breaks down too often 14.7% Recurrent cost related to 31.5%2.2% Cannot power large appliances 6.4% 25.9% solar device is too high Recurrent Duration related cost too of service to short 31.5% 25.9% solar device is too high Solar Lantern Solar Lighting System 65 Duration of service too short Solar Lantern Solar Lighting System Solar lighting system RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Lump sum payment Installments Obtained for free Refugee households using solar lanterns and SLSs reported the short duration of service and the inability to power large appliances, respectively, as the most serious issues with their main solar devices (figure 85). About 20 percent of the refugee households using solar lanterns reported that their solar devices broke down too often. The same issue was reported by almost 10 percent of the households using SLSs, and roughly 6 percent found battery issues to be the most serious concern. FIGURE 85 • Most serious issues with the main solar device, by technology No issue 25.1% 30.6% Does not work well in 5.3% bad weather/rain 5.9% Battery issues 19.6% 6.7% 9.8% Quality of light 16.3% Breaks down too often 14.7% 2.2% Cannot power large appliances 6.4% Recurrent cost related to 31.5% 25.9% solar device is too high Duration of service too short Solar Lantern Solar Lighting System Source: World Bank 2022. Note: Due to the small sample size, households using SHSs are excluded from this analysis. 5.3 ACCESS TO CLEAN COOKING Clean stoves are widely used among refugee settlements. Among refugee households, 62.1 percent use LPG stoves, which is significantly higher than the negligible clean stove adoption in host communities (figure 86). However, the high use of LPG cookers appears to be limited to the refugee camps with the UNHCR’s intervention. As shown in figure 87, the use of LPG stoves is prevalent in the Mahama and Mugombwa camps, where the UNHCR distributed not only LPG cookers but also their cylinders and fillings, respectively, over 2019–21 (Global Compact on Refugees, n.d.a; Karinganire 2023). On the other hand, households in any other settlements without interventions do not adopt LPG stoves and instead rely on biomass stoves. FIGURE 86 • Primary cookstoves of refugee households 28.7% 38.3% 28.9% 0.1% 4.0% Rwandan Households 37.3% 37.0% 25.3% 0.3% 0.1% Host community 12.6% 11.1% 14.2% 62.1% Refugee Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove Source: World Bank 2022. Note: The household types were mutually exclusive. LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 47.9% 28.5% 23.6% 66 Kiziba (Karongi District) Refugee 28.7% 38.3% 28.9% 0.1% 4.0% Rwandan Households Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove 37.3% 37.0% 25.3% 0.3% 5. Refugee Household Analysis Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove 0.1% Host community FIGURE 87 • Primary 12.6%cookstoves 11.1% refugee households, by camp of 14.2% 62.1% Refugee 47.9% 28.5% 23.6% Kiziba (Karongi District) Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove 11.8% 42.4% 45.8% Kerosene stove LPG stove Electric stove Nyabiheke (Gatsibo) 22.9% 26.4% 50.7% Kigeme (Nyamagabe) 4.8% 0.7%47.9% 28.5% 93.2% 23.6% 1.4% District) (Kirehe) Kiziba (KarongiMahama 11.8% 3.2% 42.4% 94.4% 45.8% 2.4% Nyabiheke (Gatsibo) Mugombwa (Gisagara) 22.9% 26.4% 50.7% Three-stone/Open fire stove Kigeme (Nyamagabe) Traditional/Locally built stove Manufactured biomass stove LPG stove 4.8% 0.7% 1.4% 93.2% Mahama (Kirehe) Source: World Bank 2022. Note: Names of the districts of the refugee camps in parentheses. Graphs arranged by the year of the camps’ establishment in ascending order: from 3.2% 94.4% 2.4% Kiziba, the oldest, to Mugombwa, the newest. LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. Mugombwa (Gisagara) In line with the prevalence of LPG stoves, LPG is the most commonly used Wood cooking fuel across all refugee purchased camps (figure 88). More than one households in five refugeebuilt 9.7% still rely on firewood as their Three-stone/Open fire stove Traditional/Locally stove Manufactured biomass stove LPGcooking stove fuel. All types of biomass stoves commonly use wood for fuel, and some refugee households Wood collected use charcoal for their traditional/locally built stoves and manufactured stoves (figure 89). 13.1% FIGURE 88 • Cooking fuel use among refugee households Wood purchased 9.7% Charcoal LPG 13.5% Wood collected 63.7% 13.1% Charcoal LPG 13.5% 63.7% Source: World Bank 2022. Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 67 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 89 • Cooking fuel among refugee households, by stove 25.7% 74.3% Three-stone/ Open fire stove 15.2% 39.9% 45.0% Traditional/ Locally built stove 34.4% 65.6% Manufactured biomass stove 100% LPG stove Wood purchased Wood collected Charcoal LPG Source: World Bank 2022. Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 1.6% 1.4% 2.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 5.4 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS35.5% 38.6% 53.0% I don't know Category 4 EXPAND ELECTRICITY ACCESS IN REFUGEE SETTLEMENTS Category 3 percent of refugee As the survey shows, 38.344.4% electricity households had access toCategory 46.1% 2 sources, but only about 15 percent of them were at Tier 1 or higher. Across all settlements, electricity access should be Category 1 improved. 36.4% Even though refugee camps are in close proximity 15.3% 16.9% to host communities, only host communities have grid access. The national grid could be expanded with donor 7.9% financing support to provide refugee households with higher-tier electricity. Nationwide Rural Urban Penetration of off-grid solar technologies can be further increased in refugee camps. The survey shows that off-grid solar technologies are already the most widespread sources of electricity in the refugee settlements, and refugee households are willing to purchase their solar devices. Private sector participation could be facilitated in the refugee settlements, and off-grid 36.5% solar electrification could be from household/not Grid is too farresult-based driven leveraging available financing. 49.7% 54.7% Cost of initial connection is too expensive LAUNCH AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS AND EXPAND OPTIONS FOR CLEAN COOKING 34.6% 2.4% While the refugee Submitted camps application with the and waiting UNHCR’s intervention have access to LPG stoves, refugee households for connection 5.2% in the other settlements often rely on high-emission biomass stoves. Campaigns targeting these households could be launched to promote awareness 1.6% of clean cooking practices and their benefits. Monthly fee is too expensive Access to affordable and fuel-efficient cookstoves 1.9% must be expanded. 2.0% Renting, landlord decision 1.8% 2.8% 2016 Other 6.8% 2022 68 Open fire stove 15.2% 39.9% 45.0% Traditional/ Annexes Locally built stove 34.4% 65.6% Manufactured biomass stove ANNEX 1 100% LPG stove Wood purchased Wood collected Charcoal LPG FIGURE A1.1 • Household distribution of Ubudehe category, by locality 1.6% 1.4% 2.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 38.6% 35.5% 53.0% I don't know Category 4 Category 3 44.4% 46.1% Category 2 Category 1 36.4% 15.3% 16.9% 7.9% Nationwide Rural Urban Source: World Bank 2022. 36.5% Grid is too far from household/not available 49.7% 54.7% Cost of initial connection is too expensive 34.6% 2.4% Submitted application and waiting for connection 5.2% 1.6% Monthly fee is too expensive 1.9% 2.0% Renting, landlord decision 1.8% 2.8% 2016 Other 6.8% 2022 69 Category 3 44.4% 46.1% Category 2 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Category 1 36.4% ANNEX 2 15.3% 16.9% 7.9% Nationwide Rural Urban FIGURE A2.1 • Barriers to household grid connections (2016 vs 2022) 36.5% Grid is too far from household/not available 49.7% 54.7% Cost of initial connection is too expensive 34.6% 2.4% Submitted application and waiting for connection 5.2% 1.6% Monthly fee is too expensive 1.9% 2.0% Renting, landlord decision 1.8% 2.8% 2016 Other 6.8% 2022 Source: World Bank 2022. Note: Respondents relied on off-grid electricity sources or were unelectrified 70 Annexes ANNEX 3 TABLE A3.1 • MTF Electricity Tier matrix for the analysis of the Rwanda’s public institution survey TIER SCORE ATTRIBUTE TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 Appliance ≥200 and Capacity - ≥3 and <50 ≥50 and <200 ≥800 - <800 (W) Capacity Main Off-grid Off-grid Off-grid Off-grid National Electricity - solar, solar, solar, solar, Grid or mini Source generator generator generator generator grids Min. 50% Min. 75% Min. 95% Availability <2 hrs Min. 2 hrs Min. 4 hrs of working of working of working hours hours hours (4–14 disruptions) (Disruptions OR ≤ 3) Reliability Disruptions - (Disruptions AND (Disruptions per week) > 14 ≤3 and (Duration duration ≥2 < 2 hrs) hrs) With voltage No voltage Quality - - issues issues Formality - Informal Formal Had Safe, no Safety - accidents in - accidents the past Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015. Note: Tier score range is different for each attribute. A gray cell or block refers to a tier or tiers that do not need to contribute to the relevant score range. For example, a binary/bipolar situation will require only two tiers, and hence, the apparently discontinuous or partial sequences of tiers illustrated. hr = hour. 71 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework ANNEX 4 TABLE A4.1 • Electricity end-user tariffs for residential customers in Rwanda Customer Category Tariff Consumption Block Tariff (VAT and regulatory (kWh per Month) fee exclusive) (RWF/kWh) Low voltage—all 182 <15 89 (residential and nonresidential) 15–50 212 >50 249 Sources: RURA 2015, 2020. Note: kWh = kilowatt hour; RWF = Rwandan franc; VAT = value-added tax. 72 Annexes ANNEX 5 ANNEX 5 ANNEX 5 TABLE A5.1 • Solar products considered in the willingness-to-pay survey module TABLE A5.1 • Solar products considered in the willingness-to-pay survey module TABLE A5.1 • Solar products considered in the willingness-to-pay survey module Current WTP Current Subsidy Subsidy Maximum Price Price Maximum WTP Tier Product Level Amount Current Subsidy WTP (RWF) Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy Points Price (%) Amount Subsidy (RWF) Maximum Price Subsidy Price Tier Product LevelPrice Amount Level Subsidy (RWF) (RWF) (RWF) Amount Points Amount Points (%) (RWF) Amount Tier - Company: Lemi Product (RWF) (%) (RWF) (RWF) (RWF) (RWF) (RWF) - Model: LM-LI020 --−C o Sp ecificationsLemi Company: m p a n y : Lemi: With 3 lamps, a mobile phone - M odel: LM-LI020 150,000 90 135,000 100,000 15,000 − charger, Model: 36-month LM-LI020warranty - Specifications: With 3 lamps, a mobile phone 150,000 150,000 90 135,000 90 100,000 135,000 15,000 100,000 15,000 Specifications: −charger, With 3 lamps, a mobile 36-month warranty phone charger, 36-month warranty Tier 1 70 105,000 80,000 45,000 Tier 70 105,000 80,000 45,000 Tier11 70 105,000 80,000 45,000 45 67,500 50,000 82,500 45 67,500 50,000 82,500 45 67,500 50,000 82,500 - Company: Bbox - Model: Bpower50 U2 --−C oCompany: Sp mepciafi cy n a:tBbox Bbox ions: With 4 lamps, 1 portable light, -− M o d e l : Bpower50 U2 U2 warranty - 135,000 100,000 215,000 24’’ TV, a Bpower50 a Model: radio, 24-month - Specifications: With 4 lamps, 1 portable light, 350,000 - 135,000 100,000 215,000 24’’ −a Specifications 4 lamps, 1 portable : With warranty - 135,000 100,000 215,000 TV, a radio, 24-month 350,000 light, a 24’’ TV, a radio, 24-month warranty 350,000 245,00 Tier 2 - 105,000 80,000 Tier 2 - 0 105,000 80,000 245,000 245,00 Tier 2 - 105,000 80,000 0 282,50 - 67,500 - 50,000 67,500 0 50,000 282,500 282,50 - 67,500 50,000 0 Source: CESS Ltd. 2022a. Source: Brutinel 2022. Note: RWF = Rwandan franc; WTP = willingness to pay. Source: CESS Note: Ltd.=2022a. RWF Rwandan franc; WTP = willingness to pay. Note: RWF = Rwandan franc; WTP = willingness to pay. 73 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework ANNEX 6 ANNEX 6 cookstoves considered in the willingness-to-pay survey module TABLE A6.1 • Improved ABLE A6.16 ANNEX T ANNEX 6 • Improved cookstoves considered in the willingness-to-pay survey module Type of StoveType of Stove Product Product WTP Price Points WTP (RWF) Price Points (RWF) TA TA LE BB LEAA 1.1 6.6 ••Im Im ro pp ve ro vdedco cooo kt ks so to vs ve co es nn co sis d er id ee rdedin inth theeww ll ili n il gn in es gn s- es st-o to-p -pay ay su s rv u vy re m ey moo dd le uu le Firewood Songa Two price points: Firewood Type Type ofofStove Stove (easy to operate, fuel Songa Product Product WTPWTP Price Price Points Two price points: (RWF) Points (RWF) efficient, less smoke) - 2,500 Firewood Firewood (easy to operate, fuel efficient, less smoke) Two Songa Songa Two price price points: points: − 2,500 - 7,500 (easy (easytotooperate, operate, fuel fuel efficient, efficient,less lesssmoke) smoke) --2,500 2,500 − 7,500 --7,500 7,500 Charcoal Ecozoom Jiko bora mama yao Two price points: Charcoal Ecozoom Jiko bora mama yao Two price points: (easy to operate, fuel efficient, less smoke) - 16,000 Charcoal Charcoal (easy to Ecozoomoperate, Ecozoom Jiko bora Jiko fuel boramamaefficient, mama yao yao less smoke) Two price points: Two price points: − 16,000 - 21,000 (easy (easyto tooperate, operate, fuel fuelefficient, efficient,less lesssmoke) smoke) --16,000 16,000 − 21,000 --21,000 21,000 LPG LPG Realflame Elite Realflame Elite Three price points:Three price points: (clean, fast) - 8,200 LPG Realflame Elite (clean, fast) Three price points: − 8,200 LPG Realflame Elite - Three 24,600price points: (clean, fast) (clean, fast) - -- 8,200 8,200 45,100 − 24,600 -- 24,600 24,600 − 45,100 -- 45,100 45,100 Source: CESS Ltd. 2022b. Note: RWF = Rwandan franc; WTP = Willingness-to-Pay. Source: Source:CESS Ltd. CESS 2022b. Ltd. 2022b. Source: Brutinel 2022. Note: Note:RWF RWF==Rwandan Rwandanfranc; WTP franc; == WTP Willingness-to-Pay. Willingness-to-Pay. Note: RWF = Rwandan franc; WTP = Willingness-to-Pay. 2 22 74 Annexes ANNEX 7 TABLE A7.1 • Cookstoves in Rwanda ANNEX 7 Three-Stone TABLE A7.1 • Cookstove s in Rwanda Stove Commented [H(C1]: Duina, please see if we can Three-Stone Stove condense this table. Stove Type Stove Type Photograph Photograph Fuel Fuel ANNEX ANNEX 77 Three-stone Firewood Three-stone TA TBAL BE A7 LE A.7 •C 1.1 Cok •o oskts o oe tv vs esin Rw in an Rw ad nada Commented Firewood Commented [H(C1]: [H(C1]:Duina, Duina,please see please if if see we can we can Tr Th he e- re eS-t S otn oeneStSotv oeve condense this condense table. this table. StSo oe tv Ty ve Tp yepe PhPoht o o tgor garp ahph Fu ulel Fe Three-stone Three-stone Firewood Firewood Traditional/Locally Built Stoves Traditional/Locally S to ve Type Built PhotograStoves ph Fuel Round mud stove Firewood Stove Type Tr Tard aid tin tioPhotograph oanla /o /lL oa Lc ly cla Bu l ly Bi u lt tt ilS So oe tv vs es Fuel St S otv oe Ty ve Tp yepe PhPohtootg orga rpahph Fu ulel Fe Round mud stove Round Round mud mud stove stove Firewood Firewood Firewood Double-place metal stove Charcoal Gisafuriya stove Firewood Gisafuriya stove Gisafuriya Gisafuriyastove stove Firewood Firewood Firewood Rocket stove Rocket Double-place metal stove stove Firewood Firewood Charcoal Rocket stove Rocket All metal charcoal stove stove Firewood Charcoal Firewood Double-place metal stove All metal charcoal stove Charcoal Charcoal Double-place metal stove Double-place metal stove Charcoal Charcoal 33 All metal charcoal stove 3 Charcoal All metal charcoal stove All metal charcoal stove Charcoal Charcoal Manufactured Biomass Stoves Stove Typ e Manufactured PhotoM Biomass graa Stoves nupfh actured Biomass Stoves Fuel Stove Type Photograph Fuel Darfour stove Darfour stove Firewood Firewood Stove Type Photograph Fuel Darfour stove Firewood Manufactured Biomass Stoves Stove Type Photograph Fuel Darfour stove Firewood Manufactured Biomass Stov es Stove Type Photograph Fuel Darfour stove Firewood Mimi Moto Pellets Mimi Moto Pellets 4 Claded Canarumwe Charcoal 4 4 75 4 Uncladed Canarumwe Charcoal Mimi Moto Pellets Mimi Moto Pellets Mimi Moto Pellets RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework Claded Canarumwe Charcoal Claded Canarumwe Charcoal Claded Canarumwe Claded Canarumwe Claded Canarumwe Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Uncladed Canarumwe Charcoal Uncladed Uncladed Canarumwe Canarumwe Uncladed Canarumwe Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Uncladed Canarumwe Charcoal Canamake Charcoal Canamake Canamake Charcoal Charcoal Canamake Canamake Charcoal Charcoal Canarumwe Installed Installed Canarumwe Firewood Firewood Installed Canarumwe Installed Canarumwe Firewood Firewood Installed Canarumwe Firewood Ruliba Clay Charcoal 5 Ruliba Clay Ruliba Clay Ruliba Clay 5 5 Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal 5 Ruliba Clay Charcoal Ruliba Clay Charcoal Save 80 Firewood Save 80 Firewood Save 80 Firewood Save 80 Save 80 Firewood Firewood Save 80 Firewood Ecozoom Firewood Ecozoom Ecozoom Firewood Firewood Ecozoom Firewood Ecozoom Ecozoom Firewood Firewood Jiko Malkia Firewood Jiko Malkia Jiko Jiko Malkia Jiko JikoMalkia Malkia Malkia Firewood Firewood Firewood Firewood Firewood EcozoomJiko Bora Mama Charcoal Mahwi Mahwi Charcoal Charcoal Mahwi Yao PNG 40 Mahwi Charcoal Charcoal Mahwi Charcoal Mahwi Charcoal EcozoomJiko Bora Mama Charcoal Yao PNG EcozoomJiko Bora EcozoomJiko40Mama Bora Mama Charcoal Charcoal Yao PNG PNG 40 Yao 40 EcozoomJiko Bora Mama Yao Charcoal PNG 40 ECOZOOM Firewood Dura Rocket stove 6 6 ECOZOOM 6 Firewood ECOZOOM Firewood ECOZOOM Firewood Dura Rocket stove 6 Dura Rocket stove ECOZOOM Firewood Dura Rocket stove 6 Dura Rocket stove GreenWay Jumbo Firewood GreenWay Jumbo Firewood GreenWay Jumbo GreenWay Jumbo Firewood Firewood GreenWay Jumbo Firewood Ruliba Clay Firewood Ruliba Clay Firewood Ruliba Clay Firewood Ruliba Clay Firewood Ruliba Clay Firewood 7 7 76 7 Annexes Gisubizo S26-13 Gisubizo S26-13 Briquettes—firewood Briquettes—firewood Gisubizo S26-13 Briquettes—firewood Gisubizo S26-13 Gisubizo S26-13 Briquettes—firewood Briquettes— Ecozoom Jiko Fresh Charcoal firewood Ecozoom Jiko Fresh Charcoal Ecozoom Jiko Fresh Charcoal Ecozoom Jiko Fresh Ecozoom Jiko Fresh Charcoal Charcoal JIKO JIKO Malkia Malkia Charcoal Charcoal JIKO Malkia Charcoal JIKO Malkia Charcoal JIKO Malkia Charcoal SONGA stove Firewood SONGA stove Firewood SONGA stove Firewood SONGA stove Firewood SONGA stove Firewood Gisubizo C28-23 Max Briquettes—charcoal AJDR Charcoal stove 8 Charcoal Gisubizo C28-23 Max AJDR Charcoal Gisubizo C28-23 Max stove Briquettes—charcoal Charcoal Briquettes— Gisubizo C28-23 Max Briquettes—charcoal 8 8 charcoal AJDR AJDR AJDR Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Gisubizo stove stove stove C28-23 Max Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Briquettes—charcoal AJDR Charcoal stove Igisubizo 8 Charcoal waste Charcoal Igisubizo Charcoal waste Igisubizo Igisubizo Charcoal Charcoalwaste waste Igisubizo Igisubizo Charcoal waste Charcoal waste L P G S to v e ZIGAMA stove Firewood Stove Type Photo graph Fuel ZIGAMA stove All–liquefied petroleum gas Firewood LPG (LPG) stoves ZIGAMA stove ZIGAMA stove Firewood Firewood stove ZIGAMA stove Firewood L P G S to v e ZIGAMA L P G S to v e Firewood Stove Type Photograph Fuel Stove Type Photograph Fuel All–liquefied petroleum gas LPG All–liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves Umurabyo LPGCharcoal Umurabyo (LPG) stoves Umurabyo Charcoal Charcoal Umurabyo Charcoal Umurabyo L P G S to v e Charcoal Umurabyo r i c S to v e ElectCharcoal Stove Type Photograph Fuel Stove Type Photograph Fuel All–liquefied petroleum gas LPG All-electric stoves Electricity LPG Stove (LPG) stoves Stove Type L P G S to v e Photograph 9 9 Fuel Stove Type Photograph Fuel All–liquefied petroleum gas All–liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves 9 E l e c t r i c S to v e LPG LPG (LPG) stoves Stove Type Ph9 9 tograph o Fuel All-electric stoves Electricity E l e c t r i c S to v e E l e c t r i c S to v e St Electric ove Type Stove Photograph Fuel Stove Type Ph otograp All-electric h stoves Fuel Electricity Stove Type stoves All-electric Photograph Electricity Fuel All-electric stoves E l e c t r i c S to v e Electricity Stove Type Photograph Fuel All-electric stoves Electricity Source: CESS Ltd. 2022b. Source: CESS Ltd. 2022b. 10 Source: CESS Ltd. 2022b. Source: CESS Ltd. 2022b. 77 10 Source: CESS Ltd. 2022b. 10 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework REFERENCES Bhatia, Mikul, and Niki Angelou. 2015. Beyond Connections: Energy Access Redefined. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) Technical Report 008/15. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/handle/10986/24368. Brutinel, Marina. 2022. “Methodology and Product List for the Willingness-To-Pay Module.” World Bank. CESS Ltd. (Centre for Economic and Social Studies Ltd.). 2022a. “Market Research for the Second Global Multi- Tier Measurement of Access to Energy Survey in Rwanda.” CESS Ltd. 2022b. MTF2 Rwanda Survey Completion Report. Dubey, Sunita, Ehui Adovor, Dana Rysankova, and Bonsuk Koo. 2020. Kenya—Beyond Connections: Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi. org/10.1596/35268. ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program). 2020. The State of Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/937141600195758792/ pdf/The-State-of-Access-to-Modern-Energy-Cooking-Services.pdf. ESMAP. Forthcoming. Uganda—Beyond Connections. Washington, DC: World Bank. ESRF (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program’s Energy Subsidy Reform Facility). 2019. “Rwanda Country Brief: Lifting the Burden of Electricity Subsidies, While Expanding Access.” World Bank, Washington, DC. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/538521548274317451/pdf/133963-BRI-PUBLIC-23-1-2019-12- 26-0-CountryBriefRwanda.pdf. Global Compact on Refugees. N.d.a “Alternative Cooking Fuel: Access to Clean Cooking Energy Solutions in Refugee Camps in Rwanda—The Roll Out of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cooking Fuel as Alternative to Use of Firewood in Mahama Refugee Camp.” https://globalcompactrefugees.org/good-practices/ alternative-cooking-fuel. Global Compact on Refugees. N.d.b “Rwanda: An Overview of How the Global Compact on Refugees Is Being Turned into Action in Rwanda.” https://globalcompactrefugees.org/gcr-action/countries/rwanda. Global LPG Partnership, KfW, and European Union. 2021. Rwanda National LPG Master Plan, Feasibilty, and Investment Report. New York: Global LPG Partnership. https://static1.squarespace. com/static/5633c4c2e4b05a5c7831fbb5/t/6199d38cbd361e425e811bcf/1637471271053/ Rwanda+LPG+Master+Plan%2C+Feasibility+and+Investment+Report+%282021%29.pdf. Karinganire, Eric Didier. 2023. “Clean Cooking Energy Improves Lives in Mugombwa Refugee Camp.” UNHCR Rwanda, December 12, 2023. https://www.unhcr.org/rw/19607-clean-cooking-energy-improves-lives-in- mugombwa-refugee-camp.html. Koo, Bryan Bonsuk, Dana Rysankova, Elisa Portale, Niki Angelou, Sandra Keller, and Gouthami Padam. 2018. Rwanda—Beyond Connections: Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/30101. MINEMA (Ministry in charge of Emergency Management). 2021. “The Relocation of Refugees from Gihembe to Mahama Has Resumed Today with 538 Refugees.” MINEMA, September 20, 2021. https://www.minema.gov. rw/news-detail/the-relocation-of-refugees-from-gihembe-to-mahama-has-resumed-today-with-538- refugees. MINEMA. 2022. “The Special Advisor to the High Commissioner for Refugees on Climate Action Visited MINEMA.” MINEMA, May 17, 2022. https://www.minema.gov.rw/updates/news/ the-special-advisor-to-the-high-commissioner-for-refugees-on-climate-action-visited-minema. 78 References MINEMA. N.d. “Refugee Management.” https://www.minema.gov.rw/refugees-management. NISR (National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda). 2015. Rwanda Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey [EICV] 2013/2014: Social Protection and VUP Report. Kigali, Rwanda: NISR. https://www.statistics.gov.rw/ publication/rwanda-social-protection-and-vup-report-results-eicv-4. NISR. 2023. Fifth Rwanda Population and Housing Census, 2022: Main Indicators Report. Kigali, Rwanda: NISR. https://www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/main_indicators_2022#:~:text=March%202023-,MAIN%20 INDICATORS%3A%205th%20Rwanda%20Population%20and%20Housing%20Census%20(PHC),2.3%25%20 between%202012%20and%202022. Nkurunziza, Michel. 2020. “Government to Ban Charcoal Use in Kigali.” The New Times, May 28, 2020. https:// www.newtimes.co.rw/article/177010/News/government-to-ban-charcoal-use-in-kigali. Nkurunziza, Michel. 2023. “Govt Clarifies on Reforming Identification of Needy People.” The New Times, August 7, 2023. https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/9727/news/rwanda/ govt-clarifies-on-reforming-identification-of-needy-people. Practical Action. 2021. “Improving Energy Access for Refugees in Rwanda: Working with the Private Sector.” Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, United Kingdom. https://data.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/89152. Practical Action. N.d. “Renewable Energy for Refugees (RE4R).” https://practicalaction.org/our-work/projects/ re4r/. Rwanda Energy Group. 2017. “REG New Electricity Connection Policy.” https://www.reg.rw/fileadmin/user_ upload/RevisedNewConnectionPolicy__1_-75742.pdf. Rwanda Ministry of Infrastructure. 2022. “Ministerial Guidelines on Minimum Standards Requirements for Solar Home Systems.” Ministry of Infrastructure, Kigali, Rwanda. https://www.reg.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/ Approved_Ministerial_Guidelines_on_Minimum_standards_Requirements_for_Solar_Home_Systems.pdf. Rwanda Ministry of Local Government. 2018. Social Protection Sector Strategic Plan (SP-SSP) 2018/19–2023/24. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Local Government. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/rwa206911.pdf. RURA (Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority). 2015. “Board Decision N° 001/BD/ICA-CLIA /RURA/2015.” RURA, Kigali, Rwanda. https://www.rura.rw/fileadmin/docs/BOARD_DECISION_ELECTRICITY_TARIFF_2015.pdf. RURA. 2016. “Decision N° 05/BD/ER-LER/RURA/2016 of 13/12/2016 Reviewing the End User Electricity Tariff in Rwanda.” RURA, Kigali, Rwanda. RURA. 2020. “Decision N°01/BD/ER-EWS/RURA/2020 of 17/01/2020 Reviewing the End User Electricity Tariffs in Rwanda.” RURA, Kigali, Rwanda. https://rura.rw/fileadmin/publication/Board_Decision_on_Electricity_End_ User_Tariffs_in_Rwanda.pdf. UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2018. “Operational Update: Rwanda.” UNHCR, February 2018. https://www.unhcr.org/rw/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Operational-Update- Feb-2018.pdf. UNHCR. 2020. “2019 Year-End Report—Operation: Rwanda.” UNHCR, July 30, 2020. https://reporting.unhcr.org/ sites/default/files/pdfsummaries/GR2019-Rwanda-eng.pdf. UNHCR. 2021. “Rwanda: Kiziba Refugee Camp Profile.” UNHCR, April 29, 2021. https://data.unhcr.org/en/ documents/details/86479. UNHCR. 2022. Access to Clean Energy for Refugees: Rwanda Case Studies. Geneva: UNHCR. https://reliefweb.int/ report/rwanda/access-clean-energy-refugees-rwanda-case-studies. 79 RWANDA ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into energy access in Rwanda using the Multi-Tier Framework UNHCR. 2024. “UNHCR Rwanda- Forcibly Displaced Population and UNHCR Presence (June 2024).” https://data. unhcr.org/en/documents/details/109869. UNHCR. N.d. “Economic Inclusion and Development.” UNHCR Rwanda. https://www.unhcr.org/rw/ economic-inclusion-and-development. World Bank. 2022. “Multi-Tier Framework Survey in Rwanda.” World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2023. “Distribution of Households Sampled for the Multi-Tier Framework Survey in Rwanda.” Cartography Unit of the World Bank Group, Washington, DC. World Bank. N.d.a. “Access to Electricity (% of Population)—Rwanda.” World Bank Open Data. https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=RW. World Bank. N.d.b. “GDP (Current US$)—Rwanda.” World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=RW. World Bank. N.d.c. “GDP Growth (Annual %)—Rwanda.” World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/ indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=RW. 80