Welcome to the first in a series of blog posts about the welfare impact of Kopernik’s solar lantern projects in Indonesia. Kopernik’s philosophy is not just to distribute technology but also to assess and demonstrate the impact that simple technology can have on developing communities worldwide. To help with this, Kopernik runs an individual fellowship program as well as welcoming teams from prominent universities to undertake impact assessment projects.
This post draws on the data collected by a talented team from SIPA at Columbia University who set out to assess and quantify the impact on individual and community welfare of the distribution of Firefly solar lamps in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, in 2010. The figures quoted below are drawn from SIPA’s surveys and interviews in local communities: bear with me, while there are lots of numbers, they’re vital to assessing Kopernik’s impact later on! This post describes what these communities did for electricity before solar, and subsequent posts will explain the introduction of Kopernik’s solar technology and then the positive impact and changes it made.
image_01
So… why Central Kalimantan? Simple: because there are challenging economic conditions. According to the SIPA team’s survey, the average monthly household income in Central Kalimantan villages ranges from US$55-110.
ABOUT 20% OF PEOPLE HAVE NO FORMAL EDUCATION. MOST PEOPLE OWN LIVESTOCK AND CELL-PHONES, BUT NONE OF THE SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS OWNS A REFRIGERATOR.
This is partly because people in these villages lack access to most of the services that we in the OECD consider basic, such as clean water and electricity. As a whole, 81.6 million Indonesians (out of 230 million) still do not have access to grid electricity. In Central Kalimantan, where Kopernik’s solar lamp project took place, the rate of electrification is even lower at about 54.8%.
THAT MEANS ALMOST 860,000 PEOPLE AND 180,000 HOUSEHOLDS LACK ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY: A HUGE NUMBER!
With low incomes and a lack of basic services, households in Central Kalimantan unsurprisingly face significant daily challenges: one-third of households surveyed by the SIPA team selected electricity or fuel as their greatest challenge. 25% of houses surveyed had no access to direct electricity (such as a diesel generator) and relied on kerosene for energy. Other households used some combination of firewood, kerosene, diesel, benzene, candles, batteries.
But all these fuels cost money. Families spend, on average, one in every three dollars of their total expenditures on energy for lighting, cooking and transportation. Diesel, which is used for generators and transportation, costs US$54 per month, while kerosene about US$10. Solar panels, which provide basically free electricity once installed, still cost about US$120 upfront per panel. All of these are considerable costs, given the standard monthly income.
Given the diffusion of energy sources, people’s lifestyles have adjusted according to energy availability. Poorer households can’t afford entertainment devices like TVs. In its place, a culture of sharing has developed so families use each other’s homes for things like charging cell-phones or watching TV. In another example, for those houses without diesel generators, families cook dinner before sunset because they cannot afford lighting for cooking.
Kopernik’s challenge is to improve socio-economic development through new, affordable sources of power. We want to lower the cost of energy while making it more accessible. The extra money saved can go to whatever the family wants. Check back with me in my next post to see what daily changes occurred when Kopernik distributed portable solar lamps in Central Kalimantan.
