Chapter 2

Developing an Energy Security Index

June 2012

This chapter should be cited as

Quantitative Assessment of Energy Security Working Group (2011), ‘Developing an
Energy Security Index’ in Koyama, K. (ed.), Study on the Development of an Energy
Security Index and an Assessment of Energy Security for East Asian Countries, ERIA
Research Project Report 2011-13, Jakarta: ERIA, pp.7-47.
 CHAPTER 2

Developing an Energy Security Index

1. Definition of Energy Security

The definition of energy security changes depending on what the subject of energy
security is (“what” is being protected), the threat to energy security (“against what” is it
being protected), the measures to promote energy security (“who” “is doing what” to
protect “with whom”) and how these points are recognized. There is no universal
definition that transcends time periods.
For this study, energy security has been defined as, “the securing of the amount of
energy required for people’s lives, economic, social, and defense activities, among other
purposes, at affordable prices.”
Figure 2-1 indicates the major components of energy security throughout the energy
supply chain.
The principle is the use of risk management, focused on improving the energy
security situation. Risk management includes the dispersion of risks, such as through
the diversification of energy sources, the absorption of risks, for example by creating a
reserve margin of power generation capacities, and preparations against unavoidable
supply disruptions such as by building up strategic reserves. The improvement of
energy security also includes the development of domestic energy sources and the
enhancement of resource acquisition in foreign countries.
The energy supply issue consists of three stages – “secure resources” “secure a
reliable domestic supply chain” and “manage demand.” A generally conceivable
resource-securing method is to develop or acquire resources at home or abroad and
transport them to the domestic market. Therefore, the “development of domestic
resources,” “acquisition of overseas resources” and “transportation risk management”
are deemed major items constituting the first stage of the supply chain. The “reliability

7
of the energy supply” and “construction of supply infrastructure” are required to “secure
a reliable domestic supply chain” and are deemed major items for this stage. “Energy
efficiency” is cited as a major item indicating that something is being done to “manage
demand.” On top of these factors, “preparedness for supply disruptions” has also to be
seen as a major component of energy security.
Environmental sustainability has been added to the factors comprising the energy
security issue, in light of heightened awareness of global environmental concerns. Most
greenhouse gas emissions are produced by energy sources, and so it goes without saying
that an important factor to ponder when thinking about energy issues is consideration
for the environment, including climate change issues.
If any of these factors is dropped, it may be structurally difficult for the supply
chain to maintain a stable state of energy security.
Figure 2-1: Components of energy security
Secure resources Reliable domestic Manage
supply chain demand

Develop domestic resource Reliability of

energy supply
Energy
efficiency
Acquire overseas Transportation risk Build supply
resources management infrastructure

Preparedness for supply disruption

Environmental sustainability

2. Developing an Energy Security Index

The following proposal has been made for the creation of an Index that can
quantitatively express the condition of each factor underlying overall energy security (in
other words, an “Energy Security Index: ESI”).
Transportation risk management has not been evaluated here, because it is difficult

8
to create an appropriate index, given, for example, the wide difference of evaluation
factors between sea transport using ships and land transport via pipeline, railway or road.

Table 2-1: List of ESI components

Components Quantitative Assessment ESIs
Development of domestic 1. Self-sufficiency 1-1. TPES self-sufficiency ratio
resources (including nuclear)
1-2. Reserve/production ratio
1-3. Reserve/consumption ratio
Acquisition of overseas 2. Diversification of import 2. Diversity of import source
resources source countries countries (oil, gas and coal)
3. Diversification of energy 3. Diversity of energy
sources sources of TPES / electricity
4. Dependence on Middle East 4. Middle East dependence for oil
and gas
Transportation risk - -
management
Securing a reliable 5-1. Reliability of energy supply 5-1-1. Reserve margin of
domestic supply chain generation capacity
5-1-2. Power outage
frequency / duration
5-2. Build supply 5-2. Commercial energy access
infrastructure ratio
Management of demand 6. Energy efficiency 6-1. TPES/GDP ratio
6-2. TFEC/GDP ratio
Preparedness for supply 7. Strategic reserves 7. Days of on-land oil stocks
disruptions
Environmental 8. CO2 intensity 8-1. CO2 emissions/TPES ratio
sustainability 8-2. CO2 emissions/Fossil fuel
ratio
8-3. CO2 emissions/GDP ratio
8-4. CO2 emissions/Capita

Each ESI definition and calculation method is as follows.

1-1. TPES self sufficiency ratio (including nuclear)

This is an important measurement of the strength of a country’s strength in energy

security in terms of how dependant the country in for its energy resources on internal
sources, regardless of whether the energy type is fossil fuel or not.
Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) is made up of indigenous production +
imports - exports - international marine bunkers +/- stock changes.
Indigenous Production is the production of primary energy, i.e. hard coal, lignite,
peat, crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGLs), natural gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, solar

9
and heat the ambient environment extracted using heat pumps.
Production is calculated after the removal of impurities (e.g. sulfur from natural
gas). In addition, with nuclear power stations, once the uranium has been charged, it is
possible to run power stations continuously for a long period of time. Since there is no
need to frequently import fuel, nuclear power can be seen as a semi-domestic energy
resource.

TPES self-sufficiency ratio = (Indigenous Production) / (TPES) * 100

1-2. Reserve/Production ratio

Usually, the R/P ratio (Reserve/production ratio) is utilized as an indicator to show
the remaining amount of unexploited resources a country currently posseses. The R/P
ratio has been adopted as a measurement of the amount of resources held by a country.

R/P ratio = (Reserve) / (Production)

1-3. Reserve/Consumption ratio

In the context of energy security, the R/C ratio (Reserve/consumption ratio) is
proposed as an additional indicator. The reason that consumption has been adopted here
is, for example, to cater for the case that a portion of production is exported. From the
perspective of securing a country’s energy security, the halting of exports and
reallocation of the energy source for the country’s own use might be considered. In
other words, dividing reserves by consumption, as with the R/C ratio, gives an
indication of how much energy a country can use in the extreme.

R/C ratio = (Reserve) / (Consumption)

2. Diversity of import source countries

The diversity of import source countries has been adopted as a measurement of the
supply security of fossil fuels. If import source countries are diversified, even if the
supply from a certain country is halted, it is thought to be highly likely that the
difference will be made up by other import source countries.

10
 Here the Hirschmann-Herfindahl index has been adopted as a good measure of the
scale of diversity. (see below)

HHI: Hirschmann-Herfindahl Index

HHI is defined as the sum of the squares of the individual market shares of every firm in the market.
An HHI of 1 would mean there is just one firm in the market, a monopoly structure. The HHI comes
closer to 0 as competition spreads. It is also called the oligopoly index. If two companies
oligopolize a market with equal market shares at 50%, the HHI is “2×（0.52 ）=0.5” If 100
companies each have a 1% market share, the HI is “100×（0.012）=0.01.”

3. Diversity of energy sources of TPES / electricity

Energy sources possess different characteristics in terms of available amounts, their
ease of trading, price, and their associated environmental burdens. As no single energy
resource exists that excels in all factors, each characteristic should be used tactfully. It
is important to develop an energy mix with a good balance among sources. In other
words, by diversifying energy sources, the merits of each energy source can be drawn
out while at the same time reducing the demerits and risks of each source.
Diversification of energy sources is considered both in the composition of TPES and in
the power source structure.

HHI has been adopted as a measure of diversity.

4. Middle East dependence of oil and gas supply

The importation of energy from regions with high geopolitical risks can be said to
pose high risks in terms of energy security. This is because of the existence of the
possibility that supply will be cut off due to political pressure or environmental changes.
Geopolitical risks are seen in many regions across. In the case of oil and gas supply,
however, the instability of the Middle East, which holds a large number of energy
sources, is of particular importance. Thus this study explicitly considers the impact
potential of Middle East dependence for oil and gas supply.

Middle East dependency = (Imports from Middle East) / (Total Imports) * 100

11
5. Reliable domestic supply chain
Necessary infrastructure must be developed in order to supply energy in a stable
manner such that it meets domestic demand. This refers to things like fossil fuel supply
chain items (e.g. tanker trucks and gasoline stands), as well as gas pipelines and power
distribution networks.
Here the number of gasoline stands per capita may be used as a measurement for
the coverage of the fossil fuel supply chain. However, due to differences between
countries, there is no cohesive standard in the statistics on this factor. The same is true
for gas pipeline networks. In consideration of the relative difficulty of collecting such
data, oil and gas data has not analyzed in this study.

5-1. Reserve margin of generation capacity

There is a need to secure power generation capabilities sufficient to meet demand in
order to ensure a stable supply of electric power. More concretely, a country must
sustain its power generation capabilities for peak demand, including reserve capabilities
in case something extraordinary happens.

Reserve margin of generation capacity

= (Total Generation Capacity) / (Peak Demand) *100

There is a need to draw attention to two points related to the evaluation of this
measurement. The first is the necessity to minimize surplus capacity from an economic
perspective, and thus the situation of competition in the electric power market will have
an effect on this measurement. The other point has to do with low operation rates of
renewable power sources, which increases the need for backup power supply sources (in
other words, power supply sources with low operation rates) to cope with unstable
output in the event that the power supplied from renewable energy increases in the
future. Should this happen, it is expected that the reserve margin will rise far above
current levels.

12
5-2. Power outage frequency/duration
The extent of power outages (their frequency and duration) can be said to be a
measurement directly showing the level of stability of the power supply.
This study has adopted the duration of power outages per customer (minutes/year)
and the frequency of such outages per customer (times/year).

Power outage duration

= (Accumulated duration of power outage) / (Total number for customers).

Power outage frequency

= (Outage frequency per year) / (Total number of customers).

5-3. . Commercial energy access ratio

The commercial energy access ratio was chosen as a measurement of the extent to
which there is a system in place to supply energy domestically, apart from the electric
power supply sources. The commercial energy access ratio also shows the development
stage of an economy. Based on the premise that all citizens want a supply of
commercial energy, the maintenance of a situation in which energy can be supplied can
be said to be one of the factors that comprises energy security. Here, because the
category of commercial energy is not defined on the Internal Energy Agency (IEA)
statistics, etc., the following method is used for its calculation.

Commercial energy access ratio

= (TPES – Non-commercial energy) / (TPES) * 100
where;
Non-commercial energy
= (Primary supply of solid biofuels) – (Input energy for transformation purpose)

6. Energy efficiency
Demand management is one important factor in energy security. Briefly, it shows
the level of efficiency of energy consumption. Two metrics are used for the
measurement of the efficiency of energy consumption.

13
 In evaluating these measurements, there is a need to pay attention to the point that
the relationship between energy consumption and GDP will change based on a country’s
economic structure. For example, the balance of a country’s energy consumption to its
GDP differs between countries which focus their economy on energy intensive
industries such as steel production, and countries with a focus on the financial sector.

6-1. . TPES/GDP ratio

One ratio to be considered is the TPES/GDP ratio, which uses the total primary
energy supply (TPES) to show the comprehensive utilization rate for energy, including
in conversion sectors such as power generation and oil production.

TPES/GDP ratio = (TPES) / (GDP)

6-2. TFEC/GDP ratio

Another metric of interest is the TFEC/GDP ratio, which uses the total final energy
consumption (TFEC) to measure the energy-use efficiency at the end-user level.

TFEC/GDP ratio = (TFEC) / (GDP)

7. Days of on-land oil stocks

The existence of stocks would constitute a major response should there be a
temporary halting in the supply of fossil fuels. IEA countries are supposed to maintain
emergency stocks equivalent to 90 days worth of net fossil fuel imports. Days of
onshore oil reserves was chosen here in consideration of the probable ease of obtaining
data.
The number of days is obtained from the “Oil market report” of the IEA, and the
calculation method is defined by the IEA.

reference: IEA definition)

Days of onland oil stock = (Total stock) / (Forward demand)
where;
Total stock = industry stock + government controlled stock

14
 Forward demand = forward quarter average daily demand calculated by the IEA

8. CO2 intensity
Issues of energy and global environmental sustainability are inextricably linked. As
one important factor comprising energy security, it is thought that CO2 intensity is an
appropriate measurement in evaluating environmental sustainability, and thus four
factors measuring different aspects of CO2 intensity have been chosen.
The CO2 emissions/TPES ratio reflects the extent to which low carbon energies are
used and the consumption efficiency for energy. The CO2 emissions/fossil fuel ratio
reflects the energy mix among coal, petroleum and natural gas as well as their energy
use efficiency. The CO2 emissions/GDP ratio measures CO2 in terms of its relationship
to economic growth. The level of CO2 emissions per capita measures the amount of
fossil fuel used per person and more closely reflects the extent of economic
development and its relationship to CO2.

CO2 emissions/TPES ratio = (CO2 Emissions) / (TPES)

CO2 emission/fossil fuel ratio = (CO2 Emissions) / (Primary supply of fossil fuel)
CO2 emissions/GDP = (CO2 Emissions) / (GDP)
CO2 emissions per capita = (CO2 Emissions) / (Population)

3. Data

The results for calculations of the ESI, in principle, use common statistical data
gathered from public sources in each country, with the aim of eliminating discrepancies
due to statistical methods. From this perspective, the IEA statistics and the BP
Statistical Review of World Energy were primarily used. IEA statistics include ‘Coal
Information,’ ‘Oil Information,’ ‘Natural Gas Information,’ and ‘CO2 Emissions from
Fuel Combustion.’
Because data is not available for two of the above statistics for Lao PDR, Energy
Balance data from the WG on Analysis on Energy Saving Potential in East Asia by
ERIA, and the World Bank data were used.
Working group members verified and amended the data collected by the IEEJ,

15
which served as secretariat, and at the same time, requests were made to provide
additional data to fill holes in the framework where possible, and such data were
developed for the purpose of calculations. In the case of differences between IEA, BP
and national statistics, national statistics were prioritized.
Statistics used to calculate ESI are as follows.
Table 2-2: ESI and Statistics

ESI Statistics
1-1.TPES self sufficiency ratio Energy Balance of OECD, Non-OECD Countries (IEA)
(including nuclear) Cambodia: National statistics
Lao PDR: WG on Analysis on Energy Saving Potential in
East Asia (ERIA)
1-3. Reserve/Production ratio Reserves: BP Statistical Review of World Energy,
National statistics
Production: BP Statistical Review of World Energy,
National statistics
1-2. Reserve/Consumption ratio Reserve: BP Statistical Review of World Energy
National statistics
Consumption: Energy Balance of OECD, Non-OECD
Countries (IEA)
2. Diversity of import source Coal Information, Oil Information and Natural Gas
countries Information (IEA)
National statistics
3. Diversity of energy sources in Energy Balance of OECD, Non-OECD Countries (IEA)
TPES / electricity Cambodia: National statistics
Lao PDR: WG on Analysis on Energy Saving Potential in
East Asia (ERIA)
4. Middle East dependence of oil Oil Information and Natural Gas Information (IEA)
and gas National statistics
5-1-1. Reserve margin of Statistics of the "Japan Electric Power Information
generation capacity Center"
National statistics
5-1-2. Power outage Statistics of the "Japan Electric Power Information
frequency / duration Center"
National statistics
5-2. Commercial energy access Energy Balance of OECD, Non-OECD Countries (IEA)
ratio Lao PDR: WG on Analysis on Energy Saving Potential in
East Asia (ERIA)
6-1. TPES/GDP ratio Energy Balance of OECD, Non-OECD Countries (IEA)
Cambodia: TPES: National statistics
Lao PDR: TPES: WG on Analysis on Energy Saving
Potential in East Asia (ERIA)
GDP: World Bank
6-2. TFEC/GDP ratio Energy Balance of OECD, Non-OECD Countries (IEA)
Cambodia: TFEC: National statistics
Lao PDR: TFEC: WG on Analysis on Energy Saving
Potential in East Asia (ERIA)

16
 ESI Statistics
GDP: World Bank
7. Days of on-land oil stocks Monthly Oil Market Report (IEA)
National statistics
8-1. CO2 emissions/TPES ratio CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion (IEA)
Energy Balance of OECD, Non-OECD Countries (IEA)
Cambodia: TPES: National statistics
Lao PDR: CO2: World Bank
TPES: WG on Analysis on Energy Saving
Potential in East Asia (ERIA)
8-2. CO2 emissions/GDP ratio CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion (IEA)
Energy Balance of OECD, Non-OECD Countries (IEA)
Lao PDR: World Bank
8-3. CO2 emissions per capita CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion (IEA)
Energy Balance of OECD, Non-OECD Countries (IEA)
Lao PDR: World Bank

4. Calculating the ESI

It is possible to calculate annual ESI values. However, the purpose of this study
was not to analyze changes in indices due to short-term factors such as economic
fluctuations. Its purpose was to analyze changes in energy security from a longer-term
perspective. Blocks of ten years were used and average values were gathered within the
entire period observed. However, in the 2000s, there was striking economic growth in
East Asian countries in particular, and this had a major effect on the energy environment.
For this reason, this period was split into five-year periods.

Period Abbreviations
1970s : 1970 - 1979
1980s : 1980 - 1989
1990s : 1990 - 1999
2000s-1 : 2000 - 2005
2000s-2 : 2006 – 2009

In addition, within this study a comparative analysis on calculated ESI with three
standards was carried out. However, the comparison with the ERIA average was made
only when data could be obtained from more than half of the ERIA Member Countries,
in other words, eight countries or more.

17
 Among these data, there is a need for caution when doing analysis using the OECD
average by time period and the ERIA average by time period. This is because the
efficiency of energy consumption in the OECD improves over time; or put another way,
the principle for the comparative analysis changes, and for this reason, in doing a
comparison with OECD data by time period, it is difficult to see the extent to which the
efficiency of energy consumption is improving in East Asian countries.

- OECD average by time period

- OECD average for all time periods
- ERIA average by time period

e.g.)
Comparison against OECD average
= (Index A for country X) / (OECD average of Index A)

Here, depending on what ESI values are being measured, the larger values may
indicate a “better situation” or the smaller values may indicate a “better situation.” For
this reason, in comparing between the OECD and ERIA averages, a conversion is made
so that the larger values would indicate the “better situation.” Concretely, inverse
values are used for the measurements listed below.

- Diversity of import source countries

- Diversity of energy sources of TPES / electricity
- Middle East dependency of oil and gas
- TPES/GDP ratio
- TFEC/GDP ratio
- CO2 emissions/TPES ratio
- CO2 emissions/ GDP ratio
- CO2 emissions per capita

ESI calculation results are shown from the next section onwards. Figures show the
results of ERIA average ESI calculations, while charts show comparisons among ESI
calculation results for each country. Where data is not available from more than eight
countries, the ERIA average is not shown in figures. Shaded areas in charts show
calculations done based on received national statistics (including zero data).

18
4.1. Self Sufficiency
Although TPES self-sufficiency within the ERIA average has shifted a small
amount, the value has basically stayed around 80%.
Figure 2-2: ERIA Total Self-Sufficiency
ERIA Total Self-sufficiency
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

Looking at the data by country, there are some countries which show a trend of
falling self-sufficiency through the period. The representative countries among these
are China and India, which have seen energy consumption increase along with
economic growth. The trend here is thought to indicate that the speed at which their
domestic energy production is expanding has not kept up with consumption.
On the other hand, there are also examples of countries with increasing self-
sufficiency. Among these are countries such as Australia and Myanmar, which have
self-sufficiency rates above 100%. These countries are rich in fossil fuel sources, and
are also thought to be advancing well toward resource development. Conversely,
countries like South Korea and the Philippines with self-sufficiency ratios below 100%
do not have enough fossil fuel sources to cover demand, but are thought to be
heightening their self-sufficiency ratios through the use of nuclear energy, biomass and
other renewable energies.
As a reference, please see the Annex for the TPES Self-sufficiency excluding
nuclear energy, as well self-sufficiency rates for coal, crude oil and natural gas.

19
Table 2-3: Results of TPES Self-sufficiency (including Nuclear)
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia 120.0% 161.9% 196.4% 232.4% 234.7%
Brunei 2186.2% 1088.5% 796.4% 837.0% 623.9%
Cambodia - - 82.9% 80.3% 74.8%
China 101.9% 104.9% 101.2% 97.3% 93.1%
India 91.5% 94.0% 86.9% 79.9% 75.8%
Indonesia 234.0% 194.2% 163.7% 151.2% 169.9%
Japan 10.5% 16.6% 19.4% 19.0% 18.7%
South Korea 29.0% 27.1% 16.8% 18.6% 19.7%
Lao PDR - - 91.7% 99.0% 92.4%
Malaysia 120.9% 205.6% 183.0% 155.5% 132.9%
Myanmar 97.8% 101.0% 98.1% 134.7% 149.3%
New Zealand 56.0% 78.7% 88.0% 81.0% 83.7%
Philippines 47.5% 62.3% 50.1% 51.2% 57.9%
Singapore 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%
Thailand 54.9% 62.1% 58.7% 56.8% 59.2%
Vietnam 90.6% 93.7% 116.0% 129.9% 127.0%
OECD avg. 67.0% 76.7% 75.1% 71.6% 70.7%
ERIA avg. 79.2% 86.8% 84.3% 84.1% 85.5%

Below are comparisons with the OECD average and the ERIA average. Large values
show a better situation.

Table 2-4: Comparison (TPES Self-sufficiency, including nuclear)

vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA
Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 1.8 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.3 1.6 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.8 2.7
Brunei 32.6 14.2 10.9 11.7 8.8 30.0 15.0 10.9 11.5 8.6 27.6 12.5 9.4 10.0 7.3
Cambodia - - 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - 1.1 1.1 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 0.9
China 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1
India 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9
Indonesia 3.5 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.4 3.2 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.3 3.0 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.0
Japan 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Korea 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lao PDR - - 1.3 1.4 1.3 - - 1.3 1.4 1.3 - - 1.1 1.2 1.1
Malaysia 1.8 2.7 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.7 2.8 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.5 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.6
Myanmar 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.9 2.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.9 2.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.7
New Zealand 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
Philippines 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6. 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7
Singapore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Thailand 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Vietnam 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.5

20
4.2. Reserve/Production ratio (R/P ratio)
When doing the calculations, R/P ratios were first calculated for coal, crude oil and
natural gas, and then the R/P ratio for fossil fuels as a whole was calculated using a
weighted average for the primary energy supply, which comprised of coal, crude oil and
natural gas.
The ERIA Total R/P ratio was over 100 years for the 1980s, but fell to about 90
years in the 1990s, about 70 years in 2000s-1 and to about 50 years in 2000s-2. The
reason for this is the increased speed of energy production increases more than the
amount of fossil fuel reserves available due to new development.

Figure 2-3: ERIA Total R/P ratio

ERIA Total Reserve/Production Ratio

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

Looking at the data by country, there are many countries showing a a decreasing
R/P ratio. This, like the trend of the ERIA average, is because the speed of energy
production increases is outpacing increases in energy reserves.
Countries showing results differing from this trend are Japan, South Korea and New
Zealand. Although these countries have few fossil fuel resources they are shown to
have a small amount of coal reserves in BP statistics. Because the amount of energy
produced from coal is falling year by year in these countries, the result is that their R/P
ratios increase.

21
Table 2-5: Results of R/P ratio
Country 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia 182.6 176.9 135.1 115.4
Brunei 29.8 34.2 25.7 24.5
Cambodia - - - -
China 131.9 80.6 53.3 35.3
India 87.0 158.3 133.9 84.5
Indonesia 92.4 37.5 40.3 49.1
Japan 18.2 33.0 100.5 75.9
South Korea 2.3 5.1 5.9 12.4
Lao PDR - - - -
Malaysia 330.6 38.7 29.5 24.8
Myanmar 108.6 134.8 45.8 31.6
New Zealand 11.7 6.8 17.2 24.9
Philippines - - - -
Singapore - - - -
Thailand 51.9 9.4 17.4 16.6
Vietnam - 36.0 29.0 25.8
OECD avg. - 66.2 60.1 52.2
ERIA avg. 109.6 88.6 67.5 49.4

The following chart shows a comparison with the OECD and ERIA averages.
Larger values show a better situation.
Table 2-6: Comparison (Reserve/ Production ratio)
vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA
Country
1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia - 2.7 2.2 2.2 - 2.8 2.2 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.3
Brunei - 0.5 0.4 0.5 - 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5
Cambodia - - - - - - - - - - - -
China - 1.2 0.9 0.7 - 1.3 0.9 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.7
India - 2.4 2.2 1.6 - 2.5 2.2 1.4 0.8 1.8 2.0 1.7
Indonesia - 0.6 0.7 0.9 - 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.6 1.0
Japan - 0.5 1.7 1.5 - 0.5 1.6 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
Korea - 0.1 0.1 0.2 - 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
Lao PDR - 0.2 - - - - - - - - - -
Malaysia - 0.3 0.5 0.5 - 0.6 0.5 0.4 3.0 0.4 0.4 0.5
Myanmar - 0.4 0.8 0.6 - 2.2 0.7 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.7 0.6
New Zealand - 0.5 0.3 0.5 - 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
Philippines - 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Singapore - 0.7 - - - - - - - - - -
Thailand - 0.8 0.3 0.3 - 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3
Vietnam - 0.9 0.5 0.5 - 0.6 0.5 0.4 - 0.4 0.4 0.5

22
4.3. Reserve/Consumption ratio (R/C ratio)
When doing these calculations, R/C ratios were first calculated for coal, crude oil
and natural gas, and then the R/C ratio for fossil fuels as a whole was calculated using a
weighted average for the primary energy supply, which comprises coal, crude oil and
natural gas.
There is a trend toward a decreasing R/C ratio within the ERIA average. The reason
for this is the the speed of energy consumption increases is outpacing increases in fossil
fuel reserves available due to new development.

Figure 2-4: ERIA Total R/C years

ERIA Total Reserve/Consumption Ratio

100

80

60

40

20

0
1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

Looking at the data by country, there are many countries showing a trend toward a
decreasing R/C ratio. This, like the trend of the ERIA average, is because the speed of
energy consumption increases is outpacing increases in energy reserves.
Countries showing results differing from this trend are Indonesia and New Zealand
from 2000s-1 onward. Both countries saw the addition of new fossil fuel reserves
outpace the expansion of their demand for the period.
Looking at the situation in 2000s-2, Australia, Brunei, Indonesia had ratios of over
100 years, signaling that they possess rich resources in comparison to domestic energy

23
demand. On the other hand, although China and India possess rich resources as well,
especially coal, their large energy consumption means that their R/C ratio is shrinking.
Coal, crude oil and natural gas R/C ratios are shown in the Annex.

Table 2-7: Results of R/C ratio

Country 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia 450.2 466.3 375.0 333.4
Brunei 1,256.2 273.0 202.3 142.1
Cambodia
China 128.3 75.5 53.0 31.5
India 81.9 148.1 114.9 69.6
Indonesia 209.3 90.2 97.0 130.5
Japan 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.4
South Korea 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.3
Lao PDR
Malaysia 164.7 108.5 63.2 51.5
Myanmar 130.2 155.4 187.8 112.5
New Zealand 12.6 8.7 24.0 29.7
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand 12.6 7.1 12.9 10.3
Vietnam 304.1 75.4 72.3
OECD avg. - 55.8 47.9 41.3
ERIA avg. 94.4 75.4 58.5 40.1

The following chart shows a comparison with the OECD and ERIA averages.
Larger values show a better situation.

24
Table 2-8: Comparison (Reserve/Consumption ratio)
vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA
Country
1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia - 8.4 7.8 8.1 - 9.1 7.3 6.5 4.8 6.2 6.4 8.3
Brunei - 4.9 4.2 3.4 - 5.3 4.0 2.8 13.3 3.6 3.5 3.5
Cambodia - - - - - - - - - - - -
China - 1.4 1.1 0.8 - 1.5 1.0 0.3 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.8
India - 2.7 2.4 1.7 - 2.9 2.2 1.4 0.9 2.0 2.0 1.7
Indonesia - 1.6 2.0 3.2 - 1.8 1.9 2.6 2.2 1.2 1.7 3.3
Japan - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Korea - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lao PDR - - - - - - - - - - - -
Malaysia - 1.9 1.3 1.2 - 2.1 1.2 1.0 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.3
Myanmar - 2.8 3.9 2.7 - 3.0 3.7 2.2 1.4 2.1 3.2 2.8
New Zealand - 0.2 0.5 0.7 - 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.7
Philippines - - - - - - - - - - - -
Singapore - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thailand - 0.1 0.3 0.2 - 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3
Vietnam - 5.5 1.6 1.7 - 5.9 1.5 1.4 - 4.0 1.3 1.8

4.4. Diversity of Import Source Countries

As there are countries among the ERIA member countries that are not importing
coal, crude oil or natural gas, the subjects of comparison for the measurement of the
diversity of import source countries is limited. The following are HHI calculation
results showing the extent of the diversification of import source countries.
Diversity increased for coal in the importing countries of China, India, and South
Korea, while concentration increased in Japan. For crude oil, while Australia, China,
New Zealand and Thailand progressed in terms of import diversity, Japan and South
Korea saw a trend toward concentration. While few countries are importing natural gas,
all such countries moved toward the diversification of import sources.

Table 2-9: Result of HHI (Diversity of import source countries)

Coal Imports Crude oil Imports Natural gas Imports
Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 2.549 2.443 1.420 1.309 1.440
Brunei
Cambodia
China 4.737 2.329 2.378 1.428 1.034 1.095 5.740
India 5.630 9.104 5.991 3.798 3.294 10.000 5.831
Indonesia
Japan 3.082 2.950 3.303 3.799 4.200 1.713 1.399 1.517 1.697 1.859 3.566 3.448 2.519 1.839 1.458
Korea 3.379 2.889 2.461 2.956 2.636 1.477 1.425 1.553 10.000 5.768 2.267 1.955
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Myanmar
New Zealand 7.409 8.102 3.135 2.096 1.411 1.300
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand 5.854 2.230 1.713 1.562 1.787 10.000 10.000 10.000
Vietnam
OECD Total 1.484 1.780 1.543 1.468 1.516 983 691 696 698 704 2.459 1.660 1.531 1.135 964

25
 The following shows a comparison with the OECD average by time period. With
HHI, the better situation is shown by lower values, but as inverse numbers have been
used for HHI for the purpose of this comparison, the large values here show the better
situation.

Table 2-10: Comparison (Diversity of import source countries)

Coal Imports Crude oil Imports Natural gas Imports

Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5
Brunei
Cambodia
China 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.2
India 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2
Indonesia
Japan 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7
Korea 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Myanmar
New Zealand 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1
Vietnam

4.5. Diversity of Energy Sources of TPES / Electricity

First the extent of diversity among energy sources in TPES and electricity were
calculated, and concretely, in HHI. Next, a simple average of the two HHI values was
taken, and this was used to calculate total values for the diversity of energy sources of
TPES and electricity. HHI calculation results for TPES and electricity individually are
shown in the Annex.
For ERIA as a whole, although diversification increased from the 1970s and 1980s,
since then concentration has been progressing. One reason for this may be an increase
in the consumption of coal by power stations, which resulted in a worsening in the
extent of diversification of electricity supply sources.

26
Figure 2-5: ERIA Total HHI (Diversity of energy sources)
ERIA Total Diversity by energy sources
4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

Excluding China and Thailand, diversification increased throughout the period of

evaluation. The reason for increased concentration in China and Thailand is thought to
be a surge of coal and natural gas in the power station sector. Limiting the analysis to
only electricity, and excluding China and Thailand, the concentration of energy usage
increased in many countries, including India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia
and Myanmar.
Table 2-11: Result of HHI (Diversity of energy sources)
((TPES + Generation)/ 2)
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia 4,572 4,571 5,048 4,917 4,829
Brunei 9,647 8,987 8,653 7,911 8,155
Cambodia - - 10,000 9,637 9,589
China 4,066 4,369 5,185 5,331 5,718
India 4,286 4,217 4,175 4,079 3,984
Indonesia 5,310 3,725 2,923 2,802 2,858
Japan 5,127 2,960 2,693 2,567 2,508
South Korea 6,286 3,551 3,606 3,377 3,245
Lao PDR - - 8,419 8,032 7,467
Malaysia 6,293 4,432 4,020 4,708 4,198
Myanmar 5,801 5,217 5,520 5,136 4,999
New Zealand 4,350 4,082 3,756 3,203 2,882
Philippines 6,127 3,348 3,202 2,338 2,230

27
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Singapore 9,996 9,997 8,123 6,797 7,319
Thailand 5,011 3,261 3,207 4,286 4,168
Vietnam 7,148 5,440 5,869 4,188 3,580
OECD avg. 3,018 2,770 2,633 2,592 2,521
ERIA avg. 3,120 2,648 2,840 3,215 3,662

The following is a comparison with OECD and ERIA averages. With HHI, the
better situation is shown by lower values, but as inverse numbers have been used for
HHI for the purpose of this comparison, the large values here show the better situation.
HHI calculation results for TPES and electricity individually are shown in the Annex.

Table 2-12: Comparison (Diversity of energy sources)

((TPES + Generation)/ 2)

vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA

Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8
Brunei 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
Cambodia - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - 0.3 0.3 0.4
China 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6
India 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Indonesia 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.3
Japan 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
Korea 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1
Lao PDR - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - 0.3 0.3 0.4 - - 0.3 0.4 0.5
Malaysia 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9
Myanmar 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7
New Zealand 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3
Philippines 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.6
Singapore 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5
Thailand 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9
Vietnam 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.0

4.6. Middle East Dependence of Oil and Gas

The number of ERIA member countries that did evaluations of oil and gas was limited.
The following shows calculation results. Japan, South Korea, and Thailand show
trends toward increased dependency on the Middle East. The reason seems to be that
while imports from Southeast Asia appear to be leveling out, imports from the Middle
East, rich as it is in natural resources, have been increasing. On the other hand, the
dependency of Australia on the Middle East for its oil decreased significantly, while
China and New Zealand maintained nearly steady values.

28
Table 2-13: Middle East Dependence rate
Crude oil Natural gas
Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

Australia 85.4% 68.4% 35.5% 20.0% 15.4% - - - - -

Brunei - - - - - - - - - -
Cambodia - - - - - - - - - -
China - - 47.8% 48.3% 47.1% - - - - 4.2%
100.0
India - - - - - - - - 79.9%
%
Indonesia - - - - - - - - - -
Japan 77.6% 70.3% 79.1% 88.1% 88.1% 5.7% 8.7% 10.4% 22.0% 24.7%
South Korea - - 74.7% 77.8% 83.3% - 0.0% 0.9% 49.0% 47.7%
Lao PDR - - - - - - - - - -
Malaysia - - - - - - - - - -
Myanmar - - - - - - - - - -
New Zealand - 64.1% 70.8% 59.8% 64.1% - - - - -
Philippines - - - - - - - - - -
Singapore - - - - - - - - - -
Thailand - 58.0% 71.0% 77.7% 80.3% - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Vietnam - - - - - - - - - -
OECD avg. 55.1% 38.2% 39.0% 36.5% 33.2% 0.4% 1.4% 2.0% 6.2% 7.8%

The following is a comparison with the OECD average by time period. With
dependency on the Middle East, the better situation is shown by lower values, but as
inverse numbers have been used, the large values here show the better situation.
Table 2-14: Comparison (Middle East Dependence)
Crude oil Natural gas
Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

Australia 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.1 - - - - -

Brunei - - - - - - - - - -
Cambodia - - - - - - - - - -
China - - 0.8 0.8 0.7 - - - - 1.9
India - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.1
Indonesia - - - - - - - - - -
Japan 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
South Korea - - 0.5 0.5 0.4 - - 2.3 0.1 0.2
Lao PDR - - - - - - - - - -

29
 Crude oil Natural gas
Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

Malaysia - - - - - - - - - -
Myanmar - - - - - - - - - -
New Zealand - 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 - - - - -
Philippines - - - - - - - - - -
Singapore - - - - - - - - - -
Thailand - 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 - - - - -
Vietnam - - - - - - - - - -

4.7. Reserve Margin of Generation Capacity

The Reserve margin of generation capacity for ERIA as a whole was above 30% in
the 1980s, and then shrank to close to 20% in the 1990s. After that, it rose again to over
30% in 2000s-2.

Figure 2-6: ERIA Total Reserve margin of generation capacity

ERIA Total Reserve maigin
of generation capacity
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

Looking at the data per country, there are variations in the trends of reserve margins.
It is thought that there are a variety of reasons for such differences, including progress
in policies, and investments, in power sources development, the situation of competition
in the power generation field, and so on.

30
Table 2-15: Reserve margin of generation capacity
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia 32.6% 36.5% 29.0% 27.5% 25.7%
Brunei - - - - -
Cambodia - - - - -
China - - - 34.9% 37.0%
India - - 35.8% 35.5% 36.2%
Indonesia - - 33.6% 19.0% 10.1%
Japan 23.7% 29.2% 20.0% 24.1% 26.4%
South Korea 31.9% 37.9% 14.9% 14.5% 10.3%
Lao PDR - - - - -
Malaysia - - 0.9% 26.4% 32.1%
Myanmar - - - - -
New Zealand - - 31.5% 31.9% 31.3%
Philippines - - 41.8% 44.7% 43.4%
Singapore - - - - -
Thailand - - 20.5% 24.9% 21.9%
Vietnam - 24.3% 34.7% 18.2% 15.1%
OECD avg. 31.7% 35.3% 29.0% 29.1% 31.7%
ERIA avg. 25.1% 31.0% 21.8% 27.7% 32.2%

The following chart shows a comparison with the OECD and ERIA averages.
Larger values show a better situation.

Table 2-16: Comparison (Reserve margin of generation capacity)

vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA
Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.8
Brunei
Cambodia
China 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1
India 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.1
Indonesia 1.2 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.6 0.3 1.5 0.7 0.3
Japan 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8
Korea 1.0 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.0 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.3
Lao PDR
Malaysia 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
Myanmar
New Zealand 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.0
Philippines 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.3
Singapore
Thailand 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7
Vietnam 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.6 0.7 0.5

31
4.8. Power Outage Frequency/Duration
Data on power outage frequency and power outage duration could only be obtained
from a limited number of countries. The following shows the situations for these
countries.

Table 2-17: Power outage frequency

Unit: times/ year
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia - - -- 2.24 2.10
Brunei - - - - -
Cambodia - - - - -
China - - - - -
India - - - - -
Indonesia - - - 13.88 11.15
Japan 1.60 0.85 0.25 0.20 0.31
South Korea - 4.25 1.26 0.53 -
Lao PDR - - - - -
Malaysia - - - 1.43 0.85
Myanmar - - - - -
New Zealand - - 2.01 1.66 2.44
Philippines - - - - -
Singapore - - - - -
Thailand - - - - -
Vietnam - - - - -

Table 2-18: Power outage duration

Unit: minutes/ year
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia - - - 212.1 246.4
Brunei - - - - -
Cambodia - - - - -
China - - - - -
India - - - - -
Indonesia - - - 13.6 21.0
Japan 226.8 121.5 40.4 28.7 115.6
South Korea - 494.4 122.2 19.5 18.0
Lao PDR - - - - -
Malaysia - - 552.7 191.5 72.8
Myanmar - - - - -

32
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
New Zealand - - 5.0 4.7 21.8
Philippines - - - - -
Singapore - - - - -
Thailand - - - - -
Vietnam - - - - -

4.9. Commercial Energy Access Ratio

Access to commercial energy has improved for ERIA as a whole over all time periods.

Figure 2-7: ERIA Total Commercial energy access ratios

ERIA Total Commercial Energy Access
ratio
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

The trend here is similar no matter the country observed. Access to commercial
energy improved in all countries.

Table 2-19: Commercial energy access ratios

Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia - 98.5% 96.2% 96.3% 96.9%
Brunei 98.1% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Cambodia - - 21.9% 28.2% 33.7%
China 65.7% 72.6% 79.6% 85.0% 90.5%
India 40.8% 50.6% 62.9% 69.0% 73.7%
Indonesia 38.4% 54.1% 65.3% 71.0% 73.6%
Japan - 99.5% 99.5% 99.5% 99.5%

33
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
South Korea - - 99.8% 99.9% 99.9%
Lao PDR - - 25.7% 31.2% 38.3%
Malaysia - 94.6% 96.8% 97.6% 98.0%
Myanmar 28.9% 29.5% 26.1% 31.3% 36.4%
New Zealand 97.1% 95.8% 94.9% 93.9% 94.3%
Philippines 65.0% 68.7% 77.9% 85.5% 87.4%
Singapore 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Thailand 76.9% 81.3% 89.2% 91.4% 91.3%
Vietnam 27.3% 26.7% 33.2% 49.7% 59.5%
OECD avg. 99.2% 98.8% 97.9% 97.8% 97.7%
ERIA avg. 58.4% 73.6% 81.8% 85.2% 88.4%

The following chart shows a comparison with the OECD and ERIA averages.
Larger values show a better situation.

Table 2-20: Comparison (Commercial energy access ratio)

vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA

Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1
Brunei 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2
Cambodia - - 0.2 0.3 0.3 - - 0.2 0.3 0.3 - - 0.3 0.3 0.4
China 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
India 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9
Indonesia 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9
Japan - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2
Korea - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 1.2 1.2 1.2
Lao PDR - - 0.3 0.3 0.4 - - 0.3 0.3 0.4 - - 0.3 0.4 0.4
Malaysia - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1
Myanmar 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4
New Zealand 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1
Philippines 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
Singapore 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2
Thailand 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Vietnam 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7

In Working Group meetings, the adoption of the electrification rate was proposed
instead of commercial energy access. However, it is not easy to obtain data for
electrification rates in line with a cohesive definition. The IEA provided electrification
rate data to the World Energy Outlook (WEO) in 2000, 2005 and 2009, and this data is
shown below as a reference. The ERIA Total Electrification rate is calculated using a
weighted average for population, assuming the figures for OECD countries without the
IEA data for the WEO to be 100%.

34
Table 2-21: Electrification rate
2000 (WEO 2002) 2005 (WEO 2006) 2009 (WEO 2011)
Population Population Population
Electrification Electrification Electrification
Country without without without
rate rate rate
electricity electricity electricity
(%) (million) (%) (million) (%) (million)
Australia - - - - - -
Brunei 99.2% 0.0 99.2% 0.0 99.7% 0.0
Cambodia 15.8% 10.3 20.1% 10.9 24.0% 11.3
China 98.6% 17.6 99.4% 8.5 99.4% 8.0
India 43.0% 579.1 55.5% 487.2 75.0% 288.8
Indonesia 53.4% 98.0 54.0% 101.2 64.5% 81.6
Japan - - - - - -
South Korea - - - - - -
Lao PDR - - - - 55.0% 2.6
Malaysia 96.9% 0.7 97.8% 0.6 99.4% 0.2
Myanmar 5.0% 45.3 11.3% 45.1 13.0% 43.5
New Zealand - - - - - -
Philippines 87.4% 9.5 80.5% 16.2 89.7% 9.5
Singapore 100.0% - 100.0% - 100.0% -
Thailand 82.1% 10.9 99.0% 0.6 99.3% 0.5
Vietnam 75.8% 19.0 84.2% 13.2 97.6% 2.1
ERIA avg. 73.5% 790.4 78.2% 683.5 86.3% 448.1
Note: WEO provided only Non-OECD Electrification rate.

4.10. TPES/GDP Ratio

The TPES/GDP ratio fell from the 1970s to the 1990s, showing, in other words, that
energy efficiency was improving. However, from then through to 2000s-2, TPES/GDP
ratio has increased, indicating a worsening of energy efficiency. Up until the 1990s the
GDP growth rate was higher than the growth in the energy consumption rate, but since
then there has been a reversal in. Reasons for the reversal are the increasing energy
demand in China and the lower GDP growth in Japan. In terms of energy demand,
China is dominant in the East Asia region and their share is about half. On the other
hand, in terms of GDP, Japan is dominant and their share is also about half of the total.
With these factors in mind the increase in East Asian energy demand, mainly led by
China is higher than that of GDP growth which is dominated by Japan. Thus the ratio of
TPES to GDP worsened throughout the 2000s time-period.

35
Figure 2-8: ERIA Total TPES/GDP ratio
ERIA Total TPES per GDP
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

The following shows the TPES/GDP ratio for ERIA member countries. Most
countries show a trend of improvements in energy efficiency over the evaluation period.
Brunei and Malaysia, however, showed a worsening in energy efficiency. New
Zealand’s energy efficiency worsened until the 1990s, and improved after that.

Table 2-22: TPES/GDP ratio

Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

Australia 0.321 0.299 0.280 0.250 0.243
Brunei 0.165 0.313 0.402 0.382 0.483
Cambodia - - 1.158 0.879 0.665
China 3.676 2.348 1.307 0.877 0.800
India 1.322 1.248 1.102 0.913 0.776
Indonesia 1.053 0.878 0.871 0.912 0.803
Japan 0.146 0.114 0.109 0.108 0.099
South Korea 0.331 0.317 0.348 0.333 0.304
Lao PDR - - 1.096 0.897 0.844
Malaysia 0.417 0.463 0.492 0.514 0.511
Myanmar 2.797 2.270 1.958 1.114 0.827
New Zealand 0.269 0.287 0.328 0.286 0.255
Philippines 0.509 0.498 0.535 0.470 0.363
Singapore 0.266 0.222 0.275 0.192 0.124

36
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Thailand 0.658 0.517 0.542 0.612 0.593
Vietnam 2.178 1.911 1.369 1.168 1.074
OECD avg. 0.299 0.247 0.217 0.196 0.180
ERIA avg. 0.413 0.366 0.356 0.359 0.379

The following is a comparison with OECD and ERIA averages. With the
TPES/GDP ratio, the better situation is shown by lower values, but as inverse numbers
have been used for the TPES/GDP ratio for the purpose of this comparison, the large
values here show the better situation.

Table 2-23: Comparison (TPES/GDP ratio)

vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA

Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Brunei 1.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 2.5 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8
Cambodia - - 0.2 0.2 0.3 - - 0.2 0.3 0.3 - - 0.3 0.4 0.6
China 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
India 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5
Indonesia 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
Japan 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.8
Korea 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2
Lao PDR - - 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - 0.2 0.3 0.3 - - 0.3 0.4 0.4
Malaysia 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7
Myanmar 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5
New Zealand 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.5
Philippines 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0
Singapore 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.8 3.0
Thailand 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
Vietnam 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3

4.11. TFEC/GDP Ratio

TEC/GDP ratio shrank across all time periods, indicating progress in the
improvement of energy efficiency at the end-user level.

37
Figure 2-9: ERIA Total TFEC/GDP Ratio
ERIA Total TFEC per GDP
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

The following shows TFEC/GDP ratio for ERIA member countries. Most countries
exhibited trends toward improved energy efficiency over the evaluation period.

Table 2-24: TFEC/GDP Ratio

Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia 0.218 0.197 0.182 0.159 0.109
Brunei 0.026 0.056 0.092 0.095 0.168
Cambodia - - 1.027 0.757 0.412
China 3.125 1.933 0.985 0.587 0.371
India 1.186 1.047 0.823 0.622 0.373
Indonesia 0.932 0.753 0.644 0.683 0.431
Japan 0.105 0.076 0.073 0.072 0.050
South Korea 0.258 0.223 0.246 0.224 0.148
Lao PDR - - 0.996 0.816 0.544
Malaysia 0.283 0.278 0.297 0.319 0.234
Myanmar 2.504 1.967 1.729 0.993 0.565
New Zealand 0.198 0.211 0.249 0.218 0.139
Philippines 0.411 0.340 0.358 0.284 0.158
Singapore 0.105 0.107 0.095 0.097 0.072
Thailand 0.841 0.608 0.630 0.603 0.385
Vietnam 2.067 1.760 1.270 1.039 0.677
OECD avg. 0.222 0.176 0.149 0.135 0.094
ERIA avg. 0.336 0.285 0.259 0.245 0.249

38
 The following chart shows a comparison with the OECD and ERIA averages. with
the TFEC/GDP ratio, the better situation is shown by lower values, but as inverse
numbers have been used for the TFEC/GDP ratio for the purpose of this comparison, the
large values here show the better situation.

Table 2-25: Comparison (TFEC/GDP ratio)

vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA

Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.2 3.4
Brunei 11.4 4.5 2.4 2.1 1.1 5.9 2.8 1.7 1.6 0.9 15.6 6.6 3.8 3.7 2.2
Cambodia - - 0.2 0.3 0.4 - - 0.1 0.2 0.4 - - 0.3 0.5 0.9
China 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0
India 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.0
Indonesia 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9
Japan 2.9 3.3 3.0 2.7 3.6 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 3.1 3.9 4.8 4.8 4.9 7.5
Korea 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.5
Lao PDR - - 0.2 0.2 0.3 - - 0.2 0.2 0.3 - - 0.4 0.4 0.7
Malaysia 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.6
Myanmar 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7
New Zealand 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.1 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.6 2.7
Philippines 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 2.4
Singapore 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.1 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.6 5.1
Thailand 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0
Vietnam 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6

4.12. Days of On-land Oil Stocks

IEA member countries are supposed to sustain emergency oil stocks equivalent to
over 90 days of their net oil imports. Data on emergency stocks is available for OECD
countries, but not for non-OECD countries other than Myanmar.
The following shows a comparison of days of on-land oil stocks against the OECD
average. Only Japan exceeded the OECD average.

Note: This analysis is based on the data obtained from the “Monthly oil market report” of the IEA.
The definition of “Days” in the “Monthly oil market report” is different from that calculated by
using net imports of oil.
(See page 14)—shall adjust

39
Table 2-26: Days of on-land oil stocks
1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Country vs. vs. vs. vs.
Days Days Days Days
OECD OECD OECD OECD
Australia 64 0.7 48 0.5 40 0.5 40 0.5
Brunei
Cambodia
China
India
Indonesia
Japan 101 1.1 103 1.2 105 1.3 122 1.4
South Korea 34 0.4 53 0.7 66 0.7
Lao PDR 0.0
Malaysia
Myanmar 71 0.8
New Zealand 74 0.8 69 0.8 59 0.8 50 0.6
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
OECD avg. 95 88 79 89

4.13. CO2 Emission

The CO2 emissions/ TPES, CO2 emissions/fossil fuel, CO2 emissions/GDP ratios,
and CO2 emissions per capita were adopted as measurements by which to evaluate CO2
emissions.
ERIA’s total CO2 emissions/TPES ratio increased with time. The reason for this is
thought to be an expansion in the use of commercial energy.
ERIA’s total CO2 emissions/fossil fuel ratio hardly changed at all, signifying that
there was no major change in the composition of fossil fuel usage or energy use
efficiency.
ERIA’s total CO2 emissions/GDP ratio shrank from the 1970s to the 1980s, but has
basically been on an increasing trend after that. The reason for this is thought to be the
dulling of economic growth which was led by a stagnant Japanese economy and,
conversely, the increased speed at which energy demand expanded, dominated by China.
ERIA’s total CO2 emissions per capita increased greatly over the years. One reason

40
for the increase is thought to be the shift toward commercial energy from firewood and
other energies calculated to have zero CO2 emissions, along with economic growth.

Figure 2-10: ERIA Total CO2 Emission

ERIA Total CO2 Emission/ TPES ERIA Total CO2 Emission/ Fossil Fuel

3.0 3.5

2.5 3.0

2.5
2.0

2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

0.0 0.0
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

ERIA Total CO2 Emission/ GDP ERIA Total CO2 Emission/ Population

1.2 3.5

1.0 3.0

2.5
0.8

2.0
0.6
1.5
0.4
1.0

0.2 0.5

0.0 0.0
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2

The following are the calculation results for CO2 emissions per country, and their
comparison with the OECD and ERIA averages. With CO2 emissions, the better
situation is shown by lower values, but as inverse numbers have been used for CO2
emissions for the purpose of this comparison, the large values here show the better
situation.
Comparing differences in CO2 emissions per primary energy supply source in the
1970s and 2000s-2, only Japan, South Korea and New Zealand decreased CO2

41
emissions. Other countries increased emissions over the period. It is thought that one
reason for this is the improvement of energy use efficiency due to the increased use of
nuclear energy and other non-CO2 emitting energy sources over the period, as well as
the increased use of low-carbon natural gas among fossil fuels and improved energy use
efficiency.
Table 2-27: CO2 Emissions/TPES ratio
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia 2.90 2.98 3.04 3.23 3.09
Brunei 1.92 1.93 1.96 2.01 1.55
Cambodia - - 0.53 0.76 0.91
China 2.19 2.49 2.80 2.87 3.05
India 1.34 1.67 2.02 2.14 2.29
Indonesia 0.93 1.27 1.51 1.77 1.87
Japan 2.76 2.45 2.33 2.33 2.34
South Korea 3.07 2.76 2.41 2.24 2.22
Lao PDR - - 0.34 0.71 0.67
Malaysia 2.11 2.03 2.27 2.40 2.47
Myanmar 0.50 0.49 0.52 0.68 0.76
New Zealand 1.99 1.78 1.71 1.89 1.92
Philippines 1.56 1.29 1.65 1.79 1.77
Singapore 2.29 2.43 2.04 2.19 2.58
Thailand 1.37 1.63 2.17 2.23 2.24
Vietnam 0.81 0.81 0.92 1.43 1.70
OECD Total 2.71 2.55 2.42 2.38 2.34
ERIA Total 2.17 2.25 2.41 2.50 2.66

vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA

Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9
Brunei 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.7
Cambodia - - 4.6 3.2 2.6 - - 4.7 3.3 2.7 - - 4.5 3.3 2.9
China 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
India 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2
Indonesia 2.9 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.3 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.3 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4
Japan 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 3.1 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1
Korea 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2
Lao PDR - - 7.1 3.3 3.5 - - 7.3 3.5 3.7 - - 7.1 3.5 4.0
Malaysia 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1
Myanmar 5.4 5.2 4.7 3.5 3.1 4.9 5.0 4.8 3.7 3.3 4.3 4.6 4.7 3.7 3.5
New Zealand 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4
Philippines 1.7 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.5
Singapore 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.0
Thailand 2.0 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.8 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.2
Vietnam 3.3 3.1 2.6 1.7 1.4 3.1 3.1 2.7 1.7 1.5 2.7 2.8 2.6 1.7 1.6

The CO2 emissions/fossil fuel ratio decreased in every country.in the 1970s and 2000s-2,

42
Table 2-28: CO2 Emissions/Fossil fuel primary supply
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia 3.15 3.20 3.24 3.43 3.28
Brunei 1.96 1.94 1.96 2.01 2.27
Cambodia - - 2.95 2.98 2.95
China 3.38 3.48 3.61 3.50 3.52
India 3.43 3.38 3.30 3.22 3.23
Indonesia 2.64 2.68 2.49 2.89 2.86
Japan 2.90 2.82 2.84 2.85 2.85
South Korea 3.10 3.07 2.80 2.74 2.74
Lao PDR - - 2.32 3.81 2.09
Malaysia 2.62 2.35 2.47 2.55 2.60
Myanmar 2.93 2.73 2.61 2.54 2.48
New Zealand 2.88 2.61 2.60 2.77 2.88
Philippines 2.93 3.15 3.03 3.11 3.12
Singapore 2.29 2.43 2.02 2.12 2.59
Thailand 2.82 2.98 2.94 2.79 2.79
Vietnam 3.48 3.62 3.40 3.25 3.20
OECD Total 2.93 2.94 2.91 2.88 2.86
ERIA Total 3.14 3.19 3.22 3.20 3.27

vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA

Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0
Brunei 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4
Cambodia - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 1.1 1.1 1.1
China 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
India 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
Indonesia 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.1
Japan 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Korea 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2
Lao PDR - - 1.3 0.8 1.4 - - 1.3 0.8 1.4 - - 1.4 0.8 1.6
Malaysia 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3
Myanmar 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3
New Zealand 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1
Philippines 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0
Singapore 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.3
Thailand 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2
Vietnam 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0

The ratio of CO2 Emissions to GDP decreased in Australia, China, Japan, South
Korea, Myanmar, and the Philippines in the 1970s and 2000s-2, and increased or
remained at a nearly steady level over the years in other ERIA member countries.

43
Table 2-29 CO2 Emissions /GDP ratio
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia 0.93 0.89 0.85 0.81 0.75
Brunei 0.32 0.60 0.79 0.77 1.10
Cambodia - - 0.61 0.66 0.60
China 8.07 5.84 3.66 2.52 2.44
India 1.77 2.08 2.23 1.96 1.78
Indonesia 0.98 1.11 1.32 1.61 1.50
Japan 0.40 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.23
South Korea 1.02 0.88 0.84 0.75 0.68
Lao PDR - - 0.37 0.64 0.56
Malaysia 0.88 0.94 1.12 1.23 1.26
Myanmar 1.41 1.12 1.01 0.76 0.63
New Zealand 0.54 0.51 0.56 0.54 0.49
Philippines 0.80 0.64 0.88 0.84 0.64
Singapore 0.61 0.54 0.56 0.42 0.32
Thailand 0.90 0.84 1.18 1.36 1.33
Vietnam 1.78 1.55 1.26 1.67 1.83
OECD Total 0.81 0.63 0.52 0.47 0.42
ERIA Total 0.90 0.83 0.86 0.90 1.01

vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA

Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3
Brunei 2.6 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 1.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.5 2.8 1.4 1.1 1.2 0.9
Cambodia - - 0.9 0.7 0.7 - - 0.9 0.8 0.9 - - 1.4 1.4 1.7
China 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4
India 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6
Indonesia 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7
Japan 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.2 3.0 3.4 3.6 4.4
Korea 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.5
Lao PDR - - 1.4 0.7 0.8 - - 1.5 0.9 1.0 - - 2.3 1.4 1.8
Malaysia 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6. 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8
Myanmar 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.6
New Zealand 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.7 2.1
Philippines 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.6
Singapore 1.3 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.1 3.1
Thailand 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8
Vietnam 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6

All ERIA member countries saw increases in CO2 emissions per capita in the 1970s
and 2000s-2,. Driving this trend were increases in energy consumption per person,
along with economic growth and rising living standards.

44
Table 2-30: CO2 Emissions per capita
Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
Australia 12.55 13.98 15.87 18.19 18.30
Brunei 8.07 13.33 14.67 13.99 19.49
Cambodia - - 0.15 0.23 0.30
China 1.17 1.64 2.32 2.97 4.72
India 0.39 0.55 0.82 1.00 1.24
Indonesia 0.30 0.53 1.01 1.40 1.59
Japan 7.84 7.37 8.94 9.42 9.19
South Korea 2.30 3.80 7.32 9.41 10.22
Lao PDR - - 0.10 0.23 0.26
Malaysia 1.32 2.04 3.82 5.23 6.30
Myanmar 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.24
New Zealand 5.64 5.80 6.92 7.97 7.70
Philippines 0.69 0.58 0.80 0.87 0.77
Singapore 4.04 5.99 10.36 10.19 9.61
Thailand 0.57 0.81 2.12 2.94 3.43
Vietnam 0.30 0.30 0.38 0.78 1.15
OECD Total 10.98 10.37 10.57 10.93 10.51
ERIA Total 1.30 1.54 2.09 2.52 3.33

vs. OECD vs. OECD (whole periods) vs. ERIA

Country
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1 2000s 2
Australia 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Brunei 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Cambodia - - 69.2 47.2 35.0 - - 69.8 46.1 35.5 - - 13.7 10.9 11.1
China 9.3 6.3 4.6 3.7 2.2 9.1 6.5 4.6 3.6 2.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7
India 28.4 18.8 12.8 11.0 8.5 27.6 19.3 12.9 10.7 8.6 3.4 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.7
Indonesia 36.2 19.4 10.4 7.8 6.6 35.1 20.0 10.5 7.6 6.7 4.3 2.9 2.1 1.8 2.1
Japan 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4
Korea 4.8 2.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 4.6 2.8 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
Lao PDR - - 106.0 46.8 40.8 - - 106.8 45.6 41.3 - - 21.0 10.8 12.9
Malaysia 8.3 5.1 2.8 2.1 1.7 8.1 5.2 2.8 2.0 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5
Myanmar 77.0 75.5 78.0 56.4 44.4 74.8 77.5 78.6 55.0 45.0 9.1 11.2 15.4 13.0 14.1
New Zealand 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
Philippines 16.0 17.9 13.3 12.6 13.6 15.6 18.4 13.4 12.3 13.8 1.9 2.7 2.6 2.9 4.3
Singapore 2.7 1.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 2.6 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3
Thailand 19.2 12.8 5.0 3.7 3.1 18.6 13.1 5.0 3.6 3.1 2.3 1.9 1.0 0.9 1.0
Vietnam 36.0 34.4 27.8 14.1 9.1 35.0 35.4 28.1 13.7 9.3 4.3 5.1 5.5 3.2 2.9

45
5. Conclusion
East Asia is composed of countries with very different levels of economic
development and fossil fuel reserves. For the indices where data can be obtained from
eight or more countries, the average, minimum and maximum values for ERIA are
shown in the chart below. Great differences can be seen in these values, demonstrating
the diverse situation of energy security in East Asia countries.

Table 2-31: ERIA Average, Max and Min of ESIs

ESI 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
TPES self-sufficiency (including Nuclear) ERIA avg. 79% 87% 84% 84% 85%
Max 2186% 1089% 796% 837% 624%
Min 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Reserve/ Production ratio ERIA avg. - 110 89 68 49
Max - 331 177 135 115
Min - 0 0 0 0
Reserve/ Consumption ratio ERIA avg. - 94 75 59 40
Max - 1,256 466 375 333
Min - 0 0 0 0
HHI (Diversity of energy sources) ERIA avg. 3,120 2,648 2,840 3,215 3,662
Max 9,996 9,997 10,000 9,637 9,589
Min 4,066 2,960 2,693 2,338 2,230
Reserve margin of generation capacity ERIA avg. 25% 31% 22% 28% 32%

Max 33% 38% 42% 45% 43%

Min 24% 24% 1% 15% 10%

Commercial energy access ratio ERIA avg. 58% 74% 82% 85% 88%
Max 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Min 27% 27% 22% 28% 34%
TPES/ GDP ratio ERIA avg. 0.41 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.38
Max 3.68 2.35 1.96 1.17 1.07
Min 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10
TFEC/ GDP ratio ERIA avg. 0.336 0.285 0.259 0.245 0.249
Max 3.125 1.967 1.729 1.039 0.565
Min 0.026 0.056 0.073 0.072 0.050
CO2 emissions / TPES ratio ERIA avg. 2.17 2.25 2.41 2.50 2.66
Max 3.07 2.98 3.04 3.23 3.13
Min 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.68 0.77
CO2 smissions / fossil fuel ratio ERIA avg. 3.14 3.19 3.22 3.20 3.27
Max 3.48 3.62 3.61 3.81 3.52
Min 1.96 1.94 1.96 2.01 2.09

46
 ESI 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s-1 2000s-2
CO2 smissions / GDP ratio ERIA avg. 0.90 0.83 0.86 0.90 1.00
Max 8.07 5.84 3.66 2.52 2.49
Min 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.23
CO2 smissions / capita ERIA avg. 1.30 1.54 2.09 2.52 3.27
Max 12.55 13.98 15.87 18.19 19.20
Min 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.25

The following is a summary of the special characteristics of the major ESIs.

- ERIA Total TPES self-sufficiency (including nuclear) has been over 80% since
the 1980s. This is natural for countries with high fossil fuel self-sufficiency
ratios, and there are also countries with low fossil fuel resources that are
complementing their self-sufficiency ratios with nuclear energy and other
energy sources.
- There is a trend among fossil fuel rich countries toward shrinking R/P and R/C
ratios. The background to this is the increase in the speed of domestic energy
consumption compared with the speed of development of new energy resources.
- ERIA Total Diversity by energy sources showed a concentrating trend toward
coal. The background to this is the fact that East Asian countries are rich in coal
and there is an increasing use of coal, mainly in the power generation sector.
- The ERIA Total Reserve margin of generation capacity demonstrated an
increasing trend, but there were also countries where this value fell greatly.
- The Commercial Energy access ratio, and the electrification rate, which is
shown as a reference, rose in all countries.
- ERIA Total TPES/GDP ratio and TFEC/GDP ratio values fell, indicating an
improvement in energy efficiency.
- Many countries demonstrated worsening measurements related to CO2
Emissions. The background to this is the increasing consumption of fossil fuels
along with economic growth and improving standards of living.

47