We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

Policymakers are struggling to determine the energy security of developing countries because of a lack of consistency in energy indices, according to a study from India.

The paper by the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR) in Mumbai, shows that the energy security rankings of different countries vary wildly from one index to the next, especially for countries that are largely energy insecure.
The study compared the three most commonly used energy indices, the Energy Sustainability Index (ESI), the International Index of Energy Security Risk (ES Risk) and the Energy Architecture Performance Index (EAPI).
It found that India, for example, has better energy security than Russia, China, Japan, Brazil and South Korea in the ES Risk 2013 index, but comes ahead of only China in the EAPI 2014 index and last among these countries using ESI’s methodology.
The paper states that these inconsistencies are down to a large variation in the indicators selected to work out each index. There are also differences in the way each indicator is weighed and the method used to calculate the indices, the authors say.

“Everybody is looking at certain aspects of energy security and not at energy security in its entirety.”

Kapil Narula, IGIDR 

For example, Kapil Narula, the lead author of the paper and an IGIDR researcher, says: “Energy intensity, defined as total primary energy consumed per dollar of GDP [gross domestic product], is one such indicator used in calculating each index. However, the weight given by each of the three indices to this indicator is starkly different.”
Such differences are magnified when indicators are being extrapolated, he adds.
The paper found that developing countries where energy security is generally lower are most affected by such differences in calculation. At the other extreme, nations such as Canada, Germany and the United States have fewer inconsistencies because they have more robust energy systems. This means they are less sensitive to variation in single indicators, the authors say.
The inconsistencies are a concern because they make it harder for policymakers to correctly assess the extent to which a country has the necessary attributes to achieve its energy policy objectives, the paper warns.
“Everybody is looking at certain aspects of energy security and not at energy security in its entirety,” says Narula.
Indian policymakers are wary of energy indices due to the variation in their scope and meaning, says Rajiv Panda, a researcher at the Integrated Research and Action for Development think-tank.
“Even if they have been included in policy discourse, they have not impacted policymaking in any tangible manner,” he says.
But the IGIDR study says that existing energy indices are still useful because countries with a high ranking on all indices generally have more-secure energy systems.
The authors urge governments to collaborate more on creating indices that consider their specific needs, and give a reliable picture of energy security across different energy systems in developing countries.
Link to the IGIDR study

Related topics