Zulfiqar Ali MS Thesis

Biomass to Bioenergy – A Market Analysis of
Pakistan
By
Zulfiqar Ali
00000204649
Session 2017-19
Supervised by
Dr Rabia Liaquat
A Thesis Submitted to the US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies

in Energy in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTERS of SCIENCE
in
Thermal Energy Engineering
US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST)
H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
October 2020
Biomass to Bioenergy – A Market Analysis of
Pakistan
By
Zulfiqar Ali
00000204649
Session 2017-19
Supervised by
Dr Rabia Liaquat
A Thesis Submitted to the US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies

in Energy in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTERS of SCIENCE
in
Thermal Energy Engineering
US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST)
H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
October 2020
i
ii
iii
Acknowledgements
All praises belong to the Almighty Allah, with His blessings I am able to complete this
thesis. I would like to extend my earnest gratitude to my supervisor Dr Rabia Liaquat
for the unceasing support during my MS research phase. Her priceless guidance and
constructive remarks and suggestions throughout the thesis work contributed to the
success of this research.
I would like to extend my appreciation and gratitude to Dr Asif Hussain Khoja for
his support and mentorship in preparing this manuscript and other publications.
Besides Dr Asif, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Dr Majid Ali
and Dr Kafait Ullah for their insightful comments, and objective criticism that helped
in improving the research work.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family: my parents, Mr and Mrs Sultan
Ali and my siblings, for their relentless support and encouragement throughout my
life. Also not forgetting those who indirectly contributed to this thesis, your
contribution means a lot.
iv
Abstract
Bioenergy currently is the largest source of renewable energy worldwide. In Pakistan,
modern bioenergy is not utilized to its full extent. If utilized fully, bioenergy can help
Pakistan become secure in terms of energy, add to economic development and help in
mitigating climatic changes. Being carbon neutral, bioenergy can help achieve
Pakistan’s intended nationally determined contribution in the United Nation’s
Conference of Parties (COP) 21. However, to realize such goals there is a need
understand the underlying situation of the bioenergy market of Pakistan and policy
development to pave way for a sustainable bioenergy deployment, without
endangering food security, land usage, biodiversity, and water resources. To better
understand the bioenergy market of Pakistan, this study aims to analyze and evaluate
the recent bioenergy policies in the first part. For analysis and evaluation, frameworks
have been developed, which can be used in the future as well in analyzing the policies
and gauging their impact on bioenergy development. The second part of the research
work performs comprehensive strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
analysis of the bioenergy generation in Pakistan. To substantiate the results of SWOT
analysis a questionnaire was shared with stakeholders in the energy sector. The study
found that the policies over time have improved and different incentives are provided
to investors in the bioenergy sector, still, there are internationally proven policy
options that are not being adopted by policymakers in the country. Secondly, the
development of bioenergy in the last two decades is encouraging but the contribution
to the overall energy mix is a very small fraction. Moreover, the SWOT analysis
concluded that bioenergy potential is the greatest strength, and weaknesses include
lack of infrastructure. The analysis has been compared with the opinion of energy
experts to substantiate objectivity of analysis. It was found out that expert had a similar
opinion with that of the analysis. Furthermore, the study suggests concrete
recommendations for future considerations to enhance the efficacy of policymaking
and bioenergy deployment in Pakistan.
Keywords: Bioenergy Market, Bioenergy Policy, Bioenergy Policy Evaluation,

Pakistan
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... iv
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ v
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. ix
List of Publications ...................................................................................................... x
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................. xi
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the Study .................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem statement .............................................................................................. 2
1.3 Research objectives ............................................................................................ 3
1.4 Scope of the Research ........................................................................................ 3
1.5 Research Organization ....................................................................................... 4
1.6 Thesis flow ......................................................................................................... 5
Summary .................................................................................................................. 6
References ................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................ 9
2.1 Biomass and Bioenergy historically ................................................................... 9

2.2 Global bioenergy market .................................................................................. 10
2.3 Biomass and Bioenergy market studies of Pakistan......................................... 11
2.4 History of Energy Policies in Pakistan with respect to bioenergy ................... 15
2.4.1 Pre-2006 energy policies and their relevance to bioenergy ................. 15
2.4.2 Post-2006 energy policies and their relevance to bioenergy ..................... 17
2.5 Review of Bioenergy Initiatives ....................................................................... 19
2.5.1 Public sector bioenergy initiatives ............................................................. 19
2.5.2 Bioenergy initiatives took by the private sector ........................................ 22
Summary ................................................................................................................ 23
References .............................................................................................................. 24
Chapter 3 Methodology ............................................................................................. 27
vi
3.1 Analysis and evaluation of energy policies of Pakistan ................................... 27
3.1.1 Framework for analysis and comparison of policies ................................. 27
3.1.2 Framework for evaluation of bioenergy policy effectiveness ................... 32
3.2 SWOT analysis of bioenergy generation in Pakistan ....................................... 35
Summary ................................................................................................................ 40
References .............................................................................................................. 41
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion .............................................................................. 45
4.1 Policy analysis and comparison ....................................................................... 45

4.1.1 Fiscal Incentives ........................................................................................ 45
4.1.2 Public Finance ........................................................................................... 46
4.1.3 Regulatory Incentives ................................................................................ 46
4.1.4 Institutional and Political Feasibility ......................................................... 46
4.2 Policy evaluation for their effectiveness/impact .............................................. 49
4.3 SWOT Analysis of the bioenergy generation in Pakistan ................................ 50
4.3.1 Strengths .................................................................................................... 50
4.3.2 Weaknesses ................................................................................................ 52
4.3.3 Opportunities ............................................................................................. 53
4.3.4 Threats ....................................................................................................... 56
4.3.5 Recommendations...................................................................................... 60
4.3.6 Comparison of SWOT analysis results and questionnaire results ............. 62
Summary ................................................................................................................ 64
References .............................................................................................................. 65
Chapter 5 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 69
Appendix I ................................................................................................................. 71
Appendix II ................................................................................................................ 72
Journal Paper .......................................................................................................... 72
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Thesis Flow ................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2.1 Global Energy Consumption (IEA 2017) ................................................. 10
Figure 2.2 Global Renewable Energy Supply 2000-2017 (IEA) ............................... 10
Figure 2.3 Continent-wise Bioenergy vs Total Renewable Energy, 2017 (IEA) ...... 11
Figure 2.4 Pakistan's Total Primary Energy Supply ................................................. 12
Figure 2.5 Site suitability indicator map for thermal power plants .......................... 14
Figure 3.1 Policy analysis framework ....................................................................... 28
Figure 3.2 EE-S Policy Effectiveness Evaluation Framework................................... 33
Figure 3.3 Breakdown of SWOT Analysis scheme ................................................... 35
Figure 4.1 Policy analysis framework results ............................................................ 45
viii
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Prior use of SWOT analysis ....................................................................... 36
Table 4.1 Comparison of energy policies for incentives in the bioenergy sector ...... 47
Table 4.2 Energy Policy evaluation with respect to bioenergy.................................. 49
Table 4.3 Bioenergy generation potential from agricultural residue ......................... 54
Table 4.4 Energy Policy evaluation with respect to bioenergy.................................. 59
Table 4.5 Comparison of SWOT analysis for subjectivity ........................................ 62
Table 4.5 Comparison of SWOT analysis for subjectivity ........................................ 71
ix
List of Publications
Zulfiqar Ali, Rabia Liaquat, Asif Hussain Khoja. “A comparison of Energy Policies
of Pakistan and their impact on Bioenergy development”. Energy Policy, (Under
Review).
x
List of Abbreviations
AEDB Alternative energy development board
AREP Alternative and renewable energy policy
CDM Clean development mechanism
DGNER Directorate general of new and renewable resources
ECC Economic coordination committee
EIA Energy information administration
FIDA Foundation for Integrated Development Action
ICB International competitive bidding
IEA International energy agency
IPP Independent power producer
NBM National biofuel mission
NEPRA National electric power regulatory authority
NGO Non-governmental organization
PCAT Pakistan council of appropriate technology
PCRET Pakistan council of renewable energy technologies
PDBP Pakistan domestic biogas program
PDDC Pakistan dairy development centre
PEI Policy effectiveness index
PPIB Private power infrastructure board
PSDP Public sector development program
RET Renewable energy technology
RSPN Rural support program network
SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats
TOE Tones of Oil Equivalent
xi
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
Energy is one of the basic drivers of the modern economy [1]–[3]. With an increase in
industrialization and standards of living, the demand for energy is increasing.
According to the International energy agency (IEA)’s World energy outlook 2018 [4],
demand for primary energy will increase by almost 40% by 2040 compared to demand
in the year 2017. While energy is critical for economic development and wellbeing but
at the same time, all forms of energy generation have externalities associated with
them that threaten the same well-being [5]–[7]. Therefore, to mitigate the effects of
using conventional energy sources the world is moving towards renewable energy
sources [1], which have a lower carbon footprint and externalities associated [8]. To
put it into perspective, IEA [4] estimates that business, as usual, would lead to global
CO2 emissions of 42.5 gigatons by 2040, which is 30% more than the emission levels
for the year 2017. Whereas, new policy scenario, where renewables share a small part
in energy generation, there will be CO2 emissions of 35.9 gigatons by 2040.
Though there are multiple renewable energy sources, biomass is one of the oldest and
widely used renewable energy resource [9]–[11]. According to IEA, for the year 2017,
biomass supplied 1384 MTOE (Million tons of oil equivalent) of energy globally as
compared to a total of 607 MTOE by the rest of the renewables combined. Though
there are different routes for bioenergy generation from biomass, direct combustion
remains the most popular way of conversion. Direct combustion of biomass, which
includes fuelwood, animal dung, forestry and agricultural residue, is the primary way
of energy generation among rural communities in developing countries [12]. Whereas,
modern bioenergy conversion techniques include anaerobic digestion, fermentation,
transesterification, pyrolysis, and gasification. For the year 2017, the traditional use of
biomass for bioenergy accounted for 658 MTOE and modern bioenergy accounted for
727 MTOE globally. In terms of location, the Asian continent leads with 38% of world
bioenergy supply, followed by Africa with 29%, Americas 18%, and Europe with 13%
[13]. Whereas, in terms of modern bioenergy utilization, the Americas and Europe take
lead. American continents produce more than 70% of the world’s biofuels, while,
1
Europe produces 53% of world biogas. Among world countries, Brazil, China, the
United States and India are leading in terms of bioenergy generation [14].
Pakistan is a developing country with an agrarian-based economy. Pakistan generates

a large amount of biomass annually. Most of this biomass is in the form of agricultural
residue and municipal waste. According to the Biomass atlas of Pakistan [15], a joint
project of the World Bank and Alternative energy development board (AEDB), total
agricultural residue generation from five main crops of Pakistan stood at 139 million
tons. Which according to some study is enough to generate 519 TWh of thermal
energy. An estimate made by A. Raheem et al. [16] for the potential of biogas
generation from municipal solid waste from ten of the largest cities of Pakistan stood
at 242 million cubic meters per day. While the potential for biogas generation from
livestock manure was put at 11,250 million cubic meters per day [16]. Though the
potential of bioenergy generation is very high, the utilization rate remains dismally
low. According to National electric power regulatory authority, a total of 785 GWh of
electricity was produced from bioenergy resources, which included sugarcane bagasse
only. This represented only 0.65% of the total electric energy generation in 2017 [17].
Pakistani government over the years has undertaken several initiatives for bioenergy
dissemination among its population but most of them failed to attract public attention
towards bioenergy [18]. Though a comprehensive renewable energy policy was
promulgated in 2006, it took another eight years to inculcate bioenergy into the scope
of the same policy. The government of Pakistan is currently in the process of
promulgating a new renewable energy policy named ‘Alternative and renewable
energy policy of Pakistan' (AREP 2019)’. Despite the presence of such policies and
initiatives, the only worthwhile sector that currently provides with bioenergy is the
sugar industry. Which utilizes sugarcane bagasse to produce electricity. For the rest,
there is an absence of provisions for the utilization of indigenous biomass resources.
There remains untapped bioenergy potential to be exploited for use in the power, heat
and transport sector.
1.2 Problem statement
The share of modern bioenergy in the primary energy supply of Pakistan is a paltry
fraction of the total supply [19]. Though in the process of promulgation, the upcoming
AREP 2019 is about to set a bold target of achieving 20 per cent total energy supply
2
from renewable energy sources by 2025 and 30 per cent by 2030. Apart from setting
targets, the AREP 2019 is silent on how to achieve such a humungous share in total
energy supply. Thus, it can be assumed that along with other renewable energy
resources like solar and wind, bioenergy will have to contribute a significant part to
realize the target set in the policy. While energy conversion technologies for solar and
wind are mature enough to be commercialized, there remains work to be done in the
case of bioenergy technologies. Secondly, Pakistan doesn’t have a strong industrial
base to develop and deploy modern bioenergy technologies.
Therefore, there is a need to understand the underlying problems and challenges that
hamper the development of the bioenergy market in Pakistan. Secondly, there is a need
to understand the nature of challenges that hamper the development of bioenergy, both
through a top-down and bottom-up study of the bioenergy market.
1.3 Research objectives
1. To propose a framework for energy policy analysis and evaluation of its

effectiveness in bioenergy development.
2. To apply the framework to analyze and evaluate the current policy situation in
Pakistan.
3. To do a SWOT analysis of the bioenergy generation of Pakistan.
1.4 Scope of the Research
The basic biomass feedstock considered in this research is of agricultural residue only.
Other biomass resources like forestry residue, municipal waste, industrial waste,
energy crops, and algae are of secondary interest in this study. The study analyses and
evaluates the energy policies of Pakistan for its impact on the bioenergy development
of Pakistan. After considering the policies for their strengths and weaknesses, a
comprehensive SWOT analysis is done for the bioenergy sector of Pakistan. Though
the study has tried to analyze the most important factors of the bioenergy market, there
are limitations associated with the study. This research doesn’t represent a
comprehensive economic study, to do so would require far greater analysis of aspects
such as the capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and other financial
parameters like debt and equity payment, taxes and inflation impacts. The
environmental impact quantified in this study includes GHG reductions associated
with final bioenergy use, it doesn’t compute complete life cycle emissions associated
3
with biomass to bioenergy conversion. Whereas for future studies in the sector, this
study will provide valuable information on the policy situation and the current state of
the bioenergy market in Pakistan. The policy analysis and evaluation method can prove
helpful for future policy studies, within and outside the country. Whereas, the SWOT
analysis will leave a foundation on which the investors and policymakers in Pakistan
can work to build a sustainable bioenergy sector.
1.5 Research Organization
This study is organized in the following manner. Chapter 1 introduces the background
of the study, problem statement, and the scope of the research work. Chapter 2 reviews
the literature for global bioenergy market, previous biomass and bioenergy market
studies of Pakistan. Furthermore, a comprehensive review of recent energy policies is
done with respect to bioenergy. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology of the study,
including models and methods used to evaluate and compare bioenergy policies and
SWOT analysis. Chapter 4 provides with results of the study and discusses them, along
with recommendations for bioenergy policy development and implementation in
Pakistan. Chapter 5 winds up the study with conclusions.
4
1.6 Thesis flow
Figure 1.1 Thesis Flow
5
Summary
This chapter introduced the topic taking the reader from a global perspective to the
local perspective in terms of bioenergy markets. Globally bioenergy is a major
contributor to the final energy consumption, same being the case for Pakistan as well.
Which is partly due to the lack of access to modern energy fuels which are primarily
based on fossil fuels. There remains a huge untapped potential of bioenergy in
Pakistan, which through proper planning and execution can help the country in energy
security, increasing economic activity, employment generation and reduced reliance
on foreign energy imports. The three main objectives for this research are enlisted here,
which are to propose a framework for energy policy analysis and evaluation of its
effectiveness in bioenergy development, apply the framework to analyze and evaluate
the current policy situation in Pakistan and to do a SWOT analysis of bioenergy market
of Pakistan. Then the scope for this study was discussed. The scope biomass feedstock
considered in this research is of agricultural residue only. Other biomass resources like
forestry residue, municipal waste, industrial waste, energy crops, and algae are of
secondary interest in this study. The study analyses and evaluates the energy policies
of Pakistan for its impact on the bioenergy development of Pakistan. After considering
the policies for their strengths and weaknesses, a comprehensive SWOT analysis is
done for the bioenergy sector of Pakistan. The chapter is concluded by discussing the
organization of the study and with the provision of graphical flow for the work done.
6
References
[1] V. Petit, The Energy Transition: An Overview of the True Challenge of the 21st
Century, vol. 20, 2. 2017.
[2] J. Luth, Greening the Economy Compendium Mccormick, Kes; Richter, Jessika
Luth; Pantzar, Mia 2015. 2015.
[3] E. M. Remedio, “Wood Energy Programme Socio-economic analysis of

bioenergy systems : a focus on employment FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED,” December, 2003.
[4] International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2018,” 2018.
[5] I. Renewable Energy Agency, “Evaluating Renewable Energy Policy: A

Review of Criteria and Indicators for Assessment,” January, 2014.
[6] L. Gan and J. Yu, “Bioenergy transition in rural China: Policy options and co-
benefits,” Energy Policy, vol. 36, pp. 531–540, 2008.
[7] A. Sadiqa, A. Gulagi, and C. Breyer, “Energy transition roadmap towards 100%
renewable energy and role of storage technologies for Pakistan by 2050,”
Energy, vol. 147, pp. 518–533, 2018.
[8] D. Maes and S. Van Passel, “Effective bioeconomy policies for the uptake of
innovative technologies under resource constraints,” Biomass and Bioenergy,
vol. 120, pp. 91–106, 2019.
[9] M. Kaltschmitt, Energy from Organic Materials (Biomass), vol. i. Springer,

2018.
[10] M. K. Shahzad, A. Zahid, T. Rashid, M. A. Rehan, M. Ali, and M. Ahmad,

“Techno-economic feasibility analysis of a solar-biomass off grid system for
the electrification of remote rural areas in Pakistan using HOMER software,”
Renew. Energy, vol. 106, pp. 264–273, 2017.
[11] F. Rosillo-Calle, P. de Groot, S. L. Hemstock, and J. Woods, The Biomass

Handbook. 2007.
[12] M. S. Islam, R. Akhter, and M. A. Rahman, “A thorough investigation on hybrid

application of biomass gasifier and PV resources to meet energy needs for a
northern rural off-grid region of Bangladesh: A potential solution to replicate in
7
rural off-grid areas or not?,” Energy, vol. 145, pp. 338–355, 2018.
[13] World Bioenergy Association, “Global bioenergy statistics 2018,” 2018.
[14] World Energy Council, “World Energy Resources Bioenergy 2016,” 2016.
[15] Full Advantage Co. Limited, VTT Technical Research Center, PITCO Private
Limited, and NUST, “Biomass Atlas for Pakistan,” 2016.
[16] A. Raheem, M. Yusri, and R. Shakoor, “Bioenergy from anaerobic digestion in

Pakistan : Potential , development and prospects,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
vol. 59, pp. 264–275, 2016.
[17] National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) Pakistan, “State of

industry Report 2017,” 2017.
[18] U. K. Mirza, N. A. Ã, and T. Majeed, “An overview of biomass energy

utilization in Pakistan,” vol. 12, pp. 1988–1996, 2008.
[19] S. R. Naqvi et al., “Potential of biomass for bioenergy in Pakistan based on

present case and future perspectives,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 81,
August 2017, pp. 1247–1258, 2018.
8
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Biomass and Bioenergy historically
Biomass refers to the materials obtained from a living or recently lived biological
organism, which includes both plants and animals [1]. Whereas, the energy generated
from biomass is called bioenergy [2]. Wood which is the first energy source used by
mankind is a type of biomass [3]. Biomass remained the major source of energy until
the advent of the steam engine in the 17th century. By 18th century coal became a major
energy source and by 20th century petroleum-based fuels took over as major energy
sources in the world [3], [4]. Currently, fossil fuels provide 80 per cent of the world’s
energy demand, out of which Oil stands at 38%, Natural gas at 21% and Coal at 21%
[5]. Whereas biomass provides 13% of total energy consumption globally and rest is
provided by other renewables i.e. 7%.
The presence of large fossil fuel dependence is due to the attractions they provide like
high energy density and ease of transport [6]. But there are negative externalities
associated with emissions from fossil fuels. One of the major repercussions is the
global climate change and temperature rise [7]. Which led the United Nations to adopt
the first Framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) in 1992, which has
been ratified by multiple countries [8]. While the convention has been improved over
time to meet the changing global circumstances, the major objective remains the same.
Which is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" [9].
Therefore, an emphasis on renewable energy sources has increased since the first
UNFCCC.
Biomass being one of the renewable energy sources provides a way to quench the thirst
for energy in the modern world and help mitigate the deteriorating global environment
[1]. Biomass offers a short production period and formation of fuel and it is the only
renewable energy source that has the ability to absorb Carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, which is one of the major greenhouse gasses causing global warming and
climate change [8], [10], [11].
9
2.2 Global bioenergy market
Global Energy Consumption
Natural Gas Nuclear

21% 2%
Biomass
13%
Oil Renewables
38% 18%
Hyrdo Wind 1%
Coal
3% Geothermal 1%
21%
Solar 0.3%
Figure 2.1 Global Energy Consumption (IEA 2017)

World today is more dependent on fossil fuels for fueling the wheels of the modern
economy than in the entire history of mankind. According to the International energy
agency’s estimations [5], the world consumed a total of 367 EJ (Eta joules) of energy
in the year 2017. Of the total 367EJ, fossil fuel contribution was 80 per cent.
Renewable energy consumption stood at 18 per cent of the total. Figure 2.1 represents
the global energy consumption, according to the source of energy for the year 2017.
Biomass leads the renewable energy sources with a contribution of 13% towards global
energy consumption, making it the fourth-largest energy source globally. Biomass is
followed by other renewables including, Hydro (3%), Wind (1%) and Geothermal
(1%) [12]. Figure 2.2 presents and compares the consumption of different types of
renewable energy sources globally, from the year 2000 to 2017.
Global Renewable Energy Supply 2000-2017 (IEA)

100
Energy Supply (EJ)
Tidal
80
Wind
60
Solar Thermal
40
Solar PV
20
Geothermal
0 Hydro
2000 2005 2010 2015 2017
Biomass
Year
Figure 2.2 Global Renewable Energy Supply 2000-2017 (IEA)
10
The usage of biomass as an energy source can be categorized into two types: i)
Traditional biomass and ii) Modern biomass. Traditional use refers to the direct
burning of biomass, either for heating or cooking purposes. The usage of traditional
biomass is predominant in developing countries of the world. Most of them being in
Asian and African continents. While the modern biomass refers to the usage of biofuels
made through up-gradation of biomass. The use of modern biomass is more common
in developing countries of Northern America and Europe. Figure 2.3 represents a
continent-wide comparison of bioenergy and total renewable energy supply, for the
year 2017.
Continent-wise Bioenergy vs Total Renewable Energy

Supply, 2017 (IEA)
90
80
Energy Supply (EJ)
70
60
50
40 Biomass
30 Total
20
10
0
Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania World
Continent
Figure 2.3 Continent-wise Bioenergy vs Total Renewable Energy Supply, 2017

(IEA)
2.3 Biomass and Bioenergy market studies of Pakistan
Bioenergy is one of the major sources of energy in Pakistan. both at domestic and
industrial level bioenergy contributes a major source in the energy mix of Pakistan.
according to IEA’s estimates, Pakistan’s one-third total primary energy supply comes
from biofuels, which is 33736 KTOE (Kilo-tones oil equivalent) of bioenergy. Most
of this usage is realized in the rural areas, where biomass is burned for heating and
cooking purposes. According to Salman Naqvi et al [13], more than 62% of the rural
population relied primarily on biomass for energy purposes. Whereas in the industrial
side, biomass is burned to get process heat, mostly in small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs). Along with SMEs most of the brick kilns across the country rely
primarily on agricultural residue for energy purposes [14].
11
Pakistan's Total Primary Energy Supply
Biofuels Others
100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
KTOE
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2016
Year
Figure 2.4 Pakistan's Total Primary Energy Supply (Source: IEA)

The first study of the bioenergy market of Pakistan was done by Umar Mirza et al. in
2008. According to the study, 67% of Pakistanis lived in rural areas, the majority of
whom used traditional biomass for energy purposes. The traditional biomass being
used include wood, agricultural residue, and animal dung. This study further
recapitulated the bioenergy dissemination initiative took by the government of
Pakistan. moreover, the study estimated the potential for biogas and energy generation
from sugarcane bagasse and municipal solid waste [10].
According to the study did by M.J. Zuberi et al. [15] in 2013, the share of
biomass/bioenergy in electricity generation stood at zero. The same study estimated a
3000 MW of electric power potential in the sugar industry, through the utilization of
the sugarcane bagasse. While the total energy generation from livestock manure, crop
residue, and municipal waste could meet 42% of electric power generation in the
country for the year 2013.
In 2015, Muhamad Jibran et al. [16] published a research study estimating the energy
potential of biomass in Pakistan, for the purpose of power generation and
transportation. The primary biomass feedstock analyzed in this study was animal
manure, solid waste, and sugarcane bagasse. The study estimated a total of 29.7 million
m3 of biogas generation from the given three sources. Which according to the same
study was enough to cover 24% of the fuel required for power generation, at the time
of publication. Whereas, estimations for usage in transportation was relatively dismal.
12
The study further suggested the prospects of introducing biomethane as a compliment
to compressed natural gas (CNG).
Another study titled “Biogas potential for electric power generation in Pakistan: A
survey” estimated the power generation from biogas at 35.625 million KWh of per
day. Which would eventually generate an income in terms of energy-saving at 37.925
million rupees per month [17].
The major study taken in the field of biomass production and its potential in Pakistan
is the study of 2016, titled ‘Biomass atlas of Pakistan’. The study was published by the
World Bank in cooperation with the Alternative energy development board (AEDB)
of Pakistan. The study was a result of primary surveys for biomass production in the
agriculture sector of Pakistan, and validation through GIS (Geographic information
system) mapping [18]. The findings are: i) 25.3 million metric tons per year theoretical
generation potential of crop processing residues, an equivalent of 222,620 TJ of energy
generation per year (61,838 GWhth/year), ii) a theoretical potential of crop harvesting
residues at 114 million metric tons per year with an equivalent energy potential of
1,616,362 TJ/year (448,990 GWhth/year), iii) new high-pressure cogeneration plants
at 84 sugar mills across the country have a combined power capacity of 1,844 MW
based on a total of 17.1 million metric tons of bagasse generated each year, iv)
municipal solid waste (MSW) amounting to 27,000 metric tons per day (generated at
12 surveyed landfills), can provide around 360 MW of gross power capacity based on
the anaerobic digester-based power generating technology.
Furthermore, the study calculated ‘site suitability indicator’ and generated maps for
greenfield power plants utilizing crop residue as a fuel. Where a high site suitability
value indicates a good location to build a power plant. For the calculation of site
suitability factor, the following factors were considered: feedstock sourcing area size,
road network density, and the distance to a nearby grid-station. Figure 2.5 shows the
site suitability indicator, for a 15 MW power plant using inclined-grate combustion
steam boiler and steam turbine, using a heat map.
13
Figure 2.5 Site suitability indicator map for thermal power plants (Source: [18])
A recent study by Salman Naqvi et al. [13] studied the bioenergy technologies and
their application in the case of Pakistan. the study further discussed the strategies for
the development of biomass as a source of energy and its potential impacts on different
sectors.
Most recent among the studies in this field include one by M.T. Khan et. al. [19] and
Muhammad Yaseen et. al. [20]. M.T Khan studied the prospects of biofuels and
bioenergy generation from sugarcane in Pakistan. The study concluded that ethanol
production from sugarcane remains underexploited and it can help Pakistan in long
term energy security. Similarly, the study was done by M.T. Khan et. al further
emphasized utilizing biomass to reduce the energy shortage in the country.
Furthermore, prospects of producing biofuels like pyrolysis vapors, char, syn gas, or
bio-oil which can further produce methane, methanol, dimethyl ether and hydrogen is
discussed in the study. Authors recommended to utilize the biofuels in heat, or
electricity generation at small and medium scale.
14
2.4 History of Energy Policies in Pakistan with respect to bioenergy
To understand the policy situation a comprehensive review of energy policies is done

in the following section. The review entails policies starting from Power policy 1994
to the upcoming Alternative and renewable energy policy. The results of the
comprehensive review of energy policies of Pakistan is divided into two parts. One
before the renewable energy policy of 2006 and the second section detailing post-2006
policies.
2.4.1 Pre-2006 energy policies and their relevance to bioenergy
2.4.1.1 Power Policy, 1994
The power policy of 1994 was promulgated by the then ruling party, the Pakistan
people’s party. This was a time of severe power shortages and policy was meant to
address this issue [21]. The policy promulgated under the name ‘Policy framework
and package of incentives for private sector power generation projects in Pakistan’.
This policy provided the option to the power producer to choose between the fuel types
and technologies. The policy doesn’t mention bioenergy throughout the length of the
document. Though there is a clause that refers to non-conventional sources of energy.
“Investors may also propose projects based on hydro, or other renewable and/or non-
conventional sources of energy such as solar, wind, geothermal, etc.”
The policy failed miserably to attract interest in any of the non-conventional energy
generation, let alone bioenergy. As reported by Mirjat et al. the explanation for lack of
investor interest included: lack of lucrative opportunities in bioenergy compared to
other thermal powerplants [21]. Secondly, the policy didn’t make any provisions for
bioenergy or any other renewable energy to be added to the generation capacity for
power producers.
The response to power policy in attracting investment in the energy sector was
overwhelming. Therefore, the incumbent government promulgated the power policy
of 1998. The primary intention being to create a competitive power generation market
in the country [21]. Renewable energy was made a part of the policy. While the
conventional power projects were required bid for solicited biddings, whereas power
15
generation from renewable energy sources was exempted from such biddings. The
policy further mentioned ‘Thermal projects based on fuels other than indigenous
coal’. For interested parties to invest in such projects, they were required to provide a
request for proposal (RFP). The policy further stated that the arrangements for such
fuels were the responsibility of the bidder.
The final section of the policy refers to small powerplants (including cogeneration
units) of capacity less than 20 MW, based on renewable sources. For the given
powerplants, an exemption was made for solicited proposals and competitive bidding.
Tariffs were to be set as average levelized-tariff, which is basically the average of the
last twelve months. These plants were restricted to keep capacity increase within 5%
per annum so that to ensure a competitive solicitation determination of tariff.
A provision for powerplants intending to provide power to off-grid places was made
in the policy. Such power producers were allowed deviations from the given policy.
At the same time, NEPRA was to establish separate procedures for attracting private
investment and setting tariffs for such powerplants.
2.4.1.3 Policy for Power generation, 2002
Pakistan saw a political regime change in 1999, with the takeover by a military
dictator. The new government with its bold economic goals felt the need for a new and
comprehensive energy policy. The result was the Policy for power generation 2002.
This was the first time that there was an explicit mention of indigenous renewable
energy exploitation. The second objective stated, “To encourage and ensure
exploitation of indigenous resources, which include renewable energy resources,
human resources, the participation of local engineering and manufacturing
capabilities”. Again, in the policy, it refers to the Government of Pakistan’s aim to
initiate feasibility studies in power generation from indigenous renewable resources.
Renewable energy projects were classified as Raw sites. Such projects were required
to submit proposals to provincial governments in case capacity lower than 50 MW.
Whereas for the plant with capacity of above 50 MW were to submit proposals to PPIB
(Private power infrastructure board). The maximum time, from submission of
proposals to the provision of a Letter of support (LOS), was 465 days, which didn’t
include the feasibility study period.
16
2.4.2 Post-2006 energy policies and their relevance to bioenergy
2.4.2.1 Renewable Energy Policy, 2006
The renewable energy policy of 2006 was the first of its kind. This was the first time
when the Government of Pakistan developed a comprehensive policy for the
development of renewable energy in Pakistan. But this policy failed in catering to the
needs of stakeholders concerned with bioenergy.
In the introduction, it is stated that “Additional policy guidelines shall be issued in the
future concerning biomass conversion and other RE technologies, as well as for non-
power RE applications, as the sector grows, and technology advances take place.”
The scope of policy categorically states that RE technologies other than Small hydro,
Solar (Photovoltaic + Thermal) and wind are not in the domain of this policy. The
statement goes as follow “Other RE power generation technologies—such as those
based on municipal waste and landfill methane recovery, anaerobic or pyrolytic
biomass gasification, cofiring or cogeneration utilizing agricultural crop residues,
biofuels, wave, tidal, geothermal energy, and fuel cells—are also relevant to current
and future renewable energy use in Pakistan. However, these are not dealt with within
this document.”
2.4.2.2 PPIB, National policy for power co-generation by the sugar industry, 2008
This policy came two years after the first Renewable energy policy was first
promulgated. But this policy depends on fiscal and legal regimes of Power Policy of
2002. Tariff determination is done through the procedure discussed in the Power policy
of 2002 by NEPRA. Co-generation policy allowed sugar mill owners to have power-
producing plants that can be run as either in Captive or IPP mode as well. Another
provision also allowed the sugar industry to use bagasse as fuel during crushing season
and coal (local or imported) during the off-season period. Here crushing season refers
to sugarcane crushing/harvesting season i.e. November to February and off-season as
March to October months.
Another important provision from power policy 2002 was the imposition of fixed
customs duty at 5%, on machinery imported for such projects. Another clause
17
mentions “indigenization to be maximized in accordance with government policy” but
doesn’t mention how this will be achieved.
2.4.2.3 Framework for Bagasse Power Co-Generation, 2013
Framework for Power co-generation was formally approved as an addition to the RE

policy of 2006 by ECC (Economic Coordination Committee) of the Cabinet in 2013.
As RE policy was silent regarding Bioenergy projects, this time Bioenergy projects
utilizing Bagasse, biomass, and waste were added to the scope of the RE policy 2006.
This meant that all the fiscal, institutional and regulatory regimes of the 2006 policy
will be applicable to Bioenergy projects, whereas power policy of 2002 was the basic
regulatory model for 2008’s Cogeneration policy. ECC also extended the policy
regime for RE policy 2006 by another five years [22].
The addition of biomass to the RE policy of 2006 was a positive step took by ECC.
The inclusion led the bioenergy producers, sugar-mill owners currently, to access the
incentives provided to other RE technologies. Which included Carbon credits, Energy
banking and guaranteed power purchase by central power purchasing authority
(CPPA).
Other major features of the policy included: Facilitation of PPIB in setting up of the
co-generation power plants, using high-pressure boilers i.e. a minimum of 60 bars. Co-
generation plants will be able to access the financial incentives of Power policy 2002.
All eligible companies were exempted from the prequalification process. They were
to be issued a letter of support by PPIB after tariff has been determined by NEPRA. A
major change was from earlier polices was that power producer was bound to dispatch
hourly declared available capacity during the crushing season.
2.4.2.4 Alternative and Renewable energy (ARE) policy 2019
ARE policy though not promulgated officially, is in the review phase. The draft of the
policy has been shared among stakeholders in academia and policy think tanks. The
draft of the ARE policy shows some dramatic changes from the earlier policies. The
new policy has broadened its scope, the flexibility of implementation, introduced
competitive procurement of energy, emphasis on off-grid solutions and rural energy
services. The policy sets a bold target of achieving 20 per cent of the energy mix from
18
renewables by 2025 and 30 per cent by 2030. Keeping the timeframe in focus,
achieving 20 per cent energy from renewables by 2025 seems impractical.
This time bioenergy has been given the same focus as that of wind and solar. The scope
now includes energy from biomass, this time extended from bagasse to other
agricultural residues and wastes, Biogas and energy from waste which includes
municipal and industrial waste, sewage and refused derived fuels.
ARE policy is continuing most of the incentives provided under the RE policy of 2006.
Incentives like tax exemptions and custom duty exemptions remain there. Regulatory
tools like net metering, energy wheeling, carbon credits, and upfront tariffs are also
part of the policy. While, Upfront tariffs are up to NEPRA to decide, depending on the
nature of the project. Another addition to this policy is International Competitive
Bidding (ICB). ICB will consider the energy source that provides the least cost. This
may put bioenergy projects at disadvantage compared to conventional fuels, because
of existing infrastructure and economies of scale.
Though the objectives include rural energy services and to encourage the private
sector, Fiscal incentives remain out of the scope of the new policy. There are no
provisions made for public loans, guarantees and investment in bioenergy or other
renewable energy projects.
2.5 Review of Bioenergy Initiatives
The literature review provides no initiatives took until the advent of the 1970s [10].
Due to rising oil prices of that decade, the government of Pakistan started a campaign
for indigenous energy solutions. The following are some of the initiatives taken by the
public, private and non-governmental organizations for the development of bioenergy
in Pakistan.
2.5.1 Public sector bioenergy initiatives
2.5.1.1 Biogas technology dissemination program (1974)
Directorate general new and renewable energy resources (DGNRER) worked under
the umbrella of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources. DGNRER started a
countrywide biogas technology dissemination program in 1974, which came to an end
in 1987. During this period a total of 4137 biogas plants were installed across Pakistan.
19
The biogas plants had a capacity of 3000 to 5000 ft3/day [10]. The project was
completed in three phases, as described below.
• Phase 1: First 100 demonstration plants installed, funded by DGNRER.

• Phase 2: Further plants to be installed on a cost-sharing basis.
• Phase 3: Remaining plants to be financed by the consumer.
According to Umar K et.al [10], the program failed due to the following reasons, Lack
of technical expertise for operation and maintenance of the biogas plants,
unavailability of government’s financial support, and lack of awareness among
adopting communities. While K.M. Mittal [23] reported that, in 1980 DGNRER
proposed another 15000 biogas plants to be installed, which would cater to 2000
villages under this project. In 1993 DGNRER was dissolved and a project like
“Dissemination of Biogas Technology” was handed over to PCAT.
2.5.1.2 Propagation of biogas technology – Phase I (1976)
Pakistan council of appropriate technology (PCAT) is the parent institution of today’s

PCRET (Pakistan council of renewable technologies). PCAT undertook an initiative
named ‘Propagation of Biogas Technology’ in 1976. The project intended to assess
the feasibility of Chinese fixed dome biogas plant in Pakistan. Under this project 21
Chinese fixed dome biogas plants were installed. These plants couldn’t prove to be
effective due to defects of design. The problem with these plants was the formation of
cracks in the domes of the plants. Biogas created in the plant escaped through these
cracks. PCAT couldn’t prepare manpower possessing skills in operation and
maintenance of such plants. Eventually, the program was abandoned and PCAT moved
to implement Indian Design [24].
2.5.1.3 Propagation of biogas technology – Phase II (1979)
Due to the failure of Chinese designs, PCAT adopted Moveable gasholder design. This
design had Indian origin, but it was reengineered and modified to be manufactured
easily in Pakistan. The first 10 demonstrations plants were set up in areas of Azad
Kashmir. These plants were able to withstand the atmospheric conditions of Pakistan.
No major issue was reported of these plants. According to PCRET’s website, one of
the biogas plants is still functional [25].
20
After the success of the demonstration plants, another 100 biogas plants were installed
across Pakistan under the Public sector development program in 1980 [24]. Owing to
the success of PCAT’s experiment with 10 biogas plants in Azad Kashmir and 100
biogas plants under PSDP, provincial governments financed the implementation of
another 350 biogas plants [25].
2.5.1.4 Bioenergy initiatives by PCRET (2002-2012)
In 2002 PCRET got a grant under a project named PC-1 for installation of biogas plants
(1200 in total). Finance of Rupees 22.02 Million was provisioned for this project, it is
not clear which organization was a source of funding for this project. According to
PCRET’s website [25], PCRET installed a total of 1600 biogas plants by the end of
the project i.e. June 2006 [26].
Under another project financed by the Public sector development program, PCRET
installed another 2500 biogas plants [10][25]. These plants were installed in different
rural areas of Pakistan. The project lasted for two years. The project was implemented
through a fifty per cent cost-sharing basis among beneficiary and PCRET.
A total of 2513 biogas plants were installed in the period starting from 2007 to 2012.
PCRET has set an ambitious target of 50000 biogas plants to be installed by 2020, with
a cumulative capacity of 0.3 million m3 of biogas/day [17][27]. While PCRET’s work
in the past has been praiseworthy, but for the given target there has not been any plan
publicized. At the time of writing this paper, June 2019, there is silence from both
independent reporters and from PCRET about the extent to which the target has been
achieved.
2.5.1.5 Adaptation of Biogas Technology to Mitigate Energy Crises (2013)
The agriculture department of Punjab is also working towards the dissemination of

biogas technology among rural areas of Punjab. Under the name “Adaptation of Biogas
Technology to Mitigate Energy Crises” 750 biogas plants of 15 m3 were installed
across Punjab. These plants were meant to provide biogas for household energy
requirements of cooking and heating. Another 1200 floating-drum type biogas plants
were provided to small and medium-scale farmers, to run tube-wells [24]. The
agriculture department with assistance from energy ministry has set a target of setting
up biogas powered tube-wells. Provisions were made for providing subsidies for
21
biogas powered tube-wells up to a Hundred thousand rupees for small landholders
[28].
2.5.2 Bioenergy initiatives took by the private sector
2.5.2.1 RSPN bioenergy initiatives
In 2009 RSPN installed a total of 70 biogas plants across Pakistan on a subsidized cost
[29]. Each beneficiary received a sum of 7500 rupees as a subsidy on the biogas plant.
Another program was initiated by RSPN in 2014, named Pakistan domestic biogas
program (PDBP). Under PDBP a total of 5360 biogas plants were installed. The plants
were installed across 12 central districts of Punjab province. Sargodha district had the
highest number of plants installed under this project, counting to 1177, followed by
Jhang with 991 plants [30]. Biogas plants installed under PDBP were of Fixed dome
type, a Nepalese design.
2.5.2.2 FIDA bioenergy initiatives
Foundation for Integrated Development Action (FIDA) is an NGO working in Dera

Ismail Khan (DI-Khan) and neighbouring areas of Khyber-Pakhtun-Khuwa province.
In 2007 FIDA successfully implemented the installation of four different size pilot
plants in DI-Khan [27]. The project was implemented with the collaboration of RSPN.
According to FIDA beneficiaries of the project included twenty-two households or 162
people.
Another seven biogas plants were installed in the DI-Khan area under the sponsorship
of the Australian Agency for international development in 2009. Beneficiaries
included fifteen households. While in 2012 FIDA completed the commissioning of
175 biogas plants in DI-Khan. The project was named ‘Alternative Rural Energy
Through Community-Led Biogas’, funding source was the United States Agency for
international development (USAID). According to FIDA’s website, a total of 657
biogas plants were installed through different programs, with the collaboration of
different international NGOs from 2012 to 2015 [31].
2.5.2.3 PDDC bioenergy initiatives
Pakistan Dairy development centre (PDDC) is a private institute working for the
development of the dairy sector in Pakistan. PDDC provides training for capacity
building among dairy workers and stakeholders. Under the project named Horizon 3,
22
PDDC has installed 450 biogas plants in rural areas of Pakistan. Another 106 plants
were installed by PDDC following completion of the first 450 plants in July 2009. The
cost of procurement and installation is subsidized, with 50% paid by PDDC [32].
Summary
This chapter reviewed literature firstly for the bioenergy market and trends globally.
Globally bioenergy is a major contributor to the final energy consumption, same being
the case for Pakistan as well. Which is partly due to the lack of access to modern energy
fuels which are primarily based on fossil fuels. There remains a huge untapped
potential of bioenergy in Pakistan, which through proper planning and execution can
help the country in energy security, increasing economic activity, employment
generation and reduced reliance on foreign energy imports. Secondly, an overview of
the bioenergy market of Pakistan was presented through a chronological presentation
of previous studies. The literature review summarizes studies undertaken by different
researchers to understand the energy market of Pakistan. The first study being done by
Umer Mirza and onwards by likes of M.J. Zuberi, Muhamad Jibran and Salman Naqvi.
Every author presented an estimation of bioenergy resources in Pakistan. Whereas, the
first on ground study was carried out World Bank and Alternative energy development
board in 2016, titled as ‘Biomass atlas of Pakistan’. The study was a result of primary
surveys for biomass production in the agriculture sector of Pakistan, and validation
through GIS (Geographic information system) mapping. This study calculated the total
agricultural residue generated in Pakistan annually and the feasibility of bioenergy
generation from this residue. Furthermore, the literature review includes a
comprehensive review of energy policies is done in the following section. The review
entails policies starting from Power policy 1994 to the upcoming Alternative and
renewable energy policy. The results of the comprehensive review of energy policies
of Pakistan is divided into two parts. One before the renewable energy policy of 2006
and the second section detailing post-2006 policies. The final part of the literature
review summarizes the bioenergy initiatives taken by public and private sectors in
Pakistan.
23
References
[1] F. Rosillo-Calle, P. de Groot, S. L. Hemstock, and J. Woods, The Biomass

Handbook. 2007.
[2] S. Von Loo and J. Koppejan, The Handbook of Biomass Combustion and Co-
firing. Earthscan.
[3] M. Kaltschmitt, Energy from Organic Materials (Biomass), vol. i. Springer,

2018.
[4] S. Silveira, Bioenergy - Realizing the Potential by Semida Silveira ( Editor ),

September. 2005.
[5] International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2018,” 2018.
[6] A. Sadiqa, A. Gulagi, and C. Breyer, “Energy transition roadmap towards 100%
renewable energy and role of storage technologies for Pakistan by 2050,”
Energy, vol. 147, pp. 518–533, 2018.
[7] M. Höök and X. Tang, “Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate
change—A review,” Energy Policy, vol. 52, pp. 797–809, 2013.
[8] T. Ahmed, Modeling the Renewable Energy Transition in Canada. Springer,

2016.
[9] C. Mitchell et al., “Policy, Financing and Implementation,” Renew. Energy

Sources Clim. Chang. Mitig., pp. 865–950, 2011.

[11] V. Petit, The Energy Transition: An Overview of the True Challenge of the 21st
Century, vol. 20, 2. 2017.
[12] World Energy Council, “World Energy Resources 2016,” Apr. 2016.
[13] S. R. Naqvi et al., “Potential of biomass for bioenergy in Pakistan based on

present case and future perspectives,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 81,
August 2017, pp. 1247–1258, 2018.
[14] K. Achakzai et al., “Air pollution tolerance index of plants around brick kilns
in Rawalpindi, Pakistan,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 190, pp. 252–258, 2017.
24
[15] M. J. S. Zuberi, S. Z. Hasany, M. A. Tariq, and M. Fahrioglu, “Assessment of
biomass energy resources potential in Pakistan for power generation,” in 4th
International Conference on Power Engineering, Energy and Electrical Drives,
2013, pp. 1301–1306.
[16] M. J. S. Zuberi, M. A. Torkmahalleh, and S. M. H. Ali, “A comparative study

of biomass resources utilization for power generation and transportation in
Pakistan,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 40, no. 34, pp. 11154–11160, 2015.
[17] W. Uddin et al., “Biogas potential for electric power generation in Pakistan : A
survey,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 54, pp. 25–33, 2016.
[18] Full Advantage Co. Limited, VTT Technical Research Center, PITCO Private
Limited, and NUST, “Biomass Atlas for Pakistan,” 2016.
[19] M. T. Khan, I. A. Khan, S. Yasmeen, G. S. Nizamani, and S. Afghan,

“Sugarcane Biofuels and Bioenergy Production in Pakistan: Current Scenario,
Potential, and Future Avenues,” in Sugarcane Biofuels, Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2019, pp. 175–202.
[20] M. Yaseen, F. Abbas, M. B. Shakoor, A. A. Farooque, and M. Rizwan,

“Biomass for renewable energy production in Pakistan: current state and
prospects,” Arab. J. Geosci., vol. 13, no. 2, p. 77, Jan. 2020.
[21] N. H. Mirjat, M. A. Uqaili, K. Harijan, G. Das Valasai, F. Shaikh, and M. Waris,

“A review of energy and power planning and policies of Pakistan,” Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 79, March, pp. 110–127, 2017.
[22] AEDB, “Frame Work for Power Co-Generation 2013 (Bagasse / Biomass),”
2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.aedb.org/ae-policies/policy-bioenergy.
[Accessed: 15-Apr-2019].
[23] K. M. Mittal, Biogas Systems: Policies, Progress and Prospects. New Age
International Pvt Ltd Publishers, 2007.
[24] A. Ghafoor, A. Munir, M. Ahmad, and M. Iqbal, “Current status and overview
of renewable energy potential in Pakistan for continuous energy sustainability,”
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 60, pp. 1332–1342, 2016.
[25] PCRET, “Experience.” [Online]. Available: www.pcret.gov.pk/Experience.pdf.

[Accessed: 05-Mar-2019].
25
[26] M. Kamran, “Current status and future success of renewable energy in
Pakistan,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 82. September 2016, pp. 609–617,
2018.

vol. 59, pp. 264–275, 2016.
[28] G. of P. Field Director General Agriculture, “Biogas Supplemented Agriculture

Tubewells,” 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://field.agripunjab.gov.pk/biogas_tubewell. [Accessed: 26-Jun-2019].
[29] S. S. Amjid, M. Q. Bilal, M. S. Nazir, and A. Hussain, “Biogas, renewable

energy resource for Pakistan,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 15, no. 6, pp.
2833–2837, 2011.
[30] RSPN, “EKN-RSPN Pakistan Domestic Biogas Programme (PDBP),” 2014.

[Online]. Available: http://www.rspn.org/index.php/projects/completed/ekn-
pdbp/. [Accessed: 06-Mar-2019].
[31] Foundation for Integrated Development Action, “FIDA’s Projects and

Partners.” [Online]. Available: http://fidapk.org/work/partners.html.
[Accessed: 27-Jun-2019].
[32] A. Yasar, S. Nazir, A. B. Tabinda, M. Nazar, R. Rasheed, and M. Afzaal,

“Socio-economic , health and agriculture benefits of rural household biogas
plants in energy scarce developing countries : A case study from Pakistan,”
Renew. Energy, vol. 108, pp. 19–25, 2017.
26
Chapter 3 Methodology
The main objective of this research work was to study the bioenergy market of
Pakistan. For a better understanding of the market, the study first analyzed and
evaluated the policy situation in Pakistan first. The first section of this study deals with
the evolution of energy policies by analyzing, evaluating and comparing them for their
merits and demerits. The second section carries out a comprehensive strength,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis of the bioenergy sector of
Pakistan.
3.1 Analysis and evaluation of energy policies of Pakistan
The purpose of analysis and evaluation of policies is to do a detailed examination of

the policies and then evaluate them for their impact on the development of bioenergy.
The analysis focusses more on the qualitative aspects of policy whereas evaluation
quantifies the effectiveness of the policy.
Policy analysis has been in the limelight of researchers, but no text provides a
consistent framework for the analysis of energy policy, especially for renewable and
bioenergy context [1]. While authors have been proposing methods for better energy
planning and policymaking [2], [3], [4], but most fail in proposing a comprehensive
framework for the analysis of the present policies. Therefore, this study intends to
propose comprehensive frameworks both for analysis and evaluation of policy
effectiveness.
3.1.1 Framework for analysis and comparison of policies
The purpose of analysis of policies is to do a detailed examination of the policies by

disassembling them into its constituent elements and thereby interpret it in terms of
those constituent elements. Studies done prior to this have studied policies for their
effectiveness in terms of renewable energy development, specifically in the United
States and European Union [5], [6], [7], [8]. Each study takes its own method to
analyze the policy or rather deal with the post-policy results. None of the studies
provides a framework to analyze a given policy. Therefore, this study aims to propose
a framework for policy analysis that can be replicated and reused in future energy
policy studies.
27
The first step in this study is to prepare a framework to analyze the policies is to look
for specific policy-options in the given policy, that have proven to create demand for
bioenergy technologies earlier in the energy market of other countries. A
comprehensive review of different working papers was done to identify the parameters
to study the energy policy options. This resulted in the identification of 43 energy
policy options to analyze energy policy. The list of the complete policy options
identified is tabulated in Table A.1.
Policy Analysis
Framework
Figure 3.1 Policy analysis framework
The second step in preparing to devise the framework was to finalize the parameters
to be used. After long deliberations into the parameters identified, a comprehensive
criterion was formed for the final selection of parameters for the framework. The
criteria investigated the applicability of parameters identified, for the case of Pakistan
28
or a similar developing country. The final selection of indicator was done based on the
following criteria:
1. Drivers of deployment: Policy options that help in driving the deployment of

bioenergy technologies.
2. Balance: indicators within each category exhibit coverage of different issues
of renewable energy policy.
3. Relevance: indicators are chosen or developed to provide insight into country
situations in the context of the policy goals.
4. Dependability: Policy options that have been proved effective for the
deployment of bioenergy (renewable energy) prior to this study.
5. Distinctiveness: each indicator focuses on a different aspect of the issue being
explored and avoids overlaps or redundancy with other indicators.
After applying the criteria defined above, a total of 16 qualitative indicators were
finalized to analyze and later compare the policies. The indicators have been chosen
after consideration for their applicability to suit the situation of Pakistan or a likewise
developing country. This study compared the policies for the number of indicators
fulfilled or discussed in the policy. The extent to which such a variable is fulfilled is
not considered, keeping the fact in mind that these indicators are qualitative in nature.
The indicators are grouped into five major categories, i.e. fiscal incentives, public
finance, regulatory parameters, institutional feasibility, and political viability. The
indicators are enlisted in Figure 3.1 and the nature of the indicators is explained in the
following section.
3.1.1.1 Fiscal Incentives
Fiscal incentives are incentives relating to finance, that have been offered earlier by
different countries around the globe for maximizing the deployment of Renewable
energy. Employing such incentives can reduce upfront costs and investments related
to bioenergy technology [9], [10].
Grants are the monetary assistance provided by the government for the
implementation of new projects. Grants are one-time payments that do not have to be
repaid. Grants are usually provided in the form of refunds after the investment has
been made by the investor.
29
Tax reduction/ exemption incentives directly provide the power producer with a
reduction in taxes, which may include sales, value-added, energy or carbon tax. Such
incentives are also applied to the purchase (or production) of bioenergy or other
renewable energy technologies.
Carbon Credits are credits given to the power producer, mostly under the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM). Which are based on reductions in carbon (Carbon
dioxide) emissions as compared to a traditional fuel-based power generation like
power production using oil or coal-based.
Energy production payments are direct payments, paid to the energy produced by the
government for each unit of renewable energy produced. Such payments may vary in
size and the extent to which they are offered. Which may extend up to the first few
years of energy production.
Feed-in tariff (FIT) is one of the most popularly used fiscal incentives provided to
energy producers in developed as well as developing countries. FIT is a fixed amount
paid to the supplier (varying by technology) per unit energy delivered in the given
year. FIT can be related to Energy production payment.
3.1.1.2 Public Finance
The indicators under the public finance category show how interested the government
or state institutions in providing finance to the bioenergy, or other renewable, projects.
The provision of public finance is essential for the development of bioenergy and other
renewable energy technologies [9], [11]. The provision of public finance can trigger
private investment into renewable energy technologies as well. The following are some
of the types of public finance instruments.
Investment is the direct participation of public finance institutes in the bioenergy

projects. Where public institutions provide finance for a share of equity in the given
project/company. Such investments can be made through a venture fund model or
through technology development funds.
Loan is another type of public finance. Where eligible or economically viable

bioenergy projects are given loans for the execution of the project. Loans may not be
limited to those provided by public financial institutions. They can be extended to
30
private financial institutions as well. This may differ from general loans in terms of
low-interest rates.
Guarantee doesn’t involve direct provision of finance, it is just a role to be fulfilled

by public financial institutes. To provide a guarantee a public institute provides the
role of guarantor for RE companies/projects, which are seeking loans from commercial
banks or other financial institutes. Guarantees are provided to people or businesses
with sound financial background or a sound business strategy.
3.1.1.3 Regulatory Parameters
Such parameters indicate how the government is regulating the power generation
sector, either public or private, in order to increase the share of bioenergy or other
renewable energy in power generation.
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RFS)/ Quota obligation/ Renewable mandate are

terminologies used to describe the same concept. To make sure there is enough green
energy being produced, renewable mandates are introduced. Such mandates require
existing power producers to meet a minimum target to include bioenergy in the energy
generation portfolio.
Net-metering (or net billing) is another important regulatory parameter. Net metering
is introduced to encourage small and medium-scale energy generation projects. Under
net-metering, anyone with surplus power (renewable in this case) is allowed a two-
way flow of energy between the energy dispatch company and power producer
(Captive).
Energy Banking is just like the traditional banking system, where energy is deposited
and withdrawn accordingly. This regulatory tool allows a business or a person to invest
in a renewable energy plant, elsewhere than his residence. Such an investor is
privileged to access energy at his choice of location in the same amount as his power
plant produces.
Guaranteed power purchase is the guarantee provided to power producers.

Guaranteed power purchase agreements are made to prioritize and ensure a buildup of
the renewable energy sector. This incentive guarantees the purchase of every unit of
power produced by the RE producer.
31
3.1.1.4 Institutional and political feasibility
Potential to implement policy refers to the presence of institutions that makes

provisions for registration and regulation of different RE projects.
Investor interest shows the interest of the investor to invest in the given technology
and present political situation. Which can be easily assessed by the number of
applications received and projects implemented.
Existence of stakeholder support shows, how a stakeholder is facilitated under

different situations. That may include any sort of crisis or a political regime change.
Stability of stakeholder support reports on the existence of long-term support for

stakeholders. This parameter is hired to seek whether the government targets are
consistent over time with the incentives for stakeholders to adhere to the policy.
Influence of stakeholder groups is involved to assess policy’s scope with respect to

stakeholders’ interests. This parameter gives an overview of stakeholder influence.
Which includes ownership of key industries.
Dependability of policy concept means the presence of comparable policies elsewhere,

and the success of such policies in countries with similar contexts.
3.1.2 Framework for evaluation of bioenergy policy effectiveness
While, the analysis of policies focused on the content of policies for their intent to
create an optimal situation for the development of bioenergy, evaluation of policies
focuses more on their impact and the results of such policy options. The primary focus
of the evaluation is to gauge the effectiveness of a policy. As described by Mitchell et.
al [12], the effectiveness is the extent to which intended objectives are met, for
example, the actual increase in the amount of renewable electricity generated or share
of renewables in the total energy mix, within a specified time period.
The framework for the evaluation process assesses the policies on a broad spectrum of
aspects. Which includes energy security, environmental impact, economic impact and
equity impact of the policy. For ease of use, the framework is named as EE-S
(Environment, Economy, and Security) framework for bioenergy policy evaluation.
Though this study focusses on bioenergy policies, the framework is equally applicable
to other renewable energy technologies or the combination of any two or more.
32
EE-S
Policy Effectiveness
Evaluation
Framework
Figure 3.2 EE-S Policy Effectiveness Evaluation Framework

The selection criteria of policy evaluation indicators are as follow:
1. Balance: indicators within each category (and indicators across the Index)
exhibit coverage of different issues of renewable energy policy.
2. Robustness: indicator scores are computed from data made available by
reputable sources with the most current information available with sufficient
coverage.
3. Relevance: indicators are chosen or developed to provide insight into country
situations in the context of the policy goals.
4. Contextual sensitivity: for wider applications and comparing different country
situations, where appropriate values used for indicators are normalized one, i.e.
carbon emissions per capita, energy intensity per capita.
33
5. Comparability: data to calculate indicator scores are derived from as unique
and comprehensive sources as possible, focusing on a single source per
indicator as far as practicable, to ensure comparability.
6. Distinctiveness: each indicator focuses on a different aspect of the issue being
explored and avoids overlaps or redundancy with other indicators.
Employing the above criteria, a total of 12 quantitative indicators were chosen across
the four categories identified for evaluation purposes. The following sub-section sheds
light on the chosen indicators that are employed to assess the effectiveness of the
policies.
3.1.2.1 Energy security through bioenergy
The following four parameters were identified, to evaluate the policy in terms of
energy security through the deployment of bioenergy. Energy security, which in words
of J. G. Speight is the timely investments in long-term to supply energy in line with
economic developments and sustainable environmental needs” [13].
Installed capacity is the total installed bioenergy based electric power generation
capacity in megawatts (MW), in the final year of the life-span of the given policy.
Electricity generated is the total electric energy generated, in gigawatt-hours (GWh)

in the given year from bioenergy powerplants and other biomass to bioenergy methods.
Share of Biopower is the per cent share of electric energy generation from biomass-
based powerplants with respect to total electric energy generation in the country in the
given year.
3.1.2.2 Environmental impact of bioenergy generation
Though environmental impact assessment is done before a powerplant is

commissioned. But the actual environmental impact may not be necessarily the same.
The following two policy evaluation parameters have been employed to evaluate the
environmental impacts of bioenergy generation. The nominal values used for both
parameters are from the report by the U.S. Energy information agency (EIA) [14], [15].
Fossil fuels replaced is the number of fossil fuels being replaced, considering that the
same amount of energy is produced using petroleum products in a thermal power plant.
For this study, a nominal value of 511.9 kWh per Barrel of Petroleum is used to
calculate fossil fuels replaced.
34
Carbon reduction is the amount of carbon (CO2) emissions reduced as a result of using
bioenergy sources. Though bioenergy projects emit carbon dioxide, a consideration is
made that the same amount of carbon dioxide is used by the plants in the production
of biomass. The carbon emission value used is one pound of carbon dioxide per
Kilowatt-hour of energy generated (1l bs/KWh or 0.457 kg/KWh).
3.1.2.3 Economic impact of bioenergy generation
Economic justification is one of the criteria for a policy to be justified. The next three
parameters deal with the economic impact of energy generation from biomass, over
the lifespan of the given policy.
Employment/ Jobs Created is the number of jobs created in the bioenergy industry.
This includes personnel for Supply chain, Operations, and maintenance. This study
employed the findings of Dalton and Lewis [16] i.e. 5.8 jobs (3.5 Direct jobs and 2.3
Operation and maintenance jobs) per MW of Bioenergy installation.
Gross Income is the amount of capital generated by the bioenergy companies by

selling electricity to the national grid. The study doesn’t consider savings made due to
captive power generation because of the limitation of data availability. Gross income
has been calculated using the tariff determined by NEPRA for the base year i.e. 2017.
Import reductions are the reduction in import bill as a result of replacing fossil fuels
with bioenergy resources for power generation. Import reductions are calculated using
the number of petroleum barrels replaced, calculated in economic impact, and the
average price of petroleum barrel for that year.
3.2 SWOT analysis of bioenergy generation in Pakistan
S W
External Internal
trengths eaknesses
The characteristics of the business The characteristics that places the

or project that give it an advantage business or project at a disadvantage
over others relative to others
O pportunities T hreats
The elements that the project could The elements in the environment that
exploit to its advantage could cause trouble for the business or
project
Figure 3.1 Breakdown of SWOT Analysis scheme

35
The methodology used to analyze the bioenergy generation in Pakistan is Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis. The SWOT analysis
evaluates the given situation, organization or proposal based on the factors affecting it
either internally or externally. Internal factors are classified into two categories,
strengths and weaknesses. Whereas, external factors are categorized into two
categories, opportunities, and threats [18]. Figure 3.3 gives entails the details of each
of the SWOT categories. Strengths and opportunities include factors that are
favourable to the topic, while, weaknesses and threats include factors that can
adversely affect the feasibility of the given topic.
The SWOT analysis was principally developed for businesses intending to analyze
their markets, but afterwards, it has been used extensively used for research purposes
[19]. SWOT analysis has also been used by researchers, planners, and policymakers
for energy planning. In this regard, Xunpeng Shi did a study using SWOT analysis to
assess the future of energy mix in ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)
region [20]. The usage of SWOT for different purposes in the energy sector is
summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Prior use of SWOT analysis
Year Author Title Objectives
1996 B. Naidu [21] Indian scenario of To assess the renewable energy

renewable energy potential in India in the electricity
for sustainable sector, using SWOT analysis to
development further explore the possibilities of
adopting renewable energy for
sustainable development.
2007 J. Terrados Regional energy Use SWOT analysis as an alternative

et. al. [22] planning through to MCDA (multicriteria decision-
SWOT analysis and making analysis), to diagnose
strategic planning current problems and to sketch
tools.: Impact on future action lines for the
renewables exploitation of renewable energy
development resources, including solar and
bioenergy.
36
2012 Y. bai [23] SWOT analysis for SWOT analysis for sustainable
the sustainable energy deployment in the industries
development of of Hebei (Province of China).
new energy
industry in Hebei
province
2014 Wei Ming RE in eastern Asia: Review of the development of

Chen et. al. RE policy review renewable energy policies and
[24] and comparative roadmaps. SWOT analysis of the
SWOT analysis for given countries, in proceeding the
promoting renewable energy policies and
renewable energy technologies.
in Japan, South
Korea, and Taiwan
2015 Xunpeng Shi The future of Assessment of competing outlooks

[20] ASEAN energy for energy mix in the ASEAN
mix: A SWOT region, for the transition from fossil
analysis fuels to the green energy mix.
2017 Beyzanur An ANP and fuzzy Propose a comprehensive and

Cayir TOPSIS-based integrated methodology for the
Ervurala et. SWOT analysis for analysis of Turkey’s energy sector
al. [25] Turkey’s energy using a combination of SWOT
planning analysis and ANP (Analytic Network
Process) process, and weighted
fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order
Performance by Similarity to Ideal
Solution).
2020 Yasir Ahmed Evaluating the Propose a methodology

Solangi et. al. strategies for encompassing SWOT, AHP, and F-
[26] sustainable energy TOPSIS to evaluate energy planning
planning in strategies for sustainable energy
Pakistan: An planning.
37
integrated SWOT-
AHP and Fuzzy-
TOPSIS approach
The methodology used in this study to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,

and threats in the bioenergy market of Pakistan utilizes both bottom-up and top-down
approaches. The bottom-up approach identified factors impacting bioenergy
dissemination from ground level, through an extensive study of literature and
comparing them with countries with a similar socio-economic situation. Whereas, in
the top-down approach, the factors are identified, through the study of relevant
policies, legislations and the statistics for bioenergy in the country.
In order to define the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, the study posed
the following questions:
1. Presence of the natural conditions for the development of bioenergy sources

2. Interest among investors and authorities in the development of bioenergy.
3. The current level of knowledge of bioenergy technologies among the populace.
4. Presence of skilled labour force to implement bioenergy technologies.
5. Public stance towards bioenergy, positive or negative.
6. Initial investment costs and operations and maintenance costs.
7. The profitability of new power plants and the rate of returns.
8. The economic impact of new bioenergy plants.
9. Social impact of new bioenergy plants.
10. Potential power plant sites and their feasibility to connect to the national grid.
11. Potential for power provision to Off-grid population.
12. Competition with traditional energy sources like coal and petroleum products.
13. Security of biomass supply chain.
14. The current state of research in bioenergy, nationally and globally.
15. Government grants, subsidies, and tax reductions or exemptions.
16. Policy instruments to encourage existing power producers to shift towards
bioenergy i.e. renewable portfolio standards, green certificates, or carbon
credits.
17. The coherence of energy, environmental and climate policy.
18. Ease of registration and facilitation for new power producers.
19. Presence of cooperation within state institutes and with private organizations.
38
20. Level of cooperation between federal and provincial governments and
institutes.
21. Impact on the environment of bioenergy generation.
22. The extent to which environmental standards are followed, when
commissioning a new plant.
Second step in carrying out SWOT analysis is to substantiate the results of SWOT
analysis and to validate the objectivity of the analysis. A questionnaire was formed
using the questions of SWOT analysis and shared with stakeholders in energy sector
of Pakistan. the questionnaire used a Likert scale approach to scale responses. With 0
being low/negative and 10 being high/positive. In the end of survey, a comparison is
made of opinion of the stakeholder in energy sector and authors own analysis of the
given question.
Finally, a set of recommendations was proposed on how to utilize the untapped

bioenergy potential optimally and move toward a sustainable bioenergy future. The
recommendations are tailored to the identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats, such that to utilize the strengths, eliminate the weaknesses, exploit the
opportunities and lessen the effect of the threats.
39
Summary
This chapter discussed in detail the methodology used in the research work to study
the bioenergy market of Pakistan. The first step was to develop a framework for the
analysis of policy and secondly for the evaluation of the given policy’s effectiveness.
The purpose of analysis and evaluation of policies is to do a detailed examination of
the policies and then evaluate them for their impact on the development of bioenergy.
The analysis focusses more on the qualitative aspects of policy whereas evaluation
quantifies the effectiveness of the policy. The criteria for the selection of variables and
parameters for analysis and evaluation are discussed in this chapter. A comprehensive
review of different working papers was done to identify the parameters to study the
energy policy options. This resulted in the identification of 43 energy policy options
to analyze energy policy. Out of the 43 energy policy options identified, 18 were
finalized to create the framework for policy analysis. The framework developed for
the evaluation process assesses the policies on a broad spectrum of aspects. Which
includes energy security, environmental impact, economic impact and equity impact
of the policy. The framework proposed in this study is named as EE-S (Environment,
Economy, and Security) framework for bioenergy policy evaluation. Though this
study focusses on bioenergy policies, the framework is equally applicable to other
renewable energy technologies or the combination of any two or more. Finally, the
methodology for SWOT analysis of bioenergy market of Pakistan is discussed. The
SWOT analysis evaluates the given situation, organization or proposal based on the
factors affecting it either internally or externally. Internal factors are classified into
two categories, strengths and weaknesses. Whereas, external factors are categorized
into two categories, opportunities, and threats. Strengths and opportunities include
factors that are favorable to the topic, while, weaknesses and threats include factors
that can adversely affect the feasibility of the given topic.
40
References
[1] M. Munasinghe and P. Meier, Energy Policy Analysis and Modelling.

Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[2] J. B. Robinson, “Energy backcasting A proposed method of policy analysis,”

Energy Policy, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 337–344, Dec. 1982.
[3] K. Chyong Chi, W. J. Nuttall, and D. M. Reiner, “Dynamics of the UK natural

gas industry: System dynamics modelling and long-term energy policy
analysis,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 339–357, Mar.
2009.
[4] R. Alizadeh, L. Soltanisehat, P. D. Lund, and H. Zamanisabzi, “Improving

renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid
MCDM method,” Energy Policy, vol. 137, p. 111174, Feb. 2020.
[5] L. Gan, G. S. Eskeland, and H. H. Kolshus, “Green electricity market

development: Lessons from Europe and the US,” Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 1,
pp. 144–155, Jan. 2007.
[6] C.-H. Liao, H.-H. Ou, S.-L. Lo, P.-T. Chiueh, and Y.-H. Yu, “A challenging
approach for renewable energy market development,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 787–793, Jan. 2011.
[7] K. Patlitzianas and K. Karagounis, “The progress of RES environment in the

most recent member states of the EU,” Renew. Energy, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 429–
436, Feb. 2011.
[8] W. Liu, X. Zhang, and S. Feng, “Does renewable energy policy work? Evidence
from a panel data analysis,” Renew. Energy, vol. 135, pp. 635–642, May 2019.
[9] A. Kumar, N. Kumar, P. Baredar, and A. Shukla, “A review on biomass energy

resources , potential , conversion and policy in India,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 45, pp. 530–539, 2015.
[10] S. Smolinski and S. Cox, “Policies to enable bioenergy deployment: Key

considerations and good practices,” May, 2016.
[11] T. Ahmed, Modeling the Renewable Energy Transition in Canada. Springer,

2016.
41
[13] J. G. Speight, “Energy security and the environment,” in Natural Gas (Second
Edition), Second Edi., J. G. Speight, Ed. Boston: Gulf Professional Publishing,
2019, pp. 361–390.
[14] U.S EIA, “Monthly Energy Review,” 2019. [Online]. Available:

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7.pdf. [Accessed: 16-
Apr-2019].
[15] U.S EIA, “United States Electricity Profile 2017,” 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/unitedstates/. [Accessed: 16-Apr-2019].
[16] G. J. Dalton and T. Lewis, “Metrics for measuring job creation by renewable
energy technologies, using Ireland as a case study,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 2123–2133, 2011.
[17] M. S. Islam, R. Akhter, and M. A. Rahman, “A thorough investigation on hybrid

rural off-grid areas or not?,” Energy, vol. 145, pp. 338–355, 2018.
[18] Z. Srdjevic, R. Bajcetic, and B. Srdjevic, “Identifying the Criteria Set for
Multicriteria Decision Making Based on SWOT/PESTLE Analysis: A Case
Study of Reconstructing A Water Intake Structure,” Water Resour. Manag., vol.
26, no. 12, pp. 3379–3393, Sep. 2012.
[19] M. Kamran, M. R. Fazal, and M. Mudassar, “Towards empowerment of the

renewable energy sector in Pakistan for sustainable energy evolution: SWOT
analysis,” Renew. Energy, vol. 146, pp. 543–558, Feb. 2020.
[20] X. Shi, “The future of ASEAN energy mix: A SWOT analysis,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 53, pp. 672–680, Jan. 2016.
[21] B. S. K. Naidu, “Indian scenario of renewable energy for sustainable

development,” Energy Policy, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 575–581, Jun. 1996.
[22] J. Terrados, G. Almonacid, and L. Hontoria, “Regional energy planning through

SWOT analysis and strategic planning tools.,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1275–1287, Aug. 2007.
42
[23] Y. Bai, “SWOT analysis for the sustainable development of new energy
industry in Hebei province,” in World Automation Congress 2012, 2012, pp. 1–
4.
[24] W.-M. Chen, H. Kim, and H. Yamaguchi, “Renewable energy in eastern Asia:
Renewable energy policy review and comparative SWOT analysis for
promoting renewable energy in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan,” Energy
Policy, vol. 74, pp. 319–329, Nov. 2014.
[25] B. Cayir Ervural, S. Zaim, O. F. Demirel, Z. Aydin, and D. Delen, “An ANP
and fuzzy TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning,”
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 82, pp. 1538–1550, Feb. 2018.
[26] Y. A. Solangi, Q. Tan, N. H. Mirjat, and S. Ali, “Evaluating the strategies for
sustainable energy planning in Pakistan: An integrated SWOT-AHP and Fuzzy-
TOPSIS approach,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 236, p. 117655, Nov. 2019.
43
44
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion
4.1 Policy analysis and comparison
The framework for the analysis of policy employed a total of 16 qualitative indicators
falling into five categories to compare renewable energy policies. All the variables
hired are qualitative in nature. The framework for analysis was implemented on five
of the recent policies of Pakistan concerning bioenergy. Which included Power policy
2002, RE policy 2006, Power cogeneration policy 2008, Bagasse cogeneration policy
2013 and Alternate and renewable energy policy 2019. When compared holistically,
the upcoming ARE policy 2019, fulfils the most indicators/parameters discussed in
Section 3.1.1. The ARE policy fulfilled a total of 12 indicators out of 16. Figure 4.1
presents the graphical comparison and Table 4.1 summarizes the policies based on the
framework for policy analysis.
Policy analysis framework results
ARE Policy 2019 12
Bagasse Co-generation Policy2013 10
Power Co-generation Policy2008 7
RE Policy 2006 8
Power Policy 2002 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 4.1 Policy analysis framework results
4.1.1 Fiscal Incentives
The following conclusions were drawn based on the study of the recent five policies:
i) None of the policies discussed provides a grant for bioenergy or any other renewable
energy technology, ii) Renewable energy policy (2006), provided tax incentives for
power generation based on renewables, but the policy scope didn’t include bioenergy.
While Bagasse cogeneration policy (2008) provided with a 5% fixed customs duty on
import of machinery required for the co-generation plants. The 5% customs duty was
45
continued in the following policy i.e. Bagasse cogeneration policy 2013. Which was
later altered, as the policy was added to RE policy (2006) as an addendum. Which
meant, all the tax incentives of 2006 will be available for bagasse power cogeneration
projects and other bioenergy projects like biomass and municipal waste. iii) Carbon
credits were introduced by renewable energy policy (2006). Until 2013, such credits
were not applicable to bioenergy projects. After the addition of bagasse cogeneration
policy into RE policy (2006) as an addendum, bioenergy plants can apply for Carbon
credits as well. iv) The new policy, ARE 2019, will provide some sort of feed- tariff
to bioenergy projects. However, a new policy will provide FIT under the name Upfront
tariff or Cost-plus tariff. NEPRA will decide on the provision of FIT. As per the policy,
immature technologies will be eligible for the upfront tariff.
4.1.2 Public Finance
Surprisingly, all of the policies discussed fail to provide any investment to bioenergy
producers or project. Same for loans and guarantees, none of the policies mentioned a
single clause for the provision of public finances and guarantees by public institutions
for sanction of loans and guarantees.
4.1.3 Regulatory Incentives
For the five policies under scrutiny for regulatory incentives following conclusions
were drawn: i) No provisions for inclusion of bioenergy into the power generation
portfolio [1]. ii) Renewable energy policy (2006) introduced net-metering for
renewable energy projects, subsequently, other policies did the same as well. iii) Till
2013, energy banking was not applicable to bioenergy projects. iv) Bioenergy power
plants were provided guaranteed power purchase after the promulgation of Framework
for power co-generation in the year 2013.
4.1.4 Institutional and Political Feasibility
The presence of strong institutions like NEPRA and AEDB presents a strong case for
the institutional feasibility of policy implementation. Power producers intending to use
bioenergy first apply for the letter of intent (LOI) from AEDB and generation license
from NEPRA. The country has seen an increased interest of investors in the bioenergy
sector [2]. One thing odd is the lack of investor interest in power generation from
municipal waste and agricultural residue.
46
Investors in the energy sector have been provided immunity to any of the changing
political situation. RE policy (2006) and ARE policy (2019) were eloquent on the
given issue. According to A.M. Khushk et. Al. [3], seventy per cent of sugar-mill
owners have a sole proprietorship and sixty per cent of owners have family members
who own a sugar mill. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a strong monopolistic
stakeholder base. Finally, the dependability of the policy concept is robust enough for
the policies discussed. As the world’s largest biomass producers China, India, and
Brazil have been exploiting the bioenergy potential for a long time [4], [5], [6].
Table 4.1 Comparison of energy policies for incentives in bioenergy sector
Powe
Powe
RE r co- Bagass ARE
r
Policy evaluation polic gen e co- Polic
polic
parameters y Polic gen y
y
2006 y 2013 2019
2002
2008
Fiscal incentives (S)
Grants     
Tax reductions/ exemptions     

Carbon Credits      
Feed-in tariff (FIT)     
Public finance (S)
Investment     
Loan     
47
Guarantee     
Regulatory (S)
Renewable Portfolio Standard

    
/Quota obligation or mandate
Net metering (also net billing)       

Banking      
Guaranteed power purchase      
Institutional Feasibility (S)
Potential to implement policy       

Investor interest       
Political viability (S - R)
Existence of stakeholder support       

Stability of stakeholder support       
Influence of stakeholder groups     
Dependability of policy concept       
R - Indicators effecting/relating Power Receiver Discussed Not
S - Indicators effecting/relating Power Supplier Discussed 
48
4.2 Policy evaluation for their effectiveness/impact
To put the EE-S framework for policy evaluation into action, the recent policies of
Pakistan are compared. The evaluation and comparison considered policies
promulgated after 2002, till 2013. The time span was chosen to make sure the policies
have reached their lifespan. The forthcoming ARE policy has been kept out
deliberately, as it is not yet promulgated officially, and the measure of its effectiveness
is a matter of future consideration. The data has been gathered using the following
databases in the order of priority, International Energy Agency (IEA), World Bank,
National Electric and Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA), and Pakistan Bureau of
Statistics (PBS). When compared based on the 10 quantitative variables, the latest
policy that reached its life i.e. bagasse cogeneration policy of 2013 lead with the
highest numbers in all categories. Table 4.2 tabulates the results collected for each of
the parameters used in the policy evaluation framework.
Table 4.2 Energy Policy evaluation with respect to bioenergy
Power RE Power co- Bagasse

Indicator policy policy gen policy co-gen
2002 2006 2008 2013
Contribution of bioenergy in Energy Security
Installed capacity (MW) 0 23 105 301
Bio-electricity generation
0 66.24 302.4 1060
(GWh)
Bioenergy share in TPES (%) 0 0.06 0.3 0.79
Environmental Impact of bioenergy generation
Fossil fuels replaced (Petroleum

0 129,400 590,740 2,071,000
Barrels)
Carbon Reduction (Mt. tonnes) 0 30,272 138,196 484,000
49
Economic Impact of bioenergy generation
Employment 0 133 609 1746
Gross Income (Rs) 0 323 3.55 12.4
Import Reductions (Mill. USD) 0 12.897 57.88 134.41
4.3 SWOT Analysis of the bioenergy generation in Pakistan
4.3.1 Strengths
4.3.1.1 Presence of large biomass potential for bioenergy generation
As discussed in detail earlier in section 2.3, there is a large biomass availability to be

used to produce bioenergy. The main usage of biomass today is in the form of firewood
and animal dung. According to IEA’s estimations, bioenergy contributed 33,736
KTOE to the total primary consumption of 95,660 KTOE for the year 2016. Whereas,
in the case of modern bioenergy, power plants using sugarcane bagasse for energy
generation, sold a total of 1,060 GWh of bio-electricity to the grid for the fiscal year
2017-18.
Apart from firewood and animal dung, there are other sources like agricultural residue,
municipal solid waste, industrial waste (food and timber) and forestry residue.
According to the study done by executing organizations to develop Biomass Atlas of
Pakistan concluded a potential of 138.4 million metric tons of agricultural residue,
including both the crop harvesting and crop processing residue. The maximum
theoretical potential of generating energy from the agricultural residue stood at
510,828 gigawatt-hours of thermal energy. To put this amount into perspective, the
total electricity generation stood at 133,615 gigawatt-hours for the year 2017-18.
4.3.1.2 Investor interest
There has been growing interest in bioenergy generation both at large and small scales.
As discussed in Section 2.5, there has been a lot of work being done for small scale
bioenergy plants, especially biogas plants based on anaerobic technology.
Furthermore, at large scale sugar mills used to derive process heat from sugarcane
bagasse for a long time. With the passage of time, the sugar mills are moving towards
50
high-pressure boilers to be used for power generation along with heat for different
industrial uses.
The investor interest was evidenced when renewable energy policy lacked bioenergy
in its scope, and policymakers had to come with national policy for power co-
generation in 2008 to cater to the investors in the bioenergy sector. According to
NEPRA’s state of industry report of 2018, a total of 913 MW of bioenergy capacity is
under the listening and implementation process, to be completed by 2021. While the
total bio-electricity sold to the national grid stood at 1060 GWh. The same report stated
a total of 339 MW of captive power generation capacity.
4.3.1.3 Comparatively equal initial investment cost with fossil fuel-based plants
While other renewable technologies are still at a disadvantage when compared to

conventional fossil fuel-based power plants in terms of initial investment, for
bioenergy it is a different case. Thermal based bioenergy plants can utilize the
currently available technologies for thermal power plants, with little or no
modification. Secondly, the current coal and oil-based power plants can generate
power using biomass as a fuel, with small modifications in the combustor of the power
plant.
4.3.1.4 Profitability of new power plants and rate of returns
The major factor for a new power plant to be implemented is its profitability and a
feasible rate of return. For bioenergy, especially the industrial based thermal plants
have been lucrative. This is evidenced by the statistics of NEPRA, where captive
power plants (based on biomass) have been consistently supplying energy to the
national grid. Furthermore, the tariff determination process for the new power plants
by NEPRA considers the following elements to make sure profitability: Fuel Cost,
Variable O&M (Local + Foreign), Fixed O&M, Insurance, Working Capital, Debt
Service and Return on Equity.
4.3.1.5 Tax reductions and exemptions for new power plants
Pakistan being a developing agrarian country imports most of its machinery from other
countries. This includes machinery for power plants as well. Since 2002’s power
policy, all the sub-sequent energy policies have made provisions for fixed custom duty
at 5%, which runs more than a hundred per cent for other machinery imported.
51
Secondly, renewable power generation is provided concession in sales tax and other
taxes when they provide electricity to the national electricity grid.
4.3.1.6 Presence of policy instruments to encourage bioenergy generation
In 2006, the government of Pakistan through renewable energy policy introduced

different policy instruments to encourage renewable energy generation in Pakistan.
Which included Carbon Credits, Net metering, Energy banking and Guaranteed power
purchase for renewable energy power plants.
Carbon credits are credits given to the power producer, mostly under the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM). Whereas, under net metering, anyone with surplus
power (renewable in this case) is allowed a two-way flow of energy between the energy
dispatch company and power producer (Captive). While, energy banking allows a
business or a person to invest in a renewable energy plant, elsewhere than his
residence. Such an investor is privileged to access energy at his choice of location in
the same amount as his power plant produces. Guaranteed power purchase agreements
are made to prioritize and ensure a buildup of the renewable energy sector. This
incentive guarantees the purchase of every unit of power produced by the RE producer.
4.3.2 Weaknesses
4.3.2.1 Low energy density of bioenergy fuels
Biofuels generally have low energy densities when compared to traditional fuels like
coal and gasoline [7], [8]. This makes it difficult for investors to shift reliance on
traditional fuels to biofuels. This is most obvious for the biomass pellets and briquettes.
When compared to calorific value and energy density (energy per unit of mass), fossil
fuels are ways ahead than biofuels.
For example, the calorific value of biogas ranges between 5 and 6.672 kWh/m3 [9],
while the calorific value of natural gas is 11.7 kWh/m3. While for ethanol calorific
value is 26.88 MJ per kg and gasoline’s calorific value is 46.4 MJ per kg[10].
4.3.2.2 Biomass supply chain
Due to the seasonality of biomass production, a sustainable biomass supply chain is

difficult to maintain. Whereas, the collection of biomass is another issue, according to
[11] the collection and handling of biomass are not done properly. Secondly, lack of
52
pelleting and briquetting technologies also leads to wastage of biomass, especially
agricultural residue.
Secondly, storage is another issue in the biomass supply chain. Long term storage is
required due to the seasonality of biomass production. This further adds to the fuel
prices, thus adversely impacting the sustainability of the sector. While traditional fuels
like coal and oil have higher mass densities requires lesser space, biomass requires
more space for storage, putting it at a disadvantage when compared to traditional fuels.
4.3.2.3 Lack of infrastructure to integrate bioenergy plants with the national grid
The feasibility of locating a bioenergy plant is highest near the agricultural fields,
which is validated for Pakistan by Biomass Atlas of Pakistan and another study by
Markus Tum et. al. [12], [13]. While, such agricultural fields lack access to the national
grid, due to low population density [11], [14]. This makes it difficult for the investors
to get access to the national grid, this further discourages investors who want to work
as independent power producers.
4.3.2.4 Low-quality research nationally
Despite the presence of different institutes and organizations dedicated to carrying out
research in the renewable energy sector, there has not been a major application of the
works carried out by such organizations. Organizations include PCRET, PCSIR, PSO
and academic institutes in different public and private sector universities.
For example, PCRET has been working on moveable and foxed dome biogas plants
for a long time. Despite the successful design and fabrication of the biogas plant, it has
not been commercialized yet. Similarly, Pakistan state oil financed a project called E-
10 gasoline pilot project, but no provisions have been made for ethanol blending with
gasoline. Another project by AEDB identified crops like Pongamia pinata, rapeseed
and castor bean for the production biodiesel. But no progress has been shared by
AEDB regarding this project [15].
4.3.3 Opportunities
4.3.3.1 Large potential of underutilized biomass
There are multiple sources of biomass available for the generation of bioenergy in
Pakistan. which includes agricultural residue, livestock manure, municipal solid waste,
industrial waste (food and timber) and forestry residue.
53
There remains a large part of the potential of biomass not being utilized yet. In the case
of agricultural residue its only sugarcane bagasse. Whereas, there are other crop
residues readily available for bioenergy generation. Details of the different agricultural
residues are tabulated in Table 4.4, along with energy generation potential. Whereas
there is not a single power plant utilizing municipal solid waste in the country for
power generation. According to biomass atlas, energy generation potential from MSW
stands at 360 MW for 12 of the dump yards only [12]. While A. Raheem et. al. [16]
estimated a total of 242-million-m3 of biogas generation from MSW in the ten major
cities of Pakistan.
Table 4.3 Bioenergy generation potential from agricultural residue
Maximum potential Maximum potential

(Theoretical) (Technical)
Crop Residue type Annual Total Annual Total
residue Energy residue Energy
production content production content
(Mill. tons) (GWhth) (Mill. tons) (GWhth)
Cotton Stalks 49.41 206020 6.1 25073
Wheat Straw 34.62 138325 6.51 25952
Rice Straw 16.74 58138 8.33 28848
Sugarcane Stalk and leaves 7.81 29835 3.51 13397
Maize Stalk and leaves 5.32 24124 0.84 3619
Total 113.87 456,442 25.19 96,889
4.3.3.2 Dedicated energy crops and marginal crops
Crops like sugarcane and corn have been successfully grown around the world for
biofuels and bioenergy generation. But these crops, categorized as first-generation
biofuels, compete with food sources and are thus regulated to ensure food security.
Therefore, there has been increased interest in non-food crops, categorized as second-
generation biofuels, for the generation of bioenergy [17]. The advantages that these
crops have over food crops such as corn are: they have less yearly input requirements,
they require lesser fertilizers and herbicides than food crops, biomass production is
high even with inadequate inputs, such crops have the potential to withstand different
environmental conditions.
54
Energy crops like Industrial hemp [18], Jatropha [19], Taramira (Eruca sativa L.) [20]
and Microalgae [21] have been studied by different researchers for their production in
Pakistan. For instance, according to [18], industrial hemp can provide 413 Kg of
ethanol, 185 Gigajoules of biogas and 105 Gigajoules of solid fuel per acre of
cultivation. These crops, in the long run, can be utilized to produce bioethanol and
biodiesel to be blended with petroleum fuels, thus diversifying the energy mix.
4.3.3.3 Opportunity to fulfil INDCs
INDCs are the intended nationally determined contributions to limit global

temperature rise. Pakistan became the part of the Paris Agreement in the 22 nd
Conference of the Parties (COP 22) of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change). According to the INDC statement submitted by the
Ministry of Climate Change to UNFCCC, Pakistan will reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions by 20%. Therefore, by the addition of more renewable energy sources into
the energy mix, Pakistan can reduce its carbon footprint and fulfil the commitments
made to the UNFCCC. Bioenergy along with solar and wind can play a substantial role
in reducing the total GHG emissions [22], [23] and shifting the heavy reliance on fossil
fuels.
4.3.3.4 Economic development
Investment in bioenergy technologies can contribute to regional and national economic

development. This may be through business growth, and employment generation,
reduction in energy imports, direct and indirect economic impact on external trade and
gross domestic product [24].
As Pakistan relies on imported petroleum products for most of its energy needs,
bioenergy can best help in reducing this reliance and add to the security and
diversification of energy supply. This may be realized through the replacement of
biomass pellets in coal and oil firing power plants, gasoline with bioethanol, and diesel
with biodiesel. Whereas, farmers and industry owners can add to their incomes by
utilizing the waste not being used currently.
4.3.3.5 Social development
In several ways, the social impacts of investment in local bioenergy can significant.
Two of the major ways include those relating to an increased standard of living and
55
those that contribute to increased social cohesion and stability. The standard of living
refers to a household's consumption level or its level of fiscal income. However, there
are other factors that contribute to a person's standard of living, which cannot be
quantified in economic terms. These include factors such as access to education,
employment opportunities, a clean environment and healthcare [24].
Employment can be through construction, maintenance and operation of bioenergy

plants. The increased demand for biomass through the Construction of power plants
leads to further income and employment opportunities in biomass production and
supply chain. Moreover, the addition to the net employment and income-generation
could help to stem adverse social and cohesion trends (i.e. unemployment, rural to
urban migrations). Furthermore, economic activity supports related industries and
employment. Finally, it is possible to achieve sustainable rural development by
engaging the key stakeholders in the bioenergy sector.
4.3.3.6 Off-grid power provision
While the electrification rates are encouraging, there still remains a large population
without modern energy provisions. According to IEA 23% of the population has no
access to electricity and 53.7% lack provisions to clean cooking fuels like natural gas.
The disparity in access to modern energy sources can be mitigated through small and
medium scale off-grid power plants.
Instead of laying expensive grid lines and transmission systems, bioenergy plants
utilized to provide electricity and clean cooking fuels to the underprivileged. There
have been successful attempts to provide biogas using anaerobic digestion
technologies in Pakistan, as discussed in detail in section 2.5. Along with biogas plants,
thermal power plants based on biomass can be helpful in providing electricity. As in
India Husk Power Company successfully electrified more than 250 villages [25]. The
same can be replicated in Pakistan keeping in mind the similar economic and social
situation.
4.3.4 Threats
4.3.4.1 Low knowledge of bioenergy technologies among the populace
One of the major issues in the bioenergy market is the lack of trust and awareness of
bioenergy technologies among the general public [26]. Farmers are reluctant to adopt
56
bioenergy technologies because of previously held mindset regarding bioenergy. Rural
areas in Pakistan apply animal manure directly to the agricultural fields, which can be
used to produce biogas and use the leftover slurry as a bio-fertilizer. But farmers don’t
realize this potential for biogas and fertilizer. While, others find it expensive to install
and cumbersome to operate and maintain [11], [27].
4.3.4.2 Lack of policy instruments to encourage bioenergy generation
The present renewable energy lacks some of the major policy instruments to encourage
investments in bioenergy generating plants. This includes the renewable portfolio
standard (RPS) and feed-in tariff (FIT). Policy instruments like FIT and RPS have been
proved effective to drive investment into renewable energy and support the burgeoning
sector [28]. In 2019, the government of Pakistan came up with a new policy for
renewable and alternative energy sources. Though this policy has not been officially
promulgated yet, it mentions a provision for grants, similar to FIT, while the new
policy is still silent on making provisions for the implementation of renewable
portfolio standards for current power producers.
4.3.4.3 Long duration for registration and tariff determination of new power plants
There are specific institutions like AEDB and NEPRA to deal with new registrations
for the bioenergy (renewable) power plants. The problem is the long and cumbersome
process of solicitations, licensing and tariff determinations [29]. While large investors
hire legal experts to deal with registration processes, small and medium-scale power
producers intending to enter into the energy market get discouraged by such long
processes. The study of the policy documents reveals that it may take up to 465 days
to complete the process, which doesn’t include the feasibility study period. Thus, this
issue needs to be addressed to attract more investors into the bioenergy market.
4.3.4.4 Low level of cooperation between state institutions
The following state institutions deal with matters related to energy generation in
Pakistan, the Ministry of Energy (Power and Petroleum Division), Alternative energy
development board (AEDB), PPIB and PCRET. According to Usman Zafar et. al [1],
there remains a lack of cooperation between regulatory institutes and ministries.
Another example of the absence of collaboration is between the PCRET and
Hydrocarbon development institute of Pakistan (HDIP). HDIP, which was tasked to
work on different blends of biofuels and petroleum products [15], could collaborate
57
work with PCRET in developing such biofuels from locally available biomass
resources. The lack of cooperation could lead to the repetition of such projects, and
loss of time and public funds.
4.3.4.5 Low level of academia and industry linkages
As discussed before in 4.2.1, there are academic institutes working carrying out
research in the bioenergy sector. One the reason for the low quality of such research is
the lack of industry-academia linkages [30]. The research work carried out by
academic institutes rarely gets commercialized. This is in contrast with the developed
nations, where the commercialization of academic research is thought to be the main
tool for industrial growth [31].
The major challenges in linking academia and industry in Pakistan are limited
involvement of Government and related ministries in the development of sciences and
technology, poor administration and improper execution, budget allocations, cut-
downs in the funding, low international marketing and national utilization of the
product. Another major challenge to industries is the consumer’s stance towards
imported products and lack of trust in local brands [32].
4.3.4.6 Lack of skilled labour force to implement, run and maintain bioenergy
technologies
One of the reasons highlighted by Umar K. Mirza [15] for the failure of different
biogas (bioenergy) dissemination programs is the lack of a skilled workforce to
maintain and operate these plants. The same study by U.K. Mirza further states the
lack of institutes to train people for such tasks, both in the public and private sectors.
The lack of such a workforce has been attributed to low demand and low activity in
this sector [11], which is due to the lack of knowledge among the general population.
Search on the internet using general search engines and academic search engines
revealed only two such institutes providing post-installation services to bioenergy
power plants. Furthermore, the state institute tasked with research and development in
the renewable energy sector has no such program, apart from a few seminars arranged
on renewable energy technologies.
58
Table 4.4 Energy Policy evaluation with respect to bioenergy
Strengths Weaknesses
Presence of large biomass potential • The low energy density of bioenergy

•
fuels
for bioenergy generation
• Biomass supply chain
• Investor interest
initial • Lack of infrastructure to integrate
• Comparatively equal
bioenergy plants with the national
investment cost with fossil fuel-
grid
based plants
The profitability of new power plants • Lack of policy instruments to
•
encourage bioenergy generation
and the rate of returns
o The feed-in tariff,
• Tax reductions and exemptions for
Renewable portfolio
new power plants
standard
• Presence of policy instruments to
• Low-quality research nationally
encourage bioenergy generation
• Cooperation between federal and
provincial governments
• Bioenergy an alternative to
petroleum based fuels
• Energy security through bioenergy
Opportunities Threats
The large potential of underutilized • Lack of trust in bioenergy

•
technologies viability
biomass
• Long duration for registration and
• Energy and marginal crops
tariff determination of new power
• Opportunity to fulfil INDCs
plants
• Economic impacts
• Low level of cooperation between
o Source of income
state institutions
• Social impacts
• Low level of academia and industry
o Employment generation
linkages
• Off-grid power provision
• Lack of skilled labour force to run
• Biomass utilization in cogeneration
and maintain bioenergy technologies
plants.
59
4.3.5 Recommendations
4.3.5.1 Provision for Financial and Regulatory incentives
The current policy for the bioenergy sector lacks regulatory and financial incentives to
attract investors. Renewable portfolio standard (RPS), Feed-in tariff, two of the
common regulatory tools present in most countries (developed and developing),
should be offered along with the bioenergy generating plants.
As discussed, earlier, financial incentives are absent in energy policy to attract

investors. In countries like Germany, U.K., Sweden and Italy investments and
subsidies have proven to be effective in developing bioenergy [33]. This is the same
for emerging countries like India and China, which can be easily replicated in Pakistan
as well. Furthermore, grants for new power producers should be allocated in federal
and provincial budgets.
4.3.5.2 Improvement in Institutional process
While the results of the policy analysis framework were positive for institutional
feasibility (Section 4.1.4), the registration and tariff determination process for new
power plants is cumbersome. Currently, AEDB, PPIB, and NEPRA deal with
registration and tariff determination process. AEDB deals with power projects of less
than 50 MW, whereas, PPIB deals with projects more than 50 MW of capacity.
Projects that get accreditation from AEDB or PPIB are eligible for tariff determination
by NEPRA. The study of the policy documents reveals that it may take up to 465 days
to complete the process, which doesn’t include the feasibility study period. Thus, this
process needs to be eased to attract more investors into the bioenergy market. While
on paper the government has categorized AEDB and PPIB as one window operation
facility, there need improvements in the process efficiency.
4.3.5.3 Enhance Stakeholder confidence and involvement
One of the important steps in policymaking is to enhance stakeholder’s confidence in

the policy [34]. Furthermore, involving stakeholders in the policy-making process has
emerged as early as two decades ago [35]. Studies have found that for better
stakeholder’s involvement leads to a better appreciation of larger community among
the public and a way to tackle deterioration in public trust and a tool for transformative
social change [36].
60
Pakistan needs to enhance stakeholder confidence and involvement in policymaking.
The bureaucracy of the country needs to include members both from the public and
private sectors as well. Private institutes like Pakistan Sugar Mills Association,
Livestock Farmers & Breeders Association and other relevant bodies can better help
in making an effective policy and implementation.
4.3.5.4 Long term planning and diversification
Some of the energy policies in the past have come out of desperate attempts to mitigate
the energy crisis, while others were politically driven [29]. The same was the case for
the cogeneration policies for sugar mills. Ad-hoc policymaking fails to deliver a
sustainable energy mix. Therefore, policymakers need to take long term planning into
consideration before enacting any policy. Work needs to be done beforehand to look
for sustainable options. Energy modelling tools like MESSAGE, MARKAL-TIMES
or EnergyPlan can be used to forecast for a sustainable energy mix of renewables with
conventional sources of energy.
Successful energy policy can be devised through the collaboration of policymakers,

stakeholder and academia [37]. Furthermore, diversification of energy sources is the
need of time. Policymakers have to expand the domain of bioenergy from bagasse to
other bioenergy resources like agricultural residue, municipal solid waste, and
industrial waste.
4.3.5.5 Capacity building in the bioenergy sector
Pakistan relies on foreign countries for the production of heavy machinery, which
includes machinery for power generation. This gap makes it difficult for prospective
power producers to enter the energy market. Moreover, the country faces a lack of
skilled labour for maintenance of the power generation systems [38].
To cover this gap, the government of Pakistan needs to enable the local industry to
enhance its capacity to manufacture machinery indigenously. This can be done through
technology transfer with nations having a sophisticated industrial base. Also, foreign
companies specializing in power machinery can be incentivized to invest in manacling
plants in Pakistan.
4.3.5.6 Awareness programs for rural communities
61
The government of Pakistan did some pilot projects to promote bioenergy technologies
in the past but failed miserably to do so. This was due to a lack of awareness among
rural communities. Furthermore, the executing agencies failed to educate the people
in terms of the socio-economic benefits of these plants. Also, the initiatives failed to
train the locals in skills such as maintenance and repair of these plants.
Therefore, there need to be more awareness campaigns first. Where people are made
aware of the socio-economic benefits of bioenergy technologies. Such campaigns need
to address the misconceptions like investment risks, uncertainty about renewable
energy, high capital costs.
4.3.6 Comparison of SWOT analysis results and questionnaire results
Second step in carrying out SWOT analysis is to substantiate the results of SWOT
analysis and to validate the objectivity of the analysis. A questionnaire was formed
using the questions of SWOT analysis and shared with stakeholders in energy sector
of Pakistan. the questionnaire used a Likert scale approach to scale responses. With 0
being low/negative and 10 being high/positive. Table 4 compares the opinion of
stakeholders in energy sector and authors analysis of the given questions. Complete
questionnaire responses are attached in the appendix of the document. The The
response of experts from energy industry and my own analysis was similar. For 16
questions response matched my analysis, whereas for 5 questions there was slight
difference of opinion.
Table 4.5 Comparison of SWOT analysis for subjectivity

Self- Questionnaire response
Question
Analysis (Average rating)
-Presence of the natural conditions for the High High (9)
development of bioenergy sources
-Public stance towards bioenergy, positive Negative Moderate (5)
or negative.
-The current level of knowledge of Low Low (4)
bioenergy technologies among people.
-Interest among investors and authorities in High Moderate (6)
the development of bioenergy.
62
-Presence of skilled labour force to Low Low (4)
implement bioenergy technologies.
-Initial investment costs and operations and Moderate Moderate (6)
maintenance costs.
-The profitability of new power plants and Moderate Moderate (7)
the rate of returns.
-The economic impact of new bioenergy High High (9)
plants.
-Social impact of new bioenergy plants. High High (9)
-Positive impact on the environment of High High (9)
Bioenergy generation.
-Potential power plant sites and their Low Moderate (6)
feasibility to connect to the national grid.
-Potential for power provision to Off-grid High High (9)
population.
-Competition with traditional energy Moderate Moderate (7)
sources like coal and petroleum products.
-Security of biomass supply chain. Low Moderate (5)
-Government grants, subsidies, and tax Moderate Moderate (5)
reductions or exemptions.
-Policy instruments to encourage existing Moderate Moderate (6)
power producers to shift towards
bioenergy
-The coherence of energy, environmental Moderate Moderate (6)

and climate policy.
-Ease of registration and facilitation for Low Low (4)
new power producers.
-Presence of cooperation within state Low Low (4)
institutes and with private organizations.
-Level of cooperation between federal and Low Low (4)
provincial governments and institutes.
-The current state of quality of research in Low Moderate (5)
bioenergy, nationally.
63
Summary
This chapter discussed in detail the results of the research study. Firstly, the
frameworks developed for policy analysis and evaluation were put into action by
employing them to analyze and evaluate the last five energy policies of Pakistan. The
framework for the analysis of policy employed a total of 16 qualitative indicators
falling into five categories to compare renewable energy policies. All the variables
hired are qualitative in nature. The framework for analysis was implemented on five
of the recent policies of Pakistan concerning bioenergy. Which included Power policy
2002, RE policy 2006, Power cogeneration policy 2008, Bagasse cogeneration policy
2013 and Alternate and renewable energy policy 2019. When compared holistically,
the upcoming ARE policy 2019, fulfils the most indicators/parameters. The ARE
policy fulfilled a total of 12 indicators out of 16. Secondly, the renewable policy
effectiveness index developed in this study was applied for the last three policies of
Pakistan. The framework developed for policy evaluation into action, the recent
policies of Pakistan are compared. The evaluation and comparison considered policies
promulgated after 2002, till 2013. The time span was chosen to make sure the policies
have reached their lifespan. The forthcoming ARE policy has been kept out
deliberately, as it is not yet promulgated officially, and the measure of its effectiveness
is a matter of future consideration. When compared based on the 10 quantitative
variables, the latest policy that reached its life i.e. bagasse cogeneration policy of 2013
lead with the highest numbers in all categories. The second part of the study was to do
a comprehensive SWOT analysis of bioenergy generation in Pakistan. In this part, the
state of bioenergy generation in Pakistan was studied for its strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats. Finally, a set of recommendations was presented for better
utilization of the bioenergy resources in the country and the development of the
bioenergy sector.
64
References
[1] U. Zafar, T. Ur Rashid, A. A. Khosa, M. S. Khalil, and M. Rahid, “An overview

of implemented renewable energy policy of Pakistan,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 82, September 2017, pp. 654–665, 2018.
[2] National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) Pakistan, “State of

industry Report 2017,” 2017.
[3] A. M. Khushk, A. Memon, and I. Saeed, “Analysis of sugar industry

competitiveness in Pakistan,” J. Agric. Res., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 137–151, 2011.
[4] H. Geller, R. Schaeffer, A. Szklo, and M. Tolmasquim, “Policies for advancing

energy efficiency and renewable energy use in Brazil,” Energy Policy, vol. 32,
no. 12, pp. 1437–1450, 2004.
[5] P. Purohit and A. Michaelowa, “CDM potential of bagasse cogeneration in

India,” Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 4779–4798, 2007.
[6] A. Gopinath, A. Bahurudeen, S. Appari, and P. Nanthagopalan, “A circular

framework for the valorisation of sugar industry wastes: Review on the
industrial symbiosis between sugar, construction and energy industries,” J.
Clean. Prod., vol. 203, pp. 89–108, 2018.
[7] Y. Devarajan, D. B. Munuswamy, B. Nagappan, and A. K. Pandian,

“Performance, combustion and emission analysis of mustard oil biodiesel and
octanol blends in diesel engine,” Heat Mass Transf., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1803–
1811, Jun. 2018.
[8] J. Lee, Y. F. Tsang, S. Kim, Y. S. Ok, and E. E. Kwon, “Energy density

enhancement via pyrolysis of paper mill sludge using CO 2,” J. CO2 Util., vol.
17, pp. 305–311, Jan. 2017.
[9] F. J. Perez-Sanz, S. M. Sarge, A. van der Veen, L. Culleton, O. Beaumont, and

F. Haloua, “First experimental comparison of calorific value measurements of
real biogas with reference and field calorimeters subjected to different standard
methods,” Int. J. Therm. Sci., vol. 135, pp. 72–82, Jan. 2019.
[10] Z. Lee and S. Park, “Particulate and gaseous emissions from a direct-injection
spark ignition engine fueled with bioethanol and gasoline blends at ultra-high
65
injection pressure,” Renew. Energy, vol. 149, pp. 80–90, Apr. 2020.
[11] A. W. Bhutto, A. A. Bazmi, and G. Zahedi, “Greener energy: Issues and

challenges for Pakistan - Biomass energy prospective,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3207–3219, 2011.
[12] World Bank and AEDB, “BIOMASS ATLAS FOR PAKISTAN,” April, 2016.
[13] M. Biberacher et al., “Availability assessment of bioenergy and power plant

location optimization: A case study for Pakistan,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
vol. 42, pp. 700–711, Feb. 2015.
[14] M. Wakeel, B. Chen, and S. Jahangir, “Overview of energy portfolio in

Pakistan,” Energy Procedia, vol. 88, pp. 71–75, 2016.


vol. 59, pp. 264–275, 2016.
[17] R. B. Mitchell et al., “Dedicated Energy Crops and Crop Residues for
Bioenergy Feedstocks in the Central and Eastern USA,” BioEnergy Res., vol. 9,
no. 2, pp. 384–398, Jun. 2016.
[18] M. S. U. Rehman, N. Rashid, A. Saif, T. Mahmood, and J.-I. Han, “Potential of

bioenergy production from industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa): Pakistan
perspective,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 18, pp. 154–164, Feb. 2013.
[19] M. H. Chakrabarti, M. Ali, J. N. Usmani, S. Baroutian, and M. Saleem,

“Technical Evaluation of Pongame and Jatropha B20 Fuels in Pakistan,” Arab.
J. Sci. Eng., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 759–766, Apr. 2013.
[20] M. H. Chakrabarti, M. Ali, S. Baroutian, and M. Saleem, “Techno-economic

comparison between B10 of Eruca sativa L. and other indigenous seed oils in
Pakistan,” Process Saf. Environ. Prot., vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 165–171, May 2011.
[21] S. H. Shah et al., “Potential of microalgal biodiesel production and its

sustainability perspectives in Pakistan,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 81,
pp. 76–92, Jan. 2018.
66
[22] I. Yousuf, A. R. Ghumman, H. N. Hashmi, and M. A. Kamal, “Carbon
emissions from power sector in Pakistan and opportunities to mitigate those,”
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 34, pp. 71–77, Jun. 2014.
[23] A. K. Shukla, K. Sudhakar, and P. Baredar, “Renewable energy resources in

South Asian countries: Challenges, policy and recommendations,” Resour.
Technol., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 342–346, Sep. 2017.
[24] J. Domac, K. Richards, and S. Risovic, “Socio-economic drivers in

implementing bioenergy projects,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 28, no. 2, pp.
97–106, Feb. 2005.
[25] R. O. Chao, M. Sinha, and R. Goldberg, “Husk Power Systems: Scaling Up a

Start-Up,” Darden Bus. Publ. Cases, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–11, Jan. 2017.
[26] M. Hassan, M. K. Afridi, and M. I. Khan, “An overview of alternative and

renewable energy governance, barriers, and opportunities in Pakistan,” Energy
Environ., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 184–203, Mar. 2018.
[27] S. R. Shakeel and S. ur Rahman, “Towards the establishment of renewable

energy technologies’ market: An assessment of public acceptance and use in
Pakistan,” J. Renew. Sustain. Energy, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 045907, Jul. 2018.
[28] Y. Du and K. Takeuchi, “Does a small difference make a difference? Impact of

feed-in tariff on renewable power generation in China,” Energy Econ., p.
104710, Feb. 2020.
[29] F. Ali and F. Beg, “The History of Private Power in Pakistan,” 2007.
[30] A. Bhutto and K. Lohana, “Analysing Existence of University–Industry–

Government Linkages in Sindh, Pakistan,” Science (80-. )., vol. 37, no. 1, pp.
42–55, 2018.
[31] S. Noor, K. Ismail, and A. Arif, “Academic research commercialization in

Pakistan: Issues and challenges,” J. Kemanus., vol. 12, no. 1, 2014.
[32] A. Gul and A. Ahmad, “Perspectives of academia-industrial linkage in Pakistan:

An insight story,” Sci. Technol. Dev., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 175–182, 2012.
[33] P. Thornley and D. Cooper, “The effectiveness of policy instruments in

promoting bioenergy,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 903–913,
67
2008.

[35] R. O. Leary, “The New Governance : Practices and Processes for Stakeholder
and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government,” pp. 547–558, 2004.
[36] A. Irvin and J. Stansbury, “Citizen Participation in Decision Making : Is It

Worth the Effort ?”
[37] W. Liu et al., “Profile of developments in biomass-based bioenergy research: a

20-year perspective,” Scientometrics, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 507–521, May 2014.
[38] D. Maes and S. Van Passel, “Effective bioeconomy policies for the uptake of
innovative technologies under resource constraints,” Biomass and Bioenergy,
vol. 120, pp. 91–106, 2019.
68
Chapter 5 Conclusions
Changing climate and its effects on the global ecosystem have tempted humankind to
move from conventional fuel sources to renewable energy sources. Bioenergy leads in
terms of use among other renewable energy sources globally. Despite being dependent
on energy imports Pakistan has never utilized its bioenergy potential to its fullest. This
shortcoming has been related to different factors, the common being the policymaking
and its implementation. This study tried to uncover the recent police for their merits
and demerits, which lead to the creation of two frameworks (Framework for analysis
policy and EE-S (Environment, Economy, and Security) framework for policy
evaluation.) and a policy effectiveness indicator. The frameworks were applied to
analyze and evaluate the recent bioenergy policies of Pakistan. The following
conclusions were drawn for the recent bioenergy policies.
• Policies have evolved for better in recent years, both in terms of policy options and
their effectiveness.
• Among three of the recent policies (RE policy 2006, Cogeneration policy 2008 and
Bagasse power cogeneration policy 2013), the recent came up with the greatest
number of parameters fulfilled in the policy analysis framework.
• Policymakers have adopted the following bioenergy driving factors into the
policies: Tax reductions and exemptions, Carbon credits, Net metering, Energy
banking, and Guaranteed power purchase.
• Furthermore, there are positive indications in terms of Institutional feasibility,
Investor interest and Stability of stakeholder support.
• The policymakers failed to provide grants for new power plants, investments or
loans from public finances, guarantees and renewable portfolio standards for
existing IPPs
• The outlook for the new policy i.e. Alternate and renewable energy policy seem
bright. But still, the new policy fails to set targets for bioenergy installation and
share in the energy mix.
The second part of the study did a detailed SWOT analysis of the bioenergy market of
Pakistan. Along with major strengths and opportunities in the bioenergy market of
Pakistan, the study analyzed the factors that are weaknesses in the market and threats
69
that may hamper the development of the bioenergy market. The following conclusions
were made from the SWOT analysis of bioenergy generation in Pakistan.
• Strengths: Presence of large biomass potential for bioenergy generation, Investor

interest Comparatively equal initial investment cost with fossil fuel-based plants,
Profitability of new power plants and rate of returns, Tax reductions and
exemptions for new power plants, Presence of policy instruments to encourage
bioenergy generation, Bioenergy an alternative to fossil fuels, and Energy security
through bioenergy.
• Opportunities: Large potential of underutilized biomass, Potential for Energy and
marginal crops, Opportunity to fulfil INDCs, Employment generation, Off-grid
power provision, and Biomass utilization in cogeneration plants.
• Weaknesses: Low energy density of bioenergy fuels, Biomass supply chain, Lack
of infrastructure to integrate bioenergy plants with the national grid, Lack of policy
instruments to encourage bioenergy generation, and Low-quality research
nationally.
• Threats: Lack of trust in bioenergy technologies viability, the Long duration for
registration and tariff determination of new power plants, Low level of cooperation
between state institutions, Low level of academia and industry linkages, Lack of
skilled labour force to run and maintain bioenergy technologies.
Based on the study done for the policy situation and bioenergy market’s standings, the
study suggests the following recommendations for better policymaking and
development of a sustainable bioenergy generation in Pakistan.
• Provision for financial and regulatory incentives in the upcoming policy.

• Improvement in registration and tariff determination process.
• Enhancement in stakeholder confidence and involvement in policymaking.
• Long term planning and diversification of bioenergy resources.
• Capacity building in the bioenergy sector.
• Awareness programs for rural communities on the usage of modern biomass
and bioenergy.
70
Appendix I
Table A.1 Initial selection of parameters for policy analysis
Fiscal Institutional
• Accelerated Depreciation Tax • Institutional process
Benefit
• Capital subsidy or rebate • Institutional Monitoring system
• Investment or production tax credits • Investor facilitation

• Quality of stakeholder
• Energy Production payment Communications
• Grant • Human capital
• Carbon Credits • Resources available to staff
• Tax reduction/ exemption • Regulatory institutions
• Feed-in-tariff/ premium payment • Regulatory process
Public finance • Resource availability monitoring

process
• Investment • Technology development
• Guarantee • Deployment record
• Loan Political
• public procurement • Potential to implement policy
Regulatory • Dependability of policy concept

• Clear target for technology • Existence of stakeholder support
deployment
• Priority access to the network • Stability of stakeholder support
• Power Purchase Agreement • Influence of stakeholder groups
• Electric utility quota obligation • The credibility of the policy

• Political appropriateness and
• Net Metering acceptability of new development
• Tradable REC/Green Certificate • Sufficiency of resources
• Renewable Portfolio Standard • Ownership of policy
• Energy Banking • Investor interest

• Wider perceptions of the national
• Tendering/ bidding institutional environment
71
Appendix II
Journal Paper
Journal: Energy Policy (Elsevier)
Status: Under Review
Impact Factor: 4.880 (2018), 5-Year Impact Factor: 5.458 (2013-2018)
A comparison of Energy Policies of Pakistan and their impact on

Bioenergy development
Zulfiqar Ali1*, Rabia Liaquat1, Asif Hussain Khoja1

1
US-Pakistan Centre for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E), National
University of Sciences & Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
Abstract
Worldwide modern-bioenergy is getting more attention in terms of policy-support and

deployment. Whereas, in Pakistan, this resource is not being used to its fullest. Though
traditional biomass is being used by most of the rural population, but the use of modern
biomass as an energy source is dismally low, which is a result of poor policymaking
and its implementation. During the 1970s the first initiative was taken for the
development of small scale (household/community level) bioenergy projects in
Pakistan. Later, policies were enacted to exploit the bioenergy resources, especially
bagasse-powered bioenergy generation. This study reviewed those initiatives and
policies for their effectiveness in the development of bioenergy in Pakistan. Policies
are compared for different aspects, including regulatory, fiscal, political and
institutional. Furthermore, effectiveness is compared in terms of energy security,
environmental impact, economic impact, and energy equity. The comparison has been
made based on a total of 26 parameters. Moreover, two of the neighboring countries,
China and India, were reviewed for the sake of knowing the country’s standings, in
terms of policies and initiatives taken for the development of bioenergy,
internationally. Finally, the study presents the challenges and recommendations for
policy-making in Pakistan, for maximum exploitation of bioenergy.
Keywords: Bioenergy, Bioenergy Policy, Bioenergy Policy Evaluation, Pakistan
72
Abbreviations
AEDB Alternative energy development board
ARE Alternative and renewable energy
CDM Clean development mechanism
DGNER Directorate general of new and renewable resources
ECC Economic coordination committee
EIA Energy information agency
FIDA Foundation for Integrated Development Action
HEC Higher education commission
ICB International competitive bidding
IEA International energy agency
IPP Independent power producer
MNRE Ministry of new and renewable energy (India)
NBM National biofuel mission
NEPRA National electric power regulatory authority
NGO Non-governmental organization
PCAT Pakistan council of appropriate technology
PCRET Pakistan council of renewable energy technologies
PDBP Pakistan domestic biogas program
PDDC Pakistan dairy development center
PSDP Public sector development program
PV Photo-voltaic
RE Renewable Energy
RET Renewable energy technology
RSPN Rural support program network
73
PPIB Private power infrastructure board
TOE Tones of Oil Equivalent
1 Introduction
The prosperity of a country is often related directly to the presence of a robust
energy supply system in the given country (Rafique et al., 2017; Zysman and Huberty,
2010). An energy supply system can be robust when it is able to withstand the changes
in the global energy scenario (Lucas et al., 2016). Such a system relies on indigenous
resources for energy supply. In earlier times presence of coal reserves bolstered a
country’s energy supply, while currently its oil and gas. Though fossil fuels have a
major share in global energy supply (Kang et al., 2018), the trend is changing
nowadays, the world is shifting towards renewable energy sources (Kraemer and
Stefes, 2016; Tollefson, 2018), to mitigate the effects of using fossil fuels. The effects
include emission of harmful gases and particulate matter, which in long term may
cause multiple problems for mankind (Atilgan and Azapagic, 2015; Höök and Tang,
2013; Machol and Rizk, 2013; Nicoletti et al., 2015).
Pakistan is a developing country, where the situation of energy supply is crippled

due to problems like fragile infrastructure, theft, losses and ad-hoc provisions for
energy supply (Gondal et al., 2018; Ishaque, 2017; Rukh et al., 2016; Zameer and
Wang, 2018). There is somehow improvement in the power generation capacity over
the last five years, but this addition is in thermal-based power generation. The
exploitation of renewable energy sources remains dismally low and there remain areas
with no access to modern energy supplies (Nawaz and Alvi, 2018). For the year 2017-
18 electricity generation from all renewables was 3% and for bioenergy, it was a mere
0.65% of total electric energy generation (Hydrocarbon Development Institute of
Pakistan, 2018). Figure 1 shows the share of electricity generation of different sources
from 2012 to 2018.
Due to the lack of indigenous resources, Pakistan relies on imported fossil fuels
to satisfy its energy needs. According to the Ministry of Energy (Hydrocarbon
Development Institute of Pakistan, 2018), Pakistan relies on fossil fuels, including
imported and domestic, for 88% of its total primary energy supply. Figure 2 shows the
total primary energy supplies for the year 2017-18. Most of the supplies are subsidized
due to bilateral agreements. This puts Pakistan in a precarious situation, any
74
international embargo can shatter the energy security of Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan
needs to diversify its energy supplies. This can be done through the utilization of
indigenous resources, especially renewable energy resources so that the country moves
towards a sustainable and cleaner energy future. Pakistan has a very large untapped
potential of renewable energy, which includes energy from solar, wind and biomass.
Bioenergy is one of the leading primary energy supplies in the world (Von Cruz
and Dierig, 2015). According to IEA’s world energy outlook (International Energy
Agency, 2018) modern bioenergy provided 727 MTOE (5.2%) and traditional biomass
with 658 MTOE (4.7%) globally against a sustainable technical potential of 1194
MTOE (Gregg and Smith, 2010). For Pakistan share of modern bioenergy for the year
2017 was 67543 TOE, which was mere 0.65% of total energy generation for the given
year.
Electricity generation sources (2012-2018)

100%
90%
80%
70%
Electricity 60%
Source 50%
Share % 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Renewable 802 1,549 2,668 3,857
Nuclear 4,553 5,090 5,804 4,605 6,999 9,880
Thermal 61,711 66,707 67,886 70,512 81,268 89,614
Hydel 29,857 31,873 32,474 34,634 32,183 27,925
Figure 1 Electricity Generation 2012-2018 (Source: Pakistan Energy Yearbook)
Though biomass has been the traditional fuel for the masses since the inception
of Pakistan, modern usage of biomass for bioenergy remains very low. Over the history
of the country, different policies and initiatives have been taken to exploit the
bioenergy potential. A closer look at literature gives the decade of 1970s as the time
when Pakistan for the first time focused on exploiting bioenergy through modern
energy conversion techniques. This can be related to the uncertainty in global energy
markets and rising oil prices of that time. There was no official policy made at that
75
time, but different initiatives were taken via the formation of new public sector
organizations. It was in 1994 when Pakistan’s energy policy included the bioenergy in
its scope. Though the results were dismal for the usage of biomass for bioenergy till
2006. In 2006 Pakistan came up with a dedicated policy for the development of
renewable energy in the country (Zafar et al., 2018). The prime focus of the policy was
on wind and solar energy, whereas bioenergy was categorically kept out from the
policy. Then in 2008 PPIB came up with National policy for power cogeneration by
sugar industries. This was a first step towards exploiting Pakistan's bioenergy potential
at the national level. The policy was revised in 2013 as Framework for Bagasse power
cogeneration, while this time AEDB on board. In the same year i.e. 2013, the RE policy
of 2006 which now includes bioenergy in its scope was further extended to for five
years. Making it applicable until March 2018. Therefore, a new policy should have
been formulated in 2018, but there was silence from policymakers till last month (i.e.
June 2019). Though not promulgated officially, policy under the name of Alternative
and Renewable energy Policy’s draft has been shared among stakeholders. The new
policy intends to take some bold steps in increasing the share of renewable energy in
total energy supplies.
Primary Energy Supplies 2017-18

3% 1%
Oil
8% Gas
31%
13% LNG
1% LPG
9%
Coal
34%
Hydro Electricity
Nuclear Electricity
Figure 2 Primary Energy Supplies 2017-18 (Source: Pakistan Energy Yearbook)
Although the government of Pakistan has devised multiple policies in the past
and now in the process of promulgating new policy for exploitation of indigenous
renewable energy sources, there remain challenges to overcome. The challenges faced
fall into two categories gaps in policymaking and implementation of the policy. In past
researchers have reviewed and evaluated different energy policies of Pakistan. Asif
76
Shah et al (Shah et al., 2011) did a study on renewable energy policy dilemmas in
Pakistan. Which were limited only to awareness among stakeholders and lack of
literacy, while policies weren’t discussed critically. Another notable study is of N.H.
Mirjat et al (Mirjat et al., 2017), which reviewed the policies of energy and power
planning in Pakistan. Tauseef Aized et al (Aized et al., 2018) undertook a study for
renewable energy policy analysis, which failed to discuss renewable energy policies.
Rather forecasted energy scenarios for Pakistan’s future energy mix. U. Zafar et al
(Zafar et al., 2018) studied renewable energy policy 2006 for its strengths and
challenges. This study intends to evaluate the policies, measure the effectiveness and
impact of the policies in terms of bioenergy development in Pakistan.
In this study, the bioenergy initiatives of Pakistan are highlighted, the recent
policies and upcoming policy have been discussed and compared for their effect in
bioenergy development of Pakistan. Furthermore, the bioenergy policy trends in India
and China are overviewed, because of the similarities in energy markets and general
socio-economic circumstances. Moreover, challenges faced by policymakers and
implementing agencies are identified. Finally, the study proposes policy implications
and recommendations for policymakers, based on the policy evaluation and challenges
present, for better utilization of bioenergy potential.
2 Methodology for policy comparison

The methodology adopted in this paper is based on a comprehensive review of
energy policies of Pakistan, including both general and specific to bioenergy. A total
of seven energy policies were scrutinized and compared for their effectiveness in the
development of bioenergy in Pakistan. The methodology is graphically presented in
Figure 3 and each step is elaborated in detail in the following sections.
77
Figure 3 Methodology flowchart
2.1 Review of bioenergy dissemination initiatives in Pakistan
The literature cites different bioenergy dissemination initiatives took by different

government and nongovernment agencies (Mirza et al., 2008; Zafar et al., 2018). Such
initiatives were separate from energy policies for the development of bioenergy,
therefore this study took a thorough review of such initiatives. The first step in this
process was to search the literature for such initiatives. Along with literature, internet
search engines were used to look for such initiatives. Finally, the initiatives were
tabulated into two categories, government initiative and non-government initiatives
for bioenergy energy dissemination in Pakistan.
2.2 A comprehensive review of recent energy policies
The second step in this study is to review the energy policies of Pakistan. The review
starts with the 1994’s energy policy until 2019. Original documents of the policies
were gathered form sources including the Ministry of Energy, power division and other
internet archives. Each policy was then perused thoroughly for their main purpose, any
mention of renewable energy and for the mention of any non-conventional energy
sources like energy from agricultural or municipal waste.
After studying each policy, the second step is a review of literature that analyzed or
referenced to the energy policies. Different research and working papers are gathered
78
using Google Scholar and ScienceDirect’s online databases. Finally, a comprehensive
review is written down using observations and inferences made by authors through the
study of original policy documents and literature relevant to the energy policies of
Pakistan.
2.3 Analysis and comparison of policies
The methodology used to analyze the policies was to break it down to specific
policy-options that create demand for bioenergy technologies in the energy market of
Pakistan. A total of 16 qualitative indicators were identified to analyze and later
compare the policies. Indicators are derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)’s report ‘Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change
Mitigation’. The indicators have been further tailored to suit the situation of Pakistan
or a likewise developing country. This study compared the policies for a number of
indicators/variables fulfilled. Due to the qualitative nature of these policy options, the
extent to which such a variable is fulfilled is not considered. The indicators are grouped
into the following five categories, while the individual parameters are enlisted and
elaborated in Table 1.
Fiscal incentives are incentives relating to finances, that have been offered
around the globe for maximizing the deployment of Renewable energy. Employing
such incentives can reduce upfront costs and investments related to bioenergy
technology.
Public Finance entails the parameters under which show how interested the
government or state institutions in providing finance to RE projects. The provision of
public finance is essential for the development of bioenergy and other renewable
energy technologies. The provision of public finance can trigger private investment
into renewable energy technologies as well.
Regulatory incentives indicate how the government is regulating the power

generation sector, either public or private, in order to increase the share of RE in power
generation.
Institutional feasibility parameters are employed to evaluate the presence of

institutions that regulate RE power projects, from basic stages of planning to final
stages of grid connectivity and tariff regulations, and capability to impose a given
policy effectively.
79
Political viability parameters are used to evaluate the present political situation
in a given country. Furthermore, political viability also provides parameters that can
analyze policy for its prior application by another country.
Table 2 Policy analysis parameters and their description
Parameter Description References
Fiscal Incentives
Grants Grants are monetary assistance provided by the (Mitchell et

government for implementing new projects. Grants al., 2011)
are one-time payments that do not have to be repaid.
Grants are provided in the form of refunds after the
investment has been made by the investor.
Tax Tax reduction/ exemption incentives directly

Exemptions provide a reduction in tax, which may include sales,
value-added, energy or carbon tax. Such incentives
are also applied to the purchase (or production) of RE
or RE technologies.
Carbon Carbon Credits are credits given to the RE producer

Credit under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
Which are based on reductions in carbon (Carbon
dioxide) emissions as compared to a traditional
power generation project like oil or coal-based.
Energy Energy production payments are direct payments,

production paid to the RE producer by the government per unit
payments of renewable energy produced. Such payments are
usually for a small duration of time. Which may
extend up to the first year of energy production.
80
Feed-in tariff Feed-in tariff (FIT) is one of the most common fiscal
(FIT) incentives provided to RE producers in developed
countries. FIT is a fixed price paid to the supplier
(varying by technology) per unit energy delivered in
the given year. FIT can be related to Energy
production payment.
Public Finance
Investment Investment is the direct participation of public (Mitchell et

finance institutes in RE projects. Where public al., 2011)
institutions provide finance for a share of equity in
the given project/company. Such investments can be
made through a venture fund model or through
technology development funds.
Loan Loan is another type of public finance. Where

eligible or economically viable RE projects are given
loans for the execution of the project. Loans may not
be limited to those provided by public financial
institutions. They can be extended to private financial
institutions as well. This may differ from general
loans in terms of low-interest rates.
Guarantee The guarantee doesn’t involve direct provision of

finance, it is just a role to be fulfilled by public
financial institutes. To provide a guarantee a public
institute provides the role of guarantor for RE
companies/projects, which are seeking loans from
commercial banks or other financial institutes.
Guarantees are provided to people or businesses with
a sound financial background or a sound business
strategy.
Regulatory incentives
81
Renewable Renewable Portfolio Standard/ Quota obligation or (Mitchell et
portfolio mandate are terminologies used for the same al., 2011)
standard concept. To make sure there is enough green energy
(RFS) being produced, renewable mandates are introduced.
Such mandates require existing power producers to
meet a given minimum target to include RE in the
energy generation portfolio.
Net metering Net metering (or net billing) is introduced to

(Net billing) encourage small and medium-scale energy
generation projects. Under net-metering, anyone with
surplus power (RE in this case) is allowed a two-way
flow of energy between the energy dispatch company
and power producer (Captive).
Energy Energy Banking is just like traditional banking,

banking where energy is deposited and withdrawn
accordingly. This regulatory tool allows a business or
a person to invest in a RE plant, elsewhere than his
residence. Such an investor is privileged to access
energy at his choice of location in same amount as his
power plant produces.
Guaranteed Guaranteed power purchase is the guarantee

power provided to power producers. Guaranteed power
purchase purchase agreements are made to prioritize and
ensure a buildup of the renewable energy sector. Such
incentives guarantee the purchase of every unit of
power produced by the RE producer.
Institutional Feasibility
82
-Potential to Potential to implement policy refers to the presence (Mitchell et
implement of institutions that deals with registration and al., 2011)
regulation of different RE projects.
-Investor Investor interest shows the interest of the investor to

interest invest in a given technology and political situation.
Which can be easily assessed by the number of
applications received.
Political Viability
-Existence of Existence of stakeholder support shows, how a (Mitchell et

stakeholder stakeholder is facilitated under different situations. al., 2011)
support That may include a policy regime change.
-Stability of Stability of stakeholder support reports on the

stakeholder presence of long-term support for stakeholders. This
support parameter is employed to check whether the
government targets are consistent over time. Along
with incentives for stakeholders to adhere to the
policy.
Influence of Influence of stakeholder groups is involved to assess

stakeholder policy’s scope with respect to stakeholders’ interests.
groups This parameter gives an overview of stakeholder
influence. Which includes ownership of key
industries.
Dependability Dependability of policy concept means the presence

of policy of comparable policies elsewhere, and the success of
concept such policies in countries with similar contexts.
2.4 Evaluation of policies to gauge their effectiveness/impact
The second part in comparison of the energy policies is their effectiveness and
impact on bioenergy energy development. The effectiveness of policy as defined by
83
Mitchell et. al (Mitchell et al., 2011) as “The extent to which intended objectives are
met, for instance, the actual increase in the amount of RE electricity generated or
share of RE in total energy supply within a specified time period.” This study not only
measures the addition of modern bioenergy generation projects rather broad aspect of
policy impacts into evaluation procedure. The effectiveness of policies is evaluated
using four categories of parameters 1) Energy security, 2) Environmental impact, 3)
Economic impact and 4) Equity impact.
A total of four parameters are identified to assess Energy Security through the
deployment of bioenergy. Which is a concern that the consumer side is most affected
by. Where energy security “in long-term deals with timely investments to supply
energy in line with economic developments and sustainable environmental needs”
(Speight, 2019).
Environmental impact is one of the major factors for considering a new

powerplant (Rosen et al., 2008). A powerplant can have both negative and positive
environmental impacts, here we are considering parameters to evaluate the positive
environmental impacts of power generation from biomass.
Another aspect of bioenergy generation that this study evaluates is the

Economic impact. Economic impact evaluates how much capital has been invested,
savings and employment generated, either direct or indirect, as a result of bioenergy
generation.
Energy equity is not given a preference when evaluating a policy for its
effectiveness (Bürer and Wüstenhagen, 2009), there are different reasons for doing so.
But this study also inculcates the energy equity aspect of the energy policy. Evaluation
for energy equity helps to determine whether the low-income groups are reaping any
benefits through bioenergy generation.
Table 3 Policy evaluation parameters and their description
Parameter Description Reference
Energy
Security
84
Installed Installed capacity is the total installed electric (Löschel
capacity power generation capacity in megawatts, for the et al.,
given year. Installed capacity only considers power 2010)
generation from bioenergy sources.
Electricity Electricity generated is the total electric energy

generated generation in the given year from biomass-based
powerplants.
Share of Share of Biopower is the percentage of electric

biopower energy generated from bioenergy-powerplants with
respect to total electric energy generation in the
country for the given year.
Bioenergy Bioenergy Targets are defined for bioenergy to be

targets exploited in the future or in the lifespan of the policy
being promulgated.
Environmental
Fossil fuels Fossil fuels replaced is the amount of fossil fuels (Botha
replaced being replaced, if the same amount of energy is and Von
produced using petroleum products in a thermal Blottnitz,
power plant. 2006)
CO2 Reduction CO2 Reduction is the amount of CO2 emissions

reduced because of using bioenergy sources.
Though bioenergy projects emit CO2, this CO2 is to
be recycled in the production of biomass.
Economic
Employment/ Employment/Jobs Created is the number of Jobs (Dalton

Jobs created created the bioenergy industry. This includes and
personnel for Supply chain, Operations, and Lewis,
maintenance. 2011)
85
Gross income Gross Income is the amount of capital generated by
the bioenergy companies by selling electricity to the
national grid. The study doesn’t consider savings
made due to captive power generation because of the
limitation of data availability.
Energy Equity
Electricity Electricity Access is the number of people with (Sovacool,

access access to electricity out of the total population of the 2011),
country. (Mitchell
et al.,
Electrification Electrification Target is the target set by the policy
2011)
target for electrification of non-electrified areas across the
country.
Access to clean Access to Clean Cooking is the percentage of the

cooking population with Access to Clean fuels for cooking
like natural gas or liquid petroleum gas.
Affordability Affordability represents the amount of household

income spent on fuel and electricity. Fuel, in this
case, represents fuel for cooking and heating only, it
doesn’t account fuel for transport.
3 Results and discussion

3.1 Review of bioenergy dissemination initiatives in Pakistan
Literature review provides no initiatives took until the advent of the 1970s (Mirza
et al., 2008). Due to rising oil prices of that decade, the government of Pakistan started
a campaign for indigenous energy solutions. Tables 2 and 3 enlists the details of the
initiatives took by public and private organizations for the development of bioenergy
in Pakistan.
86
Table 4 Government sector bioenergy initiatives
Project
Year Project Objectives Results References
Name
1974- Biogas 1: 100 A total of 4137 (Mittal, 2007)

technology demonstration biogas plants
1987 (Mirza et al.,
dissemination plants to be were installed 2008)
program installed, funded by across Pakistan.
DGNRER.
2: 2000 plants to be
installed on a cost-
sharing basis.
3: 2000 plants to be
financed by the
consumer.
1976 Propagation assess the feasibility 21 Chinese fixed [Experience,

of biogas of Chinese fixed dome biogas PCRET]
technology–1 dome biogas plant plants were (Ghafoor et al.,
in Pakistan installed 2016)
1979 Propagation Reengineering and 10 demonstrations (Ghafoor et al.,

of biogas modification of plants were set up 2016)
technology–2 Moveable gasholder in areas of Azad
biogas plant, to be Kashmir.
manufactured easily 100 biogas plants
in Pakistan. were installed
across Pakistan
2002 PC-1 by Installation of 1600 biogas (Kamran,

PCRET biogas plants (1200 plants by the end 2018).
in total) of the project i.e.
(Mirza et al.,
June 2006
2008)
87
2007 PSDP Installation of A total of 2513 (Mirza et al.,
financed biogas plants across biogas plants 2008)
project Pakistan were installed in (PCRET, n.d.)
the period starting
from 2007 to
2012
2012 PCRET 2012 Installation of 2500 biogas (Uddin et al.,

project 50000 biogas plants plants were 2016)
by 2020 installed by 2012 (Raheem et al.,
2016)
2013 Adaptation of Dissemination of 750 biogas plants (Ghafoor et al.,

Biogas biogas technology of 15 m3 and 2016)
Technology among rural areas 1200 floating- (Field Director
to Mitigate of Punjab drum type biogas General
Energy plants were Agriculture,
Crises installed across 2014).
Punjab
Table 5 Private sector bioenergy initiatives
Project
Year Project Objectives Results References
Name
2007 FIDA 2007 Installation of four Installed four (Raheem et

project different size pilot different size pilot al., 2016).
plants in DI-Khan plants in DI-Khan,
benefiting twenty-
two households of
162 people
88
2009 FIDA 2009 Installation of biogas Seven biogas plants (Foundation
Project plants in DI-Khan, were installed in for Integrated
sponsored by DI-Khan Development
Australian Agency for Action, n.d.).
international
development
2009 RSPN 2012 Installation of biogas Installed a total of (Amjid et al.,

project plants on a cost- 70 biogas plants 2011)
sharing basis across Pakistan on a
subsidized cost of
Rs 7500/plant
Firstly 450 biogas

2009 Horizon-3 Capacity-building (Yasar et al.,
plants were
among dairy workers 2017)
installed in July
and stakeholders,
2009.
sponsored by Pakistan
Another 106 plants
Dairy development
were installed by
center (PDDC)
PDDC.
2012 Alternative Commissioning of Commissioned 175 (Foundation

Rural biogas plants in DI- biogas plants for Integrated
Energy Khan initially and another Development
Through 657 biogas plants Action, n.d.).
Community with the
Led Biogas collaboration of
different
international NGOs
from 2012 to 2015
2014 Pakistan Biogas plant a total of 5360 (RSPN,

domestic installation across 12 biogas plants were 2014).
biogas central districts of installed.
program Punjab province.
89
3.2 A Comprehensive review of energy policies
To understand the policy scenario of Pakistan, one must delve into the historical
developments in the field of energy policy. Although the first renewable energy policy
was promulgated in 2006, this study also looks at some of the previous energy policies
and their relevance to Bioenergy energy development in Pakistan.
3.2.1 Pre-2006 energy policies and their relevance to bioenergy
This policy was driven by the power crisis of the early 1990s (Mirjat et al., 2017).
The policy was meant to attract independent power producers, thus it was named as
‘Policy framework and package of incentives for private sector power generation
projects in Pakistan’.
This policy provided the freedom to choose between fuel type and technology.
Though Bioenergy from biomass is not referred directly, there is a mention of
renewable energy. The clause goes like this “Investors may also propose projects
based on hydro, or other renewable and/or non-conventional sources of energy such
as solar, wind, geothermal, etc.”
The policy didn’t attract any investor in the bioenergy sector until the next policy
was promulgated. Reasons for lack of investor interest included: less lucrative
opportunities in bioenergy compared to oil-powered powerplants, as oil is easy to
transport and store (Mirjat et al., 2017). Secondly, the policy didn’t make any rules for
bioenergy or renewable energy standards for power producers.
The power policy of 1998 focused on creating a competitive power generation

market through different means (Mirjat et al., 2017). Whereas power generation from
renewable energy sources was exempted from solicited biddings. Another reference to
renewables not explicitly but implicitly in sub-section ‘Thermal projects based on
fuels other than indigenous coal’. Such projects were asked to provide a request for
proposal (RFP), enlisting parameters like delivery point/region for delivery of power
and net capacity, minimum annual plant factor, availability of the power plant. While
fuel availability and arrangements were the responsibility of the bidder. The price for
90
fuel was to be provided by the bidder, which will determine the tariff for power
generated.
Another reference is made in the last section of the policy document, which
refers to small power plants (including cogeneration units) of less than 20MW capacity
based on renewable sources. Such powerplants were given exemption from solicited
proposals and competitive exemption. While tariffs to be set as average levelized tariff,
based on the last twelve months. While such plants were restricted to keep capacity
increase within 5% annually, to ensure a competitive solicitation in tariff
determination.
A provision for powerplants intending to provide power to off-grid places was

made in the policy. Such power producers were allowed deviations from the given
policy. At the same time, NEPRA was to establish separate procedures for attracting
private investment and setting tariffs for such powerplants.
3.2.1.3 Policy for Power generation, 2002
With the change in political regime in 1999, the new government felt the need
of new and comprehensive energy policy. Thus, the policy for power generation was
promulgated in 2002. For the first time there in the history of power policies of
Pakistan, there is a direct reference to indigenous renewable energy exploitation. The
second objective of the policy states “To encourage and ensure exploitation of
indigenous resources, which include renewable energy resources, human resources,
the participation of local engineering and manufacturing capabilities”. While at
another point the policy refers to the Government of Pakistan’s intention to initiate
feasibility studies for exploiting indigenous renewable resources. The power policy of
2002 provides incentives for the import of equipment for renewable energy projects.
Such companies were exempt from income tax (which includes turnover rate tax and
with-holding tax on imports).
Renewable energy projects were classified under Raw sites. Such projects were
required to submit proposals to provincial governments in case of a plant size less than
50MW. Whereas for plant sized above 50MW were to submit proposals to PPIB
(Private power infrastructure board). The maximum time from submission of
proposals to the provision of a Letter of support (LOS) was 465 days, without
including the feasibility study period.
91
While other requirements (including fuel choice, price, availability) for
projects using fuel other than oil or coal were same as that of the power policy of 1998,
discussed above.
The power policy of 2002 medium-term plan forecasted of including 500MW power
from renewables in the next 15 years i.e. up to 2017.
3.2.2 Post-2006 energy policies and their relevance to bioenergy
3.2.2.1 Renewable Energy Policy, 2006
For the first time, the Government of Pakistan developed a comprehensive

policy for the development of renewable energy in Pakistan. But this policy failed in
catering to the needs of stakeholders concerned with bioenergy.
In the introduction, it is stated that “Additional policy guidelines shall be issued

in the future concerning biomass conversion and other RE technologies, as well as for
non-power RE applications, as the sector grows, and technology advances take place.”
The scope of policy categorically states that RE technologies other than Small
hydro, Solar (PV + Thermal) and wind are not in the domain of this policy. The
statement goes as follow “Other RE power generation technologies—such as those
based on municipal waste and landfill methane recovery, anaerobic or pyrolytic
biomass gasification, cofiring or cogeneration utilizing agricultural crop residues,
biofuels, wave, tidal, geothermal energy, and fuel cells—are also relevant to current
and future renewable energy use in Pakistan. However, these are not dealt with in this
document.”
3.2.2.2 PPIB, National policy for power co-generation by sugar industry, 2008
This policy came two years after the first Renewable energy policy was first
promulgated. But this policy depends on fiscal and legal regimes of Power Policy of
2002. Tariff determination is done through the procedure discussed in the Power policy
of 2002 by NEPRA. Co-generation policy allowed sugar mill owners to have power-
producing plants that can be run as either in Captive or IPP mode as well. Another
provision also allowed the sugar industry to use bagasse as fuel during crushing season
and coal (local or imported) during the off-season period. Here crushing season refers
to sugarcane crushing/harvesting season i.e. November to February and off-season as
March to October months.
92
Another important provision from power policy 2002 was the imposition of
fixed customs duty at 5%, on machinery imported for such projects. Another clause
mentions “indigenization to be maximized in accordance to government policy” but
doesn’t mention how this will be achieved.
3.2.2.3 Frame Work for Bagasse Power Co-Generation, 2013
Framework for Power co-generation was formally approved as an addition to the

RE policy of 2006 by ECC (Economic Coordination Committee) of the Cabinet in
2013. As RE policy was silent regarding Bioenergy projects, this time Bioenergy
projects utilizing Bagasse, biomass, and waste were added to the scope of the RE
policy 2006. This meant that all the fiscal, institutional and regulatory regimes of the
2006 policy will be applicable to Bioenergy projects, whereas power policy of 2002
was the basic regulatory model for 2008’s Cogeneration policy. ECC also extended
the policy regime for RE policy 2006 by another five years (AEDB, 2013).
The addition of biomass to the RE policy of 2006 was a positive step took by
ECC. The inclusion led the bioenergy producers, sugar-mill owners currently, to
access the incentives provided to other RE technologies. Which included Carbon
credits, Energy banking and guaranteed power purchase by central power purchasing
authority (CPPA).
Other major features of the policy included: Facilitation of PPIB in setting up

of the co-generation power plants, using high-pressure boilers i.e. a minimum of
60bars. Co-generation plants will be able to access the financial incentives of Power
policy 2002. All eligible companies were exempted from the prequalification process.
They were to be issued a letter of support by PPIB after tariff has been determined by
NEPRA. A major change was from earlier polices was that power producer was bound
to dispatch hourly declared available capacity during the crushing season.
3.2.2.4 Alternative and Renewable energy (ARE) policy 2019
ARE policy though not promulgated officially, is in the review phase. The draft
of the policy has been shared among stakeholders in academia and policy think tanks.
The draft of the ARE policy shows some dramatic changes from the earlier policies.
The new policy has broadened its scope, the flexibility of implementation, introduced
competitive procurement of energy, emphasis on off-grid solutions and rural energy
services. The policy sets a bold target of achieving 20 percent of the energy mix from
93
renewables by 2025 and 30 percent by 2030. Keeping the timeframe in focus,
achieving 20 percent energy from renewables by 2025 seems impractical.
This time bioenergy has been given the same focus as that of wind and solar.
The scope now includes energy from biomass (this time extended from bagasse to
other agricultural residues and wastes), Biogas and energy from waste (including
municipal and industrial waste, sewage and refused derived fuels).
ARE policy is continuing most of the incentives provided under the RE policy
of 2006. Incentives like tax exemptions and custom duty exemptions remain there.
Regulatory tools like net metering, energy wheeling, carbon credits, and upfront tariffs
are also part of the policy. While, Upfront tariffs are up to NEPRA to decide,
depending on the nature of the project. Another addition to this policy is International
Competitive Bidding (ICB). ICB will consider the energy source that provides the least
cost. This may put bioenergy projects at disadvantage compared to conventional fuels,
because of existing infrastructure and economies of scale.
Though the objectives include rural energy services and to encourage the private
sector, Fiscal incentives remain out of the scope of the new policy. There are no
provisions made for public loans, guarantees and investment in bioenergy or other
renewable energy projects.
3.3 Policy analysis and comparison
Qualitative comaparison of energy policies
ARE Policy 2019 12
Bagasse Co-generation Policy2013 10
Power Co-generation Policy2008 7
RE Policy 2006 8
Power Policy 2002 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 4 Qualitative comparison of energy policies
94
A total of 16 qualitative indicators are used to compare the policies, which are
further grouped into five categories. The indicators or variables used are qualitative in
nature, the policies cannot be compared on a quantitative basis. Therefore, this study
compared the policies for a number of indicators/variables fulfilled, the extent to which
such a variable is fulfilled is not considered.
When compared based on qualitative indicators ARE policy 2019, if

implemented, came at the top, fulfilling 12 out of 16 indicators in different capacities.
The following chart (Figure 4) compares the policies based on qualitative indicators
fulfilled.
3.3.1 Fiscal Incentives
After close perusal of the policies for fiscal incentives, the following inferences
are made: 1) None of the RE policies provide a grant for bioenergy or other renewable
energy projects. 2)RE policy of 2006, provided tax incentives for RE power
generation, but it didn’t include bioenergy energy projects at that time. Whereas,
Bagasse Co-generation policy of 2008 gave a 5% fixed import/customs duty on import
of machinery required for the cogeneration plants. The 5% duty was continued under
Framework for bagasse power cogeneration. Which was later changed, as Framework
for bagasse power cogeneration was added to RE policy 2006 as an addendum. Which
meant, all the tax incentives of 2006 will be available for bagasse power cogeneration
projects and other bioenergy projects like biomass and municipal waste. 3)Carbon
credits were introduced in RE Policy 2006. Which were not applicable to bioenergy
projects, until 2013. After ECC’s decision bioenergy projects can apply for Carbon
credits as well. None of the polices have provided such incentives for RE producers.
4) As the new policy is promulgated, there will be some sort of FIT available to
bioenergy projects. Though named as Upfront tariff or Cost-plus tariff. Whether to
give or not, this upfront tariff will be decided by NEPRA. Criteria to be eligible for
the upfront tariff is for the project to be immature i.e. there are no such projects made
in the past.
3.3.2 Public Finance
All five of the policies discussed here fail to provide any investment to RE
producers or project. In the case of loans, again none of the policies discussed any
possibility of loans from public institutions for bioenergy project development. Nor
there is a provision in the policies for commercial banks to provide loans to such
95
projects. Similarly, neither of the policies, 2006, 2008, 2013 or 2019 provide any
guarantee for projects registering under such policies for power production.
3.3.3 Regulatory Incentives
For the five policies under scrutiny for regulatory incentives following
inferences were made: 1) Pakistani policymakers fail to regulate the power generation
sector to include RE sources into their energy mix (Zafar et al., 2018). 2) Net metering
was first introduced in the RE policy of 2006 and subsequently available under other
policies as well. Though captive power production was in practice earlier than 2006.
3) Energy banking was introduced in RE policy 2006. After 2013’s ECC’s decision,
banking is now applicable to bioenergy projects as well. 4) RE Policy 2006 provided
with guaranteed power purchase from RE producers. Bioenergy projects are also
provided guaranteed power purchase after the promulgation of Framework for power
cogeneration 2013.
3.3.4 Institutional Feasibility
Although there are multiple organizations dealing with RE projects, AEDB

stands out among them. AEDB issues standard letter of intent (LOI). Afterward, the
IPP must obtain a generation license and tariff is determined by NEPRA. Secondly,
there has been an increased interest of investors in power generation from biomass.
According to NEPRA, 27 entities, mostly related to sugar mills, have been given
generation licenses by the year 2018. While another 40 have been awarded licenses
for captive power generation (National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA)
Pakistan, 2017a). There remains a lack of interest in projects utilizing biomass other
than bagasse.
3.3.5 Political viability
Stakeholders, especially power producers have been incentivized since the

power policy of 1994. Which provides immunity to stakeholders of any changing
political situation. Which is again reemphasized in RE policy 2006 and 2019.
Furthermore, the RE policy of 2006 discusses the potential for energy from biomass
and estimates a 700MW power from sugar mills. But fails to assess or estimate a
number for the potential of bioenergy from indigenous resources. Whereas, the
Government seems consistent regarding the exploitation of RE potential from bagasse
cogeneration in policies of 2008 and 2013. Another factor employed in this study to
compare policies for political viability is Influence of stakeholders. According to A.
96
Khushk et. al (Khushk et al., 2011), 70 percent of sugar mill owners have a sole
proprietorship and 60 percent of owners have family members who own a sugar mill.
Thus, it can be inferred that there is a strong stakeholder base, with monopolistic
nature. But there is very little or no evidence of any influence in policymaking, in
literature. Whereas, the dependability of the policy concept is strong for all the policies
discussed. As the world’s largest sugarcane producers Brazil, India, and China have
been long exploiting the RE potential of sugarcane bagasse for a long time (Geller et
al., 2004) (Purohit and Michaelowa, 2007) (Gopinath et al., 2018).
Comparison is made for Pakistan’s energy policies for their impact on

bioenergy development is summarized in Table 5.
Table 6 Comparison of energy policies for different incentives for bioenergy

producers
Powe
Powe
RE r co- Bagass ARE
r
Policy evaluation polic gen e co- Polic
polic
parameters y Polic gen y
y
2006 y 2013 2019
2002
2008
Fiscal incentives (S)
Grants     
Tax reductions/ exemptions     

Carbon Credits      
Energy production payment /
Feed-in tariff (FIT)
    
97
Public finance (S)
Investment / Loan     
Guarantee     
Regulatory (S)
Renewable Portfolio Standard

    
/Quota obligation or mandate
Net metering (also net billing)       

Banking      
Guaranteed power purchase      
Institutional Feasibility (S)
Potential to implement policy       

Investor interest       
Political viability (S - R)
Existence of stakeholder support       

Stability of stakeholder support       
Influence of stakeholder groups     
Dependability of policy concept       
R - Indicators effecting/relating Power
Receiver
Discussed Not Discussed
S - Indicators effecting/relating Power
Supplier
98
3.4 Policy evaluation to gauge their effectiveness/impact
A total of 10 quantitative indicators/variables are used to gauge and compare the

policies for their effectiveness, which are discussed in Section 2.4. The comparison
considered policies promulgated during the period of 2002-2013. All such policies
have reached their lifespan. While ARE policy 2019 has been kept out, as it is in the
phase of promulgation and its impact on bioenergy is a matter of future consideration.
When compared based on the 10 quantitative variables, the latest policy i.e. bagasse
cogeneration policy of 2013 had the highest numbers in all categories.
3.4.1 Comparison of policies for energy security
As evident from the figures for comparison Figure 5-8, it seems like there has
been much increase in bioenergy generation over the years. But this increase is in
bagasse powered energy generation by different sugar mills in the county. Which was
a result of the promulgation of the recent two policies, i.e. Power co-generation policy
2008 and Bagasse co-generation policy 2013. There remains a large potential only in
sugar mills to exploit. To put in perspective, the energy generated from bagasse
powered plants was 784 GWh against a maximum potential of 2984 GWh (Arshad and
Ahmed, 2016). Figure 5 represents the change in bioenergy generation over the life
span of different policy regimes.
Generation and Bioenergy Share %
700
Biopower Capacity, Bioenergy
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
POWER POLICY POWER CO-GEN BAGASSE CO-
RE POLICY 2006
2002 POLICY 2008 GEN 2013
Percent 0 0.06 0.3 0.65
MW 0 23 105 280
GWh 0 66.24 302.4 785
Figure 5 Comparison of policies for energy security

3.4.2 Comparison of polices for their environmental impact
99
1400000
1200000
Fossil Fuels 1000000
Replaced 800000
(Barrels), CO2
600000
Reduction (MT)
400000
200000
0
POWE
POWE BAGAS
RE R CO-
R SE CO-
POLIC GEN
POLIC GEN
Y 2006 POLIC
Y 2002 2013
Y 2008
CO2 reduction (Metric Tons) 0 30,272 138,196 358,745
Fossil Fuels Replaced
0 129,400 590,740 1,533,503
(Petroleum Barrels)
Figure 6 Comparison of polices for their environmental impact
The second category of parameters used to evaluate policies in this study is the
environmental impact. As discussed in Section 2.4, the two parameters are the
replacement of traditional fossil fuels and the reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of
bioenergy generation. A nominal value of 511.9KWh/Barrel of Petroleum is used to
calculate fossil fuels replaced Based on U.S EIA data for 2017. Whereas for CO2
Reduction, though bioenergy projects emit CO2, this study considers a hundred percent
recycling of CO2 in the production of biomass. The calculations are based on U.S EIA
data for 2017, which is one pound of CO2 generated for each Kilowatt-hour of energy
generated (1lbs/KWh or 0.457kg/KWh). The result for both the parameters is positive
as shown in Figure 6.
3.4.3 Comparison of polices for their economic impact
The third category of parameters to evaluate the policies under discussion are
economic in nature. As the presence of a strong economic aspect is necessary to attract
and engage private entities to invest in bioenergy projects (Schmidt et al., 2013). The
two parameters used are employment generation and income generated in the
production of bioenergy. This study used the figure cited by Dalton and Lewis in their
study (Dalton and Lewis, 2011) i.e. 5.8 jobs (3.5 Direct jobs and 2.3 Operation and
maintenance) per MW of Bioenergy installation. Whereas, for gross income, this study
doesn’t consider savings made due to captive power generation because of the
limitation of data availability. Gross income has been calculated using the tariff
determined by NEPRA for the given year. Gross income maxed at Rupees 9.2 billion
100
for the year 2017. Figure 7 represents the economic impact of the last four energy
policies.
9000
8000
7000
No. Jobs 6000
Created, Gross 5000
Income (Million 4000
Rs) 3000
2000
1000
0
POWER
BAGAS
POWER RE CO-
SE CO-
POLICY POLICY GEN
GEN
2002 2006 POLICY
2013
2008
No. of Jobs Created 0 133 609 1624
Income Generated (Million Rs) 0 320 3500 9200
Figure 7 Comparison of polices for their economic impact

3.4.4 Comparison of policies for energy equity
A total of four parameters are engaged to evaluate energy equity. Though

energy equity being a broader concept and dependent on other policies apart from the
energy policy of a country. Energy policies can be effective in bringing
underprivileged into energy access networks through an emphasis on off-grid
bioenergy projects (Islam et al., 2018).
Data for electricity access has been cited from sources like IEA and World
bank. Both of the sources remained disparate in their records. Therefore, for ease and
relevance to the organization, data provided by IEA has been used in this study. Which
stood at 73.6% for the year 2016. As for the electrification target, the study found none
of the policies being discussed set a target for electrification. Which may be due to
limitations of the scope of the policy. Whereas, Access to clean cooking stood at 44%
of the population for the year 2017 (World Bank, n.d.). And according to the Pakistan
Bureau of Statistics, the amount of household income spent on energy bills remained
constant around 7% of total household income. Figure 8 is a graphical representation
of comparison for energy equity.
101
70
60
Electricity access, 50
Access to Clean 40
Cooking, Income
Spent of 30
Fuel/Lighting 20
10
0
POWER BAGASS
POWER RE
CO-GEN E CO-
POLICY POLICY
POLICY GEN
2002 2006
2008 2013
Income spent on Fuel/Lghting
7 7 6 7
%
Access to Clean Cooking % 31 33 40 44
Electricity Access % 55.7 67.4 73.6
Figure 8 Comparison of polices for energy equity

3.5 Current trends in Policymaking in neighboring countries
Two of the neighboring countries, China and India, have been selected for this
study. This section of the study reports some of the major policies in neighboring
countries, for the sake of inspirational purposes for the policymakers. Most of the
policy instruments can be replicated by policymakers in Pakistan with changes to fit
the country’s situation.
3.5.1 China
China is one of the leading bioenergy generating country in the world. Share of
bioenergy rose from mere 3,136 Megawatts in 2008 to 16,250 Megawatts in 2016,
which accounted for 1 percent of total power generation capacity of 1,625 Gigawatts
(International Energy Agency, 2017a). When compared to Pakistan, the total
electricity generation capacity of Pakistan in 2018 was 33,554 Megawatts
(Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan, 2018). Growth in the bioenergy
sector is because of China’s intention to diversify its energy mix and actions taken
under different Five-Year Plans. A major precedent was set after 2006’s Renewable
energy law, which was the major catalyst for the inclusion of modern bioenergy in the
energy mix of China. According to Zhao Xingang (Xingang et al., 2013), the Chinese
government is planning to add another 30 Gigawatts of bioenergy generation capacity
by 2020. The boom in bioenergy can also be related to development in the
technological and manufacturing base of China in the last two decades.
102
Along with national bioenergy development programs, Chinese provinces are
working to increase the share of bioenergy. Every province has a dedicated institute
for the development of bioenergy conversion technologies. Such technologies are
transferred to industry via technology transfer contracts (Gan and Yu, 2008).
The policy situation is also very feasible for investors to invest in bioenergy
generation plants. All the bioenergy projects are supported via different policies in
different stages of industry development. For projects in the conception phase,
different fiscal incentives are provided. Which includes infrastructure loans at
discounted rates and establishment of a fund for financing such projects. While
ongoing bioenergy projects are being provided with fiscal subsidies for operations,
maintenance, and grid-connections (Kahrl et al., 2013). Bioenergy generation
enterprises are given special tax exemptions. Such companies are given tax exemptions
for the first three years of operations. While those bioenergy plants which utilize
municipal solid waste are given exemption in value-added taxes. After 1978 the
Chinese government has invested large amounts of funds in research and development
(R&D) of bioenergy conversion technologies. Under the 9th Five-year plan, the
Chinese ministry of science and technology spent $9.3 million in R&D activities for
renewable energy development. By 2010 under the 11th five-year plan, the Chinese
government spent a total of $77 million in bioenergy R&D (Xingang et al., 2013).
Keeping in the view the progress China has made in bioenergy generation
Pakistan can learn and replicate most of the policies adopted by China. Pakistan needs
to add bioenergy into China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) portfolio. The
Pakistani government also needs technology transfer for bioenergy conversion
technologies which China has expertise in.
3.5.2 India
India has made significant additions to renewable energy power generation over
the last two decades. India stands third (IRENA 2018) in the list of largest renewable
energy markets (first being the USA and second being China). Bioenergy is one of the
significant contributors among other renewable energy sources in India. Currently,
India has a capacity of 4831.33 Megawatts of grid-interactive biopower, which
accounts for 11 percent of total renewable energy generation capacity (total being
42844.39 Megawatts). Off-grid biopower generation totals 994 Megawatts, which
includes biomass cogeneration and energy from waste. Thus, the total amount of power
103
being generated from biomass in India adds up-to 5940 Megawatts. Meanwhile, the
government of India is planning to achieve a target of 10 Gigawatts of biopower by
2022 (Sinha et al., 2019).
India has a dedicated ministry for renewables called the Ministry of new and
renewable energy (MNRE). MNRE deals with the research and development of
renewable energy technologies in India. Another state institution that works for the
dissemination of renewable energy in India is the Indian renewable energy
development agency (IREDA). Which works under the umbrella of MNRE.
In India, bioenergy generation is facilitated through different policy

mechanisms. Which includes tax incentives, subsidies, and grants for projects working
towards bioenergy generation. Under the 12th Five-year plan (2012-2017) Government
of India apportioned Rupees 460 million for biomass gasifier scheme (Kumar et al.,
2015). Some of the objectives of the Biomass gasifier scheme included: 1) Off-grid
power generation program for rural areas based on Biomass gasifiers. 2) Promotion of
biomass powered powerplants with more than a megawatt capacity. 3) Provisions to
be made for awareness and training programs on biomass gasifiers.
Financial support and Subsidies are an important part of Indian bioenergy policy.
Bioenergy projects are financed through different programs. One of them being
Removal of Barriers to Biomass Power Generation in India. Under this program
financing of up-to Rupees 15 million per Megawatt is offered to power producers using
producer gas with a minimum capacity of 1 Megawatt. The program also offers finance
of Rupees 3 Million for infrastructure development (Kumar et al., 2015).
Along with financial support, subsidies are provided by MNRE through Central
Financial Assistance (CFA) to bioenergy projects. Along with subsidies, bioenergy
projects are provided with includes tax exemptions and relaxation in custom duties
(Kumar et al., 2015).
Another major policy being exercised in India is of biofuels blending mandates.

The earliest of the policies is the Power alcohol act of 1948. Other major policies for
biofuels include the National Biofuel Mission (NBM) of 2003, National policy on
biofuels 2009, which proposed a mandate of 20% biofuel blending by 2017 (Sinha et
al., 2019).
104
Other policy instruments used in India for the promotion of bioenergy
technologies include: Feed-in tariffs, renewable purchase obligation for utilities and
renewable energy certificate (REC) trading through clean development mechanism
(CDM). As Pakistan and India share a common history and similar markets, Pakistan
can easily replicate most of the policies being enacted in India for the promotion of
bioenergy.
3.6 Bioenergy policy and development challenges
This section aims to identify the current lying challenges that policymakers face
in developing the policy and implementing institutions face while the execution of the
policy. The challenges have been identified through the study of literature for the
current situation of Pakistan.
3.6.1 Ad-hoc policymaking
Policies are created to cater to the needs of a particular time, though such policies
may be applicable to other situations as well. The problem is the lack of long-term
planning and policymaking towards a sustainable energy mix and maximum utilization
of indigenous resources (Mirza et al., 2007)(Mirza et al., 2009)(Mirjat et al., 2017).
Such ad-hoc policymaking in Pakistan deterred the sustainable development of
bioenergy dissemination.
3.6.2 Competitiveness with conventional fuels/energy sources
Pakistan’s energy sector relies mostly on conventional fossil fuels for power
generation. According to Pakistan energy yearbook, fossil fuel consumption in thermal
power generation totaled 19 MTOE, which accounts for 68 percent of total generation
(Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan, 2018). The power generation from
fossil fuels and their imports are highly subsidized (Zafar et al., 2018), which makes
the bioenergy generation less lucrative.
Other factors that affect the dissemination of bioenergy is the seasonality of

biomass availability (Rentizelas et al., 2009). As Pakistan has low forest cover (Butt
et al., 2013), the viable option of biomass is the crop residue. While the crop residue
is available only in the harvesting season, which makes energy generation from such
sources less attractive for investors.
3.6.3 Limited interoperability of state institutions
105
Matters related to energy generation are dealt with by following state institutions
in Pakistan, Ministry of Energy (Power and Petroleum Division), Alternative energy
development board (AEDB), PPIB and PCRET. Though each institute has its own
responsibilities, there remains a poor culture of information sharing between such
institutions. According to Usman Zafar et. al (Zafar et al., 2018), there is a lack of
cooperation between such institutes and ministries. Another glaring example of lack
of cooperation is between the Hydrocarbon development institute of Pakistan (HDIP)
and PCRET. HDIP, which is working on different blends of biofuels and gasoline
(Mirza et al., 2008), could work with PCRET in developing such biofuels from
indigenous biomass resources. While lack of cooperation could lead to duplication of
such projects, and loss of time and public resources.
There are other state institutions that are not directly related to energy generation
or energy policymaking but are linked indirectly. Two of such institutions are the
Ministry of climate change and the Ministry of environment. Both organizations
advocate for alternative and renewable energy sources, which the policymakers of
energy must keep in mind while making energy policies. Synergy between such
institutions is necessary for the creation of a comprehensive and sustainable energy
policy.
3.6.4 Absence of developed infrastructure
Pakistan’s power distribution is network is centralized. Electrification rates

remained too low for rural areas, where access to the centralized grid is not possible.
While most RETs are decentralized in nature, they can cater to such off-grid
communities. But the absence of a developed infrastructure impedes the exploitation
of bioenergy sources in rural areas, where bioenergy resources are abundant.
Infrastructure refers to the established power generation machinery industry. Thus,
Pakistan has to import power generation machinery, which increases initial costs. In
the long run, such infrastructure requires the support market as well. Which includes
after-sale services and support technologies. Lack of such a support market leads to
further cost additions.
The presence of a strong industry base for power generation machinery and
support market can lessen the costs related to RET installation and post-installation
costs, leading to growth in the bioenergy market.
3.6.5 Deficiency of skilled workforce
106
Along with a strong infrastructure, the renewable energy industry requires a
skilled workforce for installation, commissioning, operations, and maintenance of the
power generation plants. Which is another area where Pakistan lags. Presently, there
is a dearth of skilled workforce and technical institutes to produce such people.
The lack of such a workforce can be a result of low demand and low activity in
this sector. As the private sector never ventures into businesses where returns on
incomes are low, therefore government must step in to fill this vacuum. By creating a
pool of skilled workforce, through trainings within the country and abroad, this lacking
can be fulfilled. Meanwhile, support for the personnel wishing to enter this business
through entrepreneurial models must be supported by the government through
business incubators and venture funding.
3.6.6 Policy Implementation
Another challenge for bioenergy policy is the implementation of the policy

made. In a country like Pakistan where the policies are politically driven, and
institutions are deeply politicized (Ali and Beg, 2007), the implementation of such a
policy can cause political discontent. Along with politicization, the poor professional
culture among government employees (Yousaf et al., 2016) also leads to poor policy
implementation.
Though there can’t be quick fixes for such problems. This challenge can be
overcome over time by making provisions for checks and balances for employees of
government institutions. Another measure can be taken to create a panel to deal with
grievances and discrepancies faced by clients.
3.7 Policy Implications and Recommendations
3.7.1 Regulatory incentives
Policies relevant to bioenergy generation lack regulatory incentives to attract

investors. The Feed-in tariff, which is one of the most common regulatory incentives
provided in most countries, should be offered to independent power producers using
biomass feedstock for energy generation.
Secondly, biomass cogeneration should be encouraged through policy

initiatives. As Pakistan’s electricity sector depends on fossil fuels for two-thirds of its
generation. Such powerplants can use biomass feedstock along with conventional fuels
in their combustors with simple modifications. Policymakers in Pakistan must add a
107
renewable portfolio standard or quota obligation for current power producers. The
mandate should start with a modest quota of renewables in total generation with
subsequent increments over the years.
3.7.2 Financial incentives
As discussed in Section 3.3, the current and previous policies of Pakistan lacked
financial incentives to attract investors. Thornley and cooper (Thornley and Cooper,
2008) concluded in their study that investment subsidies have been effective in
developing bioenergy in Germany, U.K, Sweden, and Italy. Fiscal incentives being
provided in India and China can be replicated for Pakistan’s case. Grants should be
provided to bioenergy projects through public finance. Especially to small and medium
scale bioenergy producers catering to off-grid and rural areas. A mechanism should be
formulated to provide loans for power projects using biomass feedstock. Provisions
should be made for disbursement of Loans through public financial institutes and
commercial banks.
Most of the equipment for power generation is being imported, as Pakistan lacks
a developed power machinery industry. Taxes and duties imposed (currently 5%
customs duty) on such imports must be relieved. The government of Pakistan provides
some incentive in sales tax for renewable power projects under the RE policy of 2006.
This tax relaxation must be extended to other types of taxes and new entrants in RE
markets must be given tax holidays for 3 to 5 years of the initial investment.
3.7.3 Institutional process
Currently, power projects less than 50 Megawatts are processed by AEDB and
for projects more than 50 Megawatt they are dealt with by PPIB. The project needs
initial accreditations from AEDB or PPIB, then they are eligible for tariff
determination by NEPRA. This process lengthy and requires multiple legal formalities
to be achieved. Therefore, to attract more investors, both national and foreign, this
process must be eased. Though AEDB and PPIB are categorized as one window
operation facilities, there needs further improvement in the efficiency of the process.
A helpline or a helpdesk must also be created to attract and facilitate potential
investors/clients.
108
Secondly, institutional harmony must be created between institutions like
AEDB, PPIB, NEPRA, and other power utilities. Information sharing between the
above institutions can ease the process of registering new power projects.
3.7.4 Stakeholder confidence
One of the essential parts of policymaking is the involvement and confidence of

stakeholders in policymaking (Mitchell et al., 2011). While the policies are meant to
facilitate the stakeholders and citizens, their input towards policymaking can be
meaningful. Trends as early as a decade ago, have emerged where stakeholders’
participation is ensured in policymaking (Leary, 2004). Renee Irvin and John
Stansbury in their study (Irvin and Stansbury, n.d.) stated following advantages of
stakeholder participation in policymaking: A better appreciation of larger community
among the public, a way to tackle deterioration in public trust and a tool for
transformative social change.
Pakistan needs to work on this factor. Policymaking must include across the
board members both from the public and private sectors as well. Policymakers can
take advantage of already present private bodies like Pakistan Sugar Mills Association,
Livestock Farmers & Breeders Association, and other relevant bodies.
Another key stakeholder is academia. Pakistan currently has a large number of

academics and think tanks working in areas of policymaking. Such professionals and
their expertise can be exploited in policymaking. Therefore, policy input should be
taken from academia and think tanks working in the country as well.
3.7.5 Long term planning and diversification
As pointed out by Fahd Ali and Fatima Beg (Ali and Beg, 2007) previous power
policies were politically driven and certain people took benefit from it. Secondly, the
Bagasse cogeneration policies were enacted out of pressure from increasing power
demand and decreasing production. This process of ad-hoc policy planning needs to
end. And a comprehensive policy should be made from long-term policy planning
using different quantitative and qualitative techniques. Energy modeling tools like
MARKAL-TIMES, MESSAGE or EnergyPlan must be used in forecasting and energy
planning for a sustainable and resilient power policy. This can be done through a
successful collaboration between legislators, stakeholders, academia and think tanks
working in the country. As highlighted by Weishu et al. (Liu et al., 2014), a stronger
109
relationship between academic research and the promotion of bioenergy. Currently,
different institutions are working in this sector independently. Academic researchers
are working on their own or with fundings from Higher Education Commission (HEC).
While state institutions like PCRET, HDIP, PSO and other relevant organizations are
working independently. While large projects and policies are studied by international
consultants for their feasibility. This must be stopped, and a nexus of academia and
state institutions must be made for collaborations in different projects and studies both
for feasibility and implementation. Thus, saving both hours of work and money.
Secondly, the bagasse power generation has received much attention over the
years. In fact, specific policies were promulgated for bagasse powered energy
generation. Policymakers need to expand the bioenergy base to include other sources.
Which may include other major crop residues, both harvesting, and processing
residues, biofuels from different sources and energy from waste.
3.7.6 Capacity building
Pakistan lacks a strong industrial base for the production of power machinery.
Along with lack of industry, there is a dearth of skilled workforce for
installation/commissioning, operations, and maintenance of such power generation
machinery.
Pakistan desperately needs an investment in capacity building of already existing

industry, so that they can enhance their capacity to make power generation machinery
and support items for the need of the local market. This can be done through
collaboration with China and other countries with a sophisticated industrial base for
technology transfer and capacity building of enterprises currently working in Pakistan.
To create a strong workforce the policy must be enacted for the development of
technology parks and allocation of funds for research and development in the field of
bioenergy technology (Maes and Passel, 2019).
3.7.7 Awareness programs
Campaigns regarding bioenergy have been limited in history. As discussed in

section 4, there has been an initiative to disseminate bioenergy technologies through
pilot projects. But still, communities are reluctant to adopt such technologies on their
own. Therefore, there needs to be more of such initiatives to make bioenergy
technologies attractive.
110
Biomass feedstock which comprises mostly of crop residues is found in rural
areas of Pakistan. Most of the residue is sold to brick kilns, where access is limited
crop residue is burned directly (Mir et al., 2017). This is where policy needs to be
enacted for awareness among farmers and brick kiln users. People involved in such
practices are small scale farmers and brick kiln owners, with little or no education.
Therefore, provisions must be made for awareness programs among this community.
Such people must be trained to use modern biomass conversion techniques.
Another area where people need to be made aware of is the economics of

bioenergy technologies. There remains misconception regarding high investment
risks, uncertainty about renewable energy resources, relatively high capital cost among
the general population. These misconceptions can be removed through seminars and
media campaigns. Institutes like Chambers of Commerce and Industry can play a
positive role. As each district in Pakistan has its own Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, campaigns made on such platforms can reach a large number of small and
medium scale businesses.
4 Conclusions and Policy Implications
The primary was to analyze and evaluate the energy policies of Pakistan.
Additionally, the study presented the history of initiatives took for the development of
bioenergy in Pakistan. Most of the projects built under these initiatives are out of
service or totally abandoned. Reasons being lack of support from the government and
skilled workforce to operate and maintain them. While policies were promulgated at
different times across the history of the country. Despite such initiatives and policies,
the share of bioenergy in the total energy mix remains dismally low. For the year 2017,
the energy generated from bagasse powered plants was 784 GWh against a maximum
potential of 2984 GWh (Arshad and Ahmed, 2016). This study analyzed and evaluated
the last four energy policies (one being general power policy, the second renewable
energy policy and the other two for bagasse cogeneration) and the upcoming Alternate
and renewable energy policy. The different aspects of the Policies were compared,
including regulatory, fiscal, political and institutional feasibility, and effectiveness.
Effectiveness was compared in terms of energy security, environmental concerns,
economic aspects, and equity. The analysis put the upcoming policy i.e. Alternate and
Renewable energy policy remained at front and the Framework for Power co-
111
generation among the policies evaluated. Still, most of the bioenergy potential in
Pakistan remains unexploited. The challenges to policymaking were mostly of
endogenous nature, which can be overcome through policy measures. Two of the
major bioenergy markets of the world, both being the neighboring countries, China
and India, were reviewed for the policies and initiatives taken for the development of
bioenergy. Most of the initiatives and policies were found to be easy to replicate in
Pakistan’s situation. It is further concluded that 1) bioenergy policy needs to diversify
its scope from bagasse to other sources like crop residues and municipal waste, 2)
policymakers need to provide incentives for private entities to invest in bioenergy
sector, 3) policy needs to ensure provisions for awareness and capacity building among
stakeholders, 4)set targets and plan accordingly to exploit the underutilized bioenergy
resources in the country.
5 Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate and acknowledge the support and guidance of Dr. Asif
Hussain Khoja, during the preparation of this manuscript. We also acknowledge the
support from USAID under the USPCAS-E initiative in Pakistan.
6 Appendix
The following tables (A1-A4) include the complete statistics, notes, and references for
the parameters used in Section 3.4. Most of the statistics have been reported from
different research papers, annual reports by government organizations like the
Ministry of Power, NEPRA, AEDB, and other energy agencies like IEA, US-EIA,
IRENA, World Bank, and Asian development bank.
Table A1 Energy security through bioenergy
Policy Power RE Power co- Bagasse Current

evaluation policy policy gen policy co-gen status –
parameters 2002 2006 2008 2013 2017
Energy security (R1)
112
Installed
capacity 0 MW 0 MW 23 MW 105 MW 280 MW
(MW)
Electricity
generated 0 GWh 0 GWh 66.24 GWh2 302.4 GWh2 785 GWh
(GWh)
Share of
0 0 0.06% 0.3% 0.65%
Biopower
No No No
Bioenergy No Targets No Targets
targets Targets Targets
Targets Defined Defined
Defined Defined Defined
(National
(National
(National Electric
Electric
Electric Power
Power
(Govern (Governm Power Regulatory
Regulator
ment of ent of Regulatory Authority
References y
Pakistan, Pakistan, Authority (NEPRA)
Authority
2003) 2007) (NEPRA) Pakistan,
(NEPRA)
Pakistan, 2013a)
Pakistan,
2008) (Hassan,
2017a)
2016)
1
R- Indicators effecting/relating Power Receiver/Customer
2
Calculated, assuming 24hours operation for 4 months (Nov-Feb - Sugarcane harvesting
season)
113
Table A2 Environmental impact of bioenergy generation

evaluation policy policy gen policy co-gen status -
paramete 2002 2006 2008 2013 2017
rs
Environmental impact (R1)
129,400 590,740 1,533,503

Fossil fuels
0 0 Petroleum Petroleum Petroleum
replaced a
Barrels Barrels Barrels
358,745
30,272 138,196
CO2 Metric
0 0 Metric Tons Metric Tons
Reduction b Tons of
of CO2 of CO2
CO2
1
a
Based on U.S EIA data for 2017, i.e. 511.9KWh/Barrel of Petroleum (U.S EIA, 2019a)
b
Based on U.S EIA data for 2017, i.e. 1lbs/KWh or 0.457kg/KWh (U.S EIA, 2019b)
Table A3 Economic impact of bioenergy generation

evaluation policy policy gen Policy co-gen status -
parameters 2002 2006 2008 2013 2017
Economic impact (R1)
Employment/
0 0 133 609 1624
Jobs Created a
Gross Income Rs 323 Mill. Rs 3.55 Rs 9.2

b
0 0 c
Billion Billion
114
1
a
Based on data provided by Dalton and Lewis (Dalton and Lewis, 2011) i.e. 5.8 jobs (3.5
Direct jobs and 2.3 Operation and maintenance) per MW of Bioenergy installation
b
Based on the average tariff determined by NEPRA for the given year (Rs 11.7396
per KWh for the year 2013 and 2017) (National Electric Power Regulatory
Authority (NEPRA) Pakistan, 2013b)(National Electric Power Regulatory
Authority (NEPRA) Pakistan, 2017b)
c
Based on Tariff of Rs 4.88 kWh set for Almoiz Industries by NEPRA in 2008
(Arshad and Ahmed, 2016)
Table A4 Energy equity through bioenergy generation

indicators policy policy gen Policy co-gen status -
2002 2006 2008 2013 2017
Energy equity (R1)
Electricity 52.9% 55.7% 67.4% 73.6%

No Data
Access (2000) (2005) (2010) (2016)a
Electrificatio 70%
No Data No Data No Data No Data
n Target Rural
Access to
Clean 25% 31% 33% 40% 44%
Cooking
Affordability 7% (2015-
b
7% 7% 7% 6%
16)
(Govern (World (World (World

(Internationa
References ment of Bank, Bank, n.d.), Bank,
l Energy
Pakistan n.d.), (Pakistan n.d.),
115
, 2003; (Internatio Bureau of Agency, (Internatio
Internati nal Energy Statistics, 2017b) nal Energy
onal Agency, 2008) Agency,
Energy 2017b), 2017b),
Agency, (Pakistan (Pakistan
2017b; Bureau of Bureau of
Pakistan Statistics, Statistics,
Bureau 2006) 2016)
of
Statistic
s, 2002;
World
Bank,
n.d.)
1
a
For the same year i.e. 2016, World Bank reported an electrification rate of 99% (World
Bank, n.d.)
b
Average amount, as a percentage, of income spent on fuel and lighting. Source: Pakistan
Bureau of Statistics
7 References
AEDB, 2013. Frame Work for Power Co-Generation 2013 (Bagasse / Biomass)
[WWW Document]. URL https://www.aedb.org/ae-policies/policy-bioenergy
(accessed 4.15.19).
Aized, T., Shahid, M., Bhatti, A.A., Saleem, M., Anandarajah, G., 2018. Energy
security and renewable energy policy analysis of Pakistan. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 84, 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.254
Ali, F., Beg, F., 2007. The History of Private Power in Pakistan.
Amjid, S.S., Bilal, M.Q., Nazir, M.S., Hussain, A., 2011. Biogas, renewable energy
resource for Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 2833–2837.
116
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.02.041
Arshad, M., Ahmed, S., 2016. Cogeneration through bagasse: A renewable strategy to
meet the future energy needs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 732–737.
Atilgan, B., Azapagic, A., 2015. Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity from
fossil fuels in Turkey. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 555–564.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.046
Botha, T., Von Blottnitz, H., 2006. A comparison of the environmental benefits of
bagasse-derived electricity and fuel ethanol on a life-cycle basis. Energy Policy
34, 2654–2661.
Bürer, M.J., Wüstenhagen, R., 2009. Which renewable energy policy is a venture
capitalist’s best friend? Empirical evidence from a survey of international
cleantech investors. Energy Policy 37, 4997–5006.
Butt, S., Hartmann, I., Lenz, V., 2013. Bioenergy potential and consumption in
Pakistan. Biomass and Bioenergy 58, 379–389.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.009
Dalton, G.J., Lewis, T., 2011. Metrics for measuring job creation by renewable energy
technologies, using Ireland as a case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15,
2123–2133. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.01.015
Field Director General Agriculture, G. of P., 2014. Biogas Supplemented Agriculture

Tubewells [WWW Document]. URL
http://field.agripunjab.gov.pk/biogas_tubewell (accessed 6.26.19).
Foundation for Integrated Development Action, n.d. FIDA’s Projects and Partners
[WWW Document]. URL http://fidapk.org/work/partners.html (accessed
6.27.19).
Gan, L., Yu, J., 2008. Bioenergy transition in rural China: Policy options and co-
benefits. Energy Policy 36, 531–540.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.005
Geller, H., Schaeffer, R., Szklo, A., Tolmasquim, M., 2004. Policies for advancing
energy efficiency and renewable energy use in Brazil. Energy Policy 32, 1437–
1450. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00122-8
117
Ghafoor, A., Munir, A., Ahmad, M., Iqbal, M., 2016. Current status and overview of
renewable energy potential in Pakistan for continuous energy sustainability.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60, 1332–1342.
Gondal, I.A., Masood, S.A., Khan, R., 2018. Green hydrogen production potential for
developing a hydrogen economy in Pakistan. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43, 6011–
6039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.01.113
Gopinath, A., Bahurudeen, A., Appari, S., Nanthagopalan, P., 2018. A circular
framework for the valorisation of sugar industry wastes: Review on the industrial
symbiosis between sugar, construction and energy industries. J. Clean. Prod. 203,
89–108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.252
Government of Pakistan, 2007. Pakistan Economic Survey 2006-07.
Government of Pakistan, 2003. Economic Survey of Pakistan 2002-03. Economic

Adviser’s Wing, Finance Division, GoP, Islamabad.
Gregg, J.S., Smith, S.J., 2010. Global and regional potential for bioenergy from
agricultural and forestry residue biomass. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 15,
241–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9215-4
Hassan, B., 2016. Alternative and Renewable Energy (Potential and Prospects).
Höök, M., Tang, X., 2013. Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate
change—A review. Energy Policy 52, 797–809.
Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan, 2018. Pakistan Energy Yearbook

2018.
International Energy Agency, 2018. World Energy Outlook 2018, WEO: 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1049/ep.1977.0180
International Energy Agency, 2017a. World Energy Outlook 2017: China [WWW
Document]. URL https://www.iea.org/weo/china/ (accessed 6.19.19).
International Energy Agency, 2017b. Energy Access Database [WWW Document].

URL https://www.iea.org/energyaccess/database/ (accessed 4.16.19).
Irvin, A., Stansbury, J., n.d. Citizen Participation in Decision Making : Is It Worth the
Effort ?
118
Ishaque, H., 2017. Is it wise to compromise renewable energy future for the sake of
expediency? An analysis of Pakistan’s long-term electricity generation pathways.
Energy Strateg. Rev. 17, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2017.05.002
Islam, M.S., Akhter, R., Rahman, M.A., 2018. A thorough investigation on hybrid
rural off-grid areas or not? Energy 145, 338–355.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.125
Kahrl, F., Su, Y., Tennigkeit, T., Yang, Y., Xu, J., 2013. Large or small? Rethinking
China’s forest bioenergy policies. Biomass and Bioenergy 59, 84–91.
Kamran, M., 2018. Current status and future success of renewable energy in Pakistan.
Kang, S., Selosse, S., Maïzi, N., 2018. Contribution of global GHG reduction pledges
to bioenergy expansion. Biomass and Bioenergy 111, 142–153.
Khushk, A.M., Memon, A., Saeed, I., 2011. Analysis of sugar industry
competitiveness in Pakistan. J. Agric. Res. 49, 137–151.
Kraemer, A., Stefes, C., 2016. The changing energy landscape in the Atlantic Space.
Atl. Futur. Shap. a New Hemisph. 21st century Africa, Eur. Am. 88–102.
Kumar, A., Kumar, N., Baredar, P., Shukla, A., 2015. A review on biomass energy
resources , potential , conversion and policy in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 45, 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.007
Leary, R.O., 2004. The New Governance : Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and
Citizen Participation in the Work of Government 547–558.
Liu, W., Gu, M., Hu, G., Li, C., Liao, H., Tang, L., Shapira, P., 2014. Profile of
developments in biomass-based bioenergy research: a 20-year perspective.
Scientometrics 99, 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1152-z
Löschel, A., Moslener, U., Rübbelke, D.T.G., 2010. Indicators of energy security in
industrialised countries. Energy Policy 38, 1665–1671.
119
Lucas, J.N.V., Francés, G.E., González, E.S.M., 2016. Energy security and renewable
energy deployment in the EU: Liaisons Dangereuses or Virtuous Circle? Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 62, 1032–1046.
Machol, B., Rizk, S., 2013. Economic value of US fossil fuel electricity health impacts.
Environ. Int. 52, 75–80.
Maes, D., Passel, S. Van, 2019. Effective bioeconomy policies for the uptake of
innovative technologies under resource constraints. Biomass and Bioenergy 120,
91–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.11.008
Mir, K.A., Purohit, P., Mehmood, S., 2017. Sectoral assessment of greenhouse gas
emissions in Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 27345–27355.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0354-y
Mirjat, N.H., Uqaili, M.A., Harijan, K., Valasai, G. Das, Shaikh, F., Waris, M., 2017.
A review of energy and power planning and policies of Pakistan. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 79, 110–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.040
Mirza, U.K., Ã, N.A., Majeed, T., 2008. An overview of biomass energy utilization in
Pakistan 12, 1988–1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.04.001
Mirza, U.K., Ahmad, N., Harijan, K., Majeed, T., 2009. Identifying and addressing
barriers to renewable energy development in Pakistan 13, 927–931.
Mirza, U.K., Ahmad, N., Majeed, T., Harijan, K., 2007. Wind energy development in
Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 11, 2179–2190.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.03.003
Mitchell, C., Sawin, J.L., Pokharel, G.R., Kammen, D., Wang, Z., Fifita, S., Jaccard,
M., Langniss, O., Lucas, H., Nadai, A., Blanco, R.T., Usher, E., Verbruggen, A.,
Wüstenhagen, R., Yamaguchi, K., Arent, D., Arrowsmith, G., Bazilian, M., Bird,
L., Boermans, T., Bowen, A., Breukers, S., Bruckner, T., Busch, S., Clemens, E.,
Connor, P., Creutzig, F., Droege, P., Ericsson, K., Greacen, C., Grisoli, R., Haites,
E., Hamilton, K., Harnisch, J., Hepburn, C., Hunt, S., Kalkuhl, M., de Koninck,
H., Lamers, P., Madsen, B., Nemet, G., Nilsson, L.J., Panitchpakdi, S., Popp, D.,
Radzi, A., Resch, G., Schimschar, S., Seyboth, K., Trindade, S., Truffer, B.,
Truitt, S., van der Horst, D., Vermeylen, S., Wilson, C., Wiser, R., de Jager, D.,
120
Boncheva, A.I., 2011. Policy, Financing and Implementation. Renew. Energy
Sources Clim. Chang. Mitig. 865–950.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139151153.015
Mittal, K.M., 2007. Biogas Systems: Policies, Progress and Prospects. New Age
International Pvt Ltd Publishers.
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) Pakistan, 2017a. State of

industry Report 2017.
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) Pakistan, 2017b. Acceptance

of Bagasse Upfront Tariff filed by Etihad Power Generation Limited (EPGL) for
its 74 MW (Gross Capacity) New Bagasse Based Cogeneration Power Plant in
Mauza Karamabad, District Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab.
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) Pakistan, 2013a. State of

Industry Report 2013.
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) Pakistan, 2013b. Decision of

the Authority in the Matter of Application for Unconditional Acceptance of
Bagasse Upfront Tariff.
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) Pakistan, 2008. State of

Industry Report 2008.
Nawaz, S.M.N., Alvi, S., 2018. Energy security for socio-economic and environmental
sustainability in Pakistan. Heliyon 4, e00854.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00854
Nicoletti, Giovanni, Arcuri, N., Nicoletti, Gerardo, Bruno, R., 2015. A technical and
environmental comparison between hydrogen and some fossil fuels. Energy
Convers. Manag. 89, 205–213.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.09.057
Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, 2016. Household Integrated Economic Survey 2015-16

[WWW Document]. URL http://www.pbs.gov.pk/content/household-integrated-
economic-survey-hies-2015-16 (accessed 4.16.19).

121

economic-survey-2001-2002 (accessed 4.16.19).
PCRET, n.d. Experience [WWW Document]. URL www.pcret.gov.pk/Experience.pdf

(accessed 3.5.19).
Purohit, P., Michaelowa, A., 2007. CDM potential of bagasse cogeneration in India.
Energy Policy 35, 4779–4798.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.029
Rafique, R., Mun, K.G., Zhao, Y., 2017. Designing energy supply chains: Dynamic
models for energy security and economic prosperity. Prod. Oper. Manag. 26,
1120–1141.
Raheem, A., Yusri, M., Shakoor, R., 2016. Bioenergy from anaerobic digestion in
Pakistan : Potential , development and prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
59, 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.010
Rentizelas, A.A., Tolis, A.J., Tatsiopoulos, I.P., 2009. Logistics issues of biomass: The
storage problem and the multi-biomass supply chain. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 13, 887–894. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.01.003
Rosen, M.A., Dincer, I., Kanoglu, M., 2008. Role of exergy in increasing efficiency
and sustainability and reducing environmental impact. Energy Policy 36, 128–
137.
RSPN, 2014. EKN-RSPN Pakistan Domestic Biogas Programme (PDBP) [WWW

Document]. URL http://www.rspn.org/index.php/projects/completed/ekn-pdbp/
(accessed 3.6.19).
Rukh, S., Takala, J., Shakeel, W., 2016. Renewable energy sources in power
generation in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 64, 421–434.
Schmidt, T.S., Blum, N.U., Wakeling, R.S., 2013. Attracting private investments into
rural electrification—A case study on renewable energy based village grids in
122
Indonesia. Energy Sustain. Dev. 17, 581–595.
Shah, A.A., Qureshi, S.M., Bhutto, A., Shah, A., 2011. Sustainable development
through renewable energy — The fundamental policy dilemmas of Pakistan.
Sinha, S.K., Subramanian, K.A., Singh, H.M., Tyagi, V. V, 2019. Progressive Trends
in Bio-Fuel Policies in India : Targets and Implementation Strategy Progressive
Trends in Bio-Fuel Policies in India : Targets and. Biofuels 10, 155–166.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2018.1522483
Sovacool, B.K., 2011. An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to

climate and energy governance. Energy Policy 39, 3832–3844.
Speight, J.G., 2019. Energy security and the environment, in: Speight, J.G. (Ed.),
Natural Gas (Second Edition). Gulf Professional Publishing, Boston, pp. 361–
390. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809570-6.00010-2
Thornley, P., Cooper, D., 2008. The effectiveness of policy instruments in promoting
bioenergy. Biomass and Bioenergy 32, 903–913.
Tollefson, J., 2018. Can the world kick its fossil-fuel addiction fast enough? Nat Clim
Chang. 556, 422–425.
U.S EIA, 2019a. Monthly Energy Review [WWW Document]. URL

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7.pdf (accessed 4.16.19).
U.S EIA, 2019b. United States Electricity Profile 2017 [WWW Document]. URL
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/unitedstates/ (accessed 4.16.19).
Uddin, W., Khan, B., Shaukat, N., Majid, M., Mujtaba, G., Mehmood, A., Ali, S.M.,
Younas, U., Anwar, M., Almeshal, A.M., 2016. Biogas potential for electric
power generation in Pakistan : A survey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 25–
33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.083
Von Cruz, M. V., Dierig, D.A., 2015. International Policies on Bioenergy and
Biofuels, in: Industrial Crops: Breeding for Bioenergy and Bioproducts. pp. 1–
444. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1447-0
123
World Bank, n.d. Pakistan | Data | WB [WWW Document]. URL
https://data.worldbank.org/country/pakistan (accessed 4.15.19a).
World Bank, n.d. Access to electricity (% of population) [WWW Document]. URL

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?end=2016&locations=
PK&start=1990 (accessed 4.16.19b).
Xingang, Z., Zhongfu, T., Pingkuo, L., 2013. Development goal of 30GW for China’s
biomass power generation: Will it be achieved? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 25,
310–317. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.008
Yasar, A., Nazir, S., Tabinda, A.B., Nazar, M., Rasheed, R., Afzaal, M., 2017. Socio-
economic , health and agriculture benefits of rural household biogas plants in
energy scarce developing countries : A case study from Pakistan. Renew. Energy
108, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.044
Yousaf, M., Ihsan, F., Ellahi, A., 2016. Exploring the impact of good governance on
citizens’ trust in Pakistan. Gov. Inf. Q. 33, 200–209.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.06.001
Zafar, U., Ur Rashid, T., Khosa, A.A., Khalil, M.S., Rahid, M., 2018. An overview of
implemented renewable energy policy of Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
82, 654–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.034
Zameer, H., Wang, Y., 2018. Energy production system optimization: Evidence from
Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 886–893.
Zysman, J., Huberty, M., 2010. Governments, markets, and green growth: Energy
systems transformation for sustainable prosperity. Berkeley Roundtable on the
International Economy, University of California ….
124

Zulfiqar Ali MS Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zulfiqar Ali MS Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zulfiqar Ali MS Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass to Bioenergy – A Market Analysis of

A Thesis Submitted to the US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies

Thermal Energy Engineering

US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E)

National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST)

H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan

A Thesis Submitted to the US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies

Thermal Energy Engineering

US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E)

National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST)

H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan

Keywords: Bioenergy Market, Bioenergy Policy, Bioenergy Policy Evaluation,

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ vi

List of Figures ........................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables .............................................................................................................. ix

List of Publications ...................................................................................................... x

List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................. xi

Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background of the Study .................................................................................... 1

2.1 Biomass and Bioenergy historically ................................................................... 9

4.1 Policy analysis and comparison ....................................................................... 45

Journal Paper .......................................................................................................... 72

Figure 2.1 Global Energy Consumption (IEA 2017) ................................................. 10

Figure 2.2 Global Renewable Energy Supply 2000-2017 (IEA) ............................... 10

Figure 2.4 Pakistan's Total Primary Energy Supply ................................................. 12

Figure 3.1 Policy analysis framework ....................................................................... 28

Figure 3.2 EE-S Policy Effectiveness Evaluation Framework................................... 33

Figure 3.3 Breakdown of SWOT Analysis scheme ................................................... 35

Figure 4.1 Policy analysis framework results ............................................................ 45

Table 4.2 Energy Policy evaluation with respect to bioenergy.................................. 49

Table 4.3 Bioenergy generation potential from agricultural residue ......................... 54

Table 4.4 Energy Policy evaluation with respect to bioenergy.................................. 59

Table 4.5 Comparison of SWOT analysis for subjectivity ........................................ 62

Table 4.5 Comparison of SWOT analysis for subjectivity ........................................ 71

AREP Alternative and renewable energy policy

CDM Clean development mechanism

DGNER Directorate general of new and renewable resources

ECC Economic coordination committee

EIA Energy information administration

FIDA Foundation for Integrated Development Action

ICB International competitive bidding

IEA International energy agency

IPP Independent power producer

NBM National biofuel mission

NEPRA National electric power regulatory authority

NGO Non-governmental organization

PCAT Pakistan council of appropriate technology

PCRET Pakistan council of renewable energy technologies

PDBP Pakistan domestic biogas program

PDDC Pakistan dairy development centre

PEI Policy effectiveness index

PPIB Private power infrastructure board

PSDP Public sector development program

RET Renewable energy technology

RSPN Rural support program network

SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

TOE Tones of Oil Equivalent

Pakistan is a developing country with an agrarian-based economy. Pakistan generates

1.2 Problem statement