This research was undertaken to explore the current and future role of paraffin in South Africa for
PASASA. The domestic use of paraffin carries many health and safety concerns including the
risks of fires and burns, unintentional ingestions of paraffin, indoor air pollution associated with
use of cheap appliances and contamination of the fuel. In South Africa it is difficult to garner
political support to adequately regulate the safety of this fuel. The Department of Energy’s policy
approach to energy has been dominated by a focus on promoting access to grid-based
electrification. There have been comparatively fewer programmes to address access to other
household fuels. The major players in paraffin safety to date have been the petrochemical
companies through their funding of the Paraffin Safety Association (PASASA). This situation has
changed, however, with the decision of the petrochemical companies in 2012 to discontinue
funding PASASA.
This research investigates what the future of paraffin could and should be in South Africa, in
particular whether this could be envisioned as transforming paraffin into a safe fuel for
households. Alternatively, might South Africa look to assist households with a transition towards
other modern fuels.
The research involved interviews with a range of stakeholders including government departments
and representatives from the petrochemical sector, as well as academics and development
practitioners in the household energy sector. It also included focus groups with consumers of
paraffin in informal settlements in Cape Town to explore the use of paraffin from a consumer
perspective. Finally, a modelling exercise was undertaken to estimate the future consumption of
paraffin under different policy scenarios. These included a business as usual scenario, a
government liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) programme scenario, a least cost scenario, and a safe
stove scenario.
The focus groups revealed that households see paraffin as an important part of their overall energy
mix. Among its major attributes are its perceived affordability compared to LPG or electricity, as
well as being the preferred fuel for cooking certain meal types. However, consumers also
registered much dislike of the negative safety implications of the cheap and unsafe stoves, as well
as symptoms associated with the indoor air pollution. None of the households from the focus
groups had ever seen or heard of the safe and compliant stoves. Many had however stopped using
the illegal wick stoves because of their safety risks and switched to using paraffin heaters for
cooking instead. These are seen to be safe, reliable and good value for money. Evidence from the
focus groups suggests that market penetration of safe stoves may not be succeeding, but that
households themselves in some instances are finding market solutions for safer appliance
alternatives.
The focus group discussions also gave insight into the inadequacy of the electrification
programme to address households’ energy needs and transition them away from unsafe fuels.
Electricity supply in informal settlements is often unreliable, with blackouts a frequent feature of
people’s lives. This requires that households have ‘back-up fuels’ and thus necessitates the ongoing
use of candles and paraffin. The practice of selling electricity amongst neighbours is
common but typically means that one connection cannot support more than one household
cooking at a time, again requiring the use of other fuels. There are also issues with low-cost
electrical appliances that make them unsuitable for cooking all meal-types. Widespread and
deeply entrenched misperceptions relating to different energy sources among consumers also
serve as barriers that keep households from transitioning to safer or more affordable alternatives.
There is a firm belief that electricity is more expensive than paraffin and beyond the affordability
levels of many households, although research studies comparing the relative cost to cook with
different fuels and their appliances show that electricity is significantly cheaper than both paraffin
and LPG. A major barrier to increased LPG use is fear that it is not safe, particularly that cylinders
may explode, which ironically keeps many households continuing to use paraffin, a fuel with
comparatively greater safety risks.
The stakeholders interviewed saw the lack of political will as the principal barrier to improved
paraffin safety in South Africa. Greater regulation of appliances and packaging is seen as a vital ENERGY RESEARCH CENTRE
part of a solution. Most stakeholders were sceptical of overcoming the challenges around paraffin
safety in South Africa. Phasing this fuel out and transitioning households to other modern
alternatives such as LPG and electricity was seen to be more socially desirable. There was,
however, acknowledgement that both of these fuels face supply constraints and are unlikely to be
able to absorb the displaced demand from paraffin. In the absence of any direct intervention to
phase out paraffin, most stakeholders expect that it will continue to retain a presence in the
household market although consumption levels are likely to continue to decline. The
petrochemical sector did not indicate that an active phase-out of paraffin is likely to happen and
they will continue to respond to market demand for this product. The Department of Energy (DoE)
too said that they have no intentions of actively phasing this fuel out. Their focus for the
residential sector is on the continuation of the electrification programme, expanding the off-grid
solar programme and, in the future, driving growth of LPG. Whilst expansion of both of these
programmes (electrification and LPG) would contribute to the declining market share of paraffin,
they would probably not result in paraffin’s eradication from the fuel mix entirely. Therefore,
without a proactive phase-out of this fuel, its presence in the South African market will continue
for the foreseeable future.
The modelling exercise modelled four scenarios that are informed by assumptions about the
adoption of different government programmes. The LPG Programme describes a scenario where
government drives the uptake of domestic LPG use. This would entail programmes to overcome
current demand barriers related to cost of the fuel and/or intiial high switching costs, and
education to overcome fears of its safety. The scenario predicts a steeper decline in paraffin
consumptions as more households switch towards LPG. The Least Cost scenario shows the impact
on paraffin consumption were household energy choices based on choosing the least cost options.
There are currently many misperceptions around the relative cost to a household of an energy
service provided by different fuels. Misperceptions could be influenced through education and
awareness programmes, for example. This scenario indicates reduced consumption of paraffin as
households switch to using electricity for cooking, which is than paraffin. Safety Stoves 1
describes a scenario where households use safer appliances and looks at the impact were
households to switch to other existing technology. Safer non-pressure stoves have lower
efficiencies than the illegal variant and this scenario therefore indicates greater paraffin
consumption (although still long term decline) than the BAU scenario. Safety Stoves 2 describes a
scenario of high-end aspirational products, which are initially supported by subsidies and phased
out over time. As a result paraffin consumption under this scenario initially rises but eventually
declines more steeply over time as households transition to other cheaper options when the
subsidies are phased out. All scenarios predict a gradual long-term decline in total consumption.
Paraffin is estimated to decline from around 600 million litres in 2006 to approximately 400
million litres in 2030 in the BAU scenario