Sri Lanka is often labelled as an “energy-poor” country due to its limited use of modern fuels and reliance on traditional biomass. In 2023 alone, the country spent nearly USD 4 billion on fuel imports, yet over 70 percent of rural and estate people still depend on biomass for their daily energy needs.
This raises a crucial question: Is energy poverty about the amount of modern fuel consumed, or about a country’s ability to provide essential energy services?
Despite its limited use of modern fuels, Sri Lanka has achieved impressive social and health outcomes that rival many developed countries. The nation boasts a life expectancy of 77 years and a high Human Development Index (HDI), reflecting decades of investment in public health and education. Universal health care, free at the point of access since 1951, has been pivotal in this progress, helping Sri Lanka achieve substantial reductions in maternal and child mortality and the near-eradication of diseases like malaria and polio—all with a health expenditure of just 1.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In fact, Sri Lanka has surpassed the USA on life expectancy and health data.
The Lancet recently highlighted Sri Lanka’s remarkable public health achievements, noting that the country has consistently delivered high standards of social and health development despite being classified as a lower-middle-income nation. Its welfare-driven policies, especially in health and education, have outperformed many regional peers, emphasising that social development is not solely dependent on modern energy consumption. Then the question is where did this energy come from?
This is where the debate around biomass becomes critical. Critics, particularly within the medical fraternity, often highlight the health hazards of traditional biomass use, especially indoor air pollution. While these concerns are valid in poorly ventilated settings, Sri Lanka’s broader health outcomes challenge the narrative that biomass is a primary driver of disease and mortality. After all, the country has maintained high life expectancy and low disease burdens for decades—even when modern fuels made up less than 10 percent of total energy consumption.
Biomass, mainly firewood, continues to meet 57.8 percent of household and commercial energy needs and 71.6 percent of industrial energy demands.
Yet, it is still dismissed as primitive or harmful, overshadowing the fact that it has quietly powered much of Sri Lanka’s social development with minimal environmental impact.
The irony is clear. While billions are spent on fuel imports to sustain large-scale industries and transport, poor women—who are the backbone of household energy—continue to collect firewood without recognition or support. Their labour sustains the nation’s energy needs but remains invisible in policy discussions. The rural community led by the women is the human power house securing its own energy needs.
It is time to rethink what we mean by “energy poverty.” Sri Lanka’s success story suggests that the real measure of energy wealth lies not in fuel imports but in how well energy services improve human well-being. This service largely empowers the human capital, while contributing towards achieving sustainable development goals. However, the progress report of the Ministry of Power and Energy consisting of 87 pages has nothing to say of biomass energy while the entire focus is on electricity and fossil fuel.
As the world seeks sustainable solutions, perhaps it is time to recognise that traditional energy sources, when used wisely, can coexist with social progress—and that the contributions of the poorest, especially women, deserve far greater acknowledgment.
R. M. Amerasekera, Executive Director, Integrated Development Association(IDEA)
