| ICRR 14105 |
| Report Number : ICRR14105 |
|
|
|
|
| IEG ICR Review |
| Independent Evaluation Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1. Project Data: Date Posted : 10/03/2013 |
|
|
| Country : Mongolia |
| Project ID : P099321 Appraisal Actual |
| Project Name : Renewable Energy US$M ): |
| Project Costs (US$M): 23.0 22.23 |
| For Rural Access |
| Project (reap) |
| L/C Number : CH263 Loan/ US$M): |
| Loan /Credit (US$M): 3.50 3.43 |
| Sector Board : Energy and Mining Cofinancing (US$M): |
| US$M ): 9.50 8.81 |
|
|
| Cofinanciers : Government of Board Approval Date : 12/19/2006 |
| Netherlands, GEF Closing Date : 12/31/2011 06/30/2012 |
| Sector (s): Renewable energy (90%); Central government administration (8%); Health (1%); General |
| education sector (1%) |
| Theme (s): Rural services and infrastructure (50% - P); Regulation and competition policy (25% - S); |
| Climate change (25% - S) |
|
|
| Prepared by : Reviewed by : ICR Review Group : |
| Coordinator : |
| Varadarajan Atur Robert Mark Lacey Soniya Carvalho IEGPS1 |
|
|
| 2. Project Objectives and Components: |
|
|
| a. Objectives: |
| As per the project appraisal document (PAD, pp 4-5), the project development objective (PDO) is “to increase |
| access to electricity and improve reliability and affordability of electricity services among the herder population and in |
| off-grid Soum-centers�? (a Soum is a district within a province) and the global environment objective (GEO) is “to |
| remove barriers to the development and use of renewable energy technologies in grid and off-grid connected |
| systems and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.�? |
|
|
| According to the Financing Agreement (p 5), “the objective of the Project is to assist the Recipient in: (i) expanding |
| and improving access to electricity and reliability of electricity services in selected off-grid Soum centers and among |
| herder population; and (ii) removing barriers to the scale-up of renewable energy use.�? This is identical to the PDO |
| stated in the GEF Grant Agreement (p6). The PDO from the Financing Agreement will be used as the basis for this |
| evaluation. |
|
|
| b.Were the project objectives/key associated outcome targets revised during implementation? |
|
|
| No |
|
|
| c. Components: |
| There were three components: |
| Component 1: Herders’ Electricity Access (US$11.6 m at appraisal; US$11.75 m at completion) involved two |
| subcomponents: (i) the investment cofinancing subcomponent (US$10.7 m at appraisal; US$11.0 m after |
| reallocation and at completion) supported a combined 67,224 units (50,000 targeted at appraisal) of solar home |
| systems (SHS) and small wind turbine systems (WTS) for the Herder population through smart subsidies (i.e. |
| targeted subsidies to improve effectiveness) to buy down the investment cost for beneficiaries. This was financed by |
| the Government and the grant from the Netherlands; and (ii) the complementary TA part (US$0.9 m at appraisal; |
| US$0.76 m at completion) supported sales / service network development, equipment quality standards & control |
| and marketing and sales/service. |
|
|
| Component 2: Soum Center Electricity Service (US$10.1 m at appraisal; US$9.31 m at completion) involved two |
| subcomponents: (i) investment financing for rehabilitation of mini grids in about 30 off-grid Soum Centers (SCs) |
| (US$0.9 m at appraisal; US$0.88 m at completion) and conversion of existing diesel generation units to renewable or |
| renewable-diesel hybrid systems (R/RDHS) in about 20 of the rehabilitated SCs (US$8.3 m at appraisal; US$8.0 m |
| at completion); and (ii) complementary technical assistance to support policy, regulation, energy management and |
| capacity building in SCs, and feasibility studies for hybrid systems (US$0.89 m at appraisal; US$0.43 m at |
| completion). |
|
|
| Component 3: National Capacity Building (US$1.31 m at appraisal; US$1.17 m at completion) aimed at national |
| renewable energy policy and regulatory framework development and strengthening National Renewable Energy |
| Center (NREC) in project management, monitoring, evaluation activities. Some of these activities were also directed |
| towards removing barriers to renewable energy use. |
|
|
| A restructuring approved in August-2009 reallocated savings to modestly increase the allocation to the Herders' |
| Access component. A second restructuring approved in November-2011 extended the closing date by six months. |
|
|
| d. Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and Dates: |
| Project cost. The final project of US$22.23 m is close to the appraisal estimate of US$23.0 m and the small |
| savings allowed expanding the access component. Considering that most of the components were substantially |
| implemented as planned, the project costs appear realistic for the nature and scope of activities implemented in the |
| local conditions. However, it is not clear from the PAD or ICR how the costs borne by the herders are accounted for |
| in the projects costs; it is good practice to include these costs in the project cost and financing plan. |
|
|
| Financing. The financing plan included an IDA Grant (US$3.50 m; actual US$3.43 m), GEF Grant (US$3.50 m; |
| actual US$2.46 m), a Grant from the Government of the Netherlands (US$6.0 m; actual US$5.85 m) and the |
| contribution of the Government of Mongolia (US$10.0 m; actual US$10.0 m). The “smart subsidy�? part was fully |
| covered out of the contributions from the Netherlands and Mongolia. As noted above, for the SHSs under component |
| 1, the financing provided by herders themselves for the portion of costs above the subsidy part should have been |
| clearly shown. |
|
|
| Borrower Contribution. The Borrower’s contribution was substantial at about 44% of project costs and financed |
| about 63% of the smart subsidy component. |
|
|
| Dates. Even though the solar home system (SHS) component took two years initially to take off, the project required |
| only a six-month extension to complete all subcomponents. The ICR attributes the initial delay to the piloting of the |
| mechanism relying on private dealers to self-finance the SHSs first and then to recover costs from the project funds |
| and from buyers. |
|
|
| 3. Relevance of Objectives & Design: |
|
|
| a. Relevance of Objectives: |
| The project objectives are relevant to Mongolia’s scattered rural population, including many with nomadic life style. |
| The project objectives are equally relevant to the Bank's priorities in Mongolia, as noted in the Country Partnership |
| Strategy for Fiscal Years 2013-2017 (p. 33). The necessity for rural electrification was also noted in the Bank’s |
| Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) of 2005-08. The Government’s own emphasis on rural electrification and large |
| budgetary allocation, including for this project, underlines the pertinence of the project’s objectives. The objectives |
| are in line with the Bank’s Strategic Framework on Development and Climate Change. |
| Relevance of the objectives is rated high |
|
|
|
|
| b. Relevance of Design: |
| The components were designed to support the achievement of the project development and Global Environment |
| objectives, and enabled synergy in the use of IDA, GEF and other funds in the financing plan. The three components |
| aimed at the particular target beneficiary group, namely, nomadic herders through component 1, Soum centers |
| through component 2 and national frameworks through component 3, with component specific technical assistance |
| embedded in them. The choice of portable solar and wind systems was appropriate for the mobile herder population, |
| as was the renewable-diesel hybrid for Soum centers. The design also included proven methods to motivate the |
| target population to adopt the new technologies. |
| Relevance of Design is rated high |
| 4. Achievement of Objectives (Efficacy): |
| Project Development Objective |
|
|
| (i) to expand and improve access to electricity among herder population |
|
|
| Outputs: The project enabled distribution and sales of 67,224 SHS systems to herder populations compared to |
| 66,816 units anticipated from the project component at the time of restructuring / reallocation of some savings. The |
| ICR notes that these systems covered up to 62.5% of the herder population in 331 Soums, in line with the expanded |
| reach (compared to 50% from 50,000 units estimated at appraisal). |
|
|
| Outcomes: The ICR records the favorable results from a qualitative survey of herders covering 10 Soums, wherein |
| beneficiaries expressed a high degree of satisfaction with improved lighting and access to communication, and |
| information. They also demonstrated a favorable attitude towards the new systems (Annex 5). A typical herder |
| family’s annual savings on lighting alone is estimated at $35, which would be about 5% of median income (the |
| survey put no monetary value on the other benefits indicated). |
|
|
| Efficacy of this objective is rated “high�?. |
|
|
| (ii) to expand and improve access to electricity in selected off-grid Soum centers |
|
|
| Outputs: The project’s reach under this component was significantly smaller than was estimated at appraisal. |
| Rehabilitation of mini grids was performed only at 15 instead of 30 Soum centers; installation of new technology |
| equipment was made in 15 SCs instead of 20 planned, of which 11 of were funded by Government itself; further, all |
| these 15 SCs with new systems were transferred to Aimag (equivalent of province) utilities and hence were not |
| under the management of Soum centers by project closure; the project set up only 15 Soum user association |
| compared to 30 planned at appraisal. The ICR notes that the Government allocated substantial resources (about |
| US$51 million) for rural electrification initiatives, but is not clear what part of the results achieved is due to this |
| government initiative. Therefore, the claim that the project benefitted 18,410 people in off-grid SCs compared to |
| 16,000 at appraisal is not entirely attributable to the Bank project; it is also not clear if it can be linearly prorated |
| since Soum centers would have different population bases. |
|
|
| Outcomes: The ICR records the results from a survey (termed rapid appraisal) conducted in October 2012 (Annex 5 |
| of the ICR), after the formal closing of the project. The survey covered 3 sites in two regions and included both |
| Government financed and Bank financed systems and involved 34 interviews. Generally, the survey found the |
| following: (i) the new services are cost effective where recipients could use modern and energy efficient lamps; (ii) |
| residents indicated increased comfort, leisure, improved access to communication, ability to store food and thus the |
| ability to save money; and (iii) availability of medical care from equipment using electricity and some perceived |
| growth in small business like bakery, workshop and the like. The sample size was, however, limited, and a broader |
| survey would be needed to confirming these findings. Efficacy of this objective is rated “modest�?. |
|
|
| (iii) to improve reliability of services to herder population For the herder population, the replacement of candles and |
| kerosene lamps with SHSs is an immensely superior choice, on the basis of lumens (measure of quality and quantity |
| of light), safety, and environmental protection. Since the SHSs also had storage capacity, the herders could use |
| them any time when needed with ease and comfort. These factors could be regarded as proxies of reliability with |
| safety and comfort. Efficacy of this objective is rated “high�?. |
|
|
| (iv) to improve reliability of electricity services to selected off-grid Soum centers The ICR does not provide any |
| evidence of improved reliability to off-grid Soum Centers (e.g. reduced outages, grid losses, etc); also while it is not |
| clear if the 4 solar-diesel hybrids installed per se improved reliability due to choice of technology, the rest of the |
| Soum Centers with wind-diesel hybrids are reported to have encountered operational problems at close of project (p |
| 34 of ICR). The survey does not indicate the proper baseline to correctly attribute and assess the results conveyed |
| therein. Efficacy of this objective is rated “negligible�?. |
|
|
| v) to remove barriers to the scale-up of renewable energy use. The barriers confronting the implementation of the |
| two investment components were collectively overcome by the project’s technical assistance support as well as by |
| the Government’s own initiatives (for example, passing the Renewable Energy Law in 2007; converting the National |
| Renewable Energy Center (NREC) to a self-financing structure in 2009; substantial allocation of funds for rural |
| electrification). Experience from other countries has demonstrated that these interventions are necessary for |
| overcoming initial barriers, as this project has also shown. However, further expansion and sustainable use of |
| renewable energy in the Soum Centers and among herder populations need to be monitored and the ICR does not |
| provide specific evidence of such monitoring taking place or a process in place to do so. The market for such |
| renewable energy adoption is also not significant (about 3% according to the PAD). Since the effectiveness of the |
| after sales service and battery recycling is still to be verified, it can only be argued that the direction of efforts are |
| appropriate but that the results are yet to be seen. Efficacy of this objective is rated “modest.�? |
|
|
| Global Environment Objective (Unrated) |
|
|
| (vi) to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The SHS systems sold under the project replaced kerosene in the herder |
| homes and the solar/wind hybrids with diesel in Soum centers reduced use of diesel correspondingly as noted by the |
| ICR (Annex 3). The ICR estimated the equivalent reductions in carbon dioxide to be about 11,333 tons per year |
| (Annex 3 of ICR); based on the 67,224 SHS systems sold, the carbon dioxide reduction would be about 8,390 tons |
| per year (using assumptions per Annex 16 of PAD), which imputes 2,943 tons per year reductions due to 15 hybrids |
| at 15 Soum centers installed under the project. This is in line with the appraisal estimates of 9,000 tons per year |
| (about 6,240 tons from SHSs and 2,760 tons from hybrids). |
|
|
|
|
| 5. Efficiency: |
| The project uses a cost effectiveness approach aimed at identifying the amount of capital subsidy necessary for (1) |
| the herder population to realize perceptible savings from their current expenditure on candles and kerosene of about |
| US$86 per annum based on substitution; and (2) the SCs to fully recover costs over the affordable tariffs of |
| US$0.17/kWh, using a discount rate of 12%. |
|
|
| For the GEO, the project aims to show carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions through avoided use of kerosene and diesel. |
|
|
|
|
| SHSs for herder population: The proposed subsidy of $80 per SHS at appraisal was based on costs of typical |
| systems (about $160 for <50 Watt peak [50Wp]), baseline studies in Mongolia, and benchmarks in other countries. |
| The subsidy led to net savings of about US$44 per annum (just over 50% of the subsidy). The SHSs provided nearly |
| 15 times the amount of quality light than would be available from candles and kerosene (measured as lumen-hours |
| per year) for standard use. The actual costs of SHSs increased nearly 150% due to choice of larger than 50Wp |
| systems and necessitated doubling the subsidy to $160 for herder families. Because the costs of candles and |
| kerosene (alternatives) also went up (to $124 compared with $86 at appraisal), the savings to families at project |
| closure was estimated at $35 instead of $44 at appraisal. |
|
|
| Soum centers: At appraisal, several types of replacement alternatives for hybrids were considered and shown to be |
| efficient choices at 12% discount rate (Annex 9 of PAD). The ICR based its estimates on the solar-diesel hybrid due |
| to ease and quality of data available at completion (Annex 3 of ICR). Due to the rapidly decreasing trend in costs of |
| solar panels (about 33% since 2009 - see p34), the ICR duly notes the favorable impact on Soum centers and users |
| in sustaining the choice of such systems for expansion and replacement. |
|
|
| Global environmental benefits: The ICR does not provide details of actual measurements or good proxy estimates |
| for avoided use of kerosene and diesel and also does not adjust the baseline estimates due to expanded scope of |
| the herder component following reallocation of funds at restructuring. This notwithstanding, the penetration of SHSs |
| and wind/solar hybrids in Soum centers in the scale achieved by the project attests to significant avoidance of |
| kerosene and diesel and the CO2 estimates could be surmised to be in the vicinity of adjusted baseline estimates or |
| even slightly lower due to the corresponding smaller number of SCs covered under the project. |
|
|
| There were no significant operational or administrative inefficiencies. |
|
|
| Overall efficiency is rated “substantial�?. |
|
|
| ERR )/Financial Rate of Return (FRR) |
| a. If available, enter the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) FRR ) at appraisal and the |
| re- |
| re -estimated value at evaluation : |
|
|
| Rate Available? Point Value Coverage/Scope* |
|
|
| Appraisal No |
| ICR estimate No |
| * Refers to percent of total project cost for which ERR/FRR was calculated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6. Outcome: |
| The project objectives were highly relevant as was the design, including the approach, the components and the |
| clarity of the results framework. Planned outputs were achieved for the most part, and the outcomes demonstrated |
| the technical and financial feasibility of the options, and indicated overcoming of barriers to adoption of new and |
| small scale renewable energy technologies. The specific parts of the objectives were achieved in a mixed manner |
| (as shown by varied ratings from high to negligible for outcomes). Considering that the efficacy of the Soum center |
| component, with 42% of funding, is modest to negligible, and the efficiency rating is substantial, the overall outcome |
| is rated as moderately satisfactory. |
| a. Outcome Rating : Moderately Satisfactory |
|
|
|
|
| 7. Rationale for Risk to Development Outcome Rating: |
| At project completion, (i) the SHSs were well accepted by the herder population, which was also evidenced by the |
| large penetration supported by the parallel Government initiatives; (ii) the solar hybrids with diesel in select Soum |
| centers had demonstrated operability, while the wind hybrids encountered some technical issues; and (iii) the NREC |
| had a self-financing structure with enabling legal and regulatory frameworks in place. The operating issues of wind |
| hybrids need to be addressed. Also, the safe disposal and handling of old batteries needs care and attention. The |
| country’s overall growth and rapid income gains should help sustain Government’s continuing interest and focus on |
| rural development priorities. |
|
|
| a. Risk to Development Outcome Rating : Moderate |
|
|
| 8. Assessment of Bank Performance: |
|
|
| a. Quality at entry: |
| The Bank ensured consistency of project objectives with Government priorities and with the Country |
| Partnership Strategy and appropriately considered the alternatives in the design of components and smart |
| subsidies. It pooled IDA, GEF and other bilateral grants to support the the removal of barriers to the adoption of |
| new technologies. The Bank also promoted international standards for new products in renewable technologies, |
| an innovative approach to "crowding in" of the private sector (though it was over ambitious on hind sight |
| regarding the sector's financial capacity) and the use of technologies that were already proven in other countries. |
| The component-specific technical assistance, along with support aimed at regional and national levels, were |
| appropriate for the project. The risks were properly identified during preparation, as were the mitigation |
| measures adopted. M&E design was adequate. |
|
|
| at -Entry Rating : |
| Quality -at- Satisfactory |
|
|
| b. Quality of supervision: |
| As the ICR notes, the Bank’s supervision was more vigorous on investment components and less so on the |
| technical assistance activities, which was borne out in the canceled parts of the latter, especially unused GEF |
| funds. The Bank team seems to have taken a long time in the initial phase (first two years) before modifying the |
| procurement approach. It is not clear if the decision to adopt a bulk purchase alternative using the project funds |
| could have been made sooner, say six months to a year, thereby completing the project on or before the original |
| schedule. Nevertheless, the six month extension for completing the scope of the project seems reasonable given |
| the innovative features of the project and the relatively low capacity of the institutions involved at the beginning of |
| implementation. The focus on the SC component could have been better as pointed in the gaps of information |
| gathered to evidence reliability improvements as well as concerning the technical problems in wind hybrids |
| adopted in certain Soum centers. The efforts to conduct surveys and rapid appraisal are noteworthy and could |
| be followed up for monitoring sustained use and spread of adoption of SHS by herder population. |
|
|
|
|
| Quality of Supervision Rating : Moderately Satisfactory |
|
|
| Overall Bank Performance Rating : Moderately Satisfactory |
|
|
|
|
| 9. Assessment of Borrower Performance: |
|
|
| a. Government Performance: |
| The ICR recognizes the Government’s role, commitment, funding, and performance. Its rapid responsiveness |
| to certain issues – for example, enhancing the subsidy to the herder populations – helped recover the time lost |
| during the initial sluggish start of the project. The Government’s sustained commitment to rural electrification |
| overall, including through large budget outlays, helped the momentum for the Bank’s parallel project in a |
| synergistic way. The timely adoption of supporting regulations by the National Renewable Energy Center (NREC) |
| and renewable energy law are testimony to the Government’s ownership and performance. |
|
|
| Government Performance Rating Satisfactory |
|
|
| b. Implementing Agency Performance: |
| Considering the innovative aspects of the project, the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in the NREC seems |
| to have performed quite well, adjusting to new demands as they arose (e.g. the change in procurement method, |
| contract difficulties experienced). The project had built in technical assistance for such capacity building at the |
| outset. The rapid pickup of the implementation pace after the initial lull demonstrates the PIU’s sustained efforts |
| and focus on the project’s objectives, including the surveys undertaken. However, the ICR also candidly points |
| out the shortcomings of the PIU during implementation, especially regarding record keeping for project |
| management and fiduciary purposes. The PIU seems to have addressed the documentation concerns after |
| receiving training (pp 20-21 of ICR). |
|
|
| Implementing Agency Performance Rating : Moderately Satisfactory |
|
|
| Overall Borrower Performance Rating : Moderately Satisfactory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10. M&E Design, Implementation, & Utilization: |
|
|
| a. M&E Design: |
| The M&E framework was designed for the components to track the outputs and outcomes and the achievement of |
| the project development and Global Environmental objectives. The results framework identified and established the |
| outcome indicators by component and over time in the implementation plan. The survey approach was appropriate |
| to track the mobile herder population’s adoption of SHS systems, use, etc., and covered 10 Soum centers. A similar |
| survey of Soum centers for monitoring the benefits of the electricity service covered only 3 Soum centers. The PIU |
| was responsible for M&E and baseline data and targets were defined for most of the indicators. |
|
|
| b. M&E Implementation: |
| Even though the PIU was provided with training in M&E at the launch of the project, the ICR notes the difficulties |
| encountered by the PIU, and hence the Bank team, in assessing progress in some key areas during implementation. |
| The tracking of key data for assessing the GEO achievement could be done only at the end of the project due to |
| specific information needed on Soum centers. While reasonably good estimates can be made of the herder |
| component based on baseline and average displacement for kerosene, more pertinent data would have been |
| needed for properly estimating the avoided diesel use at Soum centers with hybrid systems. |
|
|
| c. M&E Utilization: |
| The surveys and rapid appraisal provide an important basis for improving the quality of data to estimate the |
| benefits and subsequently to fine tune the approach in the continuing rural electrification initiatives. The efforts made |
| by the PIU and the Bank team to disseminate the results and lessons from the project are noteworthy and attest to |
| good practice. |
|
|
| M&E Quality Rating : Substantial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11. Other Issues |
|
|
| a. Safeguards: |
| This is a category C project for safeguards compliance and management. The project had positive benefits for |
| environment. The ICR candidly notes the shortcoming and oversight in the failure to tackle early on the potential |
| issues with handling and disposal of used batteries for SHS systems. Even though the individual SHS system battery |
| is small, the widespread use by a large number of herders does pose health hazards if the batteries are not properly |
| handled and disposed after their useful life span. The team appropriately supported a study to examine the feasibility |
| of a battery recycling facility, and the ICR records the interest already shown by the private sector in this regard |
| (page 15). It is important to follow up on the handling nand disposal of used batteries in view of their potential |
| adverse impacts. The project team confirmed that the project was in compliance with the applicable safeguards |
| policies of the Bank at all times. |
|
|
| b. Fiduciary Compliance: |
| Both procurement and financial management are noted as in compliance with agreed standards, except for minor |
| shortcomings in records maintenance for a short time during implementation. The ICR reports that the shortcomings |
| were handled by the PIU and the Bank team in a timely manner, and the project team confirmed that the audit |
| reports were satisfactory (that is, unqualified) throughout implementation. Delays in procurement were handled by |
| changing the approach for bulk procurement of SHSs and a contract dispute was able to be settled in local courts. |
|
|
| c. Unintended Impacts (positive or negative): |
|
|
|
|
| d. Other: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12. |
| 12. Ratings : ICR IEG Review Reason for |
| Disagreement /Comments |
| Outcome : Satisfactory Moderately The outcomes planned for the Soum |
| Satisfactory center component were not achieved |
| fully and no evidence was provided to |
| support improvements in reliability. The |
| effectiveness of technical assistance |
| for barrier removal and safe handling of |
| used batteries was deficient . |
|
|
| Risk to Development Moderate Moderate |
| Outcome : |
|
|
| Bank Performance : Satisfactory Moderately As the ICR itself notes, there were |
| Satisfactory shortcomings in the responsiveness of |
| Bank supervision to handle issues in a |
| timely manner |
|
|
| Borrower Performance : Satisfactory Moderately As the ICR itself notes, the PIU |
| Satisfactory performance regarding record keeping |
| for fiduciary aspects was less than fully |
| satisfactory. |
|
|
| Quality of ICR : Satisfactory |
|
|
| NOTES: |
| NOTES |
| - When insufficient information is provided by the Bank |
| for IEG to arrive at a clear rating, IEG will downgrade |
| the relevant ratings as warranted beginning July 1, |
| 2006. |
| - The "Reason for Disagreement/Comments" column |
| could cross-reference other sections of the ICR |
| Review, as appropriate. |
|
|
| 13. Lessons: |
| The lessons of broader significance from the ICR are the following: |
| (i) Transfer of international experience requires care and adaptation: International experiences in energy |
| efficiency promotion are generally transferable, but to be effective they have to be carefully selected and |
| customized to suit local conditions. |
| (ii) Smart subsidies are effective: Targeting subsidies are effective in promotion of, and removal of barriers to, |
| energy efficiency. The effectiveness of such subsidies would be better if distortions in fuel subsidies are minimized |
| or removed (e.g. diesel subsidies to utilities would reduce incentives to select other renewable options). |
| (iii) Safe handling and disposal of batteries is essential: In addition to the above two lessons noted in the ICR, |
| the project has highlighted the need for adopting appropriate safety and mitigation measures for ensuring proper |
| handling and disposal of batteries with hazardous chemicals, including adequate funding and institutional |
| responsibility for ensuring implementation. |
|
|
| 14. Assessment Recommended? Yes No |
|
|
| Why? The project offers important lessons regarding the choice approach, technologies, etc., for off-grid and |
| mini-grid development in rural electrification and access, which are important challenges in the power sector at this |
| time. The lessons could be beneficial, for example in the South Asia and Africa Regions, both of which have large |
| populations without electricity access. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15. Comments on Quality of ICR: |
|
|
| The ICR is comprehensive, candid and provides evidence for the most part of assessment. It provides sufficient |
| information to validate the outputs and outcomes and the quality of analysis is satisfactory. The format is in |
| conformity with guidelines and the lessons are useful and relevant for practical operational purposes. In Annex 5, the |
| various survey responses could be tabulated for better understanding and clarity. The ICR could also have provided |
| more details of the Government funded wind-diesel hybrids. |
| a.Quality of ICR Rating : Satisfactory |
| |
