Critical Review of the Malawi Community Energy Model June 28 - July 2, 2016 Livingstone, Zambia Critical Review of the Malawi Community Energy Model Peter Dauenhauer, Damien Frame University of Strathclyde, Glasgow UK peter.dauenhauer@strath.ac.uk

Electricity Access - Malawi 10% / 2% (Overall/Rural) Electricity Access Dependence on Traditional Biomass (97% of energy supply) Electricity – dominance of grid access, hydro-based, chronic supply shortage, urban centers Government electrification initiatives – Solar Villages, MAREP (Phase VII – 137 TCs since 2002) History of sustainability issues for off-grid community energy, little documentation

Malawi Renewable Energy Acceleration Programme - MREAP Funded by Scottish Government, 2012-2015, totaling £2.3m. Integrated stream of work including: Development of 46 new community energy projects (2014 – ongoing) Study of Sustainability of solar PV systems (2015) Case study based evaluation of 12 projects (2012) Link to project documentation

‘Appropriate’ Technology Community Energy Community owned Community operated CE Project ‘Appropriate’ Technology Meets community need For the 11.3 million currently off-grid and without power, CE only real near term option, along with PSPs Rural public infrastructure – usually a school or health centre

Presentation Topics Background: Energy in Malawi, CE Model Sustainability framework Sustainability results Latest projects from MREAP Programme Reflection on the CE “Model” Conclusions & Recommendations

PV Sustainability Study - Overview 45 systems surveyed throughout country Comprehensive survey covering 4 sustainability factors: technical, economic, social, organizational Not MREAP systems

Results - economics

Results - technical Panels Batteries

Results - social Theft? Total Failure?

Results - organizational

MREAP Project Base 50 new community energy projects started through MREAP 15 Districts 30 primary schools 5 health centers 3 community buildings 74 teacher Household PV systems … and other technologies

MREAP – Sustainability features Technical MERA certification of installation Local capacity building Ongoing technical support Remote Monitoring Economic Business Models developed by Community Rev. Gen. Activities identified and implemented by community Bank accounts established, transparent oversight

MREAP – Sustainability features Social Project owned by a Community Based Organization (CBO). Representative and Permanent Baseline and needs assessment Community involved in process + outcomes (learning journies, district learning links) Financial contributions Organizational Roughly 6 months of training prior to installation: technical, financial, managerial Ownership arrangement driven by community preference Ongoing training offered, roughly 2/year/community

MREAP – Sustainability features Support organization established for projects Development Advocacy Knowledge sharing Technical support Community Energy Malawi

Initial Comparisons MREAP Model All projects have a business plan and demonstrated income All projects involved district and have clearly identified ownership At 6 months, estimated 97% functionality of installed systems Extensive community and owner (CBO) training in financial, managerial, technical Support organization (CEM) in place along with a community-based member network Existing Portfolio 15% of projects have both a bank account and income 22% district involvement, 50% projects w/ “no stakeholders” 80% of projects experienced total failure at some point. 45% of rooms currently without working bulbs. ~40% projects had management and technical training pre-install. Minimal post-install training Little or no ongoing support Positive, but…

Reflections e.g. Education outcome… CE Project …Over many years How Community Roles Develop project Learning Consensus Practicals Run project generate funds disciplined use of funds manage project technical fixes (or interface with supply chain) interface wider community manage technical operation? (charging, mini-grid?) Scale up? How Additional time to develop Additional cost Creation of a new support organization (itself requiring a sustainable financial model) Self-support model?

Conclusions Improved CE model in MREAP have enhanced sustainability prospects and performance Follows a self-support model Building up local capacity requires a non-trivial development cost and additional time … but may not be enough for true sustainability … and requires a continued ongoing support mechanism Underlying low skills base to manage a community energy project remains a major challenge. Lack of a formal support mechanism, both in terms of development and financial, require a self-support model.

Recommendations Improved CE Model has merit and should continue to be monitored Two paths: Where additional investment is possible, systematic view is needed over a longer time period - building up the capacity of local ownership and reinforcing it over a 3-5 year period. (Extend scope of CE model) Build the district and central governance ability to develop and support rural CE projects Address the skills gap in rural communities If not, an approach which attempts a self-support model is likely to have sustainability issues. (The is a step backward) Instead, ‘less ambitious’ project more appropriate for current socio-economic context (start small, local learning process, slow down)

Critical Review of the Malawi Community Energy Model June 28 - July 2, 2016 Livingstone, Zambia Thank you! Critical Review of the Malawi Community Energy Model Peter Dauenhauer, Damien Frame University of Strathclyde, Glasgow UK peter.dauenhauer@strath.ac.uk