1. 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

2. 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

3. Malawi Renewable Energy Acceleration Programme - MREAP
Funded by Scottish Government, , 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

4. ‘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

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

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

7. Results - economics

8. Results - technical
Panels
Batteries

9. Results - social
Theft?
Total Failure?

10. Results - organizational

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. 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…

16. 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?

17. 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.

18. 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)

19. 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