Successful energy policy interventions in Africa

Content

FOREWORD 2EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION 42.0 BACKGROUND ON ENERGY SECTOR IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 52.1 Traditional Biomass 52.2 Renewable Energy (other than biomass) 62.3 Electricity 62.4 Coal, Oil and Gas 93.0 REVIEW OF ENERGY INTERVENTIONS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR IN AFRICA 103.1 Criteria for Successful Energy Interventions 163.2 Analysis of energy interventions in the energy sector in Africa 174.0 CASE STUDY 1: POWER GENERATION 194.1 Bagasse-Based Cogeneration in Mauritius 194.2 Geothermal for Electricity Generation in Kenya 225.0 CASE STUDY 2: POWER DISTRIBUTION 255.1 Electrification programme in South Africa 255.2 National Electrification Programme in Ghana 276.0 CASE STUDY 3: LPG PROGRAMME IN SENEGAL 307.0 CASE STUDY 4: IMPROVED CHARCOAL JIKO IN KENYA 328.0 CONCLUSION 349.0 REFERENCES 36

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Electricity Consumption per Capita (2003 / 2004) 8Table 2: Analysis of the successful initiatives 17Table 3: Evolution of Cogeneration (1988 – 2002) 20Table 4: Geothermal Power Exploitation in Kenya 23Table 5: Summary of Additional Planned Power Generation in Kenya (2004 – 2019) 23Table 6: Summary of how the power generation interventions fulfil the criteria 24Table 7: Summary of how the various policy interventions engaged in

power distribution fulfils the criteria 29Table 8: Summary of how the LPG programme in Senegal fulfils the criteria 31Table 9: Summary of how the KCJ fulfils the criteria 33

Table 10: Summary of the successful policy initiatives in respect to criteria 34

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Biomass energy as a percentage of total energy demand for selected Eastern, Western and Southern African countries - 2003 5

Figure 2: Electricity Production in Africa (2004) 7Figure 3: Electricity Consumption Per Capita by Regions of the World (2001) 7Figure 4: Urban and Rural Electrification Levels (2003 / 2004) 9Figure 5: Rate of household connections by year for rural and urban

households in Botswana 13

IMPRINTPublished by:Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHPostfach 518065726 EschbornGermanyEmail: psp@gtz.dewww.gtz.de

Date:July 2007

Designed by:die Basis, Wiesbaden

Print:Druckerei Klaus Koch, Wiesbaden

Compiled by:Stephen KarekeziWaeni KithyomaKennedy MuzeeAFREPREN/FWDNairobi, Kenya

With contributions from:Gisela PrasadEnergy Research Centre, University of Cape Town South Africa

Sécou Sarr, Touria Dafrallah, Emmanuel Seck, Jean Pascal Corréa, Aby Dramé TouréENDA – Tiers MondeSenegal

3

FOREWORD

About 500 mio people in Africa have limited or no access to modern energy services. They rely on traditionalforms of biomass to cover their basic energy needs, such as firewood, charcoal or dung. This does not only lead to the degradation of natural resources but also has negative impacts on the health of mostly women and children. Energy is a precondition for economic growth and social development: production, processing andtransport of products depend on sufficient energy supply. Social infrastructure institutions such as hospitals,schools or communal centres need affordable energy to provide their services to the population. Efficient useand supply of energy can also reduce the dependency on energy imports of many African countries.

In order to improve the situation, adequate policy frameworks and financing schemes are needed. There are stillmany challenges ahead and hurdles to be overcome. Yet there are good examples that demonstrate the largepotential for sustainable energy solutions especially in the field of renewable energies and energy efficiency.

With the present publication GTZ intends to showcase some of these examples and make them known to others.The paper compromises a set of policy interventions that have led to a more sustainable supply of energy for the population. It does not claim to be exhausitve, but is rather to be understood as a collection of examplessuitable for replication in other regions. By facilitating the access to these case studies, we wish to stimulateand contribute to the discussion on improving the African energy situation.

The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH has been active in the energy sector inAfrica for over three decades. Projects aim at involving the private sector, mobilizing capital and know-how, and at supporting suitable framework conditions for private investment.

We would like to take the opportunity to thank AFREPREN for conducting the research and for elaborating thiscoherent compilation of surveys. We would also like to thank ENDA and ERC for their valuable contribution byundertaking the regional surveys.

Stefan Opitz

Head of Energy and Transport Unit

Department “Environmental Management, Infrastructure”

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Although the performance of the energy sector in Africa as awhole is perceived as being below expectations, a number ofsuccessful policy interventions have been implemented in theregion.

The objective of this study was to document selected success-ful energy interventions and initiatives in Africa for possiblereplication and at the same time identify factors and frame-work conditions that lead to success of the selected initiatives.

In order to address the objectives of this study, AFREPREN/FWDcommissioned surveys in three regions: Eastern and Horn ofAfrica coordinated by Energy, Environment and DevelopmentNetwork for Africa, (AFREPREN/FWD) Kenya, West Africa coor-dinated by Environmental Development in Africa, (ENDA), Sene-gal, and Southern Africa coordinated by Energy Research Centre,(ERC), South Africa, to review successful policy interventions inthe energy sector in Africa. A wide range of different initiativeswas compiled, with a short description of the intervention, themeasures taken, and the impact at different levels. Using acarefully designed set of criteria, the initiatives were reviewedto identify the most successful policy interventions. The criteriathat were used to identify the most successful projects include:

• Continued positive impact over a long period of time

• Scaled-up uptake of improved energy services and technology

• Demonstrated strong linkages to poverty reduction andachievement of millennium development goals (MDGs)

• Linked to the establishment of long term policy

• Contributed to energy security

• Enhanced environmental protection

• Contributed to gender equity

It is useful to note that this report does not present an ex-haustive review of all energy initiatives in the region; but islimited to those that are well documented in literature. Anexhaustive review would require additional resources andcould be the focus of future studies subject to the availabil-ity of adequate financial support.

Notable successful policy interventions identified in thisstudy include:

(a) Electricity generation: Geothermal in Kenya and Cogeneration in Mauritius

(b) Electricity distribution: Electrification in South Africaand Electrification in Ghana.

(c) LPG Programme in Senegal

(d) Biomass: Kenya Ceramic Jiko improved cook stove

The success of these policy initiatives have been as a result of some key factors which include:

• Long term commitment by both the private and public sec-tor – this was key factor in the development of geohermalpower generation in Kenya, the Kenya Ceramic Jiko (KCJ)improved cook stove in Kenya, biomass cogeneration inMauritius and electrification programmes in SouthernAfrica.

• Increased income generation – initiatives that provide op-portunities for income generation have in most cases beensuccessful. This is true for almost all successful initiativesdiscussed in this report.

• Specialisation – this has proven to be instrumental to thesuccess of almost all identified initiatives. Preferencesshould be given to specialised initiatives with specific fo-cus on a single option. This was true in the case of KCJstoves, cogeneration in Mauritius, geothermal in Kenya, ru-ral electrification in South Africa and Botswana, as well asthe LPG programme in Senegal.

• Piggyback principle – building energy initiatives aroundexisting networks reduces the cost of setting up a wholenew network and facilitates accelerated scale up. Thiswas the case in South African national electrification pro-gramme, the KCJ in Kenya and the LPG programme inSenegal.

• Development of skills – in cases of new technologies, thedevelopment of local skills demonstrated by significantand long-term commitment to local capacity building andskills development appears to be crucial to success.

• Local champions – in almost all successful cases, the ex-istence of committed champions (within or outside gov-ernment) to the initiatives was key to success. The localchampions should not only demonstrate long-term com-mitment but should have significant control over the de-sign and implementation of the initiative.

54

2.0 BACKGROUND ON ENERGY SECTOR IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Africa's energy sector can best be viewed as comprising ofthree distinct areas: North Africa, which is heavily depend-ent on oil; South Africa, which depends on coal; and therest of Sub-Saharan Africa, largely reliant on traditionalbiomass (IEA, 2005 and Karekezi, 2002a) – see Figure 1.This report focuses on Sub-Saharan Africa, which stillfaces major energy challenges, and with few successful ex-periences that it can point to. North Africa also faces ma-jor energy challenges but it has recorded significant suc-cesses in overcoming basic access to modern energy serv-ices for the majority of its population (IEA, 2005).

2.1 Traditional Biomass

Traditional biomass has serious health and environmentaldrawbacks. Indoor air pollution from unvented cookingstoves is a major contributor to respiratory illness in high-land areas of Sub-Saharan Africa and reliance on biomass(especially charcoal) contributes to land degradation(Karekezi, 2002a; Kantai, 2002).

There is also a gender dimension to the domestic use of bio-mass. Women and children in highland areas of Sub-Saha-ran Africa are exposed to high levels of indoor air pollutionbecause of their lengthy periods spent in kitchens, which inturn leads to higher incidences of respiratory illnessesamong women and children. The collection of traditionalfuels is carried out primarily by women (and children) anduses up valuable time that could be better employed in edu-cation or generating income (REN21, 2005).

Figure 1: Biomass energy as a percentage of total energy demand for selected Eastern, Western and Southern African countries – 2003

Uga

nda

Ethi

opia

Mal

awi

Tanz

ania

Mad

agas

car

Moz

ambi

que

Zam

bia

Nig

eria

Eritre

a

Suda

n

Togo

Zim

babw

e

Gha

na

Keny

a

Nam

ibia

Gab

on

Sene

gal

Ang

ola

Bost

wan

a

S. A

fric

a

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Biom

ass

% o

f To

tal En

ergy

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Although the performance of the energy sector in Africaas a whole is perceived as being below expectations, anumber of successful policy interventions have been im-plemented in the region. Notable successful policy inter-ventions include:

• Successful rural electrification programmes have been im-plemented in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Ghana.

• Supportive policies and innovative dissemination stratgieshave resulted in the widespread dissemination of the im-proved charcoal cook stove in Kenya,

• Use of geothermal energy to account for over 10% ofKenya’s power generation capacity;

• Policy measures resulted in a 100% growth in LPG use inSudan

• Over a 20 year period an innovative and successful deploy-ment of cogeneration technologies which now totals to 40%of Mauritius electricity generation capacity took place

• In Ghana, a national energy fund has been successfullyutilised to finance renewable energy projects and energyefficiency activities on a sustainable basis.

These examples, and numerous others, are yet to be docu-mented in an accessible fashion that would facilitate theirreplication in other countries in the region. This studyaims to begin to address this gap.

The specific objective of this study was to document suc-cessful energy policies in Africa for possible replicationand to identify the key factors and framework conditionsthat lead to success of energy policies.

AFREPREN / FWD commissioned surveys in three re-gions: Eastern and Horn of Africa coordinated byAFREPREN / FWD, Kenya, West Africa coordinatedby Environmental Development in Africa, (ENDA),Senegal, and Southern Africa coordinated by EnergyResearch Centre, (ERC), South Africa, to review suc-cessful policy interventions in the energy sector inAfrica. A range of different policies was compiled, witha short description of the intervention, the measurestaken, and the impact at different levels. Using a set ofcommon criteria, the policies were reviewed to identifythe most successful policy interventions. The criteriaused are listed below:

• Positive impact over long period of time,

• Scaled-up uptake of the technology,

• Strong linkage to poverty reduction and achievement of millennium development goals (MDGs),

• Establishment of long term policy,

• Energy security,

• Enhanced environmental protection,

• Contribution to gender equity.

Structure of the report

After providing a brief introduction of the aforemen-tioned study in this chapter, Chapter 2 provides a briefbackground of the energy sector in Sub-Saharan Africa.Chapter 3 reviews energy initiatives that have been im-plemented in the region and the criteria for selectingsuccessful initiatives. The following chapters providedetailed reviews of the successful interventions thathave been implemented in the region. These are pre-sented in the following fashion: Chapter 4 examines in-terventions in the power generation sector; Chapter 5reviews on power distribution initiatives. Chapter 6presents the LPG programme in Senegal while chapter 7presents the Kenya Ceramic Jiko – improved cook stoveprogramme. The final chapter of the report providesconcluding recommendations on future energy initia-tives that could be considered for possible implementa-tion by GTZ / BMZ Energising Africa Initiative.

Source: World Bank, 2006

76

Figure 2: Electricity Production in Africa (2004)1

Source: IEA, 2006

The low level of per capita consumption of modern energy in Sub-Saharan Africa is particularly striking when compared to other regions of the developing world. Figure 3 compares Africa’s per capita consumption of electricity with other regions of the world(World Bank 2006).

Figure 3: Electricity Consumption Per Capita by Regions of the World (2001)

Source: World Bank, 2003a

A more detailed assessment of per capita consumption of electricity at national level reveals extremely low levels of electricity use in some Sub-Saharan African countries, as shown in Table 1.

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Sub-SaharanAfrika

South Asia East Asiaand Pacific

Middle Eastand North Africa

Latin America and Caribbean

Europe and Central Asia

1 Does not include cogeneration, back-up power plants and other off-grid power generators, which could total to a significant contribution to the region’s power

supply. Many cogeneration plants especially in agro-processing industries are used for own consumption (used by plant / factory generating the electricity) and

may not be registered in national electricity statistics. For example, in Mauritius, cogeneration accounts for 40% of the country’s power supply (Veragoo, 2003)

2.2 Renewable Energy (other than biomass)

Africa is endowed with substantial renewable energy re-sources. The region has an estimated 9,000 megawatts ofgeothermal potential (hot water and steam based exclud-ing the potential of ground source heat pumps and othergeothermal direct heat applications), and significant hy-dro, solar and wind potential (Karekezi and Ranja, 1997;BCSE, 2003).

There is growing consensus among policy makers that ef-forts to disseminate renewables in Africa have fallen shortof expectations Despite recognition that they are impor-tant sources of energy for Sub-Saharan Africa, renewableshave not attracted the level of investment or policy com-mitment they deserve. Resources allocated to developingrenewables are negligible in comparison to resources allo-cated to the conventional energy sector. The success of re-newables in the region has been limited by a combinationof factors that include: poor institutional framework andinfrastructure; inadequate planning; lack of coordinationand linkage in national renewables programmes; pricingdistortions that place renewable energy at a disadvantage;high initial capital costs; weak dissemination strategies;lack of skilled manpower; poor baseline information; and,low maintenance capacity (Karekezi and Ranja, 1997).

While it is recognised by many analysts that renewablescannot solve all of Africa’s energy problems, they are stillperceived as having significant potential to meet growingenergy requirements in the region. If properly harnessed,renewables could meet a significant proportion of energydemand for the bulk of African countries, as well as pro-vide important hedge to current risks that face the con-ventional energy sector, namely, high and fluctuating oilprices as well as drought that affects hydropower.

2.3 Electricity

As shown in the Figure 2, there are four major sources ofelectricity in Africa, namely: (I) fossil fuels (coal andoil/gas), (II) hydro, (III) nuclear, and (IV) geothermal.Coal and hydropower are the dominant sources of elec-tricity in southern Africa while hydropower and to lesserextent geothermal and biomass are the principal sourcesof electricity in Eastern and Central Africa. As a whole,the region has 1.1 gigawatts of hydropower capacity.

The total electricity production for Africa in 2003 was507 TWh. The bulk of the electricity produced in Africais from thermal stations (Figure 2), because of the largecoal plants in South Africa and oil fired generation unitsof Nigeria and North Africa (IEA, 2005). In spite of themassive exploitable hydropower capacity in Africa, itscontribution to total power generation is relatively low.The major electricity demand sectors are industry, com-merce and households. Use of electricity for transport islargely limited to electric trains in parts of Southern andNorthern Africa (IEA, 2005). In agriculture, some elec-tricity is used in large farms as well as in agro-industries.

Kenya is the only country in Africa that has successfullyexploited geothermal energy for electricity generation(Ethiopia has attempted to exploit its geothermal re-sources but with less success). This is in contrast to NorthAfrican countries, which depend on petroleum-basedelectricity generation. The installed capacity in WestAfrica of 10,631 MW corresponds to a production ofabout 38,022 GWh in 2003 (EEOA, 2003), accountedfor mainly by three countries: Nigeria (60.3 %), Ghana(15.5 %) and Cote d’Ivoire (13.4 %). About 61.1 % ofelectricity generated in West Africa is thermal; this is anindication of the vulnerability of this region’s power in-dustry to high oil prices (except for oil or gas producingcountries such as Nigeria and Cameroon). Most countriesin this region import oil products and this has adverse im-pacts on their balance of payment (IEA, 2004).

In most Sub Saharan African countries, biomass in theform of bagasse is used for cogeneration in sugar indus-tries. Wind power generation is growing in North Africa.Solar PV systems are widely used in telecommunicationsand vaccination programmes. There are a growing num-ber of PV systems used in rural remote institution such asdispensaries, hospitals and rural schools as well as ruralhouseholds to meet light electrical loads such as lighting,radio and television.

Geothermal0,2%Hydro

16,5%

Nuclear2,5%

Fossil fuels80,8%

98

2.4 Coal, Oil and Gas

Total oil production in Africa for the year 2005 reached467 MToe mainly from North Africa and the continent‘sWestern coastline. Total oil consumption in 2005 wasonly about 129 MToe (BP Statistics, 2006). Most ofAfrica’s gas is found in North Africa and West Africa2.

South Africa accounts for around 90 % of Africa’s coalproduction, and it is estimated that 90 % of the conti-nent’s proven and economically attractive coal reserves arefound in Southern Africa. Increased use of coal is begin-ning to generate the common environment problems as-sociated with coal use throughout the world3 (WorldBank, 2006).

With the exception of kerosene (and, indirectly, oil prod-ucts used in the public/commercial transportation sector),which is used by many rural and urban poor householdsfor lighting (and to a limited extent, for cooking), the fos-sil energy sub-sector mainly serves the high-income house-holds and the energy-intensive commercial and industrialsub-sectors (Kebede, 2001).

Urban

Rural

2 North Africa accounts for about 50% of Africa’s total reserves of gas followed by Nigeria, which accounts for about 31% (BP Statistical Review,

2006 and Energy Information Administration, 2001). Gas exports are largely from North African countries with the requisite infrastructure. Most of the

associated gas from the continent’s Western coastline is flared due to limited infrastructure. Several major gas development projects that are either

ongoing or planned are expected to result in reduced gas flaring and major increase in gas exports as well as gas use in power generation in West

Africa. In Eastern and Southern Africa, significant gas resources have been found in Tanzania, Mozambique and Namibia.

3 Examples include indoor air pollution, local and regional air pollution, greenhouse gases emissions and land degradation in the case of open cast coalmines (Asamoah, 2001).

Figure 4: Urban and Rural Electrification Levels (2003 / 2004)

Sources: World Bank 2004; Pineau 2005a&b; Habtetsion, 2005a&b; Dube, 2005a&b; Kalumiana, 2005a&b; Nyang,2005a&b; Diarra, 2005a&b; Bassirou, 2005a&b; Sarr & Sokona, 2003, Kayo 2005a&b; Kahyoza 2005 a&b; Tse, 2005a&b,Matinga, 2005.

Table 1: Electricity Consumption per Capita (2003 / 2004)

Country Electricity Consumption

per Capita (kWh / Capita)

Burkina Faso 19

Niger 28

Ethiopia 30

Uganda 44

Eritrea 53

Tanzania 56

Benin 72

Sudan 84

Democratic Republic of Congo 89

Togo 97

Nigeria 99

Congo 110

Angola 126

Kenya 128

Cameroon 174

Senegal 182

Cote d’Ivoire 182

Ghana 254

Mozambique 343

Zambia 625

Algeria 797

Zimbabwe 804

Namibia 1,259

South Africa 4,504

Sources: World Bank 2006; IEA, 200

With the exception of a few countries, national electrificationlevels in most Sub-Saharan African countries are routinely be-low 30%. Rural electrification levels are even much lower withthe majority of the countries recording rural electrification lev-els of less than 5% in the rural areas – where the majority of

the poor in Africa reside. With the exception of a few countries,available data also shows that even in urban areas where mostof the electricity connections are, less than half of the house-holds have access to electricity as shown in Figure 4.

Ethiopia

Mozambique

Uganda

Malawia

Tanzania

Burkina Faso

Botswana

Kenya

Niger

Zambia

Senegal

Namibia

South Africa

Eritrea

Zimbabwe

Cameroon

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1110

Renewable / Energy Sector (other than biomass): Re-newables are often recommended as the most appropri-ate energy technology options for much of rural Sub-Sa-haran Africa. In the absence of electricity from the grid,conventional wisdom on how to increase modern en-ergy use in rural Sub-Saharan Africa often perceives so-lar PV as the most attractive option. It is argued that PVis ideal for dispersed rural households, institutions andenterprises of Africa and is, in the long-term, a cheaperoption than grid-based electricity. Consequently, manynational renewable and rural energy strategies give pri-ority to the dissemination of PV technology. As a result,substantial financing in the form of grants and credithas flowed to various initiatives disseminating PV tech-nologies in rural Africa. AFREPREN / FWD’s researchstudy findings indicate that, with the exception of thecommunication and health sectors, experience with so-lar PV to date, has, however, been below expectations interms of providing an affordable and reliable source ofpower (Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002). At householdlevel, electricity from PV has little impact on cooking inrural households, which is the largest end use of house-hold energy. While PVs may be useful for lighting insmall rural health institutions, typical solar PV systems(40 – 100Wp) cannot meet the energy requirements ofrural SMEs, which are 100 – 1000 times higher(Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002).

In addition, the cost of PV systems is far beyond the in-comes of poor Sub -Saharan rural households. For in-stance, the total cost of a household PV system rangesfrom USD 100 to USD 500 (Karekezi and Kithyoma,2002) – amount, which can exceed the construction costof a house used by the rural poor.

Although there has been limited success with electricity-based renewables such as PVs in the region, in a growingnumber of instances, substantial numbers of renewableshave been disseminated in the region, mainly in rural ar-eas. Notable renewable energy initiatives / programmes include:

• Treadle irrigation pumps4 in Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia

• Wind pumps for water pumping in Kenya

• African Rural Energy Enterprise Development (AREED),which promotes a wide range of renewable and efficientenergy technologies

4 Some energy analysts argue that treadle irrigation pumps should not be addressed under the rubric of energy as they rely on human power/energy.

The authors, however, contend that since much of sub-Saharan Africa is still reliant on human power (particularly in rural agriculture – the mainstay

of the region’s economy), human powered energy options should be an important element of any analysis of the region’s energy sector. This should,

however, not be construed as an endorsement of continued reliance on human powered energy options but simply a reflection of the current reality

that should not be ignored.

3.0 REVIEW OF ENERGY INTERVENTIONS IN THEENERGY SECTOR IN AFRICA

The following section briefly reviews key challenges facingvarious energy sub-sectors and then turns its attention to se-lected past energy initiatives that have been implemented inSub-Saharan Africa over the years. Rather than provide an ex-haustive list of interventions, the authors have tried to restrictthemselves to large-scale initiatives that could be considered,in some respects, successful. Pilot activities that are yet toyield major impacts (but could conceivably be promising) havenot been addressed in this chapter.

Traditional Energy / Biomass Sector: The key challengesfacing Sub-Saharan African countries that rely heavily ontraditional biomass include: firstly, ensuring the biomassused is sourced from sustainable biomass resources (e. g.wood plantation, sustainable management of nativeforests); secondly, identifying cost effective options towiden the dissemination of improved biomass energytechnologies (IBTs); and finally, how to promote modernbiomass energy technologies (MBTs) that use a widerange of biomass resources (woodfuel, agro industrialresidues, rural and urban residues) to generate high qual-ity fuels, gases and electricity (Hall and Rosillo-Calle,1998; Masera et al, 2000) in a cost effective fashion.

A wide range of biomass energy initiatives, policies andprogrammes has been implemented in the region, to ad-dress this challenge. The main focus of the bulk of initia-tives (policies, projects and programmes) implemented inthe region has been on improving biomass energy use andsupply, with some initiatives encouraging switching fromtraditional biomass energy to cleaner fuels e.g. keroseneand LPG (Sarr & Dafralla, 2006). Almost every Sub-Saha-ran African country has implemented a national improvedstove programme. Traditional biomass/improved biomassprojects have achieved mixed results in Sub-SaharanAfrica with a few notable successes and a large number ofpilot activities and projects that appeared promising at theinitial stage but did not yield the desired results. Whereimproved stoves have been accepted they have reduced fu-elwood and charcoal consumption and indoor air pollu-tion (Sarr and Dafralla, 2006). It is, however, importantto underline, that investments in improved biomass en-ergy options have generally been modest with most of thefinancing sourced from bilateral and multilateral agenciesand NGOs / church groups. Few Sub-Saharan Africangovernments have made significant budgetary commit-ments to the biomass sector.

In contrast to Eastern and Horn of Africa, biomass energyconsumption in many southern and West African coun-tries is in the form of fuelwood with limited use of char-coal. In Southern Africa, fuel wood is regulated in somecountries and unregulated in others. In countries where itis regulated, fuelwood collection has tended to be muchmore restrictive even on farmer's own land, and has there-fore been opposed by most farmers (FAO, 1999). It is ei-ther self-collected or transported and sold by fuelwood sell-ers. Attempts to improve the fuelwood supply throughwoodlot plantations have rarely been successful. Woodlotsplantations have been viewed by the adjacent communitiesas possible dispossession of the land in areas with insecureland tenure with the result that poverty and food insecuritymay increase. In addition, without sensitive and equitablemanagement, large-scale modern biomass energy develop-ment can lead to further marginalisation of the rural poor(IFPRI, 2006).

Some of the notable initiatives / projects include:

• Improved charcoal and institutional stoves in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Ethiopia

• Upesi stove liner, an improved firewood stove in Kenya

• Improved stoves in Ethiopia

• Mali stove project

• Improved Coal Stove practices in South Africa

1312

Some of the other initiatives that have been implemented in the region include:

• Increasing kerosene use in Ethiopia’s urban areas

• Multipurpose platforms in Mali

• LPG stoves in South Africa

• LPG programme in Senegal’s urban areas

• Natural gas development in Nigeria aimed at eliminating wasteful flaring of associated gas.

• Exploitation of natural gas power plants in Mozambique, Tanzania and Nigeria.

Electricity Sector: As the region with the lowest electrifi-cation levels in the world, Sub-Saharan Africa has had anumber of initiatives aimed at increasing access to electri-fication. External observers and experts react with a greatdeal of concern when shown data indicating that in a typ-ical Sub-Saharan African country, less than 5 % of the ru-ral population have access to electricity. Since most of theexperts come from countries with almost universal elec-tricity access, the thought of any form of developmentwithout electricity is perceived as unthinkable. In addi-tion, most African policy makers are keen on large powerprojects and electrification programmes as a way of tack-ling some of the key development challenges facing theregion. Consequently, numerous power generations,power sector reform, investment, regional interconnec-tion and urban as well as rural electrification programmeshave been launched in the region, with mixed results(Karekezi & Kimani, 2002).

Electrification programme in Botswana: Botswana is alarge country with a small population living in widely dis-persed villages making the extension of the electricity gridand connections to households expensive. Most ruralhouseholds could not afford a connection and conse-quently, electricity coverage was only about 30 % in 2004.

Until 1988 the Botswana Power Corporation connectedhouseholds only if they paid in full for distribution exten-sions and service connections. Only affluent householdscould afford connections and the rural poor were ex-cluded (Prasad and Visagie 2006).

A major policy reform, the Rural Electrification CollectiveScheme, was introduced in 1988 to accelerate rural electri-fication (EECG 2004, Prasad 2006). The scheme reducesthe upfront cost of connections and extends the repay-ment period up to 15 years making the regular monthlypayments affordable for many poor households. Thescheme was adjusted over time. Standard costing was anadjustment introduced in 1993 and it is available to cus-tomers who are within 500 m of the reticulation corridors.

After an evaluation in 1999, three elements of the schemeacted together to accelerate connection rates (Figure 5).

a) The initial deposit was further decreased to 5 % of the total connection fee.

b) The repayment period was extended to 15 years.

c) Most villages qualified for uniform connection costs(standard costing).

Figure 5: Rate of household connections by year for ruraland urban households in Botswana

Source: EECG, 2004

As shown in Figure 5, connection rates in rural areas rosefrom 7.5 % in 1999 to 17 % in 2000. In the years 2001and 2002 connection rates were still high but were declin-ing. More recent data indicates that in 2002, the nationalelectrification level rose to 22 % and in 2004 had climbedto 30 %.

Petroleum / Oil Sector: The bulk of Sub-Saharan Africancountries import petroleum products, with West Africaannual imports totalling 8.9 MToe while Eastern andSouthern Africa totals to 5.6MToe (BP Statistical Review2006), which constitutes a substantial portion of theirconvertible currency expenditure. The main focus of in-terventions in this sub-sector, therefore, has been to ex-plore for oil resources to reduce oil imports and increaseexport revenues. In addition, there have been continuousinterventions targeted at more equitable and efficientpricing of petroleum products.

In East and Southern Africa, the kerosene market is priva-tised. Large multi-national oil companies are the mainplayers in the bulk distribution of kerosene, while smallshops and the informal sector are the key players in thedistribution of kerosene. Kerosene is widely available andsubsidised in South Africa but the subsidy is not well tar-geted. The subsidies, which were put in place to serve thepoor, were captured by the non-poor, since kerosene con-sumption increases with income. Even when significantrates of subsidies are applied on the official market, manypoor people are forced to buy from secondary markets(due to lack of legal access), and low official prices are alsoenjoyed by the rich. This scenario is common throughoutSub Saharan Africa (Wegner, 2005).

Just like kerosene, LPG for cooking is also produced andmarketed by the large petroleum companies. Improvingaccess to LPG (and to a lesser extent kerosene), as an alter-native to reliance on traditional biomass fuels constituteanother important initiative pursued by many countriesin the region. In South Africa, the price of LPG is regu-lated at the factory gate i.e. the price of LPG is linked tothat of crude oil and the price is regulated by the Depart-ment of Minerals and Energy. Following black outs in theWestern Cape Province of South Africa in the winter of2006 the South African Electricity Supply Company (Es-kom) took emergency response measures to reduce peakelectricity demand. One of the key measures was to ex-change gas stoves for electric stoves (Prasad, 2006).

A well-publicised pilot project dubbed the ‘multifunc-tional platform’ (MFP) was introduced in Mali in 1997.The platform consisted of a diesel engine which could runvarious equipment, making it possible to provide energyservices such as the cereal grinding, oil extraction throughcrushing of oil seeds, dehusking of rice, charging of bat-tery, welding, etc. In addition, it was also used in genera-tion of electricity for lighting and operating a water sup-ply network of about 150 to 200 lamps. The project hasregistered varying levels of success. About 500 platformswere established and more than 80 000 women benefitedfrom this project. In addition, it generated 70 jobs for theproject management; 1 100 jobs for the technical serviceproviders (craftsmen, trainers, flour milling) 4000 jobsfor the direct management of multifunctional projects atthe village level. However, recent information indicatesthat only 60 % of the MFPs installed in Mali are opera-tional (Sokona, 2006)

An evaluation of the multifunctional platforms revealedseveral challenges related to the MFP, such as unreliabilitydue to breakdowns; the need for more rigorous financial,economic, social, and technical feasibility studies to evalu-ate platform installation; village-specific methodologiesand tools, as village context affects outcome of feasibilitystudies and assessments of viability of individual plat-forms; need to increase and diversify energy sales for morerevenue; and need to reduce costs while maintaining plat-form effectiveness and reliability (Sarr and Dafralla, 2006).

1981 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

20

15

10

5

0

Rural

Urban

Total

% o

f co

nnec

ted

hous

ehol

dsth

at c

onne

cted

tha

t ye

ar

The Botswana Power Corporation (BPC) insisted on fullcost recovery for the connections. The new customers paidfor their connections with a loan from the BPC, repayingit in small instalments over a period of up to 15 years. The repayment rates were adapted to the capacity of poorhouseholds to repay.

The electricity grid was extended as part of developmentexpenditure of the Government to provide electricity torural households who could not afford a conventionalconnection in the past. This would assist the achievementof the MDGs by extending the benefits of electricity serv-ices to rural communities.

The long-term experiences of the Rural ElectrificationProgramme continuously fed into the policy makingprocess of the utility and government. Conditions for ac-cess were gradually eased to meet the ability of poorhouseholds to pay. This is strongly reflected in the historyof the project.

The BPC imports a large part of its electricity from SouthAfrica. As regional capacity surplus is coming to an end,Botswana will have to meet its demand from new sources.The country is constructing a new coal-fired power sta-tion, which will meet more than its current need.

Botswana, being largely a desert country, has limited bio-mass. Access to electricity and LPG for cooking will easethe pressure on the available biomass. At the householdlevel, cooking with electricity and LPG will reduce indoorair pollution substantially.

Women and children are the main gatherers of fuel wood,which is an arduous task in a dry country such asBotswana – and as wood becomes scarcer it is gettingmore difficult to collect. Replacing fuelwood with elec-tricity and or LPG eases the work burden of women andchildren and reduces indoor air pollution to whichwomen and children are most exposed.

1514

The West African Power Pool (WAPP)

Established in October 2000, it comprises of 14 countries ofthe Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).Its main achievements include: an energy protocol signed inDecember 2003 that provides a framework for free electricitytrade, agreement to create ECOWAS Energy Information Ob-servatory, agreement on common EIA principles and regionalgeneration and transmission masterplans. Some of its priorityprogrammes and projects include information and coordnationcentre capacity building; new generation based on proposedWest African Gas Pipeline projects and establishment of a re-gional regulatory agency (Mangwengwende and Wamukonya,2007).

Power sector reform

Power sector reform – transforming the traditionally state-owned utilities into private companies, unbundling the utilitiesand permitting private participation – has not been completedin any of the eastern and southern African countries and thereare no fully competitive electricity markets in the region(Karekezi et al. 2003c; Wamukonya, 2003).

There is ongoing debate over the impact of power sectorreforms impacts particularly on the poor (Davidson andMwakasonda 2004, Eberhard 2005, Prasad 2006). It isdifficult to measure the impact of power sector reform onpoor households because they are far removed from high-level decision-making and the chain along which poten-tial benefits are supposed to trickle down to the poor islong and depends on many institutions, which often haveinsufficient capacity. However, available data indicatesthat few, if any, of these reforms have had a direct positiveimpact on the poor. On the other hand, if reforms were tolead to greater efficiency, expansion of grid and better ac-cess to electricity, the whole region including the poorwould benefit (Prasad, 2006).

A significant amount of attention has also been directedtowards increasing electricity generation capacity in theregion. As mentioned earlier, with the exception of SouthAfrica (and to some extent Nigeria) the bulk of powergeneration in the region is hydro-based.

Other notable interventions / projects implemented in the region’s electricity industry include:

• Volta River Authority project in Ghana 5

• Caborra Bassa in Mozambique 6

• Inga power project in Democratic Republic of Congo 7

• Other hydro power investment in most of Sub-SaharanAfrica

• Coal Power generation in South Africa and Zimbabwe

• Natural gas power generation in Mozambique and Tanzania

• Thermal power plants in almost all Sub-Saharan Africancountries

• Geothermal electricity generation in Kenya

• Bagasse based cogeneration in Mauritius

• Performance improvement programme in Zimbabwe’spower utility (ZESA)

5 The Volta River Authority, Cabora Bassa and Inga projects are investments that took place several decades ago but have proven to be investments

that stood the test of time by surviving lengthy periods of instability.

6 See footnote 5.

7 See footnote 5.

The Southern African Power Pool (SAPP)

The Southern African Power Pool (SAPP) was created in 1995with the aim of providing reliable and economical power supplyto the consumers of each member of SAPP, namely – nationalutilities. Power networks of some countries have been inte-grated and this has facilitated power trading through SAPP.The traditional bilateral and long-term contracts between indi-vidual utilities make up about 95% of SAPP’s power trade(Prasad, 2006).

The East African Power Pool (EAPP)

The East African Power Pool (EAPP) launched in February 2005with the signing of Intergovernmental MoU by East Africancountries member of COMESA and Nile Basin Initiative (includ-ing Egypt and Tanzania). It has its secretariat in Addis Ababa,Ethiopia. Interconnections within EAPP include Uganda-Kenyainterconnection that has been in existence since the 1950s;cross-border electricity exchanges that has been in existencebetween countries of the Great Lakes community (CEPGL); i. e.,Eastern DRC, Rwanda and Burundi since the 1960s. Rwandaand Uganda are connected at the level of border towns (30 kV,and there are plans to link the two countries by a 132/110 kVtransmission line. Kenya and Tanzania have completed a feasi-bility study for linking Nairobi to Arusha through a 220 kVtransmission line (Mangwengwende and Wamukonya, 2007;Niyimbona, 2005).

1716

1-Continued

positive

impact over a

long period of

time

2–Scaled up

uptake of

improved

energy

services

3–Strong

linkages to

poverty

reduction

4–Linked to

the establish-

ment of bene-

ficial long

term policy

5–Energy

security

6–Environ-

mental

protection

7–Gender

equity

Table 2: Analysis of the successful initiatives

Criteria Total score

1. Power generation

Biomass cogeneration in Mauritius 5

Geothermal electricity generation in Kenya 4

Coal power generation in South Africa and Zimbabwe 3

Volta River Authority project in Ghana 2

Caborra Bassa in Mozambique 2

Inga power project in D.R. Congo 2

2. Power distribution

Electrification programme in Zimbabwe * 3

Free Basic Electricity (FBE) in South Africa * 5

National electrification programme in Ghana 5

Rural electrification in Botswana 3

Electrification in Malawi 3

3. Fossil fuel

Natural gas power ex-ploitation in Mozambique, Tanzania and Nigeria 3

LPG Programme in Senegal 7

Multipurpose platform in Mali 2

4. Renewables

Improved charcoal Jiko in Kenya * 6

African Rural Energy Enterprise Development (AREED) in Ghana, Mali and Senegal 2

*Refers to improving the energy security of households

3.1 Criteria for Successful Energy Interventions

Although a large number of interventions have been im-plemented in Africa’s energy sector over the years, thereare few examples of success that one can point to. Thissubsection reviews the few successes found in the regionbased on the following criteria:

1. Interventions that have continued to have a positive impactover a long period of time: Many projects / initiatives inSub-Saharan Africa have a short life span, and usually last for the duration of donor or government funding. Oncefunding is withdrawn, the initiative fizzles out and in somecases, is abandoned. One of the true marks of a successfulintervention, therefore, is the ability of the intervention tocontinue to expand after donor /government support iswithdrawn.

2. Interventions that have resulted in scaled-up uptake ofimproved energy services: This refers to the impact of the intervention on the expanded use of improved energyservices by the population. In particular, interventions thatresult in increased access to energy services by a widerrange of the population than the original target populationare considered successful.

3. Interventions that have demonstrated strong linkages topoverty reduction – The link between an energy interven-tion and reduction in poverty levels is difficult to measurein absolute terms. However, it is possible to assess theimpact of an energy intervention on the quality of life ofthe poor. A successful initiative is one that results inimproved standards of living for the poor, e.g. throughimproved incomes, improved access to opportunities forincome generation, improved agricultural productivity and improved social services (health, water, education).

4. Interventions that have contributed to formulation ofbeneficial long term energy policies - either in the public or private sector.

5. Interventions that have contributed to energy security.

6. Interventions that have demonstrated strong linkages toenvironmental protection

7. Interventions that have resulted in gender equity cuttingacross all the genders.

Each of the criteria was given equal weight in the compar-ative assessment of candidate successful experiences. It isimportant to note that this report does not present an ex-haustive review of all energy initiatives in the region; butis limited to those that are well documented in literature.An exhaustive review would require additional resourcesand could be the focus of future studies subject to theavailability of adequate financial support.

3.2 Analysis of energy interventionsin the energy sector in Africa

Based on the aforementioned criteria, a range of energy ini-tiatives are analysed in Table 2. A tick ( ) implies that theinitiative meets the criteria; while a cross ( ) indicates thatthe initiative does not fully satisfy the criteria. Initiativeswith an aggregate of four ticks are considered successful.

19

4.0 CASE STUDY 1: POWER GENERATION

4.1 Bagasse-Based Cogeneration in Mauritius

The Mauritian experience in cogeneration started in1957 when 0.28GWh was sold to the Central ElectricityBoard. As a result of extensive use of cogeneration inMauritius, the country's sugar industry is self-sufficientin electricity and sells excess power to the national grid(Deepchard, 2002, Veragoo, 2003).

A clearly defined government policy on the use of bagassefor electricity generation has been instrumental in thesuccessful implementation of the energy cogenerationprogramme in Mauritius. Plans and policies have con-stantly been worked out over the last decade for the sugarindustry in general. First, in 1985, the Sugar Sector Pack-age Deal Act (1985) was enacted to encourage the pro-duction of bagasse for the generation of electricity. TheSugar Industry Efficiency Act (1988) provided tax incen-tives for investments in the generation of electricity andencouraged small planters to provide bagasse for electric-ity generation. Three years later, the Bagasse Energy De-velopment Programme (BEDP) for the sugar industrywas initiated. In 1994, the Mauritian Government abol-ished the sugar export duty, an additional incentive to

the industry. A year later, foreign exchange controls wereremoved and the centralisation of the sugar industry wasaccelerated. These measures have resulted in the steadygrowth of bagasse-based electricity to the country’s elec-tricity sector.

In 1998, close to 25 % of the country’s electricity wasgenerated from the sugar industry, largely using bagasse, aby-product of the sugar industry (Table 3). By 2002, elec-tricity generation from sugar estates stood at 40 % (half ofit from bagasse) of the total electricity demand in country(Veragoo, 2003). It is estimated that modest capital in-vestments combined with judicious equipment selection,modifications of sugar manufacturing processes (to re-duce energy use in manufactured sugar) and proper plan-ning could yield a 13-fold increase in the amount of elec-tricity generated from sugar factories and sold to the na-tional Mauritius power utility.

Project name Cogeneration in Mauritius

Location of the project Mauritius

Stakeholders involved Central Electricity Board (CEB), sugarcane farmers & millers and Government of Mauritius

Political and financial characteristics Clear defined government policy on the use of bagasse for electricity generation, attractive tariff for cogenerated electricity

Notable project achievements By 2002, electricity generation from sugar estates using cogeneration stood at 40% of the total electricity generation in the country

Key benefits Reduced dependence on imported oil, diversification in electricity generation and improved efficiency in the power sector plus higher revenues for sugar sector stakeholders (farmers and millers)

Key drawbacks Seasonality of the sugarcane restricts all year round cogeneration resulting in import and use of coal during off-season

Key factors that led to success • Long term commitment by both private and public sector

• Specialisation – focus on cogeneration for half a century and substantial investment in local skills development

• Local champions: Mauritius Sugar Authority, private sugar industries and University of Mauritius

In summary, the following initiatives are consideredsuccessful:

1. Power Generation

• Biomass cogeneration in Mauritius

• Geothermal electricity generation in Kenya

2. Power distribution

• Free Basic Electricity (FBE) in South Africa

• National electrification programme in Ghana

3. Fossil fuels

• LPG Programme in Senegal

4. Renewables

• Improved charcoal jiko cook stove programme in Kenya

The following chapters discuss the successful initiativesunder the following headings:

Chapter 4 examines interventions on power generation(geothermal electricity generation in Kenya and biomasscogeneration in Mauritius); Chapter 5 reviews interven-tions on power distribution (national electrification pro-gramme in Ghana, free basic electricity in South Africa,rural electrification in Botswana and electrification inMalawi). Chapter 6 covers the LPG programme in Sene-gal while Chapter 7 reviews the Kenya Ceramic Jiko. Thefinal chapter of the report provides conclusions and rec-ommendations for future energy initiatives.

2120

Bagasse cogeneration has delivered a number of benefits including reduced dependence on imported oil, diversificationin electricity generation and improved efficiency in the power sector in general. It is available 100 % of the time as longas bagasse production is in place thus enhancing Mauritius’ energy security.

Carbon dioxide produced by bagasse-based cogenerationis minimal as it is considered a carbon-neutral operation.In addition, bagasse, which is a waste product can lead toenvironmental problems (fire hazards and methane emis-sions which are considered potent green house gases) ifnot disposed off well – thus its use for power generationdelivers significant local environmental as well as climatebenefits. Cogeneration benefits both men and women di-rectly or indirectly as all the stakeholders have a fair shareof revenue from electricity sales to the grid.

Box 1: Sharing of revenue from bagasse energy in Mauritius

Cogeneration of bagasse energy in Mauritius on a commercial basis is a win-win situation for all the stakeholders in the sugar industry. A ministerial statement issued in 1985 mandated all stakeholders to get a share of revenue fromelectricity sales to the grid. Consequently, a Bagasse Transfer Price Fund (BTPF), was set up in which proceeds from sale of excess bagasse used to generate electricity sold to the grid are placed. The cogenerator receives all their pay-ments from the main utility, Central Electricity Board (CEB) in addition to a share of 50% of the BTPF on a pro-ratabasis, with respect to the amount of electricity exported.

Millers are provided with fiscal incentives for energy-savings, and if operating next to a power plant, they are no longer required to operate, repair and maintain a boiler and turbo-alternator. In addition, the agreement between thecogenerator and the miller specifies a given amount of exhaust steam (around 450 kg per tonne cane). Any improvementin exhaust steam consumption lower than 450kg / tonne cane brings additional revenue to the miller. The saved steamwould be used in the cogeneration power plant, and hence increase electricity export of the cogenerator.

The planters who do not own mills (non-miller planters) are allocated 38% of the BTPF on the basis of individual sugarproduction. In addition, they earn dividends from their shares in the Sugar Investment Trust (SIT) set up in 1994. The miller-planters, on the other hand, are entitled to 12% of the BTPF, shared on pro-rata basis with respect to theirindividual sugar production. The agricultural and non-agricultural workers of the sugar estates and factories as well as their respective staff, and the employees of the parastatal organisations dealing with the sugar industry are allbeneficiaries as shareholders of SIT.

Source: Deepchand, 2003

Using a wide variety of innovative revenue sharing meas-ures (see Box 1), the cogeneration industry has workedclosely with the Government of Mauritius to ensure thatsubstantial benefits flow to all key stakeholders of the sugareconomy, including the poor smallholder sugar farmer.The equitable revenue sharing policies that are in place inMauritius provide a model for emulation in ongoing andplanned modern biomass energy projects in Africa.

By sharing revenue with stakeholders and the small-scalefarmer, the cogeneration industry was able to convince thegovernment (which is interested in the small scale farmersas a major source of votes) to extend supportive policiesand tax incentives to cogeneration investments.

Year Cogeneration % Bagasse-based generation

Bagasse GWh Coal GWh

1989 56 68 9.5

1990 53 45 7.9

1991 70 54 9.5

1992 84 43 10.5

1993 70 40 8.2

1994 76 46 8.1

1995 81 41 8.0

1996 110 10 10.3

1997 125 23 10.0

1998 195 62 16.5

1999 191 155 13.4

2000 277 326 17.70

2001 300 411 18.11

2002 299 447 17.43

Source: CEB reports, Commercial Scale Cogeneration of Bagasse Energy in Mauritius, Deepchand, 2002; Veragoo, 2003

Table 3: Evolution of Cogeneration (1988 – 2002)

2322

Table 4: Geothermal Power Exploitation in Kenya

Country Kenya

Potential generation (MW) 2000

Installed Capacity (MW) 127

Available (MW) 127

Source: MoE, 2007; BCSE, 2003; Fridleifsson, 2001.

The strong policy support for geothermal power has been the key factor that led toits successful exploitation. Kenya’s Least Cost Power Development Plan (LCPDP) in2000 recognises geothermal as an important energy source for the future (Table 5).Government commitment to exploration showed that it was willing to bear part ofthe risk of developing the resources, which attracted private developers and investors(Mbuthi, 2005).

Table 5: Summary of Additional Planned Power Generation in Kenya (2004 – 2019)

MWFiscal year Hydro Geothermal Diesel Total

2004 60 56 116

2005

2006 40 40

2007 64 64

2008 80.6 20 100.6

2009 64 64

2010 140 140

2011 64 20 84

2012 80 80

2013 64 20 84

2014 100 100

2015 64 20 84

2016 100 100

2017 64 40 104

2018 150 150

2019 64 60 124

Totals 280.6 504 650 1434.6

Adapted from KPLC, 2001

4.2 Geothermal for Electricity Generation in Kenya

Kenya was the first country in Sub Saharan Africa to ex-ploit geothermal energy in a significant fashion. Explo-ration for geothermal energy in Kenya started in the1960’s with surface exploration that culminated in two ge-othermal wells being drilled at Olkaria. In the early 1970’smore geological and geophysical work was carried out be-tween Lake Bogoria and Olkaria. This survey identifiedseveral areas suitable for geothermal prospecting and by1973, drilling of deep exploratory wells commenced withfunds from UNDP. Additional wells were thereafterdrilled to provide enough steam for the generation of elec-tricity, and in June 1981 the first 15 MWe generating unitwas commissioned. This was the first geothermal powerplant in Africa. The second 15 MWe unit was commis-sioned in November 1982 and the third unit in March1985, raising the total to 45 MWe. Olkaria 1 is owned andoperated by KenGen, a state-owned power generationutility. Since 1997, private companies have entered intothe generation of electricity using geothermal resources.Currently Orpower4 Inc. is generating 12 MWe with

plans to generate a total of 64 MWe in the next few years inthe Olkaria West field (Mbuthi, 2005; Karekezi andKithyoma (Eds), 2005). Kenya has so far exploited 127MW of its total potential and plans are underway to in-crease geothermal generation capacity by 504MW by2019 (KPLC, 2001).

Both the private and public sector are involved in the de-velopment of geothermal energy in Kenya (BCSE, 2003).So far, 103 geothermal wells have been drilled in Kenya forexploration, production, monitoring and re-injectionwith depths varying between 180 and 2,600m. Of these,97 wells are in the Olkaria area8 and the rest in the EburruField (Mbuthi, 2005). A feasibility study carried out toevaluate Olkaria’s potential for generating electricityfound that the geothermal field covered 80km2 and steamfor 25,000 MW years. The present area covering 11 km2

has steam for 400 MW years.

Project name Geothermal electricity generation

Location of the project Olkaria

Stakeholders involved UNDP, Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KENGEN), Government of Kenya, private developers and investors

Political and financial characteristics Strong policy support for geothermal power and Government commitment to exploration

Notable project achievements A total of 127MW of power generation capacity has been installed accounting for 10% of national power generation capacity of Kenya

Key benefits Increased energy security and access to CDM credits

Key drawbacks Exploration for geothermal energy is a high cost and high risk activity

Key factors that led to success • Long term commitment from government of Kenya and donors

• Specialisation – commitment to geothermal spans 3 decades, and substantial resources used to train a large pool of geothermal experts in Kenya

• Local champions: Government of Kenya and national utility

8 The Olkaria area has a total of 3 power plants code named Olkaria I, II, and III, respectively. Olkaria I and II belong to KenGen while III belongs to OrPower Inc.

2524

5.0 CASE STUDY 2: POWER DISTRIBUTION

The three major policy interventions briefly describedhere are the National Electrification Programme, the FreeBasic Electricity (FBE) earlier called the Electricity BasicServices Support Tariff (EBSST) and solar electrificationby the concession approach.

After the apartheid era, the new democratic Governmentof South Africa addressed the inequalities of the past andelectrification of previously disadvantaged populationswas one of the priority areas identified in the National Re-construction and Development Programme (RDP). TheNational Electrification Programme (NEP) in SouthAfrica increased electricity coverage from 36 % in 1994 to70 % in 2005. The first phase (1994 – 1999) was financedby the national utility Eskom and to a lesser degree by themunicipalities. The second phase (2000 – 2005) and thethird phase (starting in 2006) were subsidised by the Gov-ernment. At that time, there were no electricity capacityproblems because in the 1970s /1980s Eskom had over in-vested in generation. Eskom and the municipalities hadthe capacity to implement the programme. New tech-nologies such as prepayment meters were introduced andthe connection costs decreased as the programme pro-gressed (Borchers et al 2001).

As part of the National Electrification programme, solarelectrification projects were implemented in more remoterural areas which had no access to the grid. The solar con-cession programme was heavily subsidised. The recipientsof solar home systems (SHS) paid about R120, a fractionof the actual cost, which was approximately R3500 for thesystem. The service provider owned the SHS and charged afee of R58 per month for service and maintenance (Prasad,2006).

5.1 Electrification programme in South Africa

Project name National Electrification programme and Free Basic Electricity.

Location of the project All areas of South Africa

Stakeholders involved National Government through the Departments of Energy and Minerals,Treasury andRegional and Local Government, Eskom, municipalities, and new electrification customers

Political and financial characteristics There is political will and financial support at all levels

Notable project achievements Increase in electrification rates in historically disadvantaged areas; increasing national electrification level from 36% to 70% in about ten years; implementation of Free Basic Electricity (50 kWh) for poor households

Key benefits Electrification of 70% of the country with all the associated benefits.

Key drawbacks The administration of the Free Basic Electricity is problematic in some poor municipalities

Key factors that led to success • Long term commitment by private and public sector

• Increased opportunities for income generation

• Built around existing networks by working with municipalities

• Used specialised skills of country’s main utility, ESKOM

• Local champions: ANC Government, ESKOM, municipalities

Kenya is now a global leader in geothermal energy develop-ment, with experts from Kenya offering their expertise indeveloping geothermal power plants in other countries inthe region, and even developed countries (Mariita, 2002).

Out of the total 127 MW installed capacity, Kenya Electric-ity Generating Company, KenGen – a public utility, has aninstalled capacity of 115 MW and OrPower Inc., an inde-pendent power producer, has installed 12 MW commis-sioned in 2000. The plants meet 11 % of the total nationalelectricity supply (Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2005). In addi-tion, geothermal has boosted energy security, as it is avail-able 100 % of the time and at one time constituted an im-portant alternative to hydropower during the 1999 – 2000drought experienced in Kenya.

Geothermal power plants have near zero emissions, (true formodern closed cycle systems that re-inject water back to theearth’s crust and very little space requirement per unit ofpower generated (Karekezi and Kithyoma [ed], 2005). There-injection technology is in use in Olkaria II geothermalpower plant in Kenya.

Geothermal energy use in Kenya has led to significant socio-economic benefits for the country. Both men and womenare employed directly in the power station and in the enter-prises that are linked to geothermal energy development.Currently, a workforce of 493 persons is deployed at theOlkaria power stations. This works out to about 4 jobs perMW. A crude estimate of additional jobs related to geother-mal energy was made on the basis of generating 504 MW by2019. Assuming that geothermal development creates onaverage four (4) jobs per MW in plant and infrastructure

construction and 1.7 jobs per MW in operation and mainte-nance, it was estimated that 2,016 construction jobs wouldbe created in fifteen years. A further 856 jobs would be cre-ated in operation and maintenance (Mbuthi, 2005).

Geothermal energy use has also contributed to poverty re-duction, although there is significant unexploited potentialfor increasing the positive impact of geothermal on poorcommunities, especially in the areas where geothermal isharnessed. For instance, a geothermal heat resource is beingused on a pilot basis in a horticultural farm near LakeNaivasha to control night-time humidity levels in order toalleviate incidence of fungal diseases. Similarly, low-temper-ature geothermal steam is also used in Eburru for the dryingof pyrethrum flowers and for various domestic purposes in-cluding water for livestock, drinking and irrigation whichcould yield significant benefits for the poor (Mbuthi, 2005).

Geothermal electricity generation contributes indirectly togender equity, as both men and women are employed di-rectly in the power station and in the enterprises that arelinked to geothermal energy development. The table below(table 6) summarises how the two electricity generationtechnologies (biomass cogeneration in Mauritius and geot-hermal power generation in Kenya) fulfils the criteria.

The success of the two electricity-generating initiatives inboth Kenya and Mauritius can be linked to several key fac-tors. Long-term commitment by both the private and publicsector in the two countries lead to the success of the initia-tives. Both Kenya and Mauritius made significant and long-term investments in developing local skills and expertise.Local champions also played a crucial role in ensuring sus-tained local support for the initiatives.

Table 6: Summary of how the power generation interventions fulfil the criteria

Criteria Cogeneration in Mauritius Geothermal in Kenya

1. Continued positive impact

2. Scale uptake of improved energy services and technology

3. Strong linkages to poverty reduction and achievement of MDGs.

4. Linked to the establishment of long term policy

5. Energy security

6. Environmental protection

7. Gender equity

2726

5.2 National Electrification Programme in Ghana

Project name National Electrification Programme (NEP) in Ghana

Location of the project Ghana

Stakeholders involved Government of Ghana, local communities, Public Utility Regulatory Commission of Ghana (PURC) – Electricity Regulator

Political and financial characteristics The state financed the electrification programme with minimal participation by the private sector. The financing of the NEP was sourced from concessionary credit and gifts. Government contributions covered the local cost which was generated partly through funds obtained /collected from taxation of electricity users

Notable project achievements Enabled the poor to access electricity services at the community level. It thus allowed for the continuity of connection to the network

Key benefits Over 180,000 – 200,000 customers are on the social tariff, which constitutesabout 25% of the customers of the distribution companies

Key drawbacks Besides political / legal bottlenecks, communities’ contribution, which is hard to come by, has retarded the implementation of the electrification programme

Key factors that led to success • Long term commitment by the government

• Opportunities for income generation

• Local champion: Government of Ghana

The National Electrification Programme (NEP) waslaunched in 1989 with the objective of providing reliableelectric service to all the communities of more than 500inhabitants on a national scale over an extended periodrunning from 1990 to 2020.

The access to energy was an objective of the Governmentduring the conceptualisation and the development of thereforms. The decision to reorganise the electricity sectorwas, in part, driven by the goal of dramatically increasingelectrification by the year 2020.

The whole plan was worked out on the basis of the na-tional electrification programme and the Social Tariff`Lifeline Tariff '. Through the National ElectrificationProgramme (NEP) of 1983, the Government of Ghanapledged extension of the electrification by 2020 to all thelocalities whose population exceeded 500 inhabitants. Acomplementary initiative to the NEP, the AutonomousDraft Aid Programme to Electrification (PAAE) was alsoadopted. It aimed at supporting communities located at20 km or less of the existing network of 33 Kv or 11Kv.The Government supported this programme as it consid-

ered it a key strategy for increasing electricity access to themarginalised population. Communities located 20 km orless from the 33Kv or 11Kv network had to contribute tostand a chance to secure some assistance within the PAAEframework.

The NEP was established for a 5-year period and the totalcost of electrification was estimated at US$ 729 Million(1990). An additional amount of US$ 630 Million wasconsidered necessary for the electricity production andtransmission infrastructure. The localities within 20km orless of PAAE had to procure low-tension pylons for thenetwork. The subscriptions were numerous and the im-plementation of project had to be carried out in stages i.e.PAAE1, PAAE2 and PAAE3 for the connection of 50,250, and 1400 households respectively. Currently PAAE4is underway and it is envisaged that approximately 300households will be electrified (Sarr & Dafrallah, 2006) ineach selected locality. In total, 1,700 households will beelectrified.

After being connected to the national electricity grid,many poor households could not use the electricity be-cause they were not able to afford the monthly bills. Theycontinued to cook with kerosene and fuelwood. The elec-tricity consumption rate among the poor remained ex-tremely low. When the Government realised that the poordid not fully benefit from the large investment in electri-fication, the Free Basic Electricity Policy was introducedin 2004. This policy stipulates that the poor connected tothe grid receive 50 kWh free of charge every month,which is sufficient for lighting, media and very occasionalbasic cooking. The Government pays this subsidy directlyto the service providers, Eskom and municipalities, whichminimises the cost and complexity of collection and pay-ment of the subsidy (Prasad and Visagie 2006).

South Africa had developed general policies, the Recon-struction and Development Programme, from whichpolicies in the individual sectors followed, including theNational Electrification Programme and the Free BasicElectricity Policy. There was strong political will to imple-ment the two energy policies and the stakeholders sup-ported the implementation. This is demonstrated by thefact that Eskom and the municipalities financed the firstphase of the electrification programme out of their ownrevenues and the Government funded the second and thethird phase. The political and financial support for thetwo policies and the capacity of the service providers toimplement the policies will ensure continued positive im-pact over a long time and until the entire country is elec-trified by the target date of 2012.

It was understood from the beginning that the invest-ments in national electrification will not immediatelyyield economic returns and had to be subsidised over themedium-to-long term. The programme was undertakento help redress social inequalities inherited from theapartheid regime. The introduction of the Free BasicElectricity policy underlines the Government’s commit-ment to poverty alleviation and the MDGs. The connec-tions were highly subsidised, with customers paying asmall fraction of the actual connection cost. The Free Ba-sic Electricity Policy subsidised limited use of electricityfor poor households. The subsidies made the connectionsand use affordable to the poor. There seems to be no exitstrategy and the subsidies are only sustainable as long asthe Government has the ability to pay.

The Free Basic Electricity Policy was introduced almostten years after the beginning of the Electrification Pro-gramme when the Government realised that the poor didnot fully benefit from the huge investments in electrifica-tion. Monitoring of the programme has provided usefulinput for policy formulation and implementation.

At the household level greater use of electricity reduces in-door air pollution. Research is also being carried out in re-ducing emissions from cook stoves and at the same timeincreasing their efficiency. Standards for cook stoves andcooking fuels are being introduced.

Women and children carry the burden of providing fuelwood for the household. Access to electricity and othercooking fuels such as kerosene lightens this burden. Thereis evidence that as households become connected to elec-tricity for a longer time, they increasingly use electricityfor cooking further increasing safety and convenience forwomen (Prasad, 2006).

28

Table 7: Summary of how the various policy interventions engaged in power distribution fulfils the criteria

Criteria Electrification in Electrification in Electrification South Africa Botswana programme in Ghana

1. Continued positive impact

2. Scale uptake of improved energy services and technology

3. Strong linkages to poverty reduction and achievement of MDGs.

4. Linked to the establishment of long term policy

5. Energy security*

6. Environmental protection

7. Gender equity

*Refers to improving the energy security of households newly connected to the grid

An electrification foundation was set up in 1989 and thefinancing of the NEP was supposed to be sourced fromconcessionary credit. Commercial loans were excludedfrom the financial arrangement. Government contribu-tions covered the local cost which was generated partlythrough funds obtained from taxation of electricity users.This was approximately US$ 1.70 cts / kWh (Sarr &Dafrallah, 2006).

Within the PAAE arrangement, the Government was re-sponsible for supply of drivers, transformers and other ac-cessories like pylons. The individual connection expenseswithin the community were fixed at a promotional rate of50cts per month. The same amount was levied to theusers for the first 18 months of service. Additional costswere incurred by households located more than 20 kmfrom the low-tension network as a result of extension ofthe distribution lines.

Power sector reforms in Ghana were based on the ratio-nalisation of the tariffs in line with production costs andconsumer interest protection. The access to the real andeconomic tariffs led to the progressive decline in directsubsidies given to electricity companies and cross-subsi-dies between the consumers.

However, in order to minimise the impact of increasedelectricity prices to the low-income consumers, the PublicUtility Regulatory Commission of Ghana (PURC) – Elec-tricity Regulator instituted a mechanism of “social tariff ”to protect this group. This tariff corresponded to 100-kWh/month level of consumption instituted in 1994 bythe PURC. The tariff was revised in 1998 and was loweredto 50 kWh/Month, as it met the majorities’ needs for elec-tricity and was within the budget of the low-income house-holds in urban areas. Since its institution in 1994 to 2002,all the residential consumers profited from the social tariff,which increased levels of electricity consumption.

The tariff revision of 2002 imposed restrictions of eligi-bility to recipients of the social tariff whose consumptiondid not exceed 50kWh/month by introducing a unit rateof subsidy of 40 % through cross-subsidies with the userswhose consumption fell within 51 – 301kWh. With theapplication of this rating and in order to reduce the im-pact of the increase in the tariffs on the poor, the Govern-ment instituted a contractual reduction of 50 cts per con-sumer. Thus, instead of the 14cts approved by the PURC,the users pay only the social tariff of 9 cts. The Govern-ment, ECG and the NED meet the remaining costs as asubsidy. Following the increase in the tariffs by 18 cts inMarch 2003, the Government continued to pay the directsubsidy of 5 cts, thus establishing the social tariff at 13 cts.With the increase of electricity tariffs in October 2003 to19 cts and the maintenance of the level of the social tariffof 13 cts, the Government absorbs a direct subsidy of 6 cts(Sarr & Dafrallah, 2006).

For the past fifteen years, electrification rates have morethan doubled in Ghana. In 1998, the national electrifica-tion level stood at 23 % compared to the current level of50 %. The rural electrification rate has also increased sig-nificantly, going from 8 % in 1991 / 92 to 24 % in 2003.The increase in the number of connections added by Elec-tricity Company of Ghana (ECG) and Northern Electric-ity Department (NED) was estimated at 42,000 per year,mainly in rural areas. The access of the poor to electricityincreased significantly under the reform launched inGhana. This was facilitated by state financing and withminimal participation by the private sector. Besides polit-ical and legal bottlenecks, limited participation of com-munities, which is difficult to mobilise, has constrainedthe implementation of the electrification programme.These obstacles explain the very low achievements ofNEP in the poorest areas. In addition, the electrificationprogramme did not succeed in ensuring communities’productive use of electricity.

Long-term commitment by both the private and publicsector saw the success of electrification in South Africa,Botswana and Ghana. All the governments had the politi-cal will to ensure the success of electrification programmes.

3130

As a measure for reducing deforestation linked to charcoaluse, the use of LPG proved to be an important contribut-ing factor. Key policies pursued by the Government ofSenegal that proved instrumental in the success of LPGinclude:

• Introduction of gas cylinders with a capacity of 2.75kg in1974 and then 6kg cylinders 1983. The smaller cylinderslowered the upfront cost of LPG use thus allowing morelow-income households gain access to LPG.

• The Government further set about removing taxes initiallylevied on imported equipment and introduction of a pricestructure taking into account different income groups. Thisincreased the popularity of LPG among low-income commu-nities.

• Removal of the monopoly on the importation of LPG;

• Exploitation of the forest resources for charcoal productionwas rationalised and quotas of exploitation enacted. Thiswas achieved by raising wood cutting license fee and revising extraction quotas and land allocation system for char-coal production. In addition, the Government imposed a higher price on charcoal.

• In March 1998, a new law setting the framework for the re-form of oil product pricing was adopted. This law providedfor the complete liberalisation of the oil sector and the re-moval of monopolies, the stimulation of competition andelimination of price regulation.

The process of elimination of LPG subsidies due to theirrising financial cost, formed part of this new policy. LPGsubsidies were gradually reduced in portions of 20 %,beginning in 1998 and were planned to be completelyeliminated by mid 2002.

The programme has seen reduction of deforestation of upto 40,500 ha per annum. According to official figures ofthe Ministry for Energy, it is estimated that total con-sumption of firewood and coal has reduced by over70,000tonnes and 90,000tonnes respectively – this isequivalent to an annual consumption of 700,000 m 3 ofwood annually (Sarr & Dafrallah, 2006).

Wood collection for cooking is a task reserved for thewomen who devote much time and are helped by theirdaughters. Thus, the substitution of wood with LPG re-lieves the girls of the tasks and allows them to dedicatemore time to studying. The availability of gas freeswomen from the chores of wood collection and givesthem an opportunity to engage in income generating ac-tivities. The use of LPG gas is a cleaner energy with lowerindoor air emissions unlike biomass fuel, which is a sourceof respiratory diseases.

Factors that can be linked to the success of the programmeinclude specialised focus on the LPG programme. TheLPG programme also led to increased income generationparticularly in the manufacture of cylinders and distribu-tion of gas. The initiative built on existing networksthrough the use of distribution networks of the existinggas companies.

Table 8: Summary of how the LPG programme in Senegal fulfils the criteria

Criteria LPG programme in Senegal

1. Continued positive impact

2. Scale uptake of improved energy services and technology

3. Strong linkages to poverty reduction and achievement of MDGs.

4. Linked to the establishment of long term policy

5. Energy security

6. Environmental protection

7. Gender equity

6.0 CASE STUDY 3: LPG PROGRAMME IN SENEGAL

Project name LPG in Senegal

Location of the project Dakar, secondary cities and rural areas

Stakeholders involved Government of Senegal, gas suppliers, local communities

Political and financial characteristics Government of Senegal subsidised LPG devices and the gas. It also removed the monopoly on the importation of LPG.

Notable project achievements The initiative has increased LPG consumption from 10 -12%, (13 221 T in 1985, 140 000 T in 2005) to 90% in Dakar, 60% in secondary cities and 31% in rural areas.

Key benefits Reduction of deforestation of up to 40,500 ha per annum. LPG gas enhances the health of the women and the children by reducing exposure to indoor air smoke from biomass cook stoves.

Key drawbacks High cost of subsidies necessary to maintain LPG at a price competitive with charcoal.

Key factors that led to success • Long term commitment by the government

• Specialised focus on LPG

• Building on existing networks

• Increased opportunities for income generation

• Local champion: Government of Senegal

The Government of Senegal initiated the LPG pro-gramme in the 1970s with the principal objective of sub-stituting woodfuel (wood and charcoal) with LPG. Thisinitiative aimed at reducing woodfuel consumption by 50% in order to reduce desertification, which was linked towoodfuel (and partially charcoal) consumption.

The programme led to the growth in LPG consumption –from 3,000 tons in 1974, to 13,221 tons in 1985 and56,170 tons in 1995. By 2005, consumption of LPG hadrisen to 140,000 tons indicating an annual increase of10 – 12 %. As a result, over 90 % of the households inDakar are using LPG, 60 % in the major towns, 58 % inthe secondary cities and 31 % of rural households (Sarr &Dafrallah, 2006).

The LPG programme has led to job creation particularly inthe manufacture of cylinders and distribution of gas. Smallcompanies are also involved in the distribution of gas.

3332

The process of research, development, demonstration andthen commercialisation that led first to the KCJ and thento other stove models in Kenya was seeded by interna-tional and local development funds. After extensiveanalysis a decision was made not to directly subsidisecommercial stove production and dissemination. TheGovernment through micro-level de-regulation allowedthe informal sector freedom and did not attempt to over-regulate. In addition, it eased up on taxes and licenses re-quired for the manufacture and assembly of the stoves.

Initially stoves were expensive (~US$ 15 / stove), saleswere slow, and the quality was variable. Continued re-search and refinement, and expanded numbers and typesof manufacturers and vendors increased competition, andspurred innovations in materials used and in productionmethods. The wholesale and retail network for stoves isnow extensive. The KCJ can be purchased in a variety ofsizes. Prices for KCJ models have decreased to roughlyUS$ 2 (this cost does not include fuel costs – charcoal)depending on stove size, design and quality (Kammen,1995a; Walubengo, 1995). This makes it accessible to themajority of the urban population in Kenya.

The manufacture of the KCJ is now a relatively maturecottage industry in Kenya and other countries in the re-gion. As expected, the level of specialisation in the manu-facture of the stove has increased, as has the level of mech-anisation. There is now a discernible labour division.There are two types of stove producers in Nairobi: mech-anised manufacturers and semi mechanised producers.

Shauri Moyo (a major informal manufacturing centre inNairobi, Kenya) is the principal artisanal production cen-tre in Kenya, where there are artisans whose occupation isto purchase clay liners and metal claddings and to assem-ble and retail complete stoves to customers. The KCJ hasalso increased employment in the stove and informal ce-ramic industry, which involves both men and women.There are now more than 200 businesses, artisans and mi-cro-enterprises involved in the KCJ industry in Kenyaalone (Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002).

A recent survey undertaken by AFREPREN/FWD on thedissemination of improved cook stoves in Kenya’s twomain towns (Nairobi and Mombasa) indicated that theuse of the stove in urban areas is very high, at over 80 %.KCJ-type improved stoves are widely used in Sub-SaharanAfrica and can now be found in Uganda, Tanzania,Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Ethiopia, Senegal, Mali, Burk-ina Faso and Ghana. The KCJ can presently be declared asuccess story.

The success story of the KCJ can be attributed to the long-term commitment by both the private and public sector inits development, and specialised focus on the KCJ and sus-tained support from local champions. In addition,through the piggy back principle, the KCJ developedaround the existing artisanal industry which reduced thecosts of setting up a whole new network. This initiative hasled to increased income generation to all the parties in-volved in its production.

Table 9: Summary of how the KCJ fulfils the criteria

Criteria Kenya Ceramic Jiko

1. Continued positive impact

2. Scale uptake of improved energy services and technology

3. Strong linkages to poverty reduction and achievement of MDGs.

4. Linked to the establishment of long term policy

5. Energy security

6. Environmental protection

7. Gender equity

7.0 CASE STUDY 4: IMPROVED CHARCOAL JIKO IN KENYA

Project name Kenya Ceramic Jiko (KCJ) Improved Charcoal Cook stove

Location of the project Shauri Moyo, Nairobi Kenya (now widely used in over 10 sub-Saharan African countries)

Stakeholders involved AFREPREN / FWD, KENGO, Ministry of Energy, Kenyatta University

Political and financial characteristics KCJ evolved through the efforts of a number of public and private sector organisations with interests in aid, development, health and environmental concerns.

Notable project achievements The KCJ decreases charcoal consumption and halves household expenditure on charcoal. It also reduces emissions of products of incomplete combustion as well as particulate matter.

Key benefits The KCJ has increased employment in the stove and informal ceramic industry.

Key drawbacks Difficulty enforcing standards in the manufacture of KCJ

Key factors that led to success • Long term commitment by Government, NGOs and the private sector

• Strong income generation component

• Specialised focus on the KCJ

• Innovative use of existing production and marketing network for traditional cook stoves

• Local champions: AFREPREN / FWD, KENGO, ministry of Energy, Kenyatta university

The Kenya Ceramic Jiko (KCJ) is one of the most successfulstove projects in Africa (KENGO, 1991; Karekezi andKithyoma, 2002; Houck and Tiegs, 2005; ITDG, 2005;Kammen, 1995b). The development of the KCJ was a com-bination of local input and international agency involve-ment. It was the result of research on stove design, efficiencyand patterns of usage initiated in the 1970’s and activelycontinued through the 1980’s (Kinyanjui and Minae, 1982;Openshaw, 1982; Barnes et al., 1994; Kammen, 1995a,b).Feedback from groups of users including women’s coopera-tives contributed to the development of the KCJ.

The KCJ is made of a metal cladding with a wide base and aceramic liner. At least 25 per cent of the liner base is perfo-rated with holes of 1.5 cm diameter to form the grate. Thestove has three pot rests, two handles, three legs and a door.The door is used to control the airflow. The standard modelweighs about 6kg, which means it can be carried aroundeasily (KENGO, 1991; Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002).

The stove is suitable for cooking and space heating. TheKCJ helps to direct 25 – 40 percent of the heat from the fireto the cooking pot. The traditional metal stove that the ce-ramic Jiko replaces delivers only 15 – 20 percent of the heatto the pot, whereas an open cooking fire yields efficienciesas low as 10 percent (Kammen, 1995a). Reductions in fueluse associated with the KCJ have been examined in a num-ber of countries. If used and maintained properly, the KCJcan reduce fuel use by 30 – 50 %. For instance, in Kenya,charcoal use among a sample of families using the KCJ fellfrom 0.67 to 0.39 kg / charcoal / day. This totals over 600 kgof charcoal / year for an average family, and a savings of over$US 60 / year (Karekezi and Ranja, 1997, World Bank,2006).

Under proper use and maintenance, the KCJ reduces emis-sions of products of incomplete combustion (carbonmonoxide, nitrogen and sulphur oxides and other organiccompounds) as well as particulate matters, which happens tobe one of the leading factors contributing to development ofacute respiratory infection. Quantifying the degree of emis-sions reductions in actual home conditions is an ongoingarea of study. The KCJ also provides greater safety for chil-dren, as the ceramic lined stove is less of a threat to burn onaccidental contact.

3534

Successful initiatives in Africa have been due to a numberof factors. Key factors that weave across all the successfulcase examples include:

1. Long-term commitment by both the private and public sector: This was a key factor in the development of geothermal power generation in Kenya, the KCJ improved cook stove in Kenya; biomass cogeneration in Mauritius; and, electrification programmes in southern Africa.

2. Increased income generation: Initiatives that provide opportunities for income generation have in most cases been successful. This is true for almost all successful initiatives discussed in this report.

3. Specialisation: This has proven to be instrumental to the success of almost all identified initiatives. Preferences should be given to specialised initiatives with specific focus on a single option. This was true in the case of KCJ stoves, cogeneration in Mauritius, geothermal in Kenya, rural electrification in South Africa, as well as the LPG programme in Senegal.

4. Piggyback principle: Building energy initiatives around existing networks reduces the cost of setting up a whole new network and facilitates accelerated scale up. This was the case in South Africa national electrification programme, the KCJ in Kenya and the LPG programme in Senegal.

5. Development of skills – In cases of new technologies, the development of local skills demonstrated by significant and long-term commitment to local capacitybuilding and skills development appears to be crucial to success.

6. Local champions – In almost all successful cases, the existence of committed champions (within or outside government) to the initiatives was key to success. Thelocal champions should not only demonstrate long-term commitment but should have significant control over the design and implementation of the initiative.

The above listed factors provide key lessons for future en-ergy initiatives in the region that could be implementedunder the GTZ / BMZ Energising Africa initiative andother German development assistance project activities.Further in-depth analysis of the case examples to tailor tospecific countries would further ensure their successfulreplication. In addition, more success stories should beanalysed to verify the aforementioned success factors –key to convincing national policy makers to adopt similarmeasures and initiatives in their respective countries.

8.0 CONCLUSION

The following table summarises the assessed successful initiatives in the region.

Table 10: Summary of the successful policy initiatives in respect to criteria

Criteria Electricity Generation Electricity Distribution LPG in Senegal KCJ

Geothermal Cogeneration Electrification Electrificationin Kenya in Mauritius in South Africa in Ghana

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Total 4 5 5 5 7 6

Criteria:

1. Continued positive impact over a long period of time

2. Scaled-up uptake of improved energy services and technology

3. Demonstrated strong linkages to poverty reduction and achievement of millennium development goals (MDGs)

4. Linked to the establishment of long term policy

5. Contributed to energy security

6. Enhanced environmental protection

7. Contributed to gender equity

36

Karekezi, S.; et al, (Eds.) 2002. “Africa: Improving modern energy-

services for the poor” in Energy Policy Journal – Special Issue,

Vol 30, No. 11 – 12, Elsevier Science Limited, Oxford.

Karekezi, et al, 2003a. Overcoming the Barriers to the Use of

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Systems in the Reforming

Power Sector of Eastern Africa –Background Paper for East

African Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership

Regional Consultation Workshop. AFREPREN, Nairobi.

Karekezi, S., Kimani, J., Mutiga, A. and Amenya, S.; 2003c. Energy

Services for the Poor In Eastern Africa: Sub-Regional "Energy

Access" Study of East Africa. Paper prepared for the Global Network

on Energy for Sustainable Development. AFREPREN/FWD, Nairobi.

Kebede, B.; 2002. Energy Services for the Urban Poor Theme Group:

Country Data and Statistics Compilation-Ethiopia. AFREPREN,

Nairobi.

KPLC, 2001/2002. Annual Reports and Accounts, 2001 / 2002. Kenya

Power and Lighting Company. Nairobi, Kenya.

Mangwengwende, S and Wamukonya, N.; 2007. Challenges and way

forward for the Power Sector in Africa.

Mariita, N.; 2002. The Socio-Economic and Environmental Impact of

Geothermal Energy on the Rural Poor in Kenya. AFREPREN Occa-

sional Paper Number 12. AFREPREN / FED, Nairobi, Kenya.

Matinga, M.; 2004. Supply and demand side benefits and costs of

low cost urban electrification in Malawi: A case of Mbayani Town-

ship. MSc thesis. Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town.

Mbuthi, P.; 2004. HBF Geothermal Study: Kenya. AFREPREN, Nairobi.

MOE; 2006. Geothermal Potential in Kenya. Ministry of Energy MOE,

Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.energy.go.ke/geothermal.php –

accessed on 22 January 2007

Niyimbona, P.; 2005. The Challenges of Operationalizing Power

Pools in Africa. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa,

UNDESA Seminar on Electricity Interconnection. Cairo, Egypt.

Prasad, G.; 2006. Energy sector reform and the poor: energy use

and supply, a four country study: Botswana, Ghana, Honduras and

Senegal. ESMAP Technical Paper 95. World Bank, Washington.

Prasad, G. and Visagie, E.; 2006. Impact of energy reforms on the

poor in Southern Africa. Global Network on Energy for Sustainable

Development (GNESD) Access III theme. Riso, Denmark.

REN21 Renewable Energy Policy Network, 2005. “Energy for

Development: the Potential Role of Renewable Energy in Meeting

the Millennium Development Goals.” Washington, DC: Worldwatch

Institute.

Sarr, S. and Dafralla, T.; 2006. ‘Access to the Energy Services: Good

Practices for a Scaling’, paper prepared for the Successful Policy

Initiatives in Africa. ENDa

Sarr, Sécou and Dafrallah, Touria; Focus on Electrification for Poor:

Lessons from West Africa Access III; ENDA–GNESD,

November 2005. – 31p.

Sarr, Sécou and Dafrallah, Touria; Policies and measures for large-

scale dissemination of improved stoves in West Africa: the case of

Senegal; ENDA–GNESD, November 2006. – 57p.

Sokona,Youba; 2007. Personal Communication

Veragoo D.; 2003. Cogeneration: The Promotion of Renewable

Energy and Efficiency in Mauritius. Central Electricity Board:

Mauritius. p. 11 (2003).

Wamukonya, N.; 2003. Power Sector Reform in Developing Coun-

tries: Mismatched agendas’, in N. Wamukonya (ed), Electricity

Reform: Social and environmental Challenges, Roskilde: United

Nations Environmental Programme, pp. 7 – 47.

Wegner, L.; 2005. Privatisation: “A Challenge for Sub-Saharan

Africa”, Policy Insights No. 14 OECD Development Centre Study.

Moulineaux, France.

World Bank – Sustainable and participatory energy management

project. – Energy Group, June, 2005 – 72p.

World Bank; 2006, World Development Indicators. World Bank,

Washington, DC.

World Bank; 2003, World Development Indicators. World Bank,

Washington, DC.

World Bank; 2004. World Development Indicators. World Bank,

Washington D.C.

Veragoo, D.; 2003. Cogeneration: The Promotion of Renewable

Energy and Efficiency in Mauritius. Central Electricity Board:

Mauritius. p. 11 (2003).

9.0 REFERENCES

AFREPREN, 2002. AFREPREN Occasional Paper No. 10: Renewable

Energy Technologies in Africa. An Energy Training Course Handbook.

Nairobi: AFREPREN / FWD

AFREPREN, 2004. African Energy Data and Terminologies Handbook

Year 2003 – 2004. AFREPREN, Nairobi.

AFREPREN / FWD, 2003a. AFREPREN Energy Data Handbook.

AFREPREN Secretariat, Nairobi. Kenya.

AFREPREN / FWD, 2003b. Draft Proposal, The Regional Launching

Workshop for Eastern Africa. Renewable Energy and Energy Effi-

ciency Initiative (REEEP). AFREPREN Secretariat, Nairobi. Kenya.

BCSE, 2003. Geothermal Market Assessment Report, “The Eastern

Africa Market Assessment Acceleration” Geothermal Conference

Agenda. Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE),

Washington, DC.

Borchers, M.; Qase, N. Gaunt, T., Mavhungu, J., Winkler, H., Afrane-

Okese, Y. and Thom, C. 2001. National Electrification Programme

Evaluation: Summary Report. Evaluation commissioned by the

Department of Minerals and Energy and the Development Bank

of Southern Africa. Cape Town, Energy and Development Research

Centre, University of Cape Town.

BP, 2006. Statistical Review of World Energy

Davidson, O. and Mwakasonda; S. 2004. Electricity Access Southern

Africa sub-regional study: South Africa and Zimbabwe. Global

Network on Energy for Sustainable Development. Riso, Denmark.

Davies, M., Eberhard, A. and Clark, A.; 2003. Power sector reform in

Africa: Assessing the impact on poor people and influencing policy

decisions. Graduate School of Business, Cape Town.

Deepchand, K.; 2002. Promoting equity in large scale renewable

energy development: the case of Mauritius. Energy Policy, 2002.

Elselvier Science, Oxford. U. K.

Deepchand, K.; 2003. Opportunities for Cogeneration in a Reforming

African Power Sector.: AFREPREN Occasional Paper No. 21.

AFREPREN, Nairobi.15 th December 2003. Nairobi, Kenya.

EECG, 2004. Energy use, energy supply, sector reform and the poor

in Botswana. Energy, Environment, Computer and Geophysical

Applications (EECG), Botswana.

EEOA. – Indicateurs de performance, 2003.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2005. The Southern African

Development Community.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sadc.html

Fridleifsson, I. B.; 2001, “Geothermal Energy: Experience of Iceland

and Opportunities for Africa”. Article Published in the Renewable

Energy Technologies: Potential for Africa Booklet, United

IEA, 2006. Energy Balances for Non-OECD Countries.

International Energy Agency. Paris, France.

IEA, 2004. – Key World Energy statistics 2004

Kammen, D. M.; (1995a) "Cookstoves for the developing world",

Scientific American, 273, 72 – 75.

Kammen, D. M.; (1995b) "From energy efficiency to social utility:

Improved cookstoves and the Small is Beautiful model of develop-

ment," in Energy as an Instrument for Socio-Economic Develop-

ment, Goldemberg, J. and Johansson, T. B. (eds.) (United Nations

Development Programme: New York), 50 – 62.

Kantai, P.; 2002. ‘Hot and Dirty’, EcoForum Vol. 24. No. 4, Hot and

Dirty: Inside Kenya’s 23 billion shilling charcoal industry. Nairobi:

Environment Liaison Centre International

Karekezi and Ranja, T.; 1997.Renewables Energy Technologies in

Africa. Zed Books Ltd, London.

Karekezi, S. and Kimani, J.; 2002. “Impact of Power Sector Reform

on the Poor” in the Energy Policy Journal – Special Issue, Vol 30,

No. 11-12, Elsevier Science Limited, Oxford.

Karekezi, S. and Kithyoma, W.; 2002. “Renewable Energy Strategies

for Rural Africa: is a PV-led renewable energy strategy the right

approach for providing modern energy to the rural poor of Sub-

Saharan Africa?” in the Energy Policy Journal – Special Issue,

Vol 30, No. 11 – 12 (1071 – 1086), Elsevier Science Limited, Oxford.

Karekezi, S. and Majoro, L.; 2002. “Improving Modern Energy

Services for Africa’s Urban Poor” in the Energy Policy Journal –

Special Issue, Vol 30, No. 11 – 12 (1015 – 1028), Elsevier Science

Limited, Oxford.

Karekezi, S.; et al 2003b (Unpublished). Energy Services for the Poor

in East and Horn of Africa – Sub-Regional “Energy Access Study of

East Africa. Prepared for the Energy Access Working Group, Global

Network for Sustainable Development. African Energy Policy

Research Network (AFREPREN). Nairobi, Kenya.

37

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1D-565760 EschbornT +49 619679-0F +49 619679-11 15E info@gtz.deI www.gtz.de