GEF, Suriname: Development of Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Electrification of Suriname, 11-2012

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
INVESTING lN OUR PLANET

November 29, 2012
Dear Council Member:
Naoko Ishii, PhD
Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433 USA
Tel: 202.473.3202
Fax: 202.522.3240/3245
E-mail: Nishii@TheGEF.org
www. TheGEF .org
IADB as the Implementing Agency for the project entitled: Suriname: Development of
Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Electrification of Suriname, has submitted the
attached proposed project document for CEO endorsement prior to final approval of the project
document in accordance with IADB procedures.
The Secretariat has reviewed the project document. It is consistent with the proposal
approved by Council in November 2011 and the proposed project remains consistent with the
Instrument and GEF policies and procedures. The attached explanation prepared by IADB
satisfactorily details how Council's comments and those ofthe STAP have been addressed. I am,
therefore, endorsing the project document.
We have today posted the proposed project document on the GEF website at
www.TheGEF.org. If you do not have access to the Web, you may request the local field office
of UNDP or the World Bank to download the document for you. Alternatively, you may request
a copy of the document from the Secretariat. If you make such a request, please confirm for us
your current mailing address.
Attachment:
Copy to:
Sincerely,
///)

Project Document
Country Operational Focal Point
GEF Agencies, ST AP, Trustee
GEF5 CEO Endorsement-Approval-November 2011.doc
1

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title: Development of Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Electrification of Suriname
Country(ies): Suriname GEF Project ID:
2
4497
GEF Agency(ies): IADB (select) (select) GEF Agency Project ID: SU-G1001
Other Executing Partner(s): Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNH) - Suriname
Submission Date: 2012-10-01
GEF Focal Area (s): Climate Change Project Duration(Months) 72
Name of Parent Program (if
applicable):
For SFM/REDD+
Agency Fee ($): 440,000
A. FOCAL AREA STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
3

Focal Area
Objectives
Expected FA Outcomes Expected FA Outputs
Trust
Fund
Grant
Amount
($)
Cofinancing
($)
CCM-2 (select) Appropriate policy, legal,
and regulatory frameworks
adopted and enforced
Renewable energy and
Energy Efficiency policies
and regulations in place
GEF TF 0 1,000,000
CCM-3 (select) Favorable conditions
created for renewable
energy investments
Sustainable business models
with renewable energy
technologies established for
rural electrification
GEF TF 300,000 1,700,000
CCM-3 (select) Investment in renewable
energy technologies
increased
Renewable energy capacity
installed

GEF TF 3,900,000 17,700,000
(select) (select) (select)
(select) (select) Others (select)
Subtotal 4,200,000 20,400,000
Project management cost
4
GEF TF 200,000 700000
Total project costs 4,400,000 21,100,000
B. PROJECT FRAMEWORK

1
It is important to consult the GEF Preparation Guidelines when completing this template
2
Project ID number will be assigned by GEFSEC.
3
Refer to the Focal Area/LDCF/SCCF Results Framework when filling up the table in item A.
4
GEF will finance management cost that is solely linked to GEF financing of the project. PMC should be charged proportionately
to focal areas based on focal area project grant amount.

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT
1

PROJECT TYPE: Full-sized Project
TYPE OF TRUST FUND:GEF Trust Fund
2

Project Objective: To promote the use of renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) technologies in the
urban and rural areas and increase access to energy in the interior of the country.
Project Component
Grant
Type

Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs
Trust
Fund
Grant
Amount
($)
Confirmed
Cofinancing
($)
I. Strengthening of
regulatory and
institutional
framework to
implement RE and
EE technologies
TA 1. A conducive
regulatory and
institutional
framework to
implement RE/EE
technologies in
Suriname has been
established.
1. A detailed
implementation
strategy has been
prepared and approved
for on- and off-grid RE
and EE technologies in
Suriname.

2. Appropriate
enhancements to the
legal and technical
regulatory framework
including RE and EE
technologies in
Suriname, have been
proposed and approved.

3. The wind and hydro
energy potential in
Suriname has been
assessed by installing
measurement systems
(6 stations), data
analysis and the
compilation a of wind
map (1).

4. Socio-economic
information, including
energy demand
forecasts (1 product),
has been updated to
assess the opportunities
for RE and EE
investments in the
coastal plain and in the
Hinterlands.
GEF TF 300,000 2,700,000
II. Demonstration of
RETs.
Inv 2. Selected RET
pilots have been
implemented for on-
grid electricity supply
and for rural
electrification in the
Hinterlands.
1. Feasibility and
detailed engineering
studies (4) have been
carried out for the
envisaged
demonstration pilots.

2. Selected RE
demonstration pilots
have been implemented
for urban areas (solar-
PV) under appropriate
GEF TF 3,900,00
0
16,500,000
3

business/ ownership
models (760-kW).

3. A portfolio of solar-
PV electrification
projects (531-kW) has
been implemented in
rural communities in
the Hinterlands under
appropriate business
and operational
models..

4. The technical and
operational feasibility
of small hydropower
for rural electrification
in Suriname has been
demonstrated by the
implementation of
selected investment
pilots under appropriate
business/ ownership
models (1,500-kW).
III. Strengthening of
institutional
arrangements,
business models and
stakeholder skills.
TA 3. Adequate business
models and
stakeholder skills to
successfully
implement RETs in
Suriname, have been
established.
1. Sustainable
ownership, business
and operational models
(3) have been
established for RE
systems in rural areas
and the impact thereof
has been evaluated.

2. Awareness raising
programmes about
RETs and EETs have
been developed with
the participation of the
public, commercial,
and residential sector
(3).

3. Promotional events
have been held to
disseminate the impacts
and benefits of RETs
and EETs in Suriname,
and additional
investments leveraged.
GEF TF 0 1,200,000
(select) (select)
(select) (select)
(select) (select)
(select) (select)
4

(select) (select)
(select) (select)
(select) (select)
Subtotal 4,200,00
0
20,400,000
Project management Cost
5
GEF TF 200,000 700,000
Total project costs 4400000 21100000
C. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED COFINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY SOURCE AND BY NAME ($)
Sources of Co-financing Name of Co-financier (source) Type of Cofinancing
Cofinancing
Amount ($)
National Government National Government Suriname (MNH) In-kind 3,300,000
GEF Agency IDB (Project SU-L1009) Soft-loan 15,000,000
(select) IDB (Project SU-T1055) Grant 700,000
(select)
IDB/MIF (Project SUM1019) Grant 1,700,000
(select) IDB (Project SU-T1042) Grant 400,000
(select) (select)
(select) (select)
(select) (select)
(select) (select)
(select) (select)
Total Co-financing 21,100,000
D. GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY AGENCY, FOCAL AREA AND COUNTRY
1

GEF Agency
Type of
Trust Fund
Focal Area
Country Name/
Global
(in $)
Grant
Amount (a)
Agency Fee
(b)
2

Total
c=a+b
(select) (select) (select) 0
Total Grant Resources 0 0 0
E. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:
Component
Estimated
Person Weeks
Grant Amount
($)
Cofinancing
($)
Project Total
($)
Local consultants* 100.00 0 100,000 100,000
International consultants* 167.00 0 500,000 500,000
Total 0 600,000 600,000
* Details to be provided in Annex C.

5
Same as footnote #4.
5

F. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST
Cost Items
Total Estimated
Person
Weeks/Months
Grant
Amount
($)
Co-financing
($)
Project Total
($)
Local consultants* 259.00 200,000 250,000 450,000
International consultants* 0.00 0 0 0
Office facilities, equipment,
vehicles and communications*
0 300,000 300,000
Travel* 0 150,000 150,000
Others** Specify "Others" (1) 0
Specify "Others" (2) 0
Total 200,000 700,000 900,000
* Details to be provided in Annex C. ** For others, to be clearly specified by overwriting fields *(1) and *(2).
G. DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE A NON-GRANT INSTRUMENT? No
(If non-grant instruments are used, provide in Annex E an indicative calendar of expected reflows to your Agency
and to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Trust Fund).
H. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M &E PLAN:
Project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) will be conducted in accordance with established IDB and GEF
procedures and supervised by the project team and IDB office in Suriname, supported by the Banks Energy
Division (INE/ENE). Monitoring will be based on the Results Framework (which details the means of verification),
and the Annual Operations Plan (AOP). The EA will be responsible for reporting the results of the Programme. The
sources of information will be mainly the MNHs administrative records of the Programme, the Fund for the
Development of the Interior (FOB ), the national power company Energiebedrijven Suriname (EBS), and field
inspections. The EA will contract an independent consultant to perform the final evaluation of the Programme in
compliance with IDB and GEF requirements. The arrangements for the mid-term evaluation will be agreed upon by
the EA and IDB, and can be conducted by an independent consultant or by the EA internally. Monitoring and
Evaluation will make use of the GEF Tracking Tool, which will be submitted to the GEF Secretariat three times
during the duration of the project: at CEO Endorsement, at Mid-term, and at closure.
The total budget for M&E activities is US$ 117,000, which will be financed from EA and IDB resources. The
following table presents an overview of the allocated M&E budget. The preparation of progress reports, including
annual Project Monitoring Reports (PMR), will be part of regular PM activities and covered by the budget for
Project Management.

M&E Budget IDB/GEF Programme RE/EE for Suriname (SU-G1001)
Description Budget (US$) Responsible
GEF Co-financing
Monitoring
Collection of information 0 20,000 EA
Analysis and development
of Annual Reports 0 22,000 EA
Field visits 0 15,000 IDB
Evaluation
Collection of evaluation data 0 20,000 EA
Mid-term evaluation 0 20,000 EA/consultant
Final evaluation 0 20,000 EA/consultant
6

TOTAL M&E 0 117,000

Please refer to the projects M&E document for more information.
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH:
A.1.1. The GEF focal area/LDCF/SCCF strategies/NPIF Initiative:
The general objective of the proposed Program Development of Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency
and Electrification of Suriname is to promote the use of renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency
(EE) technologies in the urban and rural areas and increase access to energy in the interior of the country
with the intention of reducing the sectors emission of greenhouse gases. The specific objectives are to
incorporate in the power sector framework and institutions the use of RE and EE technologies, to reduce
the long-term operational costs of on-grid and off-grid electricity service, and implement sustainable
business models for its operation and maintenance.
The Government of Suriname has acknowledged the need to strengthen the electricity sector. A national
Strategy, SISES
6
, is being devised with support from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to
design and establish a sustainable energy framework for Suriname. The objective of this framework is to
recover the sector, anticipate on future demand growth, and shape the conditions for its sustainability in
economic, financial, and environmental terms. The design of the SISES draws on the findings of the
KEMA report (2008)
7
and the earlier Master plan (2000) where Suriname power sector is assessed and
issues and problems identified.The Kema report analyses: (i) the different power systems; (ii) the Master
Plan 2000, projected plans and actual outcomes; (iii) power expansion; (iv) the issue of rural
electrification and power supply to the interior; (v) demand forecast until 2023; (vi) planning strategies in
the power sector; and (vii) the regulatory and institutional framework.
The GEF Programme has been designed as a complementary intervention and part of a wider sector
approach aimed at achieving Governments strategic objective to create a financially sustainable energy
sector that facilitates the adequate supply of energy and improves access to electricity. This broader sector
approach involves other Bank operations under preparation and execution, which are included in the
Programme as associated financing or co-financing. The Programme specifically contributes to the general
objective of SISES, and targets the sustainability issue in the electrification of the Hinterlands. The
Programme will address the barriers that inhibit the deployment of RETs in the coastal zone and will
propose the development of sustainable business models for energy systems supplying the Hinterlands.
The Programme will contribute to reduce MNHs operating costs, improve quality of the service, and
increase the number of people reached
8
. The contribution in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) will be part of the benefits of the implementation of this Programme.
Training and institutional capacity-building are transversal themes addressed by all components of the
SISES. The proposed Project is therefore fully consistent with the Objectives #2 and #3 of the GEF-5
Climate Change Mitigation Strategy: Promote market transformation for energy efficiency in industry
and the building sector (CCM-2) and Promote investment in renewable energy technologies (CCM-3).

SISES: Support to the Institutional and Operational Strengthening of the Energy Sector is financed by the IBD-SU-L1022.
7
Suriname Power Sector Assessment and Alternatives for its Modernization, prepared by KEMA Consulting for MNH and financed by
IDB (ATN/SF-9038-SU), December 2008.
8
Details and targets of the Programme are provided in Annex II.
7

A.1.2. For projects funded from LDCF/SCCF: the LDCF/SCCF eligibility criteria and priorities:
n/a
A.1.3 For projects funded from NPIF, relevant eligibility criteria and priorities of the Fund:
n/a
A.2. National strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions, if applicable, i.e.
NAPAS, NAPs, NBSAPs, national communications, TNAs, NIPs, PRSPs, NPFE, etc.:
The presented proposal is consistent with national policy (Government Strategy towards 2020) aimed at
establishing a sustainable energy sector in Suriname that offers equitable access to electricity services,
including the interior of the country, and with national plans for mitigation and adaptation to climate
change. Although national greenhouse gas emissions are very low, Surinames first National
Communication to the UNFCCC observed that an increase in diversification and energy efficiency in all
sectors of economic activity is needed to keep greenhouse gas emissions at acceptable levels in the
future. The NC further stated that energy efficiency can be improved throughout the entire process of the
energy generation to energy supply.
New energy technologies and cleaner energy sources can assist the country to decrease present and future
CO
2
emissions. This is the case for the sparsely populated interior of the country, the Hinterlands.
Among such technologies are micro- and pico hydropower and photovoltaic systems. In the villages along
the rivers in the Hinterland, diesel generators can (partly) be replaced by micro hydropower plants and
photovoltaic energy. Surinames first National Communication (NC) to the UNFCCC also identifies the
need to improve the management of energy demand, stimulate energy efficiency measures and exploit
Surinames potential for the use of thermal solar applications
9
. The present IDB/GEF Programme supports
all of these initiatives.
Surinames first NC to the UNFCCC identified that the main risks in Suriname are related to flooding.
The countrys low-lying coastal zone, which concentrates the majority of the population and
infrastructure, is particularly vulnerable to increases in sea level and large waves. In the absence of
mitigation measures, sea level rise will likely lead to large parts of the coastal zone being inundated. Some
mitigation and adaptation measures were proposed, such as integrated coastal zone management, and dyke
building. The establishment of a sustainable energy sector, including local grids powered by renewable
energy sources, fits into a national strategy to enhance Surinames resilience to the effects of global
climate change.
B. PROJECT OVERVIEW:
B.1. Describe the baseline project and the problem that it seeks to address:
Project context
With an area of 163,820 square kilometres (km2) and a population of approximately 492,000, Suriname is the
smallest and the youngest sovereign country in South America, achieving independence in 1975. Suriname sits on
the northern shoulder of South America, facing the Atlantic Ocean between Guyana to the west, French Guyana to
the east, and Brazil to the south. It shares 1,707 kilometers of border with these three countries and has a coastline
of 386 kilometers. The capital Paramaribo is situated along the river Paramaribo in the coastal plains along the
Atlantic coast.
Being a former Dutch colony, it is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world hosting Amerindian
tribes, descendants of Africans that arrived into Suriname in the 17th and 18th centuries, descendants from ex-
plantation workers from Europe, Middle East, India, Java and China who arrived in the 19th and 20th centuries, and
others. Approximately 90% of the population lives in the coastal area. The interior of Suriname (the Hinterland)
and the Amazonic Jungle are sparsely inhabited, predominantly by Amerindians and the Maroons. They constitute
the largest community in the Hinterland, representing approximately 15% of the population. There are estimated
217 villages in the interior, of which many can only be reached by boat or plane. The road infrastructure southward

9
Please note that Surinames Second National Communication is presently under preparation.
8

is limited and has been developed to serve the mining industry. More than 50 percent of economic activity is
directly or indirectly tied to the extractive industry (oil, bauxite, and gold). Recent growth in the service sector is
also linked to mining and oil. Since 2000, GDP growth has been fuelled by investment growth, however, the overall
efficiency and productivity of the economy has been declining. Efficiency is affected by the governance framework,
which is not current and needs to be strengthened across several sectors including energy. The Government of
Suriname (GOS) has made explicit its goal of adjusting to the expiration of high aid flows from The Netherlands
(once reaching a peak of about 20 percent of the public sector budget). Suriname now has to rely on its own revenue
collection, borrowing from the market, and financial support from development partners.

Suriname is very rich in terms of its natural resources. Alongside agricultural produce (rice, bananas) and timber, it
has large reserves of bauxite, oil, and gold, which account for 80% of export receipts and 50% of GDP. About 80%
of the country is still covered with untouched rainforests. Suriname ranks 6
th
in the world with respect to freshwater
availability. Bauxite exploitation started in 1916, when US-based ALCOA founded the Surinaamse Bauxiet
Maatschappij, which in 1957 became Suralco. In 1958, the Brokopondo Agreement was signed between Suriname
and ALCOA. In exchange for a 75-year mining concession, the company would develop the Afobaka hydroelectric
power plant to start aluminum production in the country. The plan was implemented in the period 1961-1965
10
; with
an area of 1,560 km
2
, the man-made Lake Brokopondo in the middle of the country is one of the largest freshwater
reserves in the world
11
.

Energy sector
Detailed information on the production and use of energy in Suriname is hardly available. Notwithstanding, with
90% of the population occupying the plain land, fuelwood is expectedly a minor source of energy. The national oil
production (15,400 bbl/day in 2009) approximately matches total demand (13,000 bbl/day). Staatsolies refinery
capacity is only 7,000 bbl/day and refined oil products, including diesel and gasoline are imported. One of the
objectives of Staatsolies Strategic Plan 2008-2012 is therefore the expansion of the refinery to 15,000 bbl/day,
which should become operational in 2013
12
. Suriname has large unproven oil reserves and can become a major
exporter in the future. Presently, there is no production or use of natural gas and coal
13
. Electricity is produced by
one large hydropower plant and private and public thermal generators. The total generating capacity is approx.
390 MW. The total electricity production was 1,580 GWh (2008), of which 1,440 GWh delivered to the end-users.

Electricity sector
Suralcos Afobaka hydropower plant, with an installed capacity of 189 MW, is the backbone of Surinames
electricity supply. The electricity is transported via a 161 kV transmission line to Paranam, where Suralcos
aluminum smelter is located. Suralco also owns a 78-MW thermal power plant at Paranam. The national power
company NV Electriciteitsbedrijf Suriname (EBS) buys electricity from Afobaka under an agreement with
Suralco
14
. After 1999, when Suralco closed down the aluminum smelter, EBS purchases increased substantially
(from 50 MW in 1996 to 120 MW in 2007)
15
. The Afobaka hydropower enters the system as base capacity, which
is complemented by EBS thermal power plant (82 MW) in Paramaribo. Suralcos thermal power plant at Paranam
does not normally supply to EBS.
The electricity sector in Suriname consists of a number of individual systems. The surroudings of Paramaribo are
interconnected by the EPAR grid. A smaller interconnected system (ENIC) exists in the west of the country near
Nieuw-Nickerie. With a peak demand of 130 MW and an annual electricity consumption of 730,000 MWh, the

10
Source: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suralco.
11
While Brokopondo Lake serves as a buffer providing certain benefits to regulate the hydrological cycle downstream the Suriname river, its electricity generating
performance is very poor considering the huge flooded area of valuable tropical forest land. Source: World Bank report Ledec & Quintero Good dams and bad
dams (2003).
12
Source: Staatsolie Website: http://www.staatsolie.com/pdf/contract_ondertekening.pdf.
13
Source: Suriname Country Brief, June 30, 2010. www.eia.gov.
14
The Brokopondo Overeenkomst, 27 januari 1958. The agreement was continued through contracts between the Republiek van Suriname and Suralco (31 May
1985, 25 May 1990, 16 September 1999).
15
The EBS plant at Saramaccastreet consists of 11 diesel generators. Most units are operated with heavy fuel-oil, the older machines (installed before 1980) on
premium diesel.
9

EPAR system is by far the largest system in the country. The private mining companies rank second and third
(Suralco 429,000 MWh at Paranam; and IAMGOLD 118,000 MWh in the Rosebel area). The ENIC grid accounts
for 47,000 MWh. The smaller towns (Albina, Moengo, Boskamp, Coronie, Wageningen, and Apoera) are supplied
by local diesel plants, producing approximately 22,000 MWh annually.
Approximately 130 villages in the interior of the country have a diesel engine installed for electricity generation.
These units are owned and operated by DEV, which depends on the MNH. About 100 of these villages are provided
with diesel fuel by DEV on a monthly basis. The population in the Hinterlands served by diesel generators with a
capacity of 4,500-kiloWatts (kW) is estimated at approximately 30,000 people, with a monthly fuel demand of
150,000 litres (l). The electricity supply is restricted to 6 hours per day and in some villages, fuel is reportedly
unavailable for longer periods.

Regulatory framework and tariffs
The electricity sector in Suriname is based on contractual arrangements between the State and public and private
companies. The responsibility for the sector is assigned to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNH
16
). The
Ministry determines and approves the electricity tariffs as prepared by its Energy Advisory Committee (EAC
17
).
The Brokopondo Agreement (1957)
18
is the mainstay of Surinames electricity supply and is based on the
concession for bauxite mining to Suralco. Other contractual arrangements are:
Contracts defining the supply of electricity between EBS and the State (1972 and 1985)
19
.
The concession of the electricity service by the State of Suriname to EBS (1973)
20
.
The General Conditions defining the electricity service that is not covered by special contracts
21
.
The concessional structure and contracts do not cover the production, transmission and distribution of electricity
and do not provide a solid basis to develop the sector, improve the quality of the service delivered, and stimulate
cost-effectiveness. EBS is owned by the State and monitored through MNH; also DEV, in charge of rural
electrification, depends on this Ministry. The lack of autonomy of both sector agents is an important impediment for
modernizing the sector and to recover the cost of the electricity service. Tariffs in the EPAR area, are of the order of
USD 0.07/kWh
22
, at an estimated average generating cost of USD 0.20/kWh. Large diesel generators in the past to
inland communities
23
represent today an additional problem in term of its sustainability and efficiency to deliver
quality service.
In 2000, a Masterplan was developed identifying the investments in new generating and transmission capacity
needed to cope with growing demand in the most cost-effective way
24
. Also institutional reform measures were
proposed, including the creation of an independent sector regulator. While substantial investment has taken place
after this study was carried out
25
, the institutional reform was not implemented. In 2008, an integral assessment of
Surinames power sector was carried out for MNH by KEMA, financed by IDB
26
. This study highlights the lack of
sustainability of the sector and the financial situation of EBS, which is below acceptable standards. The major cause
of this situation is the current tariff structure, which does not allow full cost recovery. As a result, EBS low liquidity
limits its possibilities to attract new capital and substantially invest in new infrastructure. Meanwhile, public
resources are used to subsidize the electricity service and financially support EBS.

16
The Ministerie van Natuurlijke Hulpbronnen.
17
The Energie Adviescommissie.
18
See footnote 14.
19
Contracts 16 December 1972 and August 1985.
20
22 June 1973.
21
Resolution No. 9277, 11 January 1973, approved. 7 September 1973.
22
The tariff for households (Tariff 11) consists of a fixed rate and a price per kWh and ranges from USD 0.013/kWh for a monthly energy use below 300 kWh, to
approx SRD 0.028/kWh above 800 kWh/month. Exchange rate: 1 SRD = 0.3 USD (2011). Source: NV Energiebedrijven Suriname,
http://www.nvebs.com/energie/incasso/tarieven.aps.
23
Source: Alternatieve Elektriciteitsvoorziening in het binnenland van Suriname, by De Castro & Jansen, ECN Report, C-93-016, Petten, The Netherlands.
24
Masterplan 2000, prepared by N.V. EBS and TRACTEBEL, covering the oil and electricity sectors in Suriname between 2001 and 2015.
25
Including a 161-KV transmission financed by IAMGOLD between Paranam and Menckendam.
26
Suriname Power Sector Assessment and Alternatives for its Modernization (ATN/SF-9038-SU), Ministry of Natural Resources of the Republic of Suriname,
prepared by KEMA, Paramaribo, 12 December 2008.
10

Renewable energy and rural electrification
Renewable energy technologies have been considered a major option for Suriname since the 1980s. Considering its
small population, the potential of biomass and solar energy is huge. Fuelwood is a major source of energy in the
interior but the total volume is not larger than perhaps 100,000 tons per year
27
. Near Nickerie in the west of the
coastal plain, EBS explores erecting a 4 MW power plant to use rice husk for electricity generation to feed into the
ENIC grid
28
. This project is still under study.
The average solar radiation is 4.48 kWh/m
2
/day, which creates excellent conditions for solar water heating (thermal)
and solar panels (PV). In the vicinity of cascades and large streams, there are also good opportunities for small
hydropower. There is a general lack of detailed hydrological data in Suriname since most of the measuring stations,
including the historical data, were destroyed during the conflict in the 1980s
29
. The wind energy potential seems to
be modest. The wind regime is characterized by trade from the NE (during the long wet season) and SE (during the
short wet season). The wind is slowed down towards the interior of the country, which makes wind energy probably
unfeasible as a source of electricity supply in the interior. In its report, KEMA recommends to execute a
comprehensive wind measuring programme in order to draw more firm conclusions on the feasibility of wind power
in Suriname.
There are few examples of renewable energy technologies in Suriname. The most well-known is the PV project in
Kwamala Samutu, which is considered the most remote village of Suriname, with an Amerindian population. PV-
panels supplied electricity to 140 villages and several community services, including a school, refrigeration units,
and radio for communication. When no funding was available to renew the batteries, the system stopped
functioning. In Puketie, a 40-kW hydro plant was built (1979-1981), which went down 4 years later as a result of
inadequate maintenance and reportedly, inappropriate site selection. Presently, a new hydro plant is being
constructed at Gran Holo Sula (near Puketie). In 2002, two wind turbines (total 600-W) were installed at Lely Hills
to power Radio Paakaati. In Galibi (near the coast), one 1-kW turbine is providing power to a guesthouse. The
Bloomsberg telecommunication station is powered by PV with diesel backup (15-kW). Most of these systems were
financed by the Dutch Government as part of the Verdragsgelden
30
. Unfortunately, many installations were
damaged or abandoned during the conflict in the 1980s. Very little practical experiences and lessons-learnt could
be compiled in the Hinterlands, notwithstanding substantial investments to supply basic services for the local
population.
The Kema report provides a detailed assessment of the status of rural electrification in Suriname, including a listing
of villages that are presently supplied with diesel. The diesel generators are usually overdimensioned; by
consequence, the load factor is low and the energy efficiency very poor. This problem was already identified by a
mission carried out for the Dutch Government in 1993
31
. The combination of high transportation costs and low
demand results in high costs of electricity supply. KEMA deduces an average cost price of diesel-generated
electricity of US$ 0.63 per kWh, of which US 0.41 for fuel, US$ 0.18 for transportation, US$ 0.03 for O&M.
Specific data on the energy consumption and the system configuration per village are needed however, to calculate
the generating costs for each individual case. For remote locations with over-rated diesel systems, the costs may be
well above US$ 1.0/kWh, which makes alternatives such as PV or the local production of biofuels economically
feasible.
Besides DEV, other organizations are involved in rural electrification. The Community Development Fund
Suriname (CDFS) is an independent government foundation, which receives support from the Government, IDB
and AFD (France). The foundation implements local distribution grids to increase the number of households with
access to electricity. Another entity is FOB, which is ascribed to the Ministry of Regional Development. FOB was
established as part of the Dutch development assistance to Suriname. Apart from grid extension projects, FOB is
involved in a small-scale hydropower programme with technical support from the Anton de Kom University of

27
Assuming 2 tons of fuelwood are used annually per inhabitant; the total number of people living in the interior of the country is approx. 50,000. Please note that
the Surinames National Communication reports a fuelwood use (for cooking) of only 30 tons per year, which seems extremely low.
28
Source: Kema report (2008).
29
Source: Water Resources Assessment in Suriname, Webster, T. and Roebuck, L. , US Army Corps of Engineers, USA, December 2001.
30
The Netherlands agreed to financially support Suriname on its way to economic self-reliance after the country became independent in 1975. This cooperation (to a
total amount of 1,600 million euro) is called the verdragsgelden (treaty funds).
31
Mission report: Alternatieve Elektriciteitsvoorziening in het binnenland van Suriname, for the Dutch Government Directorate-General International Cooperation
(DGIS), by De Castro & Jansen. ECN Report, C-93-016, Petten, The Netherlands.
11

Suriname (AKUS).
MNH and EBS are developing plans to include more rural villages into the interconnected system, by extending the
transmission lines from Afobaka in southern direction. In the longer term, this should guarantee a more economical
and reliable service than the present, intermittent electricity supply with diesel systems. The projected small
hydropower plants feeding isolated grids in the Hinterlands can also be interconnected in the future, which would
add redundancy to the system and assist in stabilizing these weak grids
32
.

Recent developments
The the SISES framework aims to recover the energy sector, anticipate on future demand growth, and shape the
conditions for sustainability in economic, financial, and environmental terms. Besides the necessity to establish
sound tariff schemes, the introduction of energy efficiency practices and renewable energy technologies will play a
key role in the framework.
As a first step, the existing gaps and institutional weaknesses will be identified and recommendations issued to
ensure the sustainable development of the sector and the promotion of RE and EE. Government commitment is
crucial for implementing these recommendations, for which IDB is offering a first phase of a soft loan in 2012-2013
(IDB Loan SU-L1022). An additional loan instrument is anticipated to promote new investments using low carbon
technologies (IDB Loan SU-L1009). The present GEF Programme will be part of the National Strategy to address
the barriers associated with the implementation of RE and the promotion of EE to prepare them for larger-scale
deployment. Simultaneously, a technical cooperation funded by IDB/MIF
33
will demonstrate suitable schemes for
rural electrification in the interior by empowering local communities with operation and maintenance of low carbon
technologies (IDB-MIF SU-M1019). Further, a Technical Cooperation was approved to assess the opportunities for
small hydropower and the use of sugar cane for bioenergy (ATN/SF-11911-SU).
Outside EBS, several private initiatives are under study to install new generation capacity, including the Jai-
Tapanahony diversion to increase water supply to the Brokopondo Lake (350 MW); the Kabalebo (350 MW) and
the Grankkriki hydro power projects; and a transmission line to interconnect Suriname and French Guyana. New
large hydro power projects in Suriname will face severe obstacles including the inundation of lands, high capital
costs, environmental and social impacts, and the risk of resource degradation.

Problem description and barrier analysis
The main issues affecting the electricity sector in Suriname are the inadequate financial sustainability, the large
number of people presently not served with electricity in the Hinterlands, and the limited technical, institutional and
financial resources to deliver such service. This situation involves addressing the following areas: (i) the legal and
regulatory framework; (ii) institutional capacity and coordination among stakeholders; (iii) finance and economic
performance; (iv) availability of know-how of new technological options; (v) monitoring and impact assessment of
previous initiatives; and (v) tracing of an adequate road map to promote the rational use of energy.
Given Surinames short history as an independent nation, institutions are still in the process of being shaped and
consolidated.
Presently, the following barriers exist impeding the deployment of RE and EE technologies at a large scale in
Suriname:

Regulatory and institutional framework: The electricity sector in Suriname is presently built on contractual
arrangements rather than a policy and regulatory framework. This model is financially unsustainable and unable to
extend the service to meet future energy demand. Only structural reforms at the highest level (legislation) can bring
a change in paradigm; this goes far beyond the scope of renewable energies (but is addressed by the envisaged
Sustainable Energy Framework for Suriname). While the Government acknowledges the importance of RE and EE
technologies as an alternative to fossil-based thermal power plants, there is no policy in place to stimulate their
implementation. There is also a void in terms of secondary regulation, including a lack of grid code for distributed,
intermittent power systems; clear dispatch rules; safety requirements; criteria for environmental impact assessments;

32
Source: interviews with MNH and EBS, March-April 2012.
33
Multilateral Investment Fund.
12

and methodologies to determine a price for renewable energy.
In the absence of a solid policy framework, EBS and DEV cannot operate as a rational business, which negatively
affects investment decisions, technical performance and cost recovery. This must be addressed by strengthening
their mandate and autonomy. There is further a lack of coordination among sector agents and stakeholders,
including EBS, DEV, FOB, CDFS, private companies and professionals. By consequence, energy projects are not
always communicated and synergies are not fully exploited. Improved coordination, for example through a national
Energy Agency, can enhance the effectiveness of the available human resources (which are limited in a small
country like Suriname).

Information: There is a lack of meteorological data concerning the wind regime in Suriname. The potential for wind
energy applications is expectedly modest, but good sites may exist in the country. Kema has recommended to
perform a detailed wind resource assessment to identify areas where wind energy may be a viable option.
Hydrological data in Suriname are also scarce as the measuring network was largely destroyed during the eighties.
Strategically based measuring stations, possibly monitored by (satellite) telecommunication would not only be
valuable for hydropower purposes, but also to track changes in annual rainfall, tidal effects and trends that may
result from global climate change. With respect to electrification of the interior, the lack of detailed and updated
socio-economic data hampers the design of local power generation schemes, as demand forecasts and payment
capacity of households cannot be assessed accurately.

Access to technology: Renewable energy technologies are still largely unknown in Suriname, as MNH rely almost
exclusively on thermal power plants (operating on diesel or heavy fuel oil). Rural electrification initiatives using
RETs were mostly unsuccessful as a result of design flaws, O&M failures and a general lack of follow-up due to
the internal conflict. Renewable energy systems for on-grid electricity production (solar PV, wind, biomass, small-
hydro) and thermal systems (solar water heaters) are virtually non-existent, but some private hybrid systems (PV-
diesel) exist to power remote antennas. By consequence, there is limited knowledge on system design, resource
assessment, project risks and O&M aspects in the energy sector. Further, the existing grid systems are not ready to
absorb a substantial volume of decentralized, renewable generating capacity. The Anton de Kom University has
staff working on wind energy and hydro power and has established a list of promising sites for RE development,
including small hydro power (< 1-MW) in the Hinterlands and in the rivers near the coast (5-10 MW). Especially
near the coast, wind and river hydro plants could be implemented near existing roads and electric infrastructure.
Several biomass technologies (ethanol, algae and lemna) are evaluated by private companies, including Suralco and
Staatsolie, with a view on the large-scale production of bio-based additives for transport fuel.

Business models and delivery skills: Concerning renewable power systems, there is no experience with business
models such as IPP (for grid-connected wind energy, hydro, PV or cogeneration), community-based operation (for
hydro and PV in the interior), sustainable operation schemes under responsibility of DEV; or net metering (retail
users feeding PV or wind power into the grid). For on-grid power, present barriers include the lack of a grid code
for distributed power systems, regulation of dispatch, safety aspects, and the absence of rewards for the energy
delivered. With respect to isolated, rural systems, there is a lack of (positive) experience with the operation and
maintenance of RETs, and detailed information on the demands and (dis)satisfaction of end-users. In the absence
of functional renewable energy systems in the country, there is further a need of human resources trained to develop
and operate RETs, within EBS, DEV and local communities. Private project developers may play a role in the
future, once demand for RETs is growing and a rewarding price is offered for the electricity produced.

Finance: The liquidity of the national electricity company EBS is poor, which makes it difficult to attract debt
capital. Private investors will not invest in RETs (such as wind farms, mini hydropower, grid-connected PV) since
there is no clear framework for IPPs and EBS is not a strong contract partner. In the absence of successful examples
of grid-connected RETs, the real and perceived risks for private investors are high.
Electrification projects, especially small hydropower, are too costly to be assumed by local communities. Several
agencies (DEV, FOB, CDFS) are involved in electrification but none of them has sufficient financing capacity and
works therefore develop at a slow pace. The present business model does not allow recovery of operating costs; by
13

consequence, there is no incentive for (local) companies to operate and maintain rural electricity plants as a
business. Most renewable power systems therefore proved unsustainable, which makes capital providers (donor
agencies and private financiers) reluctant.

Baseline Project
The baseline project of this IDB/GEF Programme consists of the activities under the SISES programme that is
presently under preparation by the Government with support from IDB. SISES will address the existing
institutional, regulatory and economic barriers, and establish appropriate conditions for the sector to meet
Surinames energy needs in a sustainable manner. The programme would comprise, among others: (i) the
implementation of a new Electricity Act; (ii) the implementation of an Independent Energy Regulatory Authority;
(iii) a review of the present electricity tariff regime; (iv) the adequacy of the tariff rate to cover EBSs operational
costs; (v) to review EBS model of contract for the purchase of electricity from Independent Power Producers (IPP);
and (vi) to establish adequate institutional coordination and regulations for the sustainable development of the
Interior.
The SISES will be implemented through Government-budgeted activities and IDB loans and technical cooperations.
The Technical Cooperation SU-T1055 (grant) will support the preparation of the SISES. Financing for investment
in renewable energy technologies will be provided under the IDB/SU-L1009 (investment loan). The intervention
SU-L1022 is expected to be approved by the Government of Suriname in 2012
34
. The IDB/MIF-funded Technical
Cooperation SU-M1019 was approved during third quarter 2012 and will explore and develop the institutional
arrangements for ownership and management of RE technologies in the interior (the Hinterlands) and will
determine their impact. The technical cooperation SU-T1042 will provide baseline information and pre-feasibility
assessments of potential RE initiatives, including the development of bio-energy technologies.

B. 2. incremental /Additional cost reasoning: describe the incremental (GEF Trust Fund/NPIF) or additional
(LDCF/SCCF) activities requested for GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financing and the associated global environmental
benefits (GEF Trust Fund) or associated adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF) to be delivered by the project:
The proposed IDB/GEF Programme will be complementary to the base project as it addresses barriers that
are specifically related to the demonstration and deployment of RE and EE technologies in Suriname. These
barriers include the lack of information on renewable energy resources (wind, and hydro); the need for
demonstration of RE technologies in on-grid and isolated situations; the need to demonstrate effective O&M
models, as well as economic feasibility; and the need for additional policy development. The proposed
outputs and activities are deemed fully incremental.
The objective of the Programme The general objective is to promote the use of renewable energy (RE) and
energy efficiency (EE) technologies in the urban and rural areas and increase access to energy in the interior
of the country with additional benefits of reducing the sectors emission of greenhouse gases. The specific
objectives are to incorporate in the power sector framework and institutions the use of RE and EE
technologies, to reduce the long-term operational costs of on-grid and off-grid electricity service, and
implement sustainable business models for its operation and maintenance. The main components of this
Programme are: i) Strengthening of regulatory and institutional framework to implement RE and EE
technologies; ii) Implementation of pilots for interconnected and isolated grids using RETs; iii)
Strengthening of institutional arrangements, business models and stakeholder skills for the sustainable
operation of RE and promotion of EE technologies in Suriname.
The focus of the Programme is on the demonstration of, and market development for, renewable energy
technologies. GEF support for RE pilots is deemed critical to absorb the higher development costs of early-
market initiatives and to mitigate the associated real and perceived risks for investors. The direct use of GEF
funding for investment is concentrated at the rural electrification pilots based on small hydro, and solar-PV
technologies. Here, GEF co-investment will make the difference by demonstrating the potential and
feasibility of RE rural electrification schemes based on innovative O&M and business models (supported by
IDB/MIF SU-M1019). Without GEF support, such demonstration pilots are not expected to materialize.

34
Please note that this IDB instrument SU-L1022 has not been included in the list of co-financing elements for this GEF initiative in Suriname.
14

The GEF initiative will be implemented as part of the Support to the Institutional and Operational
Strengthening of the Energy Sector (SISES), which includes the IDB and MIF operations SU-L1009; SU-
L1022; SU-T1055; SU-M1019; and SU-T1042. IDBs Energy Division Team and IDBs Office in
Paramaribo will coordinate the initiatives on a permanent basis with the Government of Suriname. A Project
Office will be installed at the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNH). Please note that the IDB/GEF initiative
has been designed as an integral part of IDBs support programme to Suriname, being its scope limited to
incremental activities that are not covered by the other operations. This integral approach is expected to
enhance overall effectiveness and the efficient use of GEF and IDB resources.
In on-grid situations, GEF funding is used to mitigate the higher costs of RE pilot projects as a result of
early-market introduction. The development of a policy and regulatory framework, technical capacity and
institution building are transversal themes throughout the SISES baseline project and the GEF Programme.
Direct GEF support is limited to support the implementation of a wind resource assessment programme in
Suriname and the installation of hydrological measuring stations. Reliable resource data are a prerequisite to
assess and quantify project performance and risks. Without such data, investors will be reluctant to invest in
RE technologies and a market will not develop. GEF funding is therefore deemed essential to fill this
information void.
The following paragraphs concisely describe the purpose and scope of the outcomes and outputs in the
Strategic Results Framework:

Outcome #1: A conducive regulatory and institutional framework to implement RE/EE technologies in
Suriname has been established.

Output #1.1: A detailed implementation strategy has been prepared and approved for on- and off-grid RE
and EE technologies in Suriname. This output pursues the preparation of a national strategy to promote the
use of RE and EE technologies in Suriname, including the approval of a detailed action plan. The strategy
promotes the introduction of RE technologies
35
to deliver electricity to the interconnected (EPAR, ENIC)
and isolated grids (smaller towns) in the coastal plain under various business modalities (including publicly
EBS- owned and operated; independent power production; distributed generation by end-users (for self-
supply, delivering excess power to EBS). The strategy will further set tangible goals for the electrification of
the Hinterlands using RE technologies and encourage the development of sustainable business models and
O&M modalities. This project output will be financed under the SISES base project.

Output #1.2: Appropriate enhancements to the legal and technical regulatory framework for RE and EE
technologies have been prepared and implemented. This project component pursues establishing an
enabling legal and regulatory framework for RE and EE technologies in Suriname. Enhancements and
amendments to existing regulation should cover: (i) promotion of private investment in RE and EE
technologies; (ii) potential economic benefits of RE and EE investments vs. imported fuels and subsidized
grid electricity; (iii) operationalization of non-conventional RE electricity generating modalities; (iv) grid
code and quality requirements; (v) a tariff system for RE-based electricity delivered to the grid, including
dispatch protocols and priorities; (vi) incentives for the implementation of EE and fuel switch technologies;
and (vii) specific incentives to promote electrification of the Hinterlands. This component will be
implemented and funded as part of the base project.

Output #1.3: The wind and hydro energy potential in Suriname has been assessed by installing
measurement systems, data analysis and the compilation a of wind map. In view of the lack of detailed
data, this output envisages the deployment of a wind measuring and analysis programme in Suriname, the
compilation of a national Wind Map and the identification of high-potential areas for wind energy projects in
the country (both grid-connected wind farms and stand-alone wind generators). GEF funding will be used
for: purchase and installation of six wind measuring stations; data acquisition equipment; data monitoring;
operation and maintenance during a full season; extended measurements at selected towers; long-term data
correlation; data analysis; one Wind Map compilation. Further GEF resources will be used to install a limited

35
Including wind, biomass and biofuels, minihydro, and solar PV.
15

number of hydrological measuring stations at strategic locations for small- and mini-hydropower
development. Ideally, the hydro stations will be embedded into a national system for climate change
adaptation. GEF support for this component is US$ 300,000. Long-term operation, maintenance, transport,
logistics, civil works, plus additional equipment will be provided under the SISES and by the Government
of Suriname.

Output #1.4: Socio-economic information, including energy demand forecasts, has been updated to assess
the opportunities for RE and EE investments in the coastal plain and in the Hinterlands . Although past
project identification missions in the Hinterlands have revealed substantial data on village population and
typical energy uses, this information is generally outdated. Diesel plants in the Hinterlands and the isolated
grids are commonly overdimensioned with respect to installed capacity. For renewable energy systems,
capital costs increase with capacity; hence proper dimensioning (without compromising supply security) is
critical for economic viability. The present project output is part of the base project and will update the
existing information as input for policy development and project planning. IDB/MIF and FOB will be the
major counterpart in the rural areas, while MNH and EBS will take the lead in the coastal and urban regions.

Outcome #2: Selected RET pilots have been implemented for on-grid electricity supply and for rural
electrification in the Hinterlands.

Output #2.1: Feasibility and detailed engineering studies have been carried out for the envisaged
demonstration pilots. This project output will deliver at least four (4) detailed feasibility studies and
technical designs for the RE demonstration pilots that have passed the selection process. This process
involves prefeasibility studies, consultations with user groups, as well as criteria to judge socio-economic
impact, cost-effectiveness, project risks, visibility, and replication potential. The implementation modality of
the on-grid demonstration pilots will be defined during the project. Electricity generation by RETs can be
public-driven (EBS), a tender mechanism (IPP), or fully private. Rural electrification projects will be driven
by FOB with support from IDB/MIF. Financial resources for this component will be supplied by IDB/MIF
(SU-M1019), IDB TC SU-1042 and the Government of Suriname.

Output #2.2: Selected RE demonstration pilots have been implemented for urban areas (solar-PV) under
appropriate business/ ownership models. This project component envisages the procurement, installation
and transfer of RETs to the owners/operators. Investment capital will be provided through an IDB
investment loan under the SISES. The GEF contribution to the investments will be used for project
facilitation (liaison, permits, interconnection) and to mitigate the expected higher realization costs due to
early-market conditions
36
. The direct GEF funding includes supervision and monitoring of the pilots during
installation and operation.

Output #2.3: A portfolio of solar-PV electrification projects has been implemented in rural communities
in the Hinterlands under appropriate business and operational models. This component covers the
procurement, installation and transfer of solar-PV systems to selected villages in the Hinterlands under a
community-based business and operational model (which will be prepared and implemented by FOB with
support from IDB/MIF). The identification and selection of the benefitted communities will be done by FOB
after a process of communication and training of local actors. GEF funding will be applied for co-investment
and is deemed critical for the demonstration pilots to materialize (anticipated total capacity: 531-kW). Once
a significant number of pilots has become operational, rural development agencies (FOB, DEV) and the
Government (MRD
37
) can work towards long-term financial sustainability of the installed systems.

Output #2.4: The technical and operational feasibility of small hydropower for rural electrification in
Suriname has been demonstrated by the implementation of selected investment pilots under appropriate
business/ ownership models.. This project output encompasses the procurement, installation, transfer and
monitoring of selected small-scale hydropower (SHP) plants under a mixed business model (implemented by

36
At market introduction, advantages as a result of up-scaling and learning effects have not materialized yet.
37
Ministry of Rural Development
16

FOB/EBS, with specific roles for community staff to perform routine O&M tasks). The business model and
the identification of the SHP projects will be done by FOB, supported by the IDB/MIF initiative. SHP has
the potential to provide the Hinterlands with substantial volumes of electric energy, contributing to increase
basic services, quality of life and economic activities. IDB Project Team in coordination with the Executing
Agency (EA) will follow the site selection and project design process, including specific technological
choices. Adaptation measures to the risks of climate change (in particular swells and floodings) will be taken
to safeguard the integrity of the power plants during their technical lifetime (25 years). The envisaged
capacity to be installed under the GEF-initiative is 1,500-kW.

Outcome #3: Adequate business models and stakeholder skills to successfully implement RETs in
Suriname, have been established.

Output #3.1: Sustainable ownership, business and operational models have been established for RE
systems in rural areas and the impact thereof has been evaluated. This technical assistance is targeted at
the preparation and implementation of at least three (3) sustainable business models for the envisaged
demonstration pilots and their subsequent replication. The development and demonstration of business and
operational models for rural electrification is the primary objective of IDB/MIF SU-M1019. The proposed
business models will be supported by high-level policy development as addressed by the SISES. The
identification and acceptance of viable business models is critical to overcome financial constraints, attract
investment capital and allow replication in the future. The impact of the pilot projects and their business
models will be evaluated.

Output #3.2: Awareness raising programmes about RETs and EETs have been developed with the
participation of the public, commercial and residential sectors in Suriname. This project output provides
support to baseline activities targeting awareness about RE and EE technologies by the general public and
specific stakeholders. More information on the implications of conventional energy consumption by society
and on the benefits of RE and EE is needed to create acceptance and understanding of these technologies,
which are still new for Suriname. As such, this output fits into a broader communication effort initiated by
the Government of Suriname and will finance the development of at least three awareness raising initiatives.

Output #3.3: Promotional events have been held to disseminate the impacts and benefits of RETs and
EETs in Suriname, and addtional investments leveraged. This project component pursues the organization
of at least three (3) regional events (seminars, workshops) and promotional activities to draw the attention of
investors on the opportunities offered by RE and EE technologies in Surinames energy sector. It will further
collect, analyze and disseminate the lessons learnt from the demonstration pilots. This output will be funded
by the IDB/MIF Project SU-M1019 and the Government of Suriname.

Global GHG benefits
The IDB/GEF Project Development of Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Electrification of
Suriname will generate environmental benefits in the form of avoided GHG emissions (CO
2
) from the
national energy sector in Suriname to an estimated total of 0.83 Mtons CO2eq
38
, of which 0.20 Mtons are
direct benefits obtained from the implementation of demonstration pilots, and 0.63 Mtons as a result of RE
and EE market transformation in the 10-year period after project termination (the GEF impact horizon).
The indirect emission reductions are estimated applying a GEF causality factor of 60% (substantial but
modest) for on-grid RE and EE investments; and 80% (dominating) for rural electrification market
development.

B.3. Describe the socioeconomic benefits to be delivered by the Project at the national and local levels, including
consideration of gender dimensions, and how these will support the achievement of global environment benefits

38
See Annex calculation of environmental benefits for more details.
17

(GEF Trust Fund/NPIF) or adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF). As a background information, read Mainstreaming
Gender at the GEF.":
At the national level, the Programme, will foster the deployment of electricity generating capacity based on
renewable energy (RE) sources. This will reduce Surinames contribution to the emission of greenhouse
gases and offset the use of equivalent units of fossil energy carriers. Given the current cost structure of the
electricity sector, the use of RETs and the implementation of energy efficiency measures and technologies,
will expectedly improve the cost-effectiveness of the sector, in the first place the electricity company EBS
which presently does not recover its operating costs. Given the fact that EBS financial deficits are absorbed
by the State, the economic benefits from RE and EE technologies will strengthen its fiscal position. These
benefits however, will only materialize in the context of additional policy and institutional measures, which
are addressed under the SISES (not specifically by the GEF Programme). At the national level, the direct
beneficiaries of the Programme are therefore: the State of Suriname, EBS, and the nation as a whole.
Cost reductions by Surinames public, commercial and residential sectors will increase purchase power of
the population and strengthen the competitiveness of the national economy. The access to more (or more
reliable) energy in rural areas combined will improve the social and economic development of the
communities in the Hinterlands and improve quality of life, including access to basic services such as
medical assistance and education. Potentially, sustainable energy supply will enable new economic
developments such as tourism and mining. Also, private and public investors may turn EE and RE
technologies into profitable business. Consumers of energy in urban areas, industries that derive their
electricity from the grids, rural end-users, as well as suppliers and investors are therefore direct or indirectly
benefitted by the Programme.
By implementing adequate management structures and dissemination policies for small hydropower and
solar-PV systems, the project will expectedly have a positive impact on local communities by their
empowerment and by strengthening social structures and creating micro-enterprises. Presently, basic
services (including the supply of drinking water, the operation of medical posts and elementary schools in
the villages) are greatly affected by the restricted and intermittent availability of electric energy. Both men
and women are expected to benefit from the proposed pilot investments in the rural communities. However,
the supply of clean electricity is expected to have a larger impact on the life of women and children, who
typically spend more time at home. In the Maroon villages, there are also about two times more women than
men among the resident population. Electricity can simplify traditional household tasks, such as cooking,
washing, sewing, and going for drinking water which will free up time for other activities (such as
learning).

B.4 Indicate risks, including climate change risks that might prevent the project objectives from being achieved,
and if possible, propose measures that address these risks to be further developed during the project design:
Risk Likelyhood Mitigation measures
1. Lack of political
commitment for the
development and
implementation of EE and
RE.
Moderate The Government of Suriname, supported by IDB, is
pursuing the development of a Sustainable Energy
Framework for Suriname (SISES). The SISES and the
Project are firmly embedded in national plans (including
Surinames Multipurpose Development Plan). The present
GEF Programme fits into the SISES. The preparation and
implementation of the SISES is a lengthy process that
requires sustained government commitment and a strong
relation between the Bank and the Government. The Bank
has assessed the commitment risk as moderate because the
implementation of the Project (and of the SISES as a
whole) remains subject to possible changes in political
direction in Suriname. This risk exceeds the Programme
level.
2. Lack of local governance
capabilities and technical
capacity to implement the
Programme.
High This risk will be mitigated by hiring a project manager,
team staff and consultants, establishing an executing unit in
the MNH, and including training activities during the
development and implementation phases of the
Programme. Notwithstanding, there is a substantial risk
18

that skilled personnel may not always be locally available.
Through the development of efficient business models
(supported by the IDB/MIF initiative), this risk will be
mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
3. Lack of interest among
the population for the
deployment of energy
efficiency initiatives.
Low This risk will be mitigated by implementing a
dissemination program that highlights the benefits of EE
measures, including monetary savings for end-users. The
implementation of EE practices in the residential,
commercial, public and light industries sectors, will be
given great exposure in order to further demonstrate the
benefits of EE measures and its importance for creating a
more sustainable paradigm for energy consumption in
Suriname.
4. Lack of reliable input
data to prepare and
implementation RE
demonstration project.
Low Low-resolution data on the solar and hydro resources in
Suriname are available from satellite imagery and (limited)
long-term field observations. As an average, these
resources can be classified as abundant; and sufficient to
guarantee the technical and economically successful
operation of the demonstration technologies. However,
local impediments (red flags) may exist, which need to
be assessed during the projects feasibility phases.
Wind projects are more sensitive to variations in the
resource than hydro or solar. This risk is addressed by
performing a wind resource mapping of Suriname as part
of the GEF Programme. Investments in wind energy are
not critical for implementing the Programme, but if
feasible- would open up new possibilities for Surinames
energy sector.
5. The availability of
renewable energy resources
(hydro variables, solar
radiation) might be affected
by climate change
Low Climate change always has an impact of environmental
variables, including wind, solar radiation, rainfall and the
hydrological balance in watershed areas. The solar and
hydro resources in Suriname are very robust, hence it is
very unlikely that their availability would be affected
during the next decades. Wind energy is expectedly more
marginal in Suriname, and a reduction in wind speeds can
make a big difference. This risk can be mitigated by
including a sensitivity analysis in the envisaged wind map
of Suriname.
Other effects of climate change can be the occurrence of
floods, which may affect civil works. This risk is
particularly relevant for hydropower plants. Proper site
selection can mitigate this risk and must be part of the
design process; as this risk is also present in the absence of
climate change.

B.5. Identify key stakeholders involved in the project including the private sector, civil society organizations, local
and indigenous communities, and their respective roles, as applicable:
The stakeholders in the IDB/GEF Project include:
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNH), which is responsible for the energy sector in Suriname and will
act as the national Executing Agency.
The Ministry of Rural Development (MRD), which is represented in the Steering Committee as it is the
highest-level authority in charge of Hinterland development.
The electricity company N.V. EBS, which is responsible for the generation, transmission and distribution of
electricity to the retail markets in the EPAR and ENIC grids, and the isolated grids. EBS is state-owned and
monitored by MNH. The company will take part in the preparation and implementation of energy efficiency
pilots, promotional activities and the design and interconnection of RE-based generating capacity in the
coastal plain (envisaged bio-energy and solar PV). EBS is a key stakeholder and direct beneficiary of the
SISES.
The Dienst Electriciteitsvoorziening (DEV) is the government entity responsible for the electricity service
in the interior of Suriname. DEV is ascribed to the MNH. DEV is direct beneficiary of the GEF Programme
and will provide co-financing by preparing and maintaining rural electrification projects based on
renewable energies.
19

The FOB is a foundation founded by the Government to promote the development of the interior of
Suriname. It initiates and implements electrification projects. FOB supports the envisaged RE pilots and
collaborate with the IDB/MIF project in the design of effective management models.
CSOs and indigenous communities exist in the villages in the interior. These will be closely involved
during the project selection and design phase. The organizations will be a critical counterpart to
successfully operate and maintain the power systems.
Relevant CSOs in the EPAR region may include consumer organizations, sector associations, etc. These
actors will be involved in the design of promotional activities on EE and RE and can greatly enhance the
effectiveness thereof.
The State Oil Company of Suriname (SOMS), which has become a player on the market for the use of
renewable energies and electricity generation.
Suppliers of knowledge and technical support, including the National Institute for Environment and
Development (NIMOS), the Anton de Kom University (AKUS), private suppliers of RE equipment, and
consultancy firms.

B.6. Explain how cost-effectiveness is reflected in the project design:
The electricity volume produced by the pilot investments is equivalent to 8,175-MWh per year (of which 7,474
MWh/yr by the rural electrification pilots). The electricity production of on-grid renewable energy technologies as a
result of market transformation is calculated at 96,000-MWh per year. The cost-effectiveness of the proposed
IDB/GEF initiative is estimated at US$ 22/ton CO
2
eq, considering only the direct GHG benefits. If the indirect
GHG benefits are included, the cost-effectiveness is of the order of US$ 5/ton CO2eq.

B.7. Outline the coordination with other related initiatives:
The Government of Suriname has acknowledged the need to strengthen the electricity sector. A national Strategy is
being devised with support from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to design and establish a sustainable
energy framework for Suriname. The objective of this framework is to recover the sector, anticipate on future
demand growth, and shape the conditions for its sustainability in economic, financial, and environmental terms. The
design of the SISES draws on the findings of the KEMA report (2008) and the earlier Master plan (2000) where
Suriname power sector is assessed and issues and problems identified.
The SISES will assist the Government of Suriname and EBS to implement adequate regulations and management
practices to: (i) reduce production costs from US$ 0.20/kWh to US$ 0.11/kWh; (ii) address financial sustainability
issues with the review of the tariff structure; (iii) address the issue of investments in new generation capacity
through the establishment of contract models for the purchase of electricity, and (iv) establish adequate schemes for
the sustainable electrification of the Hinterlands.
The GEF initiative has been designed as a complementary intervention and as part of a wider sector approach aimed
at achieving the Bank strategic objective to create a financially sustainable energy sector that facilitates the adequate
supply of energy and improves access to electricity. This broader sector approach involves other Bank operations,
which are included in the Programme as co-financing. GEF Programme specifically contributes to the general
objective of SISES, and targets the sustainability issue in the electrification of the Hinterlands. The Programme will
address the barriers that inhibit the deployment of RETs in the coastal zone and will propose the development of
sustainable business models for energy systems supplying the Hinterlands. The Programme will contribute to reduce
MNHs operating costs, improve quality of the service, and increase the number of people reached. The contribution
in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) will be part of the benefits of the implementation of this
Programme.

C. GEF AGENCY INFORMATION:
C.1 Confirm the co-financing amount the GEF agency brings to the project:

Governments direct contribution to the Programme will be US$3.3 million in kind, which has been formally
committed. Financing in the amount of US$1,700,000 is provided to the Programme through the technical
20

cooperation ATN/ME-13406-SU financed by the MIF. In addition, given that this Programme is part of a broader
Bank sector approach and its execution represents a directed contribution to the energy sector in Suriname;
additional resources for the amount of $17,800,000 are recognized as Associated Financing or co-financing to
this Programme. The sources of such Associated Financing are as follows: SU-L1009 (US$15,000,000), SU-
T1055 (US$700,000), and IDB-SU-T1042 (US$400,000).

C.2 How does the project fit into the GEF agencys program (reflected in documents such as UNDAF, CAS, etc.)
and staff capacity in the country to follow up project implementation:

The Programme is fully coherent with IDBs Country Strategy for Suriname (2011-2015) by improving the national
energy infrastructure to foster access to electricity in the interior (the Hinterlands) and to enable Suriname to include
cost-effective renewable energy technologies in the countrys electricity generation mix
39
. The Project is supportive to
the identified National Development Objective Energy sector operates sustainably and uses cost-effective technologies
for supporting economic growth. IDB is providing support to the Government of Suriname to assist in the design and
implementation of the SISES, which is aligned with IDBs Strategic Objective Create a financially sustainable energy
sector to facilitate the adequate supply of energy and improve access to electricity. The associated expected outcomes,
to which the Programme contributes, are:
Increased electricity coverage (indicator: Percentage of the population with access to electricity);
Increased financial sustainability of power supply for interior locations (indicator: Percentage of cost recovery
for electricity supply in interior locations); and
Improved financial sustainability and governance of EBS (indicator: Percentage decrease in EBS operational
costs).
IDB has a permanent office in Paramaribo, with a dozen permanent employees. The Energy Division has a regional
Energy Specialist and a lead Energy Coordinator, who supervises IDBs energy programme in Suriname through
frequent visits and permanent coordination with the local counterparts.

PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
A. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT:
The following Figure presents the institutional arrangements of the Project:

A the strategic level, the Government will establish a Project Steering Committee (PSC) to provide high-level

39
The Country Strategy 2011-2015 was issued in November 2011 and is based on close collaboration with the Authorities. The main focus is on supporting the
transition to modern public governance structures, diversifying the economy, and expanding social benefits. The priority areas include: (i) agriculture, (ii) energy,
(iii) education, (iv) financial sector development, (v) public investment management, (vi) social protection, and (vii) transport. Total lending under the new CS is to
about US$ 300m.
21

guidance and orientation concerning Project priorities, to monitor progress of implementation according to the
agreed time schedule and to recommend on operational issues. The PSC will be composed of the Joint Desk,
MRD, ATM and MNH. The PSC will meet once each year and will be convoked by the Project Manager on
behalf of MNH.

B. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT:
The MNH will be the EA of the Programme as this Ministry is responsible for the functioning and
development of the energy sector in Suriname. MNH is responsible for supervising the national electricity
company EBS; for evaluating and adjusting the tariff structure; and for stimulating de development of
renewable energy sources
40
. The Ministry aims at increasing electricity coverage rate in the Hinterlands.
MNH is further responsible for the water, hydrocarbons and mining sector. MNH has been involved
throughout the preparation and design phase of the operation at the highest level (Minister and Permanent
Secretary). The IDB operation (SU-M1019) on the development of sustainable business models for rural
RETs, will be executed by FOB in close coordination with the EA. To this purpose, FOB will administer its
own resources.

The Executing Agency (EA) will establish a team composed of the following dedicated consultants to execute
the Programme: (i) Project Manager; (ii) Procurement specialist; (iii) Financial Specialist; (iv) Electrical
engineer; and a (v) Social-environmental specialist. The EA will be responsible for, inter alia: (i) the technical
execution of Project activities; (ii) selecting and contracting of consultancies, procurements, and services; (iii)
reviewing and approving consulting products; (iv) registering accounting information of Programme funds;
(v) managing consulting contracts and processing payments for consulting services and procurement of goods;
(vi) reporting periodically to the GEF and the Bank on the technical and administrative activities of the
Programme; (vii) monitoring of Programme progress

PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF
The final documents of this Programme exhibits a number of modifications compared to the original PIF,
which are aligned to Governments strategy to implement the SISES and with a stronger focus on investments
in RETs for rural electrification. Specifically, the original component on energy efficiency (component II) has
been suppressed, its outputs being included into the present Outcomes 1 (Policy) and 2 (Investment). At the
output level, all investment-related activities have been placed into one single component (Outcome 2). As a
result of the ongoing coordination with the other IDB initiatives for the SISES in Suriname, the scope of the
project outputs has been clarified. The GEF budget for project management has increased to US 200,000 (was:
US$ 100,000) in order to mitigate risks associated with the lack of human resources and skilled staffs to
execute the Programme. The investment component is now fully focused on renewable energy technologies.
The following table presents the modifications in the final project design (Strategic Results Framework)
compared to the original PIF.

40
See: www.naturalresources.sr.org
22

Original structure (PIF) Final design
(Project
Document)
Observations
Components Outputs Components Outputs
1. Technical,
institutional and
regulatory
strengthening to
promote the use of
RE technologies
and support for
pilot project
implementation
1.1 Favorable policy and
regulatory environment created
for renewable energy
investments (TA).
1.2 Assessment of RE potential
and development of a Wind
Map of Suriname (TA).
1.3 On-grid solar PV systems
demonstrated as a sustainable
option for power generation.
GHG emissions reduced (INV).
1.4 Power generation from bio-
fuels demonstrated in Suriname.
GHG emissions reduced (INV).
1. Strengthening of
regulatory and
institutional
framework to
implement RE and
EE technologies.
Wording in Component 1 was revised in line with the
design of the SISES but keeping the same original
scope. Outcome 1 has been modified in order to include
RE and EE policy and to account for related activities
under the SISES. The investment activities have been
moved into a dedicated component (new Outcome 2):
Former Output 1.1 has been split into strategy
development (Output 1.1) and regulation (Output
1.2). Former Output 2.1 (EE) is now included.
Former Output 1.2 is now Output 1.3
A new Output 1.4 has been created to account for
the work on rural electrification under IDB/MIF
SU-M1019.
Former Outputs 1.3 and 1.4 have been merged into
new Output 2.2
2. Technical,
institutional and
regulatory
strengthening to
promote the use of
EE initiatives and
support for pilot
project
implementation.
2.1 Favorable policy and
regulatory environment created
for energy efficiency
investments (TA).
2.2 Energy consumption
reduced, and EE practices
demonstrated in Suriname
(INV).
2. Demonstration of
RE technologies
(RETs).
Component 2 was revised based on changes in
Component I and the proposal of having a more
focused INV component 2 to pilot RETs.
Former Output 2.1 has been merged into
Output 1.1
Former Output 2.2 has been suppressed.
A new Output 2.1 has been created to account for
feasibility studies and pilot design, as supported by
co-financiers.
Output 2.2 recollects the former Outputs 1.3 and
1.4).
3. Support for the
rural
electrification (off
and on grid) of the
hinterlands and
the interior
3.1 Solar renewable energy
technologies demonstrated as an
option for the electrification of
the Hinterlands (INV).
3.2 Hydro energy technologies
demonstrated as an option for
sustainable development. GHG
emissions reduced (INV).
3. Strengthening of
institutional
arrangements,
business models and
stakeholder skills.
The investments envisaged under this Component have
been placed into Component 2.
Output 2.3 is former Output 3.1
Output 2.4 is former Output 3.2.
4. Dissemination. 4.1 Results of the project are
disseminated
4.2 Institutional strenthening
and capacity building of the
government and local
commnuities
4.3 National Platform for
Stakeholder Involvement.
3. Strengthening of
institutional
arrangements,
business models and
stakeholder skills.
Former Output 4.1 has been split into Output 3.2
and Output 3.3. The scope of this output has been
clarified.
Former Output 4.2 is covered under Output 1.1,
2.2 and 3.1.
Former Output 4.3 has been suppressed as rural
CSOs are well represented by FOB and the
IDB/MIF initiative.

PART V: APPROVAL/ENDORSEMENT BY GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT(S) AND GEF
AGENCY(IES)
23

A. RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT OF GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT(S): ):
(Please attach the Operational Focal Point endorsement letter(s) with this template. For SGP, use this OFP
endorsement letter).
NAME POSITION MINISTRY DATE (MM/dd/yyyy)
Mrs. I. Patterzon GEF Operational Focal MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
TECHNOLOGICAL
DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENT
23 FEBRUARY 2011

B. GEF AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF policies and procedures and meets the
GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF criteria for CEO endorsement/approval of project.

Agency
Coordinator,
Agency Name
Signature
Date
(Month, day,
year)
Project
Contact
Person
Telephone Email Address
Michael Collins
Inter-American
Development Bank

October, 24,
2012
Jesus Tejeda

(5932) 299-
6942
Jesust@iadb.org

GEF5 CEO Endorsement-Approval-November 2011.doc 24

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Output Indicators Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
End of
project
Means of
verification
Comments
Component 1 Strengthening of regulatory and institutional framework to implement RE and EE technologies
Wind measuring stations installed 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 6
project reports,
field visits
None
Country Wind Map of Suriname
Developed
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
document and
electronic data
None
National strategy for the promotion
of RE and EE technologies
prepared.
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
National strategy
document.
None
Socio-economic information, has
been updated to assess the
opportunities for RE and EE
investments
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Reports and
surveys with socio-
economic
information
None
Component 2 Demonstration of RE technologies for interconnected grids and for rural electrification
Feasibility and detailed engineering
studies prepared
0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 Feasibility studies
Rural solar-PV projects installed
(kW)
15 0 0 96 160 160 160 531
progress reports;
field visits
assess annual electricity
production to determine
achieved GHG benefits
Rural small hydro projects installed
(kW)
40 0 0 700 0 400 400 1,540
progress reports;
field visits
On-grid solar-PV projects installed
(kW)
0 0 0 160 200 200 200 760
progress reports;
field visits
Component 3 Strengthening of institutional arrangements, business models and stakeholder skills for the sustainable operation of RE and promotion of EE technologies in
Suriname
Sustainable ownership business and
operational models for RET systems
in rural areas developed
0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 progress reports
(1) community-based PV;
(2) individual PV; (3) small
hydro.
Awareness raising programmes
about RETs and EETs have been
developed.
1 1 1 3 none
Promotional events have been held
to disseminate the impacts and
benefits of RETs and EETs in
Suriname, and additional
0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 Progress report none

GEF5 CEO Endorsement-Approval-November 2011.doc 25

Outcome Indicators Baseline End of
project
Means of
verification
Comments
A conducive regulatory and
institutional framework to implement
RE/EE technologies in Suriname has
been established.

Enhancements to the legal and technical
regulatory framework including RE and EE
technologies in Suriname, have been
proposed and approved

0

1
Sector
framework
Currently the promotion of RE and EE is not incorporated
in the regulatory framework of Suriname and there is no
strategy to develop these types of technologies.
Component 2 - Demonstration of RE technologies for interconnected grids and for rural electrification
Selected RET pilots have been
implemented for on-grid electricity
supply and for rural electrification in
the Hinterlands

Rural electricity operating costs
(US$/KWh)
0.63 0.41
Final
evaluation
report.
Based on current costs of electricity in rural areas (4,512
kW of installed diesel power plants operating 2,150 hours
a year) an installed capacity of 1,500kW hydro and 300kW
PV (with O&M costs of 178,500 USD).
Decrease in EBS
Operational costs (US$/kWh).
0.20 0.11
Sector
statistics
Based on Country Strategy 2011-2015
Rural end-users supplied with sustainable
electricity service from installed RETs
(persons)

0

10,280
Final
evaluation
Based on 200W installed capacity per rural end-user
(1,540kW hydro and 516kW PV).
Component 3 Strengthening of institutional arrangements, business models and stakeholder skills for the sustainable operation of RE and promotion of EE technologies in
Suriname
Adequate business models and
stakeholder skills to successfully
implement RETs in Suriname, have
been established.
Technical, social and financial
sustainability of on-grid RETs
demonstrated
0 1
Final
evaluation
One or more RET projects developed. At least one project
constructed and selling electric energy to the grid.
sustainability of Renewable Energy
Technologies (RETs) demonstrated for
rural electrification
0 3
Final
evaluation
report
For: (1) community-based and (2) individual PV systems;
and (3) small hydro power.
Impact Indicators Baseline End of
project
Means of verification Comments
Annual amount of avoided greenhouse gases (tons CO2
equivalent per year)
0 8,110 project evaluation, GOS climate change (ATM) and sector
reports (MNH)
Indicator is conform GEF-5
CCM 3.
Percentage of the population with access to electricity. 85% 90%
Sector statistics
Based on Country Strategy
2011-2015
26

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to
Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF).

Responses to STAP Review date October 07, 2011
Q1. Rationale for incorporating wind, solar PV, energy efficient lighting and hydro power: The PIF has
incorporated all the potential RETs and EE lighting. However, the rationale for selecting certain specific
RETs and EETs is not clear. Suriname could do a national level assessment of the potential of all RETs and
EETs, along with the cost effectiveness and mitigation potential. Technologies for intervention could be
selected based on cost effectiveness, mitigation potential, as well as the national circumstances (including
commercial and financial feasibility) of the country. The capacity of the on-grid and off-grid systems for
demonstration should be decided based on analysis for a given location on the potential and optimized scale.
R1: We agree with this observation. In the absence of (i) a tariff structure that adequately reflects the costs of
the electricity service delivered; and (ii) the lack of sector policy and financial incentives to reduce EBS
generating costs, the Government of Suriname has not made a technical and financial analysis of investments
in RETs and EETs. Notwithstanding, the generating costs of large wind power (5-20 MW), river hydro (1-
5 MW) and biomass power generation (3-10 MW) are lower than the average costs paid by EBS (US$ 0.20
per kWh); and certainly lower than EBS marginal generating costs. The parameters affecting RE generating
costs are: distance to the (transmission) grid, distance to (road) infrastructure; and available resource (wind
speed, water flow, biomass transport costs). Near the coast, promising conditions exist that suggest that grid-
connected wind farms, river hydro plants and biomass plants are technically and commercially viable. The
Project pursues installing solar-PV capacity to demonstrate on-grid RE technologies in Suriname under early-
market conditions. Once a proper legal framework is in place, it is expected that larger RE generation projects
will follow based on detailed feasibility analysis and rational investment decisions. Solar-PV is presently
unrewarding for end-users, given the low retail tariff for electricity (US 0.07 / kWh). This tariff issue will be
addressed as part of the SISES designed and financed by Government and IDB. Solar-PV technology is
proposed as a pilot, based on preliminary analysis
41
and since (i) these are proven technologies, (ii) solar
irradiation is abundant, (iii) O&M aspects require modest technical capacity; and (iv) generating costs of
solar-PV are expectedly competitive to EBS marginal costs. Private suppliers of RE equipment are already
active in Suriname but have focused on specific, high-value applications at isolated sites (telecom systems).
The proposed capacity of the RE pilots for rural electrification has been determined based on its relevance for
Surinames (and IDBs) development objectives; the direct impact on the lives of the rural population; and its
complementarity to ongoing rural development initiatives (primarily by the Ministry of Rural Development
and FOB). It is recognized that the mitigation potential of rural electrification investments is low in relation to
global GHG emissions.
Finally, it is observed that Suriname is in the process of finalizing its Second National Communication to the
UNFCCC, which is an important step forward for assessing and systemizing national GHG emissions and
mitigation potential.
The participation of the donor JICA as co financier of this programme, has not been secured. The Government
has decided to postpone activities related to investments in EE as initially reflected in the PIF document.
However, the promotion of EE practices will be part of Government commitment during the execution of the
programme, while adequate investments are secured for the installation of EETs.

41
Suriname Power Sector Assessment and Alternatives for its Modernization, prepared by KEMA Consulting for MNH and financed by IDB
(ATN/SF-9038-SU), December 2008.
27

Q2. Energy efficiency: EE support is concentrated on the buildings sector. Why this particular sector was
chosen for EE interventions? Investments targeting commercial and residential buildings as well as different
systems (lighting, solar water heaters and etc.) are different. Analysis of consumption pattern, specific
barriers, mitigation potential of different technologies and systems is recommended before the CEO
endorsement to assure that GEF support is sustainable for transforming EE market in buildings sector in
Suriname.
R2: Please note that No GEF resources have been allocated for EETs (see previous comment related with
investment in this area). However, EETs directly assist in reducing EBS operational losses and are a key
element for establishing a sustainable energy sector in Suriname. The EETs proposed in the PIF have been
reviewed during Project preparation. It was found that lighting and cooling are relevant for the public,
commercial and residential sectors. Solar water heaters are basically an RET enabling a fuel switch (from
electricity to solar energy for heating), which translates into a reduced electricity demand by end-users.
Suppliers are aware of EE aspects of appliances but observe that the retail market generally prefers low-cost,
inefficient equipment. With respect to the commercial sector, there are positive experiences with installation
firms in Suriname to implement EETs and RETs in buildings (hotels and offices) based on environmental
performance criteria and life-cycle costs. While efficient lighting (CFLs) are found to be rewarding in
commercial buildings, financial incentives (better: higher tariffs) are needed to extend the range of viable EET
options. Government of Suriname has decided to move forward with the promotion of EE practices, however,
investments in this area will have to be postponed until financing is secured. Governments promotion will be
implemented through awareness campaign financed by EBS in a strategy to stimulate demand-side energy
management.

Q3. Baseline scenario: It is necessary to present a detailed analysis of the share of different energy sources,
both fossil fuel and renewable and their resulting emissions under the no GEF project scenario.
R3: The share of large hydropower in the total electricity generation mix is 48.6%; thermal power (diesel and
heavy fuel oil) accounts for 51.4% (2007 figures). The CO2-intensity of the national power sector is estimated
at 0.41 kg CO2/kWh. Please refer to the Annex (GHG Benefits) to the CEO Endorsement Request. No
significant baseline shift is expected during the GEF Project as pilot investments are very small (0.7 MW on-
grid and 2.0 MW off-grid) compared to the total installed capacity (over 300 MW).

Q4. Bio-energy: There is a lack of clarity on the bio-energy technologies. Is it for power generation or for
heat application, or for liquid fuel production? There is a need to assess the potential of biomass feedstock
availability for power generation, as well as, land availability for bio-fuel production. In one place PIF does
provide a reference to support production of biomass energy from jathropa. If this is the case, description of
environmental and social safeguards in promoting this technology is necessary.
R4: Bio-energy appeared an interesting option at PIF stage as a substitute for fossil diesel. During project
preparation it became clear that: (i) private initiatives in the field of ethanol and algae are primarily focused
on the domestic production of transport fuels and not on electricity generation (for example, as independent
power producers); (ii) local production of pure plant oil and biodiesel in the rural areas appeared to be an
interesting substitute for the costly and intermittent supply of fossil diesel by DEV. In this regard, pilot
projects with biomass need additional studies that will be addressed by the Government with IDB support
Sugar cane for ethanol is in the process of assessment financed by the Government and technical assistance
from IDB.

Q5. The PIF mentions promotion of RETs to reduce pressure on wood for energy purposes leading to
conservation of forests and biodiversity: It is not clear which end use and technology is being targeted for
conserving wood. Does the project aim at substituting fuel wood used for cooking or process heat
28

applications? Most of the interventions seemed to be aimed at generating electricity for lighting. Project
claims that support for RE technologies in Hinterlands will reduce pressure on forests and contribute to
biodiversity conservation. This might be the case but not necessarily so depending on the number of factors
including sufficient coverage of energy demand by RE sources, existence of other uses of forest products and
expansion of agricultural lands into forests, public awareness of negative impacts of deforestation and others.
STAP suggests exploring driving factors of forest use in Suriname Hinterlands and develop specific
interventions including monitoring that would promote reduced use of forest products as fuel and justify the
assumption that promotion of RE sources does indeed reduce pressure on forests.
R5: Please note that on-grid RETs and EETs do not claim any relation with reducing fuelwood and forest
conservation. With respect to rural electrification, about 50% of all villages in the country (roughly 100 out of
200) already have some system for electricity supply in place. Most of these systems were installed under the
Dutch development programme (1.6 billion euro after Surinames independence in 1975) and included diesel
generators, PV-systems and one hydro plant (40 kW at Puketie). These RE systems proved unsuccessful for
this reason, the IDB/MIF initiative is designed to test a sustainable operation and business modality. Diesel
systems are often over-rated and diesel supply by the Government is costly and intermittent. Most villages
have electricity during the evening hours, sometimes during only 6 months per year. Notwithstanding, many
villages have a (deficient) electricity distribution grid in place. Energy use is not only for individual
dwellings, but also for community services, including local schools and medical posts, and to pump clean
drinking water. All end uses are negatively affected by the poor quality of the supplied electricity service, if
any. Besides diesel fuel for electricity, also other fuels are supplied, which can be used for transport (boat
engines operated on gasoline) and for heating (cooking). When no modern energy sources are available,
villagers go for fuelwood and drinking water to satisfy their basic needs. At PIF stage, the impact of fuelwood
collection on deforestation was not quantified but seemed important. However, the use of fuelwood is
estimated at less than 100 tons of fuelwood (for the whole Hinterlands), which makes this argument
irrelevant.

Q6. Socio-economic benefits: Most of the demonstration RETs and EETs selected largely focus on power
generation and application for lighting. The PIF also talks about application of RETs and EETs for
commercial and industrial sectors, but most of the interventions are focused on lighting application. During
project preparation, STAP recommends addressing both, access to more reliable and more affordable energy
for rural areas and for commercial and industrial sector applications. The cost of RE electricity or the EE
lighting systems may be high for the rural poor and hence, the project should aim at the provision of
incentives for the poor. Furthermore, support for different RE technologies in Hinterlands would demand
establishing appropriate technical, engineering and monitoring capacities that are almost certain absent in
this area. How project will address this lack of capacity?
R6: Please refer to R.5 for a brief outline of the rural development initiatives. Technical capacity and O&M
issues will be addressed by the IDB/MIF initiative, which is specifically targeted at the design of a sustainable
business and operational model. The division of technical and financial responsibilities between the rural
communities and the Government (DEV) must be clarified at a higher policy level. In the baseline situation,
local people do not pay but receive inadequate service; while DEV runs into very high operational costs.
There is a general consensus in Suriname that local people must contribute to the costs of the service, but as
yet there is no methodology in place to determine how costs can be shared. This methodology will be
developed under the SISES. Meanwhile, RETs are a direct option to reduce the financial burden for the
Government related to diesel supply, either fully (hydropower, PV) or as a fuel saver (PV combined with
existing diesel). Technical capacity will always be limited in Suriname given the small population. However,
FOB and other local organizations have a long track record working with the Amerindian and Maroon
villages in the interior. These experiences will feed into the IDB/MIF initiative, which is supportive to the
GEF Programme.
29

Q7. Climate change risks: According to the National Communications of Suriname, the climate risks are
high, particularly the risks of flooding and inundation of low lying coastal zones. STAP complements
Suriname for recognizing the potential climate change risks to renewable energy sources and for proposing
an assessment of climate change risks. Climate change could impact water flow for hydro-electric projects,
wind patterns, bio-fuel production and destruction of energy installations such as wind or micro-hydro
systems, especially in coastal areas and low lying areas. Thus, STAP suggests exploring World Bank Climate
Change Knowledge Portal, the emerging National Communication Reports and the World Bank's report on,
"Climate Change Impacts on Energy Sector" by Ebinger and Vergara (2010). This World Bank report states
"Energy services and resources will be increasingly affected by climate change - Changing trends, increasing
variability, greater extremes, and large inter-annual variations in climate parameters. The report provides
approaches and methods to assess impacts and options to address the climate risks in energy sector.
R7: We fully agree on the relevance of adaptation to climate change for Suriname. The WB CC Knowledge
Portal was visited to ensure the use of proper measures during the design of the envisaged investments
(particularly in small hydro and wind energy systems). We also look forward to the Second National
Communication of Suriname, which is currently being finalized.

30

ANNEX C: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT USING GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF
RESOURCES

Position Titles
$/
Person Week*
Estimated
Person Weeks**

Tasks To Be Performed
For Project Management
Local
Project Manager 450 312 (total GEF $140,400) conform ToR Project
Manager
Administrator (3 day/wk) 317 188 (total GEF $59,600) conform ToR Project
Administrator

International

Justification for travel, if any:

For Technical Assistance
Local

International

Justification for travel, if any:

* Provide dollar rate per person week. ** Total person weeks needed to carry out the tasks.

31

ANNEX D: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS
A. EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN.

B. DESCRIBE FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION, IF ANY:

C. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION STATUS IN THE
TABLE BELOW:

Project Preparation
Activities Approved

Implementation
Status
GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Amount ($)
Cofinancing
($)
Amount
Approved
Amount
Spent
Todate
Amount
Committed
Uncommitted
Amount*
(Select)
(Select)
(Select)
(Select)
(Select)
(Select)
(Select)
(Select)
Total 0 0 0 0 0
* Any uncommitted amounts should be returned to the GEF Trust Fund. This is not a physical transfer of money, but achieved through
reporting and netting out from disbursement request to Trustee. Please indicate expected date of refund transaction to Trustee.

32

ANNEX E: CALENDAR OF EXPECTED REFLOWS (if non-grant instrument is used)

Provide a calendar of expected reflows to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Trust Fund or to your Agency (and/or revolving
fund that will be set up)

CONFIDENTIAL
INTERNAL USE
DISCLOSED OVER TIME

DOCUMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

SURINAME

DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ELECTRIFICATION
OF SURINAME

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY (GEF) INVESTMENT GRANT

(SU-G1001)

PROPOSAL FOR OPERATION DEVELOPMENT

This document was prepared by the project team consisting of: Jesus A. Tejeda Ricardez
(ENE/CEC), Team Leader; Christiaan Gischler (INE/ENE), Alternate Team Leader;
other members Alejandro Melandri (INE/ENE); Emiliano Detta (INE/ENE); Rinia
Terborg (FMP/CSU); Lourdes Snchez (FMP/CSU); Roy Parahoo (FMP/CSU); Steven
Hofwijks (CCB/CSU); Mnica Lugo (LEG/SGO); Celia Bedoya del Olmo (MIF/ABS);
and David Bloomgarden (MIF/ABS) under the supervision of Leandro Alves, Energy
Division Chief (INE/ENE), and Marco Nicola, Representative in Suriname (CCB/CSU).

This document contains confidential information relating to one or more of the ten exceptions of
the Access to Information Policy and will be initially treated as confidential. However, the
document will be eligible for declassification and future disclosure.
- ii -

.
Content

I. DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS MONITORING .................................................................... 2
A. Background, Problem Addressed, Justification................................................. 2
B. Objective, Components and Cost ...................................................................... 7
C. Key Results Indicators ....................................................................................... 9
II. FINANCING STRUCTURE AND MAIN RISKS .................................................................. 10
A. Financing Instruments ..................................................................................... 10
B. Enviromental and Social Safeguard Risks ...................................................... 11
C. Fiduciary Risk ................................................................................................. 11
D. Other Key Issues and Risks ............................................................................. 11
III. IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................. 12
A. Summary Implementation Arrangements........................................................ 12
B. Summary of Arrangements for Monitoring Results ........................................ 14

- ii -

Annexes
ANNEX I: Development Effectiveness Matrix Summary
ANNEX II: Results Matrix
ANNEX III: Fiduciary Arrangements
ANNEX IV: Safeguard and Screening Forms

Electronic Links
REQUIRED
1. DEM questionnaire
http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getDocument.aspx?DOCNUM=37026894
2. POA
3. Monitoring & Evaluation Arrangements
4. Procurement Plan
OPTIONAL
1. Risk Assessment
2. Risk Assessment Matrix
3. GEF Full Size Document
4. Economic Analysis
5. Technical Docs (GHG emissions)
6. GEF Logical Framework Document

- iii -

Abbreviations
ADEK Anton de Kom University
ATM Ministry of Labour, Technology and Environment
CS Country Strategy
DEV Dienst Elektrificatie Voorziening (Rural Electrification Agency)
EA Executing Agency
EAC Energy Advisory Committee
EBS Energiebedrijven Suriname (National Electricity Company)
EE Energy Efficiency
EET Energy Efficiency Technology
ENIC Electricity Nieuw Nickerie
EPAR Electricity Supply Paramaribo and Surroundings
ESMR Environmental and Social Management Report
ESS Environmental and Social Strategy
FOB
Fonds Ontwikkeling Binnenland (Fund for the Development of the
Interior)
GEF Global Environment Facility
GOS Government of Suriname
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IPP Independent Power Producer
km
2
square kilometres
kV kilovolts
kW Kilowatt
kWh kilowatt hour
l Litres
MIF Multilateral Investment Fund
MNH Ministry of Natural Resources
MRD Ministry of Regional Development
MW Megawatts
MWh Megawatt hour
NPV Net Present Value
O&M Operation & Maintenance
PM Project Manager
POD Proposal for Operation Development
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
PSC Programme Steering Committee

- iv -

PV Photovoltaic
RE Renewable Energy
RET Renewable Energy Technology
SISES
Support to the Institutional and Operational Strengthening of the Energy
Sector.
SSF Safeguard and Screening Form for Screening and Classification of Projects
TC Technical Cooperation
UDR Unit of Disbursement Responsibility

PROGRAMME SUMMARY
SURINAME
DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ELECTRIFICATION OF SURINAME
GEF INVESTMENT GRANT
(SU-G1001)
Financial Terms and Conditions
Beneficiary: Republic of Suriname
Executing Agency: Ministry of Natural Resources (MNH)
Disbursement Period: 72 months
Execution Period: 66 months
Currency: US$
Source of Financing AMOUNT (US$)
IDB (Investment Grant from the Global Environmental
Facility - GEF)
$4,400,000
Local Counterpart (in kind) $3,300,000
Additional Financing (MIF)
1
$1,700,000
TOTAL $9,400,000
Programme at a Glance
Programme Objective/Description: The general objective is to promote the use of renewable energy (RE)
and energy efficiency (EE) technologies in the urban and rural areas and increase access to energy in the
interior of the country with the intention of reducing the sectors emission of greenhouse gases. The specific
objectives are to incorporate in the power sector framework and institutions the use of RE and EE
technologies, to reduce the long-term operational costs of on-grid and off-grid electricity service, and
implement sustainable business models for its operation and maintenance.
Special conditions precedent to the first disbursement: The Executive Agency must provide evidence to
the satisfaction of the Bank of the fulfilment of the following conditions: (a) the staff that will comprise the
Project Execution Unit has been appointed, including: (i) a project manager; (ii) a procurement specialist;
(iii) a financial specialist; (iv) an electrical engineer; and (v) a social-environmental specialist (3.4); and (b)
a Programme Operating Manual has been approved, in the terms agreed with the Bank.

Exceptions to Bank policies: None
Programme qualifies for: SEQ[ ] PTI [ ] Sector [X] Geographic[ ] Headcount [ ]
Procurement: The procurement of works, goods and services, will be carried out by the Executing Agency
in accordance with Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Policies for the Selection and Contracting of
Consultants (GN-2350-9) and Policies for the procurement of works and goods (GN-2349-9); and the
respective procurement plan.

1
Multilateral Investment Fund technical cooperation -ATN/ME-13406-SU.
-2-

I. DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS MONITORING
A. General Context, Problem Addressed, Justification
1.1 General Context. With an area of 163,820 square kilometres (km
2
) and a population of
approximately 492,000, Suriname is the smallest and the youngest sovereign country in
South America, achieving independence in 1975. Suriname sits on the northern shoulder
of South America, facing the Atlantic Ocean between Guyana to the west, French
Guyana to the east, and Brazil to the south. It shares 1,707 kilometers of border with
these three countries and has a coastline of 386 kilometers. The capital Paramaribo is
situated along the river Paramaribo in the coastal plains along the Atlantic coast.
1.2 Being a former Dutch colony, it is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the
world hosting Amerindian tribes, descendants of Africans that arrived into Suriname in
the 17
th
and 18
th
centuries, descendants from ex-plantation workers from Europe, Middle
East, India, Java and China who arrived in the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries, and others.
Approximately 90% of the population lives in the coastal area. The interior of Suriname
(the Hinterland) and the Amazonic Jungle are sparsely inhabited, predominantly by
Amerindians and the Maroons. They constitute the largest community in the Hinterland,
representing approximately 15% of the population.
1.3 More than half of the population is concentrated in Surinames capital, Paramaribo.
There are estimated 217 villages in the interior, of which many can only be reached by
boat or plane. The road infrastructure southward is limited and has been developed to
serve the mining industry.
1.4 As mentioned in the country strategy (CS), at the time of its Independence from the
Netherlands in 1975, the Republic of Suriname inherited a large endowment of natural
resources and a development aid grant (Dutch Development Fund) of about $1.6 billion
euros for maximizing strategically its mineral deposits and stimulating economic
diversification. Thirty five years after independence, export earnings are even more
concentrated on mining; agricultural productivity and output has fallen; the public sector
remains large, employing 60% of the active work-force, and the overall governance and
most specific sectoral frameworks are outdated. In 2005, the real GDP per capita was at
the same level of 1975, after declining during the 1980 and 1990. However, in spite of
the international economic downturn that started in 2008, Suriname has maintained a
continued growth rate at an average of 4.4 percent
2
. This was due mainly to the optimal
exploitation of its mineral deposits.
1.5 More than 50 percent of economic activity is directly or indirectly tied to the extractive
industry (oil, bauxite, and gold). Recent growth in the service sector is also linked to
mining and oil. Since 2000, GDP growth has been fuelled by investment growth,
however, the overall efficiency and productivity of the economy has been declining.
Efficiency is affected by the governance framework, which is not current and needs to be
strengthened across several sectors including energy.
1.6 The Government of Suriname (GOS) has made explicit its goal of adjusting to the
expiration of high aid flows from The Netherlands (once reaching a peak of about 20

2
The average growth rate for LAC between 2008 and 2010 was 3.4 percent.
-3-

percent of the public sector budget). Suriname now has to rely on its own revenue
collection, borrowing from the market, and financial support from development partners.
1.7 Electricity sector. The electricity sector in Suriname consists of individual systems. The
surroundings of Paramaribo are interconnected by the Electricity Supply Paramaribo and
Surroundings (EPAR) grid. The smaller Electricity Nieuw-Nickerie (ENIC) system exists
in the west of the country near Nieuw-Nickerie. With a peak demand of 130-MegaWatts
(MW) and an annual electricity consumption of 730,000-MegaWatt hour (MWh), the
EPAR system is by far the largest system in the country. Private mining companies rank
second and third (Suralco 429,000-MWh at Paranam; and IAMGOLD (118,000-MWh in
the Rosebel area). The ENIC grid accounts for 47,000-MWh. The smaller towns (Albina,
Moengo, Boskamp, Coronie, Wageningen, and Apoera) are supplied by local diesel
plants, producing approximately 22,000-MWh annually. About 388,000 people (79% of
the total population) in Suriname receive electricity from the grid
3
.
1.8 Additional loads are expected in the EPAR zone in 2013, associated with the Rosebel
gold mine (10-20 MW) in 2013; this is one of the main couses of uncertainty in the short
term with electricity demand growth in Suriname. According to a recent study
4
, this load
could amount to 47-MW in 2015, which will oblige the national power company
Energiebedrijven Suriname (EBS) to strengthen its generation capacity before 2015.
Other discrete load additions include the Newmont gold mine and a refinery in eastern
Suriname, which could reach 25-MW, additional residential load (10,000 units adding
10-MW to the load); and the Staatsolie refinery expansion requiring 12-MW.
1.9 Suralcos Afobaka hydropower plant, with an installed capacity of 189-MW, is the
backbone of Surinames electricity supply. The electricity is transported via a 161-
kiloVolt (kV) transmission line to Paranam
5
, where Suralcos aluminium smelter is
located. Suralco also owns a 78-MW thermal power plant at Paranam. EBS buys
electricity from Afobaka under an agreement with Suralco. After 1999, when Suralco
closed down the aluminium smelter, EBS purchases increased substantially (from 50-
MW in 1996 to 120-MW in 2007). Afobaka hydropower enters the system as base
capacity, which is complemented by EBS thermal power plant (82-MW) in Paramaribo
6
.
1.10 The EPAR zone is currently critically dependent on the two-circuit line from Afobaka.
Under these circumstances it becomes necessary to envision further the transmission
capacity to the grid, including lines to interconnect the EPAR that are currently not
integrated. This further system integration will bring along an increase in total demand
load.
1.11 The electricity sector in Suriname is based on contractual arrangements between the State
and public and private companies. The responsibility for the sector is assigned to the
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNH). The Ministry determines and approves the

3
Figures for 2008.
4
Technical and Cost-Benefit Assessment of the Power System Expansion, Final Report, Alberto Brugman, consultant,
prepared for IDB, July 2012.
5
Please note that Afobakas long-term performance is rather poor, as the Brokopondo lake is very shallow; the effective
capacity can drop far below 100 MW. During recent years, rainfall has been abundant and EBS has been able to rely
large on hydropower. This situation is not sustainable however.
6
The EBS plant at Saramaccastraat consists of 11 internal combustion engines running on heavy fuel oil and diesel.
-4-

electricity tariffs as prepared by its Energy Advisory Committee (EAC). EBS is state-
owned and monitored through MNH.
1.12 Rural electrification. Approximately 130 villages in the interior of the country have a
diesel engine installed for electricity generation. These units are owned and operated by
DEV
7
, which depends on the MNH. About 100 of these villages are provided with diesel
fuel by DEV on a monthly basis
8
. The population in the Hinterlands served by diesel
generators with a capacity of 4,500-kiloWatts (kW) is estimated at approximately 30,000
people, with a monthly fuel demand of 150,000 litres (l). The electricity supply is
restricted to 6 hours per day and in some villages, fuel is reportedly unavailable for
longer periods
9
.
1.13 There are few examples of renewable energy technologies in Suriname, mostly financed
by the Dutch Government. The photovoltaic (PV) project in the Amerindian village
Kwamala Samutu supplied electricity to 140 people and several community services,
including a school, refrigeration units, and radio for communication. Without funding to
renew the batteries, the system stopped functioning. In Puketie, a 40-kW hydro plant was
built in 1979-1981, but went down 4 years later as a result of inadequate maintenance and
reportedly, inappropriate site selection. Presently, a mini hydro plant (700-kW) is being
constructed at Gran Holo Sula (near Puketie) which will require additional resources for
completion, and support for the design of a business model for its sustainable operation.
1.14 The Problem. The main issues affecting the electricity sector in Suriname are the
inadequate financial sustainability, the large number of people presently not served with
electricity in the Hinterlands, and the limited technical, institutional and financial
resources to deliver such service. This situation involves addressing the following areas:
(i) the legal and regulatory framework
10
; (ii) institutional capacity
11
; (iii) finance and
economic performance (1.15 and 1.19); (iv) availability of know-how of new
technological options (1.18); (v) monitoring and impact assessment of previous
initiatives; and (v) tracing of an adequate road map to promote the rational use of energy.
1.15 The villages in the Hinterlands receive electricity heavily subsidized by the Government
with an estimated costs of US$ 3.66 million a year
12
. The average cost of diesel-
generated electricity is estimated at US$ 0.63 per kWh, of which US$ 0.41 per kWh for

7
Dienst Electrificatievoorziening.
8
According to a listing by MNH (May 2012), 96 villages received a total of 724 barrels of diesel fuel in that month
(144,800 liter). The total installed generating capacity was 4,512 kW, ranging from 7 kW to 132 kW. Typical diesel
capacities are 30 - 60kW per village. KEMA (see footnote Error! Bookmark not defined.) identified a total of 110
villages served in 2008, with a fuel demand of 150,552 liter and 4,221 kW capacities. These figures coincide fairly
well. KEMA counted a population of 21,465 people over 53 villages; data for the remaining 47 villages were lacking.
The combined lists give a total of 133 villages and some villages are no longer served, possibly because they have been
connected to the grid or because people have moved.
9
Precise figures are difficult to give. Assuming a typical 30% conversion efficiency (yielding 3.22 kWh electricity per
liter of diesel), total fuel supply would allow for 2,150 running hours per year at 60% of the nominal capacity
(equivalent to nearly 6 hours per day). This is in line with the calculations by KEMA (2008). Demographic effects
(caused by seasonal migration and gold mining activities) will have a great effect on the actual service provided.
10
The sector works solely with bilateral contractual arrangements. An electricity law is needed to regulate contracts and
interactions between sector stakeholders. There are no provisions for the promotion of RETs.
11
The sector institutions have little resources to address the electricity sector. There is no Electricity Authority or
regulating body.
12
Suriname Power Sector Assessment and Alternatives for its Modernization, prepared by KEMA Consulting for MNH
and financed by IDB (ATN/SF-9038-SU), December 2008.
-5-

diesel fuel
13
. Specific data on the energy consumption and the system configuration per
village are needed however, to calculate the generating costs for each individual case. For
remote locations with over-rated diesel systems, the costs may be above US$ 1.0/kWh.
The non-served population in the Hinterlands is around 75,000 people. The overall
electrification rate in Suriname is estimated at 85%.
1.16 RETs are expected to play a key role in developing Surinames power sector, especially
in the sparsely populated Hinterlands. RETs are still in an early stage of implementation
in Suriname. Consequently, there is ample room to expand the in-country knowledge on
system design, resource assessment, project risks and Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
aspects. The Anton de Kom University (ADEK) has identified potential sites for small
hydropower plants in the Hinterlands and the coastal region; detailed hydrological
measurements require additional support however
14
. Wind measurements have been
limited to low heights. While the wind regime is apparently insufficient in the interior,
on-grid wind power may be feasible in the coastal area
15
.
1.17 The Fund for the Development of the Interior (FOB
16
) has played an important role in
extending the electricity service in the Hinterlands, but largely relies on University staff
for project design and development. EBS and MNH have few experience with RETs and
need support to implement non-diesel options for rural electrification.
1.18 Electrification projects using conventional energy are too costly to be assumed by local
communities. Agencies including DEV and FOB are involved in electrification projects
but the operation and maintenance of existing diesel generators drain their financial
resources, which limits their abilities to extend energy coverage. The assets (generators
and isolated grids) are held by the Government of Suriname (GOS) but there is no policy
towards asset management, return on investments, and replacement. The present
management and operation model does not require recovery of operating costs; by
consequence, there is no incentive in the communities to make efficient use of the
supplied electricity.
1.19 Programme Justification. Support to the Institutional and Operational
Strengthening of the Energy Sector. SU-L1022 (SISES). The Government of Suriname
has acknowledged the need to strengthen the electricity sector. A national Strategy is
being devised with support from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to design
and establish a sustainable energy framework for Suriname. The objective of this
framework is to recover the sector, anticipate on future demand growth, and shape the
conditions for its sustainability in economic, financial, and environmental terms. The
design of the SISES draws on the findings of the KEMA report (2008)
17
and the earlier
Master plan (2000) where Suriname power sector is assessed and issues and problems
identified.The Kema report analyses: (i) the different power systems; (ii) the Master Plan

13
14
Please note that the hydrological stations network and historical data became largely destroyed during the 1980s.
15
KEMA (2008) has recommended performing detailed measurements of the wind energy potential in the country.
16
The FOB (Fonds Ontwikkeling Binnenland) is accountable to the Ministry of Regional Development. FOB was
established to implement infrastructural development projects, including rural electrification, under the Dutch Treaty
Funds.
17
-6-

2000, projected plans and actual outcomes; (iii) power expansion; (iv) the issue of rural
electrification and power supply to the interior; (v) demand forecast until 2023; (vi)
planning strategies in the power sector; and (vii) the regulatory and institutional
framework.
1.20 The SISES will assist the Government of Suriname and EBS to implement adequate
regulations and management practices to: (i) reduce production costs from US$ 0.20/kWh
to US$ 0.11/kWh; (ii) address financial sustainability issues with the review of the tariff
structure; (iii) address the issue of investments in new generation capacity through the
establishment of contract models for the purchase of electricity, and (iv) reflect adequate
financial indicators, including the Cash Recovery Index and the Free Cash Flow. The
SISES is prepared as a Programmatic Policy Based Loan (PBP) . This first programmatic
is expected to be approved during the last quarter 2012. The approval and implementation
of the SISES will contribute with Governments effort to strengthen the electricity sector.
1.21 The Programme (SU-G1001) has been designed as a complementary intervention and
part of a wider sector approach aimed at achieving the Bank strategic objective to create a
financially sustainable energy sector that facilitates the adequate supply of energy and
improves access to electricity. This broader sector approach involves other Bank
operations under preparation, which are included in the Programme as associated
financing. The Programme specifically contributes to the general objective of SISES, and
targets the sustainability issue in the electrification of the Hinterlands. The Programme
will address the barriers that inhibit the deployment of RETs in the coastal zone and will
propose the development of sustainable business models for energy systems supplying
the Hinterlands. The Programme will contribute to reduce MNHs operating costs,
improve quality of the service, and increase the number of people reached
18
. The
contribution in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) will be part of the
benefits of the implementation of this Programme.
1.22 RETs are competitive to thermal power plants at the present generating costs in the
coastal zone (estimated at US$ 0.20 per kWh) and could contribute to a more diverse
energy mix using domestic energy resources. The estimated levelised cost of on-grid
wind energy is comparable to EBS average generating costs
19
. No specific information is
available on EBS marginal costs but these could be significantly higher (possibly near
US$ 1.0 per kWh
20
). The average solar radiation is of 4.48 kWh/m
2
/day, which creates
excellent conditions for the installation of solar (PV) panels for power generation.
1.23 The Programme is expected to contribute to reducing the cost of generation in interior
locations in communities presently supplied with diesel generators and by bringing
electricity to isolated communities, thereby increasing the countrys energy coverage
index. At the present cost of generation, US$0.63/kWh in Hinterland, the Programme
pursues the implementation of photovoltaic (PV)
21
, hybrid (diesel-PV)
22
and small

18
Details and targets of the Programme are provided in Annex II.
19
US$ 22.4ct per kWh at a depreciation rate of 12%. At more favourable financing conditions, levelised costs are
expectedly 15ct.
20
Marginal costs in countries with a mixed hydro-heavy fuel oil system (for example Uruguay) rise above US$ 1.0 per
kWh. Renewable energy entering as base load would postpone the dispatch of inefficient thermal units.
21
In the case of PV its use for rural electrification has been proven in many countries around the World including Latin
American countries such as Mexico, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. This has been confirmed in a study by the National
-7-

hydropower plants
23
for electricity supply technologies which have proven their
effectiveness for providing in similar cases. This intervention is expected to contribute to
improving the sustainability and quality of the electricity service in Suriname.
1.24 Alignment with IDBs country strategy 2011-2015. The Programme is aligned with
IDBs Country Strategy (CS) 2011-2015 where energy is one of the main pillars as it
promotes the use of RETs to increase energy coverage and the development of business
models to address sustainability issues in the electrification of Hinterland. The strategy
also considers the use of EETs and non-conventional RETs to promote the rational use of
energy and smooth the transition to an adequate cost of generation in Suriname.
1.25 Ninth General Capital Increase (GCI-9). The Programme is aligned with the IDBs
Framework of a New Institutional Strategy under its sector priorities and preferential
support to less developed LAC countries. It will provide investment grants to Suriname,
one of the 19 countries considered small and vulnerable under GCI-9 while contributing
with the implementation of a sustainable energy framework.
B. Objective, Components and Cost
1.26 Operations goal and purpose. The general objective is to promote the use of renewable
energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) technologies in the urban and rural areas and
increase access to energy in the interior of the country with additional benefits of
reducing the sectors emission of greenhouse gases. The specific objectives are to
incorporate in the power sector framework and institutions the use of RE and EE
technologies, to reduce the long-term operational costs of on-grid and off-grid electricity
service, and implement sustainable business models for its operation and maintenance.
1.27 Components. The main components of this operation are: i) Strengthening of regulatory
and institutional framework to implement RE and EE technologies; ii) Implementation of
pilots for interconnected and isolated grids using RETs; iii) Strengthening of institutional
arrangements, business models and stakeholder skills for the sustainable operation of RE
and promotion of EE technologies in Suriname.
1.28 Component I. Strengthening of regulatory and institutional framework to
implement RE and EE technologies. The specific objective of this component is to
devise a national strategy and to design an enabling legal and regulatory framework for
the introduction of RE and the promotion of EE technologies in Suriname. The strategy
will be part of the national action plan to design a modern energy institutional and
regulatory framework for Suriname, currently in preparation by the GOS. The strategy
will promote the introduction of RETs to deliver electricity to the interconnected areas in
the coastal plain under public and self-supply business modalities. The strategy will
further set goals for the electrification of the hinterlands using RE technologies and
encourage the development of sustainable business models and O&M modalities.

Renewable Energy Laboratory named Solar-Based Rural Electrification and Microenterprise Development in Latin
America: A Gender Analysis.
22
In a study carried out for Amazon in the Energy Policy Journal stated that PV systems with energy storage connected
to existing diesel generators, allowing them to be turned off during the day, provide the lowest energy costs.
23
Small hydro has proven to be a low cost solution for rural electrification as long as operators are trained and there is a
proper management scheme by the communities electrified. For more details see the study The Welfare Impact of
Rural electrification developed by the World Bank.
-8-

1.29 The strategy will identify and provide a set of proposals to amend the existing regulation
in this area and will include: the promotion of private investment in RE and EE
technologies; the development of grid code and quality requirements; a tariff system for
RE-based electricity delivered to the grid; incentives for the implementation of EE and
RE technologies; and incentives to promote rural electrification of the hinterlands.
1.30 This component will also address informational voids, specifically concerning the wind
resource potential in the coastal plain, the hydropower potential of specific small projects
in the hinterlands, and the updating of socio-economic information and energy demand
for the villages in the hinterlands. This component of the Programme will finance: (i) the
purchase and installation of wind measuring equipment; (ii) data acquisition equipment
including data monitoring, (iii) operation and maintenance during a full season; (iv)
extended measurements at selected towers; and (vi) Wind Map compilation. Funding will
also be provided to install a limited number of hydrological measuring stations at
strategic locations for small- and mini-hydropower development.
1.31 Component II. Implementation of pilots for on-grid and rural electricity supply
using RETs. This component will give support to demonstrate the technical and
operational sustainability of selected RE technologies for on-grid applications in the
coastal plain, and for rural electrification in the Hinterlands. To this purpose, this
component will prepare, complete and monitor selected RET pilots, including solar-PV,
and small river hydro power plants.
1.32 This Programme component will enable demonstrating the feasibility and social,
economic and environmental benefits of the identified RE technologies by providing
technical assistance during the Programme development and design phase of the pilots,
by preparing and implementing business models for ownership, operation and
maintenance, and by providing parallel investments in generation capacity. The direct
social and economic benefits will be a reduction in operating costs for the GOS,
specifically EBS and the MNH; as well as improved access to electricity services by the
population in the hinterlands, in terms of quality of the service and numbers of
households served. Once the pilots have become operational, policy development and
capacity building must ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the installed
systems.
1.33 Preparatory activities include detailed feasibility studies and technical designs for the RE
demonstration pilots that have passed the selection process. This process involves
completion of prefeasibility or feasibility studies, consultations with user groups, as well
as criteria to judge socio-economic impact, cost-effectiveness, risks, visibility, and
replication potential. The implementation modality for the on-grid demonstration pilots
will be defined during the Programme and can be public, private, or mixed-finance. At
least a total of 1.5 MW of small hydropower and 1,291 kW of solar-PV capacity are
expected to be in place at the end of the Programme.
1.34 At Programmes termination, it is expected investors and EBS will show increased
interest in RE and EE in Suriname. Together with an improved policy framework and
increased end-user awareness, this will open a market for such technologies in the
medium-term future. This market potential is estimated of the order of 50 MW, to be
developed in a 10-year time period.
-9-

1.35 Component III. Strengthening of business models and stakeholder skills to
implement RE/EE technologies in Suriname. The specific objective of this Component
is to prepare and test sustainable business models for the envisaged demonstration pilots
and their subsequent replication, to strengthen the human and institutional capacities of
involved government entities and to draw the attention of investors on the opportunities
offered by RE and EE technologies in Surinames energy sector. More information on the
implications of energy consumption by society and on the benefits of RE and EE
technologies is still needed in Suriname to foster their acceptance. As such, this
Component fits into a broader communication effort initiated by the Government of
Suriname.
1.36 Financial resources for developing and demonstrating the business and operational
models for rural electrification will be provided under the Multilateral Investment Fund
technical cooperation in execution ATN/ME-13406-SU. These business models will be
supported by high-level policy development as addressed under the SISES and
Component I of the Programme, specifically to enable community participation in
operational aspects of the power systems. The identification and acceptance of the
business models is critical to overcome the present financial constraints and attract
investment capital for future replication.
C. Key Results Indicators
1.37 A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system will continuously assess and refine
the operations impact. The proposed indicators and means of verification enable MNH
to efficiently track the performance of the operation during its execution and its progress
towards attaining the pursued outcomes and outputs as defined in the Results Matrix and
included in the Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (see Annexes and Electronic
Links).
1.38 The expected outcomes of the Programme would be: (i) increase the population with
access to electricity; (ii) foster additional investment in EE and RE leveraged by the
Programme; (iii) incorporation of policies to foster RE and EE in the regulatory and
institutional framework of Suriname; (iv) reducing rural and grid operational costs; (v)
increase the number of end-user supplied with sustainable electricity service from RETs;
and (vi) technical, social and financial sustainability of RETs demonstrated for on grid
and rural electrification projects.
1.39 The key outputs of the Programme would include: (a) the implementation of a portfolio
of PV electrification projects in rural communities in the Hinterlands; (b) the
implementation of small hydropower systems for rural electrification; and (c) the
implementation of selected on-grid RE demonstration pilots.
1.40 The direct progress of the operation will be monitored according to the output indicators
defined in the Results Matrix and described in the Monitoring and Evaluation plan.
Impact indicators concerning greenhouse gas emission reductions and market
transformation progress are chosen in line with the GEF-5 Strategy Document for
Climate Change Mitigation, Strategic Priorities 2 (EE) and 3 (RE). Market development
is measured by evaluating specific actions in the field of energy policy and by tracking
private investments leveraged by the operation.
-10-

II. FINANCING STRUCTURE AND MAIN RISKS
D. Financing Instruments
2.1 The total cost of the Programme is estimated to be the equivalent of US$9,400,000. The
IDB/GEF investment grant will be US$4.4 million. Governments direct contribution to
the Programme will be US$3.3 million in kind, which has been formally committed
24
.
Financing in the amount of US$1,700,000 is provided to the Programme through the
technical cooperation ATN/ME-13406-SU financed by the MIF. In addition, given that
this Programme is part of a broader Bank sector approach and its execution represents a
directed contribution to the energy sector in Suriname; additional resources for the
amount of $16,100,000 are recognized as Associated Financing
25
to this Programme. The
sources of such Associated Financing are as follows: SU-L1009 (US$15,000,000
26
), SU-
T1055 (US$700,000), and IDB-SU-T1042 (US$400,000). Table 1 shows the distribution
of the cost of the Programme over the three components.
Table 1. Total cost the Programme
Component
Total Financing (USD$)
IDB/GEF Local
Counterpart
Additional Financing
ATN/ME-13406-SU
TOTAL
Component I Strengthening
of regulatory and institutional
framework to implement RE
and EE technologies
$300,000 $1,900,000 $100,000 $2,300,000
Component II -
Demonstration of RE
technologies
$3,900,000 $500,000 $600,000 $5,000,000
Component III -
Strengthening of institutional
arrangements, business
models and stakeholder skills
0 $200,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000
Components Sub-total
$4,200,000 $2,600,000 $1,000,000 $7,800,000
Administration, monitoring,
auditing Sub-total
$200,000 $700,000 0.0 $900,000
TOTAL
$4,400,400 $3,300,000 $1,700,000 9,700,000

2.2 Execution period and disbursement schedule. The Unit of Disbursement
Responsibility (UDR) will be the Country Office of Suriname. The execution period will
be 66 months and the disbursement period will be 72 months from the date of signature

24
GEF policies request confirmation of Governments additional contribution to the Programme through a signed co
financing letter.
Associated financing or co-financing, is recognized by the GEF as resources from the execution of other operations,
contributing to the objective of the Programme during its timeframe of execution
26
SU-L1009 is a US$20 million Investment Loan of which US$15.0 million is recognized as associated financing to
contribute with the objectives of the Programme.
-11-

of the Investment Grant Contract between the Bank and the Beneficiary. Table 2 provides
more details regarding the disbursements of the investment grant.
Table 2 Disbursement Schedule of the Investment grant
27

Period Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Amount (US$) 220,000 440,000 1,100,000 1,320,000 1,100,000 220,000
Percentage of total budget 5% 10% 25% 30% 25% 5%
E. Enviromental and Social Safeguard Risks
2.3 The Programme is category C and is not expected to generate negative socio-
environmental impact. Positive socio-economic impacts are expected to benefit the
consumers in the hinterlands of Suriname through the expanded and more reliable
provision of electricity. The reduction of electricity operational costs contributes to the
financial performance of the national electricity company EBS and is supportive to the
establishment of the sustainable energy framework. The investment in renewable energy
sources contributes to diversifying the national energy matrix offering potentially
attractive investment opportunities. The increased use of low-carbon energy sources to
offset fossil fuels contributes to mitigating global emissions of greenhouse gases.
F. Fiduciary Risk
2.4 The IDBs fiduciary obligation to ensure the appropriate, efficient use of the funds is
fulfilled in this Programme by means of compliance with IDB financial and procurement
policies and procedures. The corresponding annex establishes the provisions applicable to
the execution of all Programme procurements, as well as financial management according
to Banks procedures.
2.5 In order to maintain control and consistency in the procurement activities, the vacancy of
Procurement Officer in the Executing Unit has to be filled. See annex III Fiduciary
Requirements and Agreements.
G. Other Key Issues and Risks
2.6 Institutional viability. The entities participating in Programme preparation and
implementation are committed to the objectives of the Programme. Primary responsibility
for the execution of the Programme will rest with the MNH as the Executing Agency of
the Programme. Inter-ministerial coordination will be arranged for by a Steering
Committee (par. 3.2).
2.7 Stakeholder engagement. High-level stakeholders, including MNH, Joint Desk,
Ministry of Labour, Technological Development & Environment (ATM), and MRD have
been involved throughout the preparation of the Programme. Public sector companies
EBS and Staatsolie have been kept informed during the process and their visions on
RETs and EETs have been integrated into the Programme design. Rural communities,
which are direct beneficiaries in the Programme, have been involved in the framework of
the Technical Cooperation ATN/ME-13406-SU, which will run parallel to the

27
Table 2 shows only disbursement schedule of IDB-GEF grants, equivalent to US$4.4 million. See section
III for Implementation and Management arrangement for the execution of the resources of the Programme.
-12-

Programme and with main focus on the design, implementation and acceptance of
business models for rural electrification in the Hinterlands.
2.8 Proper communication and engagement of local communities is identified as Programme
risk, as local acceptance is one of the prerequisites for long-term sustainability. The risk
is mitigated with the participation of Governments institution in the early stage of
preparation of the Programme and by using the existing official structure of
communication with communities in the Hinterlands.
2.9 Economic viability. A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was carried out for this Programme,
specifically Component II. Some of the benefits of the Programme derived from the
installation of RETs, include cost savings for the Government related to the current
operating costs of power plants in rural areas. It is expected that through Component II,
the Programme will achieve in 25 years an overall Expected Rate of Return (ERR) of
24.4% with a Net Present Value (NPV) of US$15,844,433 using a discount rate of 12%.
Several sensitivity analyses were carried out all of them yielding a positive ERR.
2.10 Other risks. Public Management and Governance. The risk that political commitment
for the implementation of RE and the promotion of EE would be withdrawn, or priorities
would be changed, has been classified as medium. The present Programme, and the
SISES, is firmly embedded in Surinames Multipurpose Development Plan. This risk will
be controlled by monitoring the implementation of recommendations and the
achievement of sector agreements. Local technical capacity to implement the Programme
would prove insufficient, and is considered another risk in the Programme. This risk is
mitigated by preparing a detailed human resources plan at Programme inception to make
the most effective use of the limited available resources. Periodical training in fiduciary
procedures and other Banks practices for execution and monitoring of projects by the
Executing Agency will be used to further mitigate this risk.
III. IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
H. Summary Implementation Arrangements
3.1 Beneficiary and Executing Agency. The beneficiary of this Programme will be the
Republic of Suriname and the Executing Agency (EA) will be the Ministry of Natural
Resources. MNH will be responsible for the fulfilment of technical, administrative and
financial procedures related to the execution of the Programme, as well as the planning,
monitoring, supervision and evaluation thereof. To ensure coordination for the execution
of the activities under component III of the Programme, MNH will sign an agreement
with the FOB, which is the executing agency of the Technical Cooperation ATN/ME-
13406-SU.
3.2 Executing structure. A the strategic level, the Government will establish a Programme
Steering Committee (PSC) to provide high-level guidance and orientation concerning
Programme priorities, to monitor progress of implementation according to the agreed
time schedule and to recommend on operational issues. The PSC will be composed of the
Joint Desk
28
, the Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment
(ATM), the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD), and the MNH. The PSC will meet

28
The Joint Desk is a public figure representing the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank
-13-

once each year and will be convoked by the MNH, through the Project Manager (see
Figure 1).
Figure 1 Programme Implementation Arrangements

3.3 Executing Agency. MNH is the Ministry responsible for the functioning and
development of the energy sector in Suriname. MNH is responsible for supervising the
national electricity company EBS; for evaluating and adjusting the tariff structure; and
for stimulating de development of renewable energy sources
29
. The Ministry aims at
increasing electricity coverage rate in the Hinterlands and has been involved throughout
the preparation and design phase of the operation at the highest level (Minister and
Permanent Secretary).
3.4 The EA will be responsible for, inter alia: (i) the technical execution of Programme
activities; (ii) selecting and contracting of consultancies, and procurement of works,
goods and related services; (iii) reviewing and approving consulting products; (iv)
registering accounting information of Programme funds; (v) managing consulting
contracts and processing payments for consulting services and procurement of goods; (vi)
reporting periodically to the GEF and the Bank on the technical and administrative
activities of the Programme; (vii) monitoring of Programme progress towards outcomes
and goals, and the identification of needs for adaptive management; and (viii) preparing
and presenting progress reports. In coordination with the EA, the activities in Component
III that are part of the Technical Cooperation ATN/ME-13406-SU
30
will be executed by
FOB. The appointment of the staff for the Project Executing Unit (PEU) at MNH
will be composed of the following dedicated consultants: (i) Project Manager; (ii)

29
See: www.naturalresources.sr.org
30
ATN/ME-13406-SU will finance activities related to energy demand in Hinterland and the design of a business model
for the sustainable electrification of interior location in Suriname.
-14-

Procurement specialist; (iii) Financial Specialist; (iv) Electrical engineer; and (v) a
Social-environmental specialist. The hiring of dedicated staff for the PEU, and the
approval of the Programme Operating Manual in the terms agreed with the Bank
are conditions precedent to the first disbursement of the grant resources.
3.5 Project Manager (PM). The Project Manager will be responsible, among others, for the
preparation of the Terms of Reference and support for the selection process of contracted
consultancies, services and procured goods; review of the products delivered by
consultancy firms, budget administration, logistics, local support and coordination among
the stakeholders. The PM will also prepare the Annual Operation Plans (AOP) to assist
the EA in the execution and supervision of the Programme. The PM will have
responsibility for the delivery of the anticipated results outlined in the AOP. The PM will
report to the PSC, and the EA. IDB will provide technical and fiduciary support through
INE/ENE and the IDB Country Office in Suriname.
3.6 Procurement. The selection and hiring of consultant/consulting firms and the
procurement of goods for the development of the activities comprised by this Programme
will be carried out in accordance with the Banks policies and procedures (GN-2349-9
Policies for the Procurement of Goods and Works financed by the Inter-American
Development Bank and GN-2350-9 Policies for the Selection and Contracting of
Consultants financed by the Inter-American Development Bank), and with the
provisions established in the agreement and the procurement plan. See electronic link for
more details on the Programme procurement plan.
I. Summary of Arrangements for Monitoring Results
3.7 Monitoring. The EA will be responsible for the monitoring process and the preparation
of quarterly and annual reports following the GEF and IDB requirements during the
Programme execution period. The result matrix will be the basic instrument for
monitoring the Programmes outputs and outcomes according to the established
indicators. A Monitoring and Evaluation Plan has been prepared to facilitate the process
and provide guidance to the EA. To the extent possible, the M&E activities for the
Programme will be aligned with those for the parallel Bank operations contributing to the
Programmes objective and outcomes. The IDB will be monitoring the Programme both
from INE/ENE and the IDB Country Office in Suriname, with ad-hoc visits to the EA
and the Project sites. The EA will also be responsible for the preparation of financial
documentation needed for the annual financial audits of Programme statements. In
addition, the EA will ensure the proper documentation of counterpart spending including
in-kind contributions.
3.8 As mentioned before, a PSC will be established to guarantee a strategic overview in the
Programme. Key stakeholders will be the members of the Committee which will meet at
least once a year. The minutes from the meetings of the SC will be included as part of the
annual progress reports. Accountability of reports preparations rests with the EA.
3.9 Evaluation. An independent consultant will prepare a mid-term and final evaluation of
the Programme to verify the adequate execution of this Programme. The mid-term and
final evaluation will be financed with resources of the Programme. The mid-term
evaluation will be done 3 years after first disbursement. The final independent evaluation
-15-

will be carried out by an independent consultant . Both evaluations will use a before and
after methodology using the indicators defined in the M&E arrangements electronic link.
Annex I SU-G1001
Page 1 of 1

I. Strategic Alignment
1. IDB Strategic Development Objectives
Lending Program
Regional Development Goals
Bank Output Contribution (as defined in Results Framework of IDB-9)
2. Country Strategy Development Objectives
Country Strategy Results Matrix IDBDOCs 36533868
Country Program Results Matrix Version February 2012
Relevance of this project to country development challenges (If not aligned to country
strategy or country program)
II. Development Outcomes - Evaluability Highly Evaluable Weight Maximum Score
9,1 10
3. Evidence-based Assessment & Solution 9,5 25% 10
4. Ex ante Economic Analysis 10,0 25% 10
5. Monitoring and Evaluation 6,9 25% 10
6. Risks & Mitigation Monitoring Matrix 10,0 25% 10
Overall risks rate = magnitude of risks*likelihood
Environmental & social risk classification
III. IDBs Role - Additionality
The project relies on the use of country systems (VPC/PDP criteria)
The project uses another country system different from the ones above for
implementing the program
The IDBs involvement promotes improvements of the intended beneficiaries and/or
public sector entity in the following dimensions:
Gender Equality
Labor
Environment Yes
Additional (to project preparation) technical assistance was provided to the public sector
entity prior to approval to increase the likelihood of success of the project
The ex-post impact evaluation of the project will produce evidence to close knowledge
gaps in the sector that were identified in the project document and/or in the evaluation
plan.
Evaluability Assessment Note: The purpose of this note is to proovide an overall assessment of the project's evaluability based on the standards described in the
Evaluability Guidelines, as well as to ensure that the Board understands why scores were or were not given to the project. The following information should be
developed in order to achieve this purpose. Assess and summarize the diagnosis and the level of empirical evidence to support it. Assess and summarize the level of
empirical evidence (or cost-effectiveness) of the solution proposed. Assess and comment on Results Matrix Quality. Asses and describe evaluation methodology ex ante and
ex post to be used by the project to demostrate its results. Describe the main type of risk the operation is subject to and its intensity. Describe whether mitigation measures
are in place and whether the can be monitored during the life of the project.
Climate Change Mitigation by reducing the consumption of
fossil fueled generation in rural and urban areas of Suriname.
Medium
C
The operation contributes to the following Bank output: percent of households with
electricity
Climate change pilot projects in agriculture, energy, health, water and sanitation, transport,
and housing
Aligned
Current country strategy 2011 - 2015 includes a strategic
objective for this sector: Increased electricity coverage and
increased financial sustainability of power supply for interior
locations.
The operation and indicators of the project are mentioned in
the CPD. Indicators: Strategy for the Instalation of Renewable
energy capacity approved and Electricity and heat produced
from Renewable sources.
Development Effectiveness Matrix
Summary
Aligned
The operation contributes to the lending program to support climate change initiatives,
sustainable practices, renewable energy and environmental sustainability.
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 1 of 7

FIDUCIARY ARRANGEMENTS
COUNTRY: SURINAME
Country : Suriname
Project : SU-G1001: DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
ELECTRIFICATION OF SURINAME
Executing Agency : Ministry of Natural Resources (MNH)
Prepared by : PFM/CSU,
Rinia Terborg-Tel, Fiduciary Financial Management Specialist;
Lourdes Sanchez-Alvarez, Fiduciary Financial Management Sr. Specialist;
Roy Parahoo, Fiduciary Procurement Lead Specialist

I. Executive Summary
1.1 For the purpose of promoting the use of renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE)
technologies in the urban and rural areas and increase access to energy in the interior of the
country the Bank will provide through IDB/GEF, an investment grant of US$4,400,000.
Governments counterpart will be in-kind with US$3,300,000.00. Parallel funding will consist of
the IDB operations SU-L1009 (US$15,000,000), SU-T1055 (US$700,000), IDB-SU-T1042
(US$400,000) and IDB/MIF SU-M1019 (US$1,700,000).

1.2 The Program Management Structure will be embedded within the Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNH) including key responsibilities of Financial Management and Procurement functions. The
current institutional setting within the Ministry has been assessed as having a high fiduciary risk,
therefore mitigation actions have been developed in order to strengthen the internal control
environment, the financial planning and budgeting, accounting and financial reporting system, the
procurement function and the institutional capacity as it relates to familiarity with IDBs fiduciary
procedures and requirements.

1.3 The main fiduciary arrangements will include formal and informal training processes to the
officers in charge of the fiduciary activities, the actualization of the procurement plan, the
deployment of an accounting system for the recording and reporting, a project Operating Manual
to be developed as well as external audit arrangements. In addition an Institutional Capacity
Assessment (ICASS) will be conducted to follow up on the strengthening actions designed to
mitigate the fiduciary risk level of the Project within the first year of project implementation.

1.4 The level of the fiduciary risk for the project is directly related with the public sector fiduciary
context in Suriname that was assessed in 2011 within line ministries. Public Expenditure and
Financial Accountability (PEFA) concluded that Public Financial Management (PFM) systems in
Suriname face structural, institutional and regulatory challenges. These challenges constitute a
limitation to the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and transparency needed for the management
of public resources, including foreign contributions. The Bank policies for procurement will apply
in accordance with the country thresholds table below (see policy references under Section V
Requirements and Agreements for Execution of Procurement.

II. Executing Agencys Fiduciary Context
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 2 of 7

2.1 The fiduciary context of the EA is documented in the PEFA review. The relevant finding indicates
that the legal framework for PFM is outdated and not consistent with best practices. The GoS has
committed to improving the PFM and procurement systems with IDB support through the
implementation of a modern legal framework and the establishment of effective mechanisms to
perform these functions. The IDB Country Strategy 20112015 addresses the GoS priorities on
streamlining (i) public investment management system; (ii) public procurement; and (iii) public
financial management and audit through a three tier PBL - Strengthening of Public Capital
Expenditure Management. The approach of the GoS points to the need of improved management
tools to more effective projects implementation and execution. This includes a procurement
system, which is competitive, effective, fair, efficient, non-obstructive, and transparent; a financial
management system, which enables effective allocation of resources; and, a comprehensive and
effective audit system, which will facilitate transparency and provide feedback regarding the
quality of decision making and efficacy of the management process.
2.2 Until these interventions have taken root, country systems relating to accounting and financial
reporting, internal control, external auditing, and procurement will not be used. In consequence,
the portfolio of the Bank in Suriname is managed through the establishment of special project
execution units set up within the line ministries and/or semi-autonomous institutions called
parastatals. This is also in accordance with the GOS objective to build sustainable capacity within
the government. The Bank provides and conducts close fiduciary support and supervision on these
institutional arrangements and it provides continuous training and advice as needed on Banks
policies and procedures.

III. Fiduciary Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Actions
3.1 The overall financial management risk rating of the EA is high in all areas. However, the
implementation of the mitigation actions indicated below can reduce the risk level to medium.
Risks Identified Risk Mitigating Measures
Formal assignment of
functions and
responsibilities for
financial management
and procurement
processes. Operations
Manual describing roles
and functions as well as
processes.

High Implementation of a proper financial management structure that
comprises:
- Financial management responsibilities that will include: a
financial officer and a procurement officer. Development of
a Project Operating Manual that will include the description
of the policies, procedures and internal control
requirements, for an adequate management of the planning,
budgeting, cash flow, accounting and reporting processes for
both local counterpart funds (TCs resources) and bank
funding (loan resources).
- Financial planning activities for the IDB funding (TC and
Loans) need to be clearly designed and implemented, to
facilitate the adequate cash flow needs for the execution of
project. This plan will serve as the basis for the Banks
disbursement projections.
- Bank fiduciary staff monitoring and supervision will include
quarterly inspection visits to ascertain the proper financial
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 3 of 7

management i.e. adequate functioning of the accounting
systems, and the adequacy of the internal controls system.

Accounting and
reporting system needs
Medium-
High
An accounting system, which will facilitate financial reporting and
budgeting under the project, according to source of funding (loan
and TCs) and categories of investments (at a minimum) should
be implemented for the project.

Lack of awareness of IDB
procurement policies
and procedures,
disbursements and
financial reporting
procedures
High Training on Banks financial management and procurement
procedures will be provided to the program management team
established for implementing the program on a continuous basis.

IV. Aspects to be considered in the Special Conditions of Contract
4.1 In order to move forward the contract negotiations by the project team, the following Fiduciary
Arrangements must be considered in the special conditions:
Special Conditions Precedent to First Disbursement includes:
(i) The hiring of dedicated personnel to the execution of the Programme within the EA. This will
include, among others: one Financial Specialist and one Procurement Officer.
(ii) The Programme should have the necessary banking flow arrangements following the last
instructions of the MoF and a listing of authorized signatures.
(iii) An accounting system, which will facilitate financial reporting and budgeting under the
project, according to source of funding and categories of investments (at a minimum)
(iv) A Project Operating Manual, including among others administrative, procurement,
financial management policies, procedures and internal control requirements,
(v) A Financial Plan detailing the first year activities to be funded by the programme and
documented in order to support Banks disbursements.

V. Requirements and Agreements for Execution of Procurement
5.1 All records and files will be maintained by the Executing Agencies, according to accepted best
practices, and be kept for up to three (3) years beyond the end of the operations execution
period. Application of procurement policies for goods, works, consulting, and non-consulting
services: For applicable procurement policies for goods, works and non-consulting services
please refer to document Policies for the procurement of Goods and Works and Non-consulting
Services Financed by the Inter-American Development Bank, GN-2349-9. Application of policies
for the selection of consulting services: For applicable procurement policies relating to the
selection of consultants, refer to document Policies for the Selection and Contracting of
Consultants Financed by the Inter-American Development Bank, GN-2350-9.
5.2 Methods and threshold amounts to be applied to works, goods, non-consulting services and
consulting services: The IDB thresholds table for Suriname will apply.
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 4 of 7

VI. Special agreements regarding procurement: None.
6.1 Use of electronic on-line systems for the publication and management of the procurement
plans: The on-line Electronic Procurement Execution System (known by its Spanish acronym as
SEPA) introduced in Suriname in 2010 will be used for the publication and updates of the
procurement plan. It is expected that the executing agency will use the SEPA Programme for
management of its procurement activities.
6.2 Use of national or other documents than the Bank standard documents for competitive bidding:
None.
6.3 Procurement Execution: Procurements for the proposed project will be carried out in
accordance with the Policies for the Procurement of Works and Goods Financed by the Inter-
American Development Bank (GN-2349-9), of March 2011; and the Policies for the Selection and
Contracting of Consultants Financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (GN-2350-9), of
March 2011, and with the provisions established in the procurement plan. In addition, on
signing of the loan contract the Project execution unit will prepare a draft General Procurement
Notice for publishing by the Bank. For all projects, the Borrower is required to prepare and
submit to the Bank a Specific Procurement Notice for the Banks no objection before the
submission of request for proposals and request for quotations.
6.4 Procurement of Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services: The procurement plan for the
Programme, covering the duration of project execution is summarized in Annex III, and indicates
the procedure to be used for the procurement of goods, the contracting of works and non-
consulting services. The review of technical specifications in all cases, during the process of
selection is the responsibility of the sector specialist of the operation.
6.5 Procurement of IT systems: None
6.6 Procurement of Consulting Services: The procurement plan for the operation, covering the
duration of project execution is summarized in Annex III, and indicates the procedure to be used
for the procurement of consultancy services, and the method of selecting consultants. The
Borrower is responsible for preparing and implementing the project, and therefore for preparing
the TORs, shortlists, selecting the consultants, and awarding and subsequently administering the
contract.
6.7 Sole Source Selection: to be used only in exceptional circumstances and is based on the Banks
no objection to the justification.
6.8 Selection of Individual Consultants: Individual consultants are employed on assignments for
which: (a) teams of personnel are not required; (b) no additional outside (home office)
professional support is required; and (c) the experience and qualifications of the individual are
the paramount requirement. Individual consultants are selected on the basis of their
qualifications for the assignment. Advertisement is not required and consultants do not need to
submit proposals.
6.9 Consultants shall be selected through comparison of qualifications of at least three candidates
among those who have expressed interest in the assignment or have been approached directly
by the Borrower. Individual consultants may be selected on a sole-source basis with due
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 5 of 7

justification in exceptional cases. This is to be carried out in accordance with Section V (Selection
of Individual Consultants) of GN-2350-9 paragraphs 5.1-5.4.
6.10 Training: The detailed procurement plan indicates which consultancy services training and
workshops are applicable. As per GN-2350-9 if the assignment includes an important
component for training or transfer of knowledge to Borrower staff or national consultants, the
TOR shall indicate the objectives, nature, scope, and goals of the training Programme, including
details on trainers and trainees, skills to be transferred, time frame, and monitoring and
evaluation arrangements. The cost for the training Programme shall be included in the
consultants contract and in the budget for the assignment.
6.11 Recurring Expenses: Include payment of utilities and other office operating expenses of the PEU,
if any.
6.12 Advance Contracting/Retroactive Financing: Section 1.9 of the procurement policies allows for
retroactive financing and advance contracting where the procurement procedures, including
advertising, are in accordance with the procurement policies in order for the eventual contracts
to be eligible for Bank financing. The Bank shall review the process used by the Borrower.
6.13 Domestic Preference: Determining whether it is appropriate and necessary to use domestic
preference in the evaluation of bids should be guided by Appendix 2 of GN-2349-9 par. 1-6.
6.14 Other Requirements: Use of national or other documents than the Bank standard documents for
competitive bidding: None
6.15 Procurement Plan and supervision (PP): The procurement plan of the programme covering the
duration of project execution is summarized in section link number 4. It indicates the
procedures to be used for the procurement of goods, the contracting of works or services, and
the method of selecting consultants, for each contract or group of contracts. It also indicates
cases requiring prequalification; the estimated cost of each contract or group of contracts; the
requirement for prior or post review modality by the Bank. The procurement plan will be
updated annually or whenever necessary, or as required by the Bank.
Country Thresholds for Procurement (in US$000s)
[1]
www.iadb.org/procurement
Works Goods Consulting
Services
International
Competitive
Bidding
National
Competitive
Bidding
Shopping/
Price
Comparison
International
Competitive
Bidding
National
Competitive
Bidding
Shopping/
Price
Comparison
Short Lists
Solely by
Nationals/
NCB
1,000 100 1,000 <100 100 25 - 100 <25 <100

VII. Specific Fiduciary arrangements for Financial Management

[1]
Available at www.iadb.org/procurement
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 6 of 7

a. Programming and Budget
6.17 For the purposes of the Programme, the executing agency will prepare and implement an
operation plan, which will include the budget plan, procurement plan, consistent with a 12-
month financial plan.
b. Treasury: Disbursements and flow of Funds
6.18 The EA will establish the adequate banking arrangements at the Central Bank of Suriname for
the management of the Programme resources and a listing of authorized signatures will be
provided to the Bank. The 12-month financial plan will serve as the basis for the determination
of the funds the Bank will disburse to the EA to cover the Programmes needs for the period of
three months during the first year of implementation. After an updated ICAS is performed the
disbursement period could be increased. The main disbursement methodology will be the
advance of funds, based on liquidity needs of the project. Other disbursement methodologies
that will be used on a smaller scale are the Reimbursement of Payments Made and Direct
Payment to Supplier methodologies.
6.19 Disbursements will be ex-post, except for Requests for Direct Payment to Suppliers. The EA will
be responsible for the maintenance of adequate and original documentation to support
disbursement requests.
c. Accounting and Information Systems
6.20 The EA will utilize an off the shelf accounting and financial management software for the
accounting and financial reporting of the IDB funded Programme. The cash basis of accounting
will be used for reporting purposes.
d. Internal Control and Audit
6.21 The EA will establish an internal control system that should provide reasonable assurance that:
(i) the project funds are used for their intended purpose; (ii) project assets are properly
safeguarded; (iii) project transactions, decisions and activities are properly authorized and
documented; and (iv) project transactions are executed in accordance with the established
policies and procedures delineated in the legal agreements. In addition proper segregation of
duties, approval authority levels for signature of contracts, commitment of funds, reception of
goods and services and payment to suppliers and beneficiaries should be arranged adequately.
e. External Control and Reporting
6.22 The External audit of the Programme will be performed by an independent audit firm acceptable
to the Bank. Audits will be performed in accordance with Banks Guidelines for Financial
Reports and External Audit. The EA will be responsible for contracting of an external auditor
eligible to the Bank to perform the Programme audit as follows: (i) an annual financial
wide/agreed scope audit of the Programme to be submitted within 120 days of the end of fiscal
year; (ii) a quarterly review of the disbursement processes and the updated financial plan and
procurement plan to be submitted within 20 days of each period; and (iv) one final financial
audit of the Programme to be submitted within 120 days after the date of last disbursement.
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 7 of 7

f. Financial Supervision Plan
6.23 Bank fiduciary staff will conduct inspection visits on a quarterly basis to ascertain the proper
functioning of the accounting systems, and the adequacy of the internal controls system.
g. Execution Mechanism
6.24 The Programme management structure will be composed at a strategic level by a Project
Steering Committee (PSC) to provide high-level guidance and orientation concerning Programme
priorities, to monitor progress of implementation according to the agreed time schedule and to
recommend on operational issues. The PSC will be composed of the Joint Desk (Central Bank
and Ministry of Finance), the Ministry of Labor, Technological Development and Environment
(ATM), the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD) and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNH).
The PSC will meet once a year and is summoned by the Project Manager on behalf of MNH.
6.25 MNH will be the Executing agency responsible for the implementation of the (i) technical
execution of Programme activities; (ii) selecting and contracting of goods, services and works,;
(iii) reviewing and approving consulting products; (iv) registering accounting information of
project funds; (v) managing consulting contracts and processing payments for consulting
services and procurement of goods; (vi) reporting periodically to the GEF and the Bank on the
technical and administrative activities of the programme; (vii) monitoring of programme
progress towards outcomes and goals, and the identification of needs for adaptive
management; and (viii) preparing and presenting progress reports.

Annex IV SU-G1001
Page 1 of 4

SAFEGUARD POLICY FILTER REPORT

This Report provides guidance for project teams on safeguard policy triggers and should be attached
as an annex to the PP (or equivalent) together with the Safeguard Screening Form, and sent to ESR.

1. Save as a Word document. 2. Enter additional information in the spaces provided, where
applicable. 3. Save new changes.

PROJECT
DETAILS
IDB Sector ENERGY
Type of Operation Other Lending or Financing Instrument
Additional Operation
Details
Investment Checklist Generic Checklist
Team Leader Tejeda Ricardez, Jesus Alberto (JESUST@iadb.org)
Project Title Development of Renewable Energy, Energy Effic. and
Electrification of Suriname
Project Number SU-G1001
Safeguard Screening
Assessor(s)
Detta, Jose Emiliano (jdetta@IADB.ORG)
Assessment Date 2012-05-07
Additional Comments

SAFEGUARD
POLICY
FILTER
RESULTS
Type of Operation Investment Grants
Safeguard Policy
Items
Identified (Yes)
The Bank will make available to the public
the relevant Project documents.
(B.01)
Access to
Information
Policy OP-
102
The operation is in compliance with
environmental, specific womens rights,
gender, and indigenous laws and
regulations of the country where the
operation is being implemented (including
national obligations established under
ratified Multilateral Environmental
Agreements).
(B.02)
Annex IV SU-G1001
Page 2 of 4

The operation (including associated
facilities) is screened and classified
according to their potential environmental
impacts.
(B.03)
The Bank will monitor the executing
agency/borrowers compliance with all
safeguard requirements stipulated in the
loan agreement and project operating or
credit regulations.
(B.07)
Suitable safeguard provisions for
procurement of goods and services in
Bank financed projects may be
incorporated into project-specific loan
agreements, operating regulations and
bidding documents, as appropriate, to
ensure environmentally responsible
procurement.
(B.17)
Potential Safeguard
Policy
Items(?)
No potential issues identified

Recommended
Action:
Operation has triggered 1 or more Policy Directives;
please refer to appropriate Directive(s). Complete Project
Classification Tool. Submit Safeguard Policy Filter
Report, PP (or equivalent) and Safeguard Screening
Form to ESR.

Additional
Comments:

ASSESSOR
DETAILS
Name of person who
completed screening:
Title:

Date:
2012-05-07

Annex IV SU-G1001
Page 3 of 4

SAFEGUARD SCREENING FORM

This Report provides a summary of the project classification process and is consistent with Safeguard Screening
Form requirements. The printed Report should be attached as an annex to the PP (or equivalent) and sent to ESR.

1. Save as a Word document. 2. Enter additional information in the spaces provided, where applicable. 3. Save new
changes.

PROJECT
DETAILS
IDB Sector ENERGY
Details
Country SURINAME
Project Status

Safeguard Screening
Assessor(s)
Additional Comments

PROJECT
CLASSIFICATION
SUMMARY
Project Category:
C
Override
Rating:
Override Justification:
Comments:
Conditions/
Recommendations
No environmental assessment studies or consultations are
required for Category "C" operations.
Some Category "C" operations may require specific safeguard or
monitoring requirements (Policy Directive B.3).Where relevant, these
operations will establish safeguard, or monitoring requirements to
address environmental and other risks (social, disaster, cultural,
health and safety etc.).
Annex IV SU-G1001
Page 4 of 4

The Project Team must send the PP (or equivalent) containing the
Environmental and Social Strategy (the requirements for an ESS are
described in the Environment Policy Guideline: Directive B.3) as well
as the Safeguard Policy Filter and Safeguard Screening Form
Reports.

SUMMARY OF
IMPACTS/RISKS
AND
POTENTIAL
SOLUTIONS
Identified Impacts/Risks Potential Solutions

ASSESSOR
DETAILS
Name of person who
Title:

Date:
2012-05-07

Annex II
SU-G1001
Page 1 of 3

RESULTS FRAMEWORK
MATRIX OF INDICATORS
Project Objective
The general objective is to promote the use of renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) technologies in the urban
and rural areas and increase access to energy in the interior of the country with the intention of reducing the sectors emission
of greenhouse gases. The specific objectives are to incorporate in the power sector framework and institutions the use of RE
and EE technologies, to reduce the long-term operational costs of on-grid and off-grid electricity service, and implement
sustainable business models for its operation and maintenance.

Output Indicators
Baseli
ne
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
End of
project
Means of
verification
Comments
Wind measuring stations
installed
0 0 3 3 0 0 0 6
project reports,
field visits
None
Country Wind Map of
Suriname Developed
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
document and
electronic data
None
National strategy for the
promotion of RE and EE
technologies prepared.
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
National
strategy
document.
None
Socio-economic information,
has been updated to assess the
opportunities for RE and EE
investments
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Reports and
surveys with
socio-economic
information
None
Component 2 Demonstration of RE technologies for interconnected grids and for rural electrification
Feasibility and detailed
engineering studies prepared
0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
Feasibility
studies

Rural solar-PV projects
installed (kW)
15 0 0 96 160 160 160 531
progress reports;
field visits
Rural small hydro projects
installed (kW)
40 0 0 700 0 400 400 1,540
progress reports;
field visits
Annex II
SU-G1001
Page 2 of 3

On-grid solar-PV projects
installed (kW)
0 0 0 160 200 200 200 760
progress reports;
field visits
Component 3 Strengthening of institutional arrangements, business models and stakeholder skills for the sustainable operation of RE and promotion of
EE technologies in Suriname
Sustainable ownership business
and operational models for
RET systems in rural areas
developed
0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 progress reports
(1) community-based
PV; (2) individual PV;
(3) small hydro.
Awareness raising programmes
about RETs and EETs have
been developed.
1 1 1 3 none
Promotional events have been
held to disseminate the impacts
and benefits of RETs and EETs
in Suriname, and additional
0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 Progress report none

Outcome Indicators Baseline End of
project
Means of
verification
Comments
A conducive regulatory and
institutional framework to
implement RE/EE technologies
in Suriname has been
established.

Enhancements to the legal and
technical regulatory framework
including RE and EE technologies
in Suriname, have been proposed
and approved

0

1
Sector
framework
Currently the promotion of RE and EE is not
incorporated in the regulatory framework of
Suriname and there is no strategy to develop
these types of technologies.
Component 2 - Demonstration of RE technologies for interconnected grids and for rural electrification
Selected RET pilots have been
implemented for on-grid
electricity supply and for rural
Rural electricity operating costs
(US$/KWh)
0.63 0.41 Final
evaluation
report.
Based on current costs of electricity in rural
areas (4,512 kW of installed diesel power
plants operating 2,150 hours a year) an
Annex II
SU-G1001
Page 3 of 3

electrification in the
Hinterlands

installed capacity of 1,500kW hydro and
300kW PV (with O&M costs of 178,500
USD).
Decrease in EBS
Operational costs (US$/kWh).
0.20 0.11 Sector
statistics
Based on Country Strategy 2011-2015
Rural end-users supplied with
sustainable electricity service from
installed RETs (persons)

0

10,280
Final
evaluation
Based on 200W installed capacity per rural
end-user (1,540kW hydro and 516kW PV).
Component 3 Strengthening of institutional arrangements, business models and stakeholder skills for the sustainable operation of RE and promotion
of EE technologies in Suriname
Adequate business models and
stakeholder skills to
successfully implement RETs
in Suriname, have been
established.
sustainability of on-grid RETs
demonstrated
0 1 Final
evaluation
One or more RET projects developed. At least
one project constructed and selling electric
energy to the grid.
sustainability of Renewable Energy
Technologies (RETs) demonstrated
for rural electrification
0 3 Final
evaluation
report
For: (1) community-based and (2) individual
PV systems; and (3) small hydro power.
Impact Indicators Baseline End of
project
Means of verification Comments
Annual amount of avoided greenhouse gases
(tons CO2 equivalent per year)
0 8,110 project evaluation, GOS
climate change (ATM) and
sector reports (MNH)
Indicator is conform GEF-5 CCM 3.
Percentage of the population with access to
electricity.
85% 90% Sector statistics Based on Country Strategy 2011-2015
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 1 of 9

FIDUCIARY ARRANGEMENTS
COUNTRY: SURINAME
Country : Suriname
Project : SU-G1001: DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
ELECTRIFICATION OF SURINAME
Executing Agency : Ministry of Natural Resources (MNH)
Prepared by : PFM/CSU,
Rinia Terborg-Tel, Fiduciary Financial Management Specialist;
Lourdes Sanchez-Alvarez, Fiduciary Financial Management Sr. Specialist;
Roy Parahoo, Fiduciary Procurement Lead Specialist

I. Executive Summary
1.1 The general objective is to promote the use of renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE)
technologies in the urban and rural areas and increase access to energy in the interior of the
country. The specific objectives are to reduce the long-term operational costs of on-grid and off-
grid electricity service, implement sustainable business models for its operation and maintenance,
and contribute to reducing the sectors emission of greenhouse gases.
1.2 IDB/GEF investment grant will be US$4,400,000 under the programme. Governments counterpart
will be in-kind with US$3,300,000.00. Parallel funding will consist of the IDB operations SU-L1009
(US$15,000,000), SU-T1055 (US$700,000), IDB-SU-T1042 (US$400,000) and IDB/MIF SU-M1019
(US$1,700,000).

1.3 The Program Management Structure will be embedded within the Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNH) including key responsibilities of Financial Management and Procurement functions. The
current institutional setting within the Ministry has been assessed as having a high fiduciary risk,
therefore mitigation actions have been developed in order to strengthen the internal control
environment, the financial planning and budgeting, accounting and financial reporting system, the
procurement function and the institutional capacity as it relates to familiarity with IDBs fiduciary
procedures and requirements.

1.4 The main fiduciary arrangements will include formal and informal training processes to the
officers in charge of the fiduciary activities, the actualization of the procurement plan, the
deployment of an accounting system for the recording and reporting, a project Operating Manual
that will be developed as well as external audit arrangements. In addition an Institutional Capacity
Assessment (ICASS) will be conducted to follow up on the strengthening actions designed to
mitigate the fiduciary risk level of the Project within the first year of project implementation.

1.5 The level of the fiduciary risk is directly related with the public sector fiduciary context in
Suriname that was assessed in 2011 and it is currently existent within line ministries. Public
Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) concluded that Public Financial Management
(PFM) systems in Suriname face structural, institutional and regulatory challenges. These
challenges constitute a limitation to the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and transparency
needed for the management of public resources, including foreign contributions. The Bank
policies for procurement will apply in accordance with the country thresholds table below (see
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 2 of 9

policy references under Section V Requirements and Agreements for Execution of
Procurement.

II. Executing Agencys Fiduciary Context

2.1 The fiduciary context of MNH is documented in the PEFA review. The relevant finding indicates
that the legal framework for PFM is outdated and not consistent with best practices. The PEFA
report highlights important gaps in the areas of budget planning and execution, financial
management, internal controls, and external audit. The financial management system, FINIS
system, does not satisfy the Banks accounting and reporting requirements; the internal audit
function within the ministries is incipient and the external audit is not being exercised with the
scope that the Bank requires. Ministries budget planning, execution and reporting processes are
manual and inaccurate. Apart from the ceiling provided to each ministry on a monthly basis, there
are no monitoring mechanisms on the execution of the budget. There are no reconciliation
processes in place. The budget execution report presents deviations compared to the approved
budget and therefore the budget is not credible. Treasury function which was inexistent until June
2012 is currently under redesign consistent with the PFM reform that the GOS is engaged. Cash
flow planning and monitoring are rudimentary and are processed on a manual basis as well.
2.2 Internal control within the ministries is weak due to the fact that public institutions do not have a
legal responsibility to implement internal control systems and to ensure compliance with
applicable laws, regulations. Therefore reliability and integrity of financial information is low.
2.3 In practice external audit is conducted by independent external auditors, not by the Supreme
Audit Institution (SAI). External audit on the financial statements of the GOS has not been
exercised since 2004 by the (SAI) in Suriname.
2.4 In the area of public procurement management, the regulatory and legal framework is also
inconsistent with accepted international best practices and there is no information system to
produce, advertise, and disseminate procurement information. There is no designated authority
for the monitoring this function.
2.5 The Government of Suriname (GOS) has committed to improve the PFM and procurement systems
with IDB support through the implementation of a modern legal framework and the establishment
of effective mechanisms to perform these functions. The IDB Country Strategy 20112015
addresses the GOS priorities on streamlining (i) public investment management system; (ii) public
procurement; and (iii) public financial management and audit through a three tier PBL operation
- Strengthening of Public Capital Expenditure Management. The approach of the GOS points to the
need for improved management tools to ensure more effective projects implementation and
execution. This includes a procurement system, which is competitive, effective, fair, efficient, non-
obstructive, and transparent. A financial management system, which enables effective allocation
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 3 of 9

of resources and, a comprehensive and effective audit system, which will facilitate transparency
and provide feedback regarding the quality of decision making and efficacy of the management
process. Until these interventions have taken root, country systems relating to accounting and
financial reporting, internal control, external auditing, and procurement will not be used. The
IDBs policies and procedures will remain applicable to procurement and financial management
overall.
2.7 Currently, the portfolio of the Bank in Suriname is managed through the establishment of special
project execution units within the line ministries and/or semi-autonomous institutions called
parastatals. This is in accordance with the GOS objective to build sustainable capacity within the
government. The Bank provides and conducts close fiduciary support and supervision on these
institutional arrangements and it provides continuous training and advice as needed on Banks
policies and procedures.

III. Fiduciary Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Actions
The overall financial management risk rating of the PEU is high in all areas. However, the
implementation of the mitigation actions indicated below can reduce the risk level to medium.
Risks Identified Risk Mitigating Measures
Formal assignment of
functions and
responsibilities for
financial management
and procurement
processes. Operations
Manual describing roles
and functions as well as
processes.

High Implementation of a proper financial management structure that
comprises:
- Financial management responsibilities that will include: a
financial officer and a procurement officer. Development of
a Project Operating Manual that will include the description
of the policies, procedures and internal control
requirements, for an adequate management of the planning,
budgeting, cash flow, accounting and reporting processes for
both local counterpart funds (TCs resources) and bank
funding (loan resources).
- Financial planning activities for the IDB funding (TC and
Loans) need to be clearly designed and implemented, to
facilitate the adequate cash flow needs for the execution of
project. This plan will serve as the basis for the Banks
disbursement projections.
- Bank fiduciary staff monitoring and supervision will include
quarterly inspection visits to ascertain the proper financial
management i.e. adequate functioning of the accounting
systems, and the adequacy of the internal controls system.

Accounting and
reporting system needs
Medium-
High
An accounting system, which will facilitate financial reporting and
budgeting under the project, according to source of funding (loan
and TCs) and categories of investments (at a minimum) should
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 4 of 9

Lack of awareness of IDB
procurement policies
and procedures,
disbursements and
financial reporting
procedures
High Training on Banks financial management and procurement
procedures will be provided to the program management team
established for implementing the program on a continuous basis.

Internal communication
between , Project
Steering Committee
(PSC); Project Execution
Unit (PEU)and other
stakeholders
High Review of the communication network with a view to a more
effective inter-departmental flow of information and decision
making process.

No internal audit
capacity
High Strengthening of the internal control capacity and strengthening
measures and internal audit responsibilities to be included in
the Project Operating Manual and to be monitored continuously

IV. Aspects to be considered in the Special Conditions of Contract
In order to move forward the contract negotiations by the project team, the following Fiduciary
Arrangements must be considered in the special conditions:
Special Conditions Precedent to First Disbursement includes:
(i) The creation of the Project Steering Committee (PSC) and the Project Execution Unit (PEU)
to the Banks satisfaction. This will include, among others, the hiring of the following staff:
one Financial Manager and one Procurement Officer.
(ii) The program should have the necessary banking flow arrangements following the last
instructions of the MoF and a listing of authorized signatures.
(iii) An accounting system, which will facilitate financial reporting and budgeting under the
project, according to source of funding and categories of investments (at a minimum) should
(iv) A Project Operating Manual, including among others administrative, procurement,
financial management policies, procedures and internal control requirements, for an
adequate management of the planning, budgeting, cash flow, accounting and reporting
processes.
(v) A Financial Plan detailing the first year activities to be funded by the programme and
documented in order to support Banks disbursements.
(vi) Approval of the Program Execution Plan, Annual Operation Plan, Procurement Plan and
Financial Plan;

V. Requirements and Agreements for Execution of Procurement
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 5 of 9

All records and files will be maintained by the Executing Agencies, according to accepted best practices,
and be kept for up to three (3) years beyond the end of the operations execution period. Application of
procurement policies for goods, works, consulting, and non-consulting services: For applicable
procurement policies for goods, works and non-consulting services please refer to document Policies
for the procurement of Goods and Works and Non-consulting Services Financed by the Inter-American
Development Bank, GN-2349-9. Application of policies for the selection of consulting services: For
applicable procurement policies relating to the selection of consultants, refer to document Policies for
the Selection and Contracting of Consultants Financed by the Inter-American Development Bank, GN-
2350-9.
Methods and threshold amounts to be applied to works, goods, non-consulting services and consulting
services: The IDB thresholds table for Suriname will apply.
VI. Special agreements regarding procurement: None.
Use of electronic on-line systems for the publication and management of the procurement plans: The
on-line Electronic Procurement Execution System (known by its Spanish acronym as SEPA) introduced in
Suriname in 2010 will be used for the publication and updates of the procurement plan. It is expected
that the executing agency will use the SEPA program for management of its procurement activities.
Use of national or other documents than the Bank standard documents for competitive bidding: None.
Procurement Execution: Procurements for the proposed project will be carried out in accordance with
the Policies for the Procurement of Works and Goods Financed by the Inter-American Development
Bank (GN-2349-9), of March 2011; and the Policies for the Selection and Contracting of Consultants
Financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (GN-2350-9), of March 2011, and with the provisions
established in the procurement plan. In addition, on signing of the loan contract the Project execution
unit will prepare a draft General Procurement Notice for publishing by the Bank. For all projects, the
Borrower is required to prepare and submit to the Bank a Specific Procurement Notice for the Banks no
objection before the submission of request for proposals and request for quotations.
1. Procurement of Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services: The procurement plan for the
Programme, covering the duration of project execution is summarized in Annex III, and indicates the
procedure to be used for the procurement of goods, the contracting of works and non-consulting
services. The review of technical specifications in all cases, during the process of selection is the
responsibility of the sector specialist of the operation.
2. Procurement of IT systems: None

3. Procurement of Consulting Services: The procurement plan for the operation, covering the duration
of project execution is summarized in Annex III, and indicates the procedure to be used for the
procurement of consultancy services, and the method of selecting consultants. The Borrower is
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 6 of 9

responsible for preparing and implementing the project, and therefore for preparing the TORs,
shortlists, selecting the consultants, and awarding and subsequently administering the contract.

4. Sole Source Selection: to be used only in exceptional circumstances and is based on the Banks no
objection to the justification.

5. Selection of Individual Consultants: Individual consultants are employed on assignments for which:
(a) teams of personnel are not required; (b) no additional outside (home office) professional support
is required; and (c) the experience and qualifications of the individual are the paramount
requirement. Individual consultants are selected on the basis of their qualifications for the
assignment. Advertisement is not required and consultants do not need to submit proposals.
Consultants shall be selected through comparison of qualifications of at least three candidates
among those who have expressed interest in the assignment or have been approached directly by
the Borrower. Individual consultants may be selected on a sole-source basis with due justification in
exceptional cases. This is to be carried out in accordance with Section V (Selection of Individual
Consultants) of GN-2350-9 paragraphs 5.1-5.4.
6. Training: The detailed procurement plan indicates which consultancy services training and
workshops are applicable. As per GN-2350-9 if the assignment includes an important component for
training or transfer of knowledge to Borrower staff or national consultants, the TOR shall indicate
the objectives, nature, scope, and goals of the training program, including details on trainers and
trainees, skills to be transferred, time frame, and monitoring and evaluation arrangements. The cost
for the training program shall be included in the consultants contract and in the budget for the
assignment.

7. Recurring Expenses: Include payment of utilities and other office operating expenses of the PEU, if
any.

8. Advance Contracting/Retroactive Financing: Section 1.9 of the procurement policies allows for
retroactive financing and advance contracting where the procurement procedures, including
advertising, are in accordance with the procurement policies in order for the eventual contracts to
be eligible for Bank financing. The Bank shall review the process used by the Borrower.

9. Domestic Preference: Determining whether it is appropriate and necessary to use domestic
preference in the evaluation of bids should be guided by Appendix 2 of GN-2349-9 par. 1-6.

10. Other Requirements: Use of national or other documents than the Bank standard documents for
competitive bidding: None

Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 7 of 9

11. Procurement Plan and supervision (PP): The procurement plan of the programme covering the
duration of project execution is summarized in section link number 4. It indicates the procedures to
be used for the procurement of goods, the contracting of works or services, and the method of
selecting consultants, for each contract or group of contracts. It also indicates cases requiring
prequalification; the estimated cost of each contract or group of contracts; the requirement for
prior or post review modality by the Bank. The procurement plan will be updated annually or
whenever necessary, or as required by the Bank.

12.
Country Thresholds for Procurement (in US$000s)
[1]
www.iadb.org/procurement
Works Goods Consulting
Services
International
Competitive
Bidding
National
Competitive
Bidding
Shopping/
Price
Comparison
International
Competitive
Bidding
National
Competitive
Bidding
Shopping/
Price
Comparison
Short Lists
Solely by
Nationals/
NCB
1,000 100 1,000 <100 100 25 - 100 <25 <100

VII. Specific Fiduciary arrangements for Financial Management

a. Programming and Budget
For the purposes of the program, the executing agency will prepare and implement an operation plan,
which will include the budget plan, procurement plan, consistent with a 12-month financial plan that will
be required from the PEU on an annual basis for loan resources as well as TCs resources.
b. Treasury: Disbursements and flow of Funds
The PEU will establish the adequate banking arrangements at the Central Bank van Suriname for the
management of the program resources and a listing of authorized signatures will be provided to the
Bank.
As described in 1 above, the 12-month financial plan will serve as the basis for the determination of the
funds the Bank will disburse to the PEU to cover the programs needs for the period of three months
during the first year of implementation. After an updated ICAS is performed the disbursement period
could be increased. The main disbursement methodology that will be used for the project is the advance
of funds. Advances will be made based on liquidity needs of the project. Other disbursement

[1]
Available at www.iadb.org/procurement
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 8 of 9

methodologies that will be used on a smaller scale are the Reimbursement of Payments Made and
Direct Payment to Supplier methodologies.
Disbursements will be ex-post, except for Requests for Direct Payment to Suppliers. The PEU will be
responsible for the maintenance of adequate and original documentation to support disbursement
requests.
c. Accounting and Information Systems
The PEU will utilize an off the shelf accounting and financial management software for the accounting
and financial reporting of the IDB funded project, that will be adapted to the programs needs. The cash
basis of accounting will be used for reporting purposes.
d. Internal Control and Audit
The PEU will establish an internal control system that should provide reasonable assurance that: (i) the
project funds are used for their intended purpose; (ii) project assets are properly safeguarded; (iii)
project transactions, decisions and activities are properly authorized and documented; and (iv) project
transactions are executed in accordance with the established policies and procedures delineated in the
legal agreements. In addition proper segregation of duties, approval authority levels for signature of
contracts, commitment of funds, reception of goods and services and payment to suppliers and
beneficiaries should be arranged adequately.
e. External Control and Reporting
The External audit of the Program will be performed by an independent audit firm acceptable to the
Bank. Audits will be performed in accordance with Banks Guidelines for Financial Reports and External
Audit. The PEU will be responsible for contracting of an external auditor eligible to the Bank to perform
the program audit as follows: (i) an annual financial wide/agreed scope audit of the program to be
submitted within 120 days of the end of fiscal year; (ii) a quarterly review of the disbursement processes
and the updated financial plan and procurement plan to be submitted within 20 days of each period;
and (iv) one final financial audit of the Program to be submitted within 120 days after the date of last
disbursement.
f. Financial Supervision Plan
Bank fiduciary staff will conduct inspection visits on a quarterly basis to ascertain the proper functioning
of the accounting systems, and the adequacy of the internal controls system.
g. Execution Mechanism
The program management structure will be composed by a strategic level, Project Steering Committee
(PSC) to provide high-level guidance and orientation concerning Project priorities, to monitor progress of
implementation according to the agreed time schedule and to recommend on operational issues. The
Annex III
SU-G1001
Page 9 of 9

PSC will be composed of the Joint Desk (Central Bank and Ministry of Finance), the Ministry of Rural
Development (MRD) and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNH). The PSC will meet once a year and is
summoned by the Project Manager on behalf of MNH.
A Project Execution Unit (PEU) will be established within MNH to facilitate the implementation of the (i)
technical execution of Project activities; (ii) selecting and contracting of goods, services and works,; (iii)
reviewing and approving consulting products; (iv) registering accounting information of project funds;
(v) managing consulting contracts and processing payments for consulting services and procurement of
goods; (vi) reporting periodically to the PEU and the Bank on the technical and administrative activities
of the project; (vii) monitoring of project progress towards outcomes and goals, and the identification of
needs for adaptive management; and (viii) preparing and presenting progress reports.

Annex IV SU-G1001
Page 1 of 4

SAFEGUARD POLICY FILTER REPORT

This Report provides guidance for project teams on safeguard policy triggers and should be attached
as an annex to the PP (or equivalent) together with the Safeguard Screening Form, and sent to ESR.

1. Save as a Word document. 2. Enter additional information in the spaces provided, where
applicable. 3. Save new changes.

PROJECT
DETAILS
IDB Sector ENERGY
Details
Safeguard Screening
Assessor(s)
Additional Comments

SAFEGUARD
POLICY
FILTER
RESULTS
Type of Operation Investment Grants
Safeguard Policy
Items
Identified (Yes)
The Bank will make available to the public
the relevant Project documents.
(B.01)
Access to
Information
Policy OP-
102
The operation is in compliance with
environmental, specific womens rights,
gender, and indigenous laws and
regulations of the country where the
operation is being implemented (including
national obligations established under
ratified Multilateral Environmental
Agreements).
(B.02)
Annex IV SU-G1001
Page 2 of 4

The operation (including associated
facilities) is screened and classified
according to their potential environmental
impacts.
(B.03)
The Bank will monitor the executing
agency/borrowers compliance with all
safeguard requirements stipulated in the
loan agreement and project operating or
credit regulations.
(B.07)
Suitable safeguard provisions for
procurement of goods and services in
Bank financed projects may be
incorporated into project-specific loan
agreements, operating regulations and
bidding documents, as appropriate, to
ensure environmentally responsible
procurement.
(B.17)
Potential Safeguard
Policy
Items(?)
No potential issues identified

Recommended
Action:
Operation has triggered 1 or more Policy Directives;
please refer to appropriate Directive(s). Complete Project
Classification Tool. Submit Safeguard Policy Filter
Report, PP (or equivalent) and Safeguard Screening
Form to ESR.

Additional
Comments:

ASSESSOR
DETAILS
Name of person who
Title:

Date:
2012-05-07

Annex IV SU-G1001
Page 3 of 4

SAFEGUARD SCREENING FORM

This Report provides a summary of the project classification process and is consistent with Safeguard Screening
Form requirements. The printed Report should be attached as an annex to the PP (or equivalent) and sent to ESR.

1. Save as a Word document. 2. Enter additional information in the spaces provided, where applicable. 3. Save new
changes.

PROJECT
DETAILS
IDB Sector ENERGY
Details
Country SURINAME
Project Status

Safeguard Screening
Assessor(s)
Additional Comments

PROJECT
CLASSIFICATION
SUMMARY
Project Category:
C
Override
Rating:
Override Justification:
Comments:
Conditions/
Recommendations
No environmental assessment studies or consultations are
required for Category "C" operations.
Some Category "C" operations may require specific safeguard or
monitoring requirements (Policy Directive B.3).Where relevant, these
operations will establish safeguard, or monitoring requirements to
address environmental and other risks (social, disaster, cultural,
health and safety etc.).
Annex IV SU-G1001
Page 4 of 4

The Project Team must send the PP (or equivalent) containing the
Environmental and Social Strategy (the requirements for an ESS are
described in the Environment Policy Guideline: Directive B.3) as well
as the Safeguard Policy Filter and Safeguard Screening Form
Reports.

SUMMARY OF
IMPACTS/RISKS
AND
POTENTIAL
SOLUTIONS
Identified Impacts/Risks Potential Solutions

ASSESSOR
DETAILS
Name of person who
Title:

Date:
2012-05-07

DOCUMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

SURINAME

DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY,
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ELECTRIFICATION
OF SURINAME

(SU_G1001)

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

This document was prepared by:

INE/ENE
Contents

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
II. Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................ 3
a. Indicators .......................................................................................................................................... 3
b. Data Collection and Instruments ...................................................................................................... 4
c. Reporting ........................................................................................................................................ 4
d. Monitoring Coordination, Work Plan and Budget ........................................................................... 5
III. Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 8
a. Main Evaluation Question(s) .......................................................................................................... 10
b. Existing Knowledge (previous evaluations, ex ante economic analysis) ....................................... 11
c. Key Outcome Indicators .......................................................................................................... 1312
d. Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................................................ 14
e. Complementary Evaluation (optional) ......................................................................................... 15
f. Reporting Results ......................................................................................................................... 15
g. Evaluation Coordination, Work Plan and Budget ........................................................................ 15

I. Introduction

1.1. The general objective is to promote the use of renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency
(EE) technologies in the urban and rural areas and increase access to energy in the interior of
the country. The specific objectives are to reduce the long-term operational costs of on-grid
and off-grid electricity service, implement sustainable business models for its operation and
maintenance, and contribute to reducing the sectors emission of greenhouse gases.
1.2. The monitoring and evaluation strategy will address both quality of Programme execution
and success of the intervention. In order to achieve the first of these purposes the strategy
will include the following: i) annual progress reports including the annual operation plan
ii) annual audited financial statements; v) mid-term review; and vi) final review. In
parallel to these instruments, the Programme will be monitored using the annual
Programme Implementation Report (PIR) developed by the Global Environment Facility
(GEF).
1.3. In order to evaluate the success of the intervention, data for the proposed indicators
presented in the results framework will be collected by the Executing Agency (EA),
during the execution of the Programme. The means of verification include the mechanism
for reporting the information and the timing involved.
1.4. The selected indicators have baseline data for the year 2012 provided by the Government
of Suriname (GOS). The baseline is the reference level for the evaluation of the program
and is essential for the adequate monitoring of the operation. All the results indicators will
be measured and information collected by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNH) with
support from an external consultant.

II. Monitoring
a. Indicators

2.1. Monitoring indicators have been defined mainly for the outputs of the Programme. These
indicators will be monitored by the EA and recorded in the Progress Monitoring Report
(PMR) as detailed in the following table:
Table 1. Monitoring Indicators

Expected outputs
Indicator
(Units)
Means of verification
Responsibility
of Data
Collection
Frequency
Wind measuring stations installed
Number of
measuring
stations
project reports, field
visits
Project
Coordinator
MNH
Annual
Country Wind Map of Suriname
Developed
Number of
country
wind maps
document and
electronic data
Project
Coordinator
MNH
Annual
National strategy for the promotion
of RE and EE technologies prepared
Number of
strategies
National strategy
document
Project
Coordinator
MNH
Annual
Rural solar-PV projects installed kW
progress reports; field
visits
Project
Coordinator IIE
Annual
Rural small hydro projects installed kW
visits
Project
Coordinator
MNH
Annual
On-grid solar-PV projects installed kW
visits
Project
Coordinator
MNH
Annual
Sustainable business models for
RET systems developed
Number of
sustainable
models
progress reports
Project
Coordinator
MNH
Annual
Trained operators of rural RETs persons
records of training
sessions
Project
Coordinator
MNH
Annual
Awareness campaign in RE and
Energy conservation
Number of
events
progress reports
Project
Coordinator
MNH
Annual

b. Data Collection and Instruments

2.2. Monitoring of the Program level of success will be based on the Results Framework (that
also details the means of verification), and the Annual Operations Plan (AOP). The EA will
be responsible of reporting the results of the Programme, using information collected with
the support of an external consultant. The sources of information will be mainly the MNHs
administrative records of the Programme, the Fund for the Development of the Interior
(FOB), the national power company Energiebedrijven Suriname (EBS) and field inspections.
2.3. The MNH shall collect through the supervision consulting firm or an individual consultants,
store and retain all necessary information, technical and social performance reviews,
indicators and parameters, including the technical reports , the mid-term review, and final
evaluation, in order to assist: i) the Bank in the monitoring of the Programme performance;
and ii) the Banks Oversight Evaluation Office (OVE), if it so wishes, to evaluate the impact
of this operation, in accordance with IDB Evaluation Policy GN-2254-5.
c. Reporting

2.4. In order to address quality of project execution the MNH will present the updated Annual
Operations Plans (AOP) and the Annual Procurement Plans, and will submit annual progress
reports, the Tracking Tools, mid-term and final evaluation, throughout the life of the
projects execution. These reports will not be published but will be accessible for the IDB or
GEF if requested. The EA in coordination with IDB project team will update the PMR
according to these reports. The AOP reports will contain at least the following elements: i)
descriptions of the executed activities per component; ii) accounts of the contractors,
consultants and the supervision firms performances; iii) description of the procurement
processes carried out during the reported period; iv) updated schedule of physical progress
and disbursements; v) level of compliance with the performance indicators; vi) identification
of new risks / events that may potentially affect the future implementation of the program,
and update of the Matrices produced within the Project Risk Management process; vii)
execution plan to be completed in the following two six month periods; viii) maintenance
plan for the following two six month periods; ix) a summarized project financial statement,
and x) the estimated cash flow for the next two six month periods. These annual reports will
include the necessary data and information (see Table 1) to monitor progress in results and
intermediate indicators in order to address the level of success of the intervention.
2.5. Inspection visits will be conducted by the IDB regularly to monitor relevant technical,
operational, and financial aspects of the Programme. Inspection visits reports will be
prepared annually. Additionally, administration missions will be conducted by the IDB
whenever the need arises.

d. Monitoring Coordination, Work Plan and Budget

2.6. As indicated in the Proposal for Operation Development (POD), appropriate staffs or
external consultants will be designated by MNH and assigned to the execution of the
Programme. MNH will be the EA of the Programme as this Ministry is responsible for the
functioning and development of the energy sector in Suriname. The EA will be responsible
for, inter alia: (i) the technical execution of Project activities; (ii) selecting and contracting of
consultancies, procurements, and services; (iii) reviewing and approving consulting
products; (iv) registering accounting information of project funds; (v) managing consulting
contracts and processing payments for consulting services and procurement of goods; (vi)
reporting periodically to the GEF and the Bank on the technical and administrative activities
of the Programme; (vii) monitoring of Programme progress towards outcomes and goals,
and the identification of needs for adaptive management; and (viii) preparing and presenting
progress reports.
2.7. Executing structure. At the strategic level, the Government will establish a Project
Steering Committee (PSC) to provide high-level guidance and orientation concerning
Project priorities, to monitor progress of implementation according to the agreed time
schedule and to recommend on operational issues. The PSC will be composed of the Joint
Desk, the Ministry of Labor, Technological Development and Environment (ATM),
Ministry of Rural Development (MRD) and MNH. The PSC will meet once each year and
will be convoked by the Project Manager on behalf of MNH (see Figure 1).
FIGURE 1. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

2.8. Project Manager (PM). The Project Manager will be responsible, among others, for the
preparation of the Terms of Reference and support for the selection process of contracted
consultancies, services and procured goods; review of the products delivered by
consultancy firms, budget administration, logistics, local support and coordination among
the stakeholders. The PM will also prepare the Annual Operation Plans (AOP) to assist
the EA in the execution and supervision of the Programme. The PM will have
responsibility for the delivery of the anticipated results outlined in the AOP. The PM will
report to the PSC, the EA and the Bank. IDB will provide technical and fiduciary support
through INE/ENE and the IDB Country Office in Suriname.
2.9. The monitoring activities and reporting will be carried out by the EA according to the
indicators and targets defined in Table 1. These indicators will also facilitate the day to day
monitoring process throughout each project year.
2.10. Procedures and responsibilities to carry out the monitoring have been assigned and are
reflected in Table 2. The work plan described in this document is summarized in the referred
table as well as in the chronogram.
2.11. As mentioned above the EA will be responsible for monitoring of the Programme. It is
expected that at least 10% of the monthly time of the EA will be dedicated to M&E activities
(see table 2).

T
a
b
l
e

2
.

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
o
r
k

P
l
a
n

K
e
y

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
/
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

p
e
r

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

Y
e
a
r

1

Y
e
a
r

2

Y
e
a
r

3

Y
e
a
r

4

Y
e
a
r

5

Y
e
a
r

6

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

C
o
s
t

(
U
S
$
)

F
u
n
d
i
n
g

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

I
.

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

W
i
n
d

m
e
a
s
u
r
i
n
g

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

E
A

2
0
,
0
0
0

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

W
i
n
d

M
a
p

o
f

S
u
r
i
n
a
m
e

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n

o
f

R
E

a
n
d

E
E

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

R
u
r
a
l

s
o
l
a
r
-
P
V

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

R
u
r
a
l

s
m
a
l
l

h
y
d
r
o

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

O
n
-
g
r
i
d

s
o
l
a
r
-
P
V

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

m
o
d
e
l
s

f
o
r

R
E
T

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

I
I
.

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
s
.

E
A

2
2
,
0
0
0

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

I
I
I
.

F
i
e
l
d

V
i
s
i
t
s
.

I
D
B

1
5
,
0
0
0

I
D
B

A
g
e
n
c
y

F
e
e
s

T
o
t
a
l

C
o
s
t

5
7
,
0
0
0

III. Evaluation

3.1. The Project will be submitted to a Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) and a Final Evaluation
(FEV) following GEF guidelines
1
and IDB procedures. The Final Evaluation shall be
conducted within three months after before project completion. Project evaluation team
members must be independent, and unbiased, and have appropriate expertise and experience
to assess the project, including, when required, the expertise to address social issues. Final
Evaluation documents shall be compiled in English and made publicly available by the IDB.
3.2. The scope of a Final Evaluation depends upon project type, size, focal area, and country
context. In most cases,The Final Evaluations will include field visits to ascertain project
accomplishments and interviews with key stakeholders at the national and, where
appropriate, local levels. In all cases, Final Evaluations should properly examine and assess
the perspectives of the various relevant stakeholders
2
.
3.3. The Final Evaluation shall, at the minimum,will assess the achievement of outputs and
outcomes and will provide ratings for targeted objectives and outcomes. The assessment of
programme results seeks towill determine the extent to which the programme objectives
were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, and determine if the programme has had led
to any other short- or long-term and positive or negative consequences. Although the GEF is
more interested in assessing impacts, these may take a long time to manifest. In assessing
project performance, evaluators should prioritize focusing on outcomes, as this level allows
capturing project efficacy in terms of medium-term expected results. If the project did not
establish a baseline (initial conditions), the evaluators should seek to estimate the baseline
condition so that achievements and results can be properly established.
3.4. The following three criteria will be used in Terminal Final Evaluations in assessing the level
of achievement of project outcomes and objectives:
a) Relevance: Were the programmes outcomes consistent with the focal
areas/operational program strategies and country priorities?
b) Effectiveness: Are the actual programme outcomes commensurate with the original
or modified project objectives? If the original or modified expected results are
merely outputs/inputs, the evaluators should assess if there were any real outcomes
of the programme and, if there were, determine whether these are commensurate
with realistic expectations from such projects.
c) Efficiency: Was the programme cost effective? Was the prgramme the least-cost
option? Was programme implementation delayed, and, if it was, did that affect cost
effectiveness? Wherever possible, the evaluator should also compare the costs
incurred and the time taken to achieve outcomes with that for similar programme.

3.5. The assessment of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency will be as objective as possible
and will include sufficient and convincing empirical evidence. Ideally, the programme
monitoring system should deliver quantifiable information that can lead to a robust
assessment of programme effectiveness and efficiency. Since programmes have different
objectives, assessed results are not comparable and cannot be aggregated. The outcomes will
be rated as follows:
a. Highly satisfactory (HS). The programme had no shortcomings in the achievement

1
Document: Guidelines for GEF Agencies in Conducting Terminal Evaluations, Evaluation Document No. 3 (2008), GEF Evaluation Office,
Washington DC, USA.
2
Relevant stakeholders are all those who have been or are likely to be affected by the project or activity, those who have participated in or contributed to
the project, and those who in other ways have a stake in the outcomes of the project or activity.
of its objectives in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or efficiency.
b. Satisfactory (S). The programme roject had minor shortcomings in the achievement
of its objectives in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or efficiency.
c. Moderately satisfactory (MS). The programme had moderate shortcomings in the
achievement of its objectives in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or efficiency.
d. Moderately unsatisfactory (MU). The programme had significant shortcomings in
the achievement of its objectives in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or efficiency.
e. Unsatisfactory (U). The programme had major shortcomings in the achievement of
its objectives in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or efficiency.
f. Highly unsatisfactory (HU). The programme had severe shortcomings in the
achievement of its objectives in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or efficiency.

3.6. Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) design, implementation and budget. The Terminal
Final Evaluation should verify that an M&E system was in place and facilitated timely
tracking of progress toward programme objectives by collecting information on chosen
indicators continually throughout the programme implementation period; annual programme
reports were complete and accurate, with well-justified ratings; the information provided by
the M&E system was used during the programme to improve performance and to adapt to
changing needs; and projects had an M&E system in place with proper training for parties
responsible for M&E activities to ensure that data will continue to be collected and used after
project closure. The M&E system shall be rated according to the scale
(HS/S/MS/MU/U/HU).
3.7. The Final Evaluation shall further assess the likelihood of sustainability of outcomes at
project terminationcompletion, and provide a rating for this. Sustainability is understood as
the likelihood of continued benefits after the Programme ends. The assessment will give
special attention to the analysis of risks that are likely to affect the persistence of project
outcomes. It will include both exogenous and endogenous risks. The following four
dimensions or aspects of risks to sustainability will be addressed: (a) financial risks; (b)
sociopolitical risks; (c) institutional framework and governance risks; and (d) environmental
risks. Each risk to sustainability of outcomes will be rated based on an overall assessment of
likelihood and magnitude of the potential effects according to the following scale:

a. Likely (L). There are no or negligible risks that affect this dimension of
sustainability.
b. Moderately likely (ML). There are moderate risks that affect this dimension of
sustainability.
c. Moderately unlikely (MU). There are significant risks that affect this dimension of
sustainability.
d. Unlikely (U). There are severe risks that affect this dimension of sustainability.

3.8. The Final Evaluation shall further consider the following issues affecting programme
implementation and the attainment of programme results: (a) programme preparation,
country readiness, local implementation capacities; (ii) country ownership and drivenness;
(c) stakeholder involvement; (d) financial planning, including parallel financing
commitments, due diligence and audits; (e) IDB supervision and backstopping; (f)
programme outcomes and sustainability; and (g) delays and effects thereof on project
outcomes.

3.9. The Mid-Term Evaluation shall, at minimum:
a) Assess the Projects progress towards attaining the envisaged outcomes and
objectives and identify problems and issues that may affect its satisfactory
implementation.
b) Review the robustness of the programmes design and propose enhancements to
increase the effectiveness and overall performance of the programme.
c) Assess the relevance and appropriateness of the indicators defined in the M&E plan.
d) Analyze the effectiveness of the envisaged M&E activities to monitor the
implementation of the programme and to identify and control risks that may
adversely affect the programmes outputs, outcomes and sustainability.
e) Evaluate the performance of the Executing Agency (MNH) and the appropriateness
of the programmes management arrangements.
e)f) Analyze the financial planning, including parallel financing commitments, due
diligence, and audits

3.10. The Mid-Term Evaluation will be held between 24-30 months after the first disbursement.
a. Main Evaluation Question(s)

3.11. In order to assess the degree of attainment of the pursues programmes objectives and
outcomes, the evaluations should provide answers to the following questions:

Outcome level:
(1) How much has the percentage of the population with access to electricity increased due
to the project intervention?
(2) How much additional investment in EE and RE was leveraged by the Projects
intervention?
(3) Have the rural electrification operational costs decreased? And by how much per kWh
installed?
(4) Have EBSs operational costs decreased as a result from the project?
(5) How many rural users have received permanent access to RE-based, low-carbon
electricity supply: a) newly connected users? ; b) improved access for existing users?
H
(6) Are the implemented on-grid RE and EE technologies technically, (socially) and
financially sustainable?

Impact level:
(1) Did the expected economic benefits materialize? What are criteria for success or
failure?

b. Existing Knowledge (previous evaluations, ex ante economic analysis)
3.12. An extensive description of the power sector of Suriname is given in the KEMA report
3
. A
brief outline of the evolution of the sector and present issues is included in the GEF Full-size
Document of this Programme
4
.
3.13. As of June 2012, Suriname has little experience with on-grid renewable energy power
generation. Some few small systems are in use for non-public purposes and others were
financed by the Dutch Government. The photovoltaic (PV) project in the Amerindian village
Kwamala Samutu supplied electricity to 140 people and several community services,
including a school, refrigeration units, and radio for communication. Without funding to
renew the batteries, the system stopped functioning. In Puketie, a 40-kW hydro plant was
built in 1979-1981, but went down 4 years later as a result of inadequate maintenance and
reportedly, inappropriate site selection. Presently, a mini hydro plant (700-kW) is being
constructed at Gran Holo Sula (near Puketie) which will require additional resources for
completion, and support for the design of a business model for its sustainable operation.
3.14. The Kema report (2008) includes a listing of villages that are presently supplied with diesel.
The diesel generators are usually over dimensioned; by consequence, the load factor is low
and the energy efficiency very poor. The combination of high transportation costs and low
demand results in high costs of electricity supply. KEMA deduces an average cost price of
diesel-generated electricity of US$ 0.63 per kWh, of which US 0.41 for fuel, US$ 0.18 for
transportation, US$ 0.03 for O&M. Specific data on the energy consumption and the system
configuration per village are needed however, to calculate the generating costs for each
individual case. For remote locations with over-rated diesel systems, the costs may be above
US$ 1.0/kWh (for more details please refer to Annex I).
3.15. No updated baseline information is available for the specific project sites that will be
addressed by the IDB/GEF initiative. In order to assess the economic, social and
environmental benefits of individual rural electrification projects, the programme has
allocated resources to collect this information as part of the feasibility studies to be carried
out under the Programme. An ex-ante estimate of these benefits can be made based on
projections of demand growth, demographic phenomena, and changes in the baseline
assumptions (including the costs of fossil fuels). It is also assumed that electricity supply in
the rural areas is presently at no cost, but the service is usually intermittent and limited to
several months per year. To account for annual fluctuations, one may consider taking
average values over the period 2010-2012 for each site as the baseline situation.

3
Suriname Power Sector Assessment and Alternatives for its Modernization (ATN/SF-9038-SU), Ministry of Natural Resources of the Republic of
Suriname, prepared by KEMA, Paramaribo, 12 December 2008.
4
Document number?
3.16. Concerning grid-connected power generation, the average generating costs in the EPAR-grid
are estimated at USD 0.20/kWh. The tariffs for end-users are heavily subsidized and of the
order of USD 0.07/kWh
5
. The generating costs are composed of a base fare for the
hydropower purchased by EBS from the Afobaka dam, plus the much higher costs of
thermal power generation by EBS own generators (which run on heavy fuel oil). With
limited hydropower available and growing demand, it is expected that newly added RE
plants will fully offset conventional thermal generation (which substantial environmental and
economic benefits). However, also mixed scenarios may exist, in which RE (and EE)
translate into savings of water reserves in the dam. It is therefore recommended to establish
an updated baseline prior to the investment in on-grid wind, hydro, or solar power
generation.
3.17. An economic analysis was carried out in the preparation of the programme were some cost
assumptions were defined (see tables 3 and 4).
Table 3. Assumptions RE technologies for rural electrification
RE technologies for rural electrification
System Capital cost Operational cost lifetime Annual energy production
size unit USD (%) USD/yr years capacity
factor
MWh/yr
small hydro
(SHP)
1,500 kW 8,250,000 1% 82,500 25 33% 3,287
individual
PV and local
grid PV
320 kW 4,900,000 2% 96,000 25 16% 449
Total 1,820 kW 13,150,000 3,726

Table 4. Assumptions On-grid RE technologies
On-grid RE technologies
System Capital cost Operational cost lifetime Annual energy production
size unit USD (%) USD/yr years capacity
factor
MWh/yr
on-grid PV 500 kW 5,700,000 0.5% 28,500 25 16% 701
Total 500 kW 5,700,000 701

5
The tariff for households (Tariff 11) consists of a fixed rate and a price per kWh and ranges from USD 0.013/kWh for a monthly energy use below 300
kWh, to approx SRD 0.028/kWh above 800 kWh/month. Exchange rate: 1 SRD = 0.3 USD (2011). Source: NV Energiebedrijven Suriname,
http://www.nvebs.com/energie/incasso/tarieven.aps.
3.18. Quantified in the ERR are the monetary savings resulting from the difference between the
costs of supplying electricity to users with conventional sources: (a) grid power @ US$ 0.20
/kWh for end-users in the EPAR area; and (b) diesel-based electricity @ US$ 0.63 /kWh for
rural electrification; and the costs for RE-based generating options.
3.19. The benefits from RE and EE investments go beyond the direct financial and economic
benefits for EBS and DEV. A more reliable and sufficient supply in the Hinterlands will
have substantial impact in terms of quality of life, and quality of basic services (clean water,
health, education). These can be valued directly or included in the methodology as a cost for
unserved energy. Environmental benefits arise from the avoidance of CO
2
emissions by
thermal generators (diesel and heavy fuel oil).
3.20. The overall ERR of the project was of 12.2% for a scope of 25 years with a NPV (using a
discount rate of 12%) of 235,689 US$.
c. Key Outcome Indicators

3.21. The following table presents the proposed impact and results indicators for evaluating the
Project.

Table 5

Key Impact/Results Indicators

Indicator Formula / Definition Frequency of
Measurement
Source
Results
Percentage of the population
with access to electricity.
Population with access to electricity /
Total population
At MTE and FEV Sector statistics
Additional investment in EE
and RE leveraged by the
Project (MUS$)
Cumulative investment in RE from
the start of the project to its
completion (MUS$).
At MTE and FEV Final evaluation report
and sector reports.
Rural electricity operating
costs
Operating costs of Disesel Power
Plants + /KWh produced (diesel
power plants+ PV +
At FEV Final evaluation report
Decrease in EBS
Operational costs.
(US$/kWh) At FEV Sector statistics
Rural end-users supplied
with sustainable electricity
service from installed RETs
Members of rural households that
acquired access to electricity supply
under the Programme, either (a) first
access; or (b) improved access.
At MTE and FEV Final evaluation
report.
Technical, social and
financial sustainability of
Renewable Energy
Technologies (RETs)
demonstrated for rural
Number of projects with more than 3
years of operation and energy
production.
At MTE and FEV Final evaluation report
Technical, social and
financial sustainability of
on-grid RETs demonstrated
Number of projects with more than 3
years of operation and energy
production.
At MTE and FEV Final evaluation
Impact
Annual amount of avoided
greenhouse gases (tons CO2
equivalent per year)
Annual Energy Generated in Rural
Areas by RE installed pilots of the
project * CO2 Factor Diesel Power
Plants (0.8 tons CO2/MWh) +
Annual Energy Generated by On-grid
RE installed by the Project * CO2
Factor EPAR Grid (0.3 tons
CO2/MWh)
This using GEF Tracking tool
measurement, monitoring of Global
Environmental Benefits (GEBs).
At MTE and FEV Midterm and Final
Evaluation.

d. Evaluation Methodology

3.22. The evaluation of the Project Programme will be based on the following three
methodologies:
1) To assess the attainment of social benefits at the outcome and impact level, the evaluation
will be based on a simple comparison of the situation with and without the Programme.
Key indicators are the numbers of people provided with access to electricity supply; and
with improved basic services.
2) To assess the economic and environmental benefits, the evaluation will perform an ex-
post analysis of the costs and benefits of the investment pilots.
3) To assess efficiency and relevance of the delivered outcomes, the final evaluation will
review the Programme costs in light of comparable interventions in similar countries
6
.
3.23. The ex-post evaluation of economic and environmental benefits will calculate the production
costs of the electricity delivered to rural end-users by rural electrification systems (small
hydro, solar-PV, hybrid diesel-PV), and of the electricity sold by on-grid RE systems (river
hydro, wind power, solar PV, biomass). The calculation will be performed according to the
same methodology as used at feasibility stage (ex-ante) by incorporating updated financial
parameters, including: real investment costs, real project development costs, realistic
operational costs, effective rates of cost recovery (user payments; PPA); financial incentives
provided by the Government. The effect of external factors affecting baseline conditions and
assumptions should also be assessed, including: variations in the cost of fossil fuel; changes
in energy demand; changes in technological development (including changes in the carbon-
intensity of the electricity sector).
3.24. The evaluation will be based on the review of Programme documents and progress reports,
inspection of project outputs, including field visits and surveys among end-users, and on
interviews with relevant stakeholders. The Final Evaluation must assess the Programmes
relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency.

6
As required by the GEF Guidelines for Terminal Evaluations.
e. Complementary Evaluation (optional)

3.25. The Executing Agency (MNH) and the IDB can decide to carry out a complementary
evaluation at some time after project termination.
3.26. The purpose of a follow-up evaluation would be to validate environmental, social and
economic impacts and benefits, and to assess sustainability issues. The indicators would be
the impact indicators as listed in Table 3.

f. Reporting Results

3.27. The Project will deliver a Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) Report and a Terminal Final
Evaluation (FEV) Report. The FEV will include an ex-post economic analysis of selected
RE demonstration projects, including a benchmarking thereof with similar investments in
other countries.
3.28. The MTE is programmed between 24 and 30 months after first disbursement. The FEV is
scheduled three months after before conclusion completion of the Programmes activities.
The MTE will be submitted to the Bank, the GEF, Programme stakeholders, and the GEF
Focal Point. The FEV will be submitted to internal review by the Bank, and submitted to the
Programme stakeholders, and the GEF Focal Point, and the GEF Evaluation Office. The
FEV will be made publicly available through the Banks website.
g. Evaluation Coordination, Work Plan and Budget

3.29. The Ministry of Natural Resources of Suriname (MNH) will be responsible for the
implementation of the evaluation plan, monitoring the evaluation budget, drafting the Terms
of Reference for the Evaluation Team members, for the timely preparation and
implementation of the evaluations, and for the publication and distribution of the Evaluation
reports. The MTE and FEV will be financed by GEF and co-funding resources of the Project
budget and will be carried out by an independent consultant.
3.30. The Project Manager will inform the Steering Committee at least 6 months prior to the
programmed date of an upcoming evaluation moment to ascertain the appropriateness and
timing of this event. In case the SC decides to postpone an evaluation (for example as a
result of Programme delay), the Project Manager will timely inform the Bank and GEF
Focal Point.

T
a
b
l
e

6

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

W
o
r
k

P
l
a
n

K
e
y

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
/
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

p
e
r

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

Y
e
a
r

1

Y
e
a
r

2

Y
e
a
r

3

Y
e
a
r

4

Y
e
a
r

5

Y
e
a
r

6

Y
e
a
r

7

(
p
o
s
t
-
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
)

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

C
o
s
t

(
U
S
$
)

F
u
n
d
i
n
g

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

I
.

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

D
a
t
a

E
A

2
0
,
0
0
0

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

a
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
.

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

i
n

E
E

a
n
d

R
E

l
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

R
u
r
a
l

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

c
o
s
t
s

D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

E
B
S

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
s
t
s
.

R
u
r
a
l

e
n
d
-
u
s
e
r
s

s
u
p
p
l
i
e
d

w
i
t
h

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
,

s
o
c
i
a
l

a
n
d

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

R
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
,

s
o
c
i
a
l

a
n
d

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

o
n
-
g
r
i
d

R
E
T
s

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

G
H
G

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

s
e
c
t
o
r

(
M
t
o
n
s

o
f

C
O
2
)

I
I
.

M
i
d
-
t
e
r
m

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

E
A

(
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
)

2
0
,
0
0
0

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

I
I
I
.

F
i
n
a
l

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

E
A

(
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
)

2
0
,
0
0
0

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

T
o
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:

6
0
,
0
0
0

Annex I
Baseline information Hinterland villages

Region Village name kW Diesel Population kW Diesel
data MNH/DEV May 2012 KEMA Report (2008), Vol I, p.114
barrels liter liter
@ 200
Abenaston 342 55
Marowijne (Moengo) Adjoemakondre 40 5 1,000 n/a 40
Marowijne Akoloikondre - - 0 n/a -
Alenpsa Kondre n/a 30
Marowijne (Moengo) Alfonsdorp 68 10 2,000 n/a 55
Brokopondo (para) Alfonsdorp 12 5 1,000
Amakkakondre 21 15
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Apetina 30 8 1,600 199 30

Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Asidonhopo 132 12 2,400 226 84

Boven Marowijne Atemsa 30 5 1,000 62 n/a
Boven Marowijne Badatabiki 20 5 1,000
Brokopondo (para) Baku 60 10 2,000
Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Bedi Watra 12 5 1,000 51 18

Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Benanu 60 8 1,600 223 15

Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Bende kondre 60 8 1,600 306 40

Berlijn n/a 40
Para Bigi Poika 60 10 2,000 329 60
Boven Marowijne Bigiston 60 8 1,600 n/a n/a
Sipawilinie (Saramacca
rivier)
Boslanti 30 8 1,600 168 30

Botopasi 583 84
Cabendadorp 174 n/a
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Carmel - - 0 n/a 30

Para Carolina 60 8 1,600
Para Cassipora 30 5 1,000 81 30
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Clementie 40 6 1,200 123 40

Commisaris kondre 18 5 1,000 n/a 18
Coppename rivier Corneliskondre 40 5 1,000 n/a 40
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Cottica a/d Lawa 80 10 2,000 216 68

Dahome n/a 60
Dang 353 60
Dangogo 197 40
Marowijne (Moengo) Dantapoe 18 5 1,000 n/a 18
Doewatra 210 60
Coppename rivier Donderskamp 40 5 1,000 n/a 40
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Drietabbetje 150 12 2,400

Drietabiki 680 84
Foetoenakaba 119 40
Gagaba 248 40
Lawa Gakaba 40 8 1,600 n/a 40
Marowijne Galibi 100 15 3,000 n/a 100
Geneston n/a 61
Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Godo-olo 114 10 2,000

Boven Marowijne Godo 40 8 1,600 584 60
Goejaba 1771 84
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Gonninikrikimoffo 48 8 1,600

Lawa Gosutu 12 5 1,000
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Granbori 45 5 1,000 121 55

Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Granslee 120 15 3,000

Gunsie n/a 30
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Jamaica 36 5 1,000

Jaw Jaw 327 55
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Jawsa - - 0 7 n/a

Brokopondo (para) Jozefdorp 20 5 1,000
Coppename rivier Kaaimanston 18 5 1,000 n/a 10
Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Kajana 114 8 1,600 n/a 84

Kajapati 583 55
Coppename rivier Kalebaskreek 60 5 1,000 n/a 30
Kambaloea 603 68
Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Kampoe 48 8 1,600

Marowijne (Moengo) Kasabaondro 25 5 1,000 n/a n/a
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Kawemhakken 40 8 1,600 345 40

Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Kisai 40 8 1,600 101 60

Koina Kondre n/a 28
Marowijne (Moengo) Kraboe-olo 30 5 1,000
Boven Marowijne Krikimoffo 60 8 1,600
rivier)
Kwakoegron 30 8 1,600 n/a 30

Laarwijk n/a 114
Marowijne (Moengo) Langahoekoe 30 5 1,000 n/a 30
Boven Marowijne Langatabbetje 80 12 2,400 2262 80
Marowijne (Moengo) Lantiwee 18 5 1,000 n/a 18
Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Ligorio 60 8 1,600 110 40

Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Lincidede 30 5 1,000

Lipansie 99 18
Boven Marowijne Loka-Loka 40 8 1,600 147 n/a
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Mainsie 40 6 1,200 104 40

Marowijne (Moengo) Malokokondre 18 5 1,000 n/a n/a
Marowijne (Moengo) Manjabon 18 5 1,000 n/a 18
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Manlobi 40 8 1,600 383 40

Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Massiakreek 45 10 2,000

Matta 458 60
Marowijne (Moengo) Moengotapoe 150 15 3,000 n/a n/a
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Mooitakkie 40 8 1,600 241 40

Marowijne Mopikondre 30 5 1,000 n/a n/a
Marowijne (Moengo) Morakondre 40 5 1,000 n/a n/a
Boven Marowijne Nason 60 8 1,600 204 40
Nieuw Aurora 822 60
rivier)
Nw. Jacobkondre 40 8 1,600 n/a 60

Marowijne (Moengo) Ovia-Olo 40 5 1,000 n/a 40
Padalawantie n/a 10
rivier)
Padua 10 3 600 n/a n/a

Pakirakondre n/a 10
Boven Marowijne Pakira tabiki 7 5 1,000 n/a n/a
Marowijne Pakirakreek 9 5 1,000
Pamboko 165 55
Marowijne (Moengo) Patamakka 30 5 1,000
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Peletepoe 18 5 1,000

Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Pelugoedoe 30 8 1,600

Marowijne (Moengo) Perica 18 5 1,000 n/a 18
Brokopondo (para) Phedra 30 12 2,400 63 60
Para Pierre Kondre 40 8 1,600 43 18
rivier)
Pijeti 60 10 2,000 n/a 60

Para Pikien Saron 40 10 2,000 361 30
Pikienslee 1173 60
Marowijne (Moengo) Pikinsanti 18 5 1,000 n/a 18
Marowijne (Moengo) Pinatjarimi 18 5 1,000 n/a 18
Lawa (Tapanahony Poeketie 120 15 3,000 241 n/a
rivier)
Pokigron 415 120
Commewijne Pomona 40 8 1,600 n/a 40
Para Powakka 60 10 2,000 486 60
rivier)
Pusugroenoe 55 10 2,000 n/a n/a

Brokopondo (para) Rama 40 8 1,600 68 40
Para Redi-Doti 60 8 1,600 97 30
Marowijne (Moengo) Ricanaumoffo 60 10 2,000 n/a 60
Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Sanbendoemi 40 8 1,600 150 40

Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Sangamasoesa 9 5 1,000 46 9

Sanikie 182 60
Santigron 689 84
Brokopondo (para) Sarakreek 60 10 2,000 968 60
Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Semoisi 90 12 2,400 579 80

Boven Marowijne Skin tabiki 20 5 1,000 89 18
Lawa Stoelmanseiland 150 15 3,000 500 84
Boven Suriname
(Sipawilinie)
Stonhoekoe 30 8 1,600 260 30

Lawa (Tapanahony
rivier)
Tabiki 40 8 1,600 548 40

Boven Marowijne Tabikiede 30 5 1,000 67 28
Marowijne (Moengo) Tamarin 60 5 1,000
Coppename rivier Tapoeripa (Nickerie) 48 8 1,600
Tepoe 300 18
Lawa Texas - - 0
Toekopi n/a 18
Coppename rivier Tottikamp 55 5 1,000 n/a 18
Marowijne (Moengo) Wanhatti 60 8 1,600 n/a 60
Coppename rivier Witagron 30 8 1,600 n/a 30
Brokopondo (para) Witsanti 18 8 1,600 134 40
Total 133 4,512 724 144,800 21,465 4,221 150,552

GEF, Suriname: Development of Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Electrification of Suriname, 11-2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEF, Suriname: Development of Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Electrification of Suriname, 11-2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

INVESTING lN OUR PLANET

You might also like