UNDP-GEF Regional Micro hydro Project

Request and Justification for supplemental PDF B Funding

FIRST REGIONAL MICRO/MINI-HYDROPOWER CAPACITY

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND INVESTMENT IN RURAL ELECTRICITY
ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
(Cameroon, Mali, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon,
Congo/Brazzaville, Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea, Togo & Benin – 10 countries + Burundi)

WWW.MICROHYDRO-UNDP.ORG

Expected GEF Work Program Entry: November 2005

Executive Summary

The PDF-B implementation of the First Regional Micro/Mini-hydroPower Capacity

Development Project and Investment in Rural Electricity Access in Sub-Saharan Africa has
progressed remarkably well towards Brief submission to GEF Council in July 2005 despite several
operational force majeur circumstances with sizable financial implications on initial PDF-B
resource allocations. Preparation status of all feasibility studies in the initially approved GEFSEC
PDF-B together with the specific country sites to be equipped in this project are available from the
project preparation website (www.microhydro-undp.org). At the request of the Burundian
government and with the support of the initial 10 Countries, the Project Steering Committee
approved Burundi’s inclusion in this first round of African Microhydro projects during its meeting in
September 21-23, 2005 in Douala, Cameroon. GEFSEC was informed accordingly together with the
other relevant Implementing Agencies.

This supplemental PDF-B request is intended to: (i) carry out required legal/rural electricity
sector reviews in RCA, Gabon, Democratic Republic of Congo which could not be covered before
exhaustion of initial PDF-B resources; (ii) support the additional cost of maintaining a light
coordination unit up to GEF Council endorsement -- through GEF approval expected in November
2005 -- now that the bulk of all feasibility studies is nearing satisfactorily completion; (iii) recruit a
private sector/power utility specialist to help strengthen the participation/(raise co-financing) from
the private sector, bi-lateral donors and local financing institutions within each of the participating
countries in order to leverage anticipated significant private sector funding on the basis of the
interest recorded during project preparation up to GEF Council endorsement; (iv) support the
forthcoming Project Brief validation workshop by all 11 participating countries in parallel with the
forthcoming Steering Committee meeting; (v) help manage the increasing microhydro database
under development by the African Microhydro Network established by the 11 participating countries
(as supported by the Douala Declaration). The intended TORs outlines together with the
justification for this supplemental request are indicated hereafter.

1
Update on PDF-B Implementation Progress

1. The approved PDF-B called for 6 specialized feasibility studies/reviews under the day-to-day
operational management of UNDP-Bamako (Lead Country during the preparatory phase) and the
technical backstopping of the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordination based in Dakar. The blend of
Western Firms (Vergnet –France, Econoler International based in Québec) working side by side and
in close collaboration with African NGOs (Enda-Tiers Monde, KITE, etc..) complemented with a
few seasoned individual Consultants from the African Development Bank and UNDP-GEF’s roster
of experts resulted in some 20 recruitments by mid-August 2004.

2. Despite the difficulties with operation travel in the Western and Central Africa Regions, all
11 countries were visited by the Technical Feasibility team composed of 5 Experts with
complementary expertise as indicated in the PDF-B PRODOC that was signed by the countries.
Field missions by the other thematic teams (ISW –Economic Sector Work for each country, Financial
Analysis of Power Utilities in connection with rural electrification issues, Legal/institutional review
of the on-going reforms, Participatory approaches and Social Analysis, Environmental Impact
Assessments, Microhydro Systems maintenance planning etc..) were executed as planned in all 11
countries with a few exceptions which justify, in part, the proposed supplemental funding request.
The level of cooperation of the host National Directorates of Energy allowed the field visits of
several sites which had been identified through prior donor funded activity and/or during the review
and discussions that took place within the PDF-B exercise. The overwhelmingly positive reaction
from the targeted rural beneficiaries helped enrich the socioeconomic and environmental data
collected to put in focus the development of the project under SP-3 and SP-4.

3. Based on the technical findings, the Kwh potential suggested by the field site technical data
and the power demand growth trends in the targeted beneficiary villages together with the
transitional power sector arrangements being implemented in the participating countries, appropriate
management structures necessary to help ensure sustainability are being investigated. The field
visits in all rural areas that were visited along with the high-level policy/strategic discussions with
the participating governments concluded that rural population in the region have pressing needs for
electricity, although specific needs vary among the 3 clusters of countries considered and also
depend upon varying country circumstances within each cluster. Electricity needs include those for
domestic, education, community, health care, business, and trade applications. For the villages
located near relatively large rivers, the primary electricity needs are for lighting, treatment/supply of
potable water for drinking, and production of ice for preservation of fish and meat. The
recommended microhydro technology for these villages is available from the website, with power
distributed to individual residences, along with the supply of the power required by the specific end-
use application. Depending on the size of the village and the water resource available, as many as 2
200KW turbines units will be needed mostly in the Central Africa regions where it was apparent that
the post-conflict situation and devastation from decades of civil war have wasted the productive
energies of a young generation turning into adulthood with new ambitions. Econoler International
based in Québec and EATP (Entreprise Africaine de Travaux Public with Offices in Bamako and
Abidjan) recommended providing multiple microhydro modules in several large villages and the
detailed compilation and analysis of the field socioeconomic and technical data is still underway.
Pending further scrutiny, the above appears to be considered the least cost, most sustainable
alternative that meets the current and projected needs of many, but not all, of the Central African
villages in close distance with sizable water endowments.

2
4. It came as a surprise that even in Burundi, Rwanda and DRC where many NGOs and
religious associations have had a prior local experience in development of microhydro systems,
many of the same challenges that can be observed from countries with less prior exposure to the
technology in West-Africa are still salient. Some of the places visited by the technical feasibility
team were graveyards for well-intention but poorly maintained technical solutions to the problems
faced by all villages in Central Africa predominantly. Failures were caused by:
 Extremely harsh operating environments
 Lack of technical skill and operating experience
 Lack of clear ownership, responsibility and profitability
 Lack of support infrastructure, spare parts, etc.
 Limited culture of customer service

5. Management of the new off grid microhydro-based power supplies to the targeted villages in
all 11 participating countries offers an opportunity to strengthen the institutional and operational
capability of the newly established rural electrification agencies through adoption of a private
contractor approach. Perhaps, at the exception of Mali where earlier field data suggested the
possibility of a community-based management approach, there was a strong sense in Douala, that the
bulk of the targeted villages are suited for implementation of a private sector approach because there
will be inherent efficiencies that facilitate management and reduce operating and maintenance costs.
For example, although access to some villages is somewhat difficult, the villages are relatively few
in number, in the same area of the same country, and can be served comparatively easily by
operating, maintenance and money collection personnel. Also more importantly, most villages have
strong cooperatives which can perform important functions such as sales and distribution of services,
collection of money at the household and village level, and interface with the private contractor for
operating and maintenance services. The Douala 2004 Steering Committee meeting discussions got
close to recommending a model for private sector involvement following the GOCO (government
owned/contractor operated) approach/scheme with a strong incentive structure and regular third-
party oversight. The basic elements are:

 National government owns (through Rural Electrification Bodies/Structures) the facilities.

 A Request for Proposals developed by the rural electrification agency/National Directorate
for Energy seeks local/international company bids on the entire scope of operations,
maintenance and money collection for all mini/microhydro locations. This organization will
also participate in, under the supplying contractor’s supervision, the construction,
commissioning and testing of the units.
 Bidders propose 1) a one time sign up fee that they would require of all end users, 2) a one
time government/UNDP-GEF subsidy for the term of the contract, and 3) a tariff.
Maintenance requirements, initial stock of spare parts, and customer care expectations are
predefined by the rural Electrification Agency.
 The rural electrification Agency/National Directorate of Energy establishes performance
incentives, such as equipment availability, that would allow the contractor to win annual
bonuses for good performance. The nature and potential amount of these annual bonuses are
defined before proposals are solicited.
 The rural electrification Agency requires an independent annual review of its own oversight
and contractor operations, including customer satisfaction surveys. (Customer satisfaction
would carry significant weight in the rate of return the contractor makes.)

With this approach, the winning contractor receives payment via:

 Sign-up fees

3
  One time up front government payment
 Customer tariff
 Performance bonuses

6. These challenges are neither new nor unexpected. The question is what approach to take in
dealing with them and the findings and recommendations from the other complementary sector
studies are being brought to bear in the development of the project brief. Under this supplemental
PDF-B request, a public-private partnership specialist with strong technical background in the power
business will be recruited to carry out further in-depth investigations and follow-up on the interest of
the local financial institutions to have some sort of equity stake in the national projects together with
E&Co’s announced participation under a regional private funding facility. Moreover, the need for a
project brief validation workshop has been heightened over the weeks/months past based on the
informal and formal feed-backs received from the countries who are reviewing the feasibility reports
from the Project’s public website and the bi-lateral partners who have expressed interest in joining
forces and resources with UNDP-GEF together with the African Development Bank on this
enriching experience thus far. Fortunately, many of the above issues were anticipated by design and
Vergnet-France’s report on maintenance and management of these systems in the African context is
highly likely to prompt the participating countries in the right direction.

7. In terms of specific productive end use applications, it was apparent from the field technical
visits that drinking water supply infrastructure do not exist in any of the villages surveyed and that
electricity needs for water pumping or treatment to supply drinking water, as well as local economic
activities such as agriculture or livestock is a major concern. While irrigation in Central African
countries does not seem to be an insurmountable problem, preservation of harvested crops is a real
issue because the villagers – in Western and Central Africa alike -- are dependant on the price
offered by the buyer at the time due to the lack of preservation.

8. Similar to our observations from the technical feasibility investigations and outputs, it is fair
to say that the institutional/financial/environmental/ sector and legal analysis carried out have
produced equally insightful reports to lay a solid foundation for the project brief and the follow-up
PRODOC (Project Document) while at the same time making it clear that the few countries that
could not be visited by the Legal/Institutional team ought to be visited to maintain the current level
of quality and the overall coherence in project design. Burundi’s contribution to the PDF-B budget
in the tune of US$150,000 to offset additional project preparation costs following its late admission
in the project membership has only helped carry out all initially planned PDF-B activities up to
February 2005 as a result of various compelling force majeur situations with budgetary
repercussions that could not be anticipated at PDF-B inception.

Justification of the Inclusion of Burundi

9. By way of a letter dated July 28 th signed by the Burundian Minister of Communal

Development followed up by a similar request dated July 29th which was signed by the Minister of
Energy and Mineral resources (see attachment), Burundi and UNDP-Bujumbura made a convincing
case for the country’s participation in the first round of African Microhydro projects under UNDP-
GEF. Principally, the need to assist Burundi on the same priority issues as in Rwanda, DRC and
RCA was evident given the close geographical proximity with above countries and the country’s
documented sizable water resources in sharp contrast with the close to zero rural electrification rate.

4
Review of Critical Events with Budgetary Implications

10. The implementation of this PDF-B since late June 2004 has witnessed several incidents
including: (i) 3 forces majeur situations; which in turn (ii) caused the bulk of field missions/data
collection trips to slip into the high-travel season with commensurate higher air-travel fares.

Force Major circumstances

11. The first force majeur situation was the dismissal of the 5 person technical feasibility team
at the Kinshassa airport by the Military authorities of Democratic Republic of Congo despite all the
precautions taken by the Mali UNDP-Project Coordination team and the UNDP-Field Offices in
DRC and neighboring Congo-Brazzaville. The above incident was reportedly further compounded
by various break-ups in communication lines among the UNDP-Field Offices in the region which
had agreed to assist with the planning, organization and field execution of the feasibility stage
following the abrupt resignation of the Environmental Officer/Focal point from UNDP-DRC in
September 2004 without adequate fall-back or interim arrangements. With the cooperation from
UNDP-Congo Brazzaville, the incident was resolved only after over 14 days (2 calendar weeks) by
making provisions for the team to travel by ferry boat crossing the river between Brazzaville and
Kinshassa rather than flying through the Kinshassa airport. Nevertheless, the time wasted and
resulting contract amendments with relatively high DSAs (daily subsistence allowance payment)
based on the UN’s standard rates for such a post-conflict/risky region meant that the PDF-B
resources were severely overdrawn.

12. The second force majeur situation is connected with the difficulties in getting the
cooperation of the Equatorial Guinean Authorities to have the various teams of Consultants in
Malabo (Capital of Equatorial Guinea) at the initially planned mission dates for various reasons out
of the scope of this supplemental funding request. Equatorial Guinea escaped a failed coup attempt
in 2003/2004 with a tumultuous political and criminal trial which reportedly left several open
questions unanswered and many government officials quite nervous in their interactions with foreign
Consultants. UNDP-GEF and the PDF-B Coordination team still have a sense that the country
environment in the aftermath of the recent Oil boom combined with the high-profile trials that were
still underway in Malabo during the initially proposed – and accepted -- missions schedules may
have presumably caused the delays in government clearance of the mission while Consultants were
already in neighboring countries.

13. The third and last – but perhaps most detrimental – critical incident was the Ivorian turmoil
and popular street up rising against the French government in November 4,5,6, and 7 th 2004 which
prompted the closing of the Ivorian airport for 2 full weeks, in effect, blocking smooth international
travel in and out of Abidjan for close to a full month or a 3 weeks depending upon the air-lines under
consideration. Considering that Abidjan is a hub for air travel in the West-Africa region and beyond,
the timing of the above crisis was particularly damaging to the PDF-B resources against the
background of the above critical incidents. Both the Field Technical Mission Leader from Econoler
International in transit through Abidjan (on his way to his home-base in Canada) and the EATP team
of Experts who were blocked in Douala, Kenya and Brazzaville endured an additional mission
disruption and waste of time of about 3 full weeks as a result of the closing of the Abidjan Airport.
The ripple effects of the above delays from various exogenous events upon the other thematic studies
meant that the original GEF Council submission of Project brief had to be postponed to July
November 2005 assuming that the requested supplemental PDF-B funding is approved in a timely
fashion.
5
Required Activities before GEF Work Program Entry and up to Council Endorsement

14. Reviewing the work carried out to date, the following specific activities appear to be a pre-
requisite for GEF Council submission for approval and endorsement over a realistic time horizon of
about 12 months based on the experience in the region and the need to continue to involve the
various players at all levels of government, the NGOs, the Civil society along with the private sector
which has expressed a rather strong interest in participating in the project:

(i) carrying out legal/rural electricity sector reviews in RCA, Gabon, Equatorial
Guinea together with the required environmental assessments in 3 countries which
could not be covered before exhaustion of initial PDF-B resources;

(ii) supporting further intermediation with the relevant private sector in all 11
participating countries as articulated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above by recruiting a
private sector/power utility specialist to help strengthen the participation/(raise co-
financing) from the private sector, bi-lateral donors and local financing institutions
within each of the participating countries in order to leverage significant private
sector funding on the basis of the interest recorded during project preparation up to
GEF Council endorsement;

(iii) (ii) supporting the additional cost of maintaining a light coordination unit up to
GEF Council endorsement -- through GEF approval expected in November 2005 --
now that the bulk of all feasibility studies have been satisfactorily completed;

(iv) supporting the forthcoming Project Brief validation meeting by all 11 participating
countries;

(v) helping manage the increasing microhydro database under development by the
African Microhydro Network established by the 11 participating countries (as
supported by the Douala Declaration attached); and,

15. With respect to the critically important task of inviting further private sector participation in
the ownership structure of the microhydro systems to be deployed, it is sensible to admit that the
initial PDF-B proposal submitted in March 2004 may have underestimated the potential and scope
for private participation. Because of the known difficulties with the trial and error power sector
reform process under way in the 11 participating countries, the initial PDF-B submission to GEFSEC
had clearly underestimated the enthusiasm that the preparation phase of this project would generate
as new electricity sector players were being brought into the game and old frustrated ones were
trying to identify new market niches for themselves. In countries like Rwanda, the Dutch Embassy
has reportedly pledged up to US$ 2 million in grant co-financing to help mainstream the approach if
the right conditions could be met during project preparation. In Mali, AMADER (The Rural
Electrification Agency recently established with IDA funds under the World Bank HEURA –
Household and Universal Rural Access Project) intends to focus on the elicitation of the local
microhydro market to help achieve the agency’s own private sector fund raising targets for
renewable electricity. Despite this, it is highly unlikely that the above private sector participation
intensions and co-financing from local institutions together with interested bi-laterals will
materialize unless a seasoned specialist with a demonstrated track record in dealing with power
6
utilities, government agencies and commercial/financial institutions is recruited to help structure and
bring closure on the various potential deals that have already been identified. In retrospect, the
above line of expertise was a significant void from the initial PDF-B which is now going to be filled
based on the field experience and feed-back from all 11 participating countries.

16. Another important finding that was captured by the resolutions out of the September 21-23,
2004 Steering committee meeting in Douala, Cameroon with UNEP, the World Bank, UNIDO, UN-
ECA and UNDP was the wealth of microhydro site information now being collected and brought to
the notice of African governments and the local communities. It was agreed by all participants in the
Douala discussions that specific project level data collection and information system management
activities as such would best be incorporated in the design of the national/regional activities to be
carried out on a cluster basis during the 4 year life span of the project. The shared vision was an
initial catalytic support from GEF during actual project implementation to break the grip of
information barriers through the widespread diffusion of site technical and socioeconomic data.
However, before project implementation is launched, it appears that the PDF-B phase would offer a
unique opportunity for: (i) ascertaining the level of efforts and coordination that would be required;
(ii) harmonizing the data collected from the 3 clusters of countries; and (iii) gauging the policy
leverage that can achieved with this regional initiative.

17. In contrast with the long standing national preference for previous isolated country rural
development initiatives, the African governments which met in Douala seemed to acknowledge that
the efficient supply and local management of decentralized running power to their scattered rural
communities was essentially a national and regional policy decision that could leverage much
needed investment funding to support other on-going rural development activities. Governments in
the participating 11 countries are all active in attempting to replace ligneous fuels (fuelwood and
charcoal) by petroleum products (Liquid Petroleum Gas, LPG – and Kerosene). However, success
basically depends on economic growth and the corresponding increase of personal incomes that
would permit consumers to switch fuels. The focus of the Douala discussions on available
endogenous water resources and the sharp contrast with the region’s less than 8% rural electrification
rate according to the International Energy Agency, helped put in perspective the need for an African
forum to further the reflection and the necessary policy dialogue beyond the confines of individual
country rural electrification projects.

18. The African Microhydro Network agreed in Douala would:

(i) offer a forum for policy discussions among the 11 participating countries, the concerned
donors and UNDP-GEF;

(ii) provide an operational conduit for capacity–building, targeted training and cross-
fertilization of national experiences focusing on lessons learned from best practices and
international benchmarks in the specific sector of decentralized rural electricity access and
performance improvement through mini/microhydro power system deployment;

(iii) promote GEF’s climate change focal area strategic priority 3 activities (SP-3: Power Sector
Policy Frameworks Supportive of Renewable Energies and Energy Efficiency ) with a view to
supporting in all 11 countries – and on a cluster by cluster basis – an assessment of the Micro/mini-
hydropower’s development impact looking at: (a) the project’s participatory methodology; (b) the
operational policy focus of all relevant sector work and/or feasibility reports; (c) the multi-
disciplinary approach; and (d) the extent of capacity mobilization and development;
7
(iv) strengthen regional integration and cooperation; and,

(v) disseminate findings of studies based on experiences gained from UNDP-GEF’s own
Microhydro 1 projects or from activities of partner organizations working in areas relevant to GEF
strategic priority 3.

19. Viewed from the above perspective, the importance of the regional dimension of this
African knowledge network is most evidenced in Central Africa where many post conflict countries
appear to be still too weak and fragile to venture on critical policy reforms on their own without a
number of safeguards. Based on the on-going field work in the context of the first round of the
Microhydro-Power project and the Douala discussions, it appears that selection of eligible sites at
the country level has proved to be a difficult decision making process and a daunting challenge for
all those involved. Because of the rural focus of the project in countries where the majority of urban
settlements including capitals still lack running electricity, UNDP-GEF has effectively used the
regional dimension of the project to smooth out the reluctance of many national governments to
abide by the retained eligibility criteria agreed to with all stakeholders at project inception, including
GEFSEC, UNDP and the participating host governments themselves. PDF-B resources will
realistically not target the operation of the above African Microhydro Network being funded from
other resources. Nevertheless, support for the compilation, codification and day-to-day management
of PDF-B site information during this preparatory phase – although on a relatively reduced scale – is
key to ensuring successful project preparation considering the number of sites being surveyed in the
11 countries and the obvious policy dimension of the information being processed.

20. Finally, with the added benefit of the field preparatory work and the productive policy
discussions under way within the context of the nascent African Microhydro Network, it has been
agreed that 3 Project Briefs would be presented to GEFSEC and GEF Council in November 2005 so
that specific cluster/regional dynamics could be heightened and also to avoid diluting the country
specific issues/barriers and solutions proposed for GEF funding. The above adds to the financial
demands of the supplemental funding being requested.

8
 Requested Supplemental PDF-B Resources and TOR

Activity to be Executed with Travel resources Fees Total

Supplemental PDF-B Funds
Air-ticket DSA
(US$) (US$) (US$) (US$)
Annex 1: Private-sector/utility participation
Specialist (@500 US$/day over 6 months) 15,000 7,000 60,000 82,000
Annex 2: Project Preparation Coordination
(10 working days per month over 4 months 8,000 6,000 20,000 34,000
@ 500 US$ per day)
Annex 3: Microhydro
Network/Microhydro-Energy Data Base
Management (3,500 US$ per month over 12 42,000 42,000
months)
Annex 4-a: Legal/Sector Reform
Specialist 9,000 5,000 20,000 34,000
(8 weeks @500 per day)
Annex 2: Project Assistant (2,000 US$
per month over 3 months) 6,000 6,000
Regional Project Brief Validation Workshop
60,000
Miscellenous (communications/phone, 7,000
translations etc…)
Total 265,000

Annexes and attachments:

Annex 0: Burundi participation letters

Annex 1: Technical Advisor/ Power Engineer/Private Participation Specialist in Mini/Micro
Power Projects
Annex 2:Project Management/Coordination Specialist
Annex 3: African Microhydro Network/Microhydro-Energy Data-base Management
Annex 4: TOR Legal Advisor/Sector Reform/Legal and Legislative Review Specialist

9
Annex 0: Burundi participation letters

10
11
12
 Annex 1: Technical Advisor/ Power Engineer/Private
Participation Specialist in Mini/Micro
Power Projects
In each participating country, ownership structure of the micro/mini-hydropower plant would be
allowed to vary from one site to another including day-to-day plant operation on community-based
ownership, fully private ESCOs and extensions/joint ventures with existing rural electrification
agencies, etc…as appropriate given local circumstances. As it is often the case when local
institutions are technically weak, the project preparation phase with the facilitation of international
Consultants will have to be fully carried out before a clear choice of the most appropriate
alternatives are made. Among the major activities that will be covered under this component are the
establishment of fund for rural energy and livelihood support, the design and development of
appropriate financing schemes focusing on: (1) private and government financial institutions; (2)
commercial banks; and, (4) community-based associations and (4) private entrepreneurs. All of the
above will be carried out under the supervision of the nationally selected project-executing agency.

The selected technical Advisor/Public-Private participation specialist will work with the PDF-B
coordination team and the participating governments to recommend an appropriate private
participation and ownership structure for all sites to be equipped through this project.
 He will be further expected to provide technical guidance to the project brief preparation team on
:
 Clear lines of ownership, responsibility and profitability –
 Organization and Management.
 Modular systems designed for high levels of reliability and redundancy (assume
50% failure rates on all components over 2-year periods).
 Maintenance of a large spare parts inventory and rapid responsiveness to
equipment failures.
 Strict control over financial processes, operations and maintenance and
particularly preventative maintenance.
 A pool of operating reserve funds that must be replenished.
 A pool of investment capital that is grown organically from general operating
revenues.

13
 Annex 2:Project Management/Coordination Specialist

Management of Project Preparation up to Council Endorsement through Brief Approval (10 working
days per months over 12 months). Part-time Assignment

The project PDF-B project Manager will review all project TOR, assess quality of study outputs,
share knowledge on sector issues and will report to the international Steering Committee together
with UNDP-GEF/Regional Coordinator. To meet the Julu 2005 IWP submission, the Manager will
liaise with all 11 countries, assist the Project Brief writing team in splitting the execution
arrangements in 3 clusters, leading de facto to 3 Regional project submissions. He will be
responsible for the following actions and/or activities:

 Role, responsibility and staffing of the borrower for project preparation, including designation of a
project preparation team (UNDP-GEF, AfDB, IEPF, UNDP-CO and national governments).
 UNDP-GEF, IEPF, UNDP-CO and AfDB assistance to be provided during project preparation.
 Arrangements for local/foreign consultant inputs.
 Outline of Project Implementation Plan to be prepared by national governments/National
Directorates of Energy.
 Timetable for project preparation (including deadline for submission of the PIP).
 Milestones for progress review and any discussions with the African Development Bank.
 Key outputs of project preparation, e.g. technical/economic feasibility studies, institutional,
beneficiary, environmental and social assessments, tariff studies, financial model.
 Depth of analysis required for each specialist area, e.g. full EA, cost benefit analysis, skills/gap
analysis.
 Issues to be addressed in parallel with project preparation (parallel track or likely loan conditions).
 Modalities of project preparation and analytical tools, e.g., beneficiary participation in project design,
beneficiary surveys, use of logical framework
 The proposed public consultation/participation process

A project Assistant will be recruited to Assist with the day-to-day execution of the above
duties and will focus on all Consultant travel related/ERP-Atlas, financial and administrative
matters.

14
Annex 3: African Microhydro Network/Microhydro-Energy Data-base
Management

Database manager/webmaster

Due to the regional aspect of this project, it appears essential to clearly establish an operational
relationship with all international knowledge base in the field of micro-hydroelectricity and set up a
database for reference purposes as needed. A web based reliable information system to allow all
stake holders to access the information the easiest way will be designed and implemented. In the
initial phase of the project, the regional database structure will be designed and discussed with team
members and all micro-hydro partners. During the second phase the project will be implemented to
allow easy access of the database through a web enhanced graphic interface within the micro-hydro
network.

In collaboration with the technical secretary’s office at UNDP-Bamako and under supervision of the
regional coordination, the database administrator will perform the following tasks:

Mission A: organize and manage data collection during the PDF-B phase

 Set up a national team

 Define and distribute tasks
 Sensitize data owners and collect reliable data to feed into the information system
 Sensitize public decision makers
 Set up the internet connection to ease data search and information exchange
 Set up a website with chat room
 Assure proper management of the project
 Organize workshops
 Design data collection procedures
 Uniform data collection procedures in different countries
 Propose a uniform database design for all countries
 Set up a work schedule and a project timeline

Mission B: operate and supervise the Project website

Implementing the Website

 Update and upgrade the website

 Manage user access
 Set up chat rooms
 Synchronize web pages
 Conduct surveys to maintain performance of the website
 Create a photo gallery and animated objects
 Visitor monitoring

15
Mission C: SIE/IEPF Project

 Work in collaboration with IEPF and partners among which IAE (International Agency for
Energy) based in Paris
 Detail report on the data collection process
 Facilitate data sharing over the Internet
 Data management
 Database design and implementation
 Follow-up and coordination of work with IEPF
 Create templates and uniform procedures

16
 Annex 4: TOR Legal Advisor/Sector Reform & Legal and Legislative
Review Specialist

The proposed TORs are the same as the ones used for the current PDF-B prior to exhaustion of
funds.

(4-a) Summary for Legal Counsel: TOR Legal Advisor/Legal and Legislative Review Specialist
 Analysis of barriers and constraints in connection with the institutional, legal and financial
framework and developments of proposals to remedy the situation; facilitate micro/mini-
hydroelectric power development by eliminating overlapping jurisdiction of the many government
agencies whose permits, clearances, licenses and other similar authorizations issued by various
government agencies as presently required for such development, and by exploring the possibility –
where applicable -- of vesting in once agency the exclusive authority and responsibility for the
development of mini-hydroelectric power;

17