ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674– 2684

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

And then they lived sustainably ever after?—Assessment of rural

electrification cases by means of indicators
Elisabeth Ilskog a,, Björn Kjellström b
a
Royal Institute of Technology, S-136 40 Haninge, Sweden
b
Luleå University of Technology, SE-97187 Luleå, Sweden

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Increasing the current low level of access to electricity in developing countries is important for
Received 15 September 2007 economic development and poverty eradication. Encouraging the involvement of new actors for
Accepted 12 March 2008 implementation of rural electrification projects is a relatively new policy. At the same time, it is required
Available online 12 May 2008
that the projects contribute to sustainable development. It is therefore of interest to investigate
Keywords: whether, for instance, private sector involvement can contribute more to some aspects of sustainability
Sustainability Indicators than the conventional approach where rural electrification is the responsibility of a government utility.
Evaluation It seems that so far no studies have addressed this issue.
Rural Electrification This paper presents findings from field trips to seven rural electrification areas in Eastern and
Southern Africa and shows how these studies can be used to illustrate different dimensions of
sustainability by means of indicators.
The field studies generated valuable experiences regarding collection of data for evaluation of the
indicators and illustrate some difficulties associated with comparing the different aspects of
sustainability.
The evaluation indicates that the national utilities perform better from a social/ethical perspective,
whereas the private organisations and the community-based organisations manage their client-relation
issues in a more sustainable way.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Background and introduction nity-based organisations (CBOs) to engage in electrification

In Africa, the majority of the population (in particular in rural
areas) still lack access to modern energy services like electricity
supply. In fact, rural access to electricity is less than 5% in most
countries in Southern and Eastern Africa (Gustavsson and
Ellegård, 2004).
National governments in developing countries and the inter-
national donor society have for many years given high priority to
improving this low level of electrification. Access to basic, clean
energy services is essential for sustainable development and
poverty eradication. With few exceptions, national utilities have
been responsible for electrification of rural areas. The progress has
been slow and the increase in access to electrification has often
not lived up to expectations. During the last few years, interna-
tional donors have therefore encouraged the involvement of other
actors such as private enterprises and different forms of commu-
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 10 505 10 31; fax: +46 8 653 31 93.
E-mail addresses: elisabeth.ilskog@syd.kth.se (E. Ilskog),
bjorn.kjellstrom@exergetics.se (B. Kjellström).
projects in developing countries.
The environmental sustainability of infrastructural develop-
ment has received increasing attention, inspired by the 1987
World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundt-
land, 1987), and the Commission’s frequently quoted definition of
sustainability ‘‘Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.’’ OECD (2001) has, for instance, elaborated the
definition by discussing the concept in the three dimensions of
economic, environmental and social sustainability.
It is possible that involvement of new actors in rural electrifica-
tion can accelerate the progress of rural electrification but it is not
obvious that, for example, private entrepreneurs will give the same
emphasis to the environmental and social/ethical dimensions of
sustainability as organisations that are under public control.
Comprehensive evaluations of electrification efforts like those
reported by Kjellström et al. (1992); NORAD (1994); the World
Bank (1996, 2003, 2005); Manibog et al., 2003; Sida (2002) and
Martins (2005) do not discuss the possible effects of the institutional
arrangement on the contribution to sustainable development and it
seems that so far no field studies have addressed this issue.

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.03.022
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Ilskog, B. Kjellström / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674–2684
A method for evaluation of the sustainability of electrification
activities has been proposed by Ilskog (2008a). Five dimensions of
sustainability are considered: technical, economical, social/ethi-
cal, environmental and institutional sustainability. Important
differences from previous attempts to evaluate sustainability by
means of indicators are the introduction of a fifth dimension—the
technical dimension, a selection of indicators focussed on the
local, project-specific performance, and definition of indicators
that facilitate data collection and reduce the room for subjective
assessments.
The objective of the work reported on in this paper was to gain
experiences from the application of this method for sustainability
evaluations but also to look for differences in emphasis given to
the five dimensions of sustainability that could be attributed to
the type of organisation managing the electrification project.
After a brief discussion on indicators, their suitability as
message carriers and the selection of indicators for rural
electrification, the major part of the paper focuses on findings
from the case studies, followed by an analysis and suggestions for
future research.
2. Indicators for the building of assessment tools
Indicators as tools for analysis and communication of changes
and trends have become commonly used by different organisa-
tions, see for instance, UN (2001), OECD/IEA (2001), World
Bank (2003) and IAEA (2005). One of the main reasons is
that indicators can facilitate understanding of the information
included in extensive statistical data, making the information
accessible for a larger number of stakeholders. Many of the
suggested indicators for appraisal of electrification efforts are,
however, very general in their design, and are mainly suitable on a
national or strategic level (Ugwu and Haupt, 2007). There is
therefore a need to identify indicators suitable on a local project
level.
Such indicators have been proposed by Ilskog (2008a).
The indicators were selected through an iterative process,
starting from indicators utilised previously by researchers and
consultants. The usefulness of these indicators was then
assessed based on experiences from field studies, where the
possibilities of collecting the necessary data and information were
found to be an important reason for modification or change of
indicators.
The performance of the individual project was in focus when
the indicators were selected and designed. For each indicator,
there is a detailed description of the methods and procedures to
be used for collection of the necessary information (see Ilskog,
2008b). The room for subjective assessments is thereby reduced.
The format of the descriptions is the same as that developed by
the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UN, 2001).
Five dimensions of sustainability are considered.
 Technical sustainability, focussed on maintaining the energy
service during the economic lifetime of the initial investment;
 Economic sustainability, focussed on survival of the service
beyond the economic lifetime of the initial investment;
 Social/ethical sustainability, focussed on equitable distribution
of the benefits offered by electrification;
 Environmental sustainability, focussed on the conservation of
natural resources, avoiding degradation of the environment,
and preventing in-door air pollution;
 Institutional sustainability, focussed on survival of the organi-
sation and its ability to maintain adequate performance with
respect to the other dimensions of sustainability.
2675
Of these dimensions, the economic, social, environmental, and
institutional sustainability are also considered by major interna-
tional organisations (UN, 2001; IAEA, 2005). The fifth dimension
has been included to put an additional focus on the technical
dimension since this has a direct influence on the sustainability of
the local project. Sustainable development requires that all
aspects of sustainability are fulfilled. Projects designed with the
focus on one aspect only, for example environmental sustain-
ability, cannot ensure sustainable development.
3. Selection of cases and methods used for data collection and
comparisons between the cases
3.1. Cases evaluated
Seven organisations were included in the study. They were
selected primarily from organisations of different kinds that had
received financial support from the Swedish International Devel-
opment Agency (Sida) and had been operational for more than 2
years. The private sector was represented by three PV energy
service companies, one co-operative and one CBO were included.
A small isolated local grid branch and a larger local utility
connected to the national grid represented governmental utilities.
The organisations operate in Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia. Table 1
includes more details.
3.2. Data collection
The findings presented in this paper are based on interviews
with management, staff and case facilitators; surveys where
electricity clients were interviewed; inspections of physical
assets; and reviews of available written documentation for each
case included in the study. The written documentation covers
mainly: inspections of production units, inspections of distribu-
tion networks and substations, operational data in logbooks,
client databases, and financial reports. The organisations respon-
sible for the services as well as local authorities had been
contacted well in advance.
The interviews with electricity clients, potential clients, and
non-clients concern foremost the impact of electricity on their
daily lives. The interviewees who amounted to slightly more than
800 were randomly selected.1 Questionnaires taking 20–40 min to
complete were used, including both closed and open-ended
questions. The surveys covered women and men, households,
businesses and institutions. Teams of 2–7 fieldworkers that
included both women and men, trained to fill in the question-
naires, collected the data. Most of the fieldworkers had been
involved in national census work, giving them earlier experience
in working with questionnaires. All were knowledgeable in the
local languages and had at least secondary school education. The
authors of this paper conducted three of the surveys: in 2002,
2003 and 2004. The other two surveys2 were conducted in 2001
and 2002 by another researcher as part of a research project at
Göteborg University in Sweden (Gustavsson and Ellegård, 2004;
Gustavsson and Mtonga, 2005; and Gustavsson, 2006).
For one of the CBOs, no interviews with clients were made. The
information utilised here was collected from open-ended inter-
views with staff, management, and project facilitators. In addition,
information from a paper based on a survey made by UNEP
has been utilised (Wamukonya, 2004). More details are given in
Table 2.
1
Except for the case ‘‘Private A’’ where the interviews included all the clients.
2
Covering the cases ‘‘Private A’’, ‘‘Private B’’ and ‘‘Private C’’.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

2676 E. Ilskog, B. Kjellström / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674–2684

Table 1
Organisations included in the study

Type of organisation Technology used Number of clients Total population Price for Electricity
within concession Services (USD/kWh)
area

Larger government organisation/ Main national grid supplied mainly by hydropower. The 59 000 (year 2004) 985 000a 0.03–0.11b (average:
utility (Government L) organisation also has a smaller local grid supplied by diesel 0.07)
generator sets
Smaller local branch of Local grid supplied by diesel generator sets 430 (year 2003) 75 000c 0.03–0.11b (average:
government-owned utility 0.07)
(Government S)
Co-operative (Co-operative) Local grid supplied by diesel generator sets 240 (year 2002) 82 000d 0.47
Community-based organisation Small hydropower 8 (Business Centre) NDA 0.006
(CBO) (year 2003)
Private company (Ltd.) (Private A) Solar PV located at each clients premises 100 (Solar Home 70 000e 1.6
Systems, SHS) (year
2003)
Private company (Ltd.) (Private B) Solar PV located at each clients premises 150 (Solar Home 365 000e 2.1
Systems, SHS) (year
2003)
Private company (Ltd.) (Private C) Solar PV located at each clients premises 150 (Solar Home 235 000e 1.6
Systems, SHS) (year
2003)

Sources: Information from the organisations studied and Statistical Bureaus in the countries included.
a
‘‘Tanzania 2002 population and housing census’’, National Bureau of Statistics Tanzania (2002b).
b
The lowest tariff is applied for low-consuming households only.
c
‘‘Household Budget Survey 2000/01’’. National Bureau of Statistics Tanzania (2002a).
d
‘‘Taarifa ya wilaya ya Urambo’’, Urambo District (2001). NDA: no data available.
e
‘‘Zambia 2000 Census Report’’, National Bureau of Statistics Zambia (2003).

Table 2
Presentation of methods for data collection for each case included in the study

Case Year of Method Number of evaluators Selection criteria

evaluation and/or enumerators

Larger government 2004  Survey covering 268 electricity clients and non-clients 9 field workers The interviewees were randomly selected from an
organisation/ in their homes/businesses/institutions. existing database used for an on-going household
utility  Survey covering 120 electricity clients at the census
organisations sales office.
 Inspection of production and distribution assets.
 Review of financial reports and databases.
 Interviews with staff and management of the
organisation.

Smaller government 2003  Survey covering 27 electricity clients in their homes/ 2 field workers The interviewees were randomly selected from the
organisation/ businesses/institutions. client ledgers of the organisation
utility  Discussions with staff and management of the
organisation.
 Review of logbooks and relevant reports.

Co-operative 2002  Survey covering 35 electricity clients in their homes/ 5 field workers The interviewees were randomly selected from the
businesses/institutions. client ledgers of the organisation
 Inspection of production and distributions assets.
 Discussions with staff and management of the
organisation.
 Review of logbooks and relevant reports.

Community-based 2003,  Discussions with staff and management of the 2 field workers No interviews were made with clients
organisation 2004 organisation.
(CBO)  Inspection of production and distributions assets.
 Review of logbooks and relevant reports.
 Review of a study carried out by UNEP (Wamukonya,
2004).

Private organisation 2001,  Survey covering 360 electricity clients, potential clients 7 field workers Private A: All clients were interviewed Private B and C:
A, B and C 2003 and non-clients in their homes/businesses/ the interviewees were randomly selected
institutions.a
 Review of financial reports
 Interviews with staff and management of the
organisation.

a
The survey was performed by Gustavsson, Human Ecology Section, Göteborg University, Sweden. Data from the survey has generously been granted for use in this
study.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Ilskog, B. Kjellström / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674–2684
Table 3
Presentation of technical sustainability indicators for the cases included in the study (within brackets are the scores reached by each case in comparison with the other
cases included in the study)
Indicator Government La Government Sa
Operation and maintenance
Conformance with national standards No (1.5) Yes (5)
for transmission/distribution
systems and client installations,
yes/no
Technical losses,b % 20 (3) 15 (4)
Technical client-relation issues
Daily operation service, % 100 (6.5) 100 (6.5)
Availability of services, % 98 (7) 88 (2)
a
S: smaller government organisation, L: larger government organisation.
b
Also referred to as un-paid electricity generation.
3.3. Determination of the sustainability indicators
Only 31 of the 39 indicators suggested by Ilskog (2008a) were
determined; the reason being that the experiences from the field
studies indicated that seven additional indicators would be useful
but could not be determined from the data collected during the
surveys. This is discussed further in Section 5.
The guidelines presented by Ilskog (2008b) were followed
when the indicators were determined from the data collected
during the surveys.
3.4. Comparison between the case studies
A ranking system was used for comparisons between the seven
cases. For each indicator, scores from 1 to 73 were given to each
case, where the case with the best performance from a sustain-
ability point of view was given the highest score and that with the
lowest performance the lowest score. If several cases indicated the
same performance, the score was divided among them.
The total score for a case for each sustainability dimension was
then calculated by simple averaging of the scores for the relevant
indicators. This means that the indicators were given equal
weights. In addition, an overall score for sustainability was
calculated for each case. This was done so that each dimension
had the same weight.
It is obvious that the outcome of the comparison may depend
very much on the procedure used for scoring and weighting
between indicators. This issue is discussed in Section 5 of the
paper.
4. Findings
4.1. The technical dimension
Technical sustainability is facilitated if the technical infra-
structure locally available meets the requirements of the technol-
ogy installed, if the technology used can provide the service
needed, and if favourable technical performance leads to low costs
for the services.
Table 3 shows the performance of the seven cases studied with
respect to the proposed indicators for technical sustainability.
Some deviations from national standards in the construction of
low voltage distribution systems were observed for the large
government utility and the co-operative. The solar home systems
3 4
In accordance with the number of cases included in the study.
2677
Co-operative CBO Private A Private B Private C
No (1.5) Yes (5) Yes (5) Yes (5) Yes (5)
27 (2) 30 (1) 0 (6) 0 (6) 0 (6)
19 (4) 38 (5) 17 (2) 17 (2) 17 (2)
97 (6) 70 (1) 95 (4) 95 (4) 95 (4)
used by the private companies do not require transmission/
distribution systems and the client installations must be replaced
before the clients are connected to the national grid. These cases
are therefore technically less well prepared for future grid
expansion.
In all the cases with central generation, a significant share of
the generated electricity was lost in transmission/distribution.
Only the government utilities scheduled the operation for
continuous supply. The co-operative limited the services to the
evening hours, and the CBO to business hours. The services from
the private solar PV companies are in principle available
continuously, but the systems are designed for a limited lighting
load in the evening hours only. The reliability of the service during
scheduled operating hours is 95% or better for all the cases except
for the CBO and the small local government utility.
4.2. The economic dimension
Economic development is important for a sustainable devel-
opment in an area, and so is the economic development for the
electricity service organisation itself. Beyond dispute, access to
capital is a prerequisite for all forms of electrification since the
initial investment is very high.
The indicators for each case included in the study are
presented in Table 4. The main differences between the cases
can be found in the operational and maintenance costs
(0.04–2.23 USD/kWh), and for profitability, which varies between
21% to a negative figure of more than 1800%. The organisations
showing negative profitability would have been forced to raise
their tariffs dramatically, with a factor of 5 for the small
government utility and 20 for the CBO to be able to make a
profit.4 As seen in Table 1, the price for electricity services charged
by the organisations varies between 0.006 and 2.1 USD/kWh.
A prerequisite for survival of an organisation is (at the least) to
cover operational and maintenance costs, or that sufficient
external financial support is received to cover the discrepancy.
Only the co-operative has tariff revenues that exceed the costs for
operational and maintenance costs. The CBO receives financial
support from a donor. The three private organisations supplement
the tariff revenues with income from sales of cold drinks,
electrical equipment, etc. The national utilities utilise cross-
subsidies between different client categories. None of the
organisations is burdened by capital costs associated with the
initial investment since international donors have mainly
financed the investments.
With the same number of clients (as during the time of evaluation).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

2678 E. Ilskog, B. Kjellström / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674–2684

Table 4
Economic sustainability indicators for the cases included in the study (within brackets are the scores reached by each case in comparison with the other cases included in
the study)

Indicator Government Government Co-operative CBO Private A Private B Private C

La Sa

Financial perspective
Profitability, % 9 (3) 378 (2) 11 (5) 1832 (1) 3 (4) 12 (6) 21 (7)
Operational and maintenance costs, USD/kWh 0.04 (7) 0.28 (4) 0.26 (5) 0.08 (6) 1.80 (2) 2.23 (1) 1.43 (3)
Costs for Capital and Installation, USD/kWh 0.01 (1) 0 (4.5) 0 (4.5) 0 (4.5) 0 (4.5) 0 (4.5) 0 (4.5)
Share of profit set aside for re-investment in 0 (2.5) 0 (2.5) 0 (2.5) 0 (2.5) 3 (7) 1 (6) 1 (5)
electricity service business, %
Tariff lag, USD/kWh 0 (7) 0.02 (4.5) 0.02 (4.5) 0.01 (6) 0.29 (2) 0.36 (1) 0.23 (3)
Development of productive uses
Share of electricity consumed by businesses, % 47 (6) 10 (1) 15 (5) 100 (7) 11 (3.5) 11 (3.5) 7 (2)
Share of households using electricity for income- 6 (1) 15 (6.5) 15 (6.5) 0 (1) 9 (4.5) 9 (4.5) 6 (2)
generating activities, %
Competition
Number of electricity service organisations in the 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
area, no

a
S: smaller government organisation, L: larger government organisation.

Table 5
Social/ethical sustainability indicators for the cases included in the study (within brackets are the scores reached by each case in comparison with the other cases, for one of
the indicators it has not been possible to give any scores)

Indicator Government Government Co-operative CBO Private A Private B Private C

La Sa

Improved availability of social electricity services

Number of street lights in the area, number/1000 0.05 (6) 0 (3) 0.21 (7) 0 (3) 0 (3) 0 (3) 0 (3)
population
Credit facilities
Micro-credit possibilities available for electricity Yes (7) No (3.5) No (3.5) No (3.5) No (3.5) No (3.5) No (3.5)
services connection, yes/no
Equal distribution
Share of population with primary school education, 96 (6) 97 (7) 88 (5) 74 (1) 83 (2) 84 (3.5) 84 (3.5)
%
Share of population with access to electricity, % 38 (7) 4 (6) 2 (5) 0 (1) 0.9 (4) 0.3 (2) 0.5 (3)
Distribution of electricity client households in 40 82 90 0b 82 74 74
income groups, % in higher income categories
Subsidies offered for electricity services, USD/kWh 0 (1.5) 0.22 (4) 0 (1.5) 0.13 (3) 2.24 (7) 2.16 (6) 1.87 (5)

a
S: smaller government organisation, L: larger government organisation.
b
No household clients.

Tariff lag is a problem caused by difficulties to adjust tariffs to
compensate for inflation. The organisations with the highest
operating costs show the largest lags, as these also operate in the
country with the highest inflation.
The share of electricity used for productive activities is low in
all the cases, and limited to low-load uses such as lighting for
extension of working hours for bars, grocery stores, etc., and to
enable income-generating activities in households.
primary school education varies between 74% and 97%. When
comparing women and men, the level of education among
women is between 1% and 14% lower than men within the cases
included in the study. The subsidies of the tariff show large
variations between the cases, and are covered mainly by external
resources.
4.4. The environmental dimension

4.3. The social/ethical dimension
The social/ethical dimension is the most complex of the five
dimensions of sustainability. It does not only cover a broad area,
but is also dependent and influenced by the development as a
whole, which, in turn, is often influenced by other factors than the
electricity service being evaluated. A comparison between the
social/ethical indicators is presented in Table 5.
Table 5 shows that electricity clients are a small fraction
of the population and mainly found in the higher income
groups for all the cases except the larger utility (Government L)
where almost 40% are connected and a minority of the clients
belong to the higher income groups. The share of population with
The assessment of environmental sustainability includes the
impacts on the local environment as well as the impacts on
regional and global levels.
The environmental indicators are presented in Table 6. The
difference in global impacts depends mainly on the primary
energy source used. For example the organisations using PV
(Private A, B and C) and hydro power (CBO, Government L) receive
a high score as a consequence of a high share of renewable energy
as primary source and low specific emissions of CO2, whereas
those using diesel generator sets (Co-operative, Government S)
receive a low score. The differences on a local impact level are
small. In particular, the number of households that have shifted to
electricity for cooking is small for all the cases studied.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

E. Ilskog, B. Kjellström / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674–2684 2679

Table 6
Environmental sustainability indicators for the selected cases (within brackets are the scores reached by each case in comparison with the other cases included in the study)

Indicator Government Government Co-operative CBO Private A Private B Private C

La Sa

Global impact
Share of renewable energy in production, % 85 (3) 0 (1.5) 0 (1.5) 100 (5.5) 100 (5.5) 100 (5.5) 100 (5.5)
Emissions of carbon dioxide from production,b 0.33 (3) 1.1 (1) 0.95 (2) 0 (4) 0 (6) 0 (6) 0 (6)
kg CO2/kWh
Local impact
Share of electrified households where other energy 100 (4.5) 100 (4.5) 100 (4.5) 0 (1) 100 (4.5) 100 (4.5) 100 (4.5)
sources for lightingc has been replaced, %
Share of electrified households where other energy 1 (6) 0 (3) 3 (7) 0 (3) 0 (3) 0 (3) 0 (3)
sources for cooking of main mealsd has been
replaced, %
Any serious local environment impact identified, Yes (3.5) Yes (3.5) Yes (3.5) No (7) Yes (3.5) Yes (3.5) Yes (3.5)
yes/no

a
S: smaller government organisation, L: larger government organisation.
b
Calculated on input energy.
c
Mainly kerosene and candles.
d
Mainly charcoal and firewood.

Table 7
Organisational/institutional sustainability indicators for the cases included in the study (within brackets are the scores reached by each case in comparison with the other
cases included in the study)

Indicator Government La Government Sa Co-operative CBO Private A Private B Private C

Capacity strengthening
Share of staff and management with appropriate education, % 50 (1.5) 85 (7) 86 (6) 50 (1.5) 60 (3.5) 60 (3.5) 80 (5)
Degree of local ownership, % 0 (1.5) 0 (1.5) 100 (5) 100 (5) 100 (5) 100 (5) 100 (5)
Number of shareholders, no. 1 (1.5) 1 (1.5) 249 (7) 150 (6) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4)
Share of women in staff and management, % 15 (4) 10 (2) 14 (3) 36 (7) 0 (1) 20 (5.5) 20 (5.5)
Number of years in business, no. 420 (6.5) 420 (6.5) 9 (5) 2 (2) 2.5 (4) 2 (2) 2 (2)
Client-relation
Share of non-technical losses,b % 26 (1) 14 (2) 10 (3) 0 (7) 5 (5) 5 (5) 5 (5)
Level of satisfaction with energy services, % 59 (3) 77 (4) 38 (1) 40 (2) 83 (6) 83 (6) 83 (6)
Stakeholder participation
Auditing of reports on yearly basis, yes/no No (2.5) No (2.5) No (2.5) No (2.5) Yes (6) Yes (6) Yes (6)

a
S: smaller government organisation, L: larger government organisation.
b
Also referred to as un-paid electricity services.

4.5. The institutional dimension
The dimension of institutional sustainability is closely linked
to the other dimensions in the context of sustainable develop-
ment, and indicators for institutional issues are shown to be the
most difficult to define (IAEA, 2005). As described in Table 2, the
organisations included in this study represent four different types,
all with their own specific characteristics.
A comparison between the institutional indicators is presented
in Table 7. The main differences among the organisations are to be
found in the degree of local ownership and number of share-
holders, where the two member-based organisations have gained
the highest scores. Other differentiating indicators are the number
of years in business (2 to 420 years), the share of non-technical
losses (5–26%), and level of client satisfaction with electricity
services (38–83%).
4.6. Comparison between overall findings for the seven cases
Fig. 1 shows the average scores attained by the seven cases for
each of the five sustainability dimensions. The differences
between the averaged scores are small for most of the dimensions.
However, behind the small differences in average rankings are
large variations in ranking for the individual indicators, as shown
in Tables 3–7.
Fig. 1 also shows the total scores reached by the seven
organisations. The differences are small but the larger utility
shows the highest score and the CBO the lowest.
5. Discussion
5.1. Technical sustainability
The information collected in the field studies indicates that the
service can be maintained for the technical lifetime of the
installations for all the cases. The historical operating records of
the two government utilities and the co-operative indicate that
the weaknesses in some technical indicators are not a major
threat to continued service. From a client perspective, however,
the availability of electricity services is important. If the
availability is not satisfactory, clients may for instance invest in
their own generating sets. The limited service periods of the co-
operative, the CBO and the solar PV companies are therefore a
threat to technical sustainability. The data in Table 7 indicate that
this problem is most serious for the co-operative and the CBO.
A potential threat to the private solar PV installations would be
expansion of the national grid to include the areas served by these
organisations. This is not apparent from any of the indicators. An
additional indicator ‘‘Compatibility with future grid service’’
might be included to account for this.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

2680 E. Ilskog, B. Kjellström / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674–2684

Technical Indicators Economic Indicators

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
tL

tS

BO

tL

tS

BO

C
A

e
iv

iv
e

e
e

e
en

en
en

en
at

at
C

C
at

at

at
at

at

at
er

er
nm

nm
nm

iv

nm
iv

iv

iv
iv

iv
op

op
Pr

Pr

Pr
Pr

Pr

Pr
er

er
er

er
o-

o-
ov

ov
ov

ov
C

C
G

G
G

G
Social/Ethical Indicators Environmental Indicators
60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
tL

tS

BO

tL

tS

C
A

BO

A
iv

iv
e

e
e

e
e

e
en

en
en

en
at

at
C

C
at

at
at

at
at

at
er

er
nm

nm
nm

iv

nm

iv
iv

iv
iv

iv
op

op
Pr

Pr
Pr

Pr
Pr

Pr
er

er
er

er
o-

o-
ov

ov
ov

ov
C

C
G

G
G

Organisational/Institutional Indicators Total for all five dimensions

60 200
180
50
160
140
40
120
30 100
80
20
60
40
10
20
0 0
tL

tS

BO

B
A

tL

tS

BO

C
A
iv

iv
e
e

e
e
e

e
en

en
en

en
at

at
C

C
at
at

at
at
at

at
er

er
nm

nm
nm

iv
iv

nm

iv
iv
iv

iv
op

op
Pr
Pr

Pr
Pr
Pr

Pr
er

er
er

er
o-

o-
ov

ov
ov

ov
C

C
G

G
G

Fig. 1. Indicators presented for the five sustainability dimensions, and the total scores reached by the organisations for all dimensions. The indicators have been
summarised per case through comparative ranking and given equal weights. For the calculation of total scores, all dimensions have been given the same weight.

For all the cases evaluated, the support infrastructure in the shows that this is often not the case. An additional indicator
form of, for instance, supply of spare parts and availability of ‘‘Availability of support infrastructure’’ can be added to highlight
qualified technical services appeared to be available. The this issue. Ilskog (2008a) suggests that also an indicator
experience from numerous projects in developing countries ‘‘Efficiency’’ should be included. This is useful because it can
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Ilskog, B. Kjellström / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674–2684
facilitate interpretation of poor economic and environmental
performance.
5.2. Economic sustainability
The tariffs were too low to allow accumulation of capital for
re-investment for all the cases studied. In addition, no capital
costs for the initial investment were paid, except to some extent
by the large government utility. All the cases therefore depended
on external financial support, either from the government or from
a donor organisation. An important implication of this is that the
financing organisation should be able to ensure, for instance,
environmental and social/ethical sustainability by adding suitable
conditions to the financing decision. Such conditions could
include requirements for a generation technology using renew-
able energy and supply of parts of the generation for social
benefits like health centres, schools, and streetlights. Additional
costs associated with these conditions must, of course, be carried
either by the financier or by the electricity clients.
The three private suppliers of PV electricity are examples of
this. Use of solar home systems for providing electricity was a
requirement for financing. This has however resulted in a
relatively high price for small amounts of electricity, apparently
acceptable to the consumers since the level of satisfaction with
the service is high, see Table 7.
The findings for the co-operative also demonstrate the will-
ingness and ability to pay a high price for small amounts of electric
energy. It is true that most of the clients served by the co-operative
and the private PV companies belong to the high-income
groups, but the findings for the small government utility branch
(see Table 5) indicate that a considerably lower tariff does not
necessarily lead to a higher use of service in low-income groups.
Another interesting observation related to the tariff level is that
a low tariff does not necessarily result in more electricity use for
commercial activities. As shown in Table 4, the use of electricity for
income-generating activities is about the same as for the small
government utility branch with a low tariff and the co-operative
and private suppliers with much higher tariffs. The small
differences are particularly interesting since the small government
utility branch offers continuous supply, whereas the co-operative
operates only in the evening hours and the PV systems allows only
a small daily use of electric energy. This limited use of electricity for
value-added activities has also been pinpointed in other studies
(see for instance Kjellström et al., 1992; Kittleson, 1998). Among
those reasons given were factors outside the direct control of the
electricity organisations, namely shortage of capital, transport
problems and a lack of skilled labour.5
These findings indicate that low heavily subsidised electricity
tariffs in rural areas served by national utilities that have been
imposed by parliament decisions have been a serious obstacle to
expansion of rural electricity supply and are not justified.
However, even if tariffs in the range of 0.5–1 USD/kWh could
probably be acceptable to parts of the rural population, it is
unrealistic to believe that significant expansions of rural elec-
tricity supply can rely entirely on tariff financing. Initial financial
support will always be necessary.
5.3. Social/ethical sustainability
The larger government utility is the only case where elec-
trification has reached significant parts of the population. Part of
5
Additional information on the effects of a project on commercial activities
would be gained by introduction of an additional economic indicator ‘‘Business
development’’, see Ilskog (2008a).
2681
the reason for better performance in these respects could be that
the government utility expansion in areas served by the national
grid has been prioritised, and that the organisation operates in
both rural and urban areas. For the smaller organisations, shortage
of capital is likely to be the main obstacle to expansion of the
service. It is possible that insufficient management capacity has
also limited the expansion of the service of the co-operative.
Among the small suppliers, only the co-operative has included
streetlights in their system. Streetlights have been found to reduce
the feeling of insecurity when walking the streets after dark and
are appreciated in particular by women (Cecelski, 1998).
Additional indicators that were formulated after the fieldwork
reported in this paper had been completed are ‘‘Share of health
centres and schools with electricity’’, ‘‘Share of public places and
specialised businesses where TV/telecommunication/internet is
provided’’ and ‘‘Share of economically active children’’. These will
provide additional important information and they should there-
fore be included in future applications of the method.
5.4. Electrification and environmental sustainability
In two of the cases, diesel generators were used for the
generation of all the electric energy. Their contributions to the
global greenhouse effect give them the lowest ranking with
respect to global environmental sustainability. It must be realized,
however, that the annual emissions of CO2 per electricity
consumer in the co-operative is about 400 kg, similar to the
emissions associated with electricity consumers in Sweden.
Sweden is one of the OECD countries with the lowest CO2
emissions from electricity generation. Replacing the diesel
generators in the co-operative by a generation technology based
on renewable energy is therefore not of high priority in a global
perspective.
Electrification has not resulted in a significant shift from wood
fuel and charcoal to electricity for cooking in electrified house-
holds, regardless of the tariff level and the service schedule. Since
also only a small amount of the households in the electrified
communities are connected many years after the start of the
service (see Tables 5 and 6), it should be obvious that conservation
of natural forests is not a valid justification for rural electrification.
Taking Tanzania as an example, this is also the situation for the
country as a whole, even in electrified urban areas. In 2000/2001,
12% of the households reported having electricity, while electricity
for cooking was found to be used by only 0.9% of the households
(National Bureau of Statistics Tanzania, 2002a).
5.5. Institutional sustainability
It is not possible to draw general conclusions regarding the
effect of the type of organisation on the sustainability of rural
electrification projects from the results of this study. The cases
included in the study are few. The technology and the organisa-
tional form used may also be either a consequence of historical
decisions, when there were fewer options available, or a result of
conditions imposed by the financing agency. However, it might
still be of interest to compare the performance of the different
types of organisations as some of the strengths and weaknesses
identified for these individual cases may be generic.
The organisational weaknesses are mainly found among the
government utilities included in the study, and can be illustrated
by their low share of local ownership and their inability to reduce
the high non-technical losses, which can mainly be explained by
non-payment of electricity bills by different government institu-
tions/clients. This is in line with experiences from other develop-
ing countries where the rate of outstanding payment has proved
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2682 E. Ilskog, B. Kjellström / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674–2684
higher if the services are operated by the government, rather than
if private companies or CBOs are responsible (ESMAP, 2000).
The private organisations manage their client-relations the
best. However, they are small and vulnerable. Sole ownership can
be a severe risk for the long-term survival of organisations, as
they are commonly located in areas with a relatively high level of
HIV/AIDS (Ilskog, 2005).
For the two CBOs the main strength is the advantage of
community participation, whereas the main weakness is their
inability to raise the tariff, as this decision has to be supported by
the majority of members (who themselves are also the electricity
clients). Adjustment of the tariff is to some extent also a problem
for the government utilities, where decisions on tariffs are made
by the government and increasing tariffs can be politically
sensitive.
It seems there is no single most appropriate organisation for
electricity services in rural areas. When a choice between
different organisational set-ups is possible, case-specific condi-
tions that may influence the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats, identified here, should be considered.
5.6. Choice and determination of indicators
Use of clearly defined indicators for evaluation of rural
electrification projects could contribute to an improved basis for
decisions regarding the design and organisation of future projects.
The number of indicators proposed by Ilskog (2008a) is 39 out of
which eight were formulated after the fieldwork reported in this
paper had been completed. The case studies have therefore
included determination of 31 of the proposed indicators and the
obvious questions are whether the experiences from practical
work confirm that these indicators meet the requirements, if
some of the indicators can be dropped, and what the eight
additional indicators might have contributed.
It may be argued that several of the indicators depend on other
indicators and that this may exaggerate differences in the overall
rankings. If this is considered a problem, weighting of the
indicators could be used. This is certainly better than the
elimination of indicators since the indicators facilitate the under-
standing of reasons for good or bad performance. The reasons for
adding indicators to those determined here, are discussed in
Sections 5.1–5.5.
The efforts for determination of the indicators will always be
case specific and depend mainly on the remoteness of the site and
the availability and quality of the records kept by the local
management. The experiences from the six smaller projects with
some hundred clients indicate that the data collection on site can
be completed with an effort of 10–12 working days. The cost for
this is a small fraction of the initial investment. The evaluation of
the larger utility required an effort of approximately 40 working
days.
As much as possible, the data were collected from logbooks,
ledgers, and reports, supplemented with interviews based on
questionnaires. Subjective assessments were minimised by this
approach. No major difficulties with establishing the data were
experienced, but it was found that data on economic activities and
ownership of assets could be sensitive.
The choice of units is a difficult issue for some of the indicators.
Percentages are a reasonable choice for several of the indicators,
but in particular for some of the economic indicators it was found
that absolute values give a better understanding of the perfor-
mance. When percentages are used to express these indicators,
the result depends on the reference value used. Large absolute
differences may be hidden by this and small absolute differences
exaggerated.
The information included in the indicators should give a
reasonably good picture of the situation at the time of data
collection. However, sustainability is a matter of development
over time. Data from a single evaluation is therefore not sufficient
for assessment of sustainability, even if the data can certainly be
used for identification of areas where improvements will be
necessary. Information about the trends of the indicators would
lead to considerably improved possibilities to assess sustainabil-
ity. In particular, for some of the social/ethical indicators the
development over time can be a very important measure of the
impact of electrification. Baseline data were not available for any
of the evaluated sites. This problem is not uncommon, which can
be illustrated by evaluations assigned by Sida (2002), and NRECA
(2002). In the study assigned by Sida, the evaluation was planned
to include comparisons of the situations before and after the
implementation of the project. The study however found that no
baseline data were available, nor was the possibility of finding
such data at country level ‘‘fulfilled to any significant degree’’
(Sida, 2002).
5.7. Overall comparisons of sustainability
Aggregating indicators for generation of measures for the
different dimensions of sustainability and combining these results
for a simple overall assessment of the sustainability, clearly
involves serious methodological difficulties. The approach used
here, giving the results presented in Section 4.6, is just one
example of possible approaches, but the results nevertheless give
a good illustration of the weaknesses of all attempts to generate
simple measures for sustainability.
The general impression given by Fig. 1 is that the differences
between the cases evaluated are small for most of the dimensions.
Combination of the results to give a measure for the overall
sustainability further reduces the differences.
It is apparent from Tables 3–7, however, that there may also be
large differences between the cases when the aggregated measure
for the dimension of interest shows small differences. The small
differences in aggregated economic sustainability for instance
hide the fact that there are large differences in profitability and
the share of the electricity used for commercial purposes. The
small differences in aggregated environmental sustainability hide
the fact that four of the cases use 100% renewable energy as the
primary source and that two of the cases use 100% fossil fuel. The
outcome would of course change and could change dramatically if
the indicators were weighted, but this leads to the problem of
selecting the right weights to use for the different indicators.
The use of ranking for the generation of common scales for the
indicators within each dimension is also problematic, because it
can either reduce large absolute differences or exaggerate small
absolute differences. The indicator ‘‘Share of population with
access to electricity’’ in Table 5 illustrates both effects.
There are several alternative approaches. One would be to
define target levels for the indicators and use the number of
indicators that reach the target level as a measure of the
sustainability. For indicators that fall below the target level, the
ratio between the indicator value and the target could be used as a
measure. Such an approach would focus more on absolute
sustainability than the present, where the performance of cases
is compared relative to each other. At least for some of the
indicators, definition of the targets would present problems.
Regardless of how indicators are measured and aggregated,
important information about differences between cases evaluated
may be lost and it is therefore important that the data for the
individual indicators also be reported when projects are compared
based on aggregated indicators.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Ilskog, B. Kjellström / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674–2684
5.8. Dynamics of rural electrification
In general, the technical possibilities for building sustainable
electricity supply systems are better with large integrated
distribution grids than for small, isolated systems or individual
solutions. However, the initial electrification of a rural area must
often, for economic reasons, rely on individual solutions or a small
isolated grid. When the local load has grown sufficiently,
integration with the national network can be justified. The long-
term sustainability of a rural electrification project therefore
largely depends on how the design of the project facilitates or
complicates such development. The indicators determined from
the field studies of the seven cases are not sufficient for
assessment of this.
Two of the additional indicators proposed by Ilskog (2008a)
‘‘Compatibility with future grid service’’ and ‘‘Business develop-
ment’’ contribute information that is essential in this context, but
the issue is complicated and further work will be needed to define
the most important indicators to use for including dynamics of
rural electrification in the assessment of project sustainability.
6. Conclusions
Despite the large number of rural electrification projects being
financed by the international donor community there are few
published in-depth evaluations of the effects of these projects and
in particular, the institutional arrangement used, on sustainable
development.
The implementation of the evaluation method proposed by
Ilskog (2008a) has generated valuable experiences regarding
collection of data for evaluation of rural electrification projects.
The proposed indicators give a good picture of the present
situation for the cases evaluated. However, for assessment of the
sustainability of the services, repeated evaluations are necessary.
The implementation has illustrated some difficulties asso-
ciated with comparing the different aspects of sustainability. The
main difficulties are the ranking carried out for comparison of the
cases and the aggregation of the indicators to give a ranking
within each dimension. Aggregation of indicators can lead to loss
of important information and should not be performed without
also reporting the values of the indicators.
It is not possible to draw general conclusions about the
performance of private enterprises, co-operatives or community-
based organisations (CBOs) with respect to the five dimensions of
sustainability in comparison with government utilities. The
number of cases studied is small and the performance is partly
a result of conditions imposed by the external financing
organisations. It is not possible to state whether any specific
organisational form will have a particular impact on the social
benefits of electrification, but it is reasonable to believe that the
private market will only deliver these energy services if the full
costs are covered.
It is an important observation that all the organisations rely on
external financial support to some extent, and especially on
financing the initial investment; none of the organisations is able
to accumulate capital for re-investment. This opens up possibi-
lities for external influence that could be used to promote
sustainable development.
The main strength of the three private electrification enter-
prises is their ability to manage client-relation issues whereas
their main weakness concerns the social sustainability perspec-
tive, and that they are owned by only one person/family. The
national utilities on the other hand have their main advantage in
the social/ethical sustainability dimension. The main weakness of
the utilities concerns the organisational dimension. For the co-
2683
operative and the CBO, the main strengths as well as the main
weaknesses are found in the organisational/institutional sustain-
ability.
There is a willingness and ability in the higher income groups
in rural areas to pay a high unit price for small amounts of
electricity used mainly for lighting. Subsidising the price does not
necessarily lead to more electricity use among those with lower
incomes. In addition, access to electricity services in a rural area
and low electricity prices does not necessarily lead to utilisation of
electricity for productive purposes and therefore not to increased
economic activity, either.
Substitution of traditional fuels by electricity for cooking is a
slow process. This is also true when the services are continuous
and the tariff low. Conservation of forests is therefore not a valid
justification for electrification.
Introduction of solar PV for electric lighting in rural households
by means of donor-financed projects leads to improved quality of
life in the target households but according to the indicators
included in this set, no benefits for the rest of the society have
been shown.
7. Recommendations
The following actions would contribute to improved sustain-
ability of rural electrification projects:
For the benefit of all those engaged in financing and
implementation of rural electrification projects, systematic eva-
luations shall be made of all projects using a standard set of
sustainability indicators. The indicators suggested by Ilskog
(2008a) and described in full detail by Ilskog (2008b) could be
used as a basis for discussions of the most relevant and suitable
indicators. The evaluations should include a baseline study and
repeated evaluations on at least three occasions after commis-
sioning, for instance after 1, 3 and 10 years. Information about
positive or negative trends for the indicators would definitely be
valuable for assessment of a project’s contribution to sustainable
development.
Aggregation of indicators to give simple measures for the
different sustainability dimensions should be avoided. Instead, a
minimum acceptable level and a target level for each indicator
may be defined and projects assessed based of the number of
indicators where the minimum level and the target level were
exceeded.
Rural electrification through small private and local commu-
nity-based organisations shall only be applied when this appears
the most effective way to achieve sustainable development.
Special attention must then be given to the institutional
sustainability so that for instance loss of key persons does not
lead to the service collapsing.
Tariff setting for rural areas should take into account the great
willingness and ability to pay a relatively high price for electricity
used in households.
Donor agencies that provide financing for rural electrification
projects should use their influence to ensure that all-important
aspects of sustainability are considered by the implementing
organisation.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on research funded by the Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency, Department for
Research Cooperation (SAREC) and Ångpanneföreningen’s Foun-
dation for Research Cooperation (ÅFORSK). The proposed method
is, to a great extent, based on experiences gained from surveys in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2684 E. Ilskog, B. Kjellström / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2674–2684
electricity service organisations in Tanzania, Zambia and Kenya
and ideas generated during discussions with management, staff
and clients in these organisations, as well as with the supervisors
of the Ph.D. work of which this paper is part: Tore J Larsson and
Eva-Lotta Thunqvist, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). Special
thanks go to Maneno Katyega, TANESCO and Matthias Gustavsson,
Göteborg University, for their contribution of data. In addition, the
work carried out with the definition of the indicators has been an
iterative process with input from colleagues at ÅF Group, and
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) among others.
References
Brundtland, G. (Ed.), 1987. Our Common Future. The World Commission on
Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, UK.
Cecelski, E., 1998. Gender and Poverty Challenges in Scaling up Rural Electricity
Access. Village Power ‘98. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
ESMAP, 2000. Best Practices for Sustainable Development of Micro Hydro Power in
Developing Countries /www.worldbank.org/esmapS.
Gustavsson, M., 2006. With time comes increased loads—an analysis of solar home
system use in Lundazi, Zambia. Renewable Energy, in press, doi:10.1016/
j.venene.2006.03.015.
Gustavsson, M., Ellegård, A., 2004. The impact of solar home systems on rural
livelihoods. Experiences from the Nyimba Energy Service Company in Zambia.
Renewable Energy 29 (7), 1059–1072.
Gustavsson, M., Mtonga, B., 2005. Lead-acid battery capacity in solar home
systems—field tests and experiences in Lundazi, Zambia. Solar Energy 79
(2005), 551–558.
IAEA, 2005. Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines and
Methodologies. IAEA. Vienna, Austria.
Ilskog, E., 2005. And Then They Lived Sustainably Ever After?—Part 1. Experiences
from Rural Electrification in Tanzania, Zambia and Kenya. Luleå University of
Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
Ilskog, E., 2008a. Indicators for assessment of rural electrification—a scientific
approach to compare apples and pears. Energy Policy, in press, doi:10.1016/
j.enpol.2008.03.023.
Ilskog, E., 2008b. Rural Electrification Sustainability Indicators—Manual for Field
Workers. TRITA-STH Report 2008:2. ISSN 1653-3836. ISRN KTH/STH/–
08:2—SE. ISBN 978-91-7178-886-3. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Kittleson, D., 1998. Productive uses of electricity: country experiences. In: Village
Power Conference, Convened by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in
Collaboration with the World Bank. World Bank Headquarters, Washington,
DC, USA, October 6–8, 1998.
Kjellström, B., Katyega, M., et al., 1992. Rural Electrification in Tanzania: Past
Experiences—New Approaches. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Manibog, F., et al., 2003. Power for Development. A Review of the World Bank
Group’s Experience with Private Participation in the Electricity Sector. World
Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Martins, J., 2005. The impact of the use of energy sources on the quality of life of
poor communities. Social Indicators Research 72, 373–402.
National Bureau of Statistics Tanzania, 2002a. Household Budget Survey 2000/01.
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
National Bureau of Statistics Tanzania, 2002b. Tanzania 2002 Population and
Housing Census. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
National Bureau of Statistics Zambia, 2003. Zambia 2000 Census Report. Lusaka,
Zambia.
NORAD, 1994. Rural Electrification Projects, Zanzibar. Project Review Report.
Norconsult International A.S.
NRECA, 2002. Economic and Social Impact Evaluation Study of the Rural
Electrification Program in Bangladesh. Partners with the Rural Electrification
Board of Bangladesh and USAID for the Rural Power for Poverty Reduction
(RPPR) Program. Dhaka.
OECD/IEA, 2001. Towards a Sustainable Energy Future. Paris, France.
Sida (Orgut), 2002. Thematic Evaluation on Rural Electrification Projects, Final
Report. Stockholm, Sweden.
Ugwu, O.O., Haupt, T.C., 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment
methods for infrastructure sustainability—a South African construction
industry perspective. Building and Environment 42 (2007), 665–680.
UN, 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies
/www.un/org/esa/sustdev/publications/indisd-mg2001.pdfS. New York, USA.
Urambo District, 2001. Taarifa ya wilaya ya Urambo. Urambo, Tanzania.
Wamukonya, N., 2004. Challenges facing rural electrification with RETs: a Kenyan
micro-hydro case. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.
World Bank, 1996. Lending for Electric Power in Sub-Saharan Africa. Report no. 14961.
World Bank, 2003. A User’s Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Analysis.
Washington, DC, USA /www.worldbank.org/psiaS.
World Bank, 2005. Influential Evaluations: Detailed Case Studies. Washington, DC,
USA /www.worldbank.org.oed/ecdS.