Special Report ACP–EU Energy Facility 
support for renewable 
energy in East AfricaEN 2015  NO 15
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu  
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA  
YouTube: EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015
Print ISBN 978-92-872-3054-6 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/54508 QJ-AB-15-014-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-3029-4 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/464357 QJ-AB-15-014-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-3086-7 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/76836 QJ-AB-15-014-EN-E
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For any use or reproduction of picture 1, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder.
Printed in Luxembourg
ACP–EU Energy Facility 
support for renewable 
energy in East Africa
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2015  NO 15
02
 Audit team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber III — headed by ECA Member Karel Pinxten — which specialises 
in external action spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member Klaus-Heiner Lehne, supported by the head of his 
office, Michael Weiss; Gérald Locatelli, head of unit; Thierry Cozier, team leader; Ruurd De Jong, Myriam Cazzaniga and 
Joao Nuno Coelho dos Santos, principal auditors; and Jean-Louis De Neve, senior auditor. 
03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Glossary and acronyms
I-VII  Executive summary
1-9 Introduction
1-2 Access to energy services is key for progress towards development objectives
3-9 The ACP–EU Energy Facility was created for rapid delivery on the ground
10 -11  Audit scope and approach
12-40  Observations
12-19  The Commission prioritised EF support well, but a quarter of the projects examined had serious 
design weaknesses  
13-14  The selection process led to support projects in line with the EF priorities
15-19  A quarter of the projects examined were funded even though the assessment process had identified 
significant design weaknesses
20-31  The Commission did not monitor all projects properly
21-25  The quality of the implementing partners’ reports was uneven
26-31  For some projects which experienced serious implementation difficulties, the Commission did not take 
appropriate and timely measures
32-40  Most of the projects examined were successful and had good sustainability prospects
33-36  A quarter of the projects examined did not deliver most of the expected results
37-40  Almost all successful projects examined had good sustainability prospects
04 Contents
41-44  Conclusions and recommendations  
 Annex I — Projects examined
 Annex II  — Scoring methodology
 Annex III — EUEI PDF projects and 11th EDF focal sectors per country
 Annex IV — Implementation period, objectives and achievements of the projects examined
 Annex V — Monitoring of the projects examined
 Annex VI  — Scoring of the projects examined
 Reply of the Commission
05
 Glossary and acronyms
ACP : African, Caribbean and Pacific countries
DG International Cooperation and Development : Within the Commission, the Directorate -General for 
International Cooperation and Development is responsible for:
— formulating EU development policy and defining sectoral policies in the field of external aid;
—  drawing up, together with the European External Action Service, the multiannual programming for the external 
aid instruments funded under the EDFs and the general budget;
— implementing these instruments;
—  fostering coordination between the EU and the Member States on development cooperation and representing 
the EU externally in this field.
EDFs : European Development Funds
The EDFs are the main instrument for providing EU aid for development cooperation to the ACP states and overseas 
countries and territories (OCTs). The partnership agreement signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 for a period of 20 years 
(‘the Cotonou Agreement’) is the current framework for the EU’s relations with ACP states and OCTs. Its main focus is on 
reducing and eventually eradicating poverty. The 9th EDF covers the 2000-2007 period and the 10th EDF the 2008-2013 
period.
EF: ACP–EU Energy Facility
Financing instrument created in 2005 to support improved access to sustainable and affordable energy services for the 
poor in rural and peri -urban areas in ACP countries.
EF I : First Energy Facility funded under the 9th EDF.
EF II : Second Energy Facility funded under the 10th EDF.
EUEI : EU Energy Initiative for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development
The EUEI is a joint effort of the Commission and the Member States creating synergies between their respective develop -
ment policies and activities. Its aim is to contribute to the achievement of the MDGs by providing adequate, affordable, 
sustainable energy services to the poor. It is also part of the EU response in the context of the ‘Sustainable energy for all’ 
initiative (SE4All).
EUEI PDF : EU Energy Initiative Partnership Dialogue Facility
Created in 2005 by the Commission and six Member States (Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden) 
to improve governance in the energy sector. It does so by helping partner countries to develop sound energy policies 
and strategies.
GIZ : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German Federal Enterprise for International 
Cooperation)
kW: Kilowatt (unit of power). 1 kW equals 1 000 watts
MDGs : millennium development goals
The MDGs are eight international development goals that were established following the Millenium Summit of the 
United Nations in 2000, following the adoption of the United Nations Millenium Declaration. They range from halving 
extreme poverty and hunger to achieving universal primary education and ensuring environmental sustainability. All 
United  Nations Member States, as well many international organisations, committed to help achieve these goals by 2015.
NGO : non -governmental organisation
06 Glossary and acronyms
OECD : Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
The mission of the OECD is to promote policies that improve the economic and social well -being of people around the 
world.
ROM : results -oriented monitoring
The ROM system was established by DG International Cooperation and Development  in 2000. It is based on short, 
focused, on -site assessments by external experts. It uses a structured and consistent methodology to assess projects 
performance in respect of five criteria: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, potential impact and likely sustainability.
SE4All : Sustainable energy for all
The initiative was launched by the UN Secretary -General in 2011. It has three interlinked objectives to be achieved 
by 2030: (i) ensure universal access to modern energy services; (ii) double the global rate of improvement in energy 
 efficiency; and (iii) double the share of renewable energy in the global mix.
SMART : specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time -bound
UN: United Nations
WSSD : World Summit for Sustainable Development
At the 2002 WSSD held in Johannesburg, South Africa, sustainable development was reaffirmed as a central component 
of the international agenda. A wide range of targets and commitments were agreed and reaffirmed by governments. In 
particular, the WSSD called for actions to substantially increase the use of renewable energy.
07
 Executive  
summary
I
As highlighted during the World Summit on Sustain -
able Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg in 
2002 and in other international development debates, 
access to energy services is key for progress towards 
development objectives. In 2004 nearly two billion 
people, mainly living in rural and peri -urban areas of 
developing countries, did not have access to adequate, 
affordable and sustainable energy services.
II
In June 2005 the ACP–EU Council of Ministers 
approved the creation of the ACP–EU Energy Facility 
(EF) to promote access for the poor to modern energy 
services, with a strong focus on sub -Saharan -Africa 
and renewable energy. For the period 2006-2013, the 
EF was allocated 475 million euro under the 9th and 
10th European Development Funds (EDFs), most of 
which was for providing grants to projects selected 
through calls for proposals. When our audit started, 
a total of 268.2 million euro had been granted under 
the first two calls for proposals, of which 106 mil -
lion euro was for projects in East Africa, which had by 
far the lowest rate of access to electricity in Africa.
III
We found that the Commission was mostly successful 
but could have done better in using the EF to increase 
access to renewable energy for the poor in East Africa.
IV
The Commission allocated support for renewable 
energy to well -prioritised projects. However, insuf -
ficient rigour in the selection process meant that 
a quarter of the projects examined were awarded 
a grant despite significant design weaknesses being 
identified.V
The Commission did not monitor all projects properly. 
Reports submitted by the implementing partners 
were of uneven quality and the Commission did not 
attempt to enforce compliance with their reporting 
obligations. For some projects, it did not make suf -
ficient use of on -site visits to projects and results -ori-
ented monitoring (ROM) reviews to complement the 
information provided by the implementing partners, 
particularly when projects were known to encounter 
serious difficulties. For some projects which experi -
enced serious implementation difficulties, the Com -
mission did not take appropriate and timely measures.
VI
Most of the projects examined were successful and 
are likely to be sustainable if the necessary measures 
envisaged are implemented and the context does 
not deteriorate too much. One quarter of the pro -
jects examined failed to deliver the majority of their 
expected results, due mainly to both design weak -
nesses that were not addressed and inadequate moni -
toring by the Commission.
VII
We make a number of recommendations for selecting 
projects more rigorously, strengthening their monitor -
ing and increasing their sustainability prospects.
08
 Introduction
Access to energy services 
is key for progress 
towards development 
objectives
01 
In 2004 nearly two billion people, 
mainly living in rural and peri -urban 
areas of developing countries, did 
not have access to adequate, afford -
able and sustainable energy services1. 
Volatile fuel prices on the international 
market, increasing energy demand in 
developing and emerging countries 
and climate change concerns are par -
ticular challenges in respect of increas -
ing access to energy services.02 
While the member countries of the Or -
ganisation for Economic Cooperation 
and Development (OECD) are redu -
cing their exposure to rising energy 
prices, most developing countries 
have increased theirs due to the sec -
tor’s unattractive investment climate 
and low process efficiency2. The links 
between lack of access to affordable 
and sustainable energy services and 
the difficulties in making firm progress 
towards most development objectives 
were highlighted during the WSSD 
held in Johannesburg in 2002 and 
in other international development 
debates.Picture 1
A view over the whole of the European and African continents
©  The Visible Earth, NASA.1 COM(2004) 711 final of 
26 October 2004, ‘The future 
development of the EU Energy 
Initiative and the modalities 
for the establishment of an 
Energy Facility for ACP 
countries’, p. 2.
2 On average, developing 
countries use about twice as 
much oil equivalent per unit of 
economic output than OECD 
countries (COM(2004) 711).
09 Introduction
The ACP–EU Energy 
Facility was created for 
rapid delivery on the 
ground
03 
In the context of the WSSD, the Com -
mission and the EU Member States 
joined forces to create the EU Energy 
Initiative (EUEI) for Poverty Eradica -
tion and Sustainable Development. 
Its aim is to contribute to the achieve -
ment of the millennium development 
goals (MDGs) by providing adequate, 
affordable and sustainable energy 
services to the poor in socioeconomic -
ally disadvantaged areas. The EUEI 
initiated the dialogue with developing 
countries to promote energy sector re -
forms, technology transfer and invest -
ments, and to encourage initiatives to 
mitigate climate change.04 
In 2002 and 2003 the Commission 
emphasised the need for funding in 
the energy sector of developing coun -
tries3. This was acknowledged by the 
Member States and the ACP countries, 
which proposed the creation of an 
ACP–EU EF4. In June 2005, following 
the Commission’s proposal5, the ACP–
EU Council of Ministers approved the 
creation of the EF on the basis of a set 
of key principles (see Box 1 ).
Key principles of the ACP–EU Energy Facility
The EF’s activities should be directed towards:
(i) targeting the ACP countries which had already established or were committed to establishing a sound 
energy policy and good governance;
(ii) promoting ownership at national level (and possibly inter -border level) by ensuring coherence with the 
relevant sector policies and an overarching poverty reduction strategy;
(iii) permitting flexibility regarding co -financing mechanisms with Member States, lending institutions and 
private, public or associative entities; and
(iv) promoting innovation when faced with the challenges of providing sustainable and affordable energy 
services to the poor.Box 13 COM(2002) 408 final of 17 July 
2002, ‘Energy cooperation 
with developing countries’, 
and COM(2003) 829 final of 
23 December 2003, ‘The World 
Summit on Sustainable 
Development one year on: 
implementing our 
commitments’.
4 At the ‘Energy for Africa’ 
conference held in Nairobi in 
November 2003 and the 
ACP–EU Council of Ministers in 
Gaborone in May 2004. The 
ACP–EU Water Facility was 
referred to as a useful model 
with its main objective of 
providing safe drinking water 
and basic sanitation to the 
poor.
5 COM(2004) 711.
10 Introduction
05 
The main objective of the EF was to 
promote access to modern energy 
services for the poor in rural and peri - 
urban areas, with a strong geograph -
ical focus on sub -Saharan Africa. It also 
aimed to support improved govern -
ance in — and increase the attractive -
ness to investors of — the energy sec -
tor, facilitate large -scale investments in 
cross -border energy infrastructure and 
promote renewable sources, as well as 
energy efficiency measures.
06 
The EF was allocated 475 million euro 
for the 2006-2013 period: 220 mil -
lion euro for the first facility (EF 
I) funded under the 9th EDF, and 
255 million euro for the second facility 
(EF II) funded under the 10th EDF. Al -
most 90 % of this allocation (415.7 mil -
lion  euro) was used for providing 
grants to projects selected through 
calls for proposals6. The remaining part 
was to provide support to the EUEI 
Partnership Dialogue Facility (PDF)7, 
a pooling mechanism that finances 
medium -sized investment projects8, 
the Africa -EU Infrastructure Partner -
ship9 and miscellaneous activities10.
07 
When our audit started in June 2014, 
a total of 268.2 million euro had been 
awarded to 142 projects under the 
first two calls for proposals: 169 mil -
lion euro to 74 projects from the call 
for proposals launched in May 2006 
under EF I and 99.2 million euro to 
68 projects from the first call for 
proposals launched in November 2009 
under EF II11.08 
Around 85 % of the projects selected 
following the first two calls for pro -
posals are related to renewable 
energy, 12 % to hybrid sources (re -
newable and fossil) and 3 % to fossil 
sources. Based on their main activities, 
the categorisation of the projects is 
as follows: off -grid small -scale electri -
city production12 (42 %); interconnec -
tion, transmission and distribution of 
electricity (42 %); governance/capacity 
building13 (9 %); and energy for cooking 
and others (7 %).
09 
A total amount of 106 million euro was 
granted to 50 projects in East Africa. 
With less than 20 % of its population 
having access to electricity, this region 
has by far the lowest access rate in 
Africa14. The same is true regarding 
access to non -solid cooking fuel, with 
a rate of less than 10 % of the popula -
tion compared with around 20 % for 
the West and Central African regions 
and more than 40 % for the Southern 
African region15.6 The call for proposals modality 
is not unique to the EF. For 
more details see 
DG International Cooperation 
and Development’s website at 
http://ec.europa.eu/
europeaid/prag/
7 The EU contribution of 
3.5 million  euro is channelled 
via a delegation agreement to 
the Gesellschaft für 
Internationale 
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), which 
manages the project of 
around 16.5 million euro. 
Other contributions are from 
Austria, France, Germany, the 
Netherlands, Sweden and 
Finland. This PDF aims to build 
institutional capacity and to 
improve the environment for 
private investments in the 
energy sector.
8 Initially planned for up to 
40 million euro, it contributed 
24.8 million euro to six 
projects.
9 An allocation of 
17 million euro primarily to 
facilitate cross- border 
interconnections of national 
networks.
10 Consulting and services for 
proposal assessment, 
monitoring, evaluation and 
audit of projects and 
contingencies.
11 The last two calls for proposals 
launched under EF II in March 
and October 2013 respectively 
were concluded in December 
2014. Grants amounting to 
a total of 147.5 million euro 
were awarded to 31 projects.
12 I.e. a rather small electricity 
production unit feeding 
a distribution network not 
interconnected with the main 
electricity grid.
13 All projects in other categories 
include capacity-building 
components.
14 The electricity access rates of 
the other African regions 
range from 34 % to 44 %. For 
details see Report Africa -EU 
Energy Partnership 2011/2012 
(http://www.euei -pdf.org/
support -to-the -africa -eu-en-
ergy -partnership -aeep ).
15 Non -solid cooking fuel is 
mainly gas in canisters or 
kerosene as substitutes for 
firewood and charcoal.
11
 Audit scope and approach
10 
We sought to assess whether the Com -
mission successfully used the EF to 
increase access to renewable energy 
for the poor in East Africa. Our audit 
focused on the following three main 
questions.
(a) Did the Commission allocate EF 
support for renewable energy 
to well prioritised and designed 
projects?
(b) Did the Commission monitor the 
projects properly?
(c) Did the projects achieve their 
objectives?
11 
The audit focused on renewable 
energy projects16 funded under the 
two first calls for proposals in 12 East 
African countries17. It was carried out 
between June 2014 and February 2015 
and included the following.
(a) A review of EU policy documents 
related to the energy sector in 
developing countries, to the EDF 
cooperation strategy and to the EF;
(b) Interviews with officials at DG 
International Cooperation and 
Development and with representa -
tives of contractual partners.
(c) A review of 16 projects that were 
implemented in five countries: 
Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, 
Tanzania and Zambia (see An-
nex I )18. The selection criteria 
included materiality19 and cover -
age of all the technologies used 
as well as of the different types of 
implementing and operating part -
ners20. This review aimed to assess 
the effectiveness of these projects, 
which were scored using relevant 
criteria from the Commission’s 
ROM methodology (see Annex II ).(d) Visits to Madagascar from 13 to 
23 October 2014 and to Zambia 
and Tanzania from 3 to 20 Novem -
ber, involving interviews with EU 
delegation staff, representatives of 
public entities of the beneficiary 
countries and implementing part -
ners, as well as on -the-spot visits 
to eight projects.16 Solar photovoltaic, wind, 
hydropower and biomass.
17 The East African countries 
considered are: Burundi, 
Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 
Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, 
Mozambique, Rwanda, 
Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
18 When projects are mentioned 
in the observations, reference 
is made to their numbering 
and short name as indicated in 
the annexes.
19 EF contribution of a minimum 
of 0.5 million euro.
20 Non -governmental 
organisations (NGOs), 
para -public bodies and private 
firms.
12
 Observations
The Commission 
prioritised EF support 
well, but a quarter of the 
projects examined had 
serious design 
weaknesses
12 
We examined whether the Commission 
had prioritised EF support well, and 
whether it had allocated EF support to 
well -designed projects.The selection process led to 
support projects in line with 
the EF priorities
13 
The system of calls for proposals 
involves a transparent and well - 
documented selection process (see 
Box 2 ).
Selecting project proposals
In order to ensure a high level of participation, transparency and a demand -driven approach, the call for pro -
posals and the guidelines for applicants are widely published. These guidelines contain practical instructions 
to the applicants and the objectives and priorities of the call. The applicants submit a concept note describing 
the main features of the proposed project, and a full application detailing the action proposed together with 
its budget and detailed information on the applicants.
The management of the call for proposals is overseen by an evaluation committee21, which is responsible for 
the evaluation of the proposals on the basis of selection and award criteria that are set in the call’s guidelines.
Both the concept note and the full application are assessed by two persons, in most cases an external consult -
ant and a representative of the EU delegation concerned22. The assessments are carried out using a scoring 
system and standardised evaluation grids with criteria that cover in particular the relevance, feasibility, effect -
iveness, sustainability and cost -effectiveness of projects.
Where there are significant differences of opinion between the two assessors, a third assessment is carried out 
by the evaluation committee to determine the final score.
The grants are awarded to the projects with the highest scores.
21 For calls for proposals under the EF, the evaluation committee is composed of representatives of the Commission (DG International Cooperation 
and Development, DG Environment, DG Research and Innovation, DG Energy) and the ACP Secretariat.
22 When the project concerns actions in more than one country, the project is assessed by an external consultant and a representative of the 
relevant regional directorate of DG International Cooperation and Development.Box 2
13 Observations
14 
For the first two calls for propos -
als under the EF, 975 proposals were 
submitted, from which 142 projects 
were selected (15 %). As regards the 
relevance of projects, the selection 
criteria ensured consistency with the 
priorities set by the EF and the two 
calls for proposals.
(a) All 12 East African countries cov -
ered by the audit had or were es -
tablishing a national energy policy. 
Support was also provided under 
the EUEI -PDF (see paragraph 6) 
to eleven of these countries to 
enhance institutional capacity and 
improve the business environment 
for investments in the energy sec -
tor (see  Annex III )23.(b) A high priority was given to pro -
jects using renewable sources of 
energy, which account for 85 % of 
grants awarded (see paragraph 8).
(c) Projects address well -identified 
needs regarding access to modern 
energy services (see Box 3 ) in rural 
or peri -urban areas mostly popu -
lated by economically modest or 
poor communities.
The essential energy needs of poor populations
In rural and peri -urban areas, households’ priority electricity needs are generally lighting, charging mobile 
phones, a radio set or a television, air circulation and, when and where possible, a refrigerator, air condition -
ing or other appliances. At village/community level, supplying electricity to medical centres is usually the top 
priority, followed by administrative facilities, schools and, where needed, water pumping. The main economic 
activities rendered possible by the arrival of electricity include grain milling, rice husking, sawmilling, food 
and drink refrigeration, tailoring or communication centres.
Energy for cooking remains based, in the vast majority of cases, on firewood or charcoal. Engineered stoves 
permitting fuel savings and soundly managed forestry are first steps towards the more efficient use and 
production of energy. Modern energy solutions for cooking include the availability of affordable and safe gas 
canisters or biogas production close by the place of use. ( Sources: various project documents and the report 
Poor people’s energy outlook 2013 — http://practicalaction.org/ppeo2013-pr)Box 3 Picture 2
Visibility sign of the project ‘Up‑scaling access to integrate  
modern energy services for poverty reduction’ (Matadi, Siha 
district, Tanzania)
Source:  European Court of Auditors.23 For eight countries, energy 
was also selected as a focal 
sector in the 11th EDF 
cooperation strategies.
14 Observations
A quarter of the projects 
examined were funded even 
though the assessment 
process had identified 
significant design 
weaknesses
15 
As regards the design of projects, ap -
propriate evaluation criteria were used 
to assess:
(i) operational viability (with refer -
ence to the capacity of partners 
and the methodology to imple -
ment the project);
(ii) sustainability (socioeconomi -
cal, financial, technical and 
environmental);
(iii) cost -effectiveness (ratio costs–  
expected results); and
(iv) replicability (demonstrative ef -
fects serving as a model for future 
replication).
16 
For 11 of the projects examined there 
was consistency between the scoring 
and the analytical comments of both 
assessors. This was not the case for the 
other five projects, for which the selec -
tion process was affected by inconsist -
encies that were not detected by the 
evaluation committee.
(a) In one case24, the good score given 
by the external assessor was not 
logical given the serious design 
deficiencies and high risks of 
project failure that he found25. As 
the scores given by the two asses -
sors were above the threshold, the 
project was selected.(b) For the other four projects26, the 
proposal had to be submitted to 
a third assessment, as the external   
assessors pointed to severe design 
weaknesses putting the projects 
at high risk (for example lack of 
applicant expertise, overambitious 
objectives, unrealistic implemen -
tation planning, sustainability of 
primary resources at risk, un -
favourable cost -effectiveness, 
over-optimistic and/or ambiguous 
business plan). Nonetheless, the 
third assessment, which recom -
mended the awarding of a grant, 
did not properly take into account 
the risks identified and the ab -
sence of appropriate mitigating 
measures.
17 
In four of these five cases27, the serious 
design weaknesses were the main 
reason for the projects’ failure (see 
paragraph 36).
18 
The selection process included an 
assessment of the appropriateness 
of each project’s logical framework28. 
The objectives of the projects were 
SMART29 but, due to the lack of proper 
feasibility studies, the performance 
indicators set to monitor their achieve -
ment were not always based on ac -
curate baselines and well thought -out 
targets.24 Project 5 (Up -scaling).
25 For example overambitious 
project, highly optimistic 
assumptions and business 
plan, the ongoing pilot project 
had not demonstrated its 
suitability.
26 Projects 2 (Best Ray), 6 
(Bioenergelec), 13 (Nice 
roll-out) and 16 (Wood and 
charcoal).
27 Projects 5 (Up -scaling), 6 
(Bioenergelec), 13 (Nice 
roll-out) and 16 (Wood and 
charcoal). See Annex VI , 
‘Design’ column, projects 
scored C or D.
28 It sets out the relationship 
between the socioeconomic 
needs to be addressed by the 
project and its objectives, 
inputs, activities and results.
29 Specific, measurable, 
achievable, relevant and 
time -bound.
15 Observations
19 
Of the 13 projects which were com -
pleted or close to completion, five 
needed a significant adjustment of 
their performance indicators to adapt 
to the realities in the field30, optimise 
technical options31 or address an 
unforeseen event32 (see Annex IV ). 
This mainly affected EF I projects. The 
Commission addressed this issue for 
EF II projects. The first EF II call for 
proposals recommended conducting 
feasibility studies before presenting an 
application, and this was made com -
pulsory under the second call.
The Commission did not 
monitor all projects 
properly
20 
We examined whether the Commission 
obtained adequate information from 
the projects’ reporting to monitor pro -
gress and took appropriate and timely 
measures when needed.
The quality of the 
implementing partners’ 
reports was uneven
21 
The provisions of grant contracts 
concluded with implementing part -
ners provide that payments of instal -
ments of the grant are made upon 
approval by the EU delegation of 
interim and final narrative and finan -
cial reports. These reports should 
conform to a model set out in the 
grant contract: they should list activ -
ities carried out, explain the reasons 
why certain planned activities could 
not be implemented, elaborate on the 
problems faced and how they have 
been addressed and assess the results 
achieved.22 
For five of the 16 projects examined, 
the reporting was timely and of the 
expected quality. All of these five 
projects were implemented by experi -
enced development partners33. As 
regards the other projects:
(a) narrative reports regularly lacked 
information about intermediate 
progress towards the objectives;
(b) when progress was not satisfacto -
ry, reports often contained limited   
information about measures 
planned or taken;
(c) in case of substantial imple -
mentation delays, the payment 
requests and associated reports 
became less frequent, providing 
the EU delegations with even less 
information.30 For project 5 (Up -scaling), the 
resources available were 
found to be incompatible with 
the geographic distribution 
and number of sites to be 
equipped. For project 15 
(Boreale), the cost and 
technical complexity involved 
in wind power units were 
found to be incompatible with 
local capacities, and one 
village (out of eight) had 
insufficient population for the 
project to be sustainable.
31 For project 8 (Sahambano), the 
topographic study showed 
that the hydropower available 
was 700 kW instead of the 
460 kW planned. For project 
7 (rHYviere), over the three 
sites, the hydropower installed 
went up to 890 kW instead of 
the 600 kW planned.
32 For project 6 (Bioenergelec), 
the forestry resources 
dedicated to one site (of the 
five planned) were destroyed 
by a cyclone before the 
construction of the electricity 
production unit.
33 Projects 2 (Best -Ray), 
4 (Biogas), 7 (rHYviere), 
9 (Resouth) and 15 (Boreale).
16 Observations
23 
DG International Cooperation and 
Development contracted a consult -
ing firm to assist the EU delegations in 
assessing the implementing partners’ 
reporting, record data about imple -
mentation progress, establish a struc -
tured EF monitoring tool and produce 
reports about the EF global results. 
When the consulting firm identified 
weaknesses in the timeliness, quality 
or completeness of reports, it informed 
the implementing partner and the EU 
delegation and made recommenda -
tions to facilitate implementation 
where appropriate. Its review of the 
partners’ reports was usually com -
pleted within 1 to 5 months follow -
ing the period covered by the report. 
However, due to the late extension of 
its contract, there was a gap of several 
months in its activities, which delayed 
this review considerably in some cases 
(see Annex V ).
24 
This standardised review by a single 
entity was useful for harmonising and 
improving the implementing partners’ 
reporting to some extent. However, 
the consulting firm had no power to 
enforce the recommendations made 
and its contract did not provide for 
resources to check on the spot the in -
formation provided by the implement -
ing partners. This verification could be 
performed only when other sources of 
information were available34.25 
The budget of the projects examined 
provided for mandatory mid -term 
and final evaluations to be organised 
and contracted by the implementing 
partners to external consultants. Only 
half of the mid -term evaluations were 
performed. Of the 11 EF I projects 
examined, five were not subject to 
a mid -term evaluation, even though 
they started in 2008 and were about 
1 year from completion at the time 
of the audit35. One EF II project36 was 
ongoing for approximately 3 years and 
was planned to end within less than 
a year, but had also not been sub -
ject to the mid -term evaluation (see 
Annex V ).
For some projects which 
experienced serious 
implementation difficulties, 
the Commission did not 
take appropriate and timely 
measures
26 
The weaknesses in project reporting 
were stressed in the February 2012 
report on the mid -term evaluation of 
the first call for proposals organised 
by DG International Cooperation and 
Development37. The Commission did 
not follow up this finding, setting 
out the remedial actions planned, 
their timetable and the allocation of 
responsibilities38.34 Reports of on -site visits by the 
EU delegation programme 
manager, ROM reports and 
external evaluations.
35 The mid -term evaluation of 
project 6 (Bioenergelec) was 
carried out in March 2013, i.e. 
5 years after the project had 
started for an initial 3 -year 
implementation period.
36 Project 16 (Wood and 
charcoal).
37 Mid-term evaluation of the 
first call for proposal of the EF 
under the 9th EDF.
38 This issue is not unique to this 
evaluation. As mentioned in 
Special Report No 18/2014 
— EuropeAid’s evaluation and 
results -oriented monitoring 
systems, there are weaknesses 
in the follow -up of evaluation 
findings (paragraphs 56 to 60).
17 Observations
27 
Under the contracts, if implement -
ing partners fail to comply with their 
reporting obligations, DG International 
Cooperation and Development has the 
power to request additional infor -
mation at any time, which must be 
supplied within 1 month, as well as to 
terminate the contract and recover the 
amounts already paid and not substan -
tiated. DG International Cooperation 
and Development has not made ap -
propriate use of these powers.
28 
In the three EU delegations examined, 
there was little evidence of regular 
on-site visits to projects by pro -
gramme managers, even when the EU 
delegations were aware of the serious 
difficulties encountered, as was the 
case for both failing EF I projects39. The 
reasons invoked were resources con -
straints and the fact that EF projects 
received less priority than programmes 
under the EDF cooperation strategies 
with partner countries40.
29 
For projects that are rarely visited by 
delegation staff or encounter difficul -
ties, the programme managers in the 
EU delegations may ask for an ROM 
visit to be planned by DG International 
Cooperation and Development. Ten of 
the 16 projects examined were subject 
to at least one ROM41 (see Annex V ). 
However, sufficient use was not made 
of this possibility for projects that were 
experiencing serious and well -known 
implementation difficulties, as shown 
below.
(a) Project 5 (Up -scaling), which 
started in January 2008, was only 
subject to one ROM, in June 2013. 
The report highlighted the chaotic 
situation but it was too late to take 
remedial action.(b) Project 6 (Bioenergelec), which 
started in April 2008, was never 
subject to an ROM despite exten -
sive implementation delays42 and 
the poor results achieved.
30 
If the Commission believes that the 
contract can no longer be executed 
effectively or appropriately, it may 
seek to agree on a solution with the 
implementing partner, and it may ter -
minate the contract if such a solution 
cannot be found. The Commission did 
not take this course of action when, 
around mid 2010, it was clear that both 
projects mentioned in paragraph 29 
could no longer be implemented as 
planned:
(a) for project 5 (Up -scaling), an op -
tion might have been to reduce 
significantly the geographical 
scope and the number of villages 
to be equipped and to reconsider 
the continuation of the jatropha 
cultivation scheme43;
(b) for project 6 (Bioenergelec), the 
project plan might have been 
reassessed in the light of the poor 
results of an earlier similar project 
also implemented in Madagascar 
by the same partner44.39 For projects 5 (Up -scaling) and 
6 (Bioenergelec), the 
implementation periods were 
extended to 78 and 81 months 
respectively (see Annex V ). For 
project 6 (Bioenergelec), no 
site visit could be documented 
for the Court to review.
40 Lack of sufficient on -site visits 
to projects is not unique to EF 
projects. As indicated in its 
2014 annual activity report, 
DG International Cooperation 
and Development did not 
reach its objective of visiting at 
least 80 % of ongoing projects 
and contracts (p. 112 and 
Annex 10 pp. 297-299). For 
2014, overall results stood at 
69 %, below the 2013 rate of 
72 %. Staff restriction is one of 
the reasons mentioned.
41 Three projects were subject to 
two ROMs.
42 Initially planned for 
36 months, the 
implementation period was 
extended to 81 months.
43 Jatropha is a plant whose 
oil-containing seeds are 
processed into biodiesel.
44 This project started two 
2 before was not yielding 
satisfactory results, notably 
due to the unreliable 
machinery identical to the one 
used in project 6 
(Bioenergelec).
18 Observations
31 
EF II project 6 (Wood and charcoal) is 
being implemented in several coun -
tries by a private forestry company. It 
started in March 2012 and, less than 
1 year from its planned completion 
date (July 2015), the innovative char -
coal component45 had made no pro -
gress and was unlikely to materialise. 
EU delegations in the countries con -
cerned had not sought to identify the 
reasons for the project’s failure, nor 
had they taken any action in response. 
Since the innovative charcoal compo -
nent had been the justification for the 
project’s eligibility under the EF, failure 
to deliver this element means that the 
Commission might be able to recover 
some of its funding.
Most of the projects 
examined were successful 
and had good 
sustainability prospects
32 
We examined whether the intended 
project results were delivered as 
planned and whether these results 
were sustainable.A quarter of the projects 
examined did not deliver 
most of the expected results
33 
The implementation periods indicated 
in the project proposals, and subse -
quently set out in the grant contracts, 
generally underestimated the time 
needed to implement the projects46. 
Nine out of the 11 EF I projects ex -
amined had to be extended and two 
of them needed more than twice the 
time initially planned (see Annex IV ).
34 
Of the 16 projects examined, 12 were 
successful: five had exceeded or were 
likely to exceed their initial targets, 
two had met or were likely to meet 
their targets and five were not likely 
to reach their targets but results were 
still reasonable47 (see Annex IV  and 
Annex VI , ‘Results’ column, projects 
scored A or B). Box 4  provides two 
examples of successful projects.
Examples of successful projects
Project 4 (Biogas)  — This project implemented in Kenya aimed to recover methane gas from slurry digesters 
in small farms with three to 10 dairy cows. The biogas is used as cooking fuel for the farm owners’ households. 
It contributes to saving firewood or charcoal, strongly reduces indoor pollution and improves the fertilising 
qualities of the slurry. Micro -institutions and public promoters were involved to ensure replication of the pro -
ject. The project managed to install 765 digesters in five Kenyan provinces (against a target of 460).
Project 14 (Small -scale solar)  — This project’s aim was to enable around 18 000 people (or 4 000 families) to 
access sustainable small -scale solar power in two rural districts in Mozambique. Solar -energy -charged lan -
terns are a substitute for burning wood or kerosene for lighting. These lanterns are being made available for 
a modest daily fee from small -scale businesses (charging stations) run by local entrepreneurs that received 
special training from the project. Forty-one charging stations spread across 25 villages have been installed 
and 14 760 people (or 82 % of the target) are being provided with economic and clean -energy lighting. Half of 
these entrepreneurs are women. Solar charging stations are also used to recharge cell phones and other small 
appliances, such as radios or hair clippers.Box 445 Using industrial ovens instead 
of poor yield artisanal 
production.
46 For example feasibility studies, 
construction permit request 
and procurement processes 
(see also paragraph 19).
47 Results are above 75 % of 
target values, or encouraging 
progress was noted after 
implementation of the project 
was complete (for example 
the number of households 
connected was progressively 
increasing).
19 Observations
35 
The rural electrification projects that 
include the supply of energy services 
to households and local public build -
ings (by connection to a mini -grid in 
villages or using standalone solar units 
for dispersed housing) had a very posi -
tive effect in improving the day -to-day 
life of rural communities, even if the 
expected new economic activities 
were slow to emerge. For instance, 
the additional facilities and comfort 
encouraged key qualified personnel 
such as teachers, doctors and judges 
to agree to work in remote places. This 
has cascade effects, such as improv -
ing the availability of public services 
and creating ancillary employment, 
which are essential for contributing to 
poverty reduction48.48 For example projects 2 (Best 
Ray), 3 (Majaua), 7 (rHYviere), 
10 (Rural electrification) and 
12 (Green energy).Pictures 3 - 4
Source:  European Court of Auditors.
Grid extension, notably to the Kamilambo clinic, ‘Rural 
electrification infrastructure and small‑scale projects’ 
(Mumbwa district, Zambia)A low ‑voltage transformer being connected to the 
distribution grid in Sahasinaka village, project rHYviere 
(Fianarantsoa  province, Madagascar)
20 Observations
36 
However, four projects failed to 
achieve most of their expected ob -
jectives, mostly due to both design 
weaknesses and inadequate monitor -
ing by the Commission during their im -
plementation (see Annex VI , ‘Results’ 
column, projects scored D).
(a) After 5 years of implementation, 
project 5 (Up -scaling) only man -
aged to provide 11 out of the 
planned 120 villages with access 
to modern energy services49. Some 
equipment purchased remained 
unused and was becoming 
obsolete.
(b) Project 6 (Bioenergelec) was to use 
biomass to generate electricity by 
burning mainly wood in a boiler 
connected to a steam engine 
driving a generator. Many of the 
significant risks which had been 
identified in the project selection 
phase materialised50. However, the 
destruction of the forest in one of 
the five chosen sites by a cyclone 
was a major risk to materialise and 
that had not been identified. Six 
years after the start of the project 
only one installation had been 
completed, and was functioning 
only sporadically51. Planning the in -
stallation of five units prior to any 
convincing feedback from a pilot 
project was highly premature52.
(c) Project 13 (Nice roll -out) aimed to 
extend a solar-powered internet 
centre already operating in The 
Gambia to over 50 locations in 
Zambia and Tanzania. The project 
had to be terminated due to the 
liquidation of the implement -
ing partner in 2013. The business 
model involving the private sector 
was considered a prominent risk at 
the proposal evaluation stage.(d) Project 16 (Wood and charcoal), 
aimed at sustainable wood and 
charcoal production in rural areas. 
The implementing partner had 
shown more interest in the profit -
able timber industry than in the 
innovative charcoal component, 
which was the reason for the pro -
ject’s eligibility for EF funding.
Almost all successful 
projects examined had good 
sustainability prospects
37 
For one of the 12 successful projects 
examined, sustainability was a mat -
ter for concern due to the technical 
complexity involved combined with 
a shortage of local capacity. There was 
a risk of technical failure in the short to 
medium term53. The other 11 projects 
were likely to be sustainable if the 
necessary measures envisaged were 
implemented according to plan and 
the context54 did not deteriorate too 
much (see Annex VI , ‘Sustainability’ 
column, projects scored B).49 For example lengthy 
procurement, logistics 
constraints, mobilisation of 
demand due to competition 
with other technologies and 
ineffective jatropha 
cultivation. The project is 
further affected by a legal 
dispute between the partner 
and a supplier which did not 
fulfil its commitment while 
blocking funds.
50 The project was also disrupted 
by a contentious situation 
between the equipment 
supplier and the national 
agency for rural electrification 
(also a partner of the project).
51 The machinery of Brazilian 
origin is rather a prototype 
and is still very dependent on 
its manufacturer.
52 Six units were planned in the 
proposal; only five were 
maintained in the grant 
contract.
53 Project 9 (Resouth) is scored 
C due to the complexity of its 
wind turbine component and 
extreme remoteness.
54 Exogenous factors that may 
directly or indirectly affect the 
projects, such as 
socioeconomic conditions, the 
security situation, a major 
change in sector policy or 
environmental degradations.
21 Observations
38 
For the projects involving a decen -
tralised electricity production unit 
and grid distribution55, sustainability 
requires appropriate management of 
the operations (electricity production 
and sale) and regular technical main -
tenance56. Training was provided in all 
the projects to improve the mana gerial 
and technical capacities of future 
operators. However, given the local 
capa cities, there remains a need for 
periodic training after project comple -
tion to ensure optimum management 
of the production units57.55 Projects 1 (Mwenga), 
3 (Majaua), 7 (rHyviere), 
8 (Sahambano), 9 (Resouth), 
10 (Rural electrification) and 
15 (Boreale).
56 Particular attention will be 
needed in some cases, for 
example in respect of some 
shortcomings in the quality of 
the infrastructure constructed 
and the equipment installed.
57 Long -established 
implementing partners have 
occasionally provided support 
at their own expense after the 
end of their contract, for 
example in project 
9 (Resouth).Pictures 5 - 6
Source:  European Court of Auditors.
Solar photovoltaic unit on a school roof with its instruction card, project ‘Increase access to electricity 
services’ (Kalomo district, Zambia)
22 Observations
39 
Some projects also raised awareness of 
environmental issues (see an example 
in Box 5 ) and provided training on 
starting micro-businesses, rendered 
possible with the arrival of electricity.
40 
Production units delivering electricity 
to a single customer (i.e. connection 
to the main distribution grid usually 
operated by a para -public body) may 
encounter payment defaults, which 
can jeopardise the sustainability of the 
project58. This risk is well known, and 
national energy policy reforms aim to 
progressively enforce better practices 
and make the national grid operators 
healthier and more capable of paying 
their suppliers59.
The preservation of the primary energy resource is key for sustainability
Project 7 (rHyviere)  — The project’s objective was to construct small hydroelectricity production units in 
a hilly region of Madagascar. The sustainability of the high -altitude water streams requires sound manage -
ment of the natural flora and of agriculture in the feeding basin to allow rainwater to continuously infiltrate 
the subsoil. Essential training and sensitisation components and a useful environmental scheme with the 
participation of the authorities to preserve the primary energy resource (the water streams) were included in 
the project. This scheme includes subsidies for peasants living in the feeding basin to preserve the flora by 
adapting their farming methods, notably to avoid further deforestation by slash -and -burn and by logging for 
charcoal production. The long -term financial resources required for the subsidies to local peasants were made 
available through a special levy (2.5 %) on the hydroelectricity produced and sold to the town in the valley.Box 558 Projects 7 (rHYviere, 1 site out 
of 3) and 8 (Sahambano).
59 For example, in Tanzania and 
in Madagascar the World Bank 
supports large programmes to 
reform the energy sector.
23
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
41 
We conclude that the Commission was 
mostly successful but could have done 
better in using the EF to increase ac -
cess to renewable energy for the poor 
in East Africa.
42 
The Commission allocated EF sup -
port for renewable energy to well - 
prioritised projects. Proper selec -
tion criteria were applied in calls for 
proposals to ensure consistency with 
the priorities set in the EF. However, 
a quarter of the projects examined 
were awarded a grant despite the 
serious design weaknesses identified 
during the selection process. The in -
consistency between the scores given 
to these projects and the analytical 
comments by the assessors point to 
insufficient rigour in the selection pro -
cess (see paragraphs 12 to 19).
Recommendation 1  
Selecting projects more 
rigorously
When using calls for proposals, during 
the selection process, the Commission 
should reinforce the assessment:
(i) of the risks related to the design of 
the actions and of the mitigation 
measures envisaged;
(ii) of the partner’s capacity with 
regard to the project implementa -
tion plans.43 
The Commission did not monitor all 
projects properly. The implementing 
partners’ reporting was of uneven 
quality and the support given by the 
consultant hired by DG International 
Cooperation and Development to im -
prove the reporting had a positive but 
limited effect. For some projects which 
experienced serious implementation 
difficulties, the Commission did not 
take appropriate and timely measures:
(a) it did not attempt to enforce com -
pliance with the reporting obliga -
tions set out in the grant contracts;
(b) it did not make sufficient use of 
on-site visits to projects by pro -
gramme managers in EU delega -
tions and of ROM reviews to com -
plement the information provided 
by the implementing partners, 
particularly when projects were 
known to encounter serious 
difficulties;
(c) despite being aware that some 
of the projects examined were 
unlikely to be implemented as 
planned, the Commission did not 
seek to agree on a solution with 
the implementing partners or to 
terminate the projects (see para -
graphs 20 to 31).
24 Conclusions and recommendations
Recommendation 2  
Strengthening the 
monitoring of projects
The Commission should:
(i) closely monitor compliance with 
the provisions of the grant con -
tracts regarding the timeliness and 
quality of financial and narrative 
reports and evaluations;
(ii) when these provisions are not 
complied with, suspend any 
further grant disbursement and 
ask the implementing partners to 
provide the information needed;
(iii) increase on -site visits by pro -
gramme managers and ROMs 
for sensitive projects, using 
a risk -based approach;
(iv) when projects are unlikely to be 
implemented as planned, seek to 
agree on a solution with the imple -
menting partner;
(v) when a solution cannot be found, 
adopt a rational exit strategy to 
terminate the contract.44 
Most of the projects examined were 
successful and are likely to be sustain -
able if the necessary measures envis -
aged are implemented and the context 
does not deteriorate too much. While 
new economic activities were slow 
to emerge in rural areas after the 
arrival of the electricity, the quality of 
 people’s lives was significantly improv -
ing, particularly through access to en -
hanced public services. One quarter of 
the projects examined failed to deliver 
the majority of their expected results, 
due mainly to both design weaknesses 
that were not addressed and inade -
quate monitoring by the Commission 
(see paragraphs 32 to 40).
Recommendation 3  
Increasing sustainability 
prospects of projects
Upon completion of complex projects, 
in particular those involving infrastruc -
ture investments, the Commission 
should:
(i) require the implementing partners 
to provide in their final report an 
assessment of the potential need 
for continued technical assistance 
for operators;
(ii) consider the possibility of provid -
ing funding for this purpose, for 
example through an amendment 
to the grant contract.
25 Conclusions and recommendations
This Report was adopted by Chamber III, headed by Mr Karel PINXTEN, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 6 October 2015.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President

26
 Annexes
Projects examined
Project No 
and short 
nameCRIS NoEF No
(CfP No)Proposal 
NoProposal assess -
ment scores3
(in %)Title of the action CountryBudget 
(million 
euro)EU 
contrib. 
(million 
euro)Percentage 
EU cont.
/budgetShort descriptionVisited
(or only 
examined 
in country)Sites visited
1
Mwenga2007/195-963 EF I 78EE: 81.5   
EUD: 86 Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant Tanzania 7. 81 3.60 4 6.1  %Installation of a mini hydroelectric plant to provide  
reliable electricity to a tea company and to 14 villagesyesProject in Mufindi (Iringa region);
meetings with local authorities in Mafinga
2
Best Ray2007/195-964 EF I 132EE: 57   
EUD: 77   
3rdE: 72 Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian 
rural areas)Tanzania 1.50 1.13 75.3  %Installation of solar PV units on 8 050 households 
(and public facilities) belonging to nine villages. Micro 
hydroelectricity with mini-grid and biogas were used in 
some placesyesCERC and Mpambano cooperative in 
Oldonyosambu;
training centre in Mkuru;
project in Ngarenyanuki Secondary School in 
Olkung’wado;
Arusha Technical College in Arusha.
3
Majaua2007/195-977 EF I 46EE: 74-  
EUD: 75.5Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua Mozambique 2.49 1.87 75.1  %Rehabilitation of a mini-hydro power plant (currently 
destroyed) and set up of a local electrical power network 
to connect 5 000 householdsno N/A
4
Biogas2007/195-982 EF I 244EE: 71.5  
EUD: 74 Up-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural 
producers and processorsKenya 1.97 1.22 61.9  %Use of biogas technology for cooking purposes in rural 
areas for 330 farmers in five provincesno N/A
5
Up-scaling2007/195-985 EF I 214EE: 71  
EUD: 83.5Up-scaling access to integrated modern energy 
services for poverty reductionTanzania 3.05 2.29 75.0  %Installation of multipurpose energy service centres 
powered by diesel engines using bio-fuels (jatropha oil) 
in 120 villages in six regionsyesMatadi MFP Project site — Mji Mwema, Siha 
District — Kilimandjaro region;
storage site in Moshi
6
Bioenergelec2007/196-004 EF I 217EE: 65  
EUD: 74  
3rdE: 76.5Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité) Madagascar 3.16 1.96 61.9  %Electricity generation from biomass for six villages (in 
four regions) and improved carbonisation(yes)No site visited1 but stakeholders and imple -
menting partner were interviewed
7
rHYviere2007/196-005 EF I 144EE: 74  
EUD: 81Programme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques 
villageois et respect de l’environnementMadagascar 2.30 1.73 75.1  %Construction of three hydropower plants on ‘run-off river’ 
+ mini-grid to connect eight villages in eastern rural areas yesTwo sites out of three: Sahasinaka and 
Tolongoina
8
Sahambano2007/196-009 EF I 54EE: 69.5  
EUD: 68.5 Aménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befa -
naova sur la rivière SahambanoMadagascar 3.31 2.48 74.9  %Construction of a hydropower plant on ‘run off river’ + 
20 km grid extension to connect one city and two villagesyes One site: Ihosy
9
Resouth2007/196 - 014 EF I 128EE: 72  
EUD: 78.5Electrification rurale décentralisée par énergies 
renouvelables dans le sud de Madagascar (Resouth)Madagascar 1.16 0.87 75.0  %Electrification of two villages in the southern region 
using two wind turbines and solar PV units(yes)No site visited2 but stakeholders were 
interviewed
10
Rural 
electrification2008/020-660 EF I 284EE: 68  
EUD: 78Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale 
projectsZambia 36.51 10.00 27.4  %Grid extension and installation of a mini-hydro plant and 
2 000 solar home units to provide electricity to 27 000 
households, 700 schools and health centresyes One site out of two: Mumbwa
11
Increase 
access2008/195-971 EF I 200EE: 80  
EUD: 75Increased access to electricity services Zambia 33.00 10.00 30.3  %Grid extension to facilitate access to renewable energy 
sources in rural and peri-urban areas in Zambia (65 000 
beneficiaries)yesThree sites out of 24: Kabwe, Kanyama sub-
station and KalomoAnnex I
27 Annexes
Projects examined
Project No 
and short 
nameCRIS NoEF No
(CfP No)Proposal 
NoProposal assess -
ment scores3
(in %)Title of the action CountryBudget 
(million 
euro)EU 
contrib. 
(million 
euro)Percentage 
EU cont.
/budgetShort descriptionVisited
(or only 
examined 
in country)Sites visited
1
Mwenga2007/195-963 EF I 78EE: 81.5   
EUD: 86 Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant Tanzania 7. 81 3.60 4 6.1  %Installation of a mini hydroelectric plant to provide  
reliable electricity to a tea company and to 14 villagesyesProject in Mufindi (Iringa region);
meetings with local authorities in Mafinga
2
Best Ray2007/195-964 EF I 132EE: 57   
EUD: 77   
3rdE: 72 Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian 
rural areas)Tanzania 1.50 1.13 75.3  %Installation of solar PV units on 8 050 households 
(and public facilities) belonging to nine villages. Micro 
hydroelectricity with mini-grid and biogas were used in 
some placesyesCERC and Mpambano cooperative in 
Oldonyosambu;
training centre in Mkuru;
project in Ngarenyanuki Secondary School in 
Olkung’wado;
Arusha Technical College in Arusha.
3
Majaua2007/195-977 EF I 46EE: 74-  
EUD: 75.5Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua Mozambique 2.49 1.87 75.1  %Rehabilitation of a mini-hydro power plant (currently 
destroyed) and set up of a local electrical power network 
to connect 5 000 householdsno N/A
4
Biogas2007/195-982 EF I 244EE: 71.5  
EUD: 74 Up-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural 
producers and processorsKenya 1.97 1.22 61.9  %Use of biogas technology for cooking purposes in rural 
areas for 330 farmers in five provincesno N/A
5
Up-scaling2007/195-985 EF I 214EE: 71  
EUD: 83.5Up-scaling access to integrated modern energy 
services for poverty reductionTanzania 3.05 2.29 75.0  %Installation of multipurpose energy service centres 
powered by diesel engines using bio-fuels (jatropha oil) 
in 120 villages in six regionsyesMatadi MFP Project site — Mji Mwema, Siha 
District — Kilimandjaro region;
storage site in Moshi
6
Bioenergelec2007/196-004 EF I 217EE: 65  
EUD: 74  
3rdE: 76.5Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité) Madagascar 3.16 1.96 61.9  %Electricity generation from biomass for six villages (in 
four regions) and improved carbonisation(yes)No site visited1 but stakeholders and imple -
menting partner were interviewed
7
rHYviere2007/196-005 EF I 144EE: 74  
EUD: 81Programme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques 
villageois et respect de l’environnementMadagascar 2.30 1.73 75.1  %Construction of three hydropower plants on ‘run-off river’ 
+ mini-grid to connect eight villages in eastern rural areas yesTwo sites out of three: Sahasinaka and 
Tolongoina
8
Sahambano2007/196-009 EF I 54EE: 69.5  
EUD: 68.5 Aménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befa -
naova sur la rivière SahambanoMadagascar 3.31 2.48 74.9  %Construction of a hydropower plant on ‘run off river’ + 
20 km grid extension to connect one city and two villagesyes One site: Ihosy
9
Resouth2007/196 - 014 EF I 128EE: 72  
EUD: 78.5Electrification rurale décentralisée par énergies 
renouvelables dans le sud de Madagascar (Resouth)Madagascar 1.16 0.87 75.0  %Electrification of two villages in the southern region 
using two wind turbines and solar PV units(yes)No site visited2 but stakeholders were 
interviewed
10
Rural 
electrification2008/020-660 EF I 284EE: 68  
EUD: 78Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale 
projectsZambia 36.51 10.00 27.4  %Grid extension and installation of a mini-hydro plant and 
2 000 solar home units to provide electricity to 27 000 
households, 700 schools and health centresyes One site out of two: Mumbwa
11
Increase 
access2008/195-971 EF I 200EE: 80  
EUD: 75Increased access to electricity services Zambia 33.00 10.00 30.3  %Grid extension to facilitate access to renewable energy 
sources in rural and peri-urban areas in Zambia (65 000 
beneficiaries)yesThree sites out of 24: Kabwe, Kanyama sub-
station and Kalomo
28 Annexes
Project No 
and short 
nameCRIS NoEF No
(CfP No)Proposal 
NoProposal assess -
ment scores3
(in %)Title of the action CountryBudget 
(million 
euro)EU 
contrib. 
(million 
euro)Percentage 
EU cont.
/budgetShort descriptionVisited
(or only 
examined 
in country)Sites visited
12
Green energy2011/231-578EF II -
(Call 1)60EE: 71  
EUD: 85Community-based green energy project Kenya 2.32 1.74 75.0  %Installation of solar PV units on 56 schools and 32 health 
centres in rural Kenya no N/A
13
Nice roll-out2011/231-937EF II -
(Call 1)183EE: 47  
EUD: 87  
3rdE: 82Nice roll-outZambia, 
Tanzania, The 
Gambia8.44 2.50 29.6  %Business development through ICT facilities powered 
by solar PV units (franchised NICE centres in 50 rural 
and peri-urban locations in The Gambia, Tanzania and 
Zambia)no N/A
14
Small-scale 
solar2011/232-092EF II -
(Call 1)620EE: 83  
EUD: 81Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable 
small-scale solar power in Quissanga district, Cabo 
DelgadoMozambique 0.79 0.59 75.0  %Enabling 4 000 households to access sustainable small-
scale solar power in two districtsno N/A
15
Boreale2011/280-322EF II -
(Call 1)534EE: 84  
EUD: 79Best options for rural energy and access to light and 
electricity (Boreale)Madagascar 2.30 1.72 74.8  %Installation of solar PV units on 10 schools and eight 
health centres and 900 households in eight villages in the 
southern region(yes)No site visited2 but stakeholders were 
interviewed
16
Wood and 
charcoal2012/232-680EF II -
(Call 1)542EE: 59  
EUD: 87  
3rdE: 75Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural 
Mozambique, Malawi and TanzaniaMozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)5.33 2.40 45.0  %Sustainable biomass and energy efficiency through train -
ing of 2 000 households on tree planting and construc -
tion of a charcoal production plantyes 
(Tanzania)Plantations and green resources offices in 
Sao Hill (Iringa region of Tanzania)Annex I
29 Annexes
Project No 
and short 
nameCRIS NoEF No
(CfP No)Proposal 
NoProposal assess -
ment scores3
(in %)Title of the action CountryBudget 
(million 
euro)EU 
contrib. 
(million 
euro)Percentage 
EU cont.
/budgetShort descriptionVisited
(or only 
examined 
in country)Sites visited
12
Green energy2011/231-578EF II -
(Call 1)60EE: 71  
EUD: 85Community-based green energy project Kenya 2.32 1.74 75.0  %Installation of solar PV units on 56 schools and 32 health 
centres in rural Kenya no N/A
13
Nice roll-out2011/231-937EF II -
(Call 1)183EE: 47  
EUD: 87  
3rdE: 82Nice roll-outZambia, 
Tanzania, The 
Gambia8.44 2.50 29.6  %Business development through ICT facilities powered 
by solar PV units (franchised NICE centres in 50 rural 
and peri-urban locations in The Gambia, Tanzania and 
Zambia)no N/A
14
Small-scale 
solar2011/232-092EF II -
(Call 1)620EE: 83  
EUD: 81Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable 
small-scale solar power in Quissanga district, Cabo 
DelgadoMozambique 0.79 0.59 75.0  %Enabling 4 000 households to access sustainable small-
scale solar power in two districtsno N/A
15
Boreale2011/280-322EF II -
(Call 1)534EE: 84  
EUD: 79Best options for rural energy and access to light and 
electricity (Boreale)Madagascar 2.30 1.72 74.8  %Installation of solar PV units on 10 schools and eight 
health centres and 900 households in eight villages in the 
southern region(yes)No site visited2 but stakeholders were 
interviewed
16
Wood and 
charcoal2012/232-680EF II -
(Call 1)542EE: 59  
EUD: 87  
3rdE: 75Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural 
Mozambique, Malawi and TanzaniaMozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)5.33 2.40 45.0  %Sustainable biomass and energy efficiency through train -
ing of 2 000 households on tree planting and construc -
tion of a charcoal production plantyes 
(Tanzania)Plantations and green resources offices in 
Sao Hill (Iringa region of Tanzania)
1  The implementation of the project in the site selected for visiting was at too early a stage (the building was in place, but no renewable energy equip -
ment was installed yet). The only site completed was too remote to fit in our mission planning.
2 Not visited due to security reasons.
3 Proposal assessed by an external expert (EE), the EU Delegation (EUD), and in some cases by a third evaluator (3rdE).
30 Annexes
Scoring methodology
For the purpose of the audit, the scoring of the design, results and potential sustainability were determined 
based on the Commission’s ROM methodology. The criteria used are listed below.
Design
AThe project concept (including the technology chosen) is realistic and relevant in the context. Risks and local constraints well identified and mitiga -
tion measures to be implemented exhaustively described. Clear and well -structured logical framework, SMART objectives (the score is not affected 
if baseline and target figures still have to be tuned after feasibility study), adequate performance indicators are proposed.
BAdequate intervention logic. Omission/concerns are noted regarding the concept or the technology chosen, the risks and constraints listed are not 
exhaustive and/or their mitigation is not fully convincing. Objectives and/or indicators need modifications.
CIntervention logic shows problems which may substantially affect the results expected. Issues/problems are noted concerning the elements listed 
above.
D Intervention logic is faulty and strongly reduces the chance of success for the project, or major issues/problems will jeopardise the project.
Results
AAll results have been, or most likely will be, delivered with good quality contributing to outcomes as planned, activities are regularly monitored and 
implemented on schedule (no delays are noted or are minor and logically explained).
BResult delivery is, and will most likely be, according to plan, but there is room for improvement in terms of quality, completion of the quantity 
expected or timing. However, delays do not harm delivery of results.
CSome results have not been/will not be delivered on time, according to expected quantity or with good quality. Corrective measures are necessary. 
Activities are delayed and somewhat disconnected from the intervention logic and plans.
DQuality and delivery of results has, or most likely will have, serious deficiencies. Major adjustments are needed to ensure that at least the key results 
are delivered. Serious delays and fundamental disconnect of activities from intervention logic and plans. An exit strategy may have to be envisaged 
to limit further problems.
Sustainability
AThe results will be sustainable in the long run and potential replication is ensured by a favourable context and/or the associated measures put in 
place by the project or other interventions.
 BThe results (or most of them) will most likely be sustainable in the long run if the necessary measures envisaged are implemented according to plans 
and/or the context does not deteriorate too much.
CThe results (or most of them) will likely fail to be sustainable in the medium term or the long run if the necessary measures envisaged are not ap -
propriately reinforced or complemented, especially if the context has a tendency to deteriorate.
D The results (or most of them) will most likely fail to be sustainable in the medium term, whatever the measures taken in the prevailing context.Annex II

32 Annexes
EUEI PDF projects and 11th EDF focal sectors per country
CountryEUEI PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE FACILITY (PDF)11th EDF  
(Focal sectors and estimated budget adopted or likely to be adopted at the time of the audit)
Existing policies  
pertaining to energyPDF project in energy sector (description) Stakeholders Dates Focal sector 1Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 2Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 3Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 4Budget 
(million 
euro)Non-focalBudget 
(million 
euro)TOTAL 
BUDGET
(million 
euro)
BurundiJan 2011 (+ rural electrifica -
tion plan 1993, revised in 
1997)Assist the Ministry of Energy and Mines in the devel -
opment of a national policy for the energy sector as 
well as an implementation strategy and investment 
planMinistry of Energy and MinesNovember 2009-  
April 2011Sustainable 
rural develop -
ment for 
nutrition80 Health 87Rule of law and 
fragility143 Energy 105 Civil society 17 432
Djibouti 2005Assist the Ministry of Energy in charge of Natural 
Resources (MERN) in formulating a national strategy 
and action plan for the electricity sector, as well as in 
the preparation of a draft electricity lawMinistries, Electricité de 
Djibouti — technical and 
financial partners, donorsNovember 2012-
July 2014Water, sanita -
tion and solid 
waste52 Food security 35Civil society and 
NAO support18 105
Eritrea 1997 - - -Energy (not 
decided but 
gov’s will)AgricultureEconomic 
governance0
Ethiopia 1994 (revised in 2012)Assist the Ethiopian government in articulating 
a clear long-term vision for biomass energy and for -
mulating a biomass energy strategy and action planMinistry of Water, Irrigation 
and EnergyJuly 2012-  
February 2014Sustainable 
agriculture and 
food security252 Health 200Roads and 
transition to 
energy230 Civil society 63 745
Kenya 2004 (revised in 2014)Design a support intervention that will be imple -
mented through long-term experts who will provide 
direct advisory services concerning the regulatory 
framework for small-scale on-grid renewable energy 
power generationMinistry of EnergyJanuary 2013-  
March 2014Food security 
and resilience 
to climate 
shocks190Sustainable 
infrastructure 
(transport and 
energy)175Accountabil -
ity of public 
institutions60 60 NAO support 10 495
Madagascar 1974 (became a law in 1998)Update of Madagascar’s policy and national energy 
strategy and the preparation of a strategy for the 
energy sector of MadagascarMinistry of EnergyJuly 2014-  
July 2015Governance and 
institutions143Rural 
development140Infrastructure 
(increase 
energy access 
for economic 
development)230 NAO and TCF 5 518
Malawi 2003 (revised in 2009)Support for the development of a biomass energy 
strategy to ensure a sustainable supply of biomass 
energy and promote access to modern cooking fuels 
and efficient biomass combustion technologiesDepartment of EnergyFebruary 2008-  
February 2009Governance 120 Education 110 Agriculture 250 Civil society 30 510
Mozambique1998 (revised in 
2009 and 2011)Support to design and implement a national biomass 
energy strategy, with a particular focus on the 
charcoal supply chain and addressing both the supply 
side and the demand sideMinistry of Energy and the 
National Directorate for New 
and Renewable EnergyJanuary 2011-  
December 2012Good govern -
ance and 
development367Rural develop -
ment (including 
energy:
50 million euro)330 697Annex III
33 Annexes
EUEI PDF projects and 11th EDF focal sectors per country
CountryEUEI PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE FACILITY (PDF)11th EDF  
(Focal sectors and estimated budget adopted or likely to be adopted at the time of the audit)
Existing policies  
pertaining to energyPDF project in energy sector (description) Stakeholders Dates Focal sector 1Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 2Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 3Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 4Budget 
(million 
euro)Non-focalBudget 
(million 
euro)TOTAL 
BUDGET
(million 
euro)
BurundiJan 2011 (+ rural electrifica -
tion plan 1993, revised in 
1997)Assist the Ministry of Energy and Mines in the devel -
opment of a national policy for the energy sector as 
well as an implementation strategy and investment 
planMinistry of Energy and MinesNovember 2009-  
April 2011Sustainable 
rural develop -
ment for 
nutrition80 Health 87Rule of law and 
fragility143 Energy 105 Civil society 17 432
Djibouti 2005Assist the Ministry of Energy in charge of Natural 
Resources (MERN) in formulating a national strategy 
and action plan for the electricity sector, as well as in 
the preparation of a draft electricity lawMinistries, Electricité de 
Djibouti — technical and 
financial partners, donorsNovember 2012-
July 2014Water, sanita -
tion and solid 
waste52 Food security 35Civil society and 
NAO support18 105
Eritrea 1997 - - -Energy (not 
decided but 
gov’s will)AgricultureEconomic 
governance0
Ethiopia 1994 (revised in 2012)Assist the Ethiopian government in articulating 
a clear long-term vision for biomass energy and for -
mulating a biomass energy strategy and action planMinistry of Water, Irrigation 
and EnergyJuly 2012-  
February 2014Sustainable 
agriculture and 
food security252 Health 200Roads and 
transition to 
energy230 Civil society 63 745
Kenya 2004 (revised in 2014)Design a support intervention that will be imple -
mented through long-term experts who will provide 
direct advisory services concerning the regulatory 
framework for small-scale on-grid renewable energy 
power generationMinistry of EnergyJanuary 2013-  
March 2014Food security 
and resilience 
to climate 
shocks190Sustainable 
infrastructure 
(transport and 
energy)175Accountabil -
ity of public 
institutions60 60 NAO support 10 495
Madagascar 1974 (became a law in 1998)Update of Madagascar’s policy and national energy 
strategy and the preparation of a strategy for the 
energy sector of MadagascarMinistry of EnergyJuly 2014-  
July 2015Governance and 
institutions143Rural 
development140Infrastructure 
(increase 
energy access 
for economic 
development)230 NAO and TCF 5 518
Malawi 2003 (revised in 2009)Support for the development of a biomass energy 
strategy to ensure a sustainable supply of biomass 
energy and promote access to modern cooking fuels 
and efficient biomass combustion technologiesDepartment of EnergyFebruary 2008-  
February 2009Governance 120 Education 110 Agriculture 250 Civil society 30 510
Mozambique1998 (revised in 
2009 and 2011)Support to design and implement a national biomass 
energy strategy, with a particular focus on the 
charcoal supply chain and addressing both the supply 
side and the demand sideMinistry of Energy and the 
National Directorate for New 
and Renewable EnergyJanuary 2011-  
December 2012Good govern -
ance and 
development367Rural develop -
ment (including 
energy:
50 million euro)330 697
34 Annexes
CountryEUEI PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE FACILITY (PDF)11th EDF  
(Focal sectors and estimated budget adopted or likely to be adopted at the time of the audit)
Existing policies  
pertaining to energyPDF project in energy sector (description) Stakeholders Dates Focal sector 1Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 2Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 3Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 4Budget 
(million 
euro)Non-focalBudget 
(million 
euro)TOTAL 
BUDGET
(million 
euro)
Rwanda 2004 (revised in 2009)Support the development of policies and strategies 
for the geothermal energy subsector and support 
the institutional, legal and regulatory framework 
for geothermal energy, with a particular focus on 
options for private sector engagementMinistry of InfrastructureDecember 2013-  
January 2015Sustainable 
agriculture and 
food security200Sustainable 
energy200Accountable 
governance40 Civil society 20 460
Tanzania1992 (revised in 
2003 and 2014)Assist the development of a national biomass energy 
strategy that identifies means of ensuring a more 
sustainable supply of biomass energy; raising  
efficiency of production and use; promoting access to 
alternative energy sources; and ensuring an enabling 
institutional environment for implementationMinistry of FinanceMarch 2012-  
April 2014Good govern -
ance and 
development291 Energy 180Sustainable 
agriculture140 Civil society 15 626
Uganda 2002 (revised in 2007)Develop a set of recommendations and a list of po -
tential energy projects to be supported under SE4ALL 
(‘Sustainable energy for all’)Ministry of Energy, private 
companies, civil society, 
development partnersMay 2012-  
June 2012Transport 
infrastructure 
(energy may 
be included 
after mid-term 
review)230Food security 
and agriculture130Good 
governance168 Civil society 50 578
Zambia 1994 (revised in 2008)Organise a consultative process for the integration of 
access to energy services in the national develop -
ment plan and the national long-term visionMinistry of Energy and Water 
DevelopmentSeptember 2005-  
August 2006Energy 244 Agriculture 110 Governance 100 NAO support 30 484
East AfricaCapacity assessment for scaling up access to modern 
energy in East AfricaEast African community November 2010-
July 2011N/AAnnex III
35 Annexes
CountryEUEI PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE FACILITY (PDF)11th EDF  
(Focal sectors and estimated budget adopted or likely to be adopted at the time of the audit)
Existing policies  
pertaining to energyPDF project in energy sector (description) Stakeholders Dates Focal sector 1Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 2Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 3Budget 
(million 
euro)Focal sector 4Budget 
(million 
euro)Non-focalBudget 
(million 
euro)TOTAL 
BUDGET
(million 
euro)
Rwanda 2004 (revised in 2009)Support the development of policies and strategies 
for the geothermal energy subsector and support 
the institutional, legal and regulatory framework 
for geothermal energy, with a particular focus on 
options for private sector engagementMinistry of InfrastructureDecember 2013-  
January 2015Sustainable 
agriculture and 
food security200Sustainable 
energy200Accountable 
governance40 Civil society 20 460
Tanzania1992 (revised in 
2003 and 2014)Assist the development of a national biomass energy 
strategy that identifies means of ensuring a more 
sustainable supply of biomass energy; raising  
efficiency of production and use; promoting access to 
alternative energy sources; and ensuring an enabling 
institutional environment for implementationMinistry of FinanceMarch 2012-  
April 2014Good govern -
ance and 
development291 Energy 180Sustainable 
agriculture140 Civil society 15 626
Uganda 2002 (revised in 2007)Develop a set of recommendations and a list of po -
tential energy projects to be supported under SE4ALL 
(‘Sustainable energy for all’)Ministry of Energy, private 
companies, civil society, 
development partnersMay 2012-  
June 2012Transport 
infrastructure 
(energy may 
be included 
after mid-term 
review)230Food security 
and agriculture130Good 
governance168 Civil society 50 578
Zambia 1994 (revised in 2008)Organise a consultative process for the integration of 
access to energy services in the national develop -
ment plan and the national long-term visionMinistry of Energy and Water 
DevelopmentSeptember 2005-  
August 2006Energy 244 Agriculture 110 Governance 100 NAO support 30 484
East AfricaCapacity assessment for scaling up access to modern 
energy in East AfricaEast African community November 2010-
July 2011N/A
36 Annexes
Implementation period, objectives and achievements of the projects examined
Project No 
and
short nameEF No  
(CfP No)Title of the action Country Start date End date  Extensions
(in months)%  
exten -
sionExtension justificationInitial objectives amended -
(achievements)
1
MwengaEF I Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant Tanzania 22.12.2007 22.12.2012 Initial: 60 m — no extension 0 % n/aNo (beneficiaries were 14 345 against an expected 
24 700 (58 %) but number is progressing)
2
Best RayEF I Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian rural areas) Tanzania 1.4.2008 30.6.2011 Initial: 36 m — extended: 39 m 8 %Extension justified by the need ‘to better complete … 
key project activities, mainly focusing on institutional 
and sustainability aspects’No (beneficiaries were 7 600 against an expected 
8 050 or 94.4 %)
3
MajauaEF I Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua Mozambique 1.12.2007 30.11.2012 Initial: 36 m — extended: 60 m 67 %In total, three extensions were requested but the last one 
(that proposed to extend the project up to 30.11.2013) 
was rejected by the EUDNo (in 2014, EUD has estimated the connections to 
+/– 500; about 3 years will be needed to reach the 
5 000 target)
4
BiogasEF IUp-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural producers and 
processorsKenya 1.1.2008 1.1.2011 Initial: 36 m — extended: 45 m 25 % To complete the reachable objectives within the budgetNo (initial: construction of 350 digesters 
 — end of the project: 765 were constructed)
5
Up-scalingEF IUp-scaling access to integrated modern energy services for poverty 
reductionTanzania 1.1.2008 30.6.2014 Initial: 60 m — extended: 78 m 23 % To try to catch up with planningYes — 200 MPESCs -> 125 
(only 11 installed in June 2013)
6
BioenergelecEF I Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité) Madagascar 1.4.2008 31.12.2015 Initial: 36 m — extended: 81 m 125 %Contractual problem with partners (9 months) Prelim -
inary study (9 months). Preparation DAO (not planned) 
and negotiation AGMIN–ADER (Jan 2010-Dec 2011) — 
ERD equipment not fully delivered (three sites missing 
out of five) — contractual issues ADMIN–ADER (contract 
signed 9.1.2012)Yes — initial1: five sites 80-100 kW (400-500 kW), 
objectives in October 2014: four sites 70 kW (280 kW) 
— budget reduced by 100 000 euro (only one site 
equipped at the time of audit)
7
rHYviereEF IProgramme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques villageois et respect de 
l’environnementMadagascar 7.1. 20 0 8 30.12.2015 Initial: 48 m — extended: 84 m 75 %Rider 1 — Political situation (12 months) Rider 3: 
cyclones in the region and restructuring of the ADER (12 
months) Rider 4-5: Response time of the bank for a loan 
to a private investor (Tectra) for the purchase of a turbine 
+ cable theft in harbour facilities (6+6 months)Yes — initial: three sites: T: 2x60, S:3x80 A:3x80:  
600 kW — objectives in October 2014: 3 sites T: 2x50, 
S:2x65, A:2x330: 890 kW (2 sites completed at the 
time of audit)
8
SahambanoEF IAménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befanaova sur la rivière 
SahambanoMadagascar 1.3.2008 31.12.2014 Initial: 30 m — extended: 82 m  173 %Lack of decision about the site development: 12 technical 
options, new Zecca project manager in 2009, political 
instability, bad weather, delays in obtaining the conces -
sion permit, tax exemption, permission to use dynamite 
for digging the canalYes (initial: 460 kW — objectives in October 2014: 
700 kW)
9
ResouthEF IElectrification rurale décentralisée par énergies renouvelables dans le sud de 
Madagascar (Resouth)Madagascar 1.1.2008 1.1.2013 Initial: 60 m — no extension 0 % n/a No (initial: 5 000 beneficiaries -> 5 500)
10
Rural 
electrificationEF I Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale projects Zambia 10.3.2008 31.12.2015 Initial: 70 m — extended: 94 m 34 %Feasibility study, relaunch of failed CfTenders, delays in 
receiving material/ equipment, insufficient capacity of 
local partners and works contractorsNo (objectives won’t be reached at the end of the 
project but progress will continue after)Annex IV
37 Annexes
Implementation period, objectives and achievements of the projects examined
Project No 
and
short nameEF No  
(CfP No)Title of the action Country Start date End date  Extensions
(in months)%  
exten -
sionExtension justificationInitial objectives amended -
(achievements)
1
MwengaEF I Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant Tanzania 22.12.2007 22.12.2012 Initial: 60 m — no extension 0 % n/aNo (beneficiaries were 14 345 against an expected 
24 700 (58 %) but number is progressing)
2
Best RayEF I Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian rural areas) Tanzania 1.4.2008 30.6.2011 Initial: 36 m — extended: 39 m 8 %Extension justified by the need ‘to better complete … 
key project activities, mainly focusing on institutional 
and sustainability aspects’No (beneficiaries were 7 600 against an expected 
8 050 or 94.4 %)
3
MajauaEF I Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua Mozambique 1.12.2007 30.11.2012 Initial: 36 m — extended: 60 m 67 %In total, three extensions were requested but the last one 
(that proposed to extend the project up to 30.11.2013) 
was rejected by the EUDNo (in 2014, EUD has estimated the connections to 
+/– 500; about 3 years will be needed to reach the 
5 000 target)
4
BiogasEF IUp-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural producers and 
processorsKenya 1.1.2008 1.1.2011 Initial: 36 m — extended: 45 m 25 % To complete the reachable objectives within the budgetNo (initial: construction of 350 digesters 
 — end of the project: 765 were constructed)
5
Up-scalingEF IUp-scaling access to integrated modern energy services for poverty 
reductionTanzania 1.1.2008 30.6.2014 Initial: 60 m — extended: 78 m 23 % To try to catch up with planningYes — 200 MPESCs -> 125 
(only 11 installed in June 2013)
6
BioenergelecEF I Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité) Madagascar 1.4.2008 31.12.2015 Initial: 36 m — extended: 81 m 125 %Contractual problem with partners (9 months) Prelim -
inary study (9 months). Preparation DAO (not planned) 
and negotiation AGMIN–ADER (Jan 2010-Dec 2011) — 
ERD equipment not fully delivered (three sites missing 
out of five) — contractual issues ADMIN–ADER (contract 
signed 9.1.2012)Yes — initial1: five sites 80-100 kW (400-500 kW), 
objectives in October 2014: four sites 70 kW (280 kW) 
— budget reduced by 100 000 euro (only one site 
equipped at the time of audit)
7
rHYviereEF IProgramme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques villageois et respect de 
l’environnementMadagascar 7.1. 20 0 8 30.12.2015 Initial: 48 m — extended: 84 m 75 %Rider 1 — Political situation (12 months) Rider 3: 
cyclones in the region and restructuring of the ADER (12 
months) Rider 4-5: Response time of the bank for a loan 
to a private investor (Tectra) for the purchase of a turbine 
+ cable theft in harbour facilities (6+6 months)Yes — initial: three sites: T: 2x60, S:3x80 A:3x80:  
600 kW — objectives in October 2014: 3 sites T: 2x50, 
S:2x65, A:2x330: 890 kW (2 sites completed at the 
time of audit)
8
SahambanoEF IAménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befanaova sur la rivière 
SahambanoMadagascar 1.3.2008 31.12.2014 Initial: 30 m — extended: 82 m  173 %Lack of decision about the site development: 12 technical 
options, new Zecca project manager in 2009, political 
instability, bad weather, delays in obtaining the conces -
sion permit, tax exemption, permission to use dynamite 
for digging the canalYes (initial: 460 kW — objectives in October 2014: 
700 kW)
9
ResouthEF IElectrification rurale décentralisée par énergies renouvelables dans le sud de 
Madagascar (Resouth)Madagascar 1.1.2008 1.1.2013 Initial: 60 m — no extension 0 % n/a No (initial: 5 000 beneficiaries -> 5 500)
10
Rural 
electrificationEF I Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale projects Zambia 10.3.2008 31.12.2015 Initial: 70 m — extended: 94 m 34 %Feasibility study, relaunch of failed CfTenders, delays in 
receiving material/ equipment, insufficient capacity of 
local partners and works contractorsNo (objectives won’t be reached at the end of the 
project but progress will continue after)
 Exceeded or were likely to exceed their initial targets  Had met or were likely to meet their targets
 Were not likely to meet their targets but outputs were still reasonable  Had failed to deliver the expected outputs
38 Annexes
Project No 
and
short nameEF No  
(CfP No)Title of the action Country Start date End date  Extensions
(in months)%  
exten -
sionExtension justificationInitial objectives amended -
(achievements)
11
Increase accessEF I Increased access to electricity services Zambia 11.12.2008 15.12.2015 Initial: 60 m — extended: 84m 40 %Feasibility study, procurement procedure duration and 
complexity underestimated by IP; insufficient capacity of 
local partnersNo (most expected outputs will probably be obtained 
at the end of the revised performance period)
12
Green energyEF II
(Call 1)Community-based green energy project Kenya 1.11.2011 31.10.2015 Initial: 48 m — no extension 0 % n/aYes (initial 56 schools and 32 health centres; in 2014, 
88 schools and 42 HC equipped with solar PV)
13
Nice roll-outEF II
(Call 1)Nice roll-outZambia, 
Tanzania, The 
Gambia30.9.2011 30.9.2015 Initial: 48 m — no extension 0 % n/aNo (only one centre installed out of 50; the project has 
been stopped due to partner’s liquidation)
14
Small-scale 
solarEF II
(Call 1)Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable small-scale solar power in 
 Quissanga district, Cabo DelgadoMozambique 20.7.2011 19.9.2014 Initial: 36 m — extended: 38m 6 % Delay on the delivery of spare parts.No2 (beneficiaries were 14 760 against an expected 
18 000, or 82 %)
15
BorealeEF II
(Call 1)Best options for rural energy and access to light and electricity (Boreale) Madagascar 1.3.2012 28.2.2017 Initial: 48 m — extended: 60m 25 % Socio-eco study available 1 year after project startYes (wind turbine option cancelled and seven villages 
to be equipped instead of eight)
16
Wood and 
charcoalEF II
(Call 1)Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural Mozambique, Malawi and 
TanzaniaMozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)19.3.2012 31.7.2015 initial: 39 m — no extension 0 % n/aNo, but little hope that charcoal
component will be realisedAnnex IV
39 Annexes
Project No 
and
short nameEF No  
(CfP No)Title of the action Country Start date End date  Extensions
(in months)%  
exten -
sionExtension justificationInitial objectives amended -
(achievements)
11
Increase accessEF I Increased access to electricity services Zambia 11.12.2008 15.12.2015 Initial: 60 m — extended: 84m 40 %Feasibility study, procurement procedure duration and 
complexity underestimated by IP; insufficient capacity of 
local partnersNo (most expected outputs will probably be obtained 
at the end of the revised performance period)
12
Green energyEF II
(Call 1)Community-based green energy project Kenya 1.11.2011 31.10.2015 Initial: 48 m — no extension 0 % n/aYes (initial 56 schools and 32 health centres; in 2014, 
88 schools and 42 HC equipped with solar PV)
13
Nice roll-outEF II
(Call 1)Nice roll-outZambia, 
Tanzania, The 
Gambia30.9.2011 30.9.2015 Initial: 48 m — no extension 0 % n/aNo (only one centre installed out of 50; the project has 
been stopped due to partner’s liquidation)
14
Small-scale 
solarEF II
(Call 1)Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable small-scale solar power in 
 Quissanga district, Cabo DelgadoMozambique 20.7.2011 19.9.2014 Initial: 36 m — extended: 38m 6 % Delay on the delivery of spare parts.No2 (beneficiaries were 14 760 against an expected 
18 000, or 82 %)
15
BorealeEF II
(Call 1)Best options for rural energy and access to light and electricity (Boreale) Madagascar 1.3.2012 28.2.2017 Initial: 48 m — extended: 60m 25 % Socio-eco study available 1 year after project startYes (wind turbine option cancelled and seven villages 
to be equipped instead of eight)
16
Wood and 
charcoalEF II
(Call 1)Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural Mozambique, Malawi and 
TanzaniaMozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)19.3.2012 31.7.2015 initial: 39 m — no extension 0 % n/aNo, but little hope that charcoal
component will be realised
1 In the proposal six sites were planned, but in the grant contract the number of sites was reduced to five.
2 In the proposal 25 000 beneficiaries were planned, but in the grant contract the number of beneficiaries was reduced to 18 000.
 Exceeded or were likely to exceed their initial targets  Had met or were likely to meet their targets
 Were not likely to meet their targets but outputs were still reasonable  Had failed to deliver the expected outputs
40 Annexes
Monitoring of the projects examined
Project No 
and
short nameEF No
(CfP No)Title of the action Country Start date End date  Project 
duration 
(years)Mandatory evaluations
ROM(s)Danish Management Group (DMG)
Mid-termFinal
(planned)Specific line in 
budget# IP  
narritive 
reports# of  
DMG reviewsDelay to review 
IP reportsLatest report 
reviewed? 
(year of NR)
1
MwengaEF I Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant Tanzania 22.12.2007 22.12.2012 5.0 No NoYes (only men -
tions final)June 2011  
June 201312 11 1-16 months Yes (2012)
2
Best RayEF I Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian rural areas) Tanzania 1.4.2008 30.6.2011 3.2 March 2010 August 2011Yes (only 2 500 
euro in total)No 12 7 0.5-7 months Yes (2011)
3
MajauaEF I Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua Mozambique 1.12.2007 30.11.2012 5.0 No February 2014Budget annex not 
receivedOctober 2013 5 3 1.3-10 months No (2014)
4
BiogasEF IUp-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural 
 producers and processorsKenya 1.1.2008 1.1.2011 3.0 April 2010 November 2011Yes 
(MTE + final)November 2009 7 7 0-7 months Yes (2011)
5
Up-scalingEF IUp-scaling access to integrated modern energy services for 
poverty reductionTanzania 1.1.2008 30.6.2014 6.5 No NoYes 
(MTE + final)June 2013 6 3 4-10 months No (2014)
6
BioenergelecEF I Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité) Madagascar 1.4.2008 31.12.2015 7. 8 March 2013 (End 2015)Yes 
(MTE + final)No 6 2 6-13 months No (2013)
7
rHYviereEF IProgramme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques villageois 
et respect de l’environnementMadagascar 7.1. 20 0 8 30.12.2015 8.0 October 2011 (End 2015)Yes 
(MTE + final)September 2011 
October 20136 3 6-18 months No (2013)
8
SahambanoEF IAménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befanaova sur la 
rivière SahambanoMadagascar 1.3.2008 31.12.2014 6.8 No (End 2015)Yes 
(MTE + final)No 3 1 9 months No (2014)
9
ResouthEF IElectrification rurale décentralisée par énergies renouvelables 
dans le sud de Madagascar (Resouth)Madagascar 1.1.2008 1.1.2013 5.0 February 2011March 2013 
(ex post  end 2015)Yes 
(MTE + final)September 2011
September 20135 4 3.5-9 months No (2012)
10
Rural 
electrificationEF I Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale projects Zambia 10.3.2008 31.12.2015 7. 8 July 2013 NoYes 
(MTE + final)May 2010 34 1 1.5 month No (2013)
11
Increase accessEF I Increased access to electricity services Zambia 11.12.2008 15.12.2015 7.0December 2011, 
January 2012NoYes 
(MTE + final)No 16 5 1-4 months No (2014)
12
Green energyEF II -
(Call 1)Community-based green energy project Kenya 1.11.2011 31.10.2015 4.0 November 2013 NoYes 
(MTE + final)December 2013 5 2 4 months No (2014)Annex V
41 Annexes
Monitoring of the projects examined
Project No 
and
short nameEF No
(CfP No)Title of the action Country Start date End date  Project 
duration 
(years)Mandatory evaluations
ROM(s)Danish Management Group (DMG)
Mid-termFinal
(planned)Specific line in 
budget# IP  
narritive 
reports# of  
DMG reviewsDelay to review 
IP reportsLatest report 
reviewed? 
(year of NR)
1
MwengaEF I Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant Tanzania 22.12.2007 22.12.2012 5.0 No NoYes (only men -
tions final)June 2011  
June 201312 11 1-16 months Yes (2012)
2
Best RayEF I Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian rural areas) Tanzania 1.4.2008 30.6.2011 3.2 March 2010 August 2011Yes (only 2 500 
euro in total)No 12 7 0.5-7 months Yes (2011)
3
MajauaEF I Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua Mozambique 1.12.2007 30.11.2012 5.0 No February 2014Budget annex not 
receivedOctober 2013 5 3 1.3-10 months No (2014)
4
BiogasEF IUp-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural 
 producers and processorsKenya 1.1.2008 1.1.2011 3.0 April 2010 November 2011Yes 
(MTE + final)November 2009 7 7 0-7 months Yes (2011)
5
Up-scalingEF IUp-scaling access to integrated modern energy services for 
poverty reductionTanzania 1.1.2008 30.6.2014 6.5 No NoYes 
(MTE + final)June 2013 6 3 4-10 months No (2014)
6
BioenergelecEF I Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité) Madagascar 1.4.2008 31.12.2015 7. 8 March 2013 (End 2015)Yes 
(MTE + final)No 6 2 6-13 months No (2013)
7
rHYviereEF IProgramme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques villageois 
et respect de l’environnementMadagascar 7.1. 20 0 8 30.12.2015 8.0 October 2011 (End 2015)Yes 
(MTE + final)September 2011 
October 20136 3 6-18 months No (2013)
8
SahambanoEF IAménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befanaova sur la 
rivière SahambanoMadagascar 1.3.2008 31.12.2014 6.8 No (End 2015)Yes 
(MTE + final)No 3 1 9 months No (2014)
9
ResouthEF IElectrification rurale décentralisée par énergies renouvelables 
dans le sud de Madagascar (Resouth)Madagascar 1.1.2008 1.1.2013 5.0 February 2011March 2013 
(ex post  end 2015)Yes 
(MTE + final)September 2011
September 20135 4 3.5-9 months No (2012)
10
Rural 
electrificationEF I Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale projects Zambia 10.3.2008 31.12.2015 7. 8 July 2013 NoYes 
(MTE + final)May 2010 34 1 1.5 month No (2013)
11
Increase accessEF I Increased access to electricity services Zambia 11.12.2008 15.12.2015 7.0December 2011, 
January 2012NoYes 
(MTE + final)No 16 5 1-4 months No (2014)
12
Green energyEF II -
(Call 1)Community-based green energy project Kenya 1.11.2011 31.10.2015 4.0 November 2013 NoYes 
(MTE + final)December 2013 5 2 4 months No (2014)
42 Annexes
Project No 
and
short nameEF No
(CfP No)Title of the action Country Start date End date  Project 
duration 
(years)Mandatory evaluations
ROM(s)Danish Management Group (DMG)
Mid-termFinal
(planned)Specific line in 
budget# IP  
narritive 
reports# of  
DMG reviewsDelay to review 
IP reportsLatest report 
reviewed? 
(year of NR)
13
Nice roll-outEF II -
(Call 1)Nice roll-outZambia,  
Tanzania,  
The Gambia30.9.2011 30.9.2015 4.0 n/a n/a No No 2 2 1-7 months Yes (2012)
14
Small-scale 
solarEF II -
(Call 1)Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable small-scale solar 
power in Quissanga district, Cabo DelgadoMozambique 20.7.2011 19.9.2014 3.2 October 2013 August 2014 Yes (MTE) July 2012 4 3 1.5-2 months No (2014)
15
BorealeEF II -
(Call 1)Best options for rural energy and access to light and electric -
ity (Boreale)Madagascar 1.3.2012 28.2.2017 5.0 End 2015 NoYes 
(MTE + final)No 3 3 4-5 months Yes (2013)
16
Wood and 
charcoalEF II -
(Call 1)Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural Mozam -
bique, Malawi and TanzaniaMozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)19.3.2012 31.7.2015 3.4 No NoYes 
(MTE + final)October 2013 5 2 1-4 months Yes (2014)Annex V
43 Annexes
Project No 
and
short nameEF No
(CfP No)Title of the action Country Start date End date  Project 
duration 
(years)Mandatory evaluations
ROM(s)Danish Management Group (DMG)
Mid-termFinal
(planned)Specific line in 
budget# IP  
narritive 
reports# of  
DMG reviewsDelay to review 
IP reportsLatest report 
reviewed? 
(year of NR)
13
Nice roll-outEF II -
(Call 1)Nice roll-outZambia,  
Tanzania,  
The Gambia30.9.2011 30.9.2015 4.0 n/a n/a No No 2 2 1-7 months Yes (2012)
14
Small-scale 
solarEF II -
(Call 1)Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable small-scale solar 
power in Quissanga district, Cabo DelgadoMozambique 20.7.2011 19.9.2014 3.2 October 2013 August 2014 Yes (MTE) July 2012 4 3 1.5-2 months No (2014)
15
BorealeEF II -
(Call 1)Best options for rural energy and access to light and electric -
ity (Boreale)Madagascar 1.3.2012 28.2.2017 5.0 End 2015 NoYes 
(MTE + final)No 3 3 4-5 months Yes (2013)
16
Wood and 
charcoalEF II -
(Call 1)Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural Mozam -
bique, Malawi and TanzaniaMozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)19.3.2012 31.7.2015 3.4 No NoYes 
(MTE + final)October 2013 5 2 1-4 months Yes (2014)
44 Annexes
Scoring of the projects examined
Project No 
and
short 
nameEF 
No
(CfP No)Title of the action CountryEU contrib. 
(million 
euro)Short description Design ResultsSus-
tain -
ability
1
MwengaEF IMwenga 3 MW hydro 
power plantTanzania 3.60Installation of a mini-hydroelectric 
plant to provide reliable electricity to 
a tea company and to 14 villagesA B B
2
Best RayEF IBest Ray (Bringing energy 
services to Tanzanian rural 
areas)Tanzania 1.13Installation of solar PV units on 8 050 
households belonging to nine villagesB B B
3
MajauaEF IElectrificaçao da comuni -
dade de MajauaMozambique 1.87Rehabilitation of a mini-hydro power 
plant (currently destroyed) and set-up 
of a local electrical power network to 
connect 5 000 householdsA B B
4
BiogasEF IUp-scaling the smaller 
biogas plants for 
agricultural producers and 
processorsKenya 1.22Use of biogas technology for cook -
ing purposes in rural areas for 330 
 farmers in five provincesB A B
5
Up-scalingEF IUp-scaling access to 
integrated modern  energy 
services for poverty 
reductionTanzania 2.29Installation of multipurpose energy 
service centres powered by diesel 
engines using bio-fuels (jatropha oil) 
in 120 villages in six regionsC D n/a
6
BioenergelecEF IBioenergelec (bioénergie 
électricité)Madagascar 1.96Electricity generation from biomass 
for six villages (in four regions) and 
improved carbonisationD D n/a
7
rHYviereEF IProgramme rHYviere — 
Réseaux hydroélectriques 
villageois et respect de 
l’environnementMadagascar 1.73Construction of three hydropower 
plants on ’run-off river’ + mini-grid 
to connect eight villages in eastern 
rural areas A B B
8
SahambanoEF IAménagement hydro -
électrique du site de 
Befanaova sur la rivière 
SahambanoMadagascar 2.48Construction of a hydropower plant 
on ‘run off river’ + 20 km grid exten -
sion to connect one city and two 
villagesA B B
9
ResouthEF IElectrification rurale 
décentralisée par énergies 
renouvelables dans le sud 
de Madagascar (Resouth)Madagascar 0.87Electrification of two villages in the 
southern region using two wind 
turbines and solar PV unitsB B C
 Criterion met   Serious weaknesses n/a Not applicable
 Minor weaknesses   Criterion not metAnnex VI
45 Annexes Annex VIProject No 
and
short 
nameEF 
No
(CfP No)Title of the action CountryEU 
contrib. 
(million 
euro)Short description Design ResultsSus-
taina -
bility
10
Rural elec -
trificationEF IRural electrification infra -
structure and small-scale 
projectsZambia 10.00Grid extension and installation of 
a mini-hydro plant and 2 000 solar 
home units to provide electricity to 
27 000 households, 700 schools and 
health centresB B B
11
Increase 
accessEF IIncreased access to 
electricity servicesZambia 10.00Grid extension to facilitate access to 
renewable energy sources in rural and 
peri-urban areas in Zambia (65 000 
beneficiaries)B B B
12
Green 
energyEF II
(Call 1)Community-based green 
energy projectKenya 1.74Installation of solar PV units on 56 
schools and 32 health centres in rural 
Kenya B A B
13
Nice 
roll-outEF II
(Call 1)Nice roll-outZambia, 
Tanzania,  
The Gambia2.50Business development through ICT 
facilities powered by solar PV units 
(franchised NICE centres in 50 rural 
and peri-urban locations in The Gam -
bia, Tanzania and Zambia)D D n/a
14
Small-scale 
solarEF II
(Call 1)Enabling 18 000 people 
to access sustainable 
small-scale solar power in 
Quissanga district, Cabo 
DelgadoMozambique 0.59Enabling 4 000 households to access 
sustainable small-scale solar power in 
two districtsB B B
15
BorealeEF II
(Call 1)Best options for rural 
energy and access to light 
and electricity (Boreale)Madagascar 1.72Installation of solar PV units on 10 
schools and eight health centres and 
900 households in eight villages in the 
southern regionB B B
16
Wood and 
charcoalEF II
(Call 1)Sustainable wood and 
charcoal production 
in  rural Mozambique, 
Malawi and TanzaniaMozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)2.40Sustainable biomass and energy 
efficiency through training of 2 000 
households on tree planting and 
construction of a charcoal production 
plantC D n/a
Legend : On the basis of the scoring methodology in Annex II , the following ratings have been established:
 Criterion met   Serious weaknesses n/a Not applicable
 Minor weaknesses   Criterion not met
46
V
The Commission carried out the monitoring of the 
projects using different tools and modalities which 
were available, including the establishment of 
a permanent monitoring structure. 
In general, the Commission has ensured close follow-
up during the most critical implementation  phases 
and facilitated solutions and corrective measures as 
far as possible and in line with the prevailing rules 
and procedures. In some specific cases, monitoring 
in the field could have been strengthened.
VI
75 % of the projects examined by the Court have 
already delivered the expected results or even 
more than expected. Certain projects have not yet 
delivered the majority of their expected results, 
mainly due to problems linked to the capacity of 
the beneficiaries or unfavourable circumstances 
which challenged the initial design of the projects 
and rendered any risk mitigation measures foreseen 
ineffective. 
The Commission observes that a certain degree of 
capacity problems cannot be excluded, particularly 
when, on the one hand, the targeted projects are 
innovative and ambitious and, on the other hand, 
the beneficiaries are poor. In such a context, perfect 
projects as such cannot be expected. 
VII
The Commission welcomes the recommendations 
of the Court. It has already taken some measures to 
strengthen monitoring and to increase the sustain -
ability of projects. In this respect, the Commission 
would like to stress the importance of the following 
steps that have already been taken in line with the 
Court’s recommendations:
— the improvements introduced to the later call 
for proposals under EF aimed at securing pro -
jects feasibility;
— the reinforcement of the permanent EF moni -
toring function;Executive summary
III
The Commission welcomes the Court’s report. 
The creation of the EF allowed the Commission to 
substantially address for the first time the issue 
of energy access in its development cooperation, 
in the context of the huge needs (48 billion USD/
year) in developing countries1. The Commission has 
used the EF effectively and, as the Court’s report 
shows, most of the projects examined have been 
successful and have good sustainability prospects. 
This is a remarkable achievement given the difficult 
context in which development cooperation is to 
be implemented. Only one quarter of the projects 
examined have not delivered the expected results. 
This was due to some extent to unfavourable 
circumstances which challenged the initial design 
of projects and rendered any risk mitigation fore -
seen ineffective. The Commission is also aware that 
there is scope for some improvements, especially as 
regards its monitoring of projects in the field. The 
Commission has already taken some measures and 
will bring further improvements as recommended 
by the Court.
IV
The Commission applied the rules and procedures 
governing the call for proposals consistently and 
rigorously and allocated support to well-prioritised 
projects. 
The existence of risks and weaknesses in EF propos -
als promoting innovative solutions for sustainable 
and affordable energy services for the poor was 
actually expected.
Such risks and weaknesses identified in the propos -
als evaluated were duly considered by the compe -
tent evaluation committee in view of the relevant 
mitigation measures proposed by the applicants 
concerned, prior to the award of the final scores 
that set the ranking of each proposal in a coherent 
and objective way against the criteria, the objecti -
ves and the priorities set in the call guidelines.
1  International Energy Agency report Energy for all: financing 
access for the poor , special excerpt of World Energy Outlook, IEA, 
2011Reply of the  
Commission
Reply of the Commission 47
The Commission selected projects for funding 
based on the clear evaluation criteria set in the call 
guidelines, including relevance, operational and 
financial capacity of the applicant and partners, 
feasibility, sustainability, cost-effectiveness and 
considering whether appropriate measures had 
been proposed to mitigate any risks or weaknesses 
inherent to complex development projects.
16
Concerning the five projects mentioned by the 
Court, the comments and scores of each assessor 
are taken into consideration by the evaluation com -
mittee which, unlike individual assessors, is in the 
unique position of having the full picture of all the 
proposals submitted under a call and of the respect -
ive merits of each and every proposal against the 
criteria set in the call guidelines. The Commission 
has put in place the required procedures, checks 
and balances to ensure that each evaluation com -
mittee applies rigorously the rules governing the 
call evaluation in a way that can guarantee the 
integrity and the coherence of the overall evalu -
ation process, despite any shortcomings that might 
occur due to individual expert assessment. 
16 (a)
The assessors assessed the proposal as reflected 
in their respective scores and comments for each 
evaluation criterion set in the call guidelines. 
Despite certain weaknesses found, the assessors 
also identified key strengths such as: stimulation of 
business activities, good knowledge of the country, 
very good involvement of private sector, potential 
for financial sustainability and good involvement of 
the community. The scores given by both assessors 
demonstrate that any concerns were not considered 
to be enough grounds for rejection.
Based on its examination, the evaluation commit -
tee awarded a final score that took into considera -
tion both the strengths and the weaknesses of the 
respective proposal as explained also in the reply of 
the Commission to 16 above.— the innovations introduced with the new en -
ergy cooperation programme, namely the Elec -
trification Financing Initiative — ElectriFI, which 
was elaborated together with the industry and 
development financiers and aims at increasing 
the feasibility, the sustainability and the lever -
age of the EU's support for access to sustainable 
energy for the poor.
Introduction
04
Since 2011 the overall guidance in the EU energy 
policy in the development context has been pro -
vided by the directions included in the ‘Agenda for 
change’, which pinpoints energy as a key driver for 
inclusive and sustainable growth.
05
The creation of the EF allowed the Commission to 
substantially address for the first time the issue 
of energy access in its development cooperation, 
in the context of the huge needs in development 
countries ($48 billion a year according to the Inter -
national Energy Agency).
Observations
The Commission examined thoroughly the merits 
and weaknesses of each and every project pro -
posal submitted under EF and prioritised support 
to the very best amongst those proposals, having 
exceeded by far the overall quality standards set in 
each call’s guidelines.
Despite the fact that there are always certain risks and 
weaknesses, the support for innovative  and ambi -
tious projects, selected in line with the respect  ive 
rules and procedures, needs to be considered by 
the Commission for the purposes of meeting the 
overall objectives of each call for proposals.
Reply of the Commission 48
22 (a)
Upon identification of any reporting quality prob -
lems, the Commission took due steps to address 
them, including providing the beneficiaries with 
templates for interim and final narrative reports, as 
well as for financial reports. The ability to provide 
quality reports varies indeed from one beneficiary 
to another and consequently, for EF II, improved 
models for narrative and financial reports have 
been annexed to the grant contract.
22 (b)
See Commission reply to paragraph 22(a).
22 (c)
See Commission reply to paragraph 22(a).
23
The Commission has duly extended the contract 
with the consulting firm to provide adequate moni -
toring services for the ongoing EF projects as well 
as for the projects selected under the last two EF II 
calls for rural electrification and fragility.
24
A standardised review by a single entity has been 
useful for harmonising and improving to some 
extent the reporting of the implementing part -
ners, and the contract with the consulting firm can 
provide resources to check on the spot the informa -
tion provided through their reports. The Commis -
sion has therefore taken the necessary steps and 
extended the contract with the consulting firm in 
a way that provides for monitoring services through 
in-country missions to projects, as needed. 
However, the power, vis-à-vis the EF grant benefi -
ciaries, to enforce due recommendations remains 
with the EU delegations, as per the provisions of 
the respective grant agreements, and cannot be 
outsourced to the consulting firm.16 (b)
As explained above, the evaluation committee, 
unlike individual assessors, is in the unique position 
of having the full picture of all the proposals sub -
mitted under a call, as well as the respective merits 
of each and every proposal against the criteria set 
in the call guidelines. 
For the four projects mentioned by the Court, the 
responsible evaluation committee concluded the 
third and final assessments considering that due 
mitigation measures for the identified risks and 
weaknesses were existing and acceptable. 
17
The projects mentioned by the Court did not meet 
the objectives set, mainly due to unfavourable 
external factors which could not be controlled (inter 
alia market conditions, technological evolution, 
natural conditions, etc.).
18
In this respect the Commission stresses the import -
ance of the improvements introduced to the later 
call for proposals under EF II, for which there was 
a requirement to submit a feasibility study together 
with the proposal. 
The Commission carried out the monitoring of the 
projects using different tools and modalities which 
were available, including the establishment of 
a permanent monitoring structure. In some spe -
cific cases, monitoring in the field could have been 
strengthened.
The quality of the implementing partners’ reports 
was uneven as the quality depended on the varying 
reporting abilities of the beneficiaries.
Reply of the Commission 49
28
The regular site visits whenever possible are a key 
way to monitor and follow up a project. Delegations 
have at their disposal a variety of means of moni -
toring projects, including remote control based on 
reports, teleconferences, desk work, exchanges with 
beneficiaries, etc. The periodicity of the site visits 
depends inter alia on the workload, location of the 
project and accessibility, security issues, resources 
available, etc. Obviously the choice of the most 
appropriate way to monitor/follow up a project on 
each occasion and how/whether the officials of 
a certain EU delegation will carry out regular visits 
to an EF project or not, can only be decided by the 
head of delegation in charge, who has the complete 
picture of all the tasks to be carried out by the del -
egation and of the priority to be accorded to each 
task, taking into consideration the human resources 
situation and the various constraints. 
29
ROM is only one of the tools available for moni -
toring a project and the Commission has used it 
adequately on top of all other monitoring tools, 
including the permanent EF monitoring function, 
which was available under the service contract with 
the consulting firm.
29 (a)
Although the project mentioned by the Court was 
subject to ROM only in 2013, the EU Delegation in 
Tanzania was always aware of the project situation 
as a result of regular exchanges and correspond -
ence and was taking action to correct the situation. 
For example, in addition to the contractually due 
interim reports, the project produced 6-monthly 
internal monitoring reports by the implement -
ing partners as per the practice introduced by the 
delegation from 2012 to enhance the monitoring. 
The delegation maintained regular contact with the 
project and provided support to facilitate solutions.25
For some projects, the mid-term review was 
not carried out since not enough activities were 
implemented. 
The Commission made use of all available instru -
ments to support the implementation of the 
projects and took appropriate measures within the 
limits set by the contract rules. 
Indeed, radical modifications of the project activ -
ities are not possible in accordance with the con -
tract rules, which stipulate, inter alia, that any 
‘amendment may not have the purpose or the 
effect of making changes to this contract that 
would call into question the grant award decision or 
be contrary to the equal treatment of applicants’.
26
The respective recommendations for increasing 
the quality of the project reporting were taken into 
consideration when designing the subsequent EF II 
calls. 
27
The Commission (as well as the monitoring experts 
within their contract scope) have requested add -
itional information or clarifications on several 
occasions, and in cases where this was not received 
payments were suspended as per contract rules. 
As regards the possibility of terminating a contract, 
this is a drastic action which may result in the loss 
of important investments/efforts already made and 
is only considered when all other possible alterna -
tives fail, keeping in mind the ultimate interest of 
the final beneficiaries and the principle of sound 
financial management. 
Reply of the Commission 50
36
Four projects examined by the Court failed to 
deliver the majority of their expected results due 
to capacity problems of the beneficiaries and 
un favourable circumstances which challenged the 
initial design of the projects and rendered the miti -
gation measures ineffective.
The Commission observes that a certain degree of 
capacity problems cannot be excluded, particularly 
when, on the one hand, the targeted projects are 
innovative and ambitious and, on the other hand, 
the beneficiaries are poor. In such a context, perfect 
projects as such cannot be expected. 
36 (c)
The evaluation of the project followed the appli -
cable procedure under which the participation of 
the private sector was considered a strength for the 
sustainability of the projects. 29 (b)
The project was not proposed for inclusion in the 
ROM lists for 2010 and 2011 because of lack of 
adequate progress at that time. In 2012, although 
initially there was a proposal to put the project on 
the ROM list, it was decided not to keep it on the list 
because there still had not been enough activities 
in the field, and also a mid-term review was already 
programmed for early 2012, after the extension of 
the implementation period by 24 months. 
30
As explained in 27 above, the possibility of ter -
minating a contract is considered when all other 
possible alternatives have failed. The services in 
charge of monitoring the implementation of the 
two projects mentioned by the Court, had not yet 
established that this had been the case and that 
those projects could no longer be implemented in 
any other possible way.
30 (a)
The delegation in charge of the project, having 
considered the possible remedial actions, decided 
that reducing the geographical scope of the project 
would not have been the best option.
31
The delegation in Mozambique was always aware of 
the project difficulties. Innovative projects in areas 
that are relatively new to the local context often 
face a difficult start-up. Nevertheless, over time 
it became increasingly clear that the programme 
objectives would not be met and, when this hap -
pened, the delegation made many attempts to 
find appropriate solutions. Numerous proposals for 
addressing the project’s problems were discussed, 
but none of the proposed solutions were deemed 
realistic, and the project had to be closed. The del -
egation carried out a field visit (both in oper  ations 
and finance and contracts) in April 2015, after which 
the closure was agreed.
75 % of the projects examined by the Court have 
already delivered the expected results or even more 
than expected.
Reply of the Commission 51
The risks or weaknesses identified in the proposals 
evaluated were duly considered by the competent 
evaluation committee in view also of the relevant 
mitigation measures proposed by the applicants 
concerned, prior to the award of the final scores 
that set the ranking of each proposal in a coherent 
and objective way against the criteria, the object -
ives and the priorities set in the call guidelines.
Recommendation 1
The Commission accepts this recommendation and 
has taken appropriate measures.
(i) In accordance with the PRAG 2014 templates, the 
assessment of the design of the action plays a 
vital role in the evaluation of proposals. Out of 
50 possible points for the concept note, 10 points 
are related to the design of the action. Significant 
design deficits will, therefore, in most cases lead 
to the exclusion of the proposal already at the 
concept note stage. 
(ii) The capacity of applicants to implement the ac -
tion is evaluated at the full application stage. Re -
cently, the assessment of the operational capacity 
has been extended to co-applicants and affiliated 
entities. Given the importance of this aspect the 
Commission has introduced a minimum threshold 
in PRAG 2014 which foresees that applicants must 
achieve at least 12 out of 20 possible points for 
capacity to be considered for an award of a grant.
43
The Commission carried out the monitoring of 
the projects using different tools and modalities 
that were available, including the establishment of 
a permanent monitoring structure. 
In general, the Commission has ensured close follow-
up during the most critical implementation phases 
and facilitated solutions and corrective measures as 
far as possible and in line with the prevailing rules 
and procedures. In some specific cases, monitoring 
in the field could have been strengthened.Conclusions and recomendations 
41
The Commission welcomes the Court’s report. 
The creation of the EF allowed the Commission to 
substantially address for the first time the issue of 
energy access in its development cooperation, in the 
context of the huge needs (48 billion USD/year) in 
developing countries2. The Commission has used the 
EF effectively and, as the Court’s report shows, most 
of the projects examined have been successful and 
have good sustainability prospects. This is a remark -
able achievement given the difficult context in 
which development cooperation is to be imple -
mented. Only one quarter of the projects examined 
have not delivered the expected results. This was 
due to some extent to unfavourable circumstances 
that challenged the initial design of projects and 
rendered the risk mitigation foreseen ineffective. 
The Commission is also aware that there is scope for 
some improvements, especially as regards its moni -
toring of projects in the field. The Commission has 
already taken some measures and will bring further 
improvements as recommended by the Court.
42
The Commission applied the rules and procedures 
governing the call for proposals consistently and 
rigorously and allocated support to well-prioritised 
projects.
The evaluation committee was aware of the risks 
and weaknesses of each and every proposal. 
Risks and weaknesses of proposals were actually 
expected under EF that aimed, inter alia, at promot -
ing innovation whilst faced with the challenges 
of providing sustainable and affordable energy 
services to the poor.
2  International Energy Agency report Energy for all: financing 
access for the poor , special excerpt of World Energy Outlook, IEA, 
2011.
Reply of the Commission 52
44
Only one quarter of the projects examined have 
not delivered the expected results, mainly due to 
problems linked to the capacity of the beneficiaries 
or unfavourable circumstances which challenged 
the initial design of the projects and rendered any 
risk mitigation measures foreseen ineffective.
Recommendation 3
The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
An assessment of any continued technical assist -
ance needs would be useful to identify possible 
support requirements after the EF funding elapses. 
Under the current EF programme, it will not be 
possible to increase the original grant allocation. 
Nevertheless, the Commission will examine how 
this might be addressed in order to consolidate the 
value of the investment made. Moreover, the Com -
mission will examine how to apply the recommen -
dation under new and innovative programmes such 
as the Electrification Financing Initiative — ElectriFI.43 (a)
The Commission addressed the reporting short -
comings on a contract-by-contract basis and also 
introduced improved templates for interim and final 
narrative reports, as well as for financial reports.
43 (b)
The Commission has ensured close follow-up with 
site visits as well as through a variety of means 
of monitoring projects, including remote control 
based on reports, teleconferences, desk studies, 
etc. The periodicity of the site visits depends on the 
workload, location of the project and accessibility, 
security issues and resources available. The deci -
sion to carry out a regular visit to an EF project or 
not can only be taken by the head of delegation 
in charge, who has the complete picture of all the 
tasks to be carried out by the delegation and of 
the priority to be accorded to each task, taking into 
consideration the human resources situation and 
the various constraints. 
Regarding ROM, it is only one of the tools available 
to monitor a project and for those projects not 
subject to ROM visits, other monitoring means have 
been put in place. 
43 (c)
The Commission has always tried to support the 
successful implementation of the projects and to 
identify solutions (together with the grant contract 
beneficiaries) to overcome any problems. The ter -
mination of the grant contract has been considered 
in this respect to be the last option in order not to 
compromise the investments/efforts and eventual 
benefits to the EF final beneficiaries.
Recommendation 2 — Common 
Commission reply to points (i) to (v)
Common Commission reply to points (i) to (v). The 
Commission accepts the recommendation. There is 
room for improvement in terms of strengthening 
the monitoring of projects. This has already been 
consistently addressed by the Commission and 
additional measures will be considered to allow del -
egations to strengthen the monitoring of projects, 
also considering their financial and human resource 
constraints. 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy: 
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
In 2004, nearly two billion people did not have access to 
adequate, affordable and sustainable energy services, which 
are key in order to make firm progress towards development 
objectives. Created in June 2005, the ACP–EU Energy Facility 
aims to promote access to modern energy services for the 
poor in rural and peri-urban areas, with a strong focus on 
sub-Saharan Africa and renewable energy. In this report, we 
conclude that the Commission was mostly successful but 
could have done better in using the ACP–EU Energy Facility 
to increase access to renewable energy for the poor in East 
Africa. We make a number of recommendations for selecting 
projects more rigorously, strengthening their monitoring 
and increasing their sustainability prospects.
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS