Special Report No 15 // 2015#ACP–EU Energy Facility support for renewable energy in East Africa #(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: ACP countries, East Africa, developing countries, development aid, energy policy, poverty, renewable energy, renewable resources, sustainable development

EN 

2015 

NO 15

Special Report  ACP–EU Energy Facility 
support for renewable 
energy in East Africa

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 
PDF 
EPUB 

ISBN 978-92-872-3054-6 
ISBN 978-92-872-3029-4 
ISBN 978-92-872-3086-7 

ISSN 1831-0834 
ISSN 1977-5679 
ISSN 1977-5679 

doi:10.2865/54508 
doi:10.2865/464357 
doi:10.2865/76836 

QJ-AB-15-014-EN-C
QJ-AB-15-014-EN-N
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

EN 

2015 

NO 15

Special Report

ACP–EU Energy Facility 
support for renewable 
energy in East Africa

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

Audit team

02

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. 

Contents

03

Paragraph

Glossary and acronyms

I-VII 

Executive summary

1-9 

1-2 

3-9 

Introduction

Access to energy services is key for progress towards development objectives

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

 
Contents

04

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary and acronyms

05

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

Glossary and acronyms

06

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

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.

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.

Introduction

08

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.

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).

1
e
r
u
t
c
i
P

.

A
S
A
N

,

h
t
r
a
E
e
l
b
i
s
i
V
e
h
T

©

A view over the whole of the European and African continents

 
 
 
 
 
 
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).

09

3  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.

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.

1
x
o
B

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.

 
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.

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.

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.

10

6 

7 

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/

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.

Audit scope and approach

11

(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.

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).

Observations

12

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).

2
x
o
B

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.

 
13

23  For eight countries, energy 
was also selected as a focal 
sector in the 11th EDF 
cooperation strategies.

(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.

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.

3
x
o
B

2
e
r
u
t
c
i
P

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)

.
s
r
o
t
i
d
u
A

f
o
t
r
u
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

:

e
c
r
u
o
S

Visibility sign of the project ‘Up‑scaling access to integrate  
modern energy services for poverty reduction’ (Matadi, Siha 
district, Tanzania)

 
 
 
 
 
 
14

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.

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.

15

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).

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.

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.

16

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).

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.

17

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).

(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.

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.

18

45  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).

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.

4
x
o
B

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.

 
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.

4
-
3
s
e
r
u
t
c
i
P

19

48  For example projects 2 (Best 
Ray), 3 (Majaua), 7 (rHYviere), 
10 (Rural electrification) and 
12 (Green energy).

.
s
r
o
t
i
d
u
A

f
o
t
r
u
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

:

e
c
r
u
o
S

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)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Observations

20

(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.

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.

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.

6
-
5
s
e
r
u
t
c
i
P

Solar photovoltaic unit on a school roof with its instruction card, project ‘Increase access to electricity 
services’ (Kalomo district, Zambia)

21

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).

.
s
r
o
t
i
d
u
A

f
o
t
r
u
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

:

e
c
r
u
o
S

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22

58  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.

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.

5
x
o
B

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.

 
Conclusions and 
recommendations

23

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).

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.

Conclusions and recommendations

24

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.

Conclusions and recommendations

25

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

 
 
 
Annexes

26

I
x
e
n
n
A

Projects examined

Project No 
and short 
name

1
Mwenga

2
Best Ray

3
Majaua

4
Biogas

5
Up-scaling

6
Bioenergelec

7
rHYviere

8
Sahambano

9
Resouth

10
Rural 
electrification

11
Increase 
access

CRIS No

EF No
(CfP No)

Proposal 
No

Proposal assess-
ment scores3
(in %)

2007/195-963

EF I

78

2007/195-964

EF I

132

2007/195-977

EF I

2007/195-982

EF I

2007/195-985

EF I

2007/196-004

EF I

2007/196-005

2007/196-009

2007/196-014

EF I

EF I

EF I

2008/020-660

EF I

2008/195-971

EF I

46

244

214

217

144

54

128

284

200

EE: 81.5   
EUD: 86 

EE: 57   
EUD: 77   
3rdE: 72 

EE: 74-  
EUD: 75.5

EE: 71.5  
EUD: 74 

EE: 71  
EUD: 83.5

EE: 65  
EUD: 74  
3rdE: 76.5

EE: 74  
EUD: 81

EE: 69.5  
EUD: 68.5 

EE: 72  
EUD: 78.5

EE: 68  
EUD: 78

EE: 80  
EUD: 75

Title of the action

Country

Short description

Sites visited

Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant

Tanzania

7.81

3.60

46.1 %

Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian 
rural areas)

Tanzania

1.50

1.13

75.3 %

Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua

Mozambique

Up-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural 
producers and processors

Up-scaling access to integrated modern energy 
services for poverty reduction

Kenya

Tanzania

Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité)

Madagascar

Programme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques 
villageois et respect de l’environnement

Aménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befa-
naova sur la rivière Sahambano

Electrification rurale décentralisée par énergies 
renouvelables dans le sud de Madagascar (Resouth)

Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale 
projects

Increased access to electricity services

Madagascar

Madagascar

Madagascar

Zambia

Zambia

Budget 

(million 

euro)

EU 

contrib. 

(million 

euro)

Percentage 

EU cont.

/budget

2.49

1.97

3.05

3.16

2.30

3.31

1.16

1.87

1.22

2.29

1.96

1.73

2.48

0.87

61.9 %

75.1 %

74.9 %

75.0 %

Installation of a mini hydroelectric plant to provide  

reliable electricity to a tea company and to 14 villages

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 places

Project in Mufindi (Iringa region);

meetings with local authorities in Mafinga

CERC and Mpambano cooperative in 

Oldonyosambu;

training centre in Mkuru;

project in Ngarenyanuki Secondary School in 

Olkung’wado;

Arusha Technical College in Arusha.

Rehabilitation of a mini-hydro power plant (currently 

75.1 %

destroyed) and set up of a local electrical power network 

to connect 5 000 households

61.9 %

Use of biogas technology for cooking purposes in rural 

areas for 330 farmers in five provinces

N/A

N/A

Installation of multipurpose energy service centres 

Matadi MFP Project site — Mji Mwema, Siha 

75.0 %

powered by diesel engines using bio-fuels (jatropha oil) 

yes

District — Kilimandjaro region;

in 120 villages in six regions

storage site in Moshi

Electricity generation from biomass for six villages (in 

four regions) and improved carbonisation

No site visited1 but stakeholders and imple-

menting partner were interviewed

Construction of three hydropower plants on ‘run-off river’ 

+ mini-grid to connect eight villages in eastern rural areas 

Construction of a hydropower plant on ‘run off river’ + 

20 km grid extension to connect one city and two villages

Electrification of two villages in the southern region 

using two wind turbines and solar PV units

Grid extension and installation of a mini-hydro plant and 

households, 700 schools and health centres

Grid extension to facilitate access to renewable energy 

Two sites out of three: Sahasinaka and 

Tolongoina

One site: Ihosy

No site visited2 but stakeholders were 

interviewed

36.51

10.00

27.4 %

2 000 solar home units to provide electricity to 27 000 

yes

One site out of two: Mumbwa

33.00

10.00

30.3 %

sources in rural and peri-urban areas in Zambia (65 000 

yes

beneficiaries)

Three sites out of 24: Kabwe, Kanyama sub-

station and Kalomo

Visited

(or only 

examined 

in country)

yes

yes

no

no

(yes)

yes

yes

(yes)

 
Annexes

27

2007/195-977

EF I

Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua

Mozambique

Projects examined

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Majaua

Biogas

2007/195-982

EF I

Up-scaling

2007/195-985

EF I

Bioenergelec

2007/196-004

EF I

rHYviere

2007/196-005

Sahambano

2007/196-009

2007/196-014

EF I

EF I

EF I

2008/020-660

EF I

electrification

Resouth

10

Rural 

11

Increase 

access

No

78

46

244

214

217

144

54

128

284

200

(in %)

EE: 81.5   

EUD: 86 

EE: 57   

EUD: 77   

3rdE: 72 

EE: 74-  

EUD: 75.5

EE: 71.5  

EUD: 74 

EE: 71  

EUD: 83.5

EE: 65  

EUD: 74  

3rdE: 76.5

EE: 74  

EUD: 81

EE: 69.5  

EUD: 68.5 

EE: 72  

EUD: 78.5

EE: 68  

EUD: 78

EE: 80  

EUD: 75

Up-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural 

producers and processors

Up-scaling access to integrated modern energy 

services for poverty reduction

Kenya

Tanzania

Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité)

Madagascar

Programme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques 

villageois et respect de l’environnement

Aménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befa-

naova sur la rivière Sahambano

Electrification rurale décentralisée par énergies 

renouvelables dans le sud de Madagascar (Resouth)

Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale 

projects

Madagascar

Madagascar

Madagascar

Zambia

Zambia

Project No 

and short 

name

CRIS No

EF No

(CfP No)

Proposal 

Proposal assess-

ment scores3

Title of the action

Country

Budget 
(million 
euro)

EU 
contrib. 
(million 
euro)

Percentage 
EU cont.
/budget

Short description

Visited
(or only 
examined 
in country)

Sites visited

Mwenga

2007/195-963

EF I

Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant

Tanzania

7.81

3.60

46.1 %

Best Ray

2007/195-964

EF I

132

Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian 

rural areas)

Tanzania

1.50

1.13

75.3 %

2.49

1.97

3.05

3.16

2.30

3.31

1.16

1.87

1.22

2.29

1.96

1.73

2.48

0.87

75.1 %

61.9 %

75.0 %

61.9 %

75.1 %

74.9 %

75.0 %

36.51

10.00

27.4 %

2008/195-971

EF I

Increased access to electricity services

33.00

10.00

30.3 %

Installation of a mini hydroelectric plant to provide  
reliable electricity to a tea company and to 14 villages

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 places

Rehabilitation of a mini-hydro power plant (currently 
destroyed) and set up of a local electrical power network 
to connect 5 000 households

Use of biogas technology for cooking purposes in rural 
areas for 330 farmers in five provinces

Installation of multipurpose energy service centres 
powered by diesel engines using bio-fuels (jatropha oil) 
in 120 villages in six regions

Electricity generation from biomass for six villages (in 
four regions) and improved carbonisation

Construction of three hydropower plants on ‘run-off river’ 
+ mini-grid to connect eight villages in eastern rural areas 

Construction of a hydropower plant on ‘run off river’ + 
20 km grid extension to connect one city and two villages

Electrification of two villages in the southern region 
using two wind turbines and solar PV units

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 centres

Grid extension to facilitate access to renewable energy 
sources in rural and peri-urban areas in Zambia (65 000 
beneficiaries)

yes

yes

no

no

yes

(yes)

yes

yes

(yes)

Project in Mufindi (Iringa region);
meetings with local authorities in Mafinga

CERC and Mpambano cooperative in 
Oldonyosambu;
training centre in Mkuru;
project in Ngarenyanuki Secondary School in 
Olkung’wado;
Arusha Technical College in Arusha.

N/A

N/A

Matadi MFP Project site — Mji Mwema, Siha 
District — Kilimandjaro region;
storage site in Moshi

No site visited1 but stakeholders and imple-
menting partner were interviewed

Two sites out of three: Sahasinaka and 
Tolongoina

One site: Ihosy

No site visited2 but stakeholders were 
interviewed

yes

One site out of two: Mumbwa

yes

Three sites out of 24: Kabwe, Kanyama sub-
station and Kalomo

Annexes

I
x
e
n
n
A

Project No 
and short 
name

12
Green energy

28

CRIS No

EF No
(CfP No)

Proposal 
No

Proposal assess-
ment scores3
(in %)

Title of the action

Country

Short description

Sites visited

Budget 

(million 

euro)

EU 

contrib. 

(million 

euro)

Percentage 

EU cont.

/budget

Visited

(or only 

examined 

in country)

no

no

N/A

N/A

Installation of solar PV units on 56 schools and 32 health 

centres in rural Kenya 

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)

EF II -
(Call 1)

EF II -
(Call 1)

EF II -
(Call 1)

EF II -
(Call 1)

EF II -
(Call 1)

60

183

620

534

542

EE: 71  
EUD: 85

EE: 47  
EUD: 87  
3rdE: 82

EE: 83  
EUD: 81

EE: 84  
EUD: 79

EE: 59  
EUD: 87  
3rdE: 75

Community-based green energy project

Kenya

2.32

1.74

75.0 %

Nice roll-out

Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable 
small-scale solar power in Quissanga district, Cabo 
Delgado

Zambia, 
Tanzania, The 
Gambia

8.44

2.50

29.6 %

Mozambique

0.79

0.59

75.0 %

Enabling 4 000 households to access sustainable small-

scale solar power in two districts

no

N/A

Best options for rural energy and access to light and 
electricity (Boreale)

Madagascar

Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural 
Mozambique, Malawi and Tanzania

Mozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)

2.30

1.72

74.8 %

health centres and 900 households in eight villages in the 

(yes)

Installation of solar PV units on 10 schools and eight 

No site visited2 but stakeholders were 

interviewed

southern region

5.33

2.40

45.0 %

ing of 2 000 households on tree planting and construc-

Sustainable biomass and energy efficiency through train-

tion of a charcoal production plant

yes 

Plantations and green resources offices in 

(Tanzania)

Sao Hill (Iringa region of Tanzania)

2011/231-578

13
Nice roll-out

2011/231-937

14
Small-scale 
solar

15
Boreale

16
Wood and 
charcoal

2011/232-092

2011/280-322

2012/232-680

 
Annexes

29

Green energy

2011/231-578

Nice roll-out

2011/231-937

12

13

14

solar

15

Boreale

16

Wood and 

charcoal

2011/280-322

2012/232-680

EF II -

(Call 1)

EF II -

(Call 1)

EF II -

(Call 1)

EF II -

(Call 1)

EF II -

(Call 1)

No

60

183

620

534

542

(in %)

EE: 71  

EUD: 85

EE: 47  

EUD: 87  

3rdE: 82

EE: 83  

EUD: 81

EE: 84  

EUD: 79

EE: 59  

EUD: 87  

3rdE: 75

Nice roll-out

Delgado

Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable 

Best options for rural energy and access to light and 

electricity (Boreale)

Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural 

Mozambique, Malawi and Tanzania

Zambia, 

Tanzania, The 

Gambia

Madagascar

Mozambique, 

Tanzania, 

(Malawi)

Project No 

and short 

name

CRIS No

EF No

(CfP No)

Proposal 

Proposal assess-

ment scores3

Title of the action

Country

Budget 
(million 
euro)

EU 
contrib. 
(million 
euro)

Percentage 
EU cont.
/budget

Short description

Community-based green energy project

Kenya

2.32

1.74

75.0 %

8.44

2.50

29.6 %

Installation of solar PV units on 56 schools and 32 health 
centres in rural Kenya 

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)

Sites visited

Visited
(or only 
examined 
in country)

no

no

N/A

N/A

Small-scale 

2011/232-092

small-scale solar power in Quissanga district, Cabo 

Mozambique

0.79

0.59

75.0 %

Enabling 4 000 households to access sustainable small-
scale solar power in two districts

no

N/A

2.30

1.72

74.8 %

5.33

2.40

45.0 %

Installation of solar PV units on 10 schools and eight 
health centres and 900 households in eight villages in the 
southern region

Sustainable biomass and energy efficiency through train-
ing of 2 000 households on tree planting and construc-
tion of a charcoal production plant

(yes)

No site visited2 but stakeholders were 
interviewed

yes 
(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).

Annexes

30

I
I
x
e
n
n
A

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

The 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.

Adequate 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.

Intervention logic shows problems which may substantially affect the results expected. Issues/problems are noted concerning the elements listed 
above.

Intervention logic is faulty and strongly reduces the chance of success for the project, or major issues/problems will jeopardise the project.

A

B

C

D

Results

A

B

C

D

All 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).

Result 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.

Some 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.

Quality 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

A

 B

C

D

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

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.

 
Annexes

32

I
I
I
x
e
n
n
A

EUEI PDF projects and 11th EDF focal sectors per country

EUEI PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE FACILITY (PDF)

(Focal sectors and estimated budget adopted or likely to be adopted at the time of the audit)

Country

Existing policies  
pertaining to energy

Burundi

Jan 2011 (+ rural electrifica-
tion plan 1993, revised in 
1997)

Djibouti 

2005

PDF project in energy sector (description)

Stakeholders

Dates

Focal sector 1

Focal sector 2

Focal sector 3

Focal sector 4

Non-focal

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 
plan

Assist 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 law

Ministry of Energy and Mines

November 2009- 
April 2011

80

Health

87

143

Energy

105

Civil society

17

432

Rule of law and 

fragility

Ministries, Electricité de 
Djibouti — technical and 
financial partners, donors

November 2012-
July 2014

52

Food security

35

Civil society and 

NAO support

18

105

Budget 

(million 

euro)

Budget 

(million 

euro)

11th EDF 

Budget 

(million 

euro)

Budget 

(million 

euro)

Budget 

(million 

euro)

TOTAL 

BUDGET

(million 

euro)

Eritrea 

1997

-

-

-

Agriculture

Ethiopia 

1994 (revised in 2012)

Kenya 

2004 (revised in 2014)

Madagascar 

1974 (became a law in 1998)

Malawi 

2003 (revised in 2009)

Mozambique

1998 (revised in 
2009 and 2011)

Assist the Ethiopian government in articulating 
a clear long-term vision for biomass energy and for-
mulating a biomass energy strategy and action plan

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 generation

Update of Madagascar’s policy and national energy 
strategy and the preparation of a strategy for the 
energy sector of Madagascar

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 technologies

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 side

Ministry of Water, Irrigation 
and Energy

July 2012- 
February 2014

Ministry of Energy

January 2013- 
March 2014

Ministry of Energy

July 2014- 
July 2015

Governance and 

institutions

143

Rural 

development

NAO and TCF

5

518

Department of Energy

February 2008- 
February 2009

Ministry of Energy and the 
National Directorate for New 
and Renewable Energy

January 2011-  
December 2012

Good govern-

ance and 

development

367

330

Rural develop-

ment (including 

energy:

50 million euro)

Governance

120

Education

110

Agriculture

250

Civil society

30

510

Sustainable 

rural develop-

ment for 

nutrition

Water, sanita-

tion and solid 

waste

Energy (not 

decided but 

gov’s will)

Sustainable 

agriculture and 

food security

Food security 

and resilience 

to climate 

shocks

252

Health

190

Sustainable 

infrastructure 

(transport and 

energy)

Economic 

governance

Roads and 

transition to 

energy

Accountabil-

ity of public 

institutions

Infrastructure 

(increase 

energy access 

for economic 

development)

200

175

140

230

60

230

Civil society

63

745

60

NAO support

10

495

0

697

 
Annexes

33

EUEI PDF projects and 11th EDF focal sectors per country

EUEI PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE FACILITY (PDF)

Country

Existing policies  

pertaining to energy

PDF project in energy sector (description)

Stakeholders

Dates

Focal sector 1

Sustainable 
rural develop-
ment for 
nutrition

Water, sanita-
tion and solid 
waste

Energy (not 
decided but 
gov’s will)

Sustainable 
agriculture and 
food security

Food security 
and resilience 
to climate 
shocks

Burundi

Jan 2011 (+ rural electrifica-

tion plan 1993, revised in 

1997)

plan

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 

Ministry of Energy and Mines

November 2009- 

April 2011

Djibouti 

2005

Assist 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 law

Ministries, Electricité de 

Djibouti — technical and 

financial partners, donors

November 2012-

July 2014

Eritrea 

1997

-

-

-

Ethiopia 

1994 (revised in 2012)

Kenya 

2004 (revised in 2014)

Mozambique

1998 (revised in 

2009 and 2011)

Assist the Ethiopian government in articulating 

a clear long-term vision for biomass energy and for-

mulating a biomass energy strategy and action plan

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 generation

Update of Madagascar’s policy and national energy 

energy sector of Madagascar

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 technologies

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 side

Ministry of Water, Irrigation 

and Energy

July 2012- 

February 2014

Ministry of Energy

January 2013- 

March 2014

Department of Energy

February 2008- 

February 2009

Ministry of Energy and the 

National Directorate for New 

and Renewable Energy

January 2011-  

December 2012

Madagascar 

1974 (became a law in 1998)

strategy and the preparation of a strategy for the 

Ministry of Energy

July 2014- 

July 2015

Governance and 
institutions

143

Rural 
development

11th EDF 
(Focal sectors and estimated budget adopted or likely to be adopted at the time of the audit)

Budget 
(million 
euro)

Focal sector 2

Budget 
(million 
euro)

Focal sector 3

Budget 
(million 
euro)

Focal sector 4

Budget 
(million 
euro)

Non-focal

Budget 
(million 
euro)

TOTAL 
BUDGET
(million 
euro)

80

Health

87

Rule of law and 
fragility

143

Energy

105

Civil society

17

432

52

Food security

35

Agriculture

252

Health

190

Sustainable 
infrastructure 
(transport and 
energy)

Economic 
governance

Roads and 
transition to 
energy

Accountabil-
ity of public 
institutions

Infrastructure 
(increase 
energy access 
for economic 
development)

200

175

140

230

60

230

Civil society and 
NAO support

18

105

0

Civil society

63

745

60

NAO support

10

495

NAO and TCF

5

518

Malawi 

2003 (revised in 2009)

Governance

120

Education

110

Agriculture

250

Civil society

30

510

Good govern-
ance and 
development

367

Rural develop-
ment (including 
energy:
50 million euro)

330

697

Annexes

34

I
I
I
x
e
n
n
A

Country

Existing policies  
pertaining to energy

Rwanda

2004 (revised in 2009)

Tanzania

1992 (revised in 
2003 and 2014)

EUEI PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE FACILITY (PDF)

(Focal sectors and estimated budget adopted or likely to be adopted at the time of the audit)

PDF project in energy sector (description)

Stakeholders

Dates

Focal sector 1

Focal sector 2

Focal sector 3

Focal sector 4

Non-focal

Budget 

(million 

euro)

Budget 

(million 

euro)

Budget 

(million 

euro)

Budget 

(million 

euro)

TOTAL 

BUDGET

(million 

euro)

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 engagement

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 implementation

Ministry of Infrastructure

December 2013- 
January 2015

200

Sustainable 

energy

200

Accountable 

governance

Civil society

20

460

Ministry of Finance

March 2012- 
April 2014

291

Energy

180

Sustainable 

agriculture

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 partners

May 2012- 
June 2012

230

Food security 

and agriculture

130

Good 

governance

Civil society

50

578

Sustainable 

agriculture and 

food security

Good govern-

ance and 

development

Transport 

infrastructure 

(energy may 

be included 

after mid-term 

review)

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 vision

Ministry of Energy and Water 
Development

September 2005- 
August 2006

East Africa

Capacity assessment for scaling up access to modern 
energy in East Africa

East African community 

November 2010-
July 2011

Energy

244

Agriculture

110

Governance

100

NAO support

30

484

11th EDF 

Budget 

(million 

euro)

40

140

168

N/A

 
Annexes

35

EUEI PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE FACILITY (PDF)

Country

Existing policies  

pertaining to energy

PDF project in energy sector (description)

Stakeholders

Dates

Focal sector 1

11th EDF 
(Focal sectors and estimated budget adopted or likely to be adopted at the time of the audit)

Budget 
(million 
euro)

Focal sector 2

Budget 
(million 
euro)

Focal sector 3

Budget 
(million 
euro)

Focal sector 4

Budget 
(million 
euro)

Non-focal

Budget 
(million 
euro)

TOTAL 
BUDGET
(million 
euro)

Rwanda

2004 (revised in 2009)

Ministry of Infrastructure

December 2013- 

January 2015

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 engagement

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 implementation

Tanzania

1992 (revised in 

2003 and 2014)

Ministry of Finance

March 2012- 

April 2014

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 partners

May 2012- 

June 2012

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 vision

Ministry of Energy and Water 

September 2005- 

Development

August 2006

Sustainable 
agriculture and 
food security

Good govern-
ance and 
development

Transport 
infrastructure 
(energy may 
be included 
after mid-term 
review)

200

Sustainable 
energy

200

Accountable 
governance

291

Energy

180

Sustainable 
agriculture

230

Food security 
and agriculture

130

Good 
governance

40

140

168

Civil society

20

460

Civil society

15

626

Civil society

50

578

Energy

244

Agriculture

110

Governance

100

NAO support

30

484

East Africa

Capacity assessment for scaling up access to modern 

energy in East Africa

East African community 

November 2010-

July 2011

N/A

Annexes

36

V

I
x
e
n
n
A

Implementation period, objectives and achievements of the projects examined

Project No 
and
short name

EF No  
(CfP No)

Title of the action

Country

Start date

End date  

Extension justification

Extensions

(in months)

%  

exten-

sion

1
Mwenga

2
Best Ray

3
Majaua

4
Biogas

5
Up-scaling

6
Bioenergelec

7
rHYviere

8
Sahambano

9
Resouth

10
Rural 
electrification

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant

Tanzania

22.12.2007

22.12.2012

Initial: 60 m — no extension

0 %

n/a

Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian rural areas)

Tanzania

1.4.2008

30.6.2011

Initial: 36 m — extended: 39 m

8 %

key project activities, mainly focusing on institutional 

Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua

Mozambique

1.12.2007

30.11.2012

Initial: 36 m — extended: 60 m

67 %

(that proposed to extend the project up to 30.11.2013) 

Up-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural producers and 
processors

Up-scaling access to integrated modern energy services for poverty 
reduction

Kenya

1.1.2008

1.1.2011

Initial: 36 m — extended: 45 m

25 %

To complete the reachable objectives within the budget

Tanzania

1.1.2008

30.6.2014

Initial: 60 m — extended: 78 m

23 %

To try to catch up with planning

Extension justified by the need ‘to better complete … 

and sustainability aspects’

In total, three extensions were requested but the last one 

was rejected by the EUD

5 000 target)

EF I

Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité)

Madagascar

1.4.2008

31.12.2015

Initial: 36 m — extended: 81 m 

125 %

out of five) — contractual issues ADMIN–ADER (contract 

equipped at the time of audit)

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

Programme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques villageois et respect de 
l’environnement

Madagascar

7.1.2008

30.12.2015

Initial: 48 m — extended: 84 m 

75 %

months) Rider 4-5: Response time of the bank for a loan 

Aménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befanaova sur la rivière 
Sahambano

Electrification rurale décentralisée par énergies renouvelables dans le sud de 
Madagascar (Resouth)

Madagascar

1.3.2008

31.12.2014

Initial: 30 m — extended: 82 m  

173 %

instability, bad weather, delays in obtaining the conces-

Madagascar

1.1.2008

1.1.2013

Initial: 60 m — no extension

0 %

n/a

No (initial: 5 000 beneficiaries -> 5 500)

Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale projects

Zambia

10.3.2008

31.12.2015

Initial: 70 m — extended: 94 m

34 %

receiving material/ equipment, insufficient capacity of 

Feasibility study, relaunch of failed CfTenders, delays in 

local partners and works contractors

No (objectives won’t be reached at the end of the 

project but progress will continue after)

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 

signed 9.1.2012)

Rider 1 — Political situation (12 months) Rider 3: 

cyclones in the region and restructuring of the ADER (12 

to a private investor (Tectra) for the purchase of a turbine 

+ cable theft in harbour facilities (6+6 months)

Lack of decision about the site development: 12 technical 

options, new Zecca project manager in 2009, political 

sion permit, tax exemption, permission to use dynamite 

for digging the canal

Initial objectives amended -

(achievements)

No (beneficiaries were 14 345 against an expected 

24 700 (58 %) but number is progressing)

No (beneficiaries were 7 600 against an expected 

8 050 or 94.4 %)

No (in 2014, EUD has estimated the connections to 

+/– 500; about 3 years will be needed to reach the 

No (initial: construction of 350 digesters 

 — end of the project: 765 were constructed)

Yes — 200 MPESCs -> 125 

(only 11 installed in June 2013)

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 

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)

Yes (initial: 460 kW — objectives in October 2014: 

700 kW)

 
Annexes

37

Implementation period, objectives and achievements of the projects examined

Project No 

and

short name

EF No  

(CfP No)

Title of the action

Country

Start date

End date  

Extensions
(in months)

%  
exten-
sion

Extension justification

Initial objectives amended -
(achievements)

Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant

Tanzania

22.12.2007

22.12.2012

Initial: 60 m — no extension

0 %

n/a

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 14 345 against an expected 
24 700 (58 %) but number is progressing)

No (beneficiaries were 7 600 against an expected 
8 050 or 94.4 %)

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 EUD

No (in 2014, EUD has estimated the connections to 
+/– 500; about 3 years will be needed to reach the 
5 000 target)

Up-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural producers and 

Up-scaling access to integrated modern energy services for poverty 

processors

reduction

Kenya

1.1.2008

1.1.2011

Initial: 36 m — extended: 45 m

25 %

To complete the reachable objectives within the budget

Tanzania

1.1.2008

30.6.2014

Initial: 60 m — extended: 78 m

23 %

To try to catch up with planning

EF I

Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité)

Madagascar

1.4.2008

31.12.2015

Initial: 36 m — extended: 81 m 

125 %

rHYviere

l’environnement

Programme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques villageois et respect de 

Madagascar

7.1.2008

30.12.2015

Initial: 48 m — extended: 84 m 

75 %

Sahambano

Sahambano

Aménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befanaova sur la rivière 

Madagascar

1.3.2008

31.12.2014

Initial: 30 m — extended: 82 m  

173 %

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)

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)

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 canal

No (initial: construction of 350 digesters 
 — end of the project: 765 were constructed)

Yes — 200 MPESCs -> 125 
(only 11 installed in June 2013)

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)

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)

Yes (initial: 460 kW — objectives in October 2014: 
700 kW)

Electrification 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)

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 contractors

No (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 
Were not likely to meet their targets but outputs were still reasonable 

Had met or were likely to meet their targets
Had failed to deliver the expected outputs

Mwenga

Best Ray

Majaua

Biogas

Up-scaling

Bioenergelec

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Resouth

10

Rural 

electrification

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

 
 
 
 
Annexes

V

I
x
e
n
n
A

Project No 
and
short name

EF No  
(CfP No)

38

Title of the action

Country

Start date

End date  

Extension justification

Extensions

(in months)

%  

exten-

sion

11
Increase access

12
Green energy

13
Nice roll-out

14
Small-scale 
solar

15
Boreale

16
Wood and 
charcoal

EF I

Increased access to electricity services

Zambia

11.12.2008

15.12.2015

Initial: 60 m — extended: 84m

40 %

complexity underestimated by IP; insufficient capacity of 

Feasibility study, procurement procedure duration and 

local partners

EF II
(Call 1)

EF II
(Call 1)

EF II
(Call 1)

EF II
(Call 1)

EF II
(Call 1)

Community-based green energy project

Kenya

1.11.2011

31.10.2015

Initial: 48 m — no extension

0 %

n/a

Nice roll-out

Zambia, 
Tanzania, The 
Gambia

30.9.2011

30.9.2015

Initial: 48 m — no extension

0 %

n/a

Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable small-scale solar power in 
 Quissanga district, Cabo Delgado

Mozambique

20.7.2011

19.9.2014

Initial: 36 m — extended: 38m

6 %

Delay on the delivery of spare parts.

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 start

Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural Mozambique, Malawi and 
Tanzania

Mozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)

19.3.2012

31.7.2015

initial: 39 m — no extension

0 %

n/a

Initial objectives amended -

(achievements)

No (most expected outputs will probably be obtained 

at the end of the revised performance period)

Yes (initial 56 schools and 32 health centres; in 2014, 

88 schools and 42 HC equipped with solar PV)

No (only one centre installed out of 50; the project has 

been stopped due to partner’s liquidation)

No2 (beneficiaries were 14 760 against an expected 

18 000, or 82 %)

Yes (wind turbine option cancelled and seven villages 

to be equipped instead of eight)

No, but little hope that charcoal

component will be realised

 
Annexes

39

Project No 

and

short name

EF No  

(CfP No)

Increase access

11

12

13

14

15

16

Green energy

Nice roll-out

Small-scale 

solar

Boreale

Wood and 

charcoal

EF II

(Call 1)

EF II

(Call 1)

EF II

(Call 1)

EF II

(Call 1)

EF II

(Call 1)

Title of the action

Country

Start date

End date  

Extensions
(in months)

%  
exten-
sion

Extension justification

Initial objectives amended -
(achievements)

EF 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 partners

Community-based green energy project

Kenya

1.11.2011

31.10.2015

Initial: 48 m — no extension

0 %

n/a

Nice roll-out

Tanzania, The 

30.9.2011

30.9.2015

Initial: 48 m — no extension

0 %

n/a

Zambia, 

Gambia

Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable small-scale solar power in 

 Quissanga district, Cabo Delgado

Mozambique

20.7.2011

19.9.2014

Initial: 36 m — extended: 38m

6 %

Delay on the delivery of spare parts.

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 start

Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural Mozambique, Malawi and 

Tanzania

Mozambique, 

Tanzania, 

(Malawi)

19.3.2012

31.7.2015

initial: 39 m — no extension

0 %

n/a

No (most expected outputs will probably be obtained 
at the end of the revised performance period)

Yes (initial 56 schools and 32 health centres; in 2014, 
88 schools and 42 HC equipped with solar PV)

No (only one centre installed out of 50; the project has 
been stopped due to partner’s liquidation)

No2 (beneficiaries were 14 760 against an expected 
18 000, or 82 %)

Yes (wind turbine option cancelled and seven villages 
to be equipped instead of eight)

No, 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 
Were not likely to meet their targets but outputs were still reasonable 

Had met or were likely to meet their targets
Had failed to deliver the expected outputs

 
 
 
 
Annexes

40

V
x
e
n
n
A

Monitoring of the projects examined

Project No 
and
short name

EF No
(CfP No)

Title of the action

Country

Start date

End date  

Project 
duration 
(years)

1
Mwenga

2
Best Ray

3
Majaua

4
Biogas

5
Up-scaling

6
Bioenergelec

7
rHYviere

8
Sahambano

9
Resouth

10
Rural 
electrification

11
Increase access

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant

Tanzania

22.12.2007

22.12.2012

Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian rural areas)

Tanzania

1.4.2008

30.6.2011

Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua

Mozambique

1.12.2007

30.11.2012

Up-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural 
 producers and processors

Up-scaling access to integrated modern energy services for 
poverty reduction

Kenya

1.1.2008

1.1.2011

Tanzania

1.1.2008

30.6.2014

Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité)

Madagascar

1.4.2008

31.12.2015

Programme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques villageois 
et respect de l’environnement

Aménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befanaova sur la 
rivière Sahambano

Electrification rurale décentralisée par énergies renouvelables 
dans le sud de Madagascar (Resouth)

Madagascar

7.1.2008

30.12.2015

Madagascar

1.3.2008

31.12.2014

Madagascar

1.1.2008

1.1.2013

EF I

Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale projects

Zambia

10.3.2008

31.12.2015

5.0

3.2

5.0

3.0

6.5

7.8

8.0

6.8

5.0

7.8

EF I

Increased access to electricity services

Zambia

11.12.2008

15.12.2015

7.0

12
Green energy

EF II -
(Call 1)

Community-based green energy project

Kenya

1.11.2011

31.10.2015

4.0

November 2013

No

Mandatory evaluations

Danish Management Group (DMG)

# IP  

narritive 

reports

# of  

Delay to review 

DMG reviews

IP reports

Latest report 

reviewed? 

(year of NR)

11

1-16 months

Yes (2012)

Mid-term

Final

(planned)

Specific line in 

budget

ROM(s)

March 2010

August 2011

Yes (only men-

tions final)

Yes (only 2 500 

euro in total)

June 2011 

June 2013

No

February 2014

Budget annex not 

received

October 2013

April 2010

November 2011

November 2009

0-7 months

Yes (2011)

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

March 2013

(End 2015)

October 2011

(End 2015)

(End 2015)

March 2013 

July 2013

December 2011, 

January 2012

June 2013

No

No

September 2011 

October 2013

(MTE + final)

(MTE + final)

(MTE + final)

(MTE + final)

(MTE + final)

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

(MTE + final)

May 2010

(MTE + final)

No

Yes 

(MTE + final)

December 2013

February 2011

(ex post end 2015)

(MTE + final)

September 2011

September 2013

12

12

5

7

6

6

6

3

5

34

16

5

7

3

7

3

2

3

1

4

1

5

2

0.5-7 months

Yes (2011)

1.3-10 months

No (2014)

4-10 months

No (2014)

6-13 months

No (2013)

6-18 months

No (2013)

9 months

No (2014)

3.5-9 months

No (2012)

1.5 month

No (2013)

1-4 months

No (2014)

4 months

No (2014)

 
Annexes

41

Monitoring of the projects examined

Project No 

and

short name

EF No

(CfP No)

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

Mwenga

Best Ray

Majaua

Biogas

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Bioenergelec

Resouth

10

Rural 

electrification

Increase access

11

12

Title of the action

Country

Start date

End date  

Project 

duration 

(years)

Mandatory evaluations

Danish Management Group (DMG)

Mid-term

Final
(planned)

Specific line in 
budget

ROM(s)

# IP  
narritive 
reports

# of  
DMG reviews

Delay to review 
IP reports

Latest report 
reviewed? 
(year of NR)

Mwenga 3 MW hydro power plant

Tanzania

22.12.2007

22.12.2012

No

No

Best Ray (Bringing energy services to Tanzanian rural areas)

Tanzania

1.4.2008

30.6.2011

March 2010

August 2011

Electrificaçao da comunidade de Majaua

Mozambique

1.12.2007

30.11.2012

No

February 2014

Up-scaling the smaller biogas plants for agricultural 

 producers and processors

Up-scaling access to integrated modern energy services for 

Up-scaling

poverty reduction

Kenya

1.1.2008

1.1.2011

April 2010

November 2011

Tanzania

1.1.2008

30.6.2014

No

No

Bioenergelec (bioénergie électricité)

Madagascar

1.4.2008

31.12.2015

March 2013

(End 2015)

rHYviere

et respect de l’environnement

Programme rHYviere — Réseaux hydroélectriques villageois 

Sahambano

rivière Sahambano

Aménagement hydroélectrique du site de Befanaova sur la 

Madagascar

7.1.2008

30.12.2015

October 2011

(End 2015)

Madagascar

1.3.2008

31.12.2014

No

(End 2015)

Yes (only men-
tions final)

Yes (only 2 500 
euro in total)

June 2011 
June 2013

No

Budget annex not 
received

October 2013

Yes 
(MTE + final)

Yes 
(MTE + final)

Yes 
(MTE + final)

Yes 
(MTE + final)

Yes 
(MTE + final)

November 2009

June 2013

No

September 2011 
October 2013

No

Electrification rurale décentralisée par énergies renouvelables 

dans le sud de Madagascar (Resouth)

Madagascar

1.1.2008

1.1.2013

February 2011

March 2013 
(ex post end 2015)

Yes 
(MTE + final)

September 2011
September 2013

EF I

Rural electrification infrastructure and small-scale projects

Zambia

10.3.2008

31.12.2015

July 2013

EF I

Increased access to electricity services

Zambia

11.12.2008

15.12.2015

7.0

December 2011, 
January 2012

No

No

Green energy

EF II -

(Call 1)

Community-based green energy project

Kenya

1.11.2011

31.10.2015

4.0

November 2013

No

Yes 
(MTE + final)

May 2010

Yes 
(MTE + final)

No

Yes 
(MTE + final)

December 2013

5.0

3.2

5.0

3.0

6.5

7.8

8.0

6.8

5.0

7.8

12

12

5

7

6

6

6

3

5

34

16

5

11

1-16 months

Yes (2012)

7

3

7

3

2

3

1

4

1

5

2

0.5-7 months

Yes (2011)

1.3-10 months

No (2014)

0-7 months

Yes (2011)

4-10 months

No (2014)

6-13 months

No (2013)

6-18 months

No (2013)

9 months

No (2014)

3.5-9 months

No (2012)

1.5 month

No (2013)

1-4 months

No (2014)

4 months

No (2014)

Annexes

V
x
e
n
n
A

Project No 
and
short name

EF No
(CfP No)

42

Title of the action

Country

Start date

End date  

Project 
duration 
(years)

Mandatory evaluations

Danish Management Group (DMG)

Mid-term

Final

(planned)

Specific line in 

budget

ROM(s)

# IP  

narritive 

reports

# of  

Delay to review 

DMG reviews

IP reports

Latest report 

reviewed? 

(year of NR)

13
Nice roll-out

EF II -
(Call 1)

Nice roll-out

Zambia,  
Tanzania,  
The Gambia

30.9.2011

30.9.2015

4.0

n/a

n/a

No

No

1-7 months

Yes (2012)

14
Small-scale 
solar

EF II -
(Call 1)

Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable small-scale solar 
power in Quissanga district, Cabo Delgado

Mozambique

20.7.2011

19.9.2014

3.2

October 2013

August 2014

Yes (MTE)

July 2012

1.5-2 months

No (2014)

15
Boreale

EF 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

16
Wood and 
charcoal

EF II -
(Call 1)

Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural Mozam-
bique, Malawi and Tanzania

Mozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)

19.3.2012

31.7.2015

3.4

No

No

No

Yes 

(MTE + final)

No

Yes 

(MTE + final)

October 2013

4-5 months

Yes (2013)

1-4 months

Yes (2014)

2

4

3

5

2

3

3

2

 
Annexes

43

Project No 

and

short name

EF No

(CfP No)

Nice roll-out

13

14

Small-scale 

solar

15

Boreale

16

Wood and 

charcoal

EF II -

(Call 1)

EF II -

(Call 1)

EF II -

(Call 1)

EF II -

(Call 1)

Title of the action

Country

Start date

End date  

Project 

duration 

(years)

Mandatory evaluations

Danish Management Group (DMG)

Mid-term

Final
(planned)

Specific line in 
budget

ROM(s)

# IP  
narritive 
reports

# of  
DMG reviews

Delay to review 
IP reports

Latest report 
reviewed? 
(year of NR)

Nice roll-out

30.9.2011

30.9.2015

4.0

n/a

n/a

No

No

Zambia,  

Tanzania,  

The Gambia

Enabling 18 000 people to access sustainable small-scale solar 

power in Quissanga district, Cabo Delgado

Mozambique

20.7.2011

19.9.2014

3.2

October 2013

August 2014

Yes (MTE)

July 2012

Best options for rural energy and access to light and electric-

ity (Boreale)

Madagascar

1.3.2012

28.2.2017

5.0

End 2015

Sustainable wood and charcoal production in rural Mozam-

bique, Malawi and Tanzania

Mozambique, 

Tanzania, 

(Malawi)

19.3.2012

31.7.2015

3.4

No

No

No

Yes 
(MTE + final)

No

Yes 
(MTE + final)

October 2013

2

4

3

5

2

3

3

2

1-7 months

Yes (2012)

1.5-2 months

No (2014)

4-5 months

Yes (2013)

1-4 months

Yes (2014)

Annexes

44

I

V
x
e
n
n
A

Scoring of the projects examined

Project No 
and
short 
name

EF 
No
(CfP No)

Title of the action

Country

EU contrib. 
(million 
euro)

Short description

Design Results

Sus-
tain-
ability

Mwenga 3 MW hydro 
power plant

Best Ray (Bringing energy 
services to Tanzanian rural 
areas)

Tanzania

3.60

Installation of a mini-hydroelectric 
plant to provide reliable electricity to 
a tea company and to 14 villages

Tanzania

1.13

Installation of solar PV units on 8 050 
households belonging to nine villages

Electrificaçao da comuni-
dade de Majaua

Mozambique

1.87

1
Mwenga

2
Best Ray

3
Majaua

4
Biogas

5
Up-scaling

6
Bioenergelec

7
rHYviere

8
Sahambano

9
Resouth

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

EF I

Kenya

1.22

Tanzania

2.29

Madagascar

1.96

Madagascar

1.73

Madagascar

2.48

Up-scaling the smaller 
biogas plants for 
agricultural producers and 
processors

Up-scaling access to 
integrated modern  energy 
services for poverty 
reduction

Bioenergelec (bioénergie 
électricité)

Programme rHYviere — 
Réseaux hydroélectriques 
villageois et respect de 
l’environnement

Aménagement hydro-
électrique du site de 
Befanaova sur la rivière 
Sahambano

Electrification rurale 
décentralisée par énergies 
renouvelables dans le sud 
de Madagascar (Resouth)

Rehabilitation of a mini-hydro power 
plant (currently destroyed) and set-up 
of a local electrical power network to 
connect 5 000 households

Use of biogas technology for cook-
ing purposes in rural areas for 330 
 farmers in five provinces

Installation of multipurpose energy 
service centres powered by diesel 
engines using bio-fuels (jatropha oil) 
in 120 villages in six regions

Electricity generation from biomass 
for six villages (in four regions) and 
improved carbonisation

Construction of three hydropower 
plants on ’run-off river’ + mini-grid 
to connect eight villages in eastern 
rural areas 

Construction of a hydropower plant 
on ‘run off river’ + 20 km grid exten-
sion to connect one city and two 
villages

A

B

A

B

C

D

A

A

B

B

B

B

A

D

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

n/a

n/a

B

B

C

Madagascar

0.87

Electrification of two villages in the 
southern region using two wind 
turbines and solar PV units

Criterion met 
  Minor weaknesses 

Serious weaknesses 
Criterion not met

n/a  Not applicable

 
 
 
 
Annexes

45

I

V
x
e
n
n
A

Project No 
and
short 
name

EF 
No
(CfP No)

Title of the action

Country

EU 
contrib. 
(million 
euro)

Short description

Design Results

10
Rural elec-
trification

11
Increase 
access

12
Green 
energy

13
Nice 
roll-out

EF I

EF I

Rural electrification infra-
structure and small-scale 
projects

Zambia

10.00

Increased access to 
electricity services

Zambia

10.00

EF II
(Call 1)

Community-based green 
energy project

Kenya

1.74

EF II
(Call 1)

Nice roll-out

Zambia, 
Tanzania, 
The Gambia

2.50

14
Small-scale 
solar

EF II
(Call 1)

15
Boreale

EF II
(Call 1)

Enabling 18 000 people 
to access sustainable 
small-scale solar power in 
Quissanga district, Cabo 
Delgado

Best options for rural 
energy and access to light 
and electricity (Boreale)

Mozambique

0.59

Madagascar

1.72

16
Wood and 
charcoal

EF II
(Call 1)

Sustainable wood and 
charcoal production 
in  rural Mozambique, 
Malawi and Tanzania

Mozambique, 
Tanzania, 
(Malawi)

2.40

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 centres

Grid extension to facilitate access to 
renewable energy sources in rural and 
peri-urban areas in Zambia (65 000 
beneficiaries)

Installation of solar PV units on 56 
schools and 32 health centres in rural 
Kenya 

Business 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)

Enabling 4 000 households to access 
sustainable small-scale solar power in 
two districts

Installation of solar PV units on 10 
schools and eight health centres and 
900 households in eight villages in the 
southern region

Sustainable biomass and energy 
efficiency through training of 2 000 
households on tree planting and 
construction of a charcoal production 
plant

B

B

B

D

B

B

C

Legend: On the basis of the scoring methodology in Annex II, the following ratings have been established:

Criterion met 
  Minor weaknesses 

Serious weaknesses 
Criterion not met

n/a  Not applicable

Sus-
taina-
bility

B

B

B

n/a

B

B

B

B

A

D

B

B

D

n/a

 
 
 
 
Reply of the  
Commission

46

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, 
2011

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;

Reply of the Commission 

47

—  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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply of the Commission 

48

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.

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.

Reply of the Commission 

49

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.

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