COUNTRY PROJECT NAME contents Project Paper Liberia Electricity System Enhancement Project ADDITIONAL FINANCING Data SHEET Basic Information - Additional Financing (AF) Country Director: Sergiy Kulyk Sector Manager: Lucio Monari Sector Director: Jamal Saghir Team Leader: Fanny Missfeldt-Ringius Project ID: P129097 Expected Effectiveness: May 15, 2012 Lending Instrument: Emergency Recovery Loan Sectors: Power (100%) Themes: Access to urban services and housing (100%) Environmental category: B (partial assessment) Expected Closing Date: December 31, 2014 Joint IFC: No
Intermediate Results Indicator One: People trained under the project 0 10 10 30 50 50 Quarterly LEC data system LEC Annex 2: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) LIBERIA: Additional Financing for the Liberia Electricity System Enhancement Project (LESEP) Stage: Appraisal OR Negotiations OR Board Project Stakeholder Risks Rating: Moderate Description: Potential lack of effective donor coordination: Implementing donor support effectively during post-conflict years is difficult since as a country Liberia faces political and administrative constraints that reduce their capacity to absorb funds and coordinate donors. Given the overriding need of resources of any kind, it is arguably difficult for Liberia to Risk Management: Donors are working towards further formalizing their coordination in the energy sector through a Memorandum of Understanding and regular technical working group. Resp: Bank Stage: Implementation Due Date: Ongoing Status: Ongoing
maintain a coherent strategy. However, in the energy sector, donors, including the World Bank, have closely coordinated their actions since the new GoL came into power in 2005. As a result, concrete actions have been achieved that ensure donor commitment and alignment in terms of rebuilding the electricity sector in Liberia. There is donor consensus on how to prioritize interventions over the short-, medium- and long-term. Both the Management Contract at LEC and the LESEP project itself provide concrete examples of successful donor coordination. Description: Management Contractor could withdraw: The Management Contract provides substantial support and expertise in rebuilding the power utility LEC, and is therefore an important partner for this project. If the Management Contractor were to withdraw from their contract, it would affect the quality and speed with which LESEP is being implemented. Risk Management: The Management Contractor is well established. Payments come directly from Norwegian aid, and are thus unaffected by LEC’s performance. After 1.5 years of operation, the MC is firmly established at LEC. Resp: Client Stage: Implementation Due Date: Ongoing Status: Ongoing Operating Environment Risks (not disclosed) Section to be removed when the PAD is (i) sent to the client for negotiation or (ii) sent to the Board for approval Liberia Rating: High Description: The security situation in Liberia remains fragile owing to the large number of (mostly) unemployed ex-combatants and the fragile political situation which is now being tested with the upcoming national run-off elections (November 8, 2011). The results of the November elections, even if won by the current President, could mean important cabinet and upper Risk Management: The UN recently extended their UNMIL security program through to the end of 2012 and will continue to support training of the local police force. The UN Peace Building Fund, in preparation for eventual disengagement, is also focusing on decentralizing efforts on rule of law, security sector reform, and national reconciliation. The Bank is preparing a series of policy notes and analytical work that will help inform the Government’s next Growth and Poverty Strategy, a first draft of which will be available for consultation with all stakeholders in early 2012. The new CAS will be
671,000 tons of CO2 at an average cost of US$3.03/ton of CO2. This means the indirect effects will serve to double the direct carbon emissions reductions effected by the project and increase its cost effectiveness. Table 4: Calculation of CO2 Emissions Savings Factors Kerosene Units of Alkaline Batteries Units of Rechargeable Solar Batteries Units of Total Units of Number of lanterns 10,000.00 90,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 Amount kerosene or batteries used per lantern 43.80 liters per year * 116.80 batteries per year † 1 batteries per year ‡ Total amount used in 3 years for all products 1,314,000.00 liters in 3 years 31,104,000.00 batteries in 3 years 300,000.00 batteries in 3 years Carbon emissions over 3 years 3,383.81 Tons CO2 ˜ 388,800.00 Tons CO2 ** 56,700.00 Tons CO2 *** Carbon emissions avoided over 3 years (life of LA product) 3,383.81 Tons CO2 332,100.00 Tons CO2 ^ 335,483.81 Annual reduction of CO2 1,127.94 Tons CO2 110,700.00 Tons CO2 ^ 111,827.94 Carbon emissions avoided over life of LA product if 200,000 lanterns are catalyzed 6,767.62 Tons CO2 664,200.00 Tons CO2 ^ 670,967.62 GEF Grant for lanterns 112,454.00 1,012,086.00 1,124,540.00 GEF grant cost of direct emissions avoided 33.23 $/Tons CO2 3.05 $/Tons CO2 6.07 $/Tons CO2 ~ Total GEF grant cost per ton CO2 avoided by catalyzing double number of lanterns 16.62 $/Tons CO2 1.52 $/Tons CO2 3.03 $/Tons CO2 ~ Notes: