Sin t

1
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid School of
Industrial Engineering
Survey of sustainability in rural energy supply
projects Results of the survey ? March 2005
DISCLAIMER Dissemination is encouraged
indicating as reference Rodríguez Monroy, C.,
San Segundo Hernández, A. 2005. Survey of
sustainability in rural energy supply projects.
Results of the survey. School of Industrial
Engineering. Department of Business
Administration. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
(UPM), Spain. March.
2
Index Executive Summary. Main conclusions Methodol
ogy and participation Respondents Data Part A.
Energy supply in developing countries Part B. The
role of agents in sustainable energy supply Part
C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Respondents Organizations
and country of origin
3
Executive Summary. Main conclusions The survey
in a nutshell

• 185 respondents all over the World (69 different
  countries) with equilibrium among geographic
  areas and type of organizations. Broad coverage
  of areas with high concentration of developing
  countries with electrification problems
• Financial sustainability and Demand-side
  focus are the most relevant parameters to be
  enhanced when considering long term
  sustainability of electrification projects. In
  particular 85 of respondents estimate that
  Financial sustainability is the leading issue
  to address in this kind of projects
• Financial innovation and Private sector
  involvement are the two main topics that have
  the potential to increase renewable dissemination
  in developing countries. If sustainability is
  also considered, Public-private partnerships
  are the leading strategies to follow although
  innovation in the ways of financing is also a
  very relevant topic
• NGOs seem to be the best performers in past
  renewable electrification projects, while
  Private sector it is the most criticized agent.
  Providing proper Local assistance and
  Demand-side approach are the two main skills
  needed to increase the impact of NGOs
  electrification projects. On the contrary, Lack
  of profitability and Poor regulatory
  frameworks are the two main concerns that
  justify lack of appropriate involvement of
  private sector in rural electrification projects.
  71 of respondents consider that Lack of
  profitability is the main cause that justify the
  inadequate private sector involvement in this
  kind of projects
• Financial sustainability of renewable projects is
  mainly considered from a demand-side point of
  view existence of Microfinancing schemes and
  the development of Productive initiatives are
  the two main topics that have significant
  influence in financial viability of renewable
  projects
• Renewable energy funds are considered as the
  most suitable financial instrument to deal with
  renewable rural electrification projects by a 72
  of respondents. Project finance is the second
  preferred option. The percentage of respondents
  that didnt know some opportunities for financing
  renewable electrification projects was still very
  important.
• Leasing and Commercial loans are not
  considered very suitable by most of respondents
  when approaching down-side financing, being
  Revolving funds the most appropriate instrument
• 53 of respondents consider that Flexibility
  Kyoto Mechanisms have high potential to
  contribute to renewable deployment in developing
  countries. Europe and North-Americas respondents
  are much more sceptical about Corporate Social
  Responsibility
• Finally almost 70 of respondents consider that
  Institutional support, Local empowerment and
  Innovative financing have a High or Very High
  potential to increase resource mobilisation to
  finance renewable projects

4
Index Methodology and participation Respondents
Data Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Part B. The role of agents in
sustainable energy supply Part C. Financing of
renewable energy projects in developing
countries Respondents Organizations and country
of origin
5
Methodology and participation
Multi-channel and bilingual survey to increase
dissemination

• Direct e-mail during 1st November 2004 31st
  December 2004 ()
• Broad coverage (major regions of the world, and
  different agents in energy supply)
• Multiple-choice questionnaire 11 questions
  divided into three parts
• Dissemination enhanced (see note below)
• Survey posted at www.gvep.org
• Proposal of knowledge-sharing from
• www.hedon.info,
• http//forums.seib.org, Commend Network, and
• www.ises.org,
• Bilingual survey English and Spanish

Methodology

• NOTE
• www.gvep.org (Global Village Energy Partnership,
  a World Bank initiative, in conjunction with
  ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance
  Programme), the US Agency for International
  Development, the US Department of Energy, the
  National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Winrock
  International)
• www.hedon.info (Household Energy Network,
  informal forum dedicated to improving social,
  economic, and environmental conditions in the
  South)
• Commend, http//forums.seib.org (Leap Forums,
  Community for Energy, Environment and
  Development. An initiative of the Boston Center
  of the Stockholm Environment Institute)
• www.ises.org, International Solar Energy Society,
  UN-accredited NGO present in more than 50
  countries. The Society supports its members in
  the advancement of renewable energy technology,
  implementation and education all over the world

() Original deadline extended to allow late
answers
6
Methodology and participation
Important number of answers received validates
results obtained

• Total initial number of potential contacts (2)
• Number of direct e_mail rejected (1)
• Effective potential contacts
• Estimated percentage of experts in most of the
  topics covered (3)
• Final effective community of experts contacted
• Answers received (2)
• Percentage of Final community

1,067 116 951 90
185 Respondents 21.6 Participation
856 185 21.6

1. Spam-avoided or incorrect address
2. Includes direct contacts by e_mail and answers
   received by e_mail thanks to the websites or
   communities indicated
3. Conservative estimation taking into account the
   answers received in the most technical questions

7
Index Methodology and participation Respondents
Data Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Part B. The role of agents in
sustainable energy supply Part C. Financing of
renewable energy projects in developing
countries Respondents Organizations and country
of origin
8
Respondents Data
Diversified portfolio of respondents
World Area of Origin
Type of Organization
(ex Spain)
Equilibrium among different agents involved in
energy supply projects in developing countries
Academic, Private Co., and NGO widely
represented Broad coverage of areas with high
percentages of developing countries 44 of total
answers received (Africa (20), Asia-Pacific
(15) and Latin AmericaCaribbean (9))
9
Index Methodology and participation Respondents
Data Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Part B. The role of agents in
sustainable energy supply Part C. Financing of
renewable energy projects in developing
countries Respondents Organizations and country
of origin
10
Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Objective Identify key parameters and
barriers in sustainability of energy supply
projects
Results Financial sustainability and
Demand-side focus are considered the most
relevant parameters
QUESTION 1
Three main factors modal weighted and percentage
of respondents covered (1)
Average value
What is in your opinion the relevance of each of
the following parameters to strengthen long-term
viability of electrification projects?.

• Financial sustainability of projects it is the
  main parameter needed to assure long term
  viability of electrification projects (85 of
  respondents considers this factor as the most
  relevant (4.73 points) followed by Demand-side
  focus approach).
• In the opposite Multilateral support and
  Environmental Issues are the least relevant
  topics when considering long term viability (only
  13 and 16 of respondents consider these
  elements as Very relevant)
• Financial sustainability of projects is also
  the parameter which obtains the highest
  percentage of Very relevant answers (62 of
  total respondents)

Analysis
(1) Value calculated as the weighted average of
two main modal values
11
Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Objective Identify key parameters and
barriers in sustainability of energy supply
projects
Differences into groups of respondents (1) All
groups consider Financial sustainability as the
main parameter when looking for long term
viability of electrification projects
QUESTION 1
World Area of Origin

• North and Latin America responses have the most
  important differences. Both groups consider
  Financial sustainability much more relevant in
  relative terms, while giving the second valuation
  to the existence of a Stable regulatory
  framework
• Environmental Issues are considered the second
  most important parameter by respondents from Rest
  of the World while respondents from Africa are
  less concerned about this issue

What is in your opinion the relevance of each of
the following parameters to strengthen long-term
viability of electrification projects?.
Type of organization

• Private Companies and Analyst seem to be less
  sensitive to Demand-side concerns than the
  average when dealing with an electrification
  project.
• By contrast Private Companies consider
  Multilateral support and Stable regulatory
  framework much more important parameters in
  relative terms
• In the opposite NGOs are those who rely the least
  in Multilateral support while focusing more in
  Demand-side focus

(1) Only those four groups with the most
significant differences to the average are shown
in the graphics
12
Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Objective Identify key parameters and
barriers in sustainability of energy supply
projects
Results Most respondents consider that
Financial Innovation and Private sector
involvement are the main parameters when dealing
with renewable technology
QUESTION 2
Three main factors modal weighted and percentage
of respondents covered (1)
Average value
What is the relevance of each of the following
parameters to boost renewable technology
deployment in developing countries?

• Financial innovation is the most relevant
  parameter considered to boost renewable
  technology deployment in developing countries
  (65 of respondents consider this factor as the
  most relevant followed by Private sector
  involvement and very close by Transfer of
  technology)
• Those three parameters are considered Very
  relevant by most respondents, while
  Institutional strengthening is considered
  mostly Important (4) or Neutral (3) (57 of
  respondents)
• Financial innovation it is also the parameter
  which obtains the higher percentage of Very
  relevant (5) answers (35 of total respondents).
  In the opposite, only 22 of respondents
  considers that Global International cooperation
  is a Very relevant topic

Analysis
(1) Value calculated as the weighted average of
two main modal values
13
Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Objective Identify key parameters and
barriers in sustainability of energy supply
projects
Differences into groups of respondents (1) North
Americans respondents seem to be the most worried
about Financial Innovation while Multilateral
organizations are very sceptic about Global
International Cooperation
QUESTION 2
World Area of Origin

• Financial innovation and Private sector
  involvement are clearly considered the most
  relevant parameters by North Americas
  respondents
• Respondents from Latin America are also very
  concerned about Financial innovation but in the
  opposite they are very critic with Private
  sector
• RoWs respondents give also little importance to
  Private sector involvement and are those who
  give the higher punctuation to Global
  international cooperation in relative terms

What is the relevance of each of the following
parameters to boost renewable technology
deployment in developing countries?
Type of organization

• Average value of Global International
  Cooperation is clearly lower between
  Multilateral/Bilateral/Financial organizations
  respondents, that seems to be more concerned
  about Financial innovation when dealing with
  renewable energy
• All groups give the highest importance to the
  Financial innovation except Private Companies
  that give much more importance to Private sector
  involvement.
• NGOs consider Institutional strengthening as
  the most important element in relative terms

(1) Only those four groups with the most
significant differences to the average are shown
in the graphics
14
Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Objective Identify key parameters and
barriers in sustainability of energy supply
projects
Results PPP is the proposal with the highest
potential to strengthen sustainability of
renewable projects. Financial innovation need
also to be empowered.
QUESTION 3
Three main factors modal weighted and percentage
of respondents covered (1)
Average value
What is the potential of each of the following
proposals to strengthen sustainability of
renewable projects in developing countries?

• Public-private coordination and partnerships it
  is the most relevant parameter considered to
  strengthen sustainability of renewable projects
  (67 of respondents). Financial innovation is
  also considered as a very important proposal when
  focusing on sustainability of renewable projects.
• 48 of respondents consider that Credit
  guarantee from international agencies is the
  third main parameter. Very close it is the
  proposal of considering a Multi-stakeholder
  approach which obtains higher average value, but
  a modal weighted value of 3.49 (57 of
  population)
• IFIs and commercial banks coordination is
  considered the proposal with the least potential
  and most respondents estimate that its valuation
  is only neutral (3)

Analysis
(1) Value calculated as the weighted average of
two main modal values
15
Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Objective Identify key parameters and
barriers in sustainability of energy supply
projects
Differences into groups of respondents (1)
Important differences between North America and
Latin-America or RoWs respondents. NGOs and
Multilateral organizations dont give to much
potential to the Credit guarantees from
International agencies
QUESTION 3
World Area of Origin

• Respondents from Latin America are those who give
  less importance to PPPs and Credit guarantee
  from international agencies
• North Americans consider than Financial
  innovation and IFI and commercial banks
  coordination are the proposals with higher
  potential and rely less in PPPs in relative
  terms
• On the contrary RoWs respondents give very
  little importance to the Multi-stakeholder
  approach and consider that Credit Guarantees
  is the proposal most relevant to focus on

What is the potential of each of the following
proposals to strengthen sustainability of
renewable projects in developing countries?
Type of organization

• PPPs is the preference among Multilateral and
  Financial organizations that give very little
  importance to Credit guarantees . On the
  contrary Other group considers that Financial
  innovation and specially Credit guarantees are
  by far the proposals with the higher potential
• NGOs seem to be very sceptical towards IFIs and
  commercial banks coordination or Credit
  guarantees from international agencies and gives
  superior potential to PPPs
• Private Companies are also very concerned about
  Credit guarantees (3.67 points)

(1) Only those four groups with the most
significant differences to the average are shown
in the graphics
16
Index Methodology and participation Respondents
Data Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Part B. The role of agents in
sustainable energy supply Part C. Financing of
renewable energy projects in developing
countries Respondents Organizations and country
of origin
17
Part B. The role of agents in sustainable energy
supply Objective Identify the relevance of the
main agents involved in energy supply and the key
parameters that have influence in their
positioning
Results First modal value is 3 for all the
agents, but Private sector obtain the less
percentage (only 9) of Very relevant responses
(5)
QUESTION 4
Main agents modal weighted and percentage of
respondents covered (1)
Average value
In your opinion, how has been the role of each of
the following agents in past rural
electrification projects?

• 55 of respondents considers that NGOs have
  been the agent that has had best performance in
  past rural electrification projects.
• IFIs have also been a relevant agent. This
  agent obtains superior average value but the
  responses are more concentrated in a 3 level.
• Private sector is clearly the agent whose role
  has been less relevant when dealing with rural
  electrification projects. Only 9 of respondents
  considers that its role has been Very relevant
  (5) while 17 estimates that its involvement has
  been Not relevant at all (1)

Analysis
(1) Value calculated as the weighted average of
two main modal values
18
Part B. The role of agents in sustainable energy
supply Objective Identify the relevance of the
main agents involved in energy supply and the key
parameters that have influence in their
positioning
Differences into groups of respondents
Respondents from Latin America and Africa are
the most critical with each group. All groups of
respondents consider that Private sectors role
has been the least important
QUESTION 4
World Area of Origin

• North Americas respondents consider that NGOs
  have been the most important agent in past rural
  electrification projects, and surprisingly
  respondents from Africa are those who give less
  importance to their role
• Respondents from Latin America are the most
  critical towards Private sector involvement
• In general terms, average value of each group is
  higher in responses from North America, Europe
  and Asia-Pacific countries. On the contrary
  responses from Africa and Latin America are the
  lowest

In your opinion, how has been the role of each of
the following agents in past rural
electrification projects?
Type of organization

• Multilateral and Financial agencies are the most
  critical as they give as an average the lowest
  importance to each group
• Private Companies consider that their importance
  in past rural electrification projects has been
  highest than the average valuation in relative
  terms. The same is true when talking about NGOs
  and their own view about their role
• Academic, Analyst and Other communities consider
  that the best performers have been IFIs

19
Part B. The role of agents in sustainable energy
supply Objective Identify the relevance of the
main agents involved in energy supply and the key
parameters that have influence in their
positioning
Results Provide assistance to local
empowerment and Demand oriented approach are
the key topics to focus on to maximize the
positive impact of NGOs electrification projects
QUESTION 5
Three main factors modal weighted and percentage
of respondents covered (1)
Average value
What is the importance of each of the following
topics to maximize Non Government Organization
(NGO) electrification projects impact?

• To maximize the impact of NGOs electrification
  projects, 67 of respondents consider that the
  main issue is to Provide assistance to local
  empowerment, followed by a Demand oriented
  approach (63 of respondents). Previous
  experience is the third most important topic to
  increase sustainability of projects started by
  NGO. All three issues obtain very similar modal
  weighted values
• These three parameters are the only that are
  considered Very Important (5) by most
  respondents (40 of respondents in the case of
  Provide assistance to local empowerment). First
  modal value of Information and sharing of
  experience is 4 with a 33 of responses
• Least important value is the Organization
  financial strength although most respondents
  (33) consider that its relevance is still
  neutral (3)

Analysis
(1) Value calculated as the weighted average of
two main modal values
20
Part B. The role of agents in sustainable energy
supply Objective Identify the relevance of the
main agents involved in energy supply and the key
parameters that have influence in their
positioning
Differences into groups of respondents (1)
Important differences among Europe and North
America respondents and those from RoW. Previous
experience is mostly valued by Multilateral and
Financial Institutions
QUESTION 5
World Area of Origin

• Europe, North America and Africa respondents
  agree that those three topics are the main issues
  to maximize the NGO electrification impact
• Respondents from North America give much more
  importance to Information and sharing of
  experience than the average. Latin Americas
  respondents, on the contrary, consider that this
  is the least important topic
• RoWs respondents are the only group that
  considers Organization financial strength as
  the most important issue to consider. On the
  contrary they estimate that Demand oriented
  approach is the least important parameter.

What is the importance of each of the following
topics to maximize Non Government Organization
(NGO) electrification projects impact?
Type of organization

• Other group is the only that considers
  Organizational financial strength as the most
  important topic. Academics estimate also that
  this topic is most important than Previous
  experience
• Multilateral and financial agencies are those
  that value the Previous experience as the
  leading parameter in an NGO electrification
  project. In relative terms this is also the group
  that gives Information and sharing of
  experience the most importance

(1) Only those four groups with the most
significant differences to the average are shown
in the graphics
21
Part B. The role of agents in sustainable energy
supply Objective Identify the relevance of the
main agents involved in energy supply and the key
parameters that have influence in their
positioning
Results 71 of respondents considers that Lack
of profitability is the main cause that justify
lack of adequate private sector involvement in
rural electrification projects
QUESTION 6
Three main factors modal weighted and percentage
of respondents covered (1)
Average value
What is your agreement with each of the following
sentences related to the causes that justify lack
of adequate private sector involvement in rural
electrification projects?

• Lack of profitability and Poor regulatory
  framework are the main topics that respondents
  consider when talking about private sector
  involvement in rural electrification projects
  (71 and 60 of responses respectively)
• Lack of appropriate financial instruments
  although gets a superior average value obtains
  most responses concentrated in a Neutral (3)
  degree of agreement (32)
• The absence of Appropriate IFIs guarantees is
  the least important cause that justify lack of
  adequate involvement of private sector. Only 13
  of respondents firmly believes (5) that this is
  an important issue
• Subsidies are primary considered as Neutral
  (28 of respondents) although 20 of respondents
  really believes that this topic justify lack of
  adequate private involvement

Analysis
(1) Value calculated as the weighted average of
two main modal values
22
Part B. The role of agents in sustainable energy
supply Objective Identify the relevance of the
main agents involved in energy supply and the key
parameters that have influence in their
positioning
Differences into groups of respondents (1) Lack
of appropriate financial instruments seems to be
a more important argument for respondents from
development countries. Except for Private
Companies , Lack of Profitability is the main
sentence considered
QUESTION 6
World Area of Origin

• Most respondents agree that the absence of
  Appropriate IFIs guarantees is the least
  important cause
• Respondents from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin
  America and RoW consider that the Lack of
  appropriate financial instruments is really the
  main cause that justify the role of private
  sector
• North Americas respondents seems to be the most
  concerned in relative terms about the Existence
  of badly oriented subsidies
• Apart form Lack of profitability European
  respondents consider Poor regulatory framework
  as the second main cause

What is your agreement with each of the following
sentences related to the causes that justify lack
of adequate private sector involvement in rural
electrification projects?
Type of organization

• Private Companies consider that Poor regulatory
  framework is the main cause to justify their
  involvement although they agree that
  profitability matters
• NGO is the group that gives more importance to
  the Existence of badly oriented subsidies in
  relative terms
• All groups, except Other communities, consider
  that Lack of appropriate IFIs guarantees is the
  least important justification

(1) Only those four groups with the most
significant differences to the average are shown
in the graphics
23
Index Methodology and participation Respondents
Data Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Part B. The role of agents in
sustainable energy supply Part C. Financing of
renewable energy projects in developing
countries Respondents Organizations and country
of origin
24
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Results Financial sustainability of renewable
projects is mainly considered from a demand-side
point of view Micro financing schemes and
Productive initiatives are the two main topics
that have significant influence
QUESTION 7
Three main factors modal weighted and percentage
of respondents covered (1)
Average value
What is in your opinion the importance of each of
the following topics that influence financial
sustainability of renewable electrification
projects?

• Microfinancing and linking electrification with
  Productive initiatives are the leading topics
  that influence financial sustainability in
  renewable electrification projects (32 of
  respondents consider Micro financing as a Very
  important (5) topic).
• Availability of proper subsidies is considered
  by 59 of respondents as the third main factor
  that has importance on sustainability. All three
  main factors get very similar punctuations
• Local schemes for collecting is mainly
  considered as an important (4) topic (34 of
  total respondents) while Participation of local
  financial resources, although with superior
  average value, is seemed as a neutral element by
  the majority of respondents (33 of respondents
  consider that its importance is only 3)

Analysis
(1) Value calculated as the weighted average of
two main modal values
25
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Differences into groups of respondents (1)
Micro financing is specially regarded by
Academics, Private Co and NGOs. Local schemes
for collecting it is least important factor by
respondents from Africa and Asia-Pacific
QUESTION 7
World Area of Origin

• Micro financing is considered as the main
  factor by respondents from Europe, North America
  and Latin America.
• Respondents from Africa and RoW estimate that
  Development of productive initiatives is the
  leading topic that influences financial
  sustainability. Latin Americans are also very
  concerned about that issue
• Collecting is the least important factor to
  consider by Asia-Pacifics respondents and
  specially by Africans.
• Availability of subsidies is considered as the
  least important topic by respondents from
  Asia-Pacific and Latin America

What is in your opinion the importance of each of
the following topics that influence financial
sustainability of renewable electrification
projects?
Type of organization

• Micro financing is specially regarded by
  Private Co, Academics and NGOs.
• Analysts and specially Other group estimate that
  the existence of Proper Subsidies are the most
  important element that influences financial
  sustainability. Multilateral and financial
  organizations are the most concerned with the
  Development of productive initiatives and, as
  NGOs, consider the existence of Proper
  Subsidies as the least important factor that has
  influence in financial sustainability
• Local schemes for collecting is not considered
  as the main topic by any of the groups.

(1) Only those four groups with the most
significant differences to the average are shown
in the graphics
26
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Results Renewable energy funds are considered
as the most suitable financial instrument to deal
with renewable rural electrification projects by
a 72 of respondents
QUESTION 8
Three main factors modal weighted and percentage
of respondents covered (1) (2)
Average value (2)
What is in your opinion the suitability of each
of these financial instruments when dealing with
renewable rural electrification projects from an
upstream point of view (entrepreneurs finance)?

• Renewable energy funds and Project financing
  are the two main financial instruments considered
  by respondents when thinking about financing
  renewable electrification projects from an
  entrepreneur point of view. Renewable energy
  funds are specially Very suitable (5)
  according to 43 of respondents
• Securitisation and Portfolio risk instruments
  obtained quite similar punctuations and most
  respondents consider that the suitability of
  those ways of financing is Neutral (3) (23
  of respondents in both cases)
• Mezzanine finance or quasi risk capital is
  clearly the least suitable way of financing
  renewable projects in developing countries. Only
  2 of respondents consider this way of financing
  as Very suitable

Analysis

1. Value calculated as the weighted average of two
   main modal values
2. Responses Unknown/Not Answered not considered

27
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Results The percentage of Unknown/Not
Answered responses was quite important in each
category, specially in Mezzanine finance or
Securitisation
QUESTION 8
Percentage of responses in each category
What is in your opinion the suitability of each
of these financial instruments when dealing with
renewable rural electrification projects from an
upstream point of view (entrepreneurs finance)?

• First modal value in Mezzanine finance,
  Securitisation and even Portfolio risk
  management instruments was Unknown / Not
  Answered. Specially significant is that 53 of
  respondents didnt know or consider mezzanine
  finance opportunities of financing when dealing
  with renewable in developing countries.
• Even among those who valued suitability of
  mezzanine finance, the most frequent answer was
  3. Country and project risks and lack of
  institutional support determine the absence of
  involvement of this kind of financing
• Although Securitisation obtains a high
  percentage of 4 responses, most participants
  didnt consider or know this kind of financing.
  Lack of institutional support and inappropriate
  regulatory frameworks in developing countries
  could explain the absence of opportunities for
  this financing instrument

Analysis
28
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Analysis of Unknown/Not Answered responses (as
of total answers in each group) Financing
instruments like Project finance are still
unknown by more than 15 of Europe, North and
Latin Americas respondents. Academics is the
group that obtain the worst percentages in each
category
QUESTION 8
World Area of Origin

• Mezzanine finance is not known by more than 50
  of respondents from each area except from
  Asia-Pacifics respondents (30)
• RoW countries seem to be the best knower of new
  forms of financing apart from Mezzanine finance
• Project finance was even unknown by more than
  15 of European, North and Latin Americas
  respondents
• Europes respondents were those more unaware of
  Securitisation tools (almost 40 of respondents)

What is in your opinion the suitability of each
of these financial instruments when dealing with
renewable rural electrification projects from an
upstream point of view (entrepreneurs finance)?
Type of organization

• Academics obtain the worst percentages in each
  category and specially, in relative terms, in
  Portfolio risk instruments or Mezzanine
  finance
• By contrast Private Companies are those who best
  know instruments like Project finance or
  Renewable energy funds
• Multilateral and Financing agencies are the group
  that is more in touch with Mezzanine finance or
  Portfolio risk management instruments
• NGOs seems to be quite balanced although the
  percentage of Unknown responses in Risk
  management tools is high in relative terms

29
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Differences into groups of respondents excluding
Unknown/Not Answered responses (1) Renewable
energy funds are specially regarded by all
groups. Latin Americas respondents are quite
sceptical towards Securitisation and NGOs
seems to be more fond of Risk Instruments than
the average
QUESTION 8
World Area of Origin

• Latin Americas respondents are those who think
  that suitability of Renewable energy funds is
  the higher, while confidence in Securitisation
  is the lowest
• All groups except from Latin America and RoW
  consider that Mezzanine finance is the least
  suitable instrument
• North Americas respondents consider that
  suitability of Securitisation is higher than
  the average value
• Renewable energy funds are positively
  considered by Africas respondents while
  suitability of Project finance instruments is
  much lower than the average

What is in your opinion the suitability of each
of these financial instruments when dealing with
renewable rural electrification projects from an
upstream point of view (entrepreneurs finance)?
Type of organization

• All groups consider Renewable energy funds as
  the best instruments to deal with renewable rural
  electrification projects
• Surprisingly NGOs respondents are those that
  consider suitability of Portfolio risk
  management instruments as the highest in
  relative terms
• All groups except from Multilateral and Financing
  agencies consider that suitability of Mezzanine
  financing is the lowest. Multilateral and
  Financing agencies, by contrast, consider its
  suitability as higher even than Securitisation
  or Portfolio risk management instruments

(1) Only those four groups with the most
significant differences to the average are shown
in the graphics
30
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Results Except from Commercial loans and
Leasing the rest of instruments are considered
very suitable by most respondents, being
Revolving funds the most appropriate instrument
QUESTION 9
Three main factors modal weighted and percentage
of respondents covered (1) (2)
Average value (2)
What is the suitability of each of these
financial instruments when dealing with renewable
rural electrification projects from a downstream
point of view (end-user finance)?.

• Revolving funds and Productive end-user
  application linkage are the preferred financial
  instruments by most respondents. The majority of
  respondents (26 and 29 respectively) consider
  these proposals as Very suitable (5). First
  modal value for Micro credits is 4 with 33
  of respondents, although 29 of respondents
  consider also this instruments as Very suitable
• Clearly Leasing instruments are identified as
  the least suitable for financing renewable rural
  electrification projects from a downstream point
  of view. Only11 of respondents consider this
  instrument as Very suitable
• Commercial loans are also considered not to be
  very appropriate. 26 of respondents think that
  suitability is only 1 or 2, while only 9
  value those instruments as Very suitable

Analysis

1. Value calculated as the weighted average of two
   main modal values
2. Responses Unknown/Not Answered not considered

31
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Results Instruments that are considered most
suitable for financing renewable rural
electrification projects from a end-user
perspective are also those which get the higher
percentages of Unknown/Not Answered responses
QUESTION 9
Percentage of responses in each category
What is the suitability of each of these
financial instruments when dealing with renewable
rural electrification projects from a downstream
point of view (end-user finance)?.

• Revolving funds are considered the most
  appropriate instruments although the percentage
  of respondents that didnt know this tool was
  quite high (20). The same is true for
  Productive end-user application linkage that
  obtains 16 of responses as Unknown/Not
  Answered
• First modal value in Revolving funds and
  Productive end-user application linkage was
  Very suitable (5) while Commercial loans
  and Leasing only got a 3 as the most frequent
  value. Percentage of respondents that considered
  Leasing been Not suitable at all was 14
• Microcredits and Commercial loans are the
  instruments whose percentage of Unknown responses
  is the lowest (11)

Analysis
32
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Analysis of Unknown/Not Answered responses (as
of total answers in each group) The relative
percentage of Unknown in all the instruments
proposed was higher in between European and
Academics responses. Only Multilateral and
Financing Institutions were aware of all the
alternatives proposed
QUESTION 9
World Area of Origin

• European respondents are those who are more
  unaware of most financing instruments from a
  downstream point of view (33 of respondents
  didnt know Revolving funds)
• On the contrary respondents from Africa and
  Asia-Pacific were those with the lowest
  percentages of unknown answers in each of the
  different opportunities for financing
• Percentage of U/N.A for Leasing in RoWs
  countries is specially high (31)

What is the suitability of each of these
financial instruments when dealing with renewable
rural electrification projects from a downstream
point of view (end-user finance)?.
Type of organization

• Only Multilateral and Financing institutions were
  aware of all the instruments proposed
• Apart from the previous group, in relative terms,
  NGO and Analyst were also the best knowers of
  different alternatives
• On the contrary Academics responses obtained the
  highest percentages of Unknown/Not answered in
  all the categories
• Among Private Companies responses the percentage
  of Unknown for Revolving funds or Leasing
  was quite high

33
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Differences into groups of respondents excluding
Unknown/Not Answered responses (1) North
Americas respondents still consider Micro
credits as the most suitable instrument. All
groups agree that Leasing instruments are among
the worst
QUESTION 9
World Area of Origin

• Africas respondents are those that consider that
  Revolving funds are the most suitable
  instrument even better than Micro credits.
  Notwithstanding respondents from North America
  estimate than Micro credits are by far the most
  appropriate financial instrument
• Respondents from Latin America and RoW are the
  most critical towards Commercial loans, while
  North Americas respondents consider that
  Leasing is the worst instrument in relative
  terms.
• Asia-Pacifics respondents also estimate that
  Revolving funds are the most suitable
  instruments

What is the suitability of each of these
financial instruments when dealing with renewable
rural electrification projects from a downstream
point of view (end-user finance)?.
Type of organization

• All groups except NGOs consider Commercial
  loans the least suitable instrument. This group
  of respondents estimates that Leasing is the
  least appropriate while Micro credits should be
  clearly empowered
• Multilateral and financial agencies, Academics
  and Private Companies agree that linking
  electrification with Productive end-user
  applications is the most suitable instrument to
  assure sustainability. On the contrary NGOs and
  specially Analyst or researchers give much less
  punctuation to this proposal in relative terms

(1) Only those four groups with the most
significant differences to the average are shown
in the graphics
34
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Results 53 of respondents consider that
Flexibility Kyoto Mechanisms have high potential
to contribute to renewable deployment in
developing countries
QUESTION 10
Main factors modal weighted and percentage of
respondents covered (1)
Average value
What is in your opinion the potential of the
following topics to contribute to rural renewable
projects deployment in developing countries?

• Potential of both topics seems to be as much
  important from an average value perspective.
  Notwithstanding potential of Flexibility Kyoto
  Mechanisms is much more considered from a modal
  point of view (28 of respondents consider that
  Kyoto Mechanisms have a Very high (5)
  potential, while most respondents (31) consider
  that the potential of Corporate Social
  Responsibility is only Medium (3))
• Still 10 of respondents consider that the
  potential to contribute to rural renewable
  projects deployment could be Not important at
  all (1) in the case of Kyoto Mechanisms

Analysis
(1) Value calculated as the weighted average of
two main modal values
35
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Differences into groups of respondents
Multilateral and Financial institutions are the
most sceptical towards both topics. Respondents
from Asia-Pacific and Africa are those that
consider that CSR has a higher potential to
explore
QUESTION 10
World Area of Origin

• RoW countries seem to be the more enthusiastic
  with Kyoto instruments while the rest of regions
  of the World have a similar point of view
• Respondents from Africa and specially
  Asia-Pacific give much more importance to CSR
  than the average, and on the contrary Europe and
  North-Americas respondents are much more
  sceptical
• Latin America and Caribbeans respondents do not
  discriminate in between both proposals

What is in your opinion the potential of the
following topics to contribute to rural renewable
projects deployment in developing countries?
Type of organization

• Multilateral and financial institutions are
  clearly the most sceptical towards both topics as
  they consider that their potential is lower than
  3
• Private Companies, Academics and Other group are
  those who rely the most on Flexibility Kyoto
  mechanisms
• NGOs and Analyst are the only groups that
  estimate that CSR could have superior potential
  that Flexibility Kyoto mechanisms

36
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Results Approximately 70 of respondents consider
that Institutional support, Local empowerment
and Innovative financing have a High or Very
High potential to increase resource mobilisation
to finance renewable electrification solutions
QUESTION 11
Three main factors modal weighted and percentage
of respondents covered (1)
Average value
What is in your opinion the potential of each of
this topics to increase resource mobilisation to
finance renewable electrification solutions in
developing countries?

• Approximately 40 of respondents consider that
  those three topics have Very high (5)
  potential to increase resource mobilisation. Only
  3 of respondents estimate that Innovative
  financing has a Very low (1) potential to
  increase the possibility of new financing
• Adjustment of existing subsidies is considered
  the proposal with lowest potential to obtain
  resources but 57.5 of respondents estimate that
  its potential is still medium-high (3.5)
• Most respondents opinion with regard to RD and
  demonstration activities (29) is that their
  potential to increase resource mobilisation is
  medium (3)

Analysis
(1) Value calculated as the weighted average of
two main modal values
37
Part C. Financing of renewable energy projects in
developing countries Objective Identify best
practices when financing renewable projects in
developing countries
Differences into groups of respondents (1)
Innovative financing should be clearly
empowered by North Americas respondents and
Multilateral and Financial Institutions while
Private Companies and Europeans are more
concerned about Institutional support and good
regulatory framework
QUESTION 11
World Area of Origin

• Adjustment of subsidies is the proposal with
  the lowest potential except for North America and
  Europe respondents that clearly agree that RD
  has the lowest potential to increase resource
  mobilisation
• Innovative financing is the main topic
  considered by North America, Asia-Pacific and
  Africa respondents.
• Latin Americas countries estimate that Local
  empowerment has superior potential to boost
  resource mobilisation

What is in your opinion the potential of each of
this topics to increase resource mobilisation to
finance renewable electrification solutions in
developing countries?
Type of organization

• Multilateral and Financial institutions are those
  who rely the most on Innovative financing and
  Local empowerment. They dont consider RD has
  a high potential to increase resource
  mobilisation
• Institutional support and good regulatory
  framework are the main concerns of Private
  Companies that, by the opposite, do not rely on
  RD as a way of obtaining new resources
• Academics agree that Innovative financing and
  Institutional support are the leading topics to
  address in the future

(1) Only those four groups with the most
significant differences to the average are shown
in the graphics
38
Index Methodology and participation Respondents
Data Part A. Energy supply in developing
countries Part B. The role of agents in
sustainable energy supply Part C. Financing of
renewable energy projects in developing
countries Respondents Organizations and country
of origin
39
Respondents Organizations and country of origin
(1)
Universidad Oriente, Uttaranchal Academy Of
Administration, Nainital, Uttaranchal, IUCN
Commission on Environmental Law, Fundacion
Bariloche, U. P. Comillas, Research Centre for
Applied Science and Technology (RECAST),
Universidad Central de Las Villas, U. Carlos III,
Montorf University, IIT-UPCO, Ecole des Mines de
Nantes, University of Engineering and Technology
Taxila,Indian Institute of Science, Aalborg
University, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
Imperial College London, Ankara Univ. Science,
Universidad de Antioquia, University of Twente,
Atmospheric Research and Information Analysis,
Centre for Energy Research and Development,
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife,Kwame Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology, University
of Bahrain, Ho Chi Minh City University of
Technology, Kao-Mei Institute of Technology,
American University of Beirut, V. P. R.P. T. P.
Science College, Brno University of Technology,
South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission,
University of São Paulo, Politehnica University
of Timisoara, Graz University of Technology,
Universidade Federal do Pará, Universidad
Nacional De San Juan, University of applied
sciences, West Switzerland, Higher Technical
Institute, The University of Melbourne, Cairo
University, Al-Nahrain University College of
Engineering,Santa Clara University, Worldwatch
Institute, Universidad Católica de Valparaiso,
Omdurman Islamic University, Advanced School of
Business Novi Sad, MIT, University of Texas,
University of Chile, Sts. Cyril and Methodius
University
Academic
Energy and Development Action (EDA), Electriciens
sans frontières, Energia sin Fronteras, Kora
Evangelistic Family Associates, Enerwise Africa,
Energy Conservation Research Development Center
(ENERTEAM), Centre for EcoHarmony and
Development,Integrated Development Foundation
Nepal, SESSA, Iranian Society of
Environmentalists, Egyptian Solar Energy Society,
Tanzania Solar Energy Association, NEPA-Núcleo de
Ensino e Pesquisa Aplicada, European Copper
Institute, Association for promoting renewable
energy in Cyprus, Skyheat Associates, Friends of
Lanka,Working Group on Development Techniques
(WOT),Energy Forum,Fundación IPADE,Grupo
Interdisciplinario de Tecnología Rural Apropiada
A.C.,International Solar Energy Association, NGO
Loke Dalan, Fundación Gente Nueva, The Danish
Organisation for Renewable Energy
NGO
(1) List of organizations that explicitly have
provided their name and country in the survey.
Only respondents data
40
Respondents Organizations and country of origin
(1)
Clouston Energy Research, LLC, StonePower AB,
Parallax Sustainable Development Solutions, ECO
Ltd, Telefonica, InterMoney Energía, Iberdrola,
Unión Fenosa, Ecosynchron Pvt. Ltd., Tinytech
India, Social Energy, UNESA, NORESCO LLC, GM
Engg Industries, Deng Limited, Marstal District
Heating, Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd, Conti
Enterprises Inc.,SUZLON Energy Limited, Energía
Dinamica S,A, Cogen Energía España SAU, Isofoton,
Propel Bhd., Beta Engineering Services,ICPE-Labora
tory for Energy Conversion Technology-02, IOSYS
LIMITED, Solar Ice Company, Umeme Jua Ltd,Solar
Technology Ltd, Solar technospread plc, Soldata,
Aquila Energy, RAPS Consulting Pty Ltd, NET Nowak
Energy Technology Ltd.
Private Co
International Science and Technology Center
(ISTC), FAO- UN Food and Agriculture
Organization, UE, DoE (Department of Energy),
African Development Bank, Organización
Latinoamericana de Energía - OLADE, World Bank,
World Energy Council, DFID, UNDP, UNECA
Multilateral, or Financial organization
ATDE S.L.,Bureau of Environmental Analysis (BEA)
International,CCH Consulting,Compuserve,Palmer
Development Consulting, EnerConsult,PA Energy
A/S, InterEnergy s.r.l., Energy Research Centre,
Univ. Cape Town, Carl Bro as, Midsummer Sparks
Electrics, Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research, Instituto Tecnológico de Canarias
(ITC), Bureau dEtudes Techniques et de
Surveillance ,Rural Industries Promotions Company
(RIPCO), Green Energy System, Universal Trading,
Research or consultancy
CNE, DG Tren, Energy Management Centre-Kerala,
Trivandrum-14, Soccièté National des Eaux du
Cameroun (SNEC), Texas Solar Cookers, MECC,
Arsenal research, Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Development, Kampala, Green Empowerment, Sumitomo
electric industry, Instituto de Investigaciones
Eléctricas, Ormat Systems Ltd
Other
(1) List of organizations that voluntary have
provided their name and country in the survey.
Only respondents data
41
Respondents Organizations and country of origin
(1)
Worldwide survey 69 Countries of origin
Europe
Spain, Sweden, Germany, UK, France, Italy,
Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Romania, Switzerland, Serbia and
Montenegro, Switzerland, Macedonia
Asia-Pacific
Nepal, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, China, Iran,
Japan, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Australia,
Fiji, Malaysia, Indonesia
Cameroon, Congo, South Africa, Kenya, Zimbabwe,
Chair, Uganda, Tunisia, The State of Eritrea,
Cabo Verde, Nigeria, Mauritania, Tanzania, Ghana,
Mali, Ethiopia, Bostwana, Timor-Leste, Sudan
Africa
North America
USA, Canada
Cuba, Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, Brasil,
Mexico, Guatemala, Chile
Latin America and Caribbean
Rest of the World
Jordan, Russia, Turkey, Nepal, Egypt, Israel,
Kingdom of Bahrain, Lebanon, Iraq
(1) List of organizations that voluntary have
provided their name and country in the survey.
Only respondents data