A proposed model for expanding the DEA experience

1
A proposed model for expanding the DEA
experience regional resource networks

• Proposing a desktop construction from North
• Which obstacles are overlooked?
• Which resources are neglected?

2
Long term objectives

• Enhance energy policy through the incorporation
  of ME of energy for development as an
  independent activity
• Equip donor recepients with a tool to evaluate
  energy interventions and communicate their
  experiences to donors

3
Methods

• Establish donor- and government independent,
  regional resource networks for ME of energy in
  development, in sub-Sahara Africas regions
  South, East/Central, and West
• Promote awareness of MEED and human capacity
  through successful, regional cooperation on the
  implementation of MEED projects

4
Regional forums

• Utilize existing networks, (e.g. KNSEA, ECOWAS,
  SADC, EAC),
• to
• disseminate ME skills
• provide feedback on ME plans
• coordinate/assist ME activities in different
  types of interventions and/or across contexts
• exchange/compare ME results and experiences

5
Existing/conceivable MEED capacity resources

• The African DEA collaboration partners in
  Botswana, Ghana, Mali, Senegal, Tanzania and
  Zambia
• The group of European MEED experts that have
  developed the GVEP guide
• African collaboration partners of the European
  MEED group
• Other local African capacity with MEED
  experience?

6
Conceivable short-term finance?

• EU collaboration research projects (e.g. with the
  UNEP Risoe Center and organisations represented
  in the GVEP MEED group)?
• Multilateral donors?
• Local utilities or public authorities?
• Regional Economic Councils?

7
Long term finance

• Self-financing/business model Local stakeholders
  and/or large donors pay for ME services
• GVEP has raised some money to set up a Southern
  African (pilot?) business model facility
• A feasibility study/business plan is imminent.
• Business model assumes local demand and capacity
  to pay.

8
What does the current situation look like?

• Assume a high interest but local MEED capacity
  is a bottle
• neck, then
• Best case scenario Existing and forthcoming
  interventions have built-in MEED modules and
  dedicated budget lines.
• Worst case scenario Existing and forthcoming
  interventions do not encompass MEED and budget
  lines are none-existent or insufficient.

9
Key questions

• What are the current, local levels of interest,
  demand, and ability to pay for ME services?
• What is the scope for intra-regional cooperation?
• Which resources does this proposition neglect?
• Which obstacles does the proposition overlook?
• How does the existing, local ME capacity look
  like?
• Which ME services including capacity
  development - are
• currently in demand?
• Who will/should supply the services?