Final Report Cover - Mines and Energy Nam · 2007. 2. 12. · E:\UNDP REPORTS\Cordination Frame...

$: Final Report Cover - Mines and Energy Nam · 2007. 2. 12. · E:\UNDP REPORTS\Cordination Frame Work\610.Final Report.doc 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: This project,$
MINISTRY OF MINES AND ENERGYDIRECTORATE OF ENERGY

BARRIER REMOVAL TO NAMIBIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMME (NAMREP)

RET PROJECTS CORET PROJECTS CO--ORDINATION FRAMEWORK ORDINATION FRAMEWORK AMONGST PUBLIC INSTITUTIONSAMONGST PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

FINAL PROJECTFINAL PROJECT REPORTREPORT

PREPARED BY

CHRISTOPH SCHUMANNDevelopment Consultant

5 MAY 2006

AMUSHA SOLAR NAMIBIA

NNNAAAMMMRRREEEPPP ––– FFFOOORRRMMMUUULLLAAATTTIIIOOONNN OOOFFF AAA RRREEETTT PPPRRROOOJJJEEECCCTTTSSS CCCOOO---OOORRRDDDIIINNNAAATTTIIIOOONNN FFFRRRAAAMMMEEEWWWOOORRRKKK AAAMMMOOONNNGGGSSSTTT PPPUUUBBBLLLIIICCC IIINNNSSSTTTIIITTTUUUTTTIIIOOONNNSSS IIINNN NNNAAAMMMIIIBBBIIIAAA

E:\UNDP REPORTS\Cordination Frame Work\610.Final Report.doc 1

TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS NO. SECTION PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

1. INTRODUCTION 13

1.1 Background 13 1.1.1 UNDP/GEF/MME Barrier Removal to Namibian Renewable Energy 13 Programme 1.1.2 The Project 13 1.1.3 Project Implementation Methodology 14 1.1.4 Stakeholder Interviews 14 2. THE EXISTING SITUATION 15

2.1 Identification of Public Institutions that Fund, Operate or Maintain 15 Solar Energy Technologies

2.2 Budgeting and Funding 16 2.2.1 Line Ministries 16 2.2.2 Parastatals 17

2.3 Implementation 17 2.3.1 Line Ministries 17

2.3.2 Parastatals 19

2.4 Operation and Maintenance 19 2.4.1 Line Ministries 19 2.4.2 Parastatals 20

3. EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING SITUATION 20

3.1 Budgeting and Funding 20 3.1.1 Line Ministries 20 3.1.2 Parastatals 22

3.2 Implementation 22 3.2.1 Line Ministries 22 3.2.2 Parastatals 23

3.3 Operation and Maintenance 23 3.3.1 Line Ministries 23 3.3.2 Parastatals 24



TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS ((CCoonnttiinnuueedd))

NO. SECTION PAGE

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 25

4.1 Introduction 25 4.2 Recommendations 25

5. APPENDICES 40

5.1 Stakeholder Interview Guideline 41

5.2 Workshop Programme, Speech and Presentation 45

5.3 Workshop Report 59

LIST OF ACRONYMS

MAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism MHA Ministry of Home Affairs MIB Ministry of Information and Broadcasting MME Ministry of Mines and Energy MoD Ministry of Defence MoE Ministry of Education MoF Ministry of Finance MoHSS Ministry of Health and Social Services MRLGHRD Ministry of Regional and Local Government, Housing and Rural

Development MWTC Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication DoW Department of Works (MWTC) MTC Mobile Telecommunications Corporation NBC Namibian Broadcasting Corporation NPCS National Planning Commission Secretariat NAMREP Namibian Renewable Energy Programme EE Energy Efficiency PV Photovoltaic REEE Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Institute RET Renewable Energy Technology SET Solar Energy Technology SWH Solar Water Heater



EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:

This project, Formulation of a Renewable Energy Technology (RET) Projects Co-ordination Framework Amongst Public Institutions in Namibia, is one of several projects that are currently being implemented by the UNDP/GEF/MME Barrier Removal to Namibian Renewable Energy Programme (NAMREP). The mission of NAMREP is to increase affordable access to RE services and accelerate market development for RE technologies by reducing institutional, information, human capacity, financial, technical, awareness and other market barriers. NAMREP’s is primarily concerned with solar energy technologies (SET), therefore RET will be replaced by SET for the remained of the Executive Summary. The NAMREP PMU identified the need for this project after having visited several buildings operated by line Ministries (schools, hostels, clinics, etc.) that are located in off-grid areas and have solar energy technology (SET) installations. The PMU noted that approximately 60% of those installations were not operating for one reason or another. Based on these alarming findings, the PMU identified the need for new and improved SET project co-ordination mechanisms amongst public institutions. The new and improved mechanisms are to be developed for all three phases of SET projects: budgeting and funding (planning); design and construction/installation (implementation); and, operation and maintenance/repair.

Consulting Services Africa (CSA), together with two sub-consultants, was appointed in December 2005 to execute this project. The Consulting Team developed the project implementation methodology during the preparation of the Technical Proposal. NAMREP then approved the methodology upon appointing the Team to the project. The following figure summarises the methodology:

FINDINGS:

The Consulting Team identified the Government Ministries and parastatals that currently use SET’s and conducted various stakeholder interviews to gain a better understanding of the existing situation. Additional issues were identified during the stakeholder workshop. The following points summarise the most important findings:

Budgeting and Funding Stage:

! The MWTC – Department of Works is severely under-funded. ! There is a general lack of awareness by Government planners in all Ministries

regarding the potential economic benefits of SET’s. ! Co-ordination should be improved between the NPCS and MoF during the process

of determining capital budgets (NPCS) and recurrent budgets (MoF). ! There appears to be a lack of internal communication within line Ministries, and

external communication between the line Ministries and NPCS, regarding the funding that is required to renovate or significantly repair existing SET’s.

1 Project

Implementation

2 Stakeholder Interviews

3 Prepare

Draft Report

4 Review by Client

& Stakeholders

5 Stakeholder Workshop

6 Finalise &

Submit Report to Client



Implementation Stage:

! Engineers do not always specify the most appropriate and up-to-date SET technologies, because their technological knowledge is often not sufficient and up to date.

! There have been too many different and incompatible SET’s components available in Namibia. Some have been of poor quality and therefore have been less dependable.

! Technical personnel within the line Ministries and MWTC do not request engineers and architects to specify solar water heaters (SWH) in grid areas.

! It would appear that the technical personnel within the line Ministries and MWTC do not have the expertise and knowledge required to review the specifications for SET’s that are prepared and submitted for review by engineers and architects.

! The technical personnel within parastatals generally appear to be very capable and knowledgeable about SET’s.

Operation and Maintenance/Repair Stage:

! SET components are frequently stolen or vandalised. ! MWTC-DoW is generally not dependable when they are requested to repair SET’s. ! Sometimes the chain of communication from line Ministry end-user (ex. clinic or

hostel), to Regional line Ministry office, to Regional DoW office, is cumbersome and time consuming.

! Neither MWTC-DoW nor the line Ministries have a comprehensive and up-to-date database of SET installations.

! The regional offices of MWTC-DoW do not have sufficient stocks of spare components for SET’s.

! The SET’s that are owned and maintained/repaired by MAWF and Parastatals have a much better performance record than the SET’s owned by line Ministries and maintained/repaired by DoW.

! No formal co-ordination framework exists amongst parastatals with respect to maintenance.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Based upon individual discussions with stakeholders, the open discussion at the stakeholder workshop, the Consulting Team formulated the fourteen recommendations. The recommendations represent what the Consulting Team believes would be essential to significantly improve the current situation. Emphasis has been placed on making recommendations that have a clear and practical path for implementation. Almost all of the recommendations could be initiated by NAMREP during Phase 2.

RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 111

Project Phase: Planning, Budgeting and Funding Description: Provide regular awareness raising and information dissemination regarding SET’s to infrastructure planners and decision-makers at NPCS, MoF, DoW, line Ministries, and parastatals.



Background: Government planners and decision-makers should be regularly informed about the potential advantages and applications of SET’s. The informing process should include as a central focus comparisons of SET’s with other technologies using life cycle costing. The aim of the awareness raising campaign is not only about informing officials about the potential cost and environmental benefits of SET’s, it is also about increasing the number of SET installations in order to achieve economies of scale and the critical mass needed for a cost-effective product support base. The method of informing could have several different forms: brochures and booklets, small group presentations for individual Ministries, emails and emailed attachments, workshops, etc. However, it is the Consultancy Team’s opinion that small group presentations to individual Ministries would be the most effective method of raising awareness. Energy efficient building design and operation could also be incorporated into the awareness raising initiatives. While energy efficiency is not within the scope of this project, it would be logical to connect awareness raising initiatives for SET’s with energy efficiency since both concern sustainable energy supply and consumption. Implementation Responsibilities: This task should be the responsibility of the soon-to-be-established Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (REEE) Institute. However, since the Institute has not yet been established, NAMREP should promptly implement the awareness raising initiatives suggested above, for example small group presentations at individual Ministries.


Project Phase: Planning, Budgeting and Funding Description: NPCS and MoF should co-ordinate with each other and use life cycle costing when evaluating and establishing recurrent and capital budgets for line Ministries. Background: The greatest advantage of SET’s is the reduction in operation costs due to reduced electricity and fuel consumption. However, the greatest disadvantage of SET’s is the high, initial capital cost. NPCS is responsible for approving the annual capital budgets of line Ministries. It is prohibited by the State Finance Act to fund any type of maintenance or operational costs from the development budget. MoF approves the annual recurrent budgets of line Ministries, which include the operational costs related to electricity and fuel expenditures. Typically, if a line Ministry is able to reduce its total annual recurrent expenditure below the annual budget amount, then MoF will reduce the annual budget amount for the following year (“zero-sum budgeting”). This situation presents an additional barrier to SET’s above and beyond the initially high capital cost. Therefore, it is recommended that NPCS and MoF account for the savings in recurrent expenditures that line Ministries achieve using SET’s, and then transfer that amount to the annual capital budgets. These funds should than be used to install additional SET’s, which would result in further savings.



Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should meet with NPCS and MoF to initiate the above recommended budget co-ordination. NAMREP should also assist the NPCS and MoF by providing life cycle cost data on all different types and sizes of SET’s. In addition, NAMREP should encourage Government to consider the establishment of a funding mechanism for SET’s in public institutions -– for example, a RET Energisation Fund that is funded from concessional loans or grants.


Project Phase: Implementation (Design and Construction) Description: SET suppliers, NAMREP and/or the Renewable Energy Institute should regularly inform architects and engineers about the importance and relevance of using SET’s in Namibia, and provide them with practical information regarding good design/specification practices, up-to-date component costs, recommended maintenance plans, etc. Background: In their task to meet project deadlines and budgets, engineers and architects do not always have readily available and up-to-date information regarding SET components. They also are not always aware of when and where SET’s should be considered over conventional technologies. Given that there is a relatively small number of engineers and architects in Namibia, it would make sense for suppliers, NAMREP and/or the Renewable Energy Institute to distribute current product information on a regular basis, and to conduct awareness raising workshops regarding when and where SET’s should be considered. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should encourage the suppliers to distribute product information to engineers and architects. NAMREP and/or the yet-to-be-established Renewable Energy Institute should also compile technical information and distribute it to engineers and architects. NAMREP or the Renewable Energy Institute could also consider establishing an internet website to facilitate the distribution of information. NAMREP should conduct an awareness raising / technical information workshop specifically for architects and engineers.


Project Phase: Implementation (Design and Construction) Description: DoW should hire a qualified SET engineer, either internally or as a consultant, to review all designs and specifications for SET’s.



Background: The designs and specifications for SET’s that are prepared by engineers and architects are reviewed by DoW within the confines of its institutional limitations. As a result, contractors sometimes install poorly selected systems or components according to poorly prepared designs and specifications; and most times SET’s (such as SWH’s) are not specified when they should be. DoW needs a full-time, qualified engineer(s) to review designs and specifications or, preferably, it should outsource this duty to qualified engineering consultants. In addition to ensuring that SET’s are properly designed and specified, the DoW engineer should also ensure that SET’s are used whenever it makes sense according to a life cycle cost analysis. Implementation Responsibilities: DoW should take the initiative in hiring a full-time engineer, or outsourcing technical reviews to private sector engineers. NAMREP should consult and encourage DoW in this respect, and they should identify the standard tasks to be performed by technical review engineers.


Project Phase: Implementation (Design and Construction) Description: SET standardisation should be established for Government SET projects. Background: There are many different SET’s and SET components available, but some are of such poor quality that they should not be utilised by public institutions. NAMREP should identify the minimum quality and performance standards for public institution SET’s. As part of the standardisation, NAMREP should prepare and provide DoW and line Ministries a list of suppliers that sell “approved” SET’s components.

Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP, as discussed above.


Project Phase: Implementation (Design and Construction) Description: A variety of preventative actions need to be implemented to minimise theft of Government-owned SET’s. Background: Theft was identified as the number one problem affecting the performance of Government-owned SET’s. The following steps are recommended to address this problem:



1) Manufacturers or suppliers need to put easily visible identification numbers on all SET’s sold to public institutions, so that the numbers can be recorded and referred to later during police investigations, for example.

2) DoW and line Ministries should require SET suppliers to paint Government SET’s an easily identifiable colour, such as green.

3) Construction tenders must include theft-proof infrastructure, such as razor-wire mesh fence and lockable battery storage rooms.

Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should discuss with local suppliers and DoW about how best to implement the suggested measures described above. NAMREP should also recommend to DoW and line Ministries that the above measures are incorporated into installers’ tenders.


Project Phase: Implementation (Design and Construction) and Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: DoW and line Ministries should learn from the successes of parastatals and MAWF. Background: With the exception of MAWF-Rural Water Supply, the performance of SET’s owned by parastatals is clearly better than SET’s owned by Government. In some cases, the difference in performance is due to better component specifications, such as low-maintenance batteries. In other cases, it is due to better maintenance and repair. The DoW should therefore make an attempt to learn from parastatals and MAWF-Rural Water Supply. Implementation Responsibilities: It is recommended that NAMREP request parastatals and MAWF-Rural Water Supply to provide technical guidance to DoW regarding the best types of SET’s to use and how to provide effective maintenance and repair.


Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: A comprehensive inventory of all Government SET’s should be performed and regularly updated. Background: In order to make the maintenance and repair of Government SET’s more efficient and effective, a GIS database should be created that would record the type, age, location, etc. of all Government SET’s in Namibia. The database should be maintained and updated regularly by a person working within MME, or an appointed consultant (once established, this consignment could be outsourced to the REEE Institute). A critical step in the creation of the database would be the implementation of a national inventory of all



Government SET’s. The inventory would obviously require extensive co-ordination with DoW and line Ministries, and extensive travelling throughout Namibia. Every SET installation would be visited, as required, to obtain or verify critical information. Information in the database would be made available to technicians, engineers, Government personnel and anyone else who is involved in the maintenance and repair or planning of Government SET’s. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should facilitate the performance of the inventory, creation of the GIS database, and training of personnel on how to maintain and update the database.


Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: Installation tenders should include the provision of important spare parts and a 3-month supply of deionized water, as required. Background: The findings indicate that the amount of time required for DoW to repair SET’s is often prolonged due to the process of ordering spare parts from Windhoek and waiting for them to be delivered to remote areas. This problem could be minimised if the key spare parts or components are provided by the supplier/installer during the initial installation of the SET. Similarly, it is often difficult or impossible in remote areas to purchase deionized water that is required for battery maintenance. It is therefore recommended that the supplier/installer provide a 3-month supply of deionized water during the initial installation of SET, if the batteries are the type that require water maintenance. Both the spare parts and the deionized water would be stored inside the lockable battery storage room. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should first identify the key parts to be included in installation tenders. NAMREP should then recommend to DoW that the above recommendations be incorporated into SET installation tenders. DoW would then be responsible for requesting architects and engineers to incorporate the recommendations in the installation tenders.


Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: DoW should outsource maintenance and repair of SET’s at Government buildings to private sector technicians.



Background: It is clear that DoW currently has only limited financial and human resources to provide maintenance and repair service to Government SET’s. The responsibility of maintaining and repairing Government SET’s should be regarded as a specialised non-core function that needs to be outsourced to specialists. DoW should outsource the maintenance and repair of all Government building SET’s. Maintenance and repair contracts could be established for all Government building SET’s located within a Region, or a section of the Region. The contract would be awarded through a public tender process. The tender document would be carefully crafted. Tenderers would be required to prove that they are technically capable of performing the required work; they are capable of performing site visits and repairing SET’s in a timely manner; they have sufficient spare parts and tools; and their business is financially sound and not at risk of bankruptcy. Contracts would be awarded based on rates for site visits and rates for labour, not on a lump sum basis which is not connected to the actual amount of work to be performed. However, a minimum annual payment amount could be established so as to make the contract feasible and sustainable. There are several details to be worked out for the outsourcing contract. However, it is clear that comprehensive, detailed tender documents are essential in order for DoW to be in a position to properly control the appointed technicians and ensure that outsourcing remains sustainable. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should prepare draft terms of reference for an outsourcing contract and present it to DoW, line Ministries, MoF and MME. NAMREP should also prepare cost estimates of the maintenance and repair contracts for each Region (or sub-Region) so that the financial implications can be better understood. DoW would then be responsible for acting on the information provided by NAMREP.


IMPORTANT NOTE: RECOMMENDATION 10 WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO FUNDING THE OUTSOURCING OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, AS DESCRIBED IN RECOMMENDATION 9. HOWEVER, THE CONSULTING TEAM BELIEVES THAT RECOMMENDATION 9 WOULD BE THE BEST APPROACH TO OUTSOURCING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR IN A COMPREHENSIVE AND ORGANISED MANNER. Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: SET installation tenders should include extended warranties and maintenance responsibilities. Background: As stated under Recommendation 9, DoW clearly has only limited financial and human resources with which to provide maintenance and repair of Government SET’s. The realities of the current situation suggest that maintenance and repair should be



outsourced. An alternative method of outsourcing to the one described under Recommendation 9 would be to incorporate extended warranties with maintenance responsibilities into the SET installation tenders. For example the tenders could specify a four-year warranty on all components and, in addition, could require the installer to perform regular maintenance visits over that four-year period. This recommendation would have the added advantage of paying for maintenance and repair up front within the initial capital budget, and therefore would not be subject to typically under-funded recurrent budgets for DoW. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should discuss the feasibility and details of extended warranties and maintenance contracts with SET suppliers. If it should turn out that Recommendation 9 can not be implemented, then NAMREP should recommend to DoW, NPCS, MME and line Ministries that Recommendation 10 be implemented.


Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: Parastatals should consider forming maintenance partnerships amongst each other. Background: Although the parastatals generally are not experiencing serious operational problems due to poor maintenance and repair of their SET’s, they could improve the operational efficiency of their SET systems if more routine maintenance was performed, such as cleaning PV panels and filling battery water. It is recommended that the parastatals consider forming partnerships with each other in order to increase the number of maintenance visits. For example, NBC technicians could, when visiting a remote SET site, also visit the SET’s of Telecom and MTC if there are any within the vicinity. This maintenance visit be performed according to an agreed upon fee. In addition to improving the operation of SET’s, the additional site visits help to identify system faults and defective components early on before more serious problems develop. Implementation Responsibilities: It is recommended that NAMREP facilitate discussion amongst the parastatals regarding the possibilities for co-operation.


Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: Line Ministries should each establish an Energy Committee or a full-time Energy Manager.



Background: Given the importance of having properly operating energy infrastructure, and of reducing energy operation costs to a minimum, line Ministries should make a stronger commitment to taking control of their individual energy-related infrastructure. In this regard, it is recommended that Line Ministries establish new institutional energy management structures, such as an Energy Committee or a full-time Energy Manager. The Energy Committee or Energy Manager would be responsible for identifying and resolving critical problems affecting energy infrastructure and energy efficiency. For example, the Energy Committee would make certain that long-outstanding problems of malfunctioning SET’s are more promptly addressed by DoW, end-users and others who are responsible. The Energy Committee would also make certain that new and existing buildings incorporate energy efficiency design and infrastructure to the greatest extent possible. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should further develop the concept and recommended responsibilities for an Energy Committee or Energy Manager to be established in each line Ministry. NAMREP should meet individually with line Ministries and motivate each of them to establish an Energy Committee or an Energy Manager.


Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: Establish a management body for the long-term that would help sustain the above recommended SET co-ordination framework mechanisms. Background: As would be required to sustain any framework of institutional collaboration, a formal management body needs to be established to initiate, monitor, adjust and co-ordinate the above recommendations. Furthermore, it is important that this management body be established for the long-term. The yet-to-be-established REEE Institute would be the obvious choice to fulfil the responsibilities of such a management body. However, at the time of writing this report it is uncertain when the REEE Institute will have the capacity to fulfil these responsibilities. Implementation Responsibilities: In its current capacity as the most influential SET body in Namibia, the NAMREP Project Management Unit should devote more attention and resources to assisting in the establishment of a strong, capable and transparent REEE Institute. This would be consistent with NAMREP’s objective of ensuring long-term sustainability of SET’s in Namibia.



11.. IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 UNDP/GEF/MME Barrier Removal to Namibian Renewable Energy Programme

This project, Formulation of a Renewable Energy Technology (RET) Projects Co-ordination Framework Amongst Public Institutions in Namibia, is one of several projects that are currently being implemented by the UNDP/GEF/MME Barrier Removal to Namibian Renewable Energy Programme (NAMREP). The mission of NAMREP is to increase affordable access to RE services and accelerate market development for RE technologies by reducing institutional, information, human capacity, financial, technical, awareness and other market barriers.

NAMREP is comprised of the following six components:

! Component 1: Capacity Building ! Component 2: Removal of Institutional Barriers ! Component 3: Public Awareness and Social Acceptability ! Component 4: Removal of Financial Barriers ! Component 5: Removal of Technical Barriers ! Component 6: Demonstrations and Pilots NAMREP’s key stakeholders are:

! Namibian Ministry of Mines and Energy, as National Executing Agency ! UNDP Namibia, as GEF Implementing Agency ! GEF, as main financier ! DANIDA, as co-financing institution ! Renewable energy technologies (RET) suppliers ! RET users ! GRN institutions dealing with RET issues ! Financing and Capacity building institutions ! Utilities ! ECB, as a regulatory body All of NAMREP’s activities are implemented by a small group of professionals that are known as the Project Management Unit (PMU). Mr. S.G. Hamutwe (Jr.) has been designated as the PMU’s project manager for this project. 1.1.2 The Project

Consulting Services Africa (CSA), together with two sub-consultants, was appointed in December 2005 to execute this project. The NAMREP PMU identified the need for this project after having visited several buildings operated by line Ministries (schools, hostels, clinics, etc.) that are located in off-grid areas and have solar energy technology (SET) installations. The PMU noted that approximately 60% of those installations were not operating for one reason or another. The PMU therefore recognised the need for a RET project co-ordination framework



amongst public institutions. The Terms of Reference (ToR) document identified the following four tasks for the project:

! Determine which public institutions are engaged in the budgeting, implementation and maintenance of RET projects, especially solar energy technologies.

! Formulate recommendations on mechanisms on how RET projects budgeting, implementation and maintenance by the various public institutions could be best coordinated in the future and in relation to the National Rural Electrification Master Plan and the National Development Plan.

! Formulate a maintenance mechanism for public sector RET’s installation that would ensure that these installations are in an operational status at all times after installation.

! Incorporate stakeholder input through consultations and a workshop. Note that although the ToR refer to renewable energy technologies (RET’s), NAMREP is specifically focused on solar energy technologies (SET’s). This report will therefore focus only on SET’s. 1.1.3 Project Implementation Methodology

Consulting Services Africa (CSA) developed the project implementation methodology during the preparation of the Technical Proposal. NAMREP then approved the methodology upon appointing CSA to the project. The following figure summarises the steps of the methodology:

1.1.4 Stakeholder Interviews

Representatives from the following organisations were interviewed in person or by telephone to obtain valuable information and perspectives on existing SET’s, and recommendations on future co-ordination framework mechanisms.

Person(s) Organisation Person(s) Organisation

Prof. Prem Jain Mr. SG Hamutwe NAMREP

Mr. N. Hipangelwa Ms H. Hasheela Mr. M. Muyambo

Ministry of Mines and Energy

Mr. B. Kathindi Mr. A. Mwaazi

Mr. F. Nganyone

Ministry of Works, Transport and

Communication

Ms. G.T. Nghiyoonanye Ministry of Education

Ms. M. van Zyl Ms. M.K. Kasani Ms. Castellanos

Ministry of Health and Social Services

Ms. K. Imalwa Mr. S. Kamwi

National Planning Commission

Mr. H. Koch Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry

Mr. C. Schlettwein Ms. E. Shafudah Ministry of Finance

1 Project

Implementation

2 Stakeholder Interviews

3 Prepare

Draft Report

4 Review by Client

& Stakeholders

5 Stakeholder Workshop

6 Finalise &

Submit Report to Client



Person(s) Organisation Person(s) Organisation Mr. F. Pump Telecom Mr. J. Komen Schoolnet

Mr. U. Storm Namibian

Broadcasting Corporation (NBC)

Mr. J. Greiter Engineering Centre CC.

Mr. T. Klein Mr. D. Coetzee

Mobile Telecommunications

Ltd. (MTC) Heinrich Steuber Soltec

Claude Tjizo ErongoREd Mr. R. Schultz DRFN Energy Desk

22.. TTHHEE EEXXIISSTTIINNGG SSIITTUUAATTIIOONN

2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS THAT FUND, OPERATE OR MAINTAIN SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Consultant Team identified the public institutions that fund, operate or maintain SET’s based on the results of the Baseline Study and on the stakeholder interviews and phone discussions. The Consultant Team also tried to obtain details regarding the number, type, size and location of SET’s, but Ministries could not provide such details. The following table provides a summary of the public institutions that fund, operate or maintain SET’s.

Public Institution Types of SET’s, or Involvement Additional Information

NPCS ! Responsible for capital funding of SET infrastructure

MoF ! Responsible for funding recurrent

budgets required for SET operation and maintenance

MME ! Responsible for funding of SET-

related projects and the Solar Revolving Fund

MoHSS ! PV panels for lighting and

refrigeration ! SWH’s

! Installations used at clinics in off-grid locations

MoD ! PV panels for lighting ! SWH’s

! Installations located at remote police stations

MoE ! PV panels for lighting and

computers ! SWH’s

MAWF ! PV panels for water pumping ! There are approximately 103

PV pumps compared to 1871 diesel pumps

MWTC ! Responsible for maintenance of SET’s at Government buildings

Telecom ! PV panels for various types of transmission sites ! Approximately 100 installations

MTC ! PV panels for macro and repeater transmission sites

! 10 existing installations, but 20 more planned for 2006/2007

NBC ! PV panels for transmission sites ! 4 installations MWR ! PV panels for water pumping

NamWater ! PV panels for water pumping and repeater stations



2.2 BUDGETING AND FUNDING

2.2.1 Line Ministries

Line Ministries operate with two different types of budgets: development and operational (alternatively, capital and recurrent). Capital budgets are reviewed and approved annually by the NPCS. Recurrent budgets are reviewed and approved annually by the MoF. Funding of Capital Costs:

The process of formulating capital budgets involves co-ordination between line Ministries and the NPCS. The line Ministries initiate the co-ordination when they submit project proposals and feasibility studies to the NPCS. The line Ministries also prepare Project Information Forms (PIF) for each project. The Sectoral Planners within the NPCS then co-ordinate within NPCS, and with the line Ministries, to facilitate the decision-making process regarding approving individual projects and setting total annual capital budgets for each line Ministry. Note that line Ministries operate under three-year rolling budgets. When SET’s would be used to provide electricity or hot water for a new building in an off-grid location, they generally are just one component of a larger project (ex. a new health clinic). The actual capital funding that is required specifically for SET’s for a new building is typically identified during the design/implementation stage of the project. When SET’s are required by MAWF for new water pumps, the capital cost of the SET portion of the project is much larger than for a building project, and is therefore estimated early-on when formulating the amount of the annual capital budget to be requested from the NPC. It should be noted that the criteria by which MAWF determines whether or not a new water pump should be powered by PV or by a diesel generator does not appear to be based on lifecycle costing; it appears PV is only selected when the nearest diesel fuel supplier is located a long distance away from the proposed pump. It does not appear that MAWF performs a life-cycle cost comparison every time it decides whether or not to use a diesel or a PV powered pump. Funding of Maintenance Costs:

The process of formulating recurrent budgets involves co-ordination between line Ministries and the MOF. The line Ministries initiate the co-ordination when they submit their annual requests for funding of recurrent budgets. The MOF then reviews and judges the proposed recurrent budgets of all Ministries and decides on the final amounts to be allocated. The line Ministries’ recurrent budgets include those items related to salaries and operation (transportation, monthly energy bills, cleaning, etc.). The MWTC is charged with the responsibility of funding and implementing the maintenance of line Ministry buildings and the infrastructure and equipment related to the buildings. For example, it is the responsibility of the MWTC to maintain the PV panels that supply electricity for lighting at a rural health clinic. The MWTC, however, is not responsible for maintaining rural boreholes and the infrastructure and equipment that is related to the borehole. It is rather the responsibility of the MWTC – Directorate of Rural Water Supply (MWTC-DRWS).



With respect to building maintenance, the MWTC’s budget does not include a specific item related to maintenance of SET’s. The funding required to maintain SET’s is generally included in a larger, general budget item. The same is true of the MWTC-DRWS with respect to maintenance of PV powered water pumps; the annual recurrent budget does not include a separate item for SET’s. 2.2.2 Parastatals

Funding of Capital Costs:

The process by which parastatals fund the capital costs of new projects (which include SET’s) is generally more straightforward than that followed by line Ministries. It appears that since parastatals are self-contained entities, responsible for both revenue generation and expenditures, less co-ordination and negotiation of budgets is necessary. Parastatals are similar to line Ministries in that they do not have separate budgets dedicated solely to SET’s. Funding for the capital costs of SET’s is provided as part of the funding for larger projects that include SET’s. However, based on the impressions made during the stakeholder interviews, it appears that parastatals are less controlled by formalities during the planning & budget-setting stages of capital projects, and do identify early on whether SET’s will be required. Funding of Maintenance Costs:

The annual maintenance budgets of the parastatals interviewed do not include a separate item for SET’s. Furthermore, the costs required to maintain SET’s are generally not recorded and kept track of. The funding required for the maintenance of SET’s appears to come from larger, more general budget items, which are revised annually based on the experiences and total expenditures of the previous year. 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION

“Implementation” as used to in this section, refers to the period of a project when design, tender and construction is performed. 2.3.1 Line Ministries

Building Projects:

The process of implementing SET’s for building projects involves back-and-forth co-operation between the line Ministry involved and the MWTC. The implementation process is summarised as follows.

SSSttteeeppp 111 ::: The line Ministry informs MWTC that they would like to proceed with a building project.

SSSttteeeppp 222 ::: MWTC obtains the details of the proposed building project and develops the Terms of Reference (ToR) required for the tender process to obtain architectural and engineering consultants for design and construction supervision. The ToR specifies if the building will be located in an off-grid area and the general types of SET’s that are needed (PV panels and/or SWH’s).

SSSttteeeppp 333 ::: MWTC receives tenders on the design consultancy, adjudicates the tender and appoints a consultant or consultancy team.



SSSttteeeppp 444 ::: The consultant obtains the available data from MWTC, and begins a design/co-ordination relationship with the line Ministry for whom the building will be designed and constructed. The line Ministry provides whatever additional information is required for the total design, including energy demand-related details that would determine the size and type of SET’s to be specified.

SSSttteeeppp 555 ::: The consultant prepares the drawings and documents required for the total building design, including specifications for any PV and/or SWH’s to be installed. The consultant also prepares a detailed cost estimate.

SSSttteeeppp 666 ::: The consultant submits the drawings, documentation and cost estimate to MWTC for technical review. MWTC is then responsible for keeping a record copy of the drawings and documentation.

SSSttteeeppp 777 ::: MWTC or the consultant advertises the project for the construction tender. MWTC or the consultant receive tenders from contractors, adjudicate the tenders, and appoint a contractor.

SSSttteeeppp 888 ::: The contractor proceeds with construction according to the consultant’s drawings and documents. A sub-contractor may be hired specifically for the installation of SET’s.

SSSttteeeppp 999 ::: Construction is completed and all items constructed or installed then are covered by a 1-year warranty. An instruction manual for operation and routine maintenance of the SET’s is given to the line Ministry’s building manager.

Borehole Projects:

The process of implementing PV water pumps for borehole projects for the MAWF-DRWS is generally straightforward.

SSSttteeeppp 111 ::: MAWF develops the Terms of Reference (ToR) required for the tender process to obtain an engineering/hydrogeological consultant for design, specifications and construction supervision.

SSSttteeeppp 222 ::: The consultant determines the required infrastructure based on available information and the requirements of the MAWF. Note that MAWF decides at the onset of the project what general type of power supply shall be used, i.e. wind, diesel, PV. The consultant prepares all of the specifications and tender documentation.

SSSttteeeppp 333 ::: MAWF reviews the consultants design, specifications and tender documentation..

SSSttteeeppp 444 ::: MAWF or the consultant advertises the project for the construction tender. MAWF or the consultant receive tenders from contractors, adjudicate the tenders, and appoint a contractor.

SSSttteeeppp 555 ::: The contractor proceeds with construction according to the consultant’s drawings, specifications and documents. A sub-contractor may be hired specifically for the installation of SET’s.

SSSttteeeppp 666 ::: Construction is completed and all items constructed or installed are then covered by a 1-year warranty. An instruction manual for operation and routine maintenance of the SET’s is given to MAWF.



2.3.2 Parastatals

The process by which parastatals implement projects involving SET’s is relatively straightforward. Note that the following parastatals are considered: Telecom, MTC, NBC and NamWater.

SSSttteeeppp 111 ::: The parastatal decides whether its in-house engineers/technicians or a consultant should prepare the design, specifications and tender documentation. If it is decided that a consultant will perform the work, the parastatal develops the Terms of Reference (ToR) required for the tender process to obtain the consultant.

SSSttteeeppp 222 ::: The in-house engineer or consultant determines the infrastructure/technology options and make a recommendation to the parastatal’s technical manager. Note that parastatal generally decides at the onset of the project whether or not a SET will be used for power supply. The in-house engineer or consultant prepares all of the drawings, specifications and tender documentation.

SSSttteeeppp 333 ::: The parastatal reviews the proposed design, specifications and tender documentation..

SSSttteeeppp 444 ::: The parastatal or the consultant advertises the project for the construction tender. Tenders are received from contractors, the tenders are adjudicated, and a contractor is appointed.

SSSttteeeppp 555 ::: The contractor proceeds with construction according to the drawings, specifications and documents. A sub-contractor may be hired specifically for the installation of SET’s.

SSSttteeeppp 666 ::: Construction is completed and all items constructed or installed are then covered by a 1-year warranty. An instruction manual for operation and routine maintenance of the SET’s is given to parastatal.

2.4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE


Operation, Routine Maintenance and the Supplier Warranty:

After an SET is installed, the contractor generally provides the line Ministry representative with a manual that provides instruction on how to operate and maintain the SET. When SET’s are installed at buildings, they are operated by the local staff who also are responsible for providing routine maintenance such as checking the water in batteries or cleaning the PV panels. When PV panels are installed at boreholes, they are operated by local water point committees who are also responsible for routine maintenance. Larger maintenance and repair issues are typically the responsibility of the contractor (or supplier) for the first year after installation, depending upon the terms of the supply contract. Maintenance and Repair of SET’s in Buildings After the Supplier Warranty has Expired:

After the supplier warranty has expired for SET’s installed at buildings, MWTC is responsible for the larger maintenance and repair issues. As with other items like water and sanitation, when a school or clinic has a problem with their SET installation their representative contacts the local or regional MWTC office to request a repair technician. In some cases, the process of contacting the MWTC involves an intermediary step



where the representative of the school or clinic is required to contact the line Ministry’s regional office, who in turn contacts the MWTC. Maintenance and Repair of SET’s at Boreholes After the Supplier Warranty has Expired:

After the initial warranty has expired for SET’s installed at boreholes, MAWF-DRWS is responsible for the larger maintenance and repair issues. Routine maintenance is performed by local communities who use the SET’s. MAWF has its own technicians who are stationed in all regions. Some of these technicians received training regarding maintenance and repair of SET’s. Work that cannot be performed is outsourced to local contractors. 2.4.2 Parastatals

As with the SET’s installed for line Ministries, the contractor/supplier generally provides a 1-year warranty on the installation. However, routine maintenance is the responsibility of the parastatals even during the first year. After the warranty expires, the parastatals are responsible for all maintenance and repairs. All of the parastatals that use SET’s have their own technicians who maintain and repair the SET’s. In general, parastatal technicians perform maintenance on SET installations when they happen to be in the area of the installation, or when maintenance has not been performed in a while. Maintenance of SET’s is typically done in conjunction with maintenance of the other technology components at a site, such as a borehole pump. 33.. EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE EEXXIISSTTIINNGG SSIITTUUAATTIIOONN

This section provides an evaluation of the situation with respect to the three stages of the SET projects. The general criteria against which the existing situation has been evaluated can be summarised as follows:

! SET’s should be used by public institutions whenever they are determined to be the most economical energy technology option based on life-cycle costing.

! Public institutions should ensure that all three stages of the SET projects are performed as efficiently and capably as possible.

3.1 BUDGETING AND FUNDING


Stakeholder Comments during the Interviews:

The following comments regarding budgeting and funding were made by stakeholders during the interviews:

! The MWTC – Department of Works is severely under-funded. Representatives from the Department of Works indicated that their total annual budget for maintenance is only a small fraction of what it should be. As a result, they are not capable of providing an acceptable level of maintenance service at public institution buildings and related infrastructure, such as SET’s.



! Co-ordination should be improved between the NPCS and MoF during the process of determining capital budgets (NPCS) and recurrent budgets (MoF). The asset bases of line Ministries are increasing continually, but the recurrent budgets are not increased proportionally. Although installation of solar water heaters and energy efficient building measures would reduce the recurrent budget needs of line Ministries, there is not a process by which the savings would be transferred to the capital budget which is approved by the NPCS.

Observations by the Consulting Team:

The following observations were made by the Consulting Team during and after the stakeholder interviews:

! There is a general lack of awareness by Government planners in all Ministries regarding the potential economic benefits of SET’s. As a result of this general lack of awareness, it appears that opportunities for SET’s are being missed during the initial planning stages of projects. For example, the NPCS does not require line Ministries to specify in Project Information Forms (PIF) whether or not they intend to use solar water heaters (SWH) for new buildings; even though SWH’s are clearly much more economical than electrical geysers over the medium and long term. Furthermore, life cycle costing is generally not utilised by Government planners and decision-makers when selecting energy –related technologies and infrastructure. This is a critical point to be noted.

! SET’s are only funded for line Ministry building projects that are located in off-grid areas. The stakeholders interviewed were only aware of SET’s that had been installed at public institution buildings located in off-grid areas. No mention was made of the use of solar water heaters in grid areas.

! The MWTC – Department of Works is severely under-funded The Consultancy Team would like to emphasise that the lack of sufficient funding of MWTC-DoW’s maintenance budget has had real consequences contributing to the poor performance and poor image of public institution SET’s. Furthermore, only a significant increase in funding could possibly rectify the situation, but this appears unlikely to happen in the near future.

! There appears to be a lack of internal communication within line Ministries, and external communication between the line Ministries and NPCS, regarding the funding that is required to renovate or significantly repair existing SET’s. Although MWTC-DoW has been linked to poor maintenance and repair of SET’s, many times the repairs require expensive component replacements which do not fall within the scope of MWTC-DoW’s allowable expenditures. In these cases, it is the line Ministries that are responsible for providing the funding to replace components. For example, if PV panels are stolen from a clinic or hostel, the new panels must be funded by the line Ministries. Therefore, if then the line Ministries do not request funding from NPCS and budget for such items, then they cannot request MWTC-DoW to make the necessary repairs and replacements.



3.1.2 Parastatals


There were no significant comments made by stakeholders that would be relevant to evaluating the budgeting and funding of parastatal SET’s. Observations by the Consultancy Team:

! Parastatals do not use detailed life cycle cost calculations as a tool in deciding when to choose and fund SET’s. Based on the information and comments provided by the parastatal representatives interviewed, it appears to the Consulting Team that parastatals decided to fund and use an SET when they have a good feeling that a diesel-powered generator would be too costly due to the long distance from a diesel supplier. It appears that a “common sense” decision-making approach is used instead of precise cost calculations. Although the Consulting Team did not investigate in depth the effectiveness of the “common sense” approach, it does appear that using life cycle costing would be a better approach, and would perhaps indicate that SET’s should be used more extensively.

! Parastatals generally do not keep a record of the funding that is required specifically to maintain and repair SET’s. The lack of record keeping with respect to maintaining and repairing SET’s is unfortunate, since it may support the case for more extensive use of SET’s and would make life cycle cost calculations more accurate.

3.2 IMPLEMENTATION



The following comments regarding implementation were made by stakeholders during the interviews:

! Engineers do not always specify the most appropriate and up-to-date SET technologies, because their technological knowledge is often not sufficient and up to date. This comment was made by an SET technology manufacturer/supplier.

! There have been too many different and incompatible SET’s components available in Namibia. Some have been of poor quality and therefore have been less dependable. This comment was made by an SET technology manufacturer/supplier.



! Technical personnel within the line Ministries and MWTC do not request engineers and architects to specify solar water heaters (SWH) in grid areas.



Furthermore, engineers and architects generally do not specify SWH’s on public buildings unless requested by their clients, MWTC and the line Ministries.

! It would appear that the technical personnel within the line Ministries and MWTC do not have the expertise and knowledge required to review the specifications for SET’s that are prepared and submitted for review by engineers and architects. This is another reason why the SET components specified in construction documents are often not the best choices available in the Namibian market.

! There are no building regulations issued by Government that would compel line Ministries (and even Regional Councils and State Owned Enterprises) to have SWH’s installed in all new public buildings. Instructions in this regard from central government financing and planning institutions would be an important large-scale barrier removal initiative. In addition, such high-level instructions would have an important ripple effect throughout the RET’s industry.

3.2.2 Parastatals



! The preparation by engineers of the SET specifications for contractors and suppliers is critical to the selection of appropriate SET components that will be dependable over the long-term. This comment was made by a technical manager of a parastatal.



! The technical personnel within parastatals generally appear to be very capable and knowledgeable about SET’s.

3.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE




! SET components are frequently stolen or vandalised. This problem has been detrimental to the general image of SET’s that is held by Ministry personnel. Stakeholders from one Ministry, one NGO and one supplier have identified it as the number one cause behind the poor performance of Government-owned SET’s. Insurance companies usually do not cover PV panels and batteries.



! MWTC-DoW is generally not dependable when they are requested to repair SET’s. For whatever reasons (lack of funding, lack of personnel, lack of equipment and spare parts, etc.), the Department of Works has great difficulty to adequately maintain and repair the line Ministries’ SET’s. Like the theft and vandalism problem mentioned above, this problem has been a critical influencing factor on the poor performance and reputation of line Ministry SET’s.

! Sometimes the chain of communication from line Ministry end-user (ex. clinic or hostel), to Regional line Ministry office, to Regional DoW office, is cumbersome and time consuming. The above communication protocol has likely been established to better control line Ministry money (in case they must fund the repair cost), and because telephone communication is not possible in most off-grid areas.



! Neither MWTC-DoW nor the line Ministries have a comprehensive and up-to-date database of SET installations. This lack of adequate record keeping contributes to inefficiency and a lower level of maintenance and repair service.

! The regional offices of MWTC-DoW do not have sufficient stocks of spare components for SET’s. It is most often the case that regional offices must order component replacements from Windhoek suppliers. This causes unnecessary delays in the repair process.

! The SET’s that are owned and maintained/repaired by MAWF and Parastatals have a much better performance record than the SET’s owned by line Ministries and maintained/repaired by DoW. This reinforces the position that it is the maintenance and repair provider (DoW) that is the main cause of the problems, and not the SET’s.

3.3.2 Parastatals



! Maintenance is (or could be) minimised if the proper components are selected, for example gel batteries. This was mentioned by all of the Parastatals interviewed.

! It would be better if the frequency of maintenance visits were increased. It is challenging for Parastatals to make frequent maintenance visits to their SET installations, since most are located in faraway, remote places.





! Although the parastatals’ technicians generally appear to be competent, and the maintenance parastatal SET’s appears to be much better organised and implemented than what is done by DoW, there is still room for improvement. The most obvious item to be improved would be the frequency of site visits.

! No formal co-ordination framework exists amongst parastatals with respect to maintenance. It appears that MTC, Telecom and NBC have SET’s in the same, or nearby, places – yet there is no attempt to co-operate and assist each other with maintenance. It also appears that parastatal technicians would benefit from discussing their experiences with other parastatal technicians.

44.. RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

While the scope of work for this project involves the formulation of co-ordination framework mechanisms, not all of the recommendations made below are strictly co-ordination related activities. The Consulting Team believes its responsibility is to make recommendations that would solve the problems behind the current poor performance of Government SET’s, regardless of whether or not they can be classified as co-ordination framework mechanisms. This is also in line with NAMREP’s objective to remove barriers to the large scale introduction of RET’s. The majority of the recommendations address problems related to SET’s located at Government buildings, not MAWF-DRWS SET’s or parastatal SET’s. The reason for this is that the most serious and widespread problems involve Government building SET’s, which are currently maintained and repaired by MWTC-DoW. The recommendations below represent what the Consulting Team believes would be essential to significantly improve the current situation. Emphasis has been placed on making recommendations that have a clear and practical path for implementation. Almost all of the recommendations could be initiated by NAMREP during Phase 2. 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Fourteen recommendations are presented on the pages that follow.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 111 Project Phase: Planning, Budgeting and Funding Description: Provide regular awareness raising and information dissemination regarding SET’s to infrastructure planners and decision-makers at NPCS, MoF, DoW, line Ministries, and parastatals. Background: Government planners and decision-makers should be regularly informed about the potential advantages and applications of SET’s. The informing process should include as a central focus comparisons of SET’s with other technologies using life cycle costing. The aim of the awareness raising campaign is not only about informing officials about the potential cost and environmental benefits of SET’s, it is also about increasing the number of SET installations in order to achieve economies of scale and the critical mass needed for a cost-effective product support base. The method of informing could have several different forms: brochures and booklets, small group presentations for individual Ministries, emails and emailed attachments, workshops, etc. However, it is the Consultancy Team’s opinion that small group presentations to individual Ministries would be the most effective method of raising awareness. Energy efficient building design and operation could also be incorporated into the awareness raising initiatives. While energy efficiency is not within the scope of this project, it would be logical to connect awareness raising initiatives for SET’s with energy efficiency since both concern sustainable energy supply and consumption. Implementation Responsibilities: This task should be the responsibility of the soon-to-be-established Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (REEE) Institute. However, since the Institute has not yet been established, NAMREP should promptly implement the awareness raising initiatives suggested above, for example small group presentations at individual Ministries.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 222 Project Phase: Planning, Budgeting and Funding Description: NPCS and MoF should co-ordinate with each other and use life cycle costing when evaluating and establishing recurrent and capital budgets for line Ministries. Background: The greatest advantage of SET’s is the reduction in operation costs due to reduced electricity and fuel consumption. However, the greatest disadvantage of SET’s is the high, initial capital cost. NPCS is responsible for approving the annual capital budgets of line Ministries. It is prohibited by the State Finance Act to fund any type of maintenance or operational costs from the development budget. MoF approves the annual recurrent budgets of line Ministries, which include the operational costs related to electricity and fuel expenditures. Typically, if a line Ministry is able to reduce its total annual recurrent expenditure below the annual budget amount, then MoF will reduce the annual budget amount for the following year (“zero-sum budgeting”). This situation presents an additional barrier to SET’s above and beyond the initially high capital cost. Therefore, it is recommended that NPCS and MoF account for the savings in recurrent expenditures that line Ministries achieve using SET’s, and then transfer that amount to the annual capital budgets. These funds should than be used to install additional SET’s, which would result in further savings. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should meet with NPCS and MoF to initiate the above recommended budget co-ordination. NAMREP should also assist the NPCS and MoF by providing life cycle cost data on all different types and sizes of SET’s. In addition, NAMREP should encourage Government to consider the establishment of a funding mechanism for SET’s in public institutions -– for example, a RET Energisation Fund that is funded from concessional loans or grants.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 333 Project Phase: Implementation (Design and Construction) Description: SET suppliers, NAMREP and/or the Renewable Energy Institute should regularly inform architects and engineers about the importance and relevance of using SET’s in Namibia, and provide them with practical information regarding good design/specification practices, up-to-date component costs, recommended maintenance plans, etc. Background: In their task to meet project deadlines and budgets, engineers and architects do not always have readily available and up-to-date information regarding SET components. They also are not always aware of when and where SET’s should be considered over conventional technologies. Given that there is a relatively small number of engineers and architects in Namibia, it would make sense for suppliers, NAMREP and/or the Renewable Energy Institute to distribute current product information on a regular basis, and to conduct awareness raising workshops regarding when and where SET’s should be considered. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should encourage the suppliers to distribute product information to engineers and architects. NAMREP and/or the yet-to-be-established Renewable Energy Institute should also compile technical information and distribute it to engineers and architects. NAMREP or the Renewable Energy Institute could also consider establishing an internet website to facilitate the distribution of information. NAMREP should conduct an awareness raising / technical information workshop specifically for architects and engineers.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 444 Project Phase: Implementation (Design and Construction) Description: DoW should hire a qualified SET engineer, either internally or as a consultant, to review all designs and specifications for SET’s. Background: The designs and specifications for SET’s that are prepared by engineers and architects are reviewed by DoW within the confines of its institutional limitations. As a result, contractors sometimes install poorly selected systems or components according to poorly prepared designs and specifications; and most times SET’s (such as SWH’s) are not specified when they should be. DoW needs a full-time, qualified engineer(s) to review designs and specifications or, preferably, it should outsource this duty to qualified engineering consultants. In addition to ensuring that SET’s are properly designed and specified, the DoW engineer should also ensure that SET’s are used whenever it makes sense according to a life cycle cost analysis. Implementation Responsibilities: DoW should take the initiative in hiring a full-time engineer, or outsourcing technical reviews to private sector engineers. NAMREP should consult and encourage DoW in this respect, and they should identify the standard tasks to be performed by technical review engineers.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 555 Project Phase: Implementation (Design and Construction) Description: SET standardisation should be established for Government SET projects. Background: There are many different SET’s and SET components available, but some are of such poor quality that they should not be utilised by public institutions. NAMREP should identify the minimum quality and performance standards for public institution SET’s. As part of the standardisation, NAMREP should prepare and provide DoW and line Ministries a list of suppliers that sell “approved” SET’s components. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP, as discussed above.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 666 Project Phase: Implementation (Design and Construction) Description: A variety of preventative actions need to be implemented to minimise theft of Government-owned SET’s. Background: Theft was identified as the number one problem affecting the performance of Government-owned SET’s. The following steps are recommended to address this problem:

1) Manufacturers or suppliers need to put easily visible identification numbers on all SET’s sold to public institutions, so that the numbers can be recorded and referred to later during police investigations, for example.

4) DoW and line Ministries should require SET suppliers to paint Government SET’s an easily identifiable colour, such as green.

5) Construction tenders must include theft-proof infrastructure, such as razor-wire mesh fence and lockable battery storage rooms.

Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should discuss with local suppliers and DoW about how best to implement the suggested measures described above. NAMREP should also recommend to DoW and line Ministries that the above measures are incorporated into installers’ tenders.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 777 Project Phase: Implementation (Design and Construction) and Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: DoW and line Ministries should learn from the successes of parastatals and MAWF. Background: With the exception of MAWF-Rural Water Supply, the performance of SET’s owned by parastatals is clearly better than SET’s owned by Government. In some cases, the difference in performance is due to better component specifications, such as low-maintenance batteries. In other cases, it is due to better maintenance and repair. The DoW should therefore make an attempt to learn from parastatals and MAWF-Rural Water Supply. Implementation Responsibilities: It is recommended that NAMREP request parastatals and MAWF-Rural Water Supply to provide technical guidance to DoW regarding the best types of SET’s to use and how to provide effective maintenance and repair.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 888 Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: A comprehensive inventory of all Government SET’s should be performed and regularly updated. Background: In order to make the maintenance and repair of Government SET’s more efficient and effective, a GIS database should be created that would record the type, age, location, etc. of all Government SET’s in Namibia. The database should be maintained and updated regularly by a person working within MME, or an appointed consultant (once established, this consignment could be outsourced to the REEE Institute). A critical step in the creation of the database would be the implementation of a national inventory of all Government SET’s. The inventory would obviously require extensive co-ordination with DoW and line Ministries, and extensive travelling throughout Namibia. Every SET installation would be visited, as required, to obtain or verify critical information. Information in the database would be made available to technicians, engineers, Government personnel and anyone else who is involved in the maintenance and repair or planning of Government SET’s. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should facilitate the performance of the inventory, creation of the GIS database, and training of personnel on how to maintain and update the database.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 999 Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: Installation tenders should include the provision of important spare parts and a 3-month supply of deionized water, as required. Background: The findings indicate that the amount of time required for DoW to repair SET’s is often prolonged due to the process of ordering spare parts from Windhoek and waiting for them to be delivered to remote areas. This problem could be minimised if the key spare parts or components are provided by the supplier/installer during the initial installation of the SET. Similarly, it is often difficult or impossible in remote areas to purchase deionized water that is required for battery maintenance. It is therefore recommended that the supplier/installer provide a 3-month supply of deionized water during the initial installation of SET, if the batteries are the type that require water maintenance. Both the spare parts and the deionized water would be stored inside the lockable battery storage room. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should first identify the key parts to be included in installation tenders. NAMREP should then recommend to DoW that the above recommendations be incorporated into SET installation tenders. DoW would then be responsible for requesting architects and engineers to incorporate the recommendations in the installation tenders.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 111000 Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: DoW should outsource maintenance and repair of SET’s at Government buildings to private sector technicians. Background: It is clear that DoW currently has only limited financial and human resources to provide maintenance and repair service to Government SET’s. The responsibility of maintaining and repairing Government SET’s should be regarded as a specialised non-core function that needs to be outsourced to specialists. DoW should outsource the maintenance and repair of all Government building SET’s. Maintenance and repair contracts could be established for all Government building SET’s located within a Region, or a section of the Region. The contract would be awarded through a public tender process. The tender document would be carefully crafted. Tenderers would be required to prove that they are technically capable of performing the required work; they are capable of performing site visits and repairing SET’s in a timely manner; they have sufficient spare parts and tools; and their business is financially sound and not at risk of bankruptcy. Contracts would be awarded based on rates for site visits and rates for labour, not on a lump sum basis which is not connected to the actual amount of work to be performed. However, a minimum annual payment amount could be established so as to make the contract feasible and sustainable. There are several details to be worked out for the outsourcing contract. However, it is clear that comprehensive, detailed tender documents are essential in order for DoW to be in a position to properly control the appointed technicians and ensure that outsourcing remains sustainable. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should prepare draft terms of reference for an outsourcing contract and present it to DoW, line Ministries, MoF and MME. NAMREP should also prepare cost estimates of the maintenance and repair contracts for each Region (or sub-Region) so that the financial implications can be better understood. DoW would then be responsible for acting on the information provided by NAMREP.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 111111 IMPORTANT NOTE: RECOMMENDATION 10 WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO FUNDING THE OUTSOURCING OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, AS DESCRIBED IN RECOMMENDATION 9. HOWEVER, THE CONSULTING TEAM BELIEVES THAT RECOMMENDATION 9 WOULD BE THE BEST APPROACH TO OUTSOURCING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR IN A COMPREHENSIVE AND ORGANISED MANNER. Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: SET installation tenders should include extended warranties and maintenance responsibilities. Background: As stated under Recommendation 9, DoW clearly has only limited financial and human resources with which to provide maintenance and repair of Government SET’s. The realities of the current situation suggest that maintenance and repair should be outsourced. An alternative method of outsourcing to the one described under Recommendation 9 would be to incorporate extended warranties with maintenance responsibilities into the SET installation tenders. For example the tenders could specify a four-year warranty on all components and, in addition, could require the installer to perform regular maintenance visits over that four-year period. This recommendation would have the added advantage of paying for maintenance and repair up front within the initial capital budget, and therefore would not be subject to typically under-funded recurrent budgets for DoW. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should discuss the feasibility and details of extended warranties and maintenance contracts with SET suppliers. If it should turn out that Recommendation 9 can not be implemented, then NAMREP should recommend to DoW, NPCS, MME and line Ministries that Recommendation 10 be implemented.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 111222 Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: Parastatals should consider forming maintenance partnerships amongst each other. Background: Although the parastatals generally are not experiencing serious operational problems due to poor maintenance and repair of their SET’s, they could improve the operational efficiency of their SET systems if more routine maintenance was performed, such as cleaning PV panels and filling battery water. It is recommended that the parastatals consider forming partnerships with each other in order to increase the number of maintenance visits. For example, NBC technicians could, when visiting a remote SET site, also visit the SET’s of Telecom and MTC if there are any within the vicinity. This maintenance visit be performed according to an agreed upon fee. In addition to improving the operation of SET’s, the additional site visits help to identify system faults and defective components early on before more serious problems develop. Implementation Responsibilities: It is recommended that NAMREP facilitate discussion amongst the parastatals regarding the possibilities for co-operation.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 111333 Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: Line Ministries should each establish an Energy Committee or a full-time Energy Manager. Background: Given the importance of having properly operating energy infrastructure, and of reducing energy operation costs to a minimum, line Ministries should make a stronger commitment to taking control of their individual energy-related infrastructure. In this regard, it is recommended that Line Ministries establish new institutional energy management structures, such as an Energy Committee or a full-time Energy Manager. The Energy Committee or Energy Manager would be responsible for identifying and resolving critical problems affecting energy infrastructure and energy efficiency. For example, the Energy Committee would make certain that long-outstanding problems of malfunctioning SET’s are more promptly addressed by DoW, end-users and others who are responsible. The Energy Committee would also make certain that new and existing buildings incorporate energy efficiency design and infrastructure to the greatest extent possible. Implementation Responsibilities: NAMREP should further develop the concept and recommended responsibilities for an Energy Committee or Energy Manager to be established in each line Ministry. NAMREP should meet individually with line Ministries and motivate each of them to establish an Energy Committee or an Energy Manager.



RRREEECCCOOOMMMMMMEEENNNDDDAAATTTIIIOOONNN 111444 Project Phase: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Description: Establish a management body for the long-term that would help sustain the above recommended SET co-ordination framework mechanisms. Background: As would be required to sustain any framework of institutional collaboration, a formal management body needs to be established to initiate, monitor, adjust and co-ordinate the above recommendations. Furthermore, it is important that this management body be established for the long-term. The yet-to-be-established REEE Institute would be the obvious choice to fulfil the responsibilities of such a management body. However, at the time of writing this report it is uncertain when the REEE Institute will have the capacity to fulfil these responsibilities. Implementation Responsibilities: In its current capacity as the most influential SET body in Namibia, the NAMREP Project Management Unit should devote more attention and resources to assisting in the establishment of a strong, capable and transparent REEE Institute. This would be consistent with NAMREP’s objective of ensuring long-term sustainability of SET’s in Namibia.



APPENDICES



APPENDIX 5.1

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW GUIDELINE



STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW GUIDELINE NAMREP - RET PROJECTS CO-ORDINATION FRAMEWORK

AMONGST PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

Project Objectives: A. Identify which public institutions are engaged in the budgeting, implementation and

maintenance of solar energy projects & technologies. B. Develop recommendations for mechanisms to improve the co-ordination amongst

public institutions with respect to the budgeting and implementation of solar energy technologies.

C. Develop recommendations for mechanisms to improve the maintenance of publicly owned solar energy technologies.

QUESTIONS

1. QUESTIONS RELATED TO OBJECTIVE A

1.1 To what extent does this public institution PI use solar technologies and/or solar technology-related projects? ! Types and approximate numbers of installations ! General locations of installations (rural or urban) ! Approximate amount of annual funding for new installations ! Approximate amount of annual funding for maintenance

1.2 Does the PI have records of all its RET’s, regarding type, location, age, currently working, etc.?

1.3 Why does the PI use RET’s – what is the motivation? e.g. because donor funded, because NPC motivates it, etc.

1.4 What is this stakeholder’s perspective on the potential or actual use of RET’s by this PI? How do RET’s compare with conventional technologies? Is there an opportunity for more extensive use? Are the initial capital costs prohibitive? Any other barriers to be noted? Consider applicability of RET’s in rural vs urban areas.

1.5 What is the process by which this PI recognises (or not) the need for an RET to be installed? What is the process by which the type of RET is selected and specified? Does the PI have a list of pre-approved RET manufacturers or suppliers?

1.6 What is the process by which the PI determines the annual budgets for capital projects and maintenance for RET’s?

2. QUESTIONS RELATED TO OBJECTIVE B

2.1 To what extent is this PI already involved in a co-ordination framework with other PI’s with respect to the funding and implementation of RET’s?

2.2 How do the line Ministries and Min. of Works view their relationship with each other (i.e. existing co-ordination framework) with respect to the funding and implementation of RET’s? Describe existing co-ordination between the PI and Min. of Works with respect to RET’s. Is the co-ordination procedure effective?

2.3 What recommendations/ideas does the PI have with respect to creating or improving a co-ordination framework amongst PI’s with respect to the funding and



implementation of RET’s? Identify specific problems to be addressed and how they could be addressed by a new or improved co-ordination framework.

3. QUESTIONS RELATED TO OBJECTIVE C

3.1 How are routine RET operational tasks handled? Is preventative maintenance part of operation?

3.2 What after-sales support is generally stipulated in RET supply/installation contracts?

3.3 Who is responsible for maintaining the PI’s RET’s? Are maintenance responsibilities clearly understood amongst all parties involved?

3.4 Does the PI (or other institution/company in charge of maintenance) have an organised maintenance schedule? Is the location, age, type, etc. of all RET’s known or kept track of by the PI or person in charge?

3.5 What is the process by which the PI is made aware that a RET is not working and requires repair? What is the process by which the RET is then repaired?

3.6 What is the PI’s opinion regarding outsourcing, with respect to both the provision of electricity by RET’s and the maintenance and repair of RET’s? If supported, how should it be done – ex. an electricity/energy supply contract with a private RET company; a maintenance and supply contract with a private RET company; contracts to be for 1-year or case by case, for an entire region, etc?

3.7 Are there any comments that the PI would like to make regarding private sector RET companies (suppliers and maintenance companies)?

3.8 How could a new or improved co-ordination framework amongst PI’s (including parastatals) improve maintenance and repair of RET’s? Who should lead the process of creating or improving the co-ordination framework?

4. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

4.1 Does the PI have a RET strategy? If so, is the strategy directed by guiding principles in the NDP regarding sectoral issues such as the replacement of conventional geysers with SWH’s, or cross-sectoral issues such as poverty alleviation, decentralisation, outsourcing, etc.?

4.2 Has the National Rural Electrification Master Plan influenced the geographical location of RET’s?

5. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE MINISTRY OF WORKS, TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICIATION

5.1 What are the responsibilities of the Department of Works (DoW) regarding the provision of water and electricity to PI’s?

5.2 What is the capacity of DoW to fulfil those responsibilities?

5.3 What is DoW’s preference with respect to RET’s vs. conventional technologies?

5.4 What are the main constraints/barriers to RET’s – e.g. budgetary, technical, etc.?

6. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE MINISTRY OF MINES AND ENERGY

6.1 Should the RET’s Projects Co-ordination Framework be a part of the Strategic Action Plan that is currently being formulated?

6.2 Who would be the driver of the REEE and RET’s initiative?



7. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE NATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE

7.1 What is the policy framework for including REEE and RET concerns into the capital budget planning cycle, e.g. to what extent is the White Paper on Energy Policy consulted when approving capital projects?

7.2 How could the increase on recurrent budget savings and the increase in capital budget expenditures be reconciled with respect to the funding of RET’s?

7.3 Are there policies to be considered with respect to line Ministries outsourcing and sub-contracting of service provision and maintenance of RET’s?

8. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANIES AND ORGANISATIONS

8.1 Substantiate the information obtained from the public sector?

8.2 How does your company/organisation co-ordinate its RET activities, e.g. client database, one field trip for many clients, etc.?

8.3 Provide information and perspectives on the following:

" Problem and product identification

" Technical know-how at the PI level

" Geographical distribution

" Quality of maintenance

" Budgetary constraints

" Most common technical problems encountered by the PS

8.4 What differences are experienced when dealing with PI vs. PS?

8.5 Is there a co-ordination association for PS companies?



APPENDIX 5.2

WORKSHOP PROGRAMME, SPEECH AND PRESENTATION



WORKSHOP PROGRAMME Project: NAMREP: Formulation of a Renewable Energy Technology Project Co-

ordination Framework Amongst Public Institutions in Namibia

Date & Time: 20 April 2006, 8h30 – 12h30

Location: Auditorium, Ground Floor of Ministry of Mines and Energy Building, Windhoek

Workshop Objectives:

" Consultancy team to present findings and recommendations of the draft report to stakeholders

" Stakeholders to provide valuable input for incorporation into final report

Thursday, 20 April 2006

TIME PROGRAMME ACTIVITY SPEAKERS

8:30–9:00 Registration

9:00–9:15 Opening Remarks Ministry of Mines and Energy

9:15–9:30 General Presentation on NAMREP NAMREP

9:30–10:00 Presentation of Draft Report by Consultancy Team CSA

10:00–10:15 Tea Time

10:15–11:30 Small Group Brainstorming Session

11:30-12:30 Open Discussion and Closing Remarks Stakeholders

12:30–13:30 Lunch



Opening Statement by the Permanent Secretary of MME (Draft Version Prepared by Consulting Team)

NAMREP workshop on

The Establishment of a Renewable Energy Technology (RET)

Projects Co-ordination Framework amongst Public Institutions in Namibia

20 April 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen, On behalf of the NAMREP, the United Nations Development Programme and, last but not least, the Ministry of Mines and Energy, I would like to welcome you all to this workshop on “The Establishment of a Renewable Energy Technology (RET) Projects Co-ordination Framework amongst Public Institutions in Namibia”. When I studied the Terms of Reference for the assignment that prepared the groundwork for today’s proceedings, I was astonished to learn that 60% of the solar installations visited by members of the NAMREP team are not in a working condition. This state of affairs is certainly not conducive for a “barrier removal” project! It immediately became clear to me that neither a single Ministry nor the current NAMREP Project can rectify such a situation. What is required is a framework within which Government Institutions can co-operate. Of course, State Owned Enterprises and private sector organisations should be invited to play an active role in such a framework. Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to reflect briefly on the aims and objectives of the African Energy Commission. You will quickly realise that there are similarities and parallels between what we try to establish at the national level and what has already been considered in 1980 by African leaders to be of importance to the energy sector of our continent. African countries have realised the seriousness and the preoccupying situation of the African economy in general, and the energy sector in particular. Consequently, the Extraordinary Economic Summit of AUO heads of states and governments held in Lagos (Nigeria) in 1980 adopted the Lagos Plan of Action (L.P.A) which contains, among others, short, medium and long term actions aimed at solving the severe energy problems facing our continent. One of the concrete recommendations was the necessity to establish an appropriate institutional framework – the creation of an African Energy Commission. The African Energy Commission would be a Continental African structure with the responsibility to ensure, co-ordinate and harmonise the protection, preservation, development and the national exploitation, marketing and integration of the energy resources of the African continent.



The creation of an African Energy Commission was eventually agreed on in 2001. During the African Union Summit that was held in January of this year in Khartoum, the Sudan, member states were urged to have the convention ratified by their respective parliaments. My Ministry has been given the green light by Cabinet to submit the convention to Parliament without delay. The African Energy Commission, with its head office in Algiers, Algeria, will eventually carry out the following main functions:

• develop energy policies, strategies and plans based on sub-regional, regional and continental development priorities;

• compile and maintain a continental data base on the energy sector; • set up an active information system for the dissemination of data on

energy and related sectors; • mobilise resources to provide the member states with the necessary

assistance to develop and implement integrated energy projects; • promote inter-African co-operation in the field of human resources

development; • establish a network of technical assistance between member states and

promote partnerships between African countries in the energy sector; • encourage the establishment and use of technical standards, procedures

and practices in the energy sector; and, most importantly, • assist in the development and utilisation of renewable sources of energy.

You may be wondering why all these details on a continental framework for co-operation when we are here today to discuss an arrangement for co-ordinating energy issues at the national level. The answer is straightforward: renewable energy technologies can only be introduced on a large scale in Namibia if the supporting cooperation and coordination structures are in place. The same holds true for the African Energy Commission: the Commission can only effectively and sustainably promote the sustainable generation and utilisation of energy if national structures are operational within the member states. It is for this reason that I encourage you, ladies and gentlemen, to keep the need for developing a favourable policy framework in mind when you discuss the issues that have an effect on the introduction, operation and maintenance of renewable energy technologies in Namibia. Keep in mind the need for data collection for dissemination and sharing with our colleagues of the African Energy Commission. Discuss ways on how to mobilise resources, on how to promote inter-agency and inter-sectoral networks, partnerships and capacity building programmes, technical standards, etc. Thank you and good luck.



UNDP/GEF/MME BARRIER REMOVAL TONAMIBIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMME

(NAMREP)

FORMULATION OF A RET PROJECTSCO-ORDINATION FRAMEWORK AMONGST

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS IN NAMIBIA

Ministry of Minesand Energy


PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1. Determine which public institutions are engaged in thebudgeting, implementation and maintenance of SET (solarenergy technology) projects

2. Recommend mechanisms to improve co-ordination ofbudgeting, implementation and maintenance of SET projectsby public institutions

3. Recommend maintenance mechanisms that would ensurethat public sector SET installations are in an operationalstatus at all times after installation.

4. Incorporate stakeholder input through consultations and aworkshop.




PROJECT METHODOLOGY

1Project

Implementation

2StakeholderInterviews

3Prepare

Draft Report

4Review by Client &

Stakeholders

5StakeholderWorkshop

6Finalise & SubmitReport to Client


KEY FINDINGSBudgeting & Funding Stage

1. The MWTC-Department of Works’ maintenance budget isclearly under-funded

2. There is a general lack of awareness by Governmentplanners in all Ministries regarding the potential economicbenefits of SET’s

3. Co-ordination should be improved between the NPCS andMoF during the process of determining capital budgets(NPCS) and recurrent budgets (MoF)

4. There appears to be a lack of co-ordination within lineMinistries regarding the budget needs to make significantrepairs to existing, out-of-operation SET’s




KEY FINDINGSImplementation Stage

1. Engineers do not always have up-to-date SET knowledgeand product information

2. There have been too many different and incompatibleSET’s components available in Namibia. Some have been ofpoor quality and therefore have been less dependable

3. Technical personnel within the line Ministries and MWTCdo not request engineers and architects to specify solarwater heaters (SWH) in grid areas4. The technical personnel within MWTC-DoW does not havethe expertise and knowledge required to review thespecifications for SET’s that are prepared and submitted forreview by engineers and architects

5. The technical personnel within parastatals generally appearto be very capable and knowledgeable about SET’s


KEY FINDINGSOperation/Maintenance/Repair Stage

1. SET components are frequently stolen or vandalised

2. DoW is generally not dependable when they are requestedto repair SET’s

3. Sometimes the chain of communication from line Ministryend-user (ex. clinic or hostel), to Regional line Ministry office,to Regional DoW office, is cumbersome and time consuming

4. Neither MWTC-DoW nor the line Ministries have acomprehensive and up-to-date database of SET installations

5. The regional offices of MWTC-DoW do not have sufficientstocks of spare components for SET’s

6. The SET’s that are owned and maintained/repaired byMAWF and Parastatals have a much better performancerecord than the SET’s owned by line Ministries andmaintained/repaired by DoW




RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 1:(Budgeting & Funding Stage)

Description:Provide regular awareness raising and informationdissemination regarding SET’s to infrastructure plannersand decision-makers at NPCS, MoF, DoW, line Ministries,and parastatals .

Responsibilities for Implementation:REEE Institute & NAMREP. NAMREP should implement smallgroup presentations until the Institute is ready to take over.


RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 2:(Budgeting & Funding Stage)

Description:NPCS and MoF should co-ordinate with each other regardingthe possible transfer of funds from recurrent budgets tocapital budgets.

Responsibilities for Implementation:NAMREP should meet with NPCS and MoF to initiate theabove recommended budget co-ordination. NAMREP shouldalso assist the NPCS and MoF by providing life cycle costdata on all different types and sizes of SET’s. In addition,NAMREP should encourage Government to consider theestablishment of a funding mechanism for SET’s in publicinstitutions -– for example, a RET Energisation Fund that isfunded from concessional loans or grants.




RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 3:(Implementation Stage)

Description:SET suppliers and/or the Renewable Energy Institute shouldregularly inform SET Engineers about SET’s and SETcomponents that are available on the Namibian market,including cost data, maintenance data, etc.

Responsibilities for Implementation:SET suppliers, REEE Institute


RECOMMENDATIONS


Description:DoW should be required to hire a qualified SET engineer,either internally or as a consultant, to review all designs andspecifications for SET’s.

Responsibilities for Implementation:MWTC-DoWNAMREP should encourage DoW act in this respect, andshould identify the minimum qualifications that the SETengineer should have.




RECOMMENDATIONS


Description:SET standardisation should be established for GovernmentSET projects.

Responsibilities for Implementation:NAMREP should encourage the establishment of a short-listof SET suppliers and technicians (based on criteria such astechnical capacity, number of trainees and quality of trainingprogramme, availability of spares, presence in the regions,partnerships with service providers that are based in theregions, etc.).


RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 6:(Operation/Maintenance/Repair Stage)

Description:A comprehensive inventory of all Government SET’s shouldbe performed and regularly updated.

Responsibilities for Implementation:NAMREP should facilitate the preparation of an SETinventory, creation of a GIS database, and training of a fewpersons on how to maintain and update the database.




RECOMMENDATIONS


Description:Maintenance and repair of SET’s at Government buildingsshould be outsourced to private sector technicians, or to anewly established not—for-profit maintenance and repairorganisation

Responsibilities for Implementation:NAMREP should draft the terms of reference and present itto DoW, MoF and MME. Cost estimates of the maintenanceand repair contracts should also be prepared for eachRegion so that the financial implications can be betterunderstood.

NOTE: Recommendations 7, 8 and 9 could be consideredas alternatives to each other, or as options to be selected bypublic institutions on a case by case basis.


RECOMMENDATIONS


Description:Parastatals (NBC, Telecom and MTC) should be encouragedto form maintenance partnerships amongst each other andwith Government institutions.

Responsibilities for Implementation:NAMREP should encourage such a partnership amongst theparastatals and line Ministries. The parastatals and lineMinistries should be brought together to compare theamounts, types and locations of their SET installations; todetermine the extent of the maintenance and repair activitiesthat they would like to share; and to establish contactpersons within each parastatal/Ministry who would beresponsible for the co-ordination with each other.





RECOMMENDATIONS


Description:Devise a maintenance system that addresses the particularneeds of SET’s and that is not funded by limited andundefined recurrent budgets.

Responsibilities for Implementation:NAMREP should encourage stakeholders, especially MME,NPCS, DoW and line Ministries, to negotiate the drafting ofstandard contracts for extended warranties (e.g. for fouryears) and standard maintenance contracts (e.g. for anadditional six years). The funding of SET maintenance couldthen be incorporated within the initial capital costs of SETinstallations.



RECOMMENDATIONS


Description:Encourage SET ownership by the end-user

Responsibilities for Implementation:NAMREP should meet individually with line Ministries tomotivate them to develop “ownership mechanisms”, such asa full-time “Energy Manager”, an “Energy Committee”, or a“Critical Infrastructure & Equipment Committee” that wouldbe tasked with resolving critical problems affecting energyinfrastructure, water infrastructure and other infrastructureand equipment. .




RECOMMENDATIONS


Description:Establish a management body for the long-term that wouldhelp sustain the above recommended SET co-ordinationframework mechanisms

Responsibilities for Implementation:The NAMREP Project Management Unit should devote moreattention and resources to assisting in the establishment ofa strong and capable REEE Institute. This would beconsistent with NAMREP’s objective of ensuring long-termsustainability of SET’s in Namibia.


WORKSHOP OBJECTIVE

PARTICIPANTS TO REVIEW, REVISE AND ADD TO THE KEYFINDINGS/PROBLEMS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS

THREE DISCUSSION GROUPS TO BE FORMED TO FOCUS ONPROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE THREEDIFFERENT PROJECT STAGES:

GROUP 1: PLANNING, BUDGETING AND FUNDING

GROUP 2: IMPLEMENTATION (DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION)

GROUP 3: OPERATION / MAINTENANCE / REPAIR STAGE




END OF PRESENTATION



APPENDIX 5.3

WORKSHOP REPORT



WORKSHOP REPORT

I. LIST OF ATTENDEES

NAME ORGANISATION TELEPHONE EMAIL 1 Abisai Shiyasaya Omusati Solar

Supply and Repair 0811246969 065-222012

[email protected]

2 M.U. Nyambai M.U. Electro 0812432192 245882

3 Leonard Sakaria Solar Plus Renewable Energy

0812809497 [email protected]

4 Shikokola letisia Namib Solar Electric 0812893208 [email protected] 5 Ngololo Johannes Sun Energy

Enterprise 0812576633

6 Hailume Polly Energy Solutions cc. 081272577 7 Shimweefeleni G. Jamutwe Jr. NAMREP 061-2848111 [email protected] 8 H. Koch MAWF 061-2087266 [email protected] 9 Ulf Storm NBC 0812388427 [email protected]

10 Frank Pump Telecom Namibia 0811281973 [email protected] 11 Johan Visagie Telecom Namibia 061-244617 [email protected] 12 Geoffrey Sibalata Telecom Namibia 061-244617 [email protected] 13 T.J. Kauaria Omaheke Electric

and Plumbing 0812536188

14 Prescott Tjamburo F.S.P. Inst. 0811287168 061-222649

15 Aldrin Mubiana DRWS 061-2087269 [email protected] 16 Deon Coetzee MTC 0811002041 [email protected] 17 J. Reinholdt MWT 0812085430 [email protected] 18 R. Hasheela NAMREP 0811244172 [email protected] 19 Harald Schutt Amusha 061-232333 [email protected] 20 J.oris Komen Schollnet 0811244200 [email protected] 21 T.N. Naukusha MOHSS 061-2032540 [email protected] 22 V. Kangueehi MoF 061-2092919 [email protected] 23 N. Maritz Nina Maritz Architect 061-220752 [email protected] 24 Namadhila Solar Outlet 00812565008 25 Sean van der Heever Jade Electrical

Systems Technology 0811220740

26 Jackson Nguuo JNSE 0811296337 [email protected] 27 Helmuth H.G.B. 0812091378 28 R. Khaehab Ott Solar Energy 0812422826 29 Noddy Hipangelwa MME/NAMREP 061-2848171 [email protected] 30 Martin Heita Tinda ESI 0811298481 31 Brigitte Weidlich Independent

journalist 0811292089 [email protected]

32 Albert Awene MEC Technology 0811222282 [email protected] 33 E. Nganyone DoW 061-2088710 [email protected] 34 F. Konjo UNAM 2061-2063245 [email protected] 35 C. Rohr Soltec cc 061-235646 [email protected] 36 Christoph Schumann Development Planner 061-239526 [email protected] 37 Catherine Matthew-Uunona CSA 061-237427 [email protected] 38 Carter Hartz CSA 061-237427 [email protected]

II. SUMMARY After opening speeches and a presentation by CSA of the Draft Report, participants were asked to make general comments, and identify additional problems / recommendations regarding publicly owned solar energy technologies. General Comments: 1. The report/project should also focus on energy efficiency, not just solar

technologies.



Additional Problems to be Noted: 1. The actual date of connection of institutional buildings to the electrical grid is

frequently not in accordance with the Rural Electrification Master Plan. This poses a difficult situation for infrastructure planners.

2. Construction consultants do not have sufficient awareness of the need to incorporate SET’s and EE into their projects.

Recommendations: 1. SET’S should be considered in both grid and off-grid areas, for new and refurbished

buildings. 2. Projects need to be evaluated by NPCS and MoF together using a life-cycle cost

approach. 3. Within line Ministries and DoW, capital and recurrent budgets should be maintained

by one department, not two, so that life cycle planning is better incorporated. 4. NAMREP and MAWF should use MAWF’s constituency office project (approx. 100

offices) as a good example where NPCS and MoF should adopt a life cycle planning approach, so that solar water heaters can be specified.

5. Renewable energy and energy efficiency need to be incorporated into the development plans of every Ministry.

6. NAMREP should establish a web page that provides useful information to construction consultants.

7. NAMREP should conduct workshops for construction consultants regarding SET’s and EE.

8. NAMREP should conduct a workshop on SET’s and EE exclusively for DoW, since it is a critical institution.

9. Line Ministries need to hold their end-users more accountable for theft and vandalism.

10. PV panels should have easily visible identification numbers and should be coloured to indicate Government property.

11. SET installers’ tenders should include providing certified training of three end-users on operation and routine maintenance.

12. Line Ministries and DoW should equally focus on EE and energy wastage 13. SET installers’ tenders should include providing a tank with a 3-month supply of

deionized water for battery maintenance. 14. SET installers’ tenders should include anti-theft measures such as razor wire mesh

fence, lockable battery storage rooms, etc. 15. If a SET GIS database is established, it should involve line Ministries and should be

constructed in a transparent process. 16. SET installers’ tenders should include providing key spare parts to be stored in

battery room.

Final Report Cover - Mines and Energy Nam · 2007. 2. 12. · E:\UNDP REPORTS\Cordination Frame...

Documents

Transcript of Final Report Cover - Mines and Energy Nam · 2007. 2. 12. · E:\UNDP REPORTS\Cordination Frame...