Kenya renewable energy development project : mid-term evaluation

Mid-term evaluation is based on site visits, document review, and interviews with project personnel and covers the period 1980-83. Much of the project remains unimplemented, due to cumbersome Government of Kenya (GOK) and A.I.D. procedures for procurement and disbursement of funds, the length of time required to establish a larger than anticipated administrative infrastructure, and the late arrival of commodities. The charcoal component was postponed by the GOK, and the community water supply and irrigation program eliminated. Efforts to develop a LEAP (Less developed country Energy Planning) model for Kenya have resulted in one energy print-out and two trained computer operators, but the model is not yet operative. Components to establish an Energy Development Fund and an Energy Data Bank and Library have made little progress. Project support for data collection and analysis by the Beijer Institute and Clark University was ambiguously defined in the project design, and the work performed by these institutions has been poorly documented. On the other hand, six agroforestry centers are operating, producing seedlings and engaging in training, extension and research; a component to develop improved charcoal cookstoves and train artisans in their manufacture has been extremely successful, although a year behind schedule, and is saving quantities of charcoal; applied research and demonstration activities have been performed at the agroforestry centers; energy audits and surveys are improving efficient use of petroleum; skills in energy demonstrations and extension are being transferred to GOK personnel; a draft energy policy document has been prepared; and the Ministry of Energy (MOE), through a project-supported contractor, has been providing energy-related technical support to GOK and private agencies. TA has been effective, although it is four months behind schedule and overburdened by administrative duties. The project's design was suspect in several ways: first, as perhaps best seen by its attempt to both plant trees and install at the MOE a macro-economic model, it was necessary to decide whether the design would address the needs of the rural poor (especially women) or the GOK. Second, and consequentially, the project was too complicated and over-designed for the MOE, a weak agency which has undergone repeated reorganizations, to implement. Third, the project's rigid time-frame for implementation could not be adapted to the inevitable start up delays. For these reasons, the project teaches a valuable lesson in proper (and faulty) design.