Document of The World Bank

Public Disclosure Authorized Report No: ICR00003397

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-4355)

ON A

CREDIT

Public Disclosure Authorized IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 25.6MILLION (US$ 38.8 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO

BURKINA FASO

FOR AN

ENERGY ACCESS PROJECT (EAP) Public Disclosure Authorized

June 18, 2015

Public Disclosure Authorized Energy and Extractives Global Practice Africa Region

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective January 28, 2014)

Currency Unit = CFA Franc (FCFA) Euro 1.00 = US$ 1.12 Euro 1.00 = 656 FCFA US$ 1.00 = 586 FCFA

FISCAL YEAR [January 1 – December 31]

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AFD Agence Française de Développement (French Agency for Development) AfDB African Development Bank AIJ Activities Implemented Jointly CAS Country Assistance Strategy CSI Core Sectorial Indicator BOAD Banque Ouest Africaine de Développement (West African Development Bank) CBDP Community-Based Development Project CEDP Competitiveness and Enterprise Development Project CERE Cellule de réflexion élargie sur la réforme du secteur de l’énergie (Energy Sector Reform Think Tank) CGE Cellule de gestion de l’énergie (Energy Management Unit) COOPEL Coopérative d’électrification (Cooperatives for Electrification) CPAR Country Procurement Assessment Report CPS Country Partnership Strategy CRCB Centre Régional de Consommation de Bobo-Dioulasso (Regional Load Center of Bobo-Dioulasso) CRCO Centre Régional de Consommation de Ouagadougou (Regional Load Center of Ouagadougou) DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DfID Department for International Development (United Kingdom) DGE Direction Générale de l’Energie (General Directorate of Energy) DGFF Direction Générale des Forêts et de la Faune (General Directorate of Energy) DGCN Direction Générale de la Conservation de la Nature (General Directorate of Conservation) DSM Demand-side Management EAP Energy Access Project ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EIB European Investment Bank ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESSP Energy Sector Support Project (P128768)

FAPM Financial and Administrative Project Manual FDE Fonds du Développement de l’Electrification (Electrification Development Fund) FIP Decentralized Forest and Woodland Management Project (P143993) FMP Forest Management Plans GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility IDA International Development Association IFR Interim Financial Report IPP Independent Power Producer kV Kilovolt kWh Kilowatt-hour LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas LSDP Letter of Sector Development Policy MMQE Ministry of Mines, Quarries, and Energy MW Megawatt NDF Nordic Development Fund NGO Non-Governmental Organization OBA Output-Based Aid PFM Public Financial Management PPIAF Public and Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility PRSC Poverty Reduction Strategy Credit PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PSDP Power Sector Development Project PV Photovoltaic RA Regulatory Agency RAP Resettlement Action Plan REF Rural Electrification Fund RPF Resettlement Policy Framework RPTES Regional Program for the Traditional Energy Sector SEG Sustainable Energy Department SIL Specific Investment Loan SONABEL Société Nationale d’Électricité du Burkina (National Power Utility) SONABHY Société Nationale Burkinabé des Hydrocarbures (National Petroleum Company) SWER Single Wire Earth Return UER Unité d’Exécution de la Réforme du Secteur de l’Énergie (Energy Sector Reform Implementation Unit) WAPMDP West Africa Power Market Development Project WAPP West Africa Power Pool

Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Ousmane Diagana Country Manager: Mercy Tembon Sr. Global Practice Director: Anita Marangoly George Practice Manager: Meike Van Ginneken Project Team Leader: Alassane Agalassou ICR Team Leader: Alassane Agalassou

Republic of Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Energy Access Project Implementation Completion and Results Report

CONTENTS

Data Sheet

A. Basic Information...... i B. Key Dates ...... i C. Ratings Summary ...... i D. Sector and Theme Codes ...... ii E. Bank Staff ...... ii F. Results Framework Analysis ...... ii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ...... vii H. Restructuring (if any) ...... vii I. Disbursement Profile ...... viii 1. Project Context, Development and Global Environment Objectives Design ...... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ...... 7 3. Assessment of Outcomes ...... 14 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ...... 19 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ...... 19 6. Lessons Learned...... 21 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners...... 23 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing ...... 24 Annex 2. Outputs by Component...... 25 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ...... 29 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ...... 40 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results (if any) ...... 42 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ...... 43 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ...... 44 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ...... 49 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...... 50 MAP IBRD 35473 ...... 51

A. Basic Information

Burkina Faso Energy Country: Burkina Faso Project Name: Access Project Project ID: P078091 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-43550 ICR Date: 03/08/2015 ICR Type: Core ICR GOVERNMENT OF Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: BURKINA FASO Original Total XDR 25.60M Disbursed Amount: XDR 25.59M Commitment: Revised Amount: XDR 25.60M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Unité d’Exécution de la Réforme du Secteur de l'Energie (UER) 01 BP 3919, Ouagadougou 01, Burkina Faso - Tel: (226) 25 33 17 45 Fax: (226) 25 31 03 40 Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:

B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 01/09/2006 Effectiveness: 02/11/2008 02/11/2008 Appraisal: 05/28/2007 Restructuring(s): 04/25/2013 04/23/2014 Approval: 07/26/2007 Mid-term Review: 08/11/2010 10/11/2010 Closing: 04/30/2013 10/31/2014

C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Low Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Moderately Satisfactory Government: Moderately Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Performance: Performance:

i

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Quality at Entry Project at any time Yes None (QEA): (Yes/No): Problem Project at any Quality of Supervision Yes None time (Yes/No): (QSA): DO rating before Moderately Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status:

D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 7 7 Other Renewable Energy 18 18 Transmission and Distribution of Electricity 75 75

Original Actual Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) City-wide Infrastructure and Service Delivery 33 33 Climate change 17 17 Infrastructure services for private sector development 17 17 Rural services and infrastructure 33 33

E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli K. Ezekwesili Country Director: Ousmane Diagana Mats Karlsson Practice Manager/Manager: Meike van Ginneken Subramaniam V. Iyer Project Team Leader: Alassane Agalassou Koffi Ekouevi ICR Team Leader: Alassane Agalassou ICR Primary Author: Fernando Lecaros

F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document)

The project development objective was to support Burkina Faso's efforts to increase access to, and use of, energy services to improve living conditions in selected rural, peri-urban, and urban areas by (i) assisting the Government to implement its rural electrification strategy to enhance ii productivity and the impact of health and education programs, (ii) supporting community-based sustainable woodfuels supply management and introduce alternative household fuels to reduce unsustainable pressure on forest resources and illnesses induced by indoor air pollution; and (iii) strengthening key sector institutions to create a favorable investment environment for more cooperatives and private sector participation in energy service delivery initiatives.

iii

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority)

(a) PDO Indicator(s) Original Target Formally Actual Value Baseline Values (from Revised Achieved at Indicator Value approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years People provided with access to electricity by household Indicator 1: connections Value (quantitative or 0 0 626, 040.00 760, 668.00 Qualitative) Date achieved 4/03/2013 04/03/2013 4/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments 122%, target exceeded. This core sector indicator was added during (incl. % achievement) restructuring in April 2103 to better align with sector results requirements following SEG recommendation. Community electricity connections constructed under the Indicator 2: project Value (quantitative or 0 136 169 Qualitative) Date achieved 4/03/2013 4/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments 124%, target exceeded. This core sector indicator was added during (incl. % achievement) project restructuring in April 2103 to better align with sector results requirements following SEG recommendation. Number of households with access to electricity provided by Indicator 3: SONABEL in selected areas

Value (quantitative or 247, 241 332,813 NA 374,503 Qualitative) Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 04/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments 151%, target exceeded (incl. % achievement) Number of households with access to electricity services Indicator 4: provided by FDE in selected areas Value less than (quantitative or 18,768 NA 19,800 15,000 Qualitative) Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 04/03/2013 10/31/2014

Comments 103%, target exceeded (incl. % achievement)

iv

Number of education and health facilities in targeted areas Indicator 5: with access to electricity services) Value (quantitative or 2 364 528 216 261 Qualitative) Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 04/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments Target exceeded (102% achieved). Note that the targets achieved (incl. % achievement) are “on top of”/in addition to the existing baseline. Number of administrative and recreational facilities with Indicator 6: access to electricity services Value (quantitative or N/A 450 303 470 Qualitative) Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 04/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments 155%, target exceeded (incl. % achievement) Number of hectares in selected areas under community-based Indicator 7: wood energy management programs Value (quantitative or 600,000 441,000 N/A 547,802 Qualitative) Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 04/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments 110%, target exceeded. Note that the targets achieved are “on top (incl. % achievement) of”/in addition to the existing baseline

Number of improved wood and charcoal stoves disseminated to Indicator 8: households Value Less than (quantitative or 250,000 70,000 110,488 20,000 Qualitative) Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 04/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments 145%, target exceeded. (incl. % achievement)

Number of cooperatives and private sector enterprises in Indicator 9: selected areas providing energy services Value (quantitative or Less than 10 60 NA 92 Qualitative)

Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 04/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments 146 %, target exceeded (incl. % achievement)

v

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Number of communities with access to electricity services in Indicator 1 : targeted areas Value (quantitative or Less than 100 118 136 191 Qualitative) Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 4/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments 123% achieved, target exceeded (incl. % achievement) Number of hectares of new forests available for community-based Indicator 2 : wood energy management programs Value (quantitative or 0.00 270,000.00 328,724.00 Qualitative) Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 10/31/2014 Comments 121%, target exceeded, (incl. % achievement) Indicator 3 : Finalization of cook stove distribution strategy Value Cook stoves (quantitative or Not exist Finalized NA distribution Qualitative) strategy finalized Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 04/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments Fully achieved. (incl. % achievement) Number of staff trained in planning, management, and monitoring Indicator 4 : rural energy programs Value (quantitative or Less than 100 100 NA 346 Qualitative) Date achieved 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 04/03/2013 10/31/2014 Comments 223 %. Target exceeded (incl. % achievement)

vi

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

Actual Date ISR No. DO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) 1 12/14/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 06/09/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.96 3 12/24/2008 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 2.98 4 06/26/2009 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 3.00 5 12/14/2009 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 3.80 6 06/07/2010 Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 4.15 7 03/22/2011 Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 4.64 8 12/24/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 5.74 9 07/11/2012 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 13.86 10 03/10/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 23.14 11 10/05/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 28.76 12 04/30/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 36.58 13 10/31/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 39.31

H. Restructuring (if any)

Board ISR Ratings at Amount Restructuring Approved Restructuring Disbursed at Reason for Restructuring & Date(s) PDO Restructuring Key Changes Made Change DO IP in USD millions Extend closing date( from March 31,2013 to April 30,2014) to finalize activities under 04/25/2013 N MS MS 23.14 implementation and reallocate funds between categories and revise results framework Extend the closing date to 31

MS S 36.58 October 2014 to finalize 04/23/2014 N activities under implementation and reallocated funds.

Ii.

vii

I. Disbursement Profile

viii

1. Project Context, Development and Global Environment Objectives Design

1.1. Context at Appraisal

1. Country Context: In 2004, at the time of project preparation, the Government of Burkina Faso issued its revised Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), and set the following quantitative objectives: (i) increase per capita gross domestic product by at least 4 percent per year beginning in 2004; (ii) reduce the current incidence of Poverty to less than 35 percent by 2015; and (iii) increase life expectancy to at least 60 years by 2015. These objectives were in line with the Millennium Development Goals, as well as the goals set forth by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. The Government acknowledged that meeting these goals would require faster economic growth coupled with an accelerated pace of poverty reduction. It also recognized that reforms to improve provision of infrastructure services (energy, water, transport, and telecommunications) were fundamental to increase productivity and competitiveness of the economy and to improve access to basic services.

2. The country had achieved macroeconomic stability through fiscal discipline and significant inflows of external support of about 8 to 9 percent of GDP during the previous decade. However, major constraints to long-term growth and global competitiveness needed to be addressed if this relatively good performance was to be sustained. Key obstacles to long- term growth and competitiveness were as follows: (i) weak human resources and low labor productivity; (ii) weak infrastructure and high input costs; (iii) limited size of the formal sector; and (iv) weak institutional capacity. The 2005 Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) through Poverty Reduction Strategy Credits (PRSCs), specific investment operations, and advisory services supported the Government’s Poverty Reduction Program through four main pillars: (i) accelerated and shared small growth; (ii) improved access to basic services; (iii) increased employment and income opportunities for the poor; and (iv) good governance with greater decentralization. In particular, the upcoming PRSCs (7, 8, and 9) will support reforms intended to: (i) improve the investment climate and promote exports; (ii) improve access to basic social services through deepened decentralization and strengthened institutional capacity; and (iii) promote efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the use of public resources through enhanced public financial management

3. Energy sector. At appraisal (and until the present time) Burkina Faso had no significant known fossil fuel resources. Petroleum product consumption was entirely dependent on imports (more than 500,000 tons annually) by road at high cost from ports over 1,000 km away. The majority of the population (about 90 percent) still relied on wood energy (firewood and charcoal). The country’s hydroelectric potential was limited, with less than 100 MW of potential capacity in five identified sites. Two hydropower plants have been developed with 27 MW of installed capacity and 16 MW of available capacity. These plants were vulnerable to erratic rainfall conditions. Only about 18 percent of the population had access to electricity (about 40 percent in urban areas and about 3 percent in rural areas). Per capita consumption was 44 kWh in Burkina Faso, compared with 100 kWh in Cameroon, 200 kWh in Senegal, and 270 kWh in Cote d’Ivoire. The majority of the population (about 90 percent) was still relying on wood energy (firewood and charcoal). The country faced four main challenges in the energy sector: (i) the need for additional capacity to meet an increasing demand for energy services; (ii) to 1

improve the efficiency and equity in energy services provision by reforming tariff and subsidy policies in a context of high supply costs; (iii) to expand access of energy services to rural and peri-urban populations; and (iv) to achieve a sustainable supply of wood fuels used by the majority of the population, while introducing alternative fuels to households.

4. For about a decade before appraisal, the Government had been putting in place key building blocks for reforming the regulatory environment of the energy sector. These reforms were initiated in 1998 with the breakup of SONABEL’s distribution monopoly, followed in 2000 by the adoption o f a Letter of Sector Development Policy emphasizing a private sector- led energy sector development. The broad outline of the restructuring of the sector was completed in 2004 when the generation segment was opened to competition, and the transmission and distribution segments were bundled into two sub segments. The first subsegment covers the current perimeter of SONABEL and the second subsegment covers all the area outside SONABEL’s perimeter.

5. At appraisal, wood fuels (firewood and charcoal) were the main source of energy used by about 90 percent of households in Burkina Faso, mostly for cooking. The reliance on wood fuels was one of the important causes of deforestation, and was especially relevant in the context of high population growth and increasing land clearance for agriculture. Farming on marginal lands and land degradation were increasingly becoming concerns for environmental sustainability, especially around major towns. Unsustainable pressures exerted on the biomass resource base and cultivable land have long-term consequences such as the acceleration of desertification and its associated climate change impacts, soil erosion, recurrent flooding, and increased siltation in rivers. Besides environmental consequences, there were also negative health effects associated with inefficient use of wood fuels. Inefficient burning of firewood emits toxic substances like carbon monoxide, sulfur, and nitrogen oxides, which cause bronchitis, acute respiratory infections in children, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in women, low birth weight, and contribute to the prevalence of high morbidity and mortality rates.

6. At appraisal, several development partners were involved in Burkina Faso’s energy sector. The European Investment Bank (EIB) and the French Development Agency (AFD) funded the transmission line from Cote d’Ivoire to Bobo-Dioulasso, which was commissioned in 2001. DANIDA financed the rehabilitation and expansion of several diesel power plants in Bobo-Dioulasso and Ouagadougou, and financed the development of a demand-side management program and provided technical assistance to the DGE. The West African Development Bank (BOAD) mobilized capital markets to finance expansion of power supply in Ouagadougou. The EIB, AFD, Nordic Development Fund (NDF), and DANIDA were financiers together with the World Bank of the Power Sector Development Project (more below). The EAP through its outreach, partnerships, and harmonization subcomponent closely collaborated with the African Development Bank (AfDB) rural energy services expansion agenda and the Islamic Development Bank PV Support project.

7. Project rationale. The Energy Access Project (EAP) was designed to capitalize on the Power Sector Development Project (PSDP), which was approved by the Executive Directors in November 2004 following the country’s paradigm shift towards the consideration of least-cost investment options, including interconnection with neighboring countries. The PSDP under

2

implementation would allow bringing substantially cheaper hydro and gas-based electricity from neighboring Cote d’Ivoire into Ouagadougou by the end of 2008. Along the proposed Bobo-Dioulasso-Ouagadougou transmission lines there was a tremendous potential for electricity access expansion to households, production units, basic social services (health care and education centers), and administrative and recreational centers in many communities, which the EAP would facilitate. Furthermore, there was a potential for linking isolated centers currently powered by diesel generators to the main grid and expanding distribution networks in major towns and peri-urban areas. Both the PSDP and the EAP were in line with the objectives of the Bank’s Africa Action Plan regarding the need to reduce the infrastructure gap. They were also in alignment with objectives of Pillar 1 of the Clean Investment Framework on energy for development and access for the poor. The PSDP and EAP covered all five tracks identified under Pillar 1, namely: Track 1 - Scaled-up programs of household electrification; Track 2 - Additional generation capacity (including regional projects); Track 3 - Provision of energy services for key public facilities such as schools and clinics; Track 4 - Provision of standalone lighting packages for households without electricity service; and Track 5- Access to clean cooking, heating, and lighting fuels.

8. The EAP was aimed towards supporting the Government’s efforts underway through the PSDP to reduce production factor costs through the provision and rational use of energy services. The EAP was thereby consistent with the CAS’S objective to help improve competitiveness and to support broad-based growth. By expanding energy services access through grid-based and standalone off-grid initiatives. The EAP was would allow the Government to reach out to remote and poor populations, thus helping them to increase their productivity and to improve their overall livelihoods.

9. Following-up on this concept, the project was designed to (i) support conventional electrification through SONABEL, the state electricity company; (ii) support rural electrification through grid extensions to small communities; (iii) support rural electrification through off-grid investments (diesel power plants, solar equipment); (iv) support sustainable woodfuel production through improved forest management; (v) improve end-use energy efficiency by disseminating improved stoves and substituting traditional energy by modern energy.

1.2. Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved)

10. The Project Development Objective was to support Burkina Faso's efforts to increase access to, and use of energy services to improve living conditions in selected rural, peri-urban, and urban areas by: • Assisting the Government to implement its rural electrification strategy to enhance productivity and the impact of health and education programs; • Supporting community-based sustainable woodfuels supply management and introducing alternative household fuels to reduce unsustainable pressure on forest resources and illnesses induced by indoor air pollution;

3

• Strengthening key sector institutions to create a favorable investment environment for more cooperatives and private sector participation in energy service delivery initiatives.

11. Key outcome indicators of the project included: (i) People provided with access to electricity by household connections (ii) Community electricity connections constructed under the project iii) increased number of households with access to electricity; (iv) increased number of education and health facilities in selected areas with access to electricity services; (v) increased number of administrative and recreational facilities with access to electricity services; (vi) increased number of hectares under community-based sustainable woodfuel supply management programs; (vii) increased number of improved wood and charcoal stoves disseminated; and (viii) increased number of cooperatives and private sector enterprises providing energy services.

1.3. Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification

12. The PDO as stated in the legal agreement remained unchanged and relevant throughout project implementation. Three of the key outcome indicators were revised in 2013. At the same time, two core sector indicators (CSIs) were added during the opportunistic restructuring of April 2103 following Sustainable Energy Department (SEG) recommendation to add core sector indicators into the results framework. The table below shows the key changes made to the results framework during project restructuring:

Key Indicators Original Revised Target Target People provided with access to electricity by New 626,040 household connections (core sector indicator) Community electricity connections constructed under New 136 the project (core sector indicator) Increased number of education and health facilities in 528 214 selected areas with access to electricity services through the project Increased number of administrative and recreational 450 303 facilities with access to electricity services through the project Increased number of improved wood and charcoal 250,000 70,000 stoves disseminated to households through the project

13. The main reasons for the revision to the results framework were to better align the targets determined during project appraisal with the signed contracts, hence improving realism and adding new intermediate indicators to better track progress. The extension of the closing date allowed important activities already initiated to be completed by the revised project closing date. There was a combination of over-optimism and over-estimation and methodological measurement issues at the time the project targets were initially put together. Regarding the improved stoves component, the target was revised downward due to over-optimism and the

4

failure of two initial approaches during implementation. The original approach, aimed at signing business protocols with selected cooperatives, was not approved at the national level. The Bank and the client therefore decided to proceed with a bidding process that was unfruitful until a successful strategy was developed with the participation of NGOs in 2013.

1.4. Main Beneficiaries

14. The beneficiaries were not identified clearly in the PAD. Based on the PDO, the primary target groups included (a) consumers lacking electricity connections in urban and peri-urban areas of the main cities, which would be served directly by SONABEL; (b) rural communities lacking electricity service, which would be connected to the grid and managed by local groups of beneficiaries through a cooperative scheme; (c) mainly rural communities who would benefit from improved school and health facilities by providing them with electricity service; (d) communities where wood fuel is produced and who would benefit by increased employment and a rational use of the resource; (e) households who would save on energy costs by requiring less wood fuel by adopting improved wood stoves, as well as benefitting from improved living conditions and fewer health hazards associated with traditional stove fumes and, in particular, women (who would enjoy more time for productive activities) and children (who would enjoy more educational and leisure time), given their traditional roles in cooking and woodfuel collection, (f) small producers, such as millet beer brewers, who would benefit from switching from wood fuel to modern energy. These beneficiaries remained unchanged throughout project execution.

1.5. Original Components (as approved)

15. Component 1: Increasing Access to Electricity Services in the Urban, Peri-Urban and Rural Areas (US$26.7 million equivalent). The component included three subcomponents: a) Subcomponent 1.1 Grid-based extension and reinforcement in urban and peri-urban areas ($13.1 million):(i) Construction of medium voltage (MV) distribution lines linking three isolated centers to the main grid, (ii) distribution network rehabilitation, extension, and reinforcement in urban and peri-urban areas, and (iii) promotional initiatives to finance initial connection costs of new customers, prepayment meters, and energy saving bulbs. The subcomponent was expected to benefit 42 communities and to connect around 86,000 new users, benefiting a population of around 685,000. This subcomponent was to be executed by SONABEL. b) Subcomponent 1.2 Increasing access in rural and remote areas ($13.1 million): financing investments for providing electricity services in 56 communities lacking power, and outside SONABEL’s perimeter. The activities included: (i) connection of 31 communities to the grid; (ii) construction of standalone thermal–based minigrids in 6 communities; (iii) construction of multifunctional platforms (diesel engine connected to several equipment items such as a water pump, welding and carpentry equipment etc.) with small distribution networks in 19 communities; and (iv) pre-electrification activities in 20 remote communities with PV systems (2,000 solar kits and 100 institutional systems). The target for this subcomponent was to achieve around 18,600 new

5

connections and to benefit a population of 145,000. It was to be executed by Fonds du Développement de l’Électrification (FDE). c) Subcomponent 1.3 Information, education, and communication ($0.5 million): this was expected to finance (i) information and promotional campaigns, mostly in rural and peri-urban areas; (ii) demonstration workshops where prospective consumers are introduced to energy devices; and (iii) the organization of focus groups to elicit feedback from stakeholders regarding project performance.

16. Component 2: Wood fuel supply management and inter-fuel substitution initiatives ($6.7 million). a) Subcomponent 2.1 Community-based Wood fuels supply management ($5.1 million). Financing sustainable community-based forest management over an additional 440,000 ha from a reference area of 600,000 ha currently under management. It also included equipment for forestry services, and the establishment of rural based microenterprises (e.g. carbonization units, agroforestry processing units, apiculture, etc.). It was executed by the Direction Générale des Forêts et de la Faune (DGFF) under the Ministry of the Environment. b) Subcomponent 2.2 Inter-fuel substitution initiatives ($1.0 million). The primary goal of this component was to support the penetration of 250,000 improved stoves within five years. It would also support other fuel substitution opportunities, and pilot projects for biofuel development from Jatropha, cotton and other agricultural waste. The Direction Générale de l’Énergie (DGE) under the Ministry of Energy executed it. c) Subcomponent 2.3 Training and promotional campaigns (US$ 0.6 million). Training and promotional campaigns on the advantages of sustainable woodfuels management, possibilities of inter-fuel substitution, and household economy gains from adopting alternative and energy-efficient devices.

17. Component 3: Institutional strengthening, capacity development, and harmonization ($5.4 million). The goal of this component was to finance institutional strengthening of public sector energy agencies (national and decentralized agencies) to support scaling up of energy service expansion. It would also finance capacity development of energy service providers as well as outreach, partnerships, and harmonization initiatives. The component included three sub -components: a) Subcomponent 3.1 Institutional strengthening in the public sector ($4.1 million): This component was for training and equipment to strengthen SONABEL, FDE, DGE, the General Directorate of Nature Conservation (DGCN), including planning, management, impact assessment, legal and regulatory improvements, monitoring, and pricing and taxation to support the development of energy services expansion. b) Subcomponent 3.2 Capacity development of energy service providers ($0.8 million). This was oriented towards supporting organizations such as cooperatives, NGOs, local communities and SMEs in cooperation with the UK DFID and ESMAP to provide diagnostic and business modules to finance training to encourage energy services expansion. In addition, it would help remove barriers to renewable energies.

6

c) Subcomponent 3.3 Outreach, partnerships and harmonization ($0.5 million). . This component was oriented towards supporting DGE in forming partnerships with other institutions to ensure that energy programs are effectively designed to support social development and contribute to increased productivity. It would also support DGE in attracting national and international institutions to participate in increasing energy access.

1.6. Revised Components

18. The components remained the same throughout project implementation.

1.7. Other significant changes

19. A level 2 restructuring was approved in April 2013 to extend the project closing date to 30 April 2014, revise the results framework and introduce core sector indicators, in addition to revision to targets for three (3) PDO level indicators. In April 2014, a six-month extension was approved, extending the closing date to October 31, 2014 to finalize activities under implementation. Both restructurings reallocated funds among expenditure categories, as follows:

Revised Revised Initial Allocation Allocation Categories Allocation (April 2013) (April 2014) (SDR) Goods, works and consultants’ services for Parts (2), (3) and (1)(c) 8 300 000 6 224 520 4 569 990 including audits, training and operating costs Goods, works and consultants’ 8 650 000 10 461 189 11 120 806 services for Parts (1) (a) Goods, works and consultants’ 8 650 000 8 914 291 9 909 204 services for Parts (1) (b) Total 25 600 000 25 600 000 25 600 000

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1. Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry

20. Project preparation was grounded on (a) Burkina Faso’s poverty reduction strategy, (b) the Government’s Rural Electrification Strategy and Biomass Energy Strategy, (c) as a follow- up to the IDA Power Sector Development Project (PSDP–P069126), and (d) as a partial follow- up of the Bank’s AIJ/RPTES pilot project. The 2004 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper recognized that reforms to improve provision of infrastructure services, including energy, are fundamental to increase productivity and competitiveness, and to improve access to basic services. The Government’s rural electrification strategy recognized the need to increase access

7

in rural areas, which was estimated at a mere 3%; as an indication of its commitment, it set up the rural electrification fund (FDE) in 2003. The biomass strategy was based on the need to replicate proven operational models, already implemented in Burkina Faso, for sustainable forest management. The PSDP implemented interconnection lines with Ivory Coast, which could be tapped to extend services in rural towns and communities. The AIJ/RPTES pilot project was launched by the Government in 1998 to demonstrate the viability of community- based integrated forestry and natural resource management, and proved to be successful. Based on the foregoing, project conception was sound and founded on solid information.

21. The PDO was structured around three categories of outcomes expected from the project, namely (a) increases in productivity, and enhanced impacts of health and education programs associated with extended electricity coverage; (b) reduced pressure on forest resources and the reduction in illnesses associated with indoor pollution; and (c) an improved investment environment and private sector participation in energy service delivery initiatives. The biomass strategy was exclusively oriented towards preventing deforestation and ensuring the sustainability of forest resources; however, the activities resulting from improved forest management are also expected to generate additional revenues for rural populations, and should have been contemplated in the PDO.

22. The objectives of the project responded to Bank and Government priorities. Preparation took place when the 2005 CAS had been issued; the latter was structured around several pillars: (a) accelerating growth, which included strengthening economic infrastructure and electricity supply; (b) expanding employment and income opportunities among the poor, including community-driven development and land management, as well as rural infrastructure and electrification; and (c) promoting good governance.

23. The project was designed with three components that reflected the categories of outcomes mentioned above (an “electricity” component, a “forest management and inter-fuel substitution” component, and an “institutional strengthening” component); consequently, project design followed a well-defined structure, from outcomes to objectives, and from objectives to components.

24. The scope of the components themselves can be characterized as follows: (a) Energy services expansion comprised grid extensions, standalone grids, solar systems, and information and education; all three activities had precedents both within Burkina Faso (as executed by other development partners) and in numerous electrification projects throughout the region, many of them supported by the Bank, and the scope was reasonable; (b) the scope of the woodfuels supply management component was more difficult to comply with, as forest development is an activity that can take from six to ten years, far beyond the project’s duration, and therefore support would only be provided for the initial stages, associated with community organization; (c) inter-fuel substitution, consisting of improved stoves, penetration of modern energy in households, and pilot studies for the production of biofuels, is a well-defined activity which has been performed in other projects within Burkina Faso, within the region, and many of the Bank’s client countries; (d) finally, institutional strengthening as proposed is fairly standard and can be executed within the project’s time range with Government cooperation.

8

25. EAP preparation included research on lessons learned from other projects, which were taken into account for its design, such as: • Simple program design based on contextual conditions and constraints; • Clear Government energy strategy; • The requirement for subsidies, preferably OBA-based; • Public/private partnerships as the preferred implementation option; • Promoting ownership through consultation with stakeholders; • Differentiated tariffs for rural electrification to ensure sustainability; • Multiple sector support to link electricity to productivity improvements and poverty alleviation; • Community-based natural resources management as the preferred vehicle for rural development.

26. At appraisal, pertinent risks were identified, together with mitigation measures, as summarized below.

Potential Risks Proposed Mitigation Financial sustainability of Each proposed RE investment will be assessed for its the rural electrification (RE) financial sustainability and the required level of subsidy. schemes Tariff will be differentiated by level of services and by RE project.

Sector syndication prospectus would be prepared during the implementation of the project to attract funding for a scale up of initiatives. Ability of poor consumers The services offered should match the consumer’s needs. to pay for the electricity Subsidies will be provided to reflect ability to pay. services The proposed electricity services will include energy efficiency objectives.

Least-cost solution aligned with the service required will be developed. Ability to implement an Initially extensive use of private sector contractors for the accelerated pace of rural assessment of the RE projects and for installation of the electrification and new facilities. management of forestry Number of projects implemented will grow gradually over resources the five-year implementation period, in line with the capacities of the institutions in place. Implementation of the Government has indicated that the electricity sector electricity sector reform reform program would be accelerated. Setting-up of the Regulatory Agency should be accelerated. Insufficient involvement of Develop specific and decentralized actions to identify and stakeholders in rural energy train stakeholders. initiatives Set up rules to protect former stakeholders already engaged in rural energy initiatives.

9

Differential tariffs between Develop information, education, and communication rural, urban, and peri-urban campaigns to sensitize different stakeholders to minimize areas and between different this issue. zones in rural areas Insufficient involvement of Inform and sensitize communities and local leaders in communities in target zones and involve them in the whole woodfuels participatory forest supply management processes. management

27. The only risk to materialize was the full implementation of the electricity sector reform (the regulatory authority was setup in 2013) but the sector was not unbundled; this event had no consequences on project implementation. Unforeseen risks (which materialized) consisted of implementation capacity of sector and Government agencies—including procurement weaknesses.

2.2. Implementation

28. Implementation was characterized by two distinct phases: a period of inactivity and delays, which lasted roughly three years, until end-2010, and a period of active implementation, which lasted about four years until project closure in October 2014.

29. Three years after effectiveness, as of March 2011, only 11% of the project funds had been disbursed, against an original expectation of 80%. Ratings of the project during this first phase ranged from MU to U. The MTR took place between October 2010 and early 2011 and noted the different obstacles faced by the project. The principal cause of delay in the electricity component was a failed procurement of equipment required by SONABEL due to bids that largely exceeded the allocated budget; the process was reinitiated in 2010 with adjusted procurement lots, which allowed the participation of local suppliers and resulted in acceptable bids. Delays in procurement were also associated with local procurement rules that were modified after project preparation and required a lengthy approval process by the National Procurement Directorate (for contracts above US$2,000). The biomass and improved stoves component also experienced delays associated with a lack of proactivity of DGE and DGCN, and difficulties in recruiting trained staff.

30. In 2011, the project was turned around and started to progress significantly. The bidding processes were successful and disbursements increased to 58% during 2012 with the signature of contracts for about 78% of the loan amount. As a result, the project was upgraded to MS status. With improved perspectives of complying with its objectives, the project was restructured in April 2013 with adjustments to several indicators and a one-year extension of the closing date. Thereafter, the project progressed until closure with consistent MS ratings.

2.3. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization

31. Design. M&E was conceived within the framework and experience gained with the previous PSDP project, which included SONABEL, DGE, and UER; these M&E systems were expected to be upgraded and better coordinated for the EAP. Government statistics were

10 considered unsuitable for reporting on project performance, i.e. on project outcomes or proxies thereof; as a result, M&E was designed to rely on project-specific data such as its performance indicators. The following table provides an assessment of the selected indicators and their appropriateness for project monitoring.

Appropriateness of Indicator for Monitoring Indicators Outcomes PDO Indicators A proxy for overall benefits of the project assuming that (1) People provided with access to access to electricity will increase productivity and electricity by household connections enhance impact of education and health programs-- Appropriate

A proxy for improvement in quality of health and (2) Community electricity connections education programs (better clinics and schools)-- constructed under project Appropriate (3) Increased number of households with access to electricity (separate for Similar to (1) SONABEL and FDE) (4) Increased number of education and health facilities in selected areas with Similar to (2) access to electricity through the project (5) Increased number of administrative and recreational facilities with access A proxy for improved productivity in administrative to electricity services through the facilities, and welfare associated with recreation project (6) Increased number of hectares under community-based sustainable A proxy for measuring the reduction of unsustainable woodfuel supply management pressure on forest resources—Appropriate programs (7) Increased number of improved Can be assimilated to (6) and is a proxy for reduction of wood and charcoal stoves indoor pollution—Appropriate disseminated (8) Increased number of cooperatives Indicator of favorable investment environment and and private sector enterprises private sector participation outcome—Appropriate providing energy services Intermediate Results Indicators (9) Number of communities with access to electricity services in Can be assimilated to (1) and (2) targeted areas (10) Number of hectares of new forests available for community-based wood Can be assimilated to (6) energy management programs (11) Finalization of cook stove Assimilated to (7) distribution strategy (12) Number of staff trained in Indicator of favorable investment environment and planning, management, and monitoring private sector participation—Appropriate of rural energy programs

11

32. Implementation. M&E was performed by the UER together with staff in each of the organization groups in charge of project execution. Monitoring consisted of collecting data relative to component execution and indicators, which was discussed in monthly meetings. This setup did not always perform well, as staff within the groups did not see this activity as a major responsibility. UER prepared quarterly activity reports, including financial reporting, which were shared with IDA as well as all staff activity reports, financial statements, and budgets.

33. Utilization. On the Bank side, the M&E was utilized to follow the progress on the implementation of the different components by targeting successful activities that would receive additional funding through the two restructurings of the project, and detecting under-achieving activities in order to take actions that would encourage the progress on the implementation of those activities such as the improved cook stoves component. The UER used the M&E to follow project progress; as noted under implementation, the executing institutions did not, in general, take much note of the M&E process; greater awareness of the M&E process could have avoided some of the delays in implementation.

2.4. Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance

34. Safeguards. The project triggered the environmental assessment (Op 4.01) and involuntary resettlement (OP 4.12) safeguards. The EAP was classified as a Category B project (i.e. minimal, site-specific, and manageable impacts). An Environmental and Social Management Plan was prepared, together with a Resettlement Policy Framework.

35. Safeguard compliance was rated either as MS or S during project execution. Actual impacts of the project included compensation and resettlement of 838 people, at a cost of around US$160,000 during the construction of MV lines; 341 people were relocated and compensated at a cost of around US$400,000 during the execution of the rural electrification component. The only safeguard-related conflict took place when extending urban and peri-urban networks under component 1.1; SONABEL had understood that these works did not need environmental and social studies and remedial measures, but the Bank required them; the issue was resolved through an agreement whereby SONABEL compensated users affected by the project, and ultimately 341 compensation was arranged for 322 people at a cost of around US$122,000.

36. Ultimately, the project confirmed the B rating, as environmental and social impacts were easily managed in the field, were financially affordable, and did not delay the project implementation significantly.

37. Fiduciary. Financial management aspects of the project were continuously rated either MS or S (particularly at the end of the project); the related FM risk was rated moderate throughout project implementation. Overall, financial management covered adequately the project’s accounting and reporting arrangements, internal control procedures, planning and budgeting, counterpart funding, funds flow arrangement, external audit reporting arrangements, and project accounting staff issues. Staffing remained adequate and proper books of accounts and supporting documents were kept in respect of all expenditures. Most of the audits were

12

submitted on time, and were unqualified. The interim un-audited financial reports were also submitted on time and the quality of those reports improved throughout project implementation.

38. Procurement. As noted in section 2.2, the project experienced failed bidding processes, which resulted in major project delays. Procurement was rated Unsatisfactory until early 2011, and the corresponding ISR noted likely weaknesses in capacity and recommended training. Once the goods and services were repackaged into smaller and more numerous tenders, thereby enabling the participation of local enterprises, bidding was successful, procurement proceeded adequately, and project implementation improved.

2.5. Post-completion Operation/Next Phase

39. Post-completion. Investments financed by the project under Component 1.1 (SONABEL extensions and lines) are standard equipment requiring basic and well-known maintenance procedures. Under Component 1.2 (rural lines, networks, and power plants), the lines and networks are maintained either by SONABEL or by an enterprise (required by FDE), which takes care of technical maintenance of rural facilities. The diesel power plants are operated by electricity cooperatives in the beneficiary villages, which have received training on the standard O&M required by the facilities. The solar PV kits distributed through the project do not require much maintenance and can be expected to operate adequately under normal conditions. The transition arrangements are summarized in the following table.

Conditions for the EAP future operation SONABEL grid Rural extensions and peri- Electrification Diesel power plants PV systems urban through grid electrification extension Technical, Cooperatives that Community systems financial, Institutional stability manage metering and Cooperatives organized to commercial, and of SONABEL billing continue to continue to operate maintain solar institutional operate facilities conditions Technical O&M Sunny weather!! Availability of power Technical operator in operator remunerated Availability of spares Provision of inputs supplies from main charge of O&M and fuel/spares and technical system remunerated available services Beneficiaries of Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable community systems Budget provisions electricity rates electricity rates electricity rates organized to share maintenance costs Trained staff of Trained staff of Trained personnel Staffing and cooperatives and cooperatives and Beneficiaries continues to work for Management competent staff of competent staff of organized SONABEL technical operator technical operator Cooperative/technical Support for Regulations for Policies for effective Regulation in place operator scheme dissemination of PV decentralized service operation for quality control supported by systems on large provision in place regulation scale Electricity customers Electricity customers Marketing of Marketing not connection requests connection requests Affordable rates outputs needed approved approved

13

40. Follow-up of the electricity component of the project is expected for the SONABEL and FDE activities. In the case of SONABEL this is executed as part of normal maintenance and supervisory activities. In the case of FDE, there are arrangements to follow up on the principal electrification variables (households, consumption, commercial performance) in communities under its purview. .

41. Next phase. The major components financed by this operation include two follow-up initiatives: (a) The Electricity Sector Support Project (P128768), a $85 million loan whose PDO includes (i) increasing access to electricity, (ii) improving the reliability of electricity supply, and (iii) improving energy efficiency in targeted areas. The increased access will build upon lessons learned from the EAP (b) The $26 million Decentralized Forest and Woodland Management Project—FIP— (P143993), designed to build upon the EAP achievements in addressing fuelwood and forest management issues.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1. Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation

Rating: Substantial

42. The objective of the operation was and continues to remain highly relevant to the overall development goals of Burkina. It is considered that the project has made a significant difference to the country´s poverty reduction strategy and the MDGs by facilitating the increase in the rate of electrification from 40%percent during appraisal to an estimated 56 percent in 2014. In October 2013, the Council of Ministers adopted a new energy policy (Politique Sectorielle de l’Energie (POSEN) 2013 – 2022) as the sector’s response to the national accelerated growth and sustainable development strategy (SCADD). The POSEN is based on four strategic pillars: (i) promoting the use of local (renewable) energy resources; (ii) enhancing sub-regional cooperation; (iii) ensuring universal access to quality energy services; and (iv) making energy an engine for sustainable development. The Government of Burkina Faso (GoBF)’s goal is to achieve: (a) a 100% access rate to electricity services in urban areas and 49% in rural communities; (b) an 80% market penetration of improved cook stoves in urban households and 90% for rural ones; all to be achieved by target year 2022.

43. The latest CPS was issued in 2013 and covers FY13-16. The strategies envisioned in the CPS include the reduction of infrastructure deficits (transport, energy, and ICT). For the energy sector, the CPS recommends that the EAP direct its efforts to expanding access in targeted rural, peri-urban, and urban areas. It presents the ESSP as a continuation of the EAP, to increase access and to enhance rational use of energy in target areas. Consequently, the EAP can be considered to be well grounded in terms of supporting both past and current priorities. In fact, the EAP objectives will continue to be relevant for several years; for example, the access target for electricity in 2016 in the CPS is 50%, still far below many developing country standards; likewise, the continued dependence on traditional fuels in the near and medium term requires improved management of scarce forest resources.

14

3.2. Achievement of Project Development Objectives and Global Environment Objectives Rating: Substantial

44. The project succeeded in connecting 127,000 new households to the SONABEL grid; the 2006 baseline consisted of 247,000 customers, which indicates that the project contributed to an increase in connections of 51% over 8 years. In 2013 SONABEL had reached 472,000 customers, which would indicate that the project contributed to 56% of SONABEL’s customer growth during the implementation period. In the case of FDE, the project connected 19,800 homes by end-2014; with a baseline of less than 15,000 users, the project will have contributed to more than 100% growth of rural users during the implementation period.

45. Rating the PDO involves, as mentioned in the implementation and M&E sections, assessing whether the outcomes were achieved. In the case of the EAP, the outcomes included in the PDO were improved living conditions in general and, in particular, (i) enhanced productivity, (ii) enhanced impact of health and education programs, (iii) reduced pressure on forest resources, (iv) impact on illnesses induced by indoor air pollution, and (v) improving the investment climate for cooperative and private sector participation in energy services delivery. The chosen indicators did not measure outcomes directly and are proxies for them. However, evidence from other projects financed by the Bank indicates that electrification generates benefits and welfare at the household level, mainly by the availability of lighting and the facilitation of communication and improved leisure time. During the ICR mission, a visit to a rural community, which lacked electricity and is now connected to the grid evidenced a high degree of satisfaction with; the indicators for forestry management do not allow an assessment as to the deforestation benefits or the benefits for the rural population in terms of improved sources of income.

15

46. PDO indicators comparing the agreed and achieved values are included in the following table: % Revised Key Indicator Original Target Achieved achie Comments Target ved 1. People provided with New access to electricity by N.A. 626,040 760,668 122% indicator household connections 2. Community electricity New connections constructed N.A. 136 169 124% indicator under the project 3. Increased number of households electrified by 332,813 N.A. 374,503 151% SONABEL through the project 4 Increased number of 15,000+18,768 15000+19,800 households electrified by N.A. 103% (33,768) (34,800) FDE through the project 5. Increased number of education and health 91% with facilities in selected 2364+528 2364+216 2364+289 respect to 102% areas with access to (2,892) (2,580) (2,625) original electricity services target through the project 6. Increased number of administrative and 104% with recreational facilities respect to 450 303 470 155% with access to electricity original services through the target project 7. Increased number of 600,000+547,80 hectares under 600,000+441,000 N.A. 2 110% community-based wood (1,041,000) (1,124,919) energy management 8. Increased number of improved wood and 20,0000+110,48 44% with charcoal stoves 20,000+250,000 20,000+70,000 8 stoves + 20 respect to 145% disseminated to (270,000) (90,000) large propane- original households through the fueled facilities target project 9. Increased number of cooperatives and private sector enterprises 60 N.A. 92 153% providing energy services

47. The project achieved all of its revised key indicator targets, surpassing several of them by a significant margin. In addition to the key indicators, there is a meaningful intermediate indicator, consisting of the number of communities with access to energy services in the targeted areas. The initial value consisted of less than 100 communities; the target consisted of 136 communities, and the achieved value was 191 communities, practically doubling the number of communities with access to energy services in the targeted areas during the seven- year project execution period.

16

48. Rating. In assessing achievement of the project development objective, a split evaluation was carried out, based on the original and revised project indicators, in accordance with the ICR guidelines. The split evaluation using a 6-point scale (Highly Satisfactory=6, Satisfactory=5, Moderately Satisfactory=4, Moderately Unsatisfactory=3, Unsatisfactory=2, and Highly Unsatisfactory=1) yields the following ratings:

Split Level Evaluation for Efficacy Against Original PIs Against Revised Overall Comments PIs1 1 Rating Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory - 2 Rating Value 4 5 3 Weight (% Disbursed) 58% 42% 4 Weighted value (2x3) 2.32 2.1 4.42 5 Final rating - - Moderately Satisfactory 1Percent Disbursed

49. The split evaluation yields a Moderately Satisfactory rating on the achievement of PDO, which equates to a Substantial rating

50. The split evaluation yields a Satisfactory rating for all indicators.

3.3. Efficiency

Rating: High

51. An economic reevaluation of the project was performed on the basis of actual costs and estimated benefits (Annex 3). The analysis concentrated on the electricity components of the project, with separate evaluations for the grid extension projects and the off-grid ones, and the improved stoves and fuelwood substitution initiatives. The economic analysis of project components yielded the following results:

NPV Benefits NPV Costs NPV Net Benefits EIRR SONABEL: 33kV Extensions 15.8M$ 11.3M$ 4.4M$ 20% Grid Extensions 76.8M$ 27.2M$ 49.6M$ 85% FDE Grid Extensions 36.1M$ 21.2M$ 14.9M$ 24% Diesel Power Plants 2.22M$ 2.25M$ 0 12.2% Individual Solar Kits (per kit) $456 $275.35 $180 39% Community Solar Systems $5,335 $6,363 $1,027 115% (Per System) DGE: Improved Stoves 29% Fuelwood/LPG substitution 17%

1 First restructuring and revised performance indicators, December 2011

17

52. These indicators merit the following comments: (a) the 33kV extensions are justified on the basis of a counterfactual in which the towns continue to be supplied by local diesel generator sets, and benefits are therefore associated with fuel savings and capital cost savings of future plant investments; (b) the SONABEL grid extensions yield a high IRR due to the consumer surplus associated with a Willingness to Pay (WTP) of $0.7/kWh based on an IEG/ESMAP study; (c) FDE grid extensions yield a lower IRR because of lower consumption and higher costs associated with longer MV and LV distribution lines; (d) the isolated diesel power plants are marginally justified due to the high fuel costs they require to operate; (e) individual solar kits were evaluated on the basis of a WTP of $10/month, but continue to be justified with a WTP of $6/month (11% IRR); (f) community systems were analyzed through a cost effectiveness approach using diesel powered gensets, thereby incurring high counterfactual costs, hence the high IRR; (g) the improved stoves were evaluated according to wood fuel savings and a variety of stove designs (clay and metal models); (h) finally, the substitution of fuel wood by LPG was evaluated on the basis of savings in fuel purchases by using LPG and field data collected during the ICR mission. All of the evaluated components show that the project outputs are economically justified.

3.4. Justification of Overall Outcome and Global Environment Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory

53. The rating is based on (i) the substantial relevance of the project to the economic and social development of Burkina Faso, (ii) the substantial accomplishment of the objectives set out by the project as measured by the performance indicators, and (iii) a high efficiency evaluation

3.5. Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts

(a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development

54. The project has had important verifiable poverty impacts by providing electricity access in both peri-urban and rural areas, where benefits of lighting, communications and improved leisure have materialized (as confirmed, for example, during the ICR mission field visit to a rural community that benefited from the project). Improved gender equality can be surmised to be a consequence of the project in the long term with better woodfuel supply in rural areas and more efficient stoves, thereby alleviating female household cooking chores. The substitution of woodfuel by LPG in the millet beer production improved the financial yield of this activity, which is 100% run by women (the “dolotières”), as verified during the ICR mission. Social development can be a positive consequence of electrification in rural areas by supporting, for example, after-work and leisure community activities (as in the development of “video clubs” in villages, which can now be connected and informed through media). The community management of forests is also a project component that supports social development by creating a sense of ownership of common resources.

18

(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

55. Component 3 of the project provided training for 153 public sector officials in five organizations (DGE, SONABEL, FDE, DGFF), as well as 158 staff of the regional cooperatives organized to operate off-grid electricity systems. It also provided physical support through investments in office and transport equipment. This support can be expected to provide benefits and to improve public energy and forest sector institutions. Also, experience gained with the EAP in areas such, as procurement and safeguards will be reflected in future projects such as the ESSP and the FIP, as well as in the internal evaluation and execution of projects developed by SONABEL and FDE.

(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) None were identified.

3.6. Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops Not Applicable.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Low

56. The development outcomes associated with the electricity-related components of the project are at risk only if there occurs a physical or management breakdown that leads to severe service curtailments. As noted in post-completion, the electricity-related facilities are standard and robust equipment that is being operated under reasonably knowledgeable management, and service curtailments are unlikely to be associated with either equipment breakdown or management crises as long as the overall external environment remains stable (e.g. the regulatory setup and cost-reflecting tariffs, available electricity production to be channeled to the load). The deforestation control outcome associated with the forestry component could be at risk if the community organizations are not supported, but given the local ownership they enjoy, they are likely to persist; additionally, in the measure that the country develops and modern energies become available to households, deforestation associated with wood fuels is likely to diminish. The outcomes associated with improved stoves and fuel wood substitution are more short term and present little risk.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1. Bank Performance

(a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

57. The proposed rating reflects detailed project preparation and development of the project’s concept, but it also reflects a choice of PDO, which could have been better conceived to reflect a longer term project outcomes. For the electrification component, the Bank prepared a comprehensive design of how the project would put in place different elements, depending on the type of subprojects under consideration (on-grid and off-grid types), which were instrumental in implementing successful management schemes. The forestry component was

19 also prepared in detail and took into account similar operations. However, there were failings that would subsequently impact on project execution, such as (a) an overly optimistic evaluation of the procurement capacity of the different agencies, and (b) an underestimation of the difficulties associated with managing multiple agencies involved in implementation (UER, DGE, SONABEL, FDE, and DGFF).

(b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory

58. The proposed rating reflects the proactivity of the project team in addressing important challenges for the project to implement and disburse, and, in particular, the procurement weaknesses of four different agencies (SONABEL, FDE, DGFF, and DGE). Significant delays were recorded in project execution. However, the project team was diligent in addressing the problems that arose in this context and providing support to the executing agencies. It also reflects a strong focus on supervision to achieve PDOs; proactive responses to emerging issues (such as cost overruns and delays in procurement) through project restructuring; accelerated implementation performance after initial restructuring, were positive aspects of supervision. The team composition changed during project implementation, including three TTLs. The core team was located in the field, including the TTL who conducted an intensified dialogue with the Borrower and local staff, energy and procurement specialists, with good knowledge of Burkina Faso’s energy sector. The supervision reports were candid and of good quality, including reporting on the outcome indicators. Lessons learned from the design and implementation of the EAP was incorporated into ESSP currently under execution.

59. Financial management supervision was satisfactory and the adequacy of financial management arrangements was reviewed regularly. Safeguards supervision was also successful in implementing safeguard policies, such as those associated with the environment, but particularly those requiring compensation to the few populations negatively affected by the project. The project team was successful in negotiating acceptable implementation policies when safeguard guidelines conflicted with implementing agency practice.

(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory

60. Overall Bank performance was rated Satisfactory based on the ratings for quality at entry (Moderately Satisfactory) and Supervision (Satisfactory), which combined yield the proposed rating. It should be noted that, despite procurement delays, overall, the project development objectives have been reached and the disbursement rate reached 100 percent.

5.2. Borrower Performance

(a) Government Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

61. The Government was directly involved in the project through DGE and DGFF, which are directorates directly ascribed to Government Ministries. These organizations performed quite adequately towards the end of the project, but they were relatively passive during the early

20

years of implementation, when disbursements were practically nil. DGE was unsuccessful in arranging a functional procedure for fabrication and distribution of improved stoves under the initial targets. The GoBF itself showed commitment to the operation and the objectives of the project. Effectiveness conditions were all satisfied on time. The Electrification Development Tax (EDT), applied exclusively for rural electrification development, was settled. The five- year tax exemption for renewable energy equipment was adopted. During project preparation and execution, the GoBF adopted strategic policy documents for the energy sector complemented with a three-year action plan. Because the Government was ineffective in spurring the entities under its control (DGE, DGFF), its overall performance, together with that of the agencies, was rated Moderately Satisfactory.

(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

62. SONABEL and FDE put in place the components under their responsibility but exhibited a general weakness in execution, which resulted in delayed implementation. However, they were successful in overcoming this limitation. SONABEL and FDE had solid technical expertise accumulated from the design and implementation of previous projects. They were also successful in following the Bank’s safeguard policies and guidance. Overall, UER performed satisfactorily and ensured good coordination of procurement, financial management, and monitoring activities. The implementation progress reports, audits, and financial reports were diligently submitted to the Bank. However, overall, implementation agencies performance rated Moderately Satisfactory.

(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

63. The proposed rating reflects the ratings for Government performance (Moderately Satisfactory) and the Moderately Satisfactory rating for the implementing agencies (UER SONABEL and FDE) performance. The coordinating and implementing agencies developed project management expertise, which is valuable for follow-up operations. No major issues regarding the fiduciary or safeguards policies were recorded. The working relationship among the coordinating unit, UER, and the implementing structures/institutions, DGE, FDE, DGFF, SONABEL, was sometimes challenging and contributed to procurement delays.

6. Lessons Learned

64. Early detection of implementation weaknesses can prevent delays. Project implementation can benefit by taking a thorough look at human resources of agencies and their preparation to deal with the critical tasks of tender design, procurement procedures (and the particularities of Bank procurement), and financial management. If necessary, resources should be allocated to training the client’s teams at the outset of the project. Possible conflicts with local procurement rules should be identified early —hopefully at project preparation— and solutions should be agreed with the Government in advance.

65. Access projects require a “market conditioning phase” before funds start to flow. The delays associated with access projects should be taken into account at appraisal and built

21

into project design by allowing for an initial period of project preparation and information dissemination among potential beneficiaries. This implies a potentially longer implementation period for access projects, together with a longer period before initial disbursements take place.

66. Focusing on one sector. Mixing objectives, even if they are related, leads to complicated project implementation. The EAP is a good example: although electricity and fuelwood fall under the same energy umbrella, the institutions involved, the issues and challenges addressed, and the resources allocated to them were completely different. As a result, there was little synergy between the electricity components and the forestry/fuel substitution components. Maintaining strong links between components (talking the same language, as it were) leads to more streamlined implementation: for example, the main grid network extensions (SONABEL) were complemented by FDE investments in distribution grids, thereby leading to coherent execution and outputs with a better chance of leading to the desired outcomes. Hence it is difficult to combine electricity access and household energy—forestry in particular—in one project. It may be better to combine household/cook stove activities with environment or health projects.

67. Limiting the number of institutions involved in implementation improves the chances for success. The EAP had to deal with four implementation agencies, in addition to interacting with the UER. This is difficult, particularly when TTLs have multiple projects to supervise; in fact, it’s like supervising four different projects. A reasonable limit for any project should be two implementation agencies.

68. Relying on local communities creates ownership and contributes to successful implementation. The EAP provides two examples in this respect:

(a) for rural electrification, local communities were given responsibilities regarding the management of commercial functions (billing and collection) through village cooperatives, thereby relieving the main utility (SONABEL in this case) of having to perform these functions in remote locations and minimizing commercial losses by billing the community through a collective meter;

(b) the forestry component was oriented towards strengthening community links for forest management; local communities responded positively to this initiative and increased the chances of ensuring that project outcomes can be sustained once it closes.

69. M&E design and implementation should be addressed in detail at preparation and early stages of implementation. In particular, there should be coherence between the PDO intended outcomes and the monitoring indicators chosen for the project. In the case of the EAP, the link with the intended outcome, particularly in the case of the forestry component, was not very clear.

70. Safeguard implementation should be clarified at the outset of the project. In the case of the EAP, adhering to certain safeguard guidelines came as a surprise to SONABEL for its peri-urban electrification. Seminars or workshops during the project’s first stages of implementation would have provided the necessary clarifications and would have helped to streamline project execution.

22

71. Planning for a beneficiary survey should be thought out upfront and not just at the time of project closing: beneficiaries’ survey should be performed for projects such as the EAP with large numbers of beneficiaries who are being provided with basic energy infrastructure. In the EAP case, at the time of closure the country was experiencing a political crisis, which made it particularly difficult to conduct a beneficiary survey.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners

(a) Borrower/implementing agencies.

72. The borrower’s ICR was received. For the Borrower/implementing agency, the performance of the Government of Burkina Faso is considered satisfactory. Details will be provided in Annex 7.

(b) Cofinanciers No cofinanciers.

(c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society).

23

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) P078091 Energy Access Project Actual/Latest Appraisal Estimate Percentage of Components Estimate (USD (USD millions) Appraisal millions) Energy Services Expansion Main Grid Intensification 13.1 16.85 129% Stand alone grids 11.9 12.94 109% Solar PV systems 2.0 1.83 92% Information, Education, and 0.5 Communication 0.03 5.4% Subtotal 27.5 31.65 115% Woodfuel supply management and interfuel substitution Community-based fuel management 5.1 2.73 54% Interfuel substitution and energy 1.0 efficiency 0.79 79% Training and promotional campaigns 0.6 0.41 69% Subtotal 6.7 3.93 59% Institutional Strengthening/ Capacity Development Public Institutions (DGE, FDE, DGCN, 5.6 UER) 5.55 99% Energy services cooperatives, private 0.8 sector SMEs, NGOs 0.05 6.1% Outreach, partnerships, and 0.5 harmonization 0.0 0% Subtotal 6.9 5.6 81% Total Baseline Cost 41.1 41.18 100% Physical Contingencies 0.00 Price Contingencies 0.00 Total Project Costs PPF 0.00 Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 Total Financing Required 41.1

(b) Financing P07891 – Energy Access Project Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Percentage of Source of Funds Estimate Estimate Financing Appraisal (USD millions) (USD millions) Borrower 2.3 1.7 74% International Development Association 38.8 39.5 102% (IDA) Total Financing 41.1 41.2 100%

24

Annex 2. Outputs by Component

Connection between project outputs (listed in Annex 4) and project outcomes: • Component 1 outputs consist of medium voltage lines, low voltage lines and network extensions, diesel-powered units together with distribution networks, and solar PV kits for individual households; all of these facilities provide the infrastructure to connect users who lacked electricity service (and are thereby able to enjoy its benefits), which is the ultimate outcome sought by this component of the project;

• Component 2.1 outputs consist of putting in place or strengthening community Forest Management Groups, preparing base information (including maps and forest inventories), training of forest users, and awareness raising for potential users/beneficiaries; the outcomes associated with this component are essentially an improvement in the availability of fuel wood and an increase in rural dwellers income through the organization of a technical management of forest resources. The outcomes in this case will be ascertainable in the long run, as the results of putting in place technical and efficient forest management is a lengthy process which can take 6 to 10 years; however, given the experience in other countries, the process can be expected to lead to a positive result (see below for the follow-up Bank project);

• Component 2.2 is mainly associated with efficiency increases through the dissemination of improved stoves; project outputs consist of the stoves themselves and outcomes are immediately visible (and strongly related to outputs) when beneficiaries start using the stoves; this also applies to the outputs of substituting fuelwood based processes with LPG;

• Component 2.3 was bundled with component 2.2, and information sessions were organized during the dissemination of improved stoves.

• Component 3 outputs consisted largely of supportive office equipment and training programs for staff and personnel involved in managing the sub-projects supported by the other components, and as such are closely linked to the previously mentioned outcomes.

Appraisal Subcomponent 1.1. (i) Pâ-Boromo 33 kV line of 20 kilometers; (ii) Pâ-Dédougou 33 kV line of 80km; and (iii) Pâ-Gaoua 33kV line of 73kilometers. (ii) Upgrading of distribution networks and access expansion in 42 communities including Ouagadougou, Bobo- Dioulasso, Kaya, Korsimoro, Boussouma, Kombissiri, Koudougou, Réo, Koupéla, Pouytenga, Tenkogogo, Garango, Ziniaré, and Zorgho (iii) promotional initiatives to facilitate customer initial connection costs removing one of the key barriers to customers’ first connection; (ii) prepayment meters, offering SONABEL’s clients an alternative payment option and improving the cash flows of the power utility; (iii) promotion 25

of energy savings by households through “low-consumption bulbs” and efficient use of electricity. 85,572 new connections benefiting a population of around 684,576 over five years.

Subcomponent 1.2 (i) 31 communities connected to SONABEL’s grid (ii) Standalone thermal-based minigrids in 6 communities (iii) Multifunctional platforms in 19 communities with small distribution networks Subcomponent 1.3 (i) Information and promotional campaigns in rural and peri-urban areas (ii) Demonstration workshops on utilization of energy devices. Focus Groups to collect feedback from consumers, cooperatives, private operators, NGOs, and other civil society groups on project performance Subcomponent 2.1 (i) Implementation of community-based forest management systems over additional 441 thousand ha. Within 5 years. Finance equipment for forestry services, rural-based enterprises. Subcomponent 2.2 (i) Commercial distribution of 250 thousand improved stoves within 5 years (ii) Pilot activities leading to the development/production of biofuels Subcomponent 2.3 (iii) Promotional campaigns on sustainable wood fuels management, inter-fuel substitution, household economy gains, and demonstration workshops. Subcomponent 3.1 (i) Training and equipment to strengthen FDE, SONABEL, DGE, and DGCN Subcomponent 3.2 (i) Capacity development of energy service providers Subcomponent 3.3 (i) Outreach, partnerships, and harmonization

Achieved Component 1.1 (i) Pâ-Boromo 33kV, 47.5km line, and electrification of Ouahabou with a 6.2km distribution network. (ii) Pâ-Dédougou 33kV, 168.2km line and a 40km Safané-Kona-Bana line, together with 6km of networks in the Kona and Bana villages; (iii) Débougou-Gaoua, 33kV 80.4km line, and electrification of the Tiankoura and Bouroum-Boroum with 9.2km of distribution lines; (iv) Electrification and network extensions in Ouagadougou West/Northwest/- North/Northwest with 15 cabin-enclosed transformer, around 20km of MV lines and 160km of LV lines; (v) Network extension in Bobo-Dioulasso (7 transformers, 15.4 km of MV lines and 93.4km of LV lines;

26

(vi) Network extensions in Kaya, Korsimoro, Boussouma, Kombissiri, Ziniaré, Koudougou, Réo, Tenkodogo, Garango, Pouytenga, and Zorgho including 7 transformers, 10.4km of MV lines and 51.6km of LV lines. (vii) Total new domestic connections of 127,262 customers as of 31 December 2014. Component 1.2 (i) Interurban connections (33kV, 142km) between Rouko, Tikaré, Yrim, Rambo, Bouga, Kossouka, Kalsaka, Petit Samba, Songnaba, Latodin, Bagaré, Motoulou and Loungo, together with an average 6km of distribution lines in each location. (ii) Interurban connections (33kV, 144km) for 12 locations on the Central Plateau, the Southwest, the Central-East, and the High Basins, including Kampoaga, Lalgaye, Dourtenga, Banzon, Kousséni, Karangasso- Sambla, Loto and Bamako, Saatenga, Bissiga, Nedeogo and Barkoundba. together with 6km of distribution lines for each location. (iii) Six diesel-powered plants in the Sahel region: Arbinda, Kelbo, Diguel, Oursi, Tin-Akoff, and Solhan. Each location comprises a 30 and 60kVA generator and a 6km (average) LV network; (iv) Twenty locations electrified through the provision of 4,366 solar PV kits of 3 lamps each, and 192 community service sites (village administration, health, education, and recreation facilities). (v) Rural network extensions in Rouko, Rondo, Tikaré, Koussouka, Kalsaka, Songnaba, Latodin, Loungo in the Northern and North-central regions, Kampoaga, Lalgaye, Dourtenga and Piéla in the Central-East and Eastern regions, and in Barkoundba, Nedeogo, Saatenga, Bissiga Bagaré, Sawana and Dassoui. (vi) The rural works facilitated: the connection of 18500 homes as of 30 April 2014, which increased to 19,800 as of 31 December 2014, and the connection of 289 community services (mosques, water, health, education, administration etc.);

Component 1.3 (i) Courses on planning, management, and monitoring of rural energy programs were organized and attended by 65 staff; (ii) Training on electricity network design was conducted for 25 staff; (iii) 92 service providers were organized during project execution.

Component 2.1 (i) Mapping and satellite imaging supporting the preparation of land use maps for 14 forests and the forest inventory of 12 forests (ii) 21 forest management plans prepared (iii) 196,165 ha under management organized, and 328,754 ha of new forests surveyed and management under organization. (iv) 162 Forest Management Groups reorganized (v) 177 new Forest Management Groups created

27

Component 2.2 (i) 7 regional fairs that allowed the distribution of 50,630 improved stoves, which reached 59,858 by November 2014. (ii) Agreements with two NGOs and a private organization to distribute an additional 38,000 improved stoves, for around 100,000 improved stoves. (iii) Fuel substitution (woodfuel to LPG) was accomplished for twenty millet beer producers (“dolotières”) in Kadiogo province and in Koupéla, Koudougou, and Ouagadougou. (iv) Regarding biofuels, two technical studies were executed, namely (i) a feasibility study for the production of bioenergy (2010) and (ii) terms of reference for biofuel pilot projects. Equipment was acquired and provided to three Jatropha developers, together with training. Component 2.3 (i) Information sessions were conducted during the seven regional fairs.

Component 3.1 Institutional strengthening and equipment (i) Acquisition of computer equipment, office equipment, software, and vehicles.

Component 3.2 Capacity Development of Service Providers (i) 128 staff of Electricity Coops trained in Coop management (ii) 30 agents of private operators trained in electricity systems management, including operations and maintenance (iii) Training for 35 biodiesel promoters

Component 3.3 Outreach, partnerships, and harmonization (i) Cooperation and strategic partnerships were reached with the Bank’s Electricity Sector Support Project, the EU/UN SE4ALL and the Islamic Development Bank PV support project.

28

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis

1. The economic evaluation of the EAP comprises separate analyses for the following different components: • Subcomponent 1.1. which comprises works executed by SONABEL: connections of three centers to the main grid, network extensions in Ouagadougou, and network extensions together with access expansion in Bobo-Dioulasso, Kaya, Korsimoro, Boussouma, Kombissiri, Ziniaré, Koudougou, Réo, Tenkodogo, Garango, Pouytenga, and Zorgho. • Subcomponent 1.2. which includes works executed by FDE: inter-urban connections, 6 diesel power plants in the Sahel region, rural network extensions, and PV kit distribution; and • Subcomponent 2.2. distribution of improved stoves and substitution of wood fuel by gas. Analysis of works executed by SONABEL

2. Connection of Boromo, Dédougou and Gaoua to the main grid. This project included the connection of these three villages to the main grid through 33kV lines fed from substation Pâ. These three communities used to be supplied by local diesel plants with an installed capacity of 14.6MW.

3. The methodology used to evaluate the benefits consists of comparing the ‘With’ and ‘without’ project scenarios: • Without project scenario: the villages continue to be supplied with diesel power plants, including investments for serving future demand; • With project scenario: the villages are supplied from the main grid, and the diesel plants are no longer necessary.

4. Project costs consist of line and network investments, and project benefits consist of the cost of fuel saved by supplying the load from the main grid as well as savings in future diesel plant investments. Other benefits include improved reliability and 24-hour service (not included in the evaluation due to lack of information). Table A3-1 summarizes the costs and benefits of this component of the project

29

Table A3-1 Costs and Benefits of Grid Extension and Connection of Boromo, Dédougou and Gaoua

5. The resulting economic indicators yield: NPV Costs @12%: 11.3M$; NPV Benefits @12%: 15.8M$; B/C ratio: 1.4; IRR: 20%

6. Grid extensions. These consist of the installation of different transformers and lines to supply load increases. Some of these facilities were visited during ICR preparation: although some of the extensions have reached formerly unsupplied areas, most are within the city proper and benefit customers who are seeking to be connected, including new businesses and housing developments. The costs for the corresponding investments in different sites are summarized in Table A3-2.

30

Table A3-2 Characteristics of SONABEL Grid Extensions

7. The extensions have not reached their full utilization and new customers are to be added in the coming years. As a measure of benefits of electrification in these grid-based extensions by SONABEL, the Willingness to Pay (WTP) was estimated with the same approach used in the recent (May 2014) additional credit for the Electricity Sector Support Project, i.e. a WTP within a conservative range of $0.7 to $0.5/kWh. The underlying justification was based on a 2008 IEG study2. A summary of costs and benefits is shown in Table A3-3.

Table A3-3—SONABEL Grid Extensions Costs and Benefits

2 “The Welfare Impact of Rural Electrification: A Reassessment of the Costs and Benefits”, an IEG Impact Evaluation, the World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2008. 31

8. The economic indicators yield the following values: NPV Costs @12%: 27.19M$; NPV Benefits @12%: 76.78M$; B/C ratio: 2.8; IRR: 85%.

9. These results merit the following comments: • The average connection cost, at $197 per connection, is reasonable and indicative of users that are located in peri-urban or at least agglomerated communities; these are therefore users that can be expected to consume more than basic lighting and telecommunications, including some kind of refrigeration on average, hence the assumption of 50kWh/month as an initial consumption value; • Consumption per beneficiary is assumed to grow at a rate of 3 percent per year, reflecting the availability of electricity for more uses and the effect of economic growth; • The average cost over the analysis period (NPV of costs/NPV of demand at the 12% discount rate) yields a value of $0.25/kWh, which is reasonable for this type of project; • The minimum WTP to yield a 12% IRR is around $0.31/kWh, i.e. around 40% of the assumed WTP; in this sense, the result is robust.

Analysis of works executed by FDE

10. These works are oriented towards rural electrification, which, in contrast to works executed by SONABEL, comprise communities with lower demand densities. The analysis proceeds by outlining a methodology for valuing the economic benefits of these projects and by applying it to the different components executed by FDE.

11. Methodology for greenfield electrification: Greenfield electrification consists of either grid extension or putting in place generation facilities to serve new customers who lack electricity. In the EAP case, greenfield electrification is oriented towards households. The following benefits result from the availability of electricity in a home: (a) improvements in lighting quality and quantity extend the working day and allow for income-generating activities after dark, and lead to better conditions under which children can read and study, (b) access to radio and television, (c) reduction of indoor pollution, contributing to improved health, and (d) access to refrigeration (small refrigerators) with food conservation benefits. For the ex-post, economic evaluation only benefits (a) and (b) will be quantified because of the lack of information on other sources of benefits.

12. Lighting benefits. The assumed counterfactual is that beneficiaries use kerosene lamps for lighting in the absence of electricity. Expenditures on kerosene amount to a cost of around 44 liters per year per lamp, at a price of US$1.10 per liter3, in addition to the purchase cost of the lamp. Dry cell batteries are used to power radios, and can cost around US$4 to US$5 per month. Electricity brings about important qualitative changes; for example, a 15W compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) produces around 800 lumens, while a kerosene lamp will produce only

3 Kojima, Masami et.al. “Petroleum Markets in Sub-Saharan Africa”, The World Bank, March 2010 32

around 60-70 lumens at best4. In terms of useful illumination (measured in terms of lux, i.e. lumens per square meter), the CFL produces 122 lux, while the kerosene lamp provides only 10 lux.

13. Consequently, economic benefits associated with better lighting derive from two sources: (a) savings from the substitution of kerosene and batteries by lower cost power, and (b) the benefits of additional consumption derived from the higher illumination provided by electricity. Figure A3-1 illustrates the benefits as represented by a consumer demand function.

Figure A3-1 Demand Function for Lighting

14. In Figure A3-1, (PK, QK) is the initial point of consumption (based on kerosene), and (PE, QE) is the final point of consumption, based on electricity. Areas A+B+D represent total (gross) surplus in the initial situation, where B+D is the cost of kerosene and dry cell batteries; the net surplus is therefore area A. At the final point of consumption, gross surplus increases to (A+B+C+D+E); areas D+E are the costs of supply with electricity, and areas B+C yield the net consumer surplus gain to beneficiaries.

15. Communications benefits. Lighting benefits can be estimated with some degree of assurance, as there exists a quantifiable alternative (kerosene lamps); no such information is available for benefits such as watching TV (hearing the radio has the associated cost of dry cell batteries). Also, consuming TV is a one-off experience, i.e. there is no continuum of consumption. The benefits of TV availability have been estimated from willingness to pay studies in developed countries. For example, in the UK a survey commissioned by the Radio Communications Agency in 2000 (later Ofcom) assessed the willingness to pay for radio and

4Mills, Evan. Technical and Economic Performance Analysis of Kerosene Lamps and Alternative Approaches to Illumination in Developing Countries, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, June 2003.

33

TV5. It found a willingness to pay on the order of £10 per month per household (around US$15 per month). At the time, income in the UK for poor households was on the order of US$12,000/year6. They would be willing to pay up to around 1.5% of disposable income for TV. Although extrapolating this value to another country, such as Burkina Faso, is debatable, it would represent a WTP of around $23 per year based on a self-reported median household income of $1,530 per year7.

16. Willingness to Pay (WTP). The analysis assumes that households connected to the grid replace two kerosene lamps with one CFL8, with a resulting gross consumer surplus of around $185 per household per year. Added to the WTP of communications benefits, this would result in a total WTP of $208 per year per household.

17. A recent study regarding the impact of rural electrification9 yielded values of WTP for different scenarios based upon alternative considerations, as shown in Figure A3-2. Figure A3-2: Willingness to Pay for Different Service Levels (monthly amount)

18. In the case of Burkina Faso the assumption used would correspond roughly to Scenario 3 with a monthly WTP of about $18, or $216 per year, which is slightly higher than the WTP

5 Aegis Systems, Survey to Determine the Consumer’s Surplus Accruing to Radio Listeners and TV Viewers, Final Report, prepared for the Radio Communications Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry, October 2000. 6 Joseph Rowntree Foundation 7 Gallup survey, December 2013. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income- 000.aspx 8 Compact Fluorescent Lamp 9 Peters, J. and Sievert, M., “On and Off-Grid Rural Electrification—Impacts and Cost Considerations Revisited”, RWI (Rheinisch-Westfaelisches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung E.V.), December 2014 34

calculated previously. Given the specificity of the study, the analysis of greenfield electrification projects was based on the reported WTP of $216 per year. Diesel power plants. These investments in isolated villages are summarized in Table A3-3. Table A3-3—Isolated Diesel Power Plants Total Cost Power plant LV Network Contractual Potential Site Length $ Capacity kVA Cost Cost $ connections connections km Arbinda 382,393 70 124,972 6 257,420 127 300 Diguel 280,231 90 159,702 6 120,529 132 430 Kelbo 270,669 90 159,702 6 110,968 102 430 Solhan 291,758 90 159,702 6 132,056 137 430 Oursy 278,742 90 159,702 6 119,041 135 430 Tin-Akoff 287,447 90 159,702 8 127,745 117 430 Total 1,791,241 520 923,482 38 867,759 750 2450

19. These isolated networks benefit users who lacked electricity services and therefore fall into the category of greenfield electrification projects. Table A3-4 summarizes the costs and benefits of these investments.

Table A3-4 Costs and Benefits of Diesel Power Plants for Rural Electrification

20. The resulting economic indicators are NPV Costs (@12%): 2.22M$, NPV Benefits (@12%): 2.25M$, B/C ratio: 1.01, IRR=12.2%. These results merit the following comments:

21. FDE Electrification through grid extension. FDE accomplished the electrification of 25 communities through interurban connections at 33kV and LV grid extension. The characteristics of these investments are shown in Table A3-5 below.

35

Table A3-5 Characteristics of Communities Electrified by FDE through Grid Extension

22. The resulting benefits and costs, using a similar approach to the SONABEL analysis are shown in Table A3-6: Table A3-6 Costs and Benefits of FDE Interurban Connections and Extensions

23. The corresponding economic parameters yield the following values: NPV Costs (@12%): 21.2M$, NPV Benefits (@12%): 36.1M$, B/C ratio: 1.7, IRR=24%.

24. The results merit the following comments: • The average connection cost, at $525 per connection, is representative of greater distances required to reach beneficiaries, which is indicative of predominantly rural users; these are therefore users that can be expected to consume essentially basic

36

lighting and telecommunications, hence the assumption of 30kWh/month as an initial consumption value; • Consumption per beneficiary is assumed to grow at a rate of 3 percent per year, reflecting the availability of electricity for more uses and the effect of economic growth; • The average cost over the analysis period (NPV of costs/NPV of demand at the 12% discount rate) yields a value of $0.41/kWh, which points towards weak financial viability in the absence of subsidies; • The minimum WTP to yield a 12% IRR is around $0.51/kWh, i.e. around 70% of the assumed WTP; lower WTPs would indicate that the investments are just marginally justified.

25. Solar component. FDE implemented a solar program with the characteristics shown in Table A3-7: Table A3-7 FDE Solar Equipment Type Quantity Unit Cost $ Total Cost $ Individual Kit 3929 248 972,525 Community Systems 180 5,393 970,772 Total 1,943,297

26. Economic evaluation of the individual kits. These are three-lamp kits of 15W (5W/lamp). The price paid by the beneficiaries was around $50 (i.e. a subsidy of around $200), collected (a) through a $10 down payment, (b) $1 per month plus a $0.60 maintenance fee for a total $1.60 during 40 months, and (c) a $0.60 per month maintenance fee thereafter. According to the WTP discussion, these kits would fall into category 1 of Figure A3-2, i.e. basic lighting (no TV), and a WTP of $10 per month. With this assumption, the cash flow for an individual solar kit would consist of the following parameters: • Initial cost: $248 • Maintenance cost: $0.6/month • WTP (benefit): $10/month

27. These parameters, assuming a 60-month useful lifespan for the kit, yield: NPV costs @12% (0.95% per month): $275, NPV benefits @12% (0.95% per month): $456, B/C ratio: 1.7, EIRR: 3.2% per month (39% per year).

28. Given the uncertainty associated with the WTP and the lifespan • A more conservative value for WTP of $6 per month yields an EIRR of 11% • A lifespan of 36 months yields an EIRR of 21%.

29. Within a relatively wide variation of parameters, the positive economic indicators of individual solar kits appear to be robust.

37

30. Economic evaluation of the community systems. Assessing the economic benefits from outcomes of these investments, such as better health, better education etc. is difficult and there is a lack of documentation (in contrast to better understood benefits such as those associated with individual households). As an alternative, a cost-effectiveness approach consists of comparing the costs of the solar systems with the option of using small gensets during a few hours each day. The latter option compared to the solar alternative produces the following results over a 5-year period:

NPV Gen set Costs $6,363.24 NPV Solar Costs $5,335.91 Savings $1,027.33

Analysis of works executed by DGE.

31. These comprise improved stoves and the substitution of fuelwood by LPG for large users. Improved stoves that were distributed included (a) improved “three stone” stoves, (b) clay stoves, and (c) metal stoves. Benefits from improved stoves have traditionally included fuelwood savings and health benefits due to avoidance of fumes in enclosed spaces. The latter are usually associated with stoves equipped with chimneys; in the case of stoves distributed in Burkina, none of them included chimneys and therefore their health benefits are minimal (many of them are used for open-space cooking where fumes pose a much lower risk compared to closed-space cooking).

32. Several evaluations of improved stoves in Burkina Faso provide insight into their benefits10; estimated per capita consumption of fuelwood is on the order of 0.7kg per day, resulting in around 80-100kg per month for a family of 4-5. The improved stoves yield reduced fuelwood consumption of 15%-20% depending on the model of stove, or around 12-20kg of fuelwood savings per month per family. Prices of fuelwood vary widely. At the wholesale level in Ouagadougou the price of wood is around $500 for a load of 20 stères (20m3), equivalent to around $0.08 per kg; at the retail level this price can increase to $0.10 or more per kg. An improved stove can mean savings in the range of $1 to $2 per month.

33. The production cost of improved stoves varies between $1.50 for a clay stove and $3-$5 for metal stoves. Distribution can add $0.25 to $0.40 per stove. With benefits of $1 per month the payback period could vary between two months for a clay stove to around four months for a metal stove. In the case of improved “three stone” stoves, these are essentially better mud stoves with lower savings but very low costs. Assuming a 24-month lifespan for the improved stoves, these figures translate into an IRR of around 29% or higher, showing it is a well-justified alternative, at least in an urban environment.

34. Substitution of fuelwood by LPG. This component of the project was oriented towards millet beer manufacturers (the “dolotières”), who are the largest consumers of fuelwood within the cities. Information gathered during the ICR mission from a visit to a manufacturer yielded

10 “Impact Evaluation of Improved Cooking Stoves in Burkina Faso”, IOB (Dutch Foreign Ministry Policy and Operations Evaluation Department), November 2013. 38 the following information: before conversion, a brewing would require around 9,000F ($18) of fuelwood (around 180kg), whereas after conversion a brewing required about 1½ LPG cylinders (12.5 kg for each cylinder). LPG costs therefore amount to $10.7 per brewing, thereby generating savings of around $7 per brewing (around 10 brews per month). Equipment conversion costs amounted to around $400. For a single enterprise, over 4 years this yields an IRR of 17%, in addition to externalities associated with the prevention of deforestation. These figures provide a justification for the initiative, which was confirmed during the ICR mission by the satisfaction of the dolotière entrepreneur with the arrangement.

39

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team Members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending Koffi Ekouevi Senior Economist GEEDR TTL Kwawu Gaba Senior Power Engineer GEEDR Team member Emmanuel Nikiema Natural Resource Specialist GENDR Team member Hawa Seck Economist/Traditional Energy GEEDR Team member Fabrice Bertholet Financial Analyst GEEDR Team member Pierre Vieilllescazes Finance, Private Sector Specialist Team member Amadou Konare Senior Environmental Specialist Team member Yvette Djachechi Senior Social Development Specialist Team member Mame Ely Dieng Social Safeguard Specialist (Consultant) Team member Aka Ahoulou Power Engineer (Consultant) Team member William Dakpo Procurement Specialist Team member Michel Layec Lead Economist GEEDR Team member Mamadou Yaro Senior Financial Management Specialist Team member Helene Bertaud Senior Counsel LEGSO Team member Michel Matly Economist (Consultant) Team member Celestin Bado Senior Operations Officer (Consultant) GGODR Team member Aly Sy Project Costing (Consultant) Team member Raima Naomi Oyeneyin Language Program Assistant GEEDR Team member Rita Ahiboh Program Assistant GEEDR Team member Elisabeth Bambara Program Assistant AFMBF Team member Susan Shilling Program Assistant Team member

Supervision/ICR Fatouma Toure Ibrahima Senior Financial Analyst Specialist GCPPP TTL Wane Koffi Ekouevi Senior Economist GEEDR TTL Alassane Agalassou Energy Specialist GEEDR TTL Emmanuel Nikiema Senior Natural Resource Specialist GENDR Team member Leopold Sedogo Energy Specialist GEEDR Team member Abdoul Wahabi Seini Senior Social Safeguard Specialist GSURR Team member Amadou Konare Senior Environmental Specialist Team member Fabrice Bertholet Senior Financial Analyst GEEDR Team member Helene Bertaud Senior Counsel LEGSO Team member Mamata Tiendrebeogo Senior Procurement Specialist GGODR Team member

40

Kolie Ousmane Maurice Team member Senior Financial Management Specialist GGODR Megan Jan Frederic Kappen Senior Energy Specialist GEEDR Team member Claude Bationo Senior Operations Officer AFMBF Team member Janine A. Speakman Operation Analyst GPSOS Team member Elisabeth Bambara Program Assistant AFMBF Team member Marie-Paule Ngaleu Program Assistant GEEDR Team member

(b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle USD Thousands (including No. of Staff Weeks Travel and Consultant costs) Lending 2006 14.6 98,791.54 2007 28.94 238,882.24 2008 9.87 57,276.68 2009 7.72 18,299.12 Total 61.17 413,249.12 Supervision/ICR 2009 12.12 28,157.17 2010 28.30 71,409.99 2011 32.26 94,486.44 2012 29.49 87,370.58 2013 22.81 84,610.35 2014 34.88 133,801.92 2015 10.71 29,994.89 Total 170.57 529,831.34 General total 231.74 943,080.46

41

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results (if any) Not Applicable

42

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results Not Applicable

43

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR

1. The completion report for the EAP was prepared by UER in January 2015. It provides a thorough documentation regarding project indicators, costs and financial aspects, including procurement questions. The following sections summarize the relevant conclusions reached by the borrower and included in the report.

Overall project evaluation

2. Relevance. The EAP as a whole is deemed relevant as its objectives are in line with national priorities outlined in the Strategy for Accelerated Growth and Sustainable Development document and defined in the Energy Sector Policy document and the action plan adopted in October 2013.

3. EAP is relevant as it meets an important need in terms of access to services of electrical energy given the coverage rate of 40% in urban areas and 4% in rural areas in 2013, which is among the lowest in the sub-region. Added to these weaknesses, there is the deficit in the supply of electric power and the very high costs of access.

4. Thus, the EAP in its planning and implementation efforts focused on access to energy services. Despite the higher costs due to inflation and the delay in starting Component 2 activities, budget reallocations and extensions of the project closing date have allowed the achievement of the initial objectives of the project. These included the number of serviced locations, households and community and administrative infrastructure connected, the number of improved stoves distributed, and the number of jobs and income generated by forest management activities. In view of the foregoing, the EAP can be considered highly relevant.

5. Efficiency. Unit costs of long distance electricity lines for connecting isolated centers by SONABEL were between 8 and 10 million FCFA / km for MV lines and 6 million FCFA francs per kilometer on average BTA lines including connection costs. These unit costs are similar and even slightly lower unit than those of projects being implemented by the EDF and SONABEL with other funds. This demonstrates the efficiency of the project on the achievements made. This is essentially a row the high level of competition in procurement and the diversification of supply areas for equipment.

Efficacy: • SONABEL component. This component was executed and it reduced production costs in Dédougou, Gaoua, and Boromo, and it also increased the profitability of the Bobo-Dioulasso to Ouagadougou connection put in service in December 2009. At 30 April 2014, the number of households connected by SONABEL was 94,073, representing a completion rate of 109.93%. Taking advantage of the extension of the closing date of the technical activities to 31 October 2014, 33,189 additional households were connected bringing the total to 127 262 households as of 31 December 2014, a rate of 148.72% of accomplishment.

44

• Rural electrification component. Despite the constraints which caused a delay of more than three years in the development of electricity infrastructure and therefore the connection of users, the component “Increased access to electricity services in urban, peri-urban and rural zones” as a whole, achieved satisfactory results. Indeed, this component has greatly contributed to increasing and improving access to services of electrical energy, including households, community infrastructures, and administrative and recreation facilities. The sustainability of the facilities is assured through the organization of 92 cooperatives and private sector groups in the targeted communities.

• Forestry component. The results of this sub-component are considered satisfactory in terms of achieving the goals of forest surface under management. However, the process of forest management was not completed in certain forests, including: o the delimitation of certain older forests with terminals and signs and proofreading fronts management plan projects for some ancient forests, o the realization of biophysical studies, development fronts management plan projects for new forests, o the capacity building in the implementation of different management techniques, rules of logging, direct seeding, enrichment planting, fire management, etc.

6. One of the goals of the participatory forest management is the creation of seasonal jobs in rural areas but this has not been fully achieved since the entire development process has not been completed in all the forests. These activities will be continued with alternative sources of funds, and a plan for residual activities has been completed.

• Energy efficiency and inter-fuel substitution component. o At mid-term the initial objective of improved stoves was reduced. In 2013 a dissemination and monitoring strategy was put in place; improved stoves were disseminated through seven regional fairs and support to promoters, an NGO, and a private enterprise. The results of this component have certainly been achieved, but are considered moderately satisfactory because of the very long process to implement them.

o Regarding energy substitution twenty gas installations for millet beer production were put in place to replace wood-burning facilities. Choosing the purveyor was delayed but the activities were executed before closure.

o The bioenergy sub-component included two technical studies for the production of bioenergy and terms of reference for pilot projects. Given the delay in the implementation of the recommendations of the studies that have advocated the establishment of three (3) pilot projects for biofuel production, equipment were acquired and transferred back to three (3) promoters of the Jatropha sector. Similarly, building human resource capacity of the promoters was made to equip in the matter.

45

• Institutional strengthening component. This included physical elements (office and field equipment) and human capital (planning, M&E) that benefitted 346 agents, which helped in better execution of their activities.

General conclusions

7. The project effectively contributed to the achievement of the goals reflected by the level of indicators on number of households and localities electrified and in areas of forest placed under management. Indeed, the implementation of the EAP has enabled: • A favorable environment for the development of an energy sector strategy; • An increase in electricity supply of urban, peri-urban and rural populations through the execution of production and transmission infrastructure and the extension of electricity distribution networks; • Strengthening the capacities of the Ministry of Mines and Energy and those associated with the Environment and Sustainable Development; • Conducting a dissemination strategy of improved stoves that will be a reference for future action in the field; • Developing, with the local population and the local authorities, a new vision for sustainable management of forest resources; • The support of efforts of GOBF in the growth and expansion of services of electrical energy and the reduction of poverty.

8. Shortcomings include cost increases which reduced the potential coverage of electricity services in target zone, and the non-implementation of a differentiated kWh price to benefit rural areas.

Performance:

• Bank performance. The overall assessment of the work of the World Bank is considered satisfactory because supervision missions and the substantial increase in the threshold for review of tender documents have helped greatly improve the management of the project. However, it was noted that the processing time of procurement records, subject to a priori review, have been shortened but are still relatively long.

• Government performance. The performance of the Government of Burkina Faso is considered satisfactory because from the start of the project, the conditions for credit effectiveness were all made on time. Similarly, although not foreseen in the financing agreement, measures have been taken to recruit forty eight (48) support staff in forest management activities and mobilize financial resources for their wages. Also financially, the GOBF took an important measure by the introduction of an electrification development tax (TDE) exclusively for investment in electricity infrastructure in rural areas. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the effort made by the GOBF by granting a subsidy on fuel used for electricity production in isolated

46

centers on the one hand and on the other to harmonize the kWh prices in rural areas with those of the perimeter of SONABEL as well as the tax exemption for five years on the exploitation of renewable energy equipment. During the life of the project, GOBF showed its determination to carry out the project through the mobilization of technical and financial partners of the sector through several meetings for consultation and the development of strategic policy documents. It is in this sense that a sectoral policy document was adopted in October 2013 together with a three- year action plan. Finally, all government departments have been actively involved and played their part in the direction of the project. However, It should be emphasized that the systemic superposition of national procurement procedures with those of the World Bank was a factor in lengthening the approval times of different project components. • Steering committee. The performance of the Steering Committee was satisfactory. It held the two annual statutory sessions for approving activity programs and activity and financial reports. The Steering Committee sessions also helped to provide guidance and make recommendations for the implementation of the EAP activities.

• DGE. Insufficient staff committed to monitoring the EAP was an impediment to the realization of technical activities for which it was responsible. Indeed, the activities of the sub-component "promotion of energy conservation and alternative energy" experienced more than three years of lethargy which led to the revision of the key indicator in the mid-term. Ultimately, the performance of DGE is considered moderately satisfactory in terms of physical targets that could only be achieved by means of the last extension of the project closing date.

• SONABEL. The performance of SONABEL is considered satisfactory. Despite the high mobility of agents of the technical structure in charge of conducting the activities of the EAP, the rate of implementation was satisfactory. The monitoring mechanism is functional, but improvements will be necessary to disaggregate the monitoring indicators relative to the number of consumers specifically stemming from EAP investments. Recovering from the unexpected high cost tender result, long response times to requests for validating and approving procurement, and the environmental component in urban areas affected the performance of SONABEL. This factor will be taken into account in future projects.

• FDE. The performance of the FDE is considered Satisfactory. The rate of physical implementation was achieved thanks to the budgetary reallocations. The assessment tracking service is functional but there are difficulties associated with certain cooperatives that do not allow provide operating statistics.

• DGFF and DREDD. The DGFF and DREDD benefited from a relatively large strengthening in human resources through the implementation of activities for which they were responsible. Despite this increase, the activities were slow due to institutional constraints. It should be stressed that recruited staff is near their contract term, and most have already resigned. This leaves weak structures with a moderately

47

satisfactory performance, despite the achievement of objectives, because of the current lack of accompanying measures after the project.

• UER. The UER played its role despite institutional constraints that emerged in the implementation of certain activities and fiduciary management. The quarterly activity reports, financial monitoring reports, audit reports of annual financial statements and the reports of the Steering Committee sessions were delivered on time. The recommendations of the different control missions were monitored and thanks to the experience of staff and rigorous adherence to procedures, the project achieved its objectives. The performance of the UER is considered satisfactory.

Lessons learned

• Subsidies for the initial investment enabled a large number of the rural population to access electricity service. The support of the people for the electrification of their locality through cooperatives shows that, despite their limitations, they have greatly facilitated the realization and ensured the viability of investments.

• Under the implementation of the forest management process, the principle of the project to rely on local communities for the execution of the work is a rich experience despite the weaknesses identified. This was a lower cost management option that will have a significant impact on rural development and poverty reduction.

• Budget overruns in tenders for the construction of electricity infrastructure and environmental and social issues that have led to delays in the completion of the infrastructure indicate that supporting studies should be executed during project preparation.

• Delays in non-objection approvals due to differences in procurement procedures should be addressed by seeking a harmonization of national and Bank procedures.

48

Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders Not Applicable

49

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents

• Project Appraisal Document • Mid-term Review • Project Legal Agreements • WB Implementation Status Reports • Aide Memoires • WB Memos • Progress Report submitted by Borrower • Final Report submitted by UER

50

4°W2°W 0° 2°E This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown OUDALAN on this map do not imply, on MALI the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, Gorom or any endorsement or BURKINA FASO Gorom acceptance of such SOUM boundaries.

Djibo Dori 14°N 14°N To LOROUM To NIGER Mopti Niamey N SÉNO i Titao ge YATENGA r

Ouahigouya BAM Sebba Kongoussi To To YAGHA Dosso San SOUROU Gourcy SANMATENGA GNAGNA Tougan ZONDOMA Kaya KOSSI Sirba To Yako Ségou KOURE- Bogandé Nouna PASSORÉ WÉOGO NAMENTENGA KOMONDJARI Toma OUBRITENGA i b Boussé u Boulsa Gayéri ro NAYALA o BOULKIEMDÉ Ziniaré G OUAGADOUGOU Dédougou GANZOURGOU Réo BANWA Koudougou V KADIOGO o TAPOA lt GOURMA Solenzo MOUHOUN a Koupéla B Zorgo la Fada Diapaga Kombissirin c SANGUIÉ h KOURITENGA N'Gourma 12°N V e 12°N ol ta e BAZÉGA ir Boromo R o ou Tenkodogo N g ZIRO e a Manga lt ZOUNDWÉOGO BOULGOU o BALÉ KÉNÉDOUGOU V Sapouy Ouargaye Samorogouan HOUET KOMPIENGA

To Bougouni To Houndé KOULPÉLOGO TUI SISSILI NAOURI Pama Pô Dano BENIN Bobo- Orodara Diébougou Léo Dioulasso 0° To 2°E To Djougou Parakou IOBA Sindou BOUGOURIBA BURKINA FASO Banfora PONI ENERGY ACCESS PROJECT LÉRABA To

KOMOÉ Gaoua PROVINCE CAPITALSSokidé é To

V o Tamale 225 kV TRANSMISSION LINES olt NATIONAL CAPITAL

m GHANA

o ALREADY CONSTRUCTED a Noire 10 N K MAIN ROADS ° NOUMBIEL BOBO-OUAGA TRANSMISSION RAILROADS Batié LINE UNDER CONSTRUCTION PSDP To PROVINCE BOUNDARIESTOGO FDE NETWORKS Bole INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES MEDIUM VOLTAGE LINES SONABEL 020406080100 Kilometers ISOLATED DIESEL SYSTEM HYDRO POWER PLANTS IBRD 35473 CÔTE D'IVOIRE SWER DISTRIBUTION CENTERS THERMAL POWER PLANTS JUNE 2007 To 0 20 40 60 80 Miles TRI-PHASE DISTRIBUTION CENTERS Bouaké To AREAS UNDER COMMUNITY-BASED Koutouba MULTI-FUNCTIONAL PLATFORMS WOODLAND MANAGEMENT 4°W2°W WITH NETWORKS