pacific islands energy policies and strategies action

PACIFIC ISLANDS ENERGY POLICIES AND STRATEGIC ACTION PLANNING (PIEPSAP) PROJECT DOCUMENT PIEPSAP Project Report 0

[August 2004] ~ Participating Pacific Islands Countries ~

Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu

PIEPSAP Project Document

Governments of the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji,

Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu

South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission

United Nations Development Program

Government of Denmark

Other partners

Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific – Energy Working Group

Pacific Islands Energy Policies and Strategic Action Planning (PIEPSAP) Project


2

PART I: SITUATION ANALYSIS This section briefly summarises: i) the problem to be addressed and the relevant outcomes agreed by the Pacific Island Countries (PICs);1 ii) the institutional and policy framework, iii) intended beneficiaries; and iv) lessons and findings from the experiences, reviews and evaluations of past relevant regional initiatives in the Pacific. To keep the text of the project document (ProDoc) reasonably short, details are relegated to detailed annexes. The problem to be addressed. PICs face a unique and challenging situation with respect to energy for sustainable development. The situation among others can be described as follows: demographics vary widely between countries, but often feature small, isolated population centres; markets are very thin, difficult to serve, and without significant economies of scale; the majority of the regional population is without access to electricity, but access varies widely, from 10% to 100% at the national level; PICs comprise a wide range of ecosystems, predominantly influenced by marine systems, that make infrastructure development difficult and environmental impacts significant; and most PICs do not have indigenous petroleum resources. This results in unique concerns for PICs. They are among others: energy supply security is vulnerable, given the limited capacity to store bulk petroleum fuels, which are sourced over a long supply chain at relatively high prices; the development of renewable energy resources has been limited by the availability of appropriate technology, poor institutional mechanisms, and the challenges of developing systems for small remote markets at reasonable cost; there is limited scope for market reforms considering the variation in size and density of markets (appropriate alternatives vary between countries); environmental vulnerability through climate change and sea level rise, particularly for small islands and low-lying atolls; environmental damage, habitat loss and pollution resulting from development and use of conventional energy sources have significant effects on fragile island ecosystems; poor representation of women in energy policy, planning, and development despite them being significant energy users; and limited human and institutional capacity to respond to these challenges. An overview of the major wider development challenges PICs face are summarised in Annex C. There has been assistance from a number of development agencies since 1981 to assist in addressing this situation and the PICs concerns. E.g. improved terms of petroleum fuel supply, expanding electrification to urban and wide spread rural and remote island populations, and development of renewable energy resources to replace the imported fuels. However, these efforts have been largely piecemeal rather than part of clear and practical national energy policies and the strategic action plans to implement these policies and have been met with limited success. Among the 14 PICs eligible for assistance from PIEPSAP, only two have up-to-date energy policies approved at Cabinet level. Several others are under development, a few PICs have energy policies from the mid 1990s which were never formalised or are effectively defunct, and several have sought assistance from the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) to update or develop policies. Even where policies are in place, they tend to be weak regarding the potential role of energy in poverty reduction and environmental sustainability. Where they exist, the energy sections of national socio-economic plans or national development strategies, are also weak, tending to emphasise the investment needs of urban and peri-urban power generation and distribution, and sometimes power sector reform. There are no practical strategic action plans associated with PIC

1 Abbreviations and Acronyms are attached as Annex A.


3

energy policies, in order to implement those policies. Annexes B and C provide more details on the status of PIC energy policies and plans. Expected outcome. PIEPSAP aims to improve the capacity of PICs to develop practical national energy policies, and the strategic action plans to implement the policies. It is expected that a framework of national energy policies, plans and practical mechanisms will be in place within the PICs, which influence national efforts toward achieving “available, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for the sustainable development for all Pacific islanders.” Institutional and policy framework. Within the PICs are a number of intergovernmental organisations whose work is coordinated through the Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific (CROP). In 1999, CROP established an Energy Working Group (EWG), consisting of representatives of member organisations with energy sector activities, participants from relevant non-CROP organisations and observers from civil society. All EWG participants can play an active role in its deliberations, which are meant to assure coordination among themselves and the provision of advice to CROP on energy matters. The CROP EWG is chaired by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), which reports to the political leaders of member states. In 2002, energy officials of the PICs endorsed a regional Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan (PIEPP) as a framework for energy sector development within the PICs. PIEPP also provides a framework for the sharing of energy sector functions among CROP members. The PIEPSAP project will be carried out within the broad guidelines of the PIEPP. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, Johannesburg, 2002) the PICs launched a regional energy sector umbrella initiative, Pacific Islands Energy for Sustainable Development (PIESD), the main objectives of which are: “i) increased availability of adequate, affordable and environmentally sound energy for the sustainable development of all Pacific islanders; and ii) accelerated transfer and adoption of clean and renewable energy technologies in the Pacific” the first of which is identical to the PIEPP’s overall vision. At WSSD, the European Union Energy Initiative for Poverty Eradication for Sustainable Development (EUEI) was also launched. An EUEI partnership with the Pacific was invited and strongly endorsed by the PIFS in August 2002. During a joint mission to the Pacific by the European Commission and the Danish Government in March 2003, the PIFS and others identified two priority areas for which support was requested under the EUEI to help PICs realise the PIESD objectives. One of these is this project, PIEPSAP; the second is a capacity building and energy efficiency project for PIC electric power utilities. Thus internationally, PIEPSAP is an outcome of the WSSD,2 part of the EUEI, and more specifically part of a joint EUEI/ PIESD partnership initiative. Annexes D, E and F provide details. UNDP’s priorities with regard to energy and relevant service lines. UNDP’s energy activities focus on the upstream enabling environment and policies needed to support energy options for sustainable development addressing economic, social and environmental goals simultaneously. Downstream activities concentrate on integrated energy solutions addressing social, economic and environmental objectives to address poverty and promote sustainable development. Actions taken at the local level to promote sustainable energy options also support global sustainable development goals, generating win-win outcomes in environment and development.

2 The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) will emphasise energy during 2006-2007, as PIEPSAP begins to

seriously consider possible follow-up initiatives.


4

UNDP’s Second Multi-Year Funding Framework (MYFF) 2004-2007 prioritises access to sustainable energy services for sustainable development. The Danish Government is financing PIEPSAP under the UNDP Thematic Trust Fund (TTF) Energy for Sustainable Development which focuses on four priority areas or ‘service lines.” The major service line relevant to PIEPSAP is number 1: ‘Strengthening national policy frameworks to support energy for poverty reduction and sustainable development’ but the other three service lines (2: ‘Promoting rural energy services to support growth and equity’; 3: ‘Promoting clean energy technologies for sustainable development’; and 4: ‘Increasing Access to investment financing for sustainable energy’) are all relevant to the desired outcomes of the project. Intended beneficiaries. The intended direct beneficiaries are the staff of government agencies, electric power utilities and private organisations within the fourteen PICs responsible for developing energy policies and plans and the implementation of energy sector projects and investments. Indirect beneficiaries are the people of the PICs. The overall development objective of the EUEI is “…to facilitate the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 … .” Special attention will be paid to low-income Pacific islanders. Lessons from past energy initiatives. There is considerable experience from previous development initiatives in the Pacific, both within the energy sector and broader socio-economic efforts, which are relevant to the development of PIEPSAP. These are provided in Annexes D and E and are not repeated here. However, the experiences and lessons have been taken into account when designing this project to improve its chances of success. Please refer to the following annexes for detailed explanations: Annex: Contents: B: Status of National

Energy Policies and Plans within PICs

Indicates the status of national energy offices, policies, energy plans, data availability and limitations for energy sector policies and planning, and status of rural electrification policies for the 14 eligible PICs

C: Project Justification Summarises the wider development challenges of the PICs, states the need for national energy policies and plans for the PICs, the opportunities that currently exist to effectively address these needs, and how these opportunities can best be met through a regional approach

D: Review of Past, Currentand Planned Regional Energy Initiatives in the Pacific Islands

Summarises the main energy initiatives carried out through regional assistance in the PICs relevant to PIEPSAP in the past, at the present, and planned for the immediate future. The potential for duplication and for cooperation are also discussed.

E: Issues and Lessons Regarding Past Energy Planning Efforts in the Pacific

Summarises a range of lessons for effective energy policy and planning within PICs from two perspectives: 1) past regional energy sector technical assistance initiatives, particularly those of the UNDP and the EU; and 2) the broader experiences of the UN system from recent PIC CCA and UNDAF3 exercises

F: Overview of the Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan (PIEPP)

Summaries the vision, the ten basic goals, the policies to achieve the goals, the strategies to reach the policies, and the activities by which strategies are to be implemented. Portions of PIEPP specifically relevant to PIEPSAP are indicated in more detail.

3 Common Country Assessments (CCAs) were prepared in 2001-2002 by the UN system (UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA,

UNIFEM, FAO, ILO, UNESCO and WHO) for Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. These were followed by UN Development Advisory Frameworks (UNDAFs) outlining priorities for assistance.


5

PART II: STRATEGY This section outlines: the strategy for achieving the desired outcome within the participating PICs through support for policy and planning development and strengthening national capacities and partnerships to ensure that there are lasting results; and the process by which the project was developed. The development goal of PIEPSAP is the establishment of national energy policies, plans and practical mechanisms which will influence national efforts toward achieving reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for sustainable development of the PICs. By the end of the project, there is expected to be a framework within most PICs of practical and achievable energy policies and action plans approved at Cabinet level, and changes (e.g laws, regulations and incentives) which may lead to measurable progress toward the PIEPP vision of adequate, affordable and environmentally sound energy for the sustainable development of the PICs, with specific follow-on activities clearly identified, possibly supported or co-funded through a Phase II of PIEPSAP. An effective strategy to achieve this goal must recognise that PICs share a range of development challenges which can be addressed through a regional approach but that the countries vary immensely in size, resources, degree of isolation, populations, transport and communications infrastructure, the sophistication of their economies, dependence on external assistance, civil service structures, etc. Individual countries range from several thousand people (or less) living on a single small isolated island or several atolls to tens of thousands spread over thousands of kilometres of ocean to several million people on a large land mass. The institutions and legal frameworks to deal with energy (and development in general) vary from those based on the American system in the north, to the British, Australian and New Zealand systems in the central Pacific and toward the south. No assistance project can, or should, work in isolation from other efforts or attempt to cover the entire gamut of possible interventions to improve policies and planning. Finally, energy has had a relatively low profile within the region in recent years despite serious challenges and opportunities to address them. Within this context, PIEPSAP’s strategy to achieve the overall goal contains the following elements: i) a menu of options tailored to individual PIC needs; ii) building upon the work of others; iii) addressing poverty, equity and gender; iv) flexibility to adjust to changing needs; v) raising the profile of energy in the region; and vi) building the capacities of PICs in energy policies and planning. i) A menu of options. Individual PICs require different degrees and types of assistance to help them develop effective energy policies, plans and the mechanisms to implement them. PIEPSAP, in cooperation with local authorities, will assess the needs and priorities for each PIC, and tailor interventions to suit each country, early in the project’s life. Some PICs may require minor revisions to existing policies; others may want fundamental policy changes. For some PICs, it may be appropriate to prepare energy chapters of national economic plans or strategies; for others stand-alone energy plans are better suited to local needs.4 Individual PICs may or may not require assistance with the development of new laws, better regulations, mechanisms for legal change, financial incentives or disincentives for more rational energy use, new administrative or institutional arrangements, capacity building for planning, or identification of energy investment opportunities. 4 For some PICs, the most appropriate action plan may in principle be an energy chapter within a broader national economic

strategy but this may not be possible. The duration of PIEPSAP (early 2004 - early 2007) may not coincide with the national development planning cycle. There may be no new plan developed during PIEPSAP. In this case, other options for action plans will need to be explored.


6

The table below indicates a preliminary and incomplete menu of possible options of the sort PIEPSAP will offer to PICs. Individual countries might wish to choose all or a combination of possible activities to reflect their particular situation. If a specific country feels that all of these types of interventions may be necessary, there will be a process to mutually agree which are sufficiently high in priority to be addressed through PIEPSAP. If none are required, PIEPSAP and national officials can explore other needs that PIEPSAP may be able to help them address. A menu or matrix of options of this sort will be amended as necessary and confirmed at an inception / planning meeting early in the project (Activity 1.1.2 in Part III).

A Preliminary Menu of Options for Possible PIEPSAP Interventions

Type of intervention: Examples (to be tailored to each country):

Policy development Help the PIC to develop, finalise and adopt a national energy policy, a national electrification policy, a rural electrification policy, etc.

Practical strategic energy plans

Help the PIC develop energy sector action plans (short, medium and long term), energy chapters of national development strategies, or other practical and achievable plans, with clear priorities, as appropriate to the national planning system and cycle.

Model legislation Help the PIC revise power utility charters to require a power utility to sell efficiency as well as units of electricity; help develop model legislation for renewable energy service companies (RESCOs); help update Energy Acts (where they even exist); help develop legislative authority and responsibilities for national energy agencies, etc.

Institutional development Help PIC to develop more appropriate institutional forms within the public service with clear powers and responsibilities for the energy department.

Tariff studies Advise on ‘lifeline’ electricity tariffs which can protect low-income consumers without lowering the utility's income; advise on pros and cons of differing tariffs for electrification of different islands or regions, depending on local supply costs.

Model regulations Advise on and help PICs develop appropriate regulatory frameworks (i.e. in the public interest) for commercialised or privatised electric power utilities.

Financial incentives Advise on pros and cons of tax incentives for companies or individuals for installing solar water heating; advise on effective disincentives for wasting energy.

Model agreements Help PICs develop independent power production (IPP) agreements that do not discriminate against renewable energy.

Guidelines Help PICs develop practical guidelines for waste disposal from energy systems; for development banks and commercial banks regarding loans for energy services; for programmes for bulk purchase and distribution of energy efficient lights. Help develop guidelines for an effective national advisory committee on energy.

Case studies Develop case studies based on other PIC experience, e.g. the pros and cons of national ownership of petroleum storage; pros and cons of banning imports of private cars above a certain engine size to save fuel, effective approaches to assure reasonable fuel quality and cost to remote outer islands.

Subsidy studies Help PIC determine the actual cost and subsidies for rural electrification; help determine hidden subsidies for transport of fuel to outer islands.

Investment plans and partnerships

Provide advisory services which develop, adapt, extend or follow-up from REEP, PIREP – described in the following paragraphs – and other initiatives for assisting PICs in implementation of projects in (or beyond) year three through GEF, bilateral donors,


7

ADB, CDM, etc., private partnerships, and through a possible Phase II of PIEPSAP. This is a very ambitious list of possible interventions; it will clearly not be possible to address more than a few in any single PIC. For each participating country, there will be dialogue early in an inception phase to establish which of the above (or other) options are the most crucial or indispensable for genuine progress toward the PIEPP energy vision. The project will focus its limited resources on these mutually agreed high priority interventions. ii) Building on the work of others through regional cooperation. There are several other regional energy activities which are underway or about to begin in the Pacific which are expected to conclude well before PIEPSAP. These include the UNDP/GEF Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Project (PIREP) at the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) emphasising removal of barriers to renewable energy; and the Asian Development Bank’s Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program for the Pacific (REEP), which will carry out detailed assessments of renewable energy and energy efficiency in two PICs to be selected in early 2004. Ongoing ESCAP activities include planning for PICs’ renewable energy management and a broader initiative for strategic planning and management in the PIC energy and water sectors, both with SOPAC. A UNDP Asia/Pacific project is also planned, Regional Cooperation Initiative on Energy and Sustainable Development project (RCESD), with which there is scope for cooperation with PIEPSAP, particularly through RCESD’s Strategic Service 1: Policy Advocacy.5 Details of these projects and possible links to PIEPSAP are provided in Annex D. Figure 1 on page 9 illustrates some expected results of these initiatives, which should provide valuable information for PIEPSAP. The PIEPSAP strategy is to work closely with these initiatives (including joint activities where practical) and to adopt, adapt and extend useful results to other PICs. PIEPSAP will work diligently and proactively to arrange appropriate joint activities and complementary activities with these initiatives and develop practical follow-up activities. iii) Addressing poverty, equity and gender. As noted under ‘Intended beneficiaries’ (Part I), the overall development of the EUEI is to facilitate the achievement of the MDG halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015. Immediate EUEI objectives are to establish partnerships (such as the EUEI/PIESD partnership) “with developing countries, with the involvement of the private sector and civil society, that will develop in response to the energy needs of developing countries and regions. … The aim of the Partnerships is to enable the EU and its developing country partners, and other stakeholders, to work together to improve efforts for increasing access to energy services, particularly for poor women and men, based on their specific circumstances and requirements. Gender issues will be mainstreamed in all aspects of the Initiative. …” The ADB is currently finalising a series of PIC poverty studies, and refining strategies to address poverty in the PICs.6 The project will use the results of the ADB efforts and those of other agencies, to develop specific activities to address energy use among low-income Pacific islanders and equity in the provision of energy services. In 2003, SOPAC became the focal point for a newly established ‘Pacific Energy and Gender Network’ (PEG). PIEPSAP will work closely with PEG, which also has a strong emphasis on rural energy use for low-income people, to consider practical approaches to energy and gender issues within the PICs.

5 RCESD may consider placing a Programme Officer in the Pacific, in which case PIEPSAP would be an ideal location. 6 In the 18 months through November 2003, there have been ADB drafts (or final reports) on Assessment of Hardship and

Poverty and Strategies for Equitable Growth and Hardship Alleviation for at least the following PICs: Fiji, Marshall Islands, PNG, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. More are underway or planned.


8

iv) Flexibility to adjust to changing needs. PIEPSAP must have a clear focus on energy policies and planning. It must, however, also be sufficiently flexible to adapt to genuine changing needs, new and unanticipated opportunities, unexpected setbacks, and changing priorities of the participating countries (due, for example, to the election of a new government).7 The PIEPSAP project will work closely with UNDP and the countries to assure flexibility to benefit from changing circumstances.

v) Raising the profile of energy in the region. Even if PICs develop good policies and plans, and find highly attractive and economically viable opportunities for follow-up activities and investments to move in the direction of the PIEPP and PIESD ‘vision,’ this may not mean a great deal in practice unless PIC decision-makers and leaders understand the importance of energy in the development process, and appreciate the costs and benefits of actions (and inaction) recommended by line energy agencies. PIEPSAP will endeavour to assist PICs develop information in a form appropriate to influence decision makers. It will also work assiduously to help improve the effectiveness of the CROP Energy Working Group8 in the best interests of the PICs, a change which the EWG itself agrees is highly desirable. vi) Building the capacities of PICs in energy policies and planning. In part because of very small national energy offices, PIC institutional capacities for energy policy and planning are weak. This will be addressed through: i) attachments of national staff to the project, and possibly to the larger PIC energy departments, for varying periods for on-the-job training and experience, ii) the use of local consultants in the PICs who will work with, and learn from, experienced project staff and international consultants; iii) consistently working with local officials and civil society in all in-country activities; and iv) working with local officials to develop more effective institutional arrangements. The process of developing the ProDoc. The process of project development was as follows:

Time Activities March - April 2003 A team from EU and Danida visited the PICs in March-April 2003 and agreed with the regional working group

responsible for coordination of PIESD on two sets of assistance from EU, which are both in line with EUEI and PIESD. Danida would contribute to financing of PIEPSAP, while EU will finance the other assistance to the PPA. SOPAC was identified as the relevant regional organization for implementing of PIEPSAP.

June - July 2003 Danida received draft SOPAC project proposal 13 June. Danida provided comments on 1 July. October 2003 A revised draft, taking into account comments by Danida on the first draft, was submitted to Danida by

SOPAC on 23 October, and circulated by SOPAC to EWG members. UNDP arranged for a consultant to prepare the ProDoc in accordance with UNDP’s requirements. 31 October Danida provided Terms of Reference for the consultancy, which in addition to preparation of a draft ProDoc included an overall analysis of relevant energy initiatives in the region, a need for the project, an overall assessment of SOPAC’s implementing capacity, and an analysis of the project.

November 2003 Based on discussions with SOPAC, all available members of the CROP EWG and UNDP Samoa, background papers were prepared on the justification for the project, other relevant regional energy initiatives, SOPAC as executing agency, and the suitability of the concept proposal. The first two were discussed with SOPAC and EWG members, and then revised. Due to severe time constraints, discussions with PICs were limited to e-mail exchanges with officials and executives of the electric power utilities of all 14 countries. The CROP EWG met, and was briefed on proposed PIEPSAP ‘outcomes’ and types of activities within the

7 Within a one-week period during the preparation of this ProDoc, a possible new energy initiative with implications for the

Pacific was being mooted and a new bilateral study began in one PIC, both of which could provide valuable lessons and experiences for the region.

8 Throughout this ProDoc and its annexes, the term ‘Energy Working Group’ (EWG) refers to the current EWG or any subsequent group which CROP may establish to coordinate energy sector activities among regional organisations in the Pacific.


9

‘menu of options’ on 10 November. A draft ProDoc was prepared (taking into account SOPAC and EWG comments) and circulated to the Danish Government, EWG and NGOs on 13 November. Based on feedback, the draft ProDoc was revised. Additional information received from several PICs was incorporated into annexes. Final draft ProDoc forwarded to the Danish Government on 20 November. A Danida desk appraisal was completed by 30 November.

December 2003 Appropriation Note and draft ProDoc presented to the Board of Danida for consideration on 10 December 2003. Funding approved. Thematic Trust Fund (TTF) Agreement for the project co-signed between the Government of Denmark and UNDP Samoa

2004 Some revisions likely as a result of feedback from the Danish Government and EWG members. Final ProDoc signed. Key project staff recruited A 3 months inception phase to detail activities and prepare detailed implementation plan and ensure better focus, ownership and dialogue with the 14 target PICs is estimated to be initiated 1 June 2004. As part hereof national consultations planned to: i) agree on national needs and initial priorities of the PICs; and ii) determine individual PIC commitment to, and inputs to, the project. Revision of signed ProDoc possible.


10

Figure 1: Linkages Between PIEPSAP and Other Regional Initiatives

The European Union Energy Initiative (EUEI): Pacific Partnership with SOPAC (PIEPSAP) & PPA (HRD/EE in power utilities):

• Joint coordination through CROP EWG • Joint review process • PIEPSAP national energy policy & planning support to PPA ACP members • Data and information sharing

National energy policy and planning support

Information sharing

Coordination regarding policies and plans

EWG Coordination

National energy policy and planning support

EWG coordination

Results of PIREP ‘mini-PREA to PIEPSAP (Q2 2004)

Results on barriers to RE (late 2004) Joint workshops or REEP input to PIEPSAP workshops (possibly 2005)

Data sharing RE/EE assessments of 2 PICs provided to PIEPSAP for replication & / or adaptation (possibly end 2005)

Project design not yet finalised but some scope for RCESD co-operation with PIEPSAP on ‘Energy Policy Advocacy’ Possible placement of a RCESD Programme Officer in the Pacific

HRD & EE in utilities: Human Resource Development and Energy Efficiency

within PIC National Power Utilities

PPA: early 2004 – early 2007 (Nine ACP PICs)

RCESD: Regional Cooperation

Initiative on Energy and Sustainable Development

UNDP: 2004 – 2007 (Regional Asia-Pacific project)

PIREP: Pacific Islands

Renewable Energy Project SPREP: mid 2003 – mid 2005 (15 PICs: ACP plus Tokelau)

Support to Energy Sector in Five ACP Pacific islands

PPA management role: 2004 – 2007(Not formally part of the EUEI)

REEP: Renewable Energy and

Energy Efficiency Program for the Pacific

ADB: early 2004 – early 2006 (Two PICs to be selected)

PIEPSAP: Pacific Island Energy Policies and Strategic

Action Plans SOPAC: early 2004 – early 2007

(All 14 ACP PICs)


11

PART III: RESULTS FRAMEWORK This section describes the desired overall PIEPSAP outcome, the indicators of outcome success, and the various outputs, and related activities and inputs, which will produce the desired results. It is presented in the form of a UNDP Results Framework. The overall objective – the key anticipated outcome – of PIEPSAP is the development of national energy policies, plans and practical mechanisms in place within the PICs, which influence national efforts toward achieving the PIEPP vision of available, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for sustainable development for all Pacific islanders. PIEPSAP is thus intended to help participating PICs implement the energy policy and planning aspects of PIEPP at the national level. As noted, individual country needs will vary and PIEPSAP will require flexibility to adapt to changing needs over the life of the project. Nonetheless the explicit policy and planning elements of PIEPP provide a good overall framework for the sorts of interventions PIEPSAP will emphasise as priorities.

There are numerous other sections of PIEPP, additional to policies and plans, with strong policy and planning elements which are also appropriate for guiding PIEPSAP. These are listed in full in Annex F but in brief these include:

PIEPP Goals Relevant to PIEPSAP and PIEPP Policies to Achieve those Goals

PIEPP Goal PIEPP Policies to achieve the goal Goal 2: Energy policy and planning Open and consultative cross-sectoral policy development and integrated planning to achieve sustainable supply and use of energy

• Ensure energy sector policy and planning addresses the availability and efficient use of sufficient, affordable and appropriate sources of energy, taking into account a balance of social, cultural, technological, institutional, environmental, economic, and global market issues.

• Promote sustainable energy options for electricity generation, transportation, water supply, health care, education, telecommunication, food supply, and income generation.

• Promote the development of appropriate regulatory guidelines to meet the needs of consumers resulting from sector reforms.

• Assess and promote indigenous resource potential and technical capacity for all aspects of sector planning and development.

• Promote policy mechanisms for efficient use of energy in all sectors of the economy. Goal 5: Renewable energy An increased share of renewable energy in the region’s energy supply

• Promote effective management of grid-connected and stand-alone renewable-based power systems

• Promote level playing field for renewable and conventional energy sources and technologies • Promote partnerships between the private and public sectors and mobilise external financing to

develop renewable energy initiatives Goal 7: Rural and remote islands Reliable, affordable, & sustainable energy supplies for the social & economic development of rural & remote islands

• Promote opportunities for rural energy service companies and local manufacturers to supply equipment and human resources for project design, implementation, management and maintenance

Goal 8: Environment Environmentally sustainable development of energy sources & energy use.

• Integrate environmental regulations into all energy-related plans

Goal 9: Efficiency and conservation Optimised energy consumption in all sectors of regional economy and society

• Improve efficiency of energy production, transmission and distribution through Supply Side Management

• Introduce DSM for enhancing energy efficiency & conservation to reduce the energy consumption in government facilities, residential & commercial buildings, industry, agriculture & forestry

• Promote appropriate packages of incentives (including taxes, duties & tariffs) to encourage efficient energy use)

Source: Pacific Islands Energy Policy & Plan (PIFS, Oct. 2002); SSM = Supply Side Management; DSM = Demand Side Mgt.


12

Project Outcomes, Outputs and Activities For PIEPSAP, the intended project outcomes, the outputs to help achieve the outcomes, and the activities to produce the outputs are discussed below. The numbering and wording differ from those of PIEPP (which deals with far more than policies and plans) but these are fully consistent with PIEPP and the CROP EWG mandates. 9

A. Overall Objective of PIEPSAP: A framework of national energy policies, plans and practical mechanisms is in place within the PICs, which influence national efforts toward achieving the PIEPP vision of ‘available, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for sustainable development for all Pacific islanders.’

B. Intended Outcomes: 1) Energy policy and planning needs and opportunities have been identified and prioritised during an inception

phase of three months. 2) National energy policies have been developed and endorsed at Cabinet level 3) Practical national strategic action plans to implement the policies have been adopted and integrated into the

government budgetary process 4) Practical mechanisms to implement the action plans have been developed and adopted at national level 5) There is an increased visibility and understanding of key energy issues at regional and national levels 6) Opportunities for reliable, affordable and environmentally sound energy sector investments and other

follow-up within the PICs have been identified

C. Outcome indicator including baseline and target: The indicators will be as follows: 1) Needs & opportunities. The extent to which needs, opportunities and priorities have been determined

and agreed by the PICs and project partners. 2) Policies. The number and quality of energy policies that have been developed and the extent of

endorsement at a political level, with quality judged by independent assessments by external consultants and/or review teams.

3) Plans. The number and quality of national action plans that have been adopted and the extent of integration into the annual and longer-term budgetary process, with quality judged by independent assessments by external consultants and/or review teams.

4) Mechanisms. The number, range and practicality of mechanisms developed in each PIC and the extent to which they are used to put the policies and plans into effect.

5) Visibility & understanding. Within PICs, the degree and quality of dialogue between energy officials and decision-makers and Ministers. Regionally, the extent to which energy is discussed, and decisions reached, at the political level through Forum and other PIC deliberations.

6) Investments & partnerships. Opportunities for reliable, affordable and environmentally sound energy sector investments and partnerships within the PICs have been identified. In each participating PIC, budgets include allocations for such projects.

The baselines in most PICs are ad hoc or poorly articulated national energy policies, plans and implementation mechanisms that tend to react to external events rather than anticipate them. The targets are a consistent set of policies, plans and implementation mechanisms in each PIC which assists the counties to progress toward the PIEPP vision

D. Applicable Strategic Areas of Support: 1) National policy, legal and regulatory framework for environ-mentally sustainable development; and 2) Regional cooperation and coordination in natural resource manage-ment and sustainable energy development.

E. Partnership Strategy: Energy concerns are integrated in national development planning and policy

9 Note that PIEPP is expected to be reviewed in 2004 by the CROP EWG. There will be some changes in details and

responsibilities but the current form of PIEPP is not expected to change substantially.


13

through a range of activities involving key national and regional stakeholders. Items A through E above refer to all participating countries. The Results Framework of this section of the ProDoc indicates the project’s desired outputs and activities to achieve them. Annex G provides a pro forma workplan format, which indicates the sort of information about outputs and activities that should be included in quarterly and annual workplans. The actual format used by the project may differ but should include the same essential elements including responsibility for the activity, its priority, expected time for the activity to begin and end, cooperating organisations, financial inputs and explanatory comments if needed. The annex also includes a slightly modified form, which can be used for summary reporting, discussed further in Part IV. A detailed Workplan and Schedule of Activities for Year 1, based on Outputs 1 – 6 and their associated activities, is to be developed during the initial regional consultative meeting and finalised in detail following the planning and consultative process with participating countries. Inception Phase. Because the time available to prepare this ProDoc was quite limited, there was insufficient time for thorough and effective consultations with the participating countries. There was no opportunity to consult stakeholders within the individual PICs, except national energy office / energy department officials and the heads of the electric power utilities, through which the related EUEI Pacific Power Association (PPA) project is being carried out. There were consultations with regional organisations of the EWG but only limited communications with relevant Fiji-based regional NGOs. Accordingly, the outputs and activities indicated on the following pages are not as well-developed as they need to be. Therefore the first 3-months of the project is an inception phase, which overall will detail the activities and prepare implementation plan and ensure better focus, ownership and dialogue with the 14 target PICs and relevant regional organisations. More specifically during the inception phase project staff (primarily Project Manager and Energy Advisor) will organise and carry out as a minimum the following: Extensive consultations within each country with officials (finance, planning energy and

others) of the PICs and with civil society and the private sector (NGOs, lending institutions, power utilities, potential renewable energy service companies, investors, etc.) among others to; 1) determine high priority issues and further detail and delineate the project activities and their priorities, both regionally and nationally; 2) enhance stakeholders understanding of the project; and 3) improve local ownership. A Regional Planning and Consultative Meeting and the establishment of the PIEPSAP Country Teams will be included as part hereof.

If needed further review of relevant existing and planned energy projects to obtain additional findings and recommendations to the information already included in Annex D.

Prepare an overall Implementation Time Schedule relating all outputs to activities for the entire project, and a detailed time schedule for the first year of implementation.

Detail and operationalise implementation strategies. Budget for each year of the implementation in accordance with the Implementation time

Schedule.


14

In addition during the inception phase UNDP will conduct briefings and orientation for project personnel on UNDP National Execution (NEX) policy, requirements and procedures. An Inception Report will be the main output from the inception phase. The draft Inception Report will be commented upon, amended and agreed to within a month by the Regional Project Advisory Committee (RPAC), UNDP Samoa and the Danish Government. The final Inception Report will be attached to this ProDoc in Annex I. Annex F provides an overview of those aspects of the PIEPP of 2002 which are especially relevant to the outputs and activities of PIEPSAP.10 Not all of these PIEPP elements are fully developed within this ProDoc. These portions of PIEPP, as amended over time by the EWG, will continue to guide PIEPSAP as detailed activities are developed and revised during the course of the project. On the next few pages, the Results Framework is shown for each of the six desired ‘Outcomes’, first for regional aspects of PIEPSAP, then for national or in-country interventions: • Outcomes 1 through 3 (needs assessments, policies and plans) will be emphasised early during

project implementation; • Outcome 4 (practical mechanisms) is expected to require the largest part of project resources and

time; and • Outcomes 5 and 6 (increased status/visibility and follow-up investments/partnerships) will occur

later in the project’s life as a result of the earlier efforts.

10 The usage of terms such as goals, policies, strategies and plans within the PIEPP can be inconsistent at times and may differ

slightly from that of this ProDoc but the desired outcomes of PIEPP are clear.


15

Outputs and Activities for Outcome 1: Needs and Opportunities Energy policy and planning needs and opportunities have been identified and prioritised

Regional Outputs and Activities11

Output 1.1: Agreement has been reached with partners on overall project activities for years 1-3, with detailed activities and priorities for the coming year

Output indicators: Inception report and agreements reached Target for year 1: Completed with all participating PICs Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 1.1.1 Detail the activities and implementation plan and ensure better focus,

ownership and dialogue with the 14 target PICs and relevant regional organisations.

Staff time and travel; PIC officials’ time

1.1.2 Regional planning and consultative meeting held early in the first three months (i.e. quarter 1) of project

Estimated as $48,000 plus staff time; PIC officials’ time

1.1.3 Detailed year 1 overall work plan developed within Q1 of project Staff time and travel; PIC officials’ time Indicative Activities for Years 2 Inputs Overall project priorities & activities for year 2 developed late in year 1 As above Indicative Activities for Year 3 Inputs Overall project priorities & activities for year 3 developed late in year 2 As above Output 1.2: Overview report produced on the status of PIC energy policies and plans Output indicators: Report produced Target for year 1: Coverage of all participating PICs within first 6 months of year 1 Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 1.2.1 Assess status of energy policy and planning needs, opportunities and

constraints in the region overall (through the project and other initiatives) including coverage of individual countries

Staff time and travel

Indicative Activities for Year 2 & 3 Inputs If there are significant changes, update and revise the report As above National / In-country Outputs and Activities

Output 1.3: Agreement reached with individual PICs on national / in-country project activities for years 1-3, with detailed activities and priorities for the coming year

Output indicators: Agreements exist Target for year 1: Coverage of all participating PICs within the initial 6 months of year 1 Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 1.3.1 Initial national consultations completed for each PIC with aides-mémoire

prepared (as required) on national mechanisms for implementation Staff time and travel; PIC officials’ time

1.3.2 Work plan for year 1 prepared and agreed for national activities Staff time and travel; PIC officials’ time Indicative Activities for Year 2 Inputs National work plan prepared and agreed by early year 2 As above Indicative Activities for Year 3 Inputs National work plan prepared and agreed by early year 2 As above

11 Note that Year 1 covers the first 12 months of project implementation, not the calendar year 2004. Thus Q1 is the first

quarter of the first year of the project, Q2 the second quarter, etc.


16

National / In-country Outputs and Activities (continued)

Output 1.4: Reports on status of national energy policies and plans in each PIC Output indicators: The reports are produced Target for year 1: Coverage of all participating PICs within the first 6 months of year 1 Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 1.4.1 National energy policies and plans reviewed Staff time and travel; possibly local consultancies 1.4.2 Assist PICs to determine, and report on, national energy policy and

planning needs and priorities from the project, opportunities, and constraints.

Staff time and travel; possibly local consultancies

Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs If there are significant changes, update and revise the national reports Local PIC input Outputs and Activities for Outcome 2: Policies National energy policies have been developed and endorsed at Cabinet (or equivalent) level

Regional Outputs and Activities

Output 2.1: A flexible and practical guideline has been produced for developing PIC national energy policies Output indicators: The PIEPP has been revised, updated and improved Target for year 1: Completed by end of Q2 Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 2.1.1 Provide assistance as required to the CROP EWG to review and update

the policy section of the Pacific Islands Energy Policy & Plan Staff time

Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs As for year 1 (if required) Probably a small amount of staff time National / In-country Outputs and Activities

Output 2.2: National energy policies have been developed and adopted at Cabinet level Output indicators: Publication of reports; Cabinet decisions Target for year 1: Policies completed for 6 PICs; adopted by 3 or more PIC Cabinets (additional to any completed or adopted prior to PIEPSAP) Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 2.2.1 Assist PICs to prepare overall national energy policies Staff time & possibly consultancies 2.2.2 Assist PICs (if required) to obtain political endorsement of the policies Staff time Indicative Activities for Year 2 Inputs Continue to assist PICs to develop national energy policies where

required As above

Assist PICs develop, and obtain political endorsement for, subsidiary energy polices as required, i.e. policies for: national electrification, rural electrification, renewable energy, provincial or state energy

Staff time; international/regional consultants; Local consultants for provincial or state policies

Indicative Activities for Year 3 Inputs None anticipated; should be completed by Q2 of year 2


17

Outputs and Activities for Outcome 3: Plans Practical national strategic action plans to implement the policies have been adopted and integrated into the government budgetary process


Output 3.1: Overview report on suitable approaches for PICs on practical and achievable energy planning Output indicators: Revised planning component of PIEPP, possibly supplement to PIEPP or stand-alone report Target for year 1: Complete during Year 1 Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 3.1.1 Working with (or through) the CROP EWG, research and prepare

report on approaches for practical & achievable energy planning Staff time; CROP input

Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs No activities unless CROP reviews suggest the need for more change Staff time; CROP input Output 3.2: Enhanced capacity among PICs for energy policy and planning formulation Output indicators: PIEPSAP staff or PIC govt assessment of changes in capacity Target for year 1: At least two short–medium term attachments of Pacific islanders during the year Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 3.2.1 Attachments of PIC nationals at SOPAC (or elsewhere in the region) for

on-the-job training in formulation of energy policies and plans Travel funds, living allowances, & staff supervision time

Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs As for 3.2.1 above As for 3.2.1 above National / In-country Outputs and Activities

Output 3.3: Practical strategic energy action plans Output indicators: Plans have been prepared; energy planning integrated into the national budget process Target for year 1: Plans completed in 6 or more PICs; integrated into budget process in 4 or more PICs Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 3.3.1 Help the PIC develop energy sector action plans (short, medium & long

term), energy chapters of national development strategies, or other practical and achievable plans, with clear priorities, as appropriate to the national planning system and planning cycle

Limited during staff time and possibly consultancies during Year 1

3.3.2 Assist the PICs integrate the energy plans into the government budgetary process

Possibly local consultants

Indicative Activities for Year 2 Inputs Continue 3.3.1 and 3.3.2above Additional staff and consulting time as it is hoped to

complete this for an additional 6 PICs in Year2 Indicative Activities for Year 3 Inputs It is anticipated that this work will be completed in year 2 (except for

PICs which develop national economic plans / strategies in 2007 and may require assistance with energy sector inputs)

Limited staff and/or consultancy input (international or local)


18

National / In-country Outputs and Activities (continued)

Output 3.4: Appropriate institutional arrangements for effective energy planning & implementation Output indicators: New institutional arrangements approved by Public Service Commission (or equivalent) or Cabinet Target for year 1: At least two PICs during initial year Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 3.4.1 Assist PICs to develop more appropriate institutional forms within

the public service with clear policy & planning powers and responsibilities for the office responsible for energy matters

Limited during year 1

3.4.2 In-country workshops with government stakeholders on need for effective energy offices

Staff time; PIC officials’ time

Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs Continuation of 3.4.1 & 3.4.2 in other countries Staff time; PIC officials’ time Outputs and activities for Outcome 4: Mechanisms Practical mechanisms to implement the action plans have been developed and adopted at national level

See the table “A Preliminary Menu of Options for Possible PIEPP Interventions” on page 6 of Part II for specific examples of some of the activities, and the types of activities, to be undertaken under Outcome 4. During years 2 and 3, actual activities will depend considerably on the amount, quality and availability of related outputs of other regional initiatives such as REEP and PIREP. Regional Outputs and Activities

Output 4.1: Reports in the form of case studies, guidelines and model agreements on practical mechanisms to implement PIC energy policies and plans

Output indicators: Existence of the reports in a style which is accessible & understandable by PIC decision-makers Target for year 1: Two or three each of case studies and guidelines/model agreements prepared Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 4.1.1 Prepare case studies on approaches which have been tried in other

PICs and other small states indicating (for example): advantages & disadvantages of mechanisms for effective control of petroleum storage, managing fuel use in ground transport, maintaining fuel quality to remote areas, establishing fuel price control systems which do not disadvantage poor and remote people, pro-poor lifeline tariffs, etc.

Consultancies (int’l & local); staff time

4.1.2 Guidelines and model agreements (for example) for calculating current subsidies (explicit and hidden) for energy services, independent power production to the grid which does not disadvantage renewable energy, waste disposal from energy systems, bank policies for loans to establish energy services, an effective national advisory committee on energy etc.

Consultancies (int’l &local); staff time

Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs As 4.1.1 & 4.1.2 above but these will be major areas of activity during

year 2 Consultancies (int’l & local); staff time at a much higher level than during year 1


19

Regional Outputs and Activities (continued)

Output 4.2: Model legal tools, regulations & incentives for implementation of PIC energy policies and plans Output indicators: Existence of practical tools and incentives Target for year 1: Only limited activities begun in countries during Q3 & Q4 Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 4.2.1 Model legislation suitable for PICs (for example) for requiring power utility

energy efficiency services, establishing Renewable Energy Service Companies, establishing Energy Efficiency Service Companies, National Energy Acts, etc.

Consultancies (int’l & local) including legal consultants; staff time

4.2.2 Model regulations suitable for PICs (for example) to regulate commercialised or privatised power utilities in the public interest, standards for energy efficiency, etc.

Consultancies (int’l & local); staff time

4.2.3 Model economic and fiscal incentives (and disincentives), taxes, etc.(for example) for government bodies, statutory organisations, businesses or individuals incurring expenses for improved energy services to remote areas, renewable energy systems, energy efficiency, etc.

Consultancies (int’l & local) including financial & economic consultants; staff time

4.2.4 Where appropriate and required, assist the PICs to adopt the mechanisms which have been developed

Staff time; local consultancies

Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs As for 4.2.1 through 4.2.4 but at a much higher level of involvement. This is a

major area of project activity during Years 2-3 Considerable staff and consultants’ time

National / In-country Outputs and Activities

Output 4.3: Country specific case studies, guidelines and model agreements on practical mechanisms to implement PIC energy policies and plans

Output indicators: Existence of the reports in a style which is accessible & understandable by PIC decision-makers Target for year 1: Only limited activities begun in countries during Q3 & Q4 Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 4.3.1 Assist PICs prepare case studies as in 4.1.1 for practical application at the

national level. Consultancies (int’l & local) including financial & economic consultants; staff time

4.3.2 Assist PICs prepare guidelines and model agreements as in 4.1.2 for practical application at the national level.

Consultancies (int’l & local) including financial & economic consultants; staff time

Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs As 4.3.1 & 4.3.2 above; major areas of activity in Years 2-3 As above Output 4.4: Country specific legal tools, regulations & incentives for implementation of PIC energy policies and plans Output indicators: Existence of practical tools and incentives Target for year 1: Only limited activities begun in countries during Q3 & Q4 Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 4.4.1 Assist PICs prepare legislation and legal tools as in 4.2.1 for immediate and

practical use at the national level Consultants including legal consultants; staff time

4.4.2 Assist PICs prepare regulations as in 4.2.2 for immediate and practical use at the national level

As above

4.4.3 Assist PICs prepare economic and fiscal incentives (and disincentives), taxes, etc., as in 4.2.3 for immediate and practical use at the national level

Consultants including economic & financial consultants; staff time

4.4.4 Where appropriate and required, assist the PICs to adopt the mechanisms which have been developed

Staff & consultants’ time

Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs As 4.4.1 - 4.4.4 above; major areas of activity in Years 2-3 As above


20

Outputs and activities for Outcome 5: Visibility and Understanding There is an increased visibility and understanding of key energy issues at regional and national levels


Output 5.1: A good understanding by regional organisations of the EWG, PICs and other relevant parties of the range of regional and national energy sector initiatives underway and planned, and opportunities / synergies arising from these initiatives

Output indicators: CROP EWG reviewed & mandate/TOR, functions, and membership amended to improve effectiveness. Regional meetings held and results publicised in PICs. If justified, regional Issues & Options report written & widely disseminated. Target for year 1: Revitalised EWG (or equivalent); input to REM Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 5.1.1 Review mandate/TOR, functions, membership and effectiveness of the

CROP EWG as per the directive from the CROP (year 2003) in consultation with the current EWG members including the preparation of a report and recommendations for submission to the CROP in 2004.

Consultancy

5.1.2 Provide input such as technical assistance in the areas of energy policies and strategic action planning and support to a Regional Energy Meeting (REM) of energy sector and planning / finance officials in year 2004 to the extent that it is needed, justified and practical 12

Most time & funds accounted for under activity 1.1.2

Indicative Activities for Year 2 & 3 Inputs 5.1.3 Prepare a regional energy sector overview report in the form of the

previous Pacific Regional Energy Assessment (PREA) based on inputs from other regional projects/programmes and as a synthesis of national PREA reports on issues and options in the energy sector as justified and needed 13 that will effectively aggregate all relevant energy sector data into a compact and usable format.

The level of input will be determined from the outputs from the PIREP, REEP and other regional energy projects/programmes either recently completed or currently ongoing.

Indicative Activities for Year 3 Inputs 5.1.4 Prepare and implement, if justified at the time, Forum Meeting of Energy

Ministers to discuss PIEPSAP results, and real opportunities for building on project results

Estimated at $60,000; additional or co-financing / sponsorship would be sought

Output 5.2: Information on energy policy and planning, and effective mechanisms to implement policies and plans widely

disseminated within PICs. Output indicators: Existence of website & input to SOPAC’s Pacific Energy News (PEN) Target for year 1: Website running and used by at least half of the PICs; input to at least 3 issues of PEN Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 5.2.1 Design and implement a regional energy website with all key reports of

PIEPSAP, SOPAC energy sector databases and links to other related sites of SPREP, SPC and possibly others

Staff time

12 If the Regional Planning and Consultative Meeting as planned will be held back-to-back with the REM (since this would be time- and cost-efficient) inputs could include co-funding (as specified in 1.1.2). The REM in year 2004 also will be organized and coordinated by SOPAC (through its mandate to coordinate regional energy programmes and as part of its assistance to the energy sector under the Community Lifelines Programme. 13 If justified, and agreed by UNDP Samoa, the Danish Government, the PAC & PICs, this would be primarily a mini Pacific Regional Energy Assessment (PREA) where information and data already collected through recent energy sector projects/programmes (e.g. SPC/PREFACE) and current projects/programmes (e.g. SPREP/PIREP, SOPAC/Regional Energy Sector Programmes, ADB/REEP) is compiled at national level and then synthesised into a Regional Overview report. Please refer to Annex D for information about the original PREA. As noted above the possible mini-PREA would be building upon, and extending, the work of PIREP, REEP, the PPA EUEI project and other initiatives (also described in Annex D).


21

5.2.2 Contribute energy policy & planning input to SOPAC’s quarterly PEN Staff time Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs As for 5.2.1 & 5.2.2 above Staff time National / In-country Outputs and Activities

Output 5.3: Increased understanding of importance of energy in development at the national level Output indicators: In country workshops held, decision-makers briefed & energy issues publicised in the media Target for year 1: Briefings of senior decision makers in 6 PICs; media efforts underway in 6 PICs Indicative Activities for Year 1 Inputs 5.3.1 In country workshops, seminars, media messages (radio, newspaper), etc Will vary by country; generally local consultants;

possibly payments for media time 5.3.2 In-country briefings of decision-makers Staff time Indicative Activities for Years 2 & 3 Inputs Ongoing as in 5.3.1 & 5.3.2 above, except for initial design efforts Will vary by country; generally local consultants;

possibly payments for media time plus staff time


22

Outputs and Activities for Outcome 6: Investments and Partnerships Opportunities for reliable, affordable and environmentally sound energy sector investments, partnerships and other follow-up within the PICs have been identified.

The exact outputs and activities for Outcome 6 will be determined as the project progresses and as opportunities for immediate or short-term follow-up (before PIEPSAP ends) and longer-term follow-up (after PIEPSAP ends) become more clear. Regional Outputs and Activities

Output 6.1: A study of appropriate funding and organisational mechanisms for regional follow-up to PIEPSAP, possibly including development of a concept proposal for a regional project to build upon PIEPSAP and related initiatives such as REEP and the PPA EUEI project

Output indicators: Practical study and draft concept proposal for follow-up exists Target for year 1: No activities anticipated for Year 1 Indicative Activities for Year 1 & 2 Inputs No activities anticipated for Year 1 & 2 None Indicative Activities for Year 3 Inputs Carry out study and prepare draft concept proposal for follow-up(s) Staff time & consultancy Output 6.2: A report indicating the types of specific projects within the PICs which may be suitable for immediate follow-up

through private or other investment Output indicators: Practical report exists Target for year 1: No activities anticipated for Year 1 Indicative Activities for Year 1 & 2 Inputs No activities anticipated for Year 1 but possibly during Year 2 None in Year 1 Indicative Activities for Year 3 Inputs Prepare report on viable and practical opportunities for the region Staff time & consultancy National / In-country Outputs and Activities

Output 6.3: Projects identified within the PICs for follow-up investment Output indicators: ‘Bankable’ energy investment projects which private, bilateral or multilateral investors express an interest in

pursuing Target for year 1: No activities anticipated for Year 1 Indicative Activities for Years 1 & 2 Inputs No activities anticipated for Year 1 but possibly during Year 2 None in Year 1 Indicative Activities for Year 3 Inputs 6.3.1 Provide advisory services which develop, adapt, extend or follow-up

from REEP, PIREP and other initiatives for assisting PICs in identifying and developing follow-up projects during (or beyond) year three through GEF, bilateral assistance, ADB, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), private investment, etc. and possibly through a Phase II of PIEPSAP

Staff time and consultancies

6.3.2 Assist PICs prepare investment plans for opportunities identified through 6.3.1 above

Staff time and consultancies


23

PART IV: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS This section explains roles and responsibilities for carrying out the project. It describes arrangements for regional cooperation and coordination, in-country activities, and project monitoring, reporting and evaluation. i) Overview and Summary

General arrangements. PIEPSAP is designed to utilise and organise a combination of international, regional and national expertise, with the maximum practical use of local expertise at the national level. There will be national coordination committees (i.e. Country Teams) with membership at a level appropriate for considering interventions of types, which will have significant economic, financial, legal and regulatory implications. These will build upon, existing arrangements such as those established under PIREP. Membership is expected to include energy officials, representatives of the electricity utilities, staff of national planning or finance ministries, officials from environment departments, civil society representatives and others. The overall organisational arrangements for the project are shown in Figure 2 on page 27. Execution. SOPAC, based in Suva, Fiji, will be the Executing Agency, and thus the sole agent responsible for overall planning, management, coordination and administration of PIEPSAP. SOPAC and UNDP Samoa will designate and recruit a Project Manager (PM). National level coordination and activities. There will be project management and coordination at the national level through PIEPSAP Country Teams which will consist of a minimum of a senior officer from the PIC’s Energy Unit / Energy Office, a representative of the national planning of finance ministry, and an additional representative of the PIREP Country Team. Because many of the planned interventions address economic, financial, legal and regulatory issues, a senior Ministry of Finance or National Planning representative will chair the PIEPSAP Country Team. National government professionals and other relevant national stakeholders from the private sector and civil society will, to the extent practical, implement PIEPSAP in-country activities. The PIEPSAP county teams will be provided (upon request) external technical assistance via the PM for implementation of specific in-country activities. Regional level input. Relevant regional organisations (in particular members of the CROP Energy Working Group, EWG), national consultants, regional consultants or international consultants can provide needed expertise with regard to regional level activities as part of the project. Appropriate regional and in-country activities will carried out by regional organisations through consultancy or subcontractual arrangements. This will be decided on a case-by-case basis and based on comparative advantages vis-à-vis the activities in question. The PM at SOPAC will, in close consultation with a Regional Project Advisory Committee (RPAC) and UNDP Samoa, have the final decision in what kind of assistance (national, regional or international) is appropriate for regional activities, in-country activities in each participating PIC and the arrangements for providing the required services. The RPAC. The RPAC will support and guide the PM by providing technical expertise and advice. Each RPAC committee member is responsible for the coordination of PIEPSAP activities with activities of the organisations he/she represents to avoid duplication of effort. The RPAC will also ensure that PIEPSAP activities are consistent with the PIEPP, as modified from time to time by the CROP EWG and endorsed by PICs. On request from the PM, the RPAC will provide guidance on the execution of regional and/or national level activities.


24

UNDP. Working in conjunction with the various project partners, UNDP Samoa, as the implementing agency acting on behalf of the Government of Denmark, among others will be responsible for approving annual implementation work plans and budget revisions, identifying problems, suggesting actions to improve project performance, facilitating timely delivery of project inputs, provide linkages to its other regional and global initiatives and monitoring and evaluation (including monitoring progress, organising project reviews). All monitoring and evaluation will be consistent with standard UNDP procedures. ii) Regional Execution

PIEPSAP is designed to identify and address the energy policy and planning needs of the PICs to enable each participating country to progress toward the regionally agreed vision in the most effective manner. There are several reasons for choosing a regional approach for this project: • Some of the expertise required to translate policies into concrete action (e.g. for legislation,

regulations, financial incentives) would be inordinately expensive on a country-by-country basis but affordable if spread over a few countries.

• PICs certainly differ substantially in their cultures, capacities, institutional arrangements, legal systems and assistance needs. Nonetheless, there is sufficient commonality that a number of approaches suitable for one PIC will be adaptable to others. Similarly successful (or not so successful) experiences in one PIC can be valuable lessons for others. This sort of adaptation and experience sharing is nearly impossible for a technical assistance project restricted to one country.

• Through the CROP EWG, despite some shortcomings, and the regional energy policy and plan (i.e. PIEPP), there exists an overall framework for addressing energy issues through a regional approach.

• Several past energy sector experiences, such as efforts of the EU, UNDP, SPC and Forum Secretariat, suggest that cooperative regional approaches can be effective in addressing PIC needs and priorities.

iii) Executing Agency

SOPAC, which on behalf of its member countries is the project proponent of PIEPSAP, will be the executing agency. The reasons for selecting SOPAC are as follows. • SOPAC is the inter-governmental organisation in the Pacific with the broadest overall mandate for

energy sector activities and the specific mandate of the CROP EWG for energy policies and planning. SOPAC currently has had on-going activities in energy policy since 1998 when it began coordinating the core energy programme activities of CROP. SOPAC’s history with energy, particularly resource assessments, goes back to the late 1970s.

• SOPAC has well over 20 years of experience as the executing agency for a number of regional PIC energy initiatives and related programmes, of the UNDP, UNDESA, the EU and others, several exceeding PIEPSAP in scope and cost.

As the executing agency, SOPAC will be the sole agent responsible for overall planning, management, coordination and administration of PIEPSAP. PIEPSAP will be based at SOPAC’S Community Lifeline Programme, which has a strong energy component. In addition to SOPAC and UNDP, the PM will report to the RPAC and the Annual Review Meetings (ARMs) on the activities carried out, and the disbursement of funds, under this project to ensure full transparency of all actions. SOPAC will also: • provide administrative, logistical and technical support for the PM and the project; • provide space of an appropriate quality and area, along with basic furniture (with additional actual

costs related to project support and implementation charged to the project within agreed budgetary limits);


25

• as part of its in-kind contribution, make available on an as needs basis various staff with specialised expertise relevant for the project such as in the areas of energy policy, demand side management (DSM), renewable energy, energy and gender, institutional development and capacity building (including training), data base development, and Internet-based information systems;

• be accountable to UNDP Samoa for the achievement of the project development objectives and for all reporting, including the submission of work plans and financial reports;

• be responsible for financial control through the National Execution (NEX) modality of UNDP; • make arrangements to enable, to the extent practicable, for management of project activities in

individual PICs; • working with the PM, assume responsibility for entering into the necessary work arrangements with

other regional organisations for efficient and effective project implementation; • provide the PM with full authority to engage services consistent with delegations provided by the

Director under SOPAC’s financial regulations; and • provide the PM with full support in order to maintain an accurate record of all expenditures made or

planned under the project in full accordance with UNDP’s NEX procedures, as detailed in the NEX Manual.

iv) Project Manager, Other Staff and Consultants

The PM and other project staff will be recruited on SOPAC terms and conditions of employment, and in line with SOPAC’s Staff Recruitment Process - Procedures. The PM will assume responsibility for this project and report to the Director of SOPAC and to the UNDP Resident Representative in Apia or designated representatives. He or she will: • have the requisite academic qualifications and extensive experience in relevant areas of energy policy

development and energy planning, as detailed in the Job Description / Terms of Reference (TOR) of Annex H;

• be selected in agreement with SOPAC, UNDP Samoa and the Danish Government. In addition UNDP Samoa and the Danish Government will participate in short-listing the applicants and as practical (teleconferencing) participate in the interviewing of these applicants (i.e. PM and EA);

• be based at SOPAC’s headquarters in Suva, Fiji.; • work full time on PIEPSAP and be responsible for its planning, management, coordination and

administration; and • work and liase closely with UNDP Samoa throughout the full project period. The PM will be accountable to SOPAC and through SOPAC to UNDP for the quality, timeliness and effectiveness of the services PIEPSAP provides and the activities it carries out, as well as for the use of funds provided to it, and work, if so directed by UNDP Samoa on a day-to-day basis with identified staff at the UNDP Suva office. The PM will be the focal point for communications to the participating countries, regional organisations, among others concerning the implementation of the project. The PM will, furthermore, provide a coordination and management structure for the implementation of PIEPSAP, functioning in accordance with the rules and procedures of UNDP. In situations where the nature of SOPAC’S rules and procedures and those of UNDP are conflicting/or mutually exclusive, solutions will be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Advisers and Other Project Staff. In addition to the PM, the professional and support staff listed below will be engaged by the project. All PIEPSAP staff will report to the PM. Professional staff (the Energy Adviser) will be selected in agreement with SOPAC, UNDP Samoa, the Danish Government and the PM. Support staff (the Project Officer) will be selected by SOPAC in


26

accordance with its normal procedures as noted above. Job Descriptions/TOR are attached at Annex H. • Energy Adviser (EA). An adviser on Economic, Financial, Legal and Regulatory Issues will be

responsible, under the PM, for developing and implementing a broad range of interventions to improve the legal and regulatory mechanisms to implement PIC energy policies and plans.

• Project Officer (PO). He/she will be a Pacific Island national and will provide a range of administrative and substantive support to the PM and other project staff, including travel and workshop arrangements. He/she will also assist with the preparation of project reports, energy policy/planning input to SOPAC’s PEN newsletter, case studies, a project web page and related work.

• Consultants. A number of international/regional consultants will be engaged for specialist tasks, particularly those related to practical legal, regulatory, economic and financial mechanisms or approaches for implementing energy policies and plans. A number of national consultants will also be engaged to work with the international/regional consultants, adapt their work to the specific local conditions where necessary, and other tasks. The initial tasks for consultants will be decided during and immediately after the initial consultation process. Detailed TOR will be prepared for all consultancies when the regional tasks and specific interventions in the participating countries are decided upon. These TOR will be prepared by the PM in cooperation with UNDP Samoa.

v) Regional Coordination and Activities As emphasised in Part II, PIEPSAP will work diligently and proactively to arrange appropriate joint activities and complementary activities with other relevant regional energy initiatives (see Figure 1) and develop practical follow-up activities. This is neither a formality nor a courtesy; genuine cooperation is integral to the success of PIEPSAP. PIEPSAP will work especially closely with the EUEI PPA initiative. The formal links are expected to be as follows: • coordination of, and cooperation between, the SOPAC and PPA EUEI projects will use existing

regional co-ordination mechanisms (i.e. the CROP EWG); • PIEPSAP is expected to address the energy policy and strategy needs of the ACP countries through

supporting PICs in putting into place strategic frameworks for energy sector management; and • the SOPAC and PPA EUEI projects are to be jointly reviewed. The RPAC. A RPAC will be established. The RPAC will provide technical support (i.e., advice and guidance) to the PM. It will be responsible for coordination of specific PIEPSAP activities and activities of the organisations that it represents, in order to avoid duplication of effort. It will ensure that its technical advice regarding PIEPSAP activities is consistent with PIEPP. On request of the PM, the RPAC will provide technical guidance on the execution of national level activities. Refer to Appendix H for the detailed TOR for the RPAC. The RPAC will consist of representatives from regional organisations that participate in the CROP EWG (whether or not these organisations are CROP members), as well as two country representatives. It will be chaired by the PIFS. It is preferable that one RPAC member represents a relevant civil society organisation. Other organisations with relevant activities (e.g. ADB) may be co-opted by the chair as appropriate and invited to attend PAC meetings.

The EWG. The purpose of the CROP EWG is: i) to review, clarify and provide advice on the development of priorities in the energy sector in the region; ii) determine complementarities, overlaps, and potential gaps in the coverage of existing and proposed regional activities; and iii) recommend implementation procedures for enhancing energy sector coordination and cooperation. The EWG is thus a very suitable working mechanism for regional coordination of PIEPSAP and, considering their energy- related expertise and experience, for providing guidance on the execution


27

of national level activities if needed. In addition to SOPAC, the current active members of the EWG are the PIFS (chair), the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), the University of the South Pacific (USP), the PPA and UNDP, all of whom will thus be members of the PAC. UNDP Samoa will be the UNDP representative to the PAC in its capacity as implementing agency and representative of the Danish government. It is hoped that at least one civil society organisation which is an EWG observer, currently Greenpeace Pacific and the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), will participate in the EWG and the PAC. The EWG will provide support to PIEPSAP through the RPAC; in turn specific PIEPSAP activities are planned to increase the effectiveness of the EWG (please refer to Annex D for a summary of the EWG). I.e. to the extent it is needed and appropriate (and approved by all current members of the EWG) the plan is to include an independent review of the EWG’s mandate/TOR, functions, membership and effectiveness which will provide the mechanism to address the 2003 CROP Meeting where the Council agreed that all currently constituted working groups should:

(a) review their terms of reference (b) identify currently relevant tasks, aimed at fulfilling the goals of the CROP, including specific

objectives to be achieved and associated success criteria; and (c) report back to the next CROP meeting, in which context working groups which have completed

work on their terms of reference should advise Council accordingly, and cease formal meetings.

The UNDP Samoa, as a neutral EWG participant, will contract a consultant for this task. Country membership of RPAC. To ensure country level views and expertise, and to assist in securing direct linkages and coordination between the PIEPSAP regional level activities and the PIEPSAP in-country activities two of the fourteen eligible PIREP countries which participate in PIEPSAP will be represented in the RPAC. The PM, in consultation of the participating countries and the CROP EWG, will decide which countries will be members of the RPAC. Country members of RPAC can be civil servants or representatives of civil society organisations involved in energy policy and planning. Regional Activities. PIEPSAP regional activities include the following: • preparation and implementation of a regional planning and consultative meeting during the initial

three months of project start-up (i.e. during the inception phase); • provide input such as technical assistance in the areas of energy policies and strategic action planning

to the Regional Energy Meeting (REM) of energy sector and planning/finance officials (planned to be held alongside the planning and consultative meeting). One of the main purposes of the REM is to advise PICs on the status of other relevant initiatives and provide opportunities for synergies with these initiatives;

• preparation of a regional overview report on energy sector policy and planning issues, opportunities and constraints;

• design and implementation of a regional energy website containing all key activities and reports of PIEPSAP, SOPAC energy sector databases and links to other related sites of SPREP, SPC and possibly others;

• a study of appropriate funding and organisational mechanisms for regional follow-up to PIEPSAP, possibly including development of a concept proposal for a regional project to build upon PIEPSAP and related initiatives (see Figure 1) such as REEP and the PPA EUEI project;

• attachments of Pacific Islanders for on-the-job training at SOPAC and possibly elsewhere; • a regional energy sector overview report in the form of the previous Pacific Regional Energy

Assessment (PREA) based on inputs from other regional projects/programmes and as a synthesis of


28

national PREA reports on issues and options in the energy sector as justified and needed that will effectively aggregate all relevant energy sector data into a compact and usable format.;14 and

• preparation and implementation, if justified at the time, of a Forum Meeting of Energy Ministers in year 3 to discuss PIEPSAP results, and opportunities for building on project results.

The regional planning and consultative meeting, and consultations with each country, will further detail and delineate: i) project activities; ii) implementation roles and responsibilities among regional, national and possibly international agencies; and iii) other agreements as necessary for effective on project implementation. vi) National Level Execution and Activities

PIEPSAP Country Teams will be established in each of the participating countries to be responsible for management and coordination of the in-country project activities. The national coordinator will be responsible for day-to-day management and coordination of PIEPSAP in-country activities. The PIEPSAP Country Team will meet prior to initial project activities and advise, clarify, and confirm the wider involvement of appropriate and relevant stakeholders at the national level; advise on the status and appropriateness of the ‘menu’ of possible in-country activities as part of the project; and advise the PM if, and to what extent external expertise/technical assistance is required. In addition, the country teams will cooperate and coordinate with external experts and provide them with necessary input and assistance; inform the PM about progress and delays; and inform ministries and other agencies of government (officials and politicians) about the PIEPSAP project and its outcomes. Refer to Annex H for Terms of Reference. PIEPSAP Country Teams will consist of a minimum of a senior officer from the PIC’s Energy Unit / Energy Office, a representative of the national planning of finance ministry, and an additional representative of the PIREP Country Team. Because many of the planned interventions address economic, financial, legal and regulatory issues, a senior Ministry of Finance or National Planning representative will chair the PIEPSAP Country Teams. In elaborating this mechanism, other representatives may also be involved in the PIEPSAP Country Teams as appropriate to potential national activities, i.e. private sector involvement and representatives from civil society. In-Country / National Activities. In-country activities will be, to the extent practical, implemented by PIC nationals, advised as necessary by SOPAC project staff and consultants. Using national professionals promotes a stronger sense of national ownership and fosters national capacity building efforts. The major in-country activities for PIREP are as follows: • assisting the country determine its energy policy needs, and the development of appropriate

national energy policies; • assisting the country determine an appropriate approach for effective strategic energy plans and

assist develop those plans; • capacity building for energy policy and planning formulation; • institutional strengthening for energy policy and planning development and their implementation; • in-country Workshops; • assisting the country develop and implement a range of mechanisms for implementing energy

policies and plans (e.g. legislation, tariff studies, regulatory frameworks, model agreements, guidelines, economic incentives, studies on energy subsidies, etc.)

14 Please refer to Part III – Results Framwwork and footnote 13 for clarifition on this activity.


29

vii) Implementing Agency including Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

Implementing Agency. UNDP is the implementing agency for PIEPSAP. Among others, UNDP Samoa will assist with project management and execution as follows: • Being accountable to the Government of Denmark, which has provided funding, UNDP will

work with the various project partners to organise reviews to ensure that the project is being conducted in accordance with the policies of UNDP, SOPAC and the EUEI, within the scope of the terms established in this ProDoc.

• In consultation with SOPAC, it will review and approve annual implementation work plans and corresponding budget revisions.

• It will monitor the progress in light of the work plans, identify problems, if any, and report to SOPAC regarding actions necessary to improve project performance.

• It will ensure that SOPAC, through PIEPSAP’s PM, is cognisant of any UNDP efforts that impinge upon the project.

Monitoring and Evaluation. UNDP Samoa will monitor and support implementation of the PIEPSAP project in line with UNDP monitoring and evaluation (M&E) guidelines. Specifically: • Site visits. Project sites will be subject to visits by UNDP Samoa, coordinated by the PM. This will

include viewing and reviewing tangible outputs of the project.15 Various mission reports produced by project staff and consultants will be used in assessing progress of the project.

• Quarterly Progress Reports (QPR). QPRs must be submitted to UNDP Samoa, together with the Financial Report (FR), on the 15th day of the month following the end of the quarter. A project work plan for the following quarter will be prepared in a mutually agreed format (such as the attached Annex G or the UNDP standard format available from UNDP Samoa) must be submitted together with the financial advance requested. Approval of any advance payment will be subject to the submission of these reports to UNDP Samoa for consideration. UNDP Samoa will provide feedback on the most recent progress report and other relevant reports when releasing the advance payments.

• Annual reviews and reports. The project will hold Annual Review Meetings (ARMs), towards the end of each year. To the extent possible and practicable, the ARM will be held back-to-back with other relevant meetings. The PM, in consultation with UNDP Samoa, will plan and coordinate the ARMs. At the ARM, UNDP Samoa, together with representatives from participating governments, the Danish Government as the donor and other development partners, will review the previous year’s performance of the project against its set targets and objectives. At least two weeks prior to the meeting, the PM will submit to UNDP Samoa a draft Annual Project Report (APR) in the agreed format. The draft will be discussed, reviewed, and if necessary finalised by the PM and approved by the end of the ARM. The ARM will also consider, and advise on, the following year’s proposed work plan and budget. Finally, it will consider the extent to which project objectives are being met and advise, as necessary, on means to improve project performance. For Terms of Reference for the ARM, refer to Annex H.

• RPAC. UNDP Samoa will be a member of the RPAC for the project. For detailed Terms of Reference for the RPAC, refer to Annex H.

• Joint review. Towards the middle of the project the Danish Government and the European Commission plan to undertake a joint midterm review of the two EUEI-PIESD partnership projects (i.e. this project executed by SOPAC and the energy efficiency and capacity building project16

15 This will also include inspecting possible capital equipment or other items acquired under the project. 16 As the PIEPSAP ProDoc was being developed, the PPA EUEI project had not yet been formally named.


30

executed by PPA). The review of the projects may be funded and managed directly by the Danish Government, but possibly co-funded and co-managed with the European Commission.17

SOPAC, and the main co-ordinating mechanisms (i.e., RPAC, Country Teams and the ARM) will undertake continuous, self-monitoring using the target outputs (success indicators) specified in the Results Framework (Part III of this ProDoc). These performance indicators will be assessed regularly by the PM. The RPAC and the country teams will assess project performance whenever they meet or as required. Other Reporting and Dissemination. The PM will prepare, and submit through SOPAC, QPRs to UNDP Samoa and to the participating countries. These will be copied to the RPAC and also any additional EWG participants who may not be active in the PAC. Key project reports, analyses, data, workplans, etc. will be made available on a project or SOPAC Internet website. This will include links, to the extent practical, to the energy-related portions of other relevant PIC sites, such as those of SPREP, PIFS and SPC.

17 Thus the review will be parallel financed. The project budget (Part VI) does not include funds for this activity.


31

Figure 2: PIEPSAP Organisational Chart

Executing Agency: SOPAC

Regional Project Advisory Committee (RPAC): CROP EWG, two PICsand one NGO

PIEPSAP Country Teams

Project Manager (PM)

National Consultants Regional/ International Consultants

National Activities

Regional Activities

Implementing Agency: UNDP Samoa

All Other PIEPSAP staff

Annual Review Meeting (ARM)


32

Inputs and Prior Obligations

The inputs to be provided by UNDP, national partners and SOPAC are described in the budget tables of Part VI. UNDP. UNDP will provide approximately US$1.6 million as shown in the table “Project Budget for UNDP contribution.” This includes financial allocations for the PM, the EA, the PO, international and local consultants, several workshops, and attachments at SOPAC. Although SOPAC is contributing considerable administrative support (see below), the project will require administrative staff for general PIEPSAP support, to assist with workshops and meetings, and assist with preparing materials for dissemination and through the website PICs. The participating countries will provide in-kind support as estimated in the table “Pacific Islands In-kind Contribution to the Budget,” primarily local staff time and facilities through the PIEPSAP Country Teams. They will also provide support for in-country workshops. The fourteen PICs listed on the title page of this ProDoc are eligible to participate in the project. However, even though the extent of their participation, and the priority attached to addressing their needs through PIEPSAP, will mainly depend upon assessments of their needs and expressed priorities (e.g. via the regional planning and consultative meeting planned for the first several months of the project) and other early consultations with governments, it will also to a certain extend, if agreed to by all parties, possibly depend on the scale of in-kind contributions. SOPAC. SOPAC will provide in-kind services as shown in the table “SOPAC In-kind Contribution to the Budget” and outlined in the bullet points under Executing Agency earlier in this Section. SOPAC will advertise for, interview and (as agreed by UNDP and the DMFA) recruit staff. SOPAC will provide computer system / communications support, library services, accounting services, limited travel arrangements, and technical support (computer technicians and audio technicians) for workshops held in Fiji. The Manager of SOPAC’s Community Lifelines Programme (who is responsible for energy and spends over 50% of available time on energy issues) and others expect to spend considerable time providing background information and guidance to the project staff. SOPAC will provide adequate office space and furniture.


33

PART V: LEGAL CONTEXT This ProDoc shall be the legal instrument for the management of the all project activities and UNDP funding. The following types of revisions may be made to this ProDoc with the signature of the Resident Representative of UNDP Samoa only, provided he or she is assured that the other signatories of the ProDoc have no objections to the proposed changes: Revisions to any of the annexes of the ProDoc, or additions of new annexes; Revisions, which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objective, outputs or

activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangements of inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation;

Mandatory annual revisions, which re-phase the delivery of agreed programme inputs, or reflect increased expert or other costs due to inflation, or take into account agency expenditure flexibility.

The project shall be subject to an annual audit.


34

PART VI: BUDGET

Budget Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Line

Description W days $ W days $ W days $ W days $

10 PROJECT PERSONNEL

11.01 Project Manager (PM) 76,000 72,800 78,712 227,512 11.02 Energy Adviser (EA) 66,000 62,400 67,896 196,296

11.5 International / Regional Consultants 180.0 72,000 190.0 76,000 160.0 64,000 530.0 212,000 11.99 Sub-total 180.0 214,000 190.0 211,200 160.0 210,608 530.0 635,808

13 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT 13.01 Project Officer (PO) 20,000 20,800 21,632 62,432 11.99 Sub-total 20,000 20,800 21,632 62,432

15 MONITORING & EVALUATION 15.01 PM and Adviser's Travel 25,000 29,000 30,000 84,000 15.02 Int’ l/ Regional Consultants Travel 38,000 41,160 34,000 113,160 15.99 Sub-total 63,000 70,160 64,000 197,160

16 MISSION COSTS 16.01 Monitoring and Evaluation 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 16.99 Sub-total 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000

17 NATIONAL CONSULTANTS 17.01 National Consultants 560.0 56,000 560.0 56,000 560.0 56,000 1680.0 168,000 17.99 Sub-total 560.0 56,000 560.0 56,000 560.0 56,000 1680.0 168,000

19 COMPONENT TOTAL 740.0 368,000 750.0 373,160 720.0 367,240 2210.0 1,108,400 20 CONTRACTS

20.01 Review of CROP EWG 5,000 5,000 20.99 Sub-total 5,000 5,000

29 COMPONENT TOTAL 5,000 5,000 30 TRAINING, MEETINGS & WORKSHOPS

32.01 RPAC & EWG Meetings 8,000 8,000 8,000 24,000 32.02 In-country workshops 11,200 11,200 11,200 33,600

32.03Regional planning meeting and regional results meeting 48,000 60,000 108,000

32.05 Training / understudy attachments 38,000 38,000 36,000 112,000 39 COMPONENT TOTAL 105,200 57,200 115,200 277,600 40 EQUIPMENT

45.01 Expendable 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 45.02 Non-Expendable 15,000 1,500 1,500 18,000 45.99 Sub-total 16,000 2,500 2,500 21,000

49 COMPONENT TOTAL 16,000 2,500 2,500 21,000 50 Miscellaneous

52.01 Reporting 4,000 5,000 6,000 15,000 52.02 Auditing 3,000 3,000 3,000 9,000 52.03 Electricity & communications 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 52.99 Sub-total 12,000 13,000 14,000 39,000 53.01 Sundries 53,395 53,395 53,399 160,189 53.99 Sub-total 53,395 53,395 53,399 160,189

59 COMPONENT TOTAL 65,395 66,395 67,399 199,189 99 PROJECT TOTAL 740.0 559,595 750.0 499,255 720.0 552,339 2210.0 1,611,189


35

PACIFIC ISLANDS IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION TO THE BUDGET

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Budget Line Description Work

days $ Work days $ Work

days $ Work days $

13 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

13.01 Local Staff Time & Facilities 28,000 28,000 20,000 76,000

13.02 National Workshops expenses 3,000 3,000 3,000 9,000

99 PIC IN-KIND BUDGET CONTRIBUTIONS 31,000 31,000 23,000 85,000

SOPAC IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION TO THE BUDGET

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Budget Line Description Work

days $ Work days $ Work

days $ Work days $

13 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

13.01 SOPAC staff time 15,000 16,000 17,000 48,000

50 Miscellaneous

53.01 Office rent, furniture, etc. 30,000 32,000 34,000 96,000 99

SOPAC IN-KIND BUDGET CONTRIBUTIONS 45,000 48,000 51,000 144,000

Note: The staff estimates of line 13.01 assume 10% of the time of the Manager of Community Lifelines Programme plus considerable other staff time. The estimates are conservative.


36

Annex A: Acronyms and Abbreviations ACP Africa, Caribbean & Pacific group (EU) AOSIS Alliance of Small Island States APR Annual Project Report (UNDP) ARM Annual Review Meeting (UNDP) CROP Council of Regional Organisations of

the Pacific CSD Commission on

Sustainable Development (UN) DANIDA Danish International Development

Agency DMFA Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs DSM Demand Side Management (of energy) EC European Commission ESCAP Economic & Social Commission

for Asia and the Pacific (UN) EU European Union EUEI EU Energy Initiative for Poverty

Eradication and Sustainable Development

EWC East–West Center (Hawaii) EWG Energy Working Group (of CROP) ForSec See PIFS FR Financial Reports (UNDP) GEF Global Environment Facility (UNDP,

WB, UNEP) GHG Greenhouse Gas M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goals NEX National Execution (UNDP) NGO Non Governmental Organisation PCRC Pacific Concerns Resource Centre PEG Pacific Energy and Gender

Network (SOPAC) PEN Pacific Energy News (SOPAC) PICCAP Pacific Islands Climate Change Assis-

tance Programme (UNDP/GEF/SPREP) PICTR Pacific International Center for High

Technology Research (Hawaii) PIEPP Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan PIESD Pacific Islands Energy for Sustainable

Development Initiative (WSSD) PIFS Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

PIREP Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Programme (UNDP/GEF/SPREP)

PM Project Manager PPA Pacific Power Association PREA Pacific Regional Energy Assessment

(WB/UNDP/Forum/ADB, 1992) PREFACE Pacific Rural/Renewable Energy France

& Australia Common Endeavour (SPC) PREGA Promotion of Renewable Energy,

Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Abatement (ADB)

PREP Pacific Regional Energy Programme (EU) ProDoc Project Document (UNDP) PV Photovoltaics QPR Quarterly Progress Report (UNDP). REEP Renewable Energy and Energy

Efficiency Programme (ADB) RPAC Regional Project Advisory Committee RET Renewable Energy Technology SESPI Support to the Energy Sector in Five

ACP Pacific Islands (EU) SIDS Small Island Developing State SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience

Commission SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

(formerly South Pacific Commission) SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment

Programme SSM Supply Side Management (of energy) UNDESA United Nations Department for

Economic and Social Affairs UNDP United Nations Development

Programme UNEP United Nations Environment

Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific

& Cultural Organisation USDOE United States Department of Energy USP University of the South Pacific WB World Bank WSSD World Summit on Sustainable

Development (2002)


37

Annex B: Status of National Energy Policies and Plans within PICs

This annex summarises the PIC energy sector policies, plans and the existing institutional and legal arrangements for energy management and development. It is based on discussions with SOPAC and other CROP Energy Working Group members with limited feedback from PICs. Although some details are no doubt inaccurate, the broad description of the situation is representative of energy policies and plans in the region.

1) PIC Energy Offices Table 1 below provides an overview of the PIC energy offices:

Table 1: Overview of Energy Office Authority in PICs

Country Staff 1 Legal authority 2

Policy role or 3 Implementation

Oversee 4

power utility? Petroleum pricing or policy role? 5

Cook Islands 3 No Both Indirect No Fiji * 18 No Both Indirect No FSM 2 No Both No No Kiribati 2 No Both Indirect Indirect Marshall Islands * 2 No Both N/A No Nauru 1 No Both N/A N/A Niue 1 *** No Both Yes N/A PNG N/A No Both Indirect No Palau 1 No Both No No Solomon Islands 1 No Both Indirect No Samoa 1 No Both Indirect Yes Tonga * 4 ** No Both N/A No Tuvalu * 1 ** No Both Indirect No Vanuatu 3 No Both No No

* Indicates that some information was received from the energy office in November 2004. ** Excludes several RET technicians *** For Niue, the electricity utility handles energy matters overall. N/A is not available 1 Approximate full time staff in the energy office, energy department, energy unit, etc of the government. This excludes any government-owned energy company (e.g. Kiribati Solar Energy Company or Kiribati national Oil Company). 2 Has an energy office, ministry, etc been established under legislation approved by Parliament (and thus providing statutory responsibilities and powers) 3 Does energy office deal only with policy & planning or also have responsibility for project implementation? 4 Does energy office have a seat on the board of the power utility or renewable energy utility or petroleum company? ‘Indirect’ means that the Permanent Secretary or other senior official of same ministry is a Director. 5 Does the energy office have a legal role regarding petroleum fuel pricing, product quality, safety storage, etc?

It is clear from the table that even the larger PICs (Papua New Guinea and Fiji) have very small offices responsible for national energy policies and planning. Most have been set up as a result of a Cabinet (or equivalent) decision. None have been established under any legislation that gives them a clear statutory or other legal mandate18 with responsibilities and powers agreed by Parliament (or its equivalent). Often the powers bestowed by Cabinet are quite vague and can be removed or modified by subsequent Cabinet decisions. Apparently only one energy office (Fiji’s Energy Department) has a corporate plan, which defines its role and medium-term goals with the public service.

18 Such legislative authority has been proposed for the Cook Islands and Tonga but neither was approved by Cabinet. In

the PICs it is not typical for government departments to be established under legislation. This may be inappropriate .


38

In many PICs, the designation of ‘energy unit’ or ‘energy office’ is a misnomer as it consists of one or two staff who deal mainly with the administration of donor-funded renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, and have very little impact on broader national energy policies. Often, perhaps less today than a decade ago, the energy officers seem to spend a fourth or more of their time abroad or at home at training courses, workshops, seminars, etc., leaving limited time for substantive work. In many PICs, ad hoc or semi-permanent national energy coordinating committees have been established to bring together the relevant ministries dealing with energy matters, statutory authorities, NGOs and the private sector. These sometimes operate with enthusiasm and effectiveness for short periods, but tend to languish or effectively dissolve when the crisis, project or issue for which they were established has been resolved. The coordinating committees in general do not play an ongoing coordinating role to help the PICs implement those policies or plans which have been formally, or even informally, agreed.

2) PIC Energy Policies and Plans Policies. In early November 2003, only two PICs (the Cook Islands and the Marshall Islands) had current national energy policies with some form of official endorsement by their Cabinets. Both policies were developed through a process of considerable consultation within government and with the public. A third PIC (Samoa) prepared a draft policy in 2003 that was reviewed through a public workshop and modified to address various views and submissions. In Tonga, a draft policy has been prepared and is being reviewed. To some extent, the policies under development or recently completed have been influenced by the Pacific islands Energy Policy and Plan (PIEPP). In each case, there has been some external assistance during the drafting, reviewing or consultation process, with assistance since 2001 – and sometimes earlier – provided by SOPAC, UNDP Apia, ESCAP and probably others.19 In other PICs there has been some recent review of aspects of energy policies including rural electrification (Fiji through ESCAP/SOPAC and separately through ADB in 2003; PNG through the World Bank in 2003; and Tuvalu underway through SOPAC and possibly the PPA in 2003) and renewable energy (Fiji through a UNDP/GEF national project on barriers to renewable energy in 2002-2003; and possibly Tonga through a Japanese mission on hybrid renewable/conventional energy systems in October/November 2003). This list is incomplete and indicative only. A number of PICs had energy policies developed during the period 1995-1997 with the assistance of the then-Forum Secretariat Energy Division. Most, Tuvalu being one of several exceptions were rather generic and vague. Even where formally adopted, these have had little real impact, are for the most part defunct, and require review and substantial revision. Plans. Those few PICs that have developed, or nearly finalised, recent national policies are generally now beginning to think about specific plans to enable these policies to be implemented. In general these are expected to follow the broad format of the PIEPP. However, these are at a very preliminary stage. Most PICs have some form of national strategic plan or socio-economic plan, often very much donor driven. These tend to have some coverage of energy issues but usually these emphasise power sector investment needs, not policy or planning matters. A frequent exception, however, is some statement regarding the intended commercialisation and/or eventual privatisation of selected government functions, usually including the electric power utility. 19 In 2001 ESCAP prepared brief reviews of energy policies in the Cook Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Kiribati.


39

Fiji developed a fairly comprehensive draft energy chapter of a proposed national economic strategy in early 2000 but this was never completed due to a coup d’état in May of that year. Table 2 summarises the status of national energy policies and plans within the PICs.

* Indicates that some information was received from the government by 13 November 2004.

Table 2: Status of PIC National Energy Policies and Plans (late 2003)

Country National Energy Policies Energy Plans or Energy Components of National Development Plans

Cook Islands

The govt. prepared a draft energy policy in 2001, which was reviewed internally & externally and substantially revised over the next year. A final version was adopted by Cabinet in April 2003.

No action plan for energy has been developed but SOPAC was asked in early November 2003 to assist with this. A National Strategic Plan was being developed in mid 2003 with some limited energy coverage

Fiji *

Corporate Plan for the Department of Energy 2002-2006 provides guidance for DoE’s work. The Strategic Development Plan (SDP) 2003-2005 requires “a comprehensive national energy policy to address renewable energy, efficiency and affordability, and environmental sustainability” but not yet written.

An energy chapter of a proposed national plan was prepared in early 2000 but never finalised due to a coup in May 2000. SDP 2003-2005 has limited energy coverage

FSM A draft national energy policy was prepared in August 1999. In mid 2003, SOPAC began advising on a new energy policy. This work is still ongoing.

The National Planning Framework for 1999-2002 was being updated during 2003. The current status and extent of energy sector content are not known.

Kiribati A draft energy policy prepared about 1996 with the assistance of the Forum Secretariat was not finalised.

A National Development Strategy 2000-2003 was being updated in 2003. The current status and extent of energy content are not known.

Marshall Islands *

A national energy policy statement was endorsed by Cabinet in April 2003.

A set of strategies to implement the policy, developed with SOPAC assistance, was discussed in April 2003. Additional public consultations are planned. There is a Strategic Development Plan Framework 2003-2018 (Vision 2018) with some energy content.

Nauru There is no national energy policy. SOPAC has been asked to help develop a policy

A draft Nauru Development Plan (2002-2006) may not have been finalised. The extent of energy content is not known.

Niue The government adopted an energy policy in 1995 but has asked SOPAC to review it.

There is a Niue Integrated Strategic Plan (1999-2003). The energy content is not known.

PNG There is a draft energy policy (date unknown) currently being revised. SOPAC has commented on it in 2003 There is no current national plan

Palau Status not known The National Development Strategy of 1996-2001 apparently remains in force. There is apparently some energy content.

Solomon Islands

A draft energy policy was prepared about 1996 with Forum Secretariat assistance but not finalised. The Japanese govt. has helped develop an energy master plan (2001); its status is not known.

The SI are emerging from several years of conflict and there is little planning at present but considerable donor assistance

Samoa

A draft national policy was prepared in 2003, reviewed at a stakeholders meeting, critiqued with assistance from UNDP Apia in October 2003, and is- currently being finalised.

The Strategy for the Development of Samoa: 2002-2004 has some limited coverage of energy, mainly power sector corporatisation plans.

Tonga * A draft policy based on the PIEPP framework was prepared in 2002 but requires further development

Strategic Development Plan 7 is valid until July 2004. Energy content is not known.

Tuvalu *

The Tuvalu National Energy Policy Statement of 1995 (prepared by B Jacobs & JM Conway with E Tapuaiga) was approved by Cabinet but never really used. Preliminary work has begun on a new policy.

The National Development Strategy 1995 – 1998 is the most recent national plan. There is limited energy coverage but it is well out of date..

Vanuatu An energy policy was prepared about 1996 with assistance of the Forum Secretariat and apparently ‘adopted’. It is effectively defunct.

A National Plan being is reportedly being drafted in late 2003. The status is unknown.


40

3) Data for Energy Policies and Planning There has been little systematic collection and analysis of energy data in most PICs, in part due to the limited staff responsible for a wide range of activities. In the early 1980s there was extensive one-off data collection as part of Forum Secretariat/Australian National University studies and the joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP). Similar, but more extensive data-collection efforts were made for 12 PICs a decade later through the Pacific Regional Energy Assessment (PREA). The Forum Secretariat developed a spreadsheet-based energy database system about 1996, which was supposed to provide the PICs with a standardised system for the regular collection of energy sector data in a format that would be comparable among the countries. SOPAC took over this work in 1998 and simplified the spreadsheet, which PICs found difficult to use, as assumptions regarding the availability of disaggregated data in most PICs were optimistic. The system in principle includes all key data for commercial, non-commercial and traditional (biomass) energy sources and develops a national energy balance. In practice, however, only two or three PICs have provided reasonably accurate time-series data. Two PICs (Fiji and Tonga) have produced occasional or annual energy data reports or yearbooks. There is some power utility data at the PPA but this is generally not available to outside parties. Table 3, based on information provided by SOPAC, provides a brief summary of the status of energy data in the PICs. In general, the data available for policy and planning are relatively poor. The earlier PREFACE (2000-2003) collected some renewable energy data. SPREP’s PIREP activities include considerable data collection and analysis in 15 PICs (to be available by early 2004) but this is a ‘one-off’ effort. Table 3: Summary of Energy Data in the PICs Country Status of Database (data for 1990-99) Status of Data Return to SOPAC Cook Islands Completed except for renewables Data for 1990-1999 is with SOPAC Fiji Energy Statistics Yearbook for 2002 completed in draft form Data have not yet been provided to SOPAC

FSM Data collection slowly on-going. ESCAP advised Dept. of Energy on energy data needs in late 2001

FSM is difficult as there are four largely autonomous states with varying degrees of data

Kiribati Completed for the period 1990-99 Energy Statistics Yearbook for 2002 drafted Not all data are yet with SOPAC

Marshall Islands Data collection is slow but proceeding Data are being returned to SOPAC Nauru Data collection is slow but proceeding Limited data at SOPAC Niue Data collection is slow but proceeding Limited data at SOPAC PNG Data collection is slow but proceeding Limited data at SOPAC Palau Data collection is slow but proceeding Limited data at SOPAC

Solomon Islands Data collection is slow but proceeding Difficult due to considerable loss of data & lack of collection during recent civil conflicts, now ended

Samoa Data collection is slow but proceeding Limited data at SOPAC Tonga Completed for the period 1990-99 Data are being returned to SOPAC Tuvalu Data collection is slow but proceeding Limited data at SOPAC Vanuatu Data collection is slow but proceeding Limited data at SOPAC Note: 1) Where data are available on traditional or renewable energy use, biomass fuel use (which is extensive) is typically estimated from

household energy surveys which are a decade or more old. Data on biomass for electricity production (wood; sugar cane bagasse, etc. are much more accurate). 2) PIFS maintains a database on PIC petroleum supply and pricing; it is not disaggregated to show usage patterns.


41

4) Rural Electrification Policies PICs all have some overall electrification policy and a national electrical utility that is normally government-owned, although this is in a state of flux and a number of PICs require assistance with suitable arrangements for commercialisation, privatisation and effective government regulation in the interest of consumers.20 Despite numerous technical and policy issues, urban electrification and main island grid systems function reasonably well. However, rural electrification normally lacks clear policies. Where explicit policies do exist there are often ambiguities regarding the role of the national utility. Subsidies for rural electrification tend to be high but are not explicit or necessarily even known. Policies regarding customer charges for rural electrification are often ad hoc, particularly for PV or other RET systems, with nearby communities or households facing very different costs for similar services. In many PICs rural electrification throughout the country has been an explicit policy objective for several decades. However, in many PICs, for communities in remote islands or away from the utility grids, the growth in rural electrification has been slow.21 Clear policies, better institutional arrangements, consistent and transparent subsidy arrangements and reconsideration of tariffs could improve the rate of rural electrification substantially in some PICs. Table 4 summarises the status of rural electrification policies. Any work on rural electrification policy through the PIEPSAP needs to work in consultation with the ADB, PPA, PIREP and others involved in RE policy matters.

Table 4: Status of PIC Rural Electrification (RE) Policies (August 2003)

Country Status

Cook Islands

In effect, policies and pricing differ island-by-island. The government is currently considering RE policy changes and SOPAC is advising on a more consistent RE policy.

Fiji Current policy dates from 1993 and has not been as effective as hoped in substantially increasing RE to off-grid & island communities. In 2003, SOPAC and others reviewed the policy through an ESCAP funded consultancy. An ADB RE study underway in early November 2003 also includes the review of RE policy. Draft legislation on Renewable Energy Service Companies (RESCOs) was completed August 2003 as part of a UNDP/GEF project but is unlikely to be enacted soon.

FSM SOPAC has had a review of solar electrification policy planned since 2002. An ADB ‘Omnibus Infrastructure project’ is looking to some extent at RE policy & investment needs but apparently not policies.

Kiribati Preliminary assistance was provided by SOPAC to the Solar Energy Company (SEC) but there is a need for policy consistency between diesel-based and renewable systems.

Marshall Islands

Preliminary assistance provided by SOPAC as part of the development of national energy policy. As in many countries, a consistent RE policy framework is lacking.

Nauru The country is a single island. There is no RE policy and possibly no real need for one except for planned renewable energy initiatives, particularly implementation guidelines

Niue As for Nauru above

PNG Some policy assistance recently provided by SOPAC. The World Bank carried out an RE policy review in August 2003 as part of a possible new RE loan.

Palau RE policy status not known

Solomon Islands

Donors (probably Australia or new Zealand) are developing a master plan for power development and a separate RE policy may not be required

Samoa The draft national energy policy has an objective that all Samoans are to have access to electricity within 5 years. Samoa is well over 90% electrified and probably does not require an explicit RE policy.

Tonga Tonga has prepared a draft RE policy. A considerable number of diesel fuelled systems are going into remote island (H i’i & V ) b t ith t l li f k

20 The PPA is advising its member power utilities on these matters but governments and utilities do not necessarily share

the same aims and perspectives. 21 There is a high rate of rural electrification in the Cook Islands, Tonga, Samoa and Tuvalu.


42

groups (Hapai’i & Vavau) but without a clear policy framework.

Tuvalu SOPAC has reviewed RE through the (currently non-functioning) Solar Energy Cooperative in 2003. There is a need for a consistent policy covering small diesel-based and renewable systems. The SOPAC work has not been completed.

Vanuatu There has reportedly been a recent RE policy review but no details are available.

Note: Based in part on consultations with SOPAC and information from the SOPAC PIEPSAP concept proposal of 23 October 2003.


43

Annex C: Project Justification PIEPSAP is not justified unless: 1) there are development needs in the region which can be addressed, at least in part, through improvements in the supply, efficiency and/or type of energy services within the PICs; 2) there is a specific need for PIC energy policies and plans; 3) there are genuine opportunities now to effectively address these needs; and 4) these needs can be met effectively through a regional approach. These are discussed in turn below:

1) A Development Overview of the PICs

The energy sector issues facing the Pacific Islands cannot be divorced from the wider development challenges they face. Some of these are summarised below:

Smallness and remoteness. The figure to the right illustrates the very small sizes of the PICs and their physical isolation. With the exception of Papua New Guinea, the countries range from only 20 km2 of land (Nauru) to 28,000 km2 (the Solomon Islands), most between several hundred and several thousand km2. Also excluding PNG, the populations range from several thousand people to 0.8 million (Fiji). Fiji, a relative economic powerhouse among the island states with a reasonably diversified economy, has only 40% of the land area of Denmark. In general, the economies are highly dependent on tourism, receipts from citizens living abroad, agriculture and services, particularly government. As extremely small countries far from suppliers, PICs face very high import prices for petroleum fuels and high energy costs in general. They tend to receive low prices for exports, which are expensive to ship in small vessels to far-off markets.

Internal inequalities. As Figure 2 shows, the internal distances within PICs can be immense. Kiribati, for example, has less than 85,000 people living on 33 widely scattered low atolls (800 km2 of land) spread over 4,200 kilometres from East to West and 2,000 km North to South. Kiribati exemplifies to an extreme degree the severe development challenges facing a small, remote and resource-poor island state during a period of rapid global change. The environment is fragile and – particularly in the rapidly-growing main islands – deteriorating. There is immense difficulty in providing adequate basic services (health, education, clean water, power, communications) to its people, especially the outer island rural majority. Even in relatively developed Fiji, transport services to outer islands are often intermittent, with several months between shipments of basic goods (including fuel). Despite this, the people of the Pacific have the advantages of strong and resilient cultures, often highly egalitarian societies (with the important exception of gender), strong democratic principles, and extensive sea resources. With well-planned, carefully-targeted and soundly implemented external assistance in support of sound government policies, the quality of life can be expected to improve over time.

Vulnerability. Numerous studies have documented the susceptibility of small island states to external economic fluctuations and environmental shocks. A Commonwealth Secretariat vulnerability index ranks the PICs among the most highly vulnerable of the 111 countries it has studied. An environmental vulnerability index developed by SOPAC is documenting PIC vulnerability further.

Globalisation. Adjusting to the extraordinary rapid rate of recent global economic, social and cultural change is a tremendous challenge for remote states, which strive for an ‘impossible trinity’: i) securing the benefits of globalisation; ii) maintaining national sovereignty, and iii) retaining sufficient flexibility to formulate national economic and social policies. Among the challenges for the Pacific are to adequately protect traditional values such as communal sharing of resources and co-operative economic activity; protect land tenure, often threatened by resource investments; minimise possible social costs of investment (e.g. increased inequality, less control of investment decisions, and worse working conditions); deal with the rapid erosion of preferential market access; afford the costs of joining (or not joining) the World Trade Organisation; carry out its substantial commitments to the global community summarised in the Millennium Declaration Goals (MDGs) of 2000; and capitalise on new information and communications technologies which could in practice reduce effective isolation. The challenges of adjusting to globalisation are considerable and the local resources and experience for doing so are


44

very limited. Within the energy sector, there may be excellent opportunities for foreign investments and partnerships that can benefit the local people, but the PICs need the legal frameworks, regulations and incentive systems to make them work effectively. There are opportunities for using modern communications technologies in remote areas but without adequate and reliable energy systems in outer islands, these cannot be effective.

Climate change. The 2001 synthesis report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, with a ‘robust level of confidence’, that global warming is underway and likely to increase during this century at rates unprecedented in the past 10,000 years. For small islands, the IPCC warns of deteriorating coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds; major species loss; worsening water balance in atoll nations; and declines in vital reef fisheries (all with medium-to-high confidence levels). For the Pacific islands, the World Bank warns of likely reductions in agricultural output, declines in ground water quantity and quality, substantial health impacts (increased diarrhoea, dengue fever and fish poisoning), extensive capital damage due to storm surges, and lost fish production. It concludes that: “managing change will be particularly critical in the area of climate change, a subject … of immense and immediate impact on Pacific Island countries. Choosing a development path that decreases the islands’ vulnerability to climate events and maintains the quality of the social and physical environment will … be central to the future well being of the Pacific Island people.” Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Tuvalu are among the countries predicted to suffer the greatest impact of climate change – including disappearance in the worst case scenario. For the energy sector, where investments today have effects for many decades, PICs must consider carefully where to locate large oil terminals, how to dispose safely of wastes and plan for spills where coastlines may erode, whether to invest in hydropower if rainfall patterns may change, etc.

Managing Marine Resources. The Central West Pacific is the world’s richest tuna fishery. However, during the 1990s the island states captured only 11% of US$2 billion in annual landed value. Effectively managing the tuna (and later the vast mineral) resources of the Pacific will be a key challenge in coming decades. Determination of sustainable maximum yields, arms length access negotiations with distant fishing nations, and assuring good economic returns and employment will require improved cooperation on a regional basis. If the PICs decide to invest heavily in fishing and onshore facilities (as several have), this suggests a huge increase in marine fuel use and the storage, handling and safety issues associated with growing petroleum imports.

Limited Data. Assessing key development issues, formulating and implementing effective policies, and monitoring results require a wide range of timely, accurate and consistent data. In the region, however, much data is available only at a national level (with limited breakdowns by sex, age, income group, geographic location, etc.), and time-series datasets tend to be both limited and inconsistent. For a tiny population, even excellent data for a specific year can be inherently misleading, particularly for rare events such as maternal mortality. Improved time series are essential for constructing meaningful development indicators and understanding development trends in microstates. Development Assistance to the Pacific. A number of small PICs are highly dependent on donor assistance for developing and implementing social and economic policies. It is felt within the region that donors shift emphases too frequently, leading to support which is often too short-term to produce lasting impacts. Where aid is a small percentage of GDP, the volatility of aid flows and priorities may not be a serious concern; for some PICs, it can arguably under-mine development efforts. In the energy sector, there was considerable assistance to PICs during the 1980s but this dropped off rapidly during the 1990s as donor priorities changed.

Population Growth, Poverty and Governance. Over the past decade, numerous studies have warned that population growth may be hampering the region’s development efforts. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) also recently warned of growing poverty in the Pacific islands, where 43% of the population are estimated to be disadvantaged. The ADB states that the following key issues affect all of its Pacific members: good governance; populations growing faster than the economies; declining educational performance; weakness of the private sector; breakdown of traditional support systems; and an urban elite capturing a high percentage of the benefits of modernisation. Development challenges include disappointing macroeconomic performance; increasing poverty; increasing environmental degradation; and limited progress in gender equality. With growing pressure for structural reform of the energy sector, including privatisation in countries where the government has been the dominant economic force, a good deal of assistance will be required of these reforms to proceed smoothly and in the interests of the people.


45

2) Need for PIC Energy Policies and Plans

The annexed summary (Annex B) of the status of current policies and plans – or more accurately the lack of clear policies and plans – indicates that assistance is clearly needed, particularly in light of the very small energy offices responsible for such policies and plans: • No overall frameworks to address energy. In the past several years, there have been numerous proposals

by interested parties for new and (for the PICs) innovative energy supply systems including fairly large (by PIC standards anyway) grid-connected renewable energy systems, waste-to-energy facilities, and even the establishment of a fully-renewable national energy economy. The policy and planning framework to effectively consider (and reject or accept or benefit from) such proposals is lacking in all PICs.

• Few up-to-date PIC energy policies. In general there are no up-to-date, clear national energy policies. Because the PICs differ considerably, they require country-specific policies which reflect their needs and resources.

• Insufficient consultations. With some exceptions, policies which do exist were developed with insufficient consultations within government and externally. They have no true effective status even where there was some formal government ‘endorsement.’

• Inconsistent policies. Where there are no formal national energy policies, there are implicit policies which have built up over time. These generally contain internal inconsistencies, ambiguities and have many gaps where key issues are glossed over or not covered.

• Ineffective RE policies. Rural electrification has long been a priority of governments throughout the Pacific. However, those countries with relatively low rates of rural electrification (arguably eight of the fourteen PICs) tend to have ineffective policies, and this hinders the spread of electrification to rural communities.

• Lack of practical plans. There are no (or at most very few) practical action-oriented energy sector plans and those that do exist are partial, typically covering the urban electric power sector but often little else.

• Effects of reforms. In recent years, there has been considerable pressure from the international development banks (i.e. ADB & WB) for structural reform of the public service within the PICs. Such reforms are well underway. However, with the exception of the electricity utilities, very little thought (from donors, development banks or governments) has gone into the implications of such reforms on the energy sector and energy services, particularly to remote and low-income communities.

• Lack of frameworks for RETs. Through external assistance, primarily the EU but also France and others, a number of new solar photovoltaic energy systems have recently been installed, or are to be installed in eight or more PICs, many through power utilities. It is important that these renewable energy technologies have a sound policy framework or they are unlikely to be sustainable.

• Links to global climate change. The PICs are very concerned about the expected effects of global climate change in the region. To be taken seriously internationally regarding GHG/climate issues, it is important that they be seen to have, and actually have, consistent and rational energy policies and plans. There are also obligations under the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol, if it comes into force. (Coincidently, the existence of well thought out energy polices and plans is also likely to increase PIC access to external funding though grants, carbon offsets, low interest loans, etc.)

• Energy links to poverty. Global efforts to reduce poverty (the MDGs) or eradicate it in the ACP states (the Cotonou Agreement) can be more effective with more rational and cost-effective energy use and better policies.

• Energy and global competitiveness. PICs are inefficient in their use of commercial energy. Efforts to promote competitiveness in global markets will benefit from more rational and cost-effective energy use and better policies.

• The precautionary principle. Preparing now could help protect PICS from the risk of another ‘oil crisis.' Some experts fear that another, and more serious, global oil crunch could occur within a decade. PICs should prepare now, not react in panic after such an event, which might result in dramatic increases in petroleum fuel prices and supply disruptions. The ‘precautionary principle’22 suggests that countries and individuals should prepare well in advance for possible catastrophic events, even those with a low probability of occurrence.

22 The principle is anticipatory and preventive rather than reactive regarding the limits of scientific knowledge in policy:

‘It is important to take preventive action to minimise environmental damage in view of the possibility of irreversible damage being inflicted before complete evidence about potential harmful effects is available.’


46

3) Genuine Opportunities Exist to Effectively Address PIC Energy Needs

After a period in which energy policy and planning efforts might be described as moribund in many PICs, there is now a growing interest among officials in redressing this gap. There are also opportunities for effectively addressing energy sector needs of the PICs: • Growing realisation of need for good polices and plans. PIC energy offices are too small and

marginalised to effectively develop meaningful energy polices and, even more so, the practical plans to implement them. They increasingly realise the need for real consultation and joint work with decision-makers, in part as a result of the regional policy and plan (PIEPP). The environment for effective intervention, including advice on more effective and sustainable administrative arrangements for energy, is improving.

• Market distortions can be addressed. There are numerous market distortions (including hidden or non-transparent subsidies) for energy services within PICs which increase or decrease the prices and even the availability of energy services for urban and rural or wealthy and poor communities. These are increasingly important during a period when government services are being commercialised or privatised. The best time to address these distortions is now, before the process is well underway.

• Practical mechanisms do exist. There is increasing recognition within PICs that technical approaches exist – coupled with improved incentives, policies and institutional reforms – to actually provide improved, more sustainable and more affordable energy services. However, PICs lack the experience and sufficient skilled people to shift from this general awareness to practical concrete mechanisms and actions. A well-design technical assistance (TA) effort can provide the experience and skills.

• Increased PIC government accountability. PIC governments are being held more accountable to the public than ever before. The politicians, although recently (arguably) somewhat disinterested in energy, are more likely now than a few years ago to listen to well-considered arguments regarding approaches that can improve energy services to remote areas at affordable costs.

• PIEPP provides a foundation. The existence of the PIEEP of 2002 provides a broad framework within which PICs and the regional organisations have agreed to work. Such a framework was missing until mid-2002.

• Opportunities exist for synergies. Other new and planned initiatives (such as the ADB’s REEP for practical approaches to improved energy efficiency and renewable energy for remote areas of two PICs and the UNDP/GEF PIREP project to assess barriers to the introduction and commercialisation of renewable energy in PICs) are expected to provide a wealth of practical information which can be extended, adapted and used in other PICs, assuming there is a mechanism such as PIEPSAP to do so.

• Incentives exist for addressing RET policies. The various new solar photovoltaic energy systems being installed and planned provide both an opportunity and an incentive within PIC governments and power utilities, to rationalise rural electrification policies.

4) Meeting Needs Through a Regional Approach

PIC governments quite understandably prefer technical assistance at the national level, which focuses on their needs and priorities, than a regional approach shared with a dozen or so other countries. In this case, a regional approach is a rational use of limited resources: • High cost of national advisory services. Some of the expertise required to translate fuzzy policies into

concrete action (e.g. for legislation, regulations, financial incentives) would be inordinately expensive on a country-by-country basis but affordable if spread over a few countries.

• Commonality of needs. PICs certainly differ substantially in their cultures, capacities, institutional arrangements, legal systems and assistance needs. Nonetheless, there is sufficient commonality that a number of approaches suitable for one PIC will be adaptable to others. Similarly successful (or not so successful) experiences in one PIC can be valuable lessons for others. This sort of adaptation and experience sharing is nearly impossible for a TA project restricted to one country.

• CROP and regional policy and action framework. Through the CROP EWG, despite some shortcomings, and the regional energy policy and plan (PIEPP), there exists an overall framework for addressing energy issues through a regional approach.

• Regional cooperation works. Several past experiences, such as joint efforts of the UNDP and the Forum Secretariat, suggest that cooperative regional approaches which pool the skills and resources of several regional energy initiatives, can be effective in addressing PIC needs and priorities.


47

Annex D: Review of Past, Current and Planned

Regional Energy Initiatives in the Pacific Islands This annex summarises: 1) past efforts to improve the understanding of energy sector issues and energy development within the Pacific

Island Countries (PICs) through regional23 donor-led technical assistance; and 2) current and planned regional energy initiatives which appear to be relevant to the objectives of PIEPSAP

(as a EUEI/PIESD partnership), and briefly reviews potential duplication and possible links between PIEPSAP and these new initiatives.

1) PAST REGIONAL ENERGY SECTOR SUPPORT TO PICS

There has been a long, and often confusing, history within the pacific islands of involvement in the energy sector among regional organisations, donor agencies and others. Institutional memories tend to be short so the main past activities and some key lessons are summarised below to provide some context for the PIEPSAP project. As the name Pacific Island Energy Policies and Strategic Action Plans suggests, PIEPSAP aims to assist pics to improve their national energy policies, and the plans to implement these policies, consistent with the PIESD objectives. Most (if not all) past initiatives have included elements of energy policy or planning for governments or the (mostly government-owned) electric power utilities. However, the most systematic assistance to PICs for national energy policy development in the 1980s to early 1990s was from the PIFS and UNDP’s PEDP, and more recently from SOPAC and the CROP EWG. Various initiatives are described below.

The Secretariat of the Pacific Community. From the mid-1970s, the SPC (then called the South Pacific Commission) had an energy initiative, mostly dealing with small-scale biogas production for piggeries,24 later developing into a renewable energy (RE) programme emphasising solar photovoltaics (PV) for small-scale stand-alone applications. From 2000 through May 2003, SPC was the lead agency for the ‘Pacific Rural/Renewable Energy France and Australia Common Endeavour’ (PREFACE; France A$1.95 million; Australia A$1.5m25) designed to “increase the use of sustainable renewable energy technologies (RETs), particularly PV and wind, in remote island and rural communities”. An external assessment in 2002 suggested that PREFACE provided a good model for future PIC PV and wind project development. In brief this model emphasises proven technologies, management systems which are adapted to local needs, outside technical support, and user fees which cover operational and maintenance (O&M) costs. SPC has traditionally focussed on technical aspects of energy for rural areas but currently has no active energy programme, other than some uncompleted PREFACE remnants.

The University of the South Pacific, at its main campus in Fiji, has been involved in energy-related teaching, consultancy and small-scale applied research / demonstration activities for over twenty years. USP was active in energy during the 1980s, became quiescent in the 1990s and is beginning to revive (partly through Danish assistance). USP recently advertised for a Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in Physics specialising in renewable energy, and aspires to a stronger role in RE training in the region, focussing more on technologies than policies. USP has produced good energy sector work but has sometimes suffered in the past from inconsistent quality of its output.

The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (then known as the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation) established a small energy office in late 1981 in response to the global petroleum ‘crisis’ of 1979. The PIFS Energy Division – under various names over time – managed a Lomé II EU Pacific Regional Energy Programme (PREP; 6.2 million ecu allocated and 5.2 m spent26 in eight PICs) from 1984–1994. PREP promoted a number of RET demonstration projects and was largely unsuccessful as there were too many small, poorly designed projects using largely non-commercial technologies. Among the perhaps obvious lessons of PREP were that PICs should not be testing grounds for unproven RETs and that practical solutions to energy problems require institutional support as much as – or more than – technical fixes. PREP was followed by a 1994–1998 Lomé III initiative (also called PREP; 4.2 m ecu allocated; 3.4 m spent), primarily on capacity building and energy efficiency for electric power utilities. The EU PREP I & II experiences suggest the desirability of

23 There is no formal agreement on the meaning of ‘regional’ assistance initiatives for PICs as funding organisations and

regional organisations have memberships ranging from about 8 to over 20 PICs and territories. This paper mainly covers those initiatives which include five or more PICs.

24 By 1980, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of small biogas systems in the region and several ‘integrated’ systems producing fuel, food for fish in ponds and ducks but interest quickly waned and few now remain.

25 At the time A$1.00 was approximately US$0.65. 26 The initial budget of 6.19 million European Currency Units (about US$7m) later dropped to 5.2 m ecu.


48

increased flexibility in project design to allow funds to be more easily reallocated, rather than left unspent, as specific PIC needs change during the project lifetime. Through its own resources, the PIFS advised PICs during the mid-1990s on national energy policies, preparing a series of rather generic policy and database frameworks. Few of the policies were formalised by PICs and the complicated database system was never adopted by countries for regular data collection and analysis. However, for some PICs, the PIFS-supported policies remain the most recent official (or often still draft) policy documents available. Following a reorganisation, PIFS energy activities were transferred to SOPAC in January 1998, with the exception of a petroleum advisory service, which continues to advise PICs on various petroleum supply, pricing, storage, handling and safety issues (currently supported by China). The overall functions of the PIFS are currently under review.

The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) has had a range of energy-related technical services since the late 1970s. These include a small energy projects programme and resource assessments (geothermal, biomass, wind, ocean thermal and seawave). Since PIFS energy functions shifted to SOPAC, it has carried out a wider range of services on energy policy, training, women in energy, Demand Side Management (DSM), database development, etc. The policy and database efforts build upon the earlier PIFS work, but both policy and data development proceed slowly. SOPAC also organises regional meetings of energy officials for training and to discuss policy and technical issues.

The Pacific Power Association was established in 1992 through a UNDP/PEDP initiative as a non-profit association of PIC electric power utilities and others. PPA core finance is from members. It has had support over the years from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), UNDP, US Department of Interior (USDOI) and France. PPA provides a range of technical advisory and training services to its members. It does not generally deal with policies, except some advice on utility reforms and regulatory issues. Annual meetings of the PIC electric power utility chief executives and private members provide a regular venue for discussing various issues confronting the power sector.

The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme has had an interest in environmental aspects of energy development for some years. SPREP managed the Global Environment facility (GEF) funded ‘Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Programme’ (PICCAP), and it has been the key organisation representing the Pacific globally on climate, renewable energy, Greenhouse Gas (GHG), and related energy/environment issues, both directly and through the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS).

The South Pacific Institute of Renewable Energy27 in Tahiti was established in 1982 and closed in 1995. S.P.I.R.E. was very active regionally on hardware and training aspects of RETs (primarily PV) with funding from the French Commissariat l'Energie Atomique (CEA), the territorial government and the French energy management agency (ADEME), resulting in several million dollars worth of training and related RE assistance to PICs. A non-profit Tahiti-based company, GIE Soler, worked closely with S.P.I.R.E. and financiers on RET project and RE institutional development. It eventually evolved into a commercial company, Soler Energie, which continues to provide solar PV and water heating throughout French Polynesia and carries out maintenance for past installations.

The East–West Center at the University of Hawaii was involved in PIC energy activities from the mid 1980s through 1995. The EWC emphasis was on petroleum supply, pricing and storage but also included a range of broader training and analytical studies, often in partnership with others, particularly PIFS, PEDP, the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) and the petroleum industry. A key strength of the EWC has been its close relationship with PIC Prime Ministers and other leaders, who meet regularly,28 for briefings and discussions on a wide range of development and political issues. These sometimes included petroleum supply and energy policy briefings until several years ago. There were also regular policy-oriented meetings of PIC Energy Ministers at (or jointly with) the EWC, ending in the early 1990s.29 The EWC remains influential with PIC leaders, who met there in October 2003 with US President Bush. Presently, there is no EWC PIC energy programme, although cooperation with the EWC to reach senior decision-makers and politicians remains possible through its longstanding Pacific Islands Development Programme (PIDP).

The non-profit Pacific International Center for High Technology Research was established in the late 1980s “to support the development of technologies for sustainability.” PICHTR has had support from the USDOE and the State of Hawaii, with later Japanese funding for research into ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) systems for Hawaii and the PICs. Although PICTR has been relatively less active in recent years, it was

27 More properly, the ‘Institut des Energies Renouvelables pour le Pacifique Sud’ (IERPS) 28 The ‘Pacific Island Conference of Leaders’ met annually in the past but currently meets every three years. 29 The last formal meeting of Pacific island Energy Ministers was in 1996.


49

instrumental in obtaining Japanese government support for a hybrid (solar/wind/diesel) rural energy system for Fiji and a closely-related $0.7 million 2001–2003 UNDP/GEF project to remove barriers to the development of RETs. The GEF project has potentially useful lessons for other PICs on appropriate rural energy policies, the practicality of hybrid RE/petroleum-fuelled systems, the establishment of Renewable Energy Service Companies (RESCOs) and support legislation. However, no summary of project lessons suitable for PICs has been prepared.

The United Nations Development Programme financed the subregional ‘Pacific Energy Development Programme’ (PEDP), which was executed by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP; US$5.6m30), from 1983–1992. PEDP provided a wide range of advisory services covering national energy policies, petroleum contracts and storage, power sector planning and tariffs, and RE development. During its last several years, PEDP shared a work programme with PIFS’s energy division and worked closely with the World Bank, S.P.I.R.E. and to a lesser extent the ADB on joint activities. From 1993–1996, UNDP financed the ‘Support to the Pacific Islands Power Sector’ project (Forum Secretariat; US$1.0 million) supporting DSM studies, corporate planning, training and environmental assessments. Lessons from UNDP’s PIC energy efforts include the following: i) Don’t advocate a particular technology but try to provide the training and skills for PICs to choose among alternatives; ii) Try to develop policies with real input from PICs rather than externally written policies; iii) Genuine cooperation – including joint activities and work programmes – among regional agencies and short-term projects can be very effective, expanding the capacities of each while improving services to the PICs; iv) A donor-funded energy programme cannot solve the region’s energy problems but can make a genuine contribution if it concentrates its limited resources on high-priority areas; and v) expectations within the region are sometimes unrealistically high regarding the short-term contributions of renewable energy and energy conservation. These lessons remain valid a decade later.

In 2001, UNDP (with UNESCO) established a position of Renewable Energy Advisor in Samoa, involved (among other activities) in wind energy studies (Cook Islands) and PV projects (Tokelau and Samoa).

ESCAP has not had a formal energy programme for PICs since the closure of PEDP in 1992 but does continue to provide ad hoc short-term services and training with SOPAC.

The Energy Working Group31 of CROP was formed in 1999 to coordinate the energy work of the regional organisations and to advise CROP on energy sector priorities. It is chaired by the PIFS and meets on occasion to coordinate its members’ work. However, the CROP EWG is somewhat dysfunctional. It has an unclear mandate, outdated terms of reference, in effect several categories of participation and influence, and concerns which often override a genuine spirit of cooperation.

The EWG has developed a Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan (PIEPP) with a ‘vision’ nearly identical in wording to the first key PIESD objective. Indeed, one of PIESD’s goals is the implementation of PIEPP. The PIEPP policy component was ‘affirmed’ by PIC energy officials in 2002 as a broad guideline, to be adapted to individual country needs, for developing national energy policies. It is not, of course, binding on sovereign countries. The draft PIEPP strategic planning component, not yet finalised, provides an allocation of energy sector responsibilities among the regional organisations of CROP, which members broadly accept (but sometimes ignored by some). In 2003, through the Forum Communiqué, PIC leaders directed the EWG to review the PIEPP in light of Palau's request to strengthen the renewable energy components of the strategic plan. The PIEPP’s strategic plan for policy implementation includes the informal allocations of responsibilities among EWG members as summarised in Table 1 below:

30 UNDP contributed about US$1.5m for phase 1 (1983-1986) and $2.3m for phase II (1987-1992); others contributed

about $0.4m and $1.4m for phase 1 & 2 respectively. 31 The EWG consists of PIFS (chair), SOPAC, SPREP, USP and UNDP. PPA is a participant but is not a member of

CROP and thus does not have a full voice. Greenpeace Pacific and the Pacific Concerns Resource Centre (PCRC) are NGOs with observer status but have not been active recently. The SPC is an inactive member; it no longer has an energy programme.


50

Table 1: Informal Allocations of Strategic Planning Responsibilities Among EWG Members

Regional energy sector coordination

PIFS as chair (and the EWG itself) SOPAC for mobilising development assistance for national energy strategies

SOPAC & PPA newsletters NSAs **** (Non State Actors) for wide stakeholder participation

Energy policy and planning

Generally SOPAC * PIFS for model legislation & regulations SPREP on barriers to RETs PIFS on social aspects of energy policy

PPA regarding private sector PPA re. legislation/regulation n/a The EWG

Electric power PPA PIFS on regulatory environment SOPAC/USP on tech working papers

Electric power utilities n/a n/a

Energy use in transport

USP R&D; information dissemination SPREP emissions & efficiency; PIFS for policy mechanisms

SOPAC n/a

Renewable energy

SOPAC everything except barriers to RETs SPREP for barriers to RETs

n/a n/a

Petroleum

PIFS generally USP for independent testing SPREP,SOPAC, USP, PIFS on alternatives to petroleum WWF & SPREP on waste disposal ** SOPAC on exploration for oil

Govts & private sector n/a n/a n/a n/a

Energy for rural and remote areas / islands SOPAC n/a

Environmental aspects of energy use

SPREP in general PIFS & SPREP on EIAs for petroleum *** SPREP on standards & regulations including environmental inputs to energy planning PIFS, NSAs, SOPAC for opposition to nuclear energy

CROP EWG CROP EWG; private sector PPA on power sector standards n/a

Energy efficiency and conservation

SOPAC in general PPA & SOPAC on demand side management

PIFS on taxes, duties & tariffs and financial implications

Human & institutional capacity development Broadly shared between USP and SOPAC CROP EWG

* Also USP on evaluation of RETs ** WWF is Worldwide Fund for Nature *** Environmental Impact Assessment **** NSA is really another term for the more familiar Non Governmental Organisation (NGO)

According to some EWG members, there has been no formal agreement at a political level on the overall energy sector responsibilities of respective regional organisations since 198132 when the forerunner of the PIFS was given responsibility for regional coordination, the forerunner of SOPAC was to continue its energy resource assessments, SPC was to continue its work on rural energy technologies, and USP was to increase energy training and related research and development (R&D) efforts. In 1997, however, the PIFS energy coordination role was formally transferred to SOPAC, a responsibility which no EWG members challenge, although there are some differences of opinion regarding the meaning of ‘coordination.’

The above discussion shows that SOPAC clearly has overall responsibility within CROP for energy sector coordination. Table 1 above also shows that the EWG (pending finalisation of the plan component) agrees that SOPAC has primary responsibility within CROP for energy policies and planning, but that others have important roles for economic, legislative, regulatory, social and environmental aspects of energy planning in general, and for petroleum and electric power issues in particular.

The Pacific Regional Energy Assessment of 1992 was not a regional programme but a cooperative initiative between the World Bank and UNDP’s PEDP (with input from the ADB and PIFS) to assess PIC energy issues country-by-country. The twelve country studies and a regional overview remain useful in 2003, as they constitute the most recent reasonably complete assessments of national energy sector issues and options for the region. The PREA is still frequently used to examine issues, for source material and for data. From a 2003 perspective, it was arguably weak in its coverage of renewable energy, environmental aspects of energy use, energy and equity or poverty reduction, and social/gender aspects of energy. Nonetheless, recent reviews of several PIC national energy policies (both in draft form and complete), based in part on the PIEPP format,

32 The Commonwealth Secretariat’s Regional Renewable Energy Resources Information System, long since dissolved,

had a regional information dissemination mandate for several years.


51

suggest that the PIC energy sector issues and options identified a decade ago (and even two decades ago33) remain broadly relevant today. The PREA was a major undertaking. Spread over a year, it consumed nearly the entire professional staff time of UNDP’s PEDP for about 6 months. The PREA required over well over 200 work weeks34 from 29 professional staff and international consultants:35 World Bank 12; PEDP 5; ADB 3 and PIFS 1 for PREA directly plus 6 additional WB staff/consultants for the Solomon Islands study and 2 additional PIFS staff who reviewed drafts. There was a huge travel cost, many months of administrative support, several workshops, review meetings in Washington and with PICs, further WB/PEDP staff editing, and briefings of ministers on findings. At least 55 copies of the thirteen-volume set were printed and distributed. The total cost certainly exceeded US$ 0.8 million and may well have surpassed $1m. The cost of duplicating the PREA today in fourteen countries would absorb a very large percentage of PIEPSAP’s available resources of approximately US$1.6 million.

In addition to regional programmes, there have been various past agency, government and private efforts to improve national PIC energy policies and plans. Several examples, among many others, include Greenpeace Pacific which has supported studies on sustainable energy options for Samoa (mid 1990s) and Fiji (2000); the World Bank, which has been assessing energy policy issues, particularly related to rural electrification, in Papua New Guinea (2003); and ESCAP which arranged short advisory missions on sustainable energy policy and planning to the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Tonga and Tuvalu (late 2001) followed by a regional workshop (early 2002).

Results of past initiatives. The results have been somewhat disappointing. A number of individual Pacific Islanders have undoubtedly improved their technical skills considerably and gained valuable knowledge and experience. Several are now prominent as staff of regional organisations and others have moved to very senior positions in government, statutory bodies and the private sector. There has been an increase in renewable energy use. However, overall, the institutional capacity of the PICs to effectively manage the energy sector does not seem to have improved. Arguably, the capability and influence of Energy Office staff (or their equivalents) have declined in recent years as PICs adjust to external pressures to reform the public service, concentrate on core functions and ‘downsize,’ commercialising or privatising government functions formerly those of government. Most energy offices have no clearly defined function and sufficient staff36 to carry out even basic responsibilities. For the most part, senior decision makers and politicians appear to give only lip service to energy matters. In recent years, Forum Communiqués and reports from the important annual Economic Ministers Meetings include at most a ‘motherhood’ statement vaguely endorsing renewable energy and energy efficiency.37 In a number of PICs where national economic and social planning was once reasonably strong (and considered a ‘core’ function of government), some seasoned observers feel that national planning has become de facto, a function of the development banks and donors. The state and status of national policymaking and planning overall no doubt affect realistic options for practical PIC energy policies and plans.

In summary, despite two decades of initiatives, serious concern regarding energy matters at high levels of PIC governments seems to be conspicuous by its near absence, possibly because petroleum fuel supplies and electricity provision have not suffered from serious crises, at least for urban dwellers and others who have reasonable access to modern fuels and electricity. There are individuals within PICs and the EWG who are serious about energy. There are certainly policy and technical options available to move toward the PIEPP (and PIESD) vision of ‘available, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for sustainable development for all Pacific islanders.’ However, officials within PIC governments who are responsible for energy policies are marginalised, generally have no career path within energy, and are often frustrated. Finally many are not career energy professionals and move elsewhere within government when opportunities arise. The CROP EWG, whose members should cooperate with each others, coordinate regional energy sector activities and share experiences

33 There was a similar series for about a dozen PICs carried out in 1983 under the joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector

Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP). The findings and recommendations of the ESMAP reports were largely consistent with those of the PREA ten years later.

34 The writer of this paper was a Co-Director of the overall PREA exercise and appreciates the resources involved. PEDP provided at least 20 person months (pm) of professional staff time, the World Bank about 16 pm plus at least 4 pm for the separate but coordinated Solomon Islands ESMAP study, the ADAB about 4 pm and the PIFS about 3 pm.

35 This excludes the time of 2 PIFS staff, who contributed to the regional overview report and 6 WB staff and consultants who carried out the Solomon Islands study separately.

36 The approximate staffing of PIC national energy offices is as follows (some with other responsibilities as well): Cook Islands 3, Fiji 8, FSM 2, Kiribati 2 (excluding Solar Energy Company), Marshall Islands 1, Nauru 1, Niue 1, PNG perhaps 12, Palau 1, Solomon Islands 1, Samoa, 1, Tonga 3, Tuvalu 2 and Vanuatu 3. Even if the estimates may be slightly off, the capacities are very limited. (Source is discussions with SOPAC, 27 Oct. 2003)

37 The key exception is petroleum pricing & supply, discussed by economic and finance ministers in 2000 and 2001.


52

and results, is less effective at this role than the agencies and projects generally were a decade ago. A more functional EWG would improve the delivery of services to the PICs – who are after all their clients – for new projects. The WG can, and should, be improved.

This is the context, or one interpretation of it, in which the EUEI PIC projects, and other current and planned energy initiatives, should be considered. 2) CURRENT AND PLANNED REGIONAL ENERGY SECTOR INITIATIVES FOR THE PICS

As noted in the Introduction to this review, the Pacific region launched the ‘Pacific Islands Energy for Sustainable Development’ (PIESD) initiative, referred to as a Type II Initiative, at the WSSD in 2002. This was in part a mechanism to help implement the Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan (PIEPP). As noted, the main focus of PIESD and PIEPP is the increased availability of adequate, affordable and environmentally sound energy for the PICs’ sustainable development. There are several Type II WSSD initiatives specifically focusing on Small Island Developing States (SIDS): i) ‘Improving the Provision of Sustainable Energy Services for SIDS’, with UNDP as the lead partner; and ii) ‘Productive Use of Clean Energy for Sustainable Development of SIDS’ with UNIDO as the leading partner. These are preliminary indications by countries, donors, and others of the types of activities they agree should be supported. The Joint Initiative between the EUEI and PIESD, described further below, is the first concrete follow-up for the Pacific region. There are several other regional initiatives relevant to PIEPSAP which are underway, have recently begun or are about to commence. These are managed by the CROP organisations already discussed and by the ADB. These are also discussed below.

EU Energy Initiative/PPA. During the joint EC/Danish mission to the Pacific in March 2003, the PIFS and others identified two priority areas for which support was requested under the EUEI. One is the Danish-funded ‘Pacific Island Energy Policies and Strategic Action Plans’ project or PIEPSAP. The second is “Human Resource Development and Energy Efficiency within PIC National Power Utilities.”38 The project has not yet been formally approved but is to be funded by the EC and, in principle, executed by the Pacific Power Association from early 2004 through early 2007 with approximately US$1 million39 for activities supporting the power utilities of the nine South Pacific ACP members (the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu).

The project explicitly aims to implement policy 3.1 of the PIEPP (i.e. “improve the efficiency of power production, transmission and distribution to decrease costs and fuel consumption”) through two of the PIEPP strategies:

• Strategy 3.1.1: reduce power system losses in power utilities, with the following activities: i. Assess utilities for power system losses, to estimate energy efficiencies for region;

ii. Develop database of all utility system electrical data; iii. Assist power utilities to prepare supply side management (SSM) plans; iv. Identify appropriate power system equipment that is appropriate and cost effective for use in supply

side applications; and v. Promote supply side management projects in all utilities to reduce losses by 30% • Strategy 3.1.2: enhance the skills of power utility staff, with the following two activities: i. Conduct a quantitative training needs assessment of utilities; and

ii. Implement training of utility staff based on utility training needs assessment report. There is no duplication between the two EUEI initiatives. To the contrary, they are meant to complement each other with the PPA project emphasising technical aspects of SSM and other capacity building, whereas the SOPAC project deals with policies and planning. PPA is, however, as noted earlier, providing some advice to its utility members on the reform process (e.g. guidelines for effective commercialisation) and on utility regulation. To the extent that PIEPSAP also addresses these matters, there needs to be close coordination with PPA and avoidance of duplication.

38 Some written references to this as the “Human Resource Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

within PIC National Power Utilities” project may have mixed up elements of the EUEI project with a separate EU funded project involving PPA discussed later in this section.

39 This includes a technical assistance component to support PPA, which is not directly related to the PIC capacity building and energy efficiency efforts.


53

The EU/PPA EUEI project has the following expected links with PIEPSAP:40 • Coordination of the two Pacific regional EUEI projects will use existing regional co-ordination mechanisms

(i.e. the CROP EWG); • PIEPSAP is expected to address the energy policy and strategy needs of the ACP countries through

supporting PICs in putting into place strategic frameworks for energy sector management; and • The two regional projects are to be jointly reviewed.

There is a second EU financed project ‘Support to the Energy Sector in Five ACP Pacific Islands’ (11.41 million €; 2004–2007), in which PPA will have a strong management role. The project will provide human resource development, energy efficiency and/or photovoltaic energy systems for five north Pacific ACP states (FSM, Nauru, Niue, Palau, and Marshall Islands) through their respective electric power utilities. It has no formal link to the EUEI but is expected to cooperate closely with the EUEI and PIEPP; the first two bullet points immediately above are taken directly from the project’s Financing Proposal and thus apply to this project as well.

GEF/UNDP/SPREP ‘Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Project’ (PIREP). The Global Environment Facility (GEF) and UNDP have provided US$0.8 million for PIREP from mid 2003 through early to mid 2005,41 to assist the same fourteen PICs as PIEPSAP plus Tokelau. The project, executed by SPREP through UNDP Samoa, aims to “facilitate the promotion within the PICs of the widespread implementation and ultimately, commercialization of … RETs through the establishment of a suitable enabling environment. … [This] … would involve the design, development and implementation of appropriate policies, strategies and interventions addressing the fiscal, financial, regulatory, market, technical and information barriers to RE development and utilization. It will also involve the development of interventions for strengthening of the relevant institutional structures and national capacity for the coordination and the sustainable management (design, implementation, monitoring, maintenance, evaluation and the marketing) of RE initiatives in each PIC.” 42

From late 2003 through the first quarter of 2004, PIREP will concentrate on a series of fifteen national studies and a regional overview to assess a wide range of barriers to the introduction and commercialisation of RE. There are ambitious plans involving national consulting teams in each country, supported by international consultants, for the collection of an extensive range of commercial and traditional energy use data, to be followed by the preparation of a kind of mini updated PREA, which will concentrate on renewable energy issues.

PIREP objectives include PIC capacity building on RE policy formulation, dissemination of information and improving public awareness regarding RE, institutional strengthening and improving coordination of both national and regional organisations regarding RE, developing market strategies for RE businesses, developing RE delivery mechanisms, innovative financing mechanisms for RE initiatives, and developing technical assistance approaches for RE industries and businesses. Although PIREP aims to remove specific barriers to renewable energy, the analyses will inevitably cover broader energy policies, plans, regulations, legal instruments, etc. which currently restrict RE adoption. There is thus considerable potential for duplication of PIREP and PIEPSAP efforts. However, there are also numerous opportunities for PIEPSAP to benefit from, and further develop, the work being carried out by PIREP during the coming months. One of PIREP’s international consultants developed the PIEPSAP ProDoc and consulted the PIREP CTA regarding the structure and content of PIEPSAP. The CTA contributed actively to the ProDoc development in order to help avoid duplication.

ADB Renewable Energy and Efficiency Program for the Pacific (REEP). REEP is an ADB technical assistance (TA) project for island member countries (PICs and Timor-Leste) financed through the ‘Danish Trust Fund for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in Rural Areas.’ According to the TA description of April 2003 (the most recent available documentation), REEP has a budget of US$0.6 million (excluding national inputs) and will be implemented in two countries over a two-year period. It was planned for June 2003 through

40 The first two bullet points are from the project Financing Proposal, 9th FED; Document AIDCO/C7 GH (2003) 31418

(EC EuropeAid Cooperation Office, Brussels, 2003) for ‘Support to the Energy Sector in Five ACP Pacific Islands’ but are likely to apply to the EUEI project as well. The third is from the Danish government via UNDP Samoa.

41 The project Sept 2002 project document (project RAS/02/G35) states that PIREP runs from August 2002 – February 2004 but implementation effectively began with the appointment of a Chief Technical Adviser in mid 2003 and a regional planning meeting held in August 2003 in Nadi, Fiji.

42 These are ambitious expectations for a regional project with about the same budget as a single national PIC GEF project (Fiji) to address barriers to renewable energy.


54

May 2005 but is now expected to begin in January 200443 with detailed work in the two countries probably beginning about mid 2004.

REEP aims to develop “a demand-driven and private sector based market” in two countries for renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) services with an emphasis on the eventual provision of these services over time to rural and outer island communities. Among other barriers, ADB identifies an “absence of a clear market-based policy, legislation and regulatory framework for RE and EE.” The project will: i) Collect and prepare lessons from the past on RE and EE assistance in the Pacific; ii) develop an action plan for adoption of a policy framework, including incentives, promoting

commercialisation and privatisation of RE and EE services. This includes ‘direct assistance to the policy/strategy development process … [and] facilitation of working groups responsible to substantiate and implement the new policy’;

iii) develop an action plan for establishing appropriate institutional arrangements for RE and EE; iv) develop and prepare an action plan for the adoption of the necessary regulatory and legal framework for RE

and EE; and v) develop a system of financing RE and EE schemes targeted at the private sector and household end-users.

There is considerable potential for duplication between PIEPSAP and REEP. However, as with PIREP, there are also excellent opportunities for cooperation and for adapting and applying successful REEP analyses and interventions in other PICs after REEP’s completion. REEP has an explicit intention of “proactive participation in related national and regional workshops to disseminate information pertinent to renewable energy and energy efficiency, exchange of good practices and analytical work results, and collaboration on specific activities” (italic emphasis added). PIEPSAP thus has the opportunity to work in close collaboration with REEP on its activities on RE and EE policies and plans, and should do so. ADB’s REEP Team Leader is also the Team Leader of the PIREP international consultancy team and has worked closely with the UNDP PIEPSAP development team to avoid duplication and seek opportunities to work together.

ADB Promotion of Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Abatement (PREGA). PREGA is a three-year project (2001–2004) financed through a Netherlands Cooperation Trust Fund to develop capabilities of national policy makers, technical experts and financing institution staff in fifteen Asia-Pacific countries to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency and GHG abatement technologies. Samoa is the only participating PIC. PREGA is supposed to review the status of the energy sector, identify market barriers to RE and EE, identify project opportunities and conduct feasibility studies. Apparently little has thus far been accomplished in Samoa. REEP, with similar goals and a PIC focus, may be far more relevant for PIEPSAP.

Regional Cooperation Initiative on Energy and Sustainable Development (RCESD). A UNDP Asia/Pacific energy project is planned for the period 2004 through 2007. Although it has not been finalised, RCESD includes an activity with explicit links to the PICs, through its Strategic Service 1 on Policy Advocacy. RCESD may consider placing a Programme Officer in the Pacific, in which case PIEPSAP would be an ideal location.

Other related SOPAC initiatives. SOPAC has other regional energy activities underway or proposed: • In cooperation with ESCAP, SOPAC is carrying out training in renewable energy management for PICs. A

broader initiative for strategic planning and management in the PIC energy and water sectors continues through 2004.

• SOPAC has begun a small regional DSM project ($0.2m; UNDESA funded) in several PIC electric power utilities to carry out energy audit training for their staff, conduct energy audits, and assist with implementation. According to the project leader,44 it does not include policy work or recommendations.

• ‘Capacity Building in Wind Energy for Pacific Island Countries’ is being implemented by SOPAC & USP through Danish funding. The aim is to strengthen the capability of PICs to plan and manage the integration of wind generation into the electricity sector. As of September 2003,45 undergraduate and postgraduate wind energy course materials were under development with USP, a wind turbine had been purchased and analytical software (WAsP) had been purchased. A regional wind energy development plan is expected to be completed during 2004. The project is technical and does not duplicate PIEPSAP.

• ‘Environmentally Sustainable Transportation in the Pacific Islands’ is the title of a proposal SOPAC plans to submit to the GEF, through UNDP, under Operational Program 11, Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Transport. OP11 is initially emphasising ground transport, particularly: more efficient and less

43 At the time of writing in late November 2003, ADB had just chosen the team to carry out the REEP project. There is a

4-month inception phase followed by 20 months of implementation in the two selected countries. 44 E-mail message from Felix Gooneratne, International Institute of Energy Conservation (IEEC), Asia Office, Bangkok,

October 2003. 45 Communications from RISØ national Laboratory, Denmark, October 2003.


55

polluting forms of public and freight transport, non-motorised transport, fuel cell or battery-operated vehicles, internal combustion engine-electric hybrid buses and advanced technologies for converting biomass feedstock to liquid fuels. It is not known if the draft SOPAC proposal includes policy development but it should be easy to avoid any duplication with PIEPSAP.


56

Annex E: Issues and Lessons Regarding Past Energy Planning Efforts in the Pacific

This annex is divided into two sections: 1) the first dealing with issues and lessons specific to energy policy and planning within PICs; and 2) the second drawing on broader lessons for the overall design and implementation of non-energy sector UN assistance programmes, but nonetheless relevant to the PIEPSAP project. Because many of the issues are interrelated, there is some repetition within each section and between the two sections. In some cases, the phrase ‘Lessons Learned’ might more accurately be termed ‘Lessons Learned But Later Forgotten’ or “Lessons Which Should Have Been Learned But Weren’t.’ 1) Issues and Lessons from Previous Energy Policy & Planning Assistance to PICs This summary draws from the experiences and external assessments of the two long-run-ning initiatives, the UNDP/ESCAP ‘Pacific Energy Development Programme’ (PEDP; phases 1 & 2; 1983-1991) and the EU’s ‘Pacific Regional Energy Programme’ (PREP; Lomé II & Lomé III, 1984-1994). It also draws from the experiences of other PIC energy initiates and deliberations of the CROP Energy Working Group (which developed the Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan, and from several recent overview reports which include energy issues.46 Some lessons may seem obvious but are often overlooked. • Role of a donor-funded programme. Some past initiatives have tried to spread their efforts far too thinly

across the entire energy sector. A donor-funded programme cannot ‘solve’ the region’s energy problems, but can only contribute to those solutions. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: A regional project is likely to be more successful if it has a clear set of limited objectives and focuses its resources on high-priority areas within those broad objectives.

• Interagency cooperation. There have been times during the past twenty years when agencies and energy programmes worked at cross-purposes, duplicated efforts and even offered contradictory advice. Within the PICs, there has been some resentment and occasional confusion. At other times, agencies have cooperated well. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Genuine cooperation – including joint activities and work programmes – among regional agencies and short-term projects can be very effective, expanding the capacities (and reputations) of each while improving services to the PICs. Unfortunately, the agencies often have little real incentive to cooperate, so cooperation depends on good will among individuals. For PIEPSAP to succeed, it is important that the CROP Energy Working Group function better than it has in the recent past

• Clear policy and planning guidelines function best. Ambiguous terms of reference, overlapping responsibilities and unclear authority can hamper implementation. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: 1) Within PIC governments, roles and responsibilities of the energy offices need to be clarified. 2) At the regional level, the uncertain (and to some extent disputed) status of the strategic planning component of the PIEPP, over-lapping responsibilities of EWG members within PIEPP, and the lack of finalisation of the planning component can be expected to delay PIEPP implementation.

• Project design. The PICs and their needs and opportunities differ considerably. An approach which initially seems appropriate may be impractical a year or two later as governments or circumstances change. A policy-oriented project which appears to address PIC needs but is rigid is unlikely to be successful. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: particularly for policy and planning projects, the project design needs to be clear about outcomes while maintaining flexibility in the way to achieve the desired results. It should be relatively easy to reallocate funds and change activities as specific PIC needs and practical opportunities change during the project lifetime.

• Policy and plan development. Policies which are generic and prepared primarily by outside experts are unlikely to be effective. Energy policies prepared primarily by government energy officers usually have little status within overall policy efforts. A policy without mechanisms for implementation is likely to sit unused on a shelf. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: 1) To be effective, energy policies must have real input from PICs, preferably led by PICs, rather than primarily externally driven and written by

46 For example: Country Capacity Development Needs and Priorities: Report for Small Island Development States

(Albert Binger for GEF; Sept 2000); and Energy for Sustainable Development: A Policy Agenda (ed. Johansson & Goldemberg; UNDP, 2002).


57

outsiders. 2) The policy development process should assure that national planning and finance ministries are centrally involved or they are unlikely to subsequently support it. 3) Policies should be accompanied by practical mechanisms for implementing them, with clear priorities and time-based goals.

• The reality of energy planning in PICs. Despite twenty years of energy sector assistance, and training in planning methodologies, most PICs don't really carry out serious planning regarding energy supply and services. They respond to problems, not plan so problems are minimal when they do occur. They tend not to develop contingencies so the problems do not grow into emergencies. This is not a criticism of individuals but an observation regarding the declining status of planning within the region over the past decade or so. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: One lesson for PIEPSAP may be that it should not try to attempt the impossible but focus on planning processes which are achievable and practical for the country concerned.

• Technology-driven approaches. Some past energy initiatives have been based on specific technologies seeking an application rather than focussing on needs which need to be met to improve the qualities of people’s lives. Some initiatives have promoted renewable technologies which were unproven or unsuited to the problems they were meant to address while ignoring their sustainability.. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: 1) Practical solutions to PIC energy problems require institutional reform and support as much as – or more than – technical fixes. 2) Renewable energy within PICs should emphasise proven technologies, management systems which are adapted to local needs, good technical support, and user fees which cover operational and maintenance (O&M) costs.

• Politicians react when there are perceived gains. PIC decision-makers and senior politicians played attention to energy issues when there was a perceived crisis (oil in 1979) and when practical mechanisms to improve stability and obtain fair prices were made clear to them (mid-late 1980s). In the absence of a crisis or any clear benefit to them, the PIC leaders can be expected to pay lip service to energy. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: It is important that line agencies are aware of practical options to implement the PIEPP and the short-to-medium term financial and economic benefits of doing so. PIEPSAP must assure that information on energy options, and their costs and benefits, are available to decision makers in a form they can understand and act upon.

• Limitations of adding energy sections to national plans. National PIC plans and strategies vary from country to country in terms of their role in influencing financial allocations for public service staffing and capital expenditures. Some past energy planning efforts may not have appreciated the relative strengths or weaknesses of national social-economic planning within different PICs. Some planning agencies have become weak after don-sizing reforms whereas others may be more influential. Lesson learned: It may not suffice to assist planners add a good energy chapter to a weak national plan which does not have links to the budgeting process. Energy plans must be tailored to the situations of each country and the national planning cycles.

• Little real emphasis on the needs of poor. Much policy and planning work in the PICs has been valuable but tends to emphasise improved services to those who already have adequate access to modern energy forms. In some PICs, surveys suggest that rural low-income villagers pay more for substandard energy services (lighting cooking, batteries for radio) than it would cost to provide basic electrification. Policies and plans have not been developed to meet their needs. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Perhaps one lesson is that national electricity tariffs (rather than localised tariffs adjusted to local cost of supply) may appear fair to politicians but in some cases can actually work against the interests of low-income Pacific Islanders. Alternative pricing policies should be assessed carefully, not rejected out of hand.

2) Issues and Lessons from Previous (Non-energy) UN Assistance to PICs

During the process of developing the UN system Common Country Assessments (CCAs) and Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAFs) for several PICs in 2001-2002, a number of issues and lessons regarding development assistance to the region were distilled from evaluation reports (of ILO, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNIFEM and WHO) and through interviews with their staff and others within PICs. These were not specific to energy but some are relevant to the PIEPSAP energy policy and planning project. Some have been are edited with the lessons modified slightly for relevance to energy. Overall Programme Designs and Priorities: • Mutually reinforcing activities. Where the UN system builds on successful past activities, and develops

an integrated and mutually reinforcing set of interventions, the new interventions are likely to more successful. Although this is a common-sense conclusion, it is particularly important for small countries with very limited capacity to manage development assistance. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Build on past successes and genuinely link the project where


58

appropriate to other energy initiatives and to broader assistance efforts to PICs on economic, social and environmental policy and planning.

• Focus on fewer, better-defined priorities. Following from the above lesson, the project should address a limited number of clearly identified priorities. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Energy issues are ubiquitous, involving all sectors of society. Don’t try to cover all aspects of energy policy & planning but rather allocate scarce resources where the impact is likely to be significant (a point made in part 1 above).

• Reducing complexity of programme and project design. Some past PIC project designs have been far too complicated. They are difficult for the agencies to manage and even more difficult for PICs to manage for various reasons including limited staff and the division of implementation responsibility among a number of ministries. Inter-ministry collaboration has generally been poor within PIC governments. Some projects and their activities lack clear priorities or measurable outputs. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Projects should be designed from the outset to be flexible and to match local capabilities to implement and manage. They should be less complex and more focussed. Where practical, there should be a single ministry (or NGO) with overall responsibility. The outputs expected should be prioritised, transparent, clear and measurable.

• Improving local ownership. Some projects (particularly regional ones) lack national ownership, which reduces their effectiveness. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Project design should include broad participation among government, civil society and donor partners and a transparent development process.

• Applying lessons from outside the region. There is a vast reservoir of knowledge and experience from outside the Pacific, which is not always used effectively in the PICs. Experiences on effective poverty reduction strategies for island states could be adapted for the Pacific. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Projects should include mechanisms to use and adopt appropriate experiences from other small island states.

• Difficulty of serving remote, rural populations. The populations of many PICs are spread over many islands with relatively poor services to outer islands. Financial constraints (donor agency and government) and poor transport / communications often result in a concentration of efforts on the main island. High rates of migration to the main islands or capital make it even more urgent to deal effectively with service delivery to rural areas. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Despite past efforts, capital versus. outer island development gaps appear to be widening. Strengthening service delivery to outer islands needs to be an explicitly higher overall priority for all projects.

Programme Management: • Inadequate UN programme management. Performance for many projects would be improved if more

effective mechanisms were in place for monitoring and reporting. These include audits/quality checks, better management training, better understanding among agency staff and local people of logframe and results-based management approaches, regular reviews and in-country monitoring, and standard reporting formats. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: More effective mechanisms are required, some of which would be easier to implement with an in-country project presence.

• Improving financial management of UN projects. Within most PICs, there is a very limited number of officials with adequate financial management and administrative skills, low absorptive capacity, and accounting standards that are variable and sometimes non-transparent. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: There is a need for careful and ongoing monitoring of the use of funds allocated for in-country UN project activities.

• Some UN initiatives lack high level support. A number of UN project initiatives require support from the highest levels of government to give them legitimacy. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Seeking, and obtaining, support at the highest levels is worth the considerable effort often involved. Some worthwhile activities that lack high-level support, or indeed are opposde by senior decision-makers, may not be worth pursuing.

• Local cost-sharing. For some agencies, delivery of some high-priority services to PICs has improved where the country pays an agreed element or portion of costs. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: UN agencies should explore more cost-sharing opportunities with the PIC governments.

Advocacy and Communications: • Importance and limitations of awareness building efforts. Awareness has generally increased

throughout the PICs on issues related to climate change / sea-level rise and their links to energy use. However, this awareness does not necessarily lead to improvements in policies or activities in the short-term.


59

Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: For projects, awareness raising efforts should continue for extended periods and be followed-up with additional practical activities.

• Advocacy and communications. UN agencies have all been active in advocacy initiatives using a wide variety of communications tools. However, not enough is being done and not enough people are being effectively reached. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Projects should generally should use radio (the medium reaching the most people) more effectively. Advocacy and communications strategies should be strengthened and be included in all projects.

• Value of National Coordinating Committees. UN support for national coordinating committees can be an effective way of developing national policies & reports but they often have vague responsibilities and powers. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans : NCCs or project Advisory Committees (PACs) need to have clear membership, purposes, and responsibilities to produce or oversee activities.

Cross-Cutting Lessons: • Uncertain benefits for targeted groups. For some agencies, despite an explicit emphasis on women,

youth, and poor or disadvantaged groups in their projects, there is little evidence that they have adequately benefited. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Projects must be more pro-active in assuring that the planned beneficiaries do in fact benefit.

• Inadequate data collection, analysis, and distribution. Up-to-date and regular data and information for analysis, policy development, decision-making, monitoring, evaluation etc. are needed for most sectors. There is a great deal of duplication in data collection and a considerable amount of inconsistent data used nationally and within agencies but no easy solution to the problem. Many project reviews, midterm reviews, etc. have suffered from a lack of data and its inconsistency. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: There is a need to strengthen capacity to collect, analyse and effectively use data / information for a wide variety of purposes nationally and with regional organisations and UN agencies that serve the PICs.

• Addressing gender issues. It has been difficult to get key government agencies and men involved in gender issues including equal educational attainment, equal access to good employment, equal access to energy services, etc. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: As gender is not a ‘women’s issue’, there is a need to actively involve more men in addressing gender issues in the energy sector.

• Need for continual, and more appropriate, human resources development. Donors have provided a wide variety of training and HRD continuously for many years. Due, however, to migration, retirement, deaths, and a high rate of occupational mobility, there will be a continuing need at current or higher levels for many years if development goals are to be met. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: HRD needs must be regularly monitored, with support modified but continued at current levels or higher.

• Support for small business development. There has been a substantial growth in small outer islands business development but resources have been insufficient to meet demands for advisory services, training and micro-finance. Although outer island private sector development is a key national objective in most PICs, a ‘credit gap’ severely restricts small business development. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Village banks and other vehicles for outer island development need additional resources for training, management and microfinance if the urban/rural gaps in access to energy services are to be reduced and substantial employment created.

• More effective mainstreaming. There have long been efforts to ‘mainstream’ UN activities in the Pacific. Long terms effects are likely to be more effective when projects work closely with public sector reform programmes and help to incorporate funding in the annual government budgeting process. Lesson learned for energy policies/plans: Effective ‘mainstreaming’ requires close cooperation with the agencies which are involved in real decision making and national budget allocations.


60

Annex F: Overview of the ‘Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan’ The Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan (PIEPP) is an important document and consensus agreement among PICs, and between the PICs and the regional organisations in the Pacific involved in various aspects of energy development. This overview is a brief, edited summary of those portions of the document dealing with policy and planning – and other areas relevant to PIEPSAP – with some added explanatory text.

The Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan was developed by the CROP Energy Working Group47 over several years. As the title suggests, it contains both an energy policy component and a planning component. The policy component was ‘affirmed’ by regional energy officials in 2002 as a guideline for PIC national energy policies (to be adapted to the circumstances of each country). PIEPP leads with a vision of ‘available, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for sustainable development for all Pacific islanders.’ Within PIEPP, sustainable development is defined as “a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the directions of investment, the orientation of technological change, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations.”

The PIEPP strategic planning component has not been finalised and there are differing opinions within CROP on the extent to which it has been endorsed by PIC governments. Nonetheless it constitutes an agreement among CROP members of their respective responsibilities and is being used to coordinate their energy activities. One of the objectives of the Pacific Islands Energy for Sustainable Development (PIESD) initiative is to implement PIEPP.

PIEEP organises the energy sector for analysis according to six themes: 1) Regional energy sector coordination; 2) Energy policy and planning; 3) Petroleum; 4) Renewable energy; 5) Electric power; and 6) Energy use in transport. There are also four cross-cutting issues, which apply to all six themes: 7) Energy for rural areas and remote islands; 8) Environmental aspects of energy use; 9) Energy efficiency and conservation; and 10) Human and institutional capacity development in the energy sector.

For each of the above ten topics, there are specific overall themes and goals: 1) Regional coordination: Cooperative sectoral co-ordination that maximises the impact of regional resources

and capabilities. 2) Policies and planning: Open and consultative cross-sectoral policy development and integrated planning to

achieve sustainable supply and use of energy. 3) Power: Reliable, safe and affordable access to electric power for all rural and urban Pacific islanders. 4) Transportation: Environmentally clean, energy efficient, and cost effective transportation. 5) Renewable energy: An increased share of renewable energy in the region’s energy supply. 6) Petroleum: Safe, reliable, and affordable supplies of petroleum products to all rural and urban areas. 7) Rural and remote islands: Reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy for social and economic

development of rural areas and remote islands. 8) Environment: Environmentally sustainable development and use of energy resources. 9) Efficiency and conservation: Optimised energy consumption in all sectors of the economy and society. 10) Human & institutional capacity: Adequate human and institutional capacity to plan, manage, and develop

the energy sector.

To achieve these goals, policies are to be supported by PIEPP’s detailed strategic plan for implementation (not formally endorsed by governments), organised as follows: • Policies. Policies for each goal establish rules by which specific strategies and actions are to achieve the

goals. They are long-term, but may be reviewed and changed every 3–5 years if necessary. • Strategies. There are strategies for each policy, i.e. the means by which goals will be reached. They are

medium-term, but may be reviewed and changed on a 1–3 year cycle as required. • Activities. Activities under each strategy are means by which strategies are implemented. They should be

monitored continually and modified annually if needed.

47 The EWG consists (Nov. 2003) of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS; chair), South Pacific Applied

Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP), and University of the South Pacific (USP) as full members. The Pacific Power Association (PPA), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) are participants but not CROP members. Greenpeace Pacific and the Pacific Concerns Resource Centre (PCRC) are observers. The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), which no longer has an energy programme, is a past member.


61

• Responsibility. Each activity has a lead organisation, responsible for initiation, coordination, and supporting regional stakeholders as appropriate. National governments are stakeholders in all activities.

• Indicators. Each activity includes indicators of success, assumptions regarding the environment for implementation, and a time-frame for completion.

For Theme 2, Policy and Planning — with the overall goal of ‘open and consultative cross-sectoral policy development and integrated planning to achieve sustainable supply and use of energy’ — there are five policies within PIEP: 2.1 Ensure energy sector policy and planning addresses the availability and efficient use of sufficient,

affordable and appropriate sources of energy, taking into account a balance of social, cultural, technological, institutional, environmental, economic, and global market issues.

2.2 Promote sustainable energy options for electricity generation, transportation, water supply, health care, education, telecommunication, food supply, and income generation.

2.3 Promote the development of appropriate regulatory guidelines to meet the needs of consumers resulting from sector reforms.

2.4 Assess and promote indigenous resource potential and technical capacity for all aspects of sector planning and development.

2.5 Promote policy mechanisms for efficient use of energy in all sectors of the economy.

For each of the five policies of theme 2, there are specific strategies, repeated in full below from the PIEEP for which specific regional CROP agencies are responsible. A similar structure is implicitly suggested for national PIC energy plans and policies.

Areas to be addressed in part through PIEPSAP are highlighted below:

Goal 2: Policy & planning: Open and consultative cross-sectoral policy development and integrated planning to achieve sustainable supply and use of energy

Strategies for Policy 2.1: Energy policy addresses a balance (etc.)

Strategy 2.1.1: Promote integrated national energy policy development and planning

Activities Lead Organisation [Stakeholders]

Indicators [Means of Verification]

Assumptions/Risks [Mitigation]

Time Frame

Support establishment of national energy policy and planning committees

SOPAC Sectoral issues considered in energy policy and planning.

Different sectors may have different focus, making integrated planning problematic

2003 – 2005

Strengthen national capacity to develop and promote policies and plans

SOPAC Persons trained Persons are available 2003 – 2005

Provide technical assistance for development of national energy policies thru integrated approach

SOPAC Draft National Energy Policy developed / reviewed

Government commitment at highest political level National skill in policy development

2003 – 2005

Provide technical assistance for development of national energy plans through an integrated approach

SOPAC Draft National Energy Policy developed / reviewed

Government commitment at highest political level Clear development goals National skill in planning

2003 – 2005

Strategies for Policy 2.2: Promote sustainable energy options for electricity, transport, (etc.)

Strategy 2.2.2: Stimulate private sector participation in energy programmes

Identify and promote best-practice regulations to improve market operations

SOPAC [PPA}

National Energy Policy reviewed. Legal, financial & economic framework in place

Small market size 2003 – 2005

Provide assistance to develop national frameworks to facilitate formation of Energy Service Companies

SOPAC [PPA} ESCOs established Small market size 2003 –

2005

Identify and promote incentives for partnerships in developing local energy resources

SOPAC [PPA}

Creation of national incentive programmes Appropriate legal frameworks 2003 –

2005

Note: This table and the following tables are taken excerpted from PIEPP (PIFS, Suva; October 2002)


62

Strategy 2.2.2: Stimulate private sector participation in energy programmes (Continued)




Time Frame

Identify and promote incentives for partnerships in developing local energy resources

SOPAC [PPA}

Creation of national incentive programmes Appropriate legal frameworks 2003 –

2005

Strategy 2.2.3: Promote energy programmes for social development Identify links between social development and energy programmes

PIFS * [CROP EWG] Working paper — 2003

Provide recommendations on the integration of social development initiatives into energy programmes

PIFS * [CROP EWG] Reports — 2003 –

2005

Strategies for Policy 2.3: Promote the development of appropriate regulatory guidelines (etc.)

Strategy 2.3.1: Develop model legislation and regulations

Identify best-practice regulations from existing experiences

PIFS * [PPA] Report — 2004

Develop model guidelines PIFS * [PPA] Report — 2004

Note: * PIFS (the EWG chair) has indicated informally that it has no objection to SOPAC activities in these areas, although it would expect to be consulted, kept informed, and work together as far as practicable.

Strategies for Policy 2.4: Assess and promote indigenous resource potential (etc.)

Strategy 2.4.1: Develop a framework for increased use of indigenous energy resources




Time Frame

Identify barriers to widespread use of indigenous energy resources

SPREP CROP EWG PIREP and other reports — 2003 –

2005

Strategies for Policy 2.5: Promote policy mechanisms for efficient use of energy (etc.)

Strategy 2.5.1: Promote inclusion of energy efficiency in national policies and plans




Time Frame

Promote requirements for energy efficiency in integrated planning and policy development

SOPAC [CROP EWG] Model guidelines Integrated planning

adopted 2003 – 2005

In addition to the Theme #2, specific to Policies and Planning, there are other PIEPP themes which will be addressed through PIEPP. These are listed below. Goal 5. Renewable Energy: An increased share of renewable energy in the region’s energy supply

Policy 5.2: Promote effective management of grid-connected & stand-alone renewable-based power systems

Strategy 5.2.1: Support establishment and management of stand-alone renewable-based power systems by the power utilities




Time Frame

Review power utility legislation to enable power utilities to manage stand alone power systems

SOPAC 2007 – 2012

Note: Implementing policy 5.2 would also require similar reviews for legislation covering grid-based RE but there is no specific activity.


63

Policy 5.3: Promote level playing field for renewable & conventional energy sources & technologies

Strategy 5.3.1: Remove barriers to widespread application & reduction in implementation costs of RETs




Time Frame

Remove biased management, technical, institutional, training, financial, policy, information and awareness barriers

SOPAC Number of barriers removed

Barrier removal mechanisms are replicable among PICs & Territories

2005 - 2007

Implement barrier removal activities SOPAC Not

specified Policy 5.4: Promote partnerships between the private and public sectors and mobilise external financing to

develop renewable energy initiatives

Strategy 5.4.1: Implement externally financed projects through foreign and local, and private and public sectors partnerships




Time Frame

Increase local private sector participation in renewable energy development

SOPAC Not specified

Produce a tender invitation and analysis model which incorporates foreign and local, and private and public sector partnerships

SOPAC No. of contracts established

Donors agree to the established partnerships 2005

Conduct training workshops on tender preparations, analysis and management

Not specified

Goal 7. Rural and Remote Islands: Goal: Reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy supplies for the

social and economic development of rural and remote islands

Policy 7.2: Promote opportunities for rural energy service companies and local manufacturers to supply equipment and human resources for project design, implementation, management and maintenance

Strategy 7.2.1 Support the establishment of rural energy service companies (RESCOs)




Time Frame

Review existing legislations to support the establishment of RESCOs

SOPAC Regional capacity for technical assistance

2007-2012

Institutionalise a regulatory framework for RESCOs SOPAC Not

specified Conduct training workshops on the legal, technical and financial management of RESCOs

SOPAC Not specified

Goal 8: Environment: Environmentally sustainable development of energy sources & use of energy within region

Policy 8.3: Integrate environmental regulations into all energy-related plans Strategy 8.3.1 Promote integration of environmental standards & regulations into energy-related plans




Time Frame

Environmental issues addressed in the national energy policy

SPREP Regulations developed Regulations adopted 2003 -

2005

Note: SPREP has the lead role but presumably SOPAC has input as lead agency for energy planning.


64

Goal 9. Efficiency & conservation: Optimised energy consumption in all sectors of regional economy and society

Policy 9.1 Improve efficiency of energy production, transmission and distribution through SSM

Strategy 9.1.1 Analyse options for increasing energy efficiency




Time Frame

Identify policy and market barriers to energy efficiency SOPAC 2003-

2005 Develop model regulations covering technologies for power production

SOPAC A framework for energy efficiency programme in place

Industry players willing to invest in energy efficiency programmes

Develop model regulations for other sectors of the economy such as the building industry, agriculture, and manufacturing

SOPAC

Note: SSM is Supply Side Management

Policy 9.2: Introduce DSM for enhancing energy efficiency & conservation to reduce the energy consumption in government facilities, residential & commercial buildings, industry, agriculture & forestry

Strategy 9.2.1: Develop national Demand Side Management (DSM) plans Provide technical assistance to develop national DSM plans SOPAC Management plans

developed National support and acceptance

Provide technical assistance to integrate national DSM plans into national energy sector development plans

SOPAC DSM plans integrated Plan not integrated / acceptance

Provide TA for national implementation of DSM plans SOPAC Management plans

implemented National support / acceptance

Monitor and report on the impact of implementing the management plans

SOPAC Improved management of demand side management activities

Ability to monitor the change in consumer / user profiles

Strategy 9.2.4: Identify technologies, equipment and appliances for use in demand side management Identify appropriate technolo-gies, equipment and appliances that are cost effective for use in demand side applications

SOPAC / PPA Technologies, equipment and appliances identified

Technologies, equipment and appliance required are able to be identified

Investigate cost effective methods for bulk purchase and supply of energy efficient equipment and appliances

SOPAC / PPA Purchase and supply arrangements identified and established

Economies of scale can be created (Volumes too small / relative distances / isolation)

Recommend supply & purchase options for equipment & appliances for priority areas

SOPAC / PPA Recommendations available

Appropriate supply and purchase arrangements can be negotiated

Policy 9.4 Promote appropriate packages of incentives (including taxes, duties & tariffs) to encourage efficient energy use)

Strategy 9.4.1: Review taxes, duties and tariffs to promote import of energy-efficient appliances and materials Provide technical assistance to develop national action plans for recommended modifications to existing taxes, duties and tariffs

SOPAC [PIFS]

Action plans Cabinet papers

No national participation / acceptance of recommendations

Review impact on financial and import statistics

SOPAC [PIFS]

Changes in financial and import statistics

Appropriate records are available and accurate

Even this lengthy excerpt from the PIEPP does not exhaust all areas that PIEPSAP might address48 but it indicates the broad range of policy and planning related activities for which SOPAC has a mandate.

48 One short-term regional project cannot, of course, expect to fully and effectively address all of the areas listed above.


65

Annex G: Pro Forma Workplan and Summary Reporting Formats (Annual and Quarterly) PIEPSAP Workplan for the Period: month day 2004 – month day 2004 An annual project workplan (and quarterly updates) will include an overall narrative supplemented by a summary prepared in the following format or a similar one approved by UNDP Samoa that provides the same information. This will cover all project outcomes, all outputs within that objective and all activities to achieve the planned output.

Outcome 1: Repeat from the project document (or latest agreed revision). This is also sometimes referred to as ‘Objective’ 1: Comment: Provide explanatory note if needed so that the output or objective is quite clear. Output 1.1: State the agreed output. Note if this has changed from the previous workplan. If so, who authorised the change?

Activity Summary Activity Description Priority Timing ( begin; end )

Main Responsibility PIEPSAP Other

Cooperating organisations

Financial Implications Comments

1.1.1 1

1.1.2 2

1.1.3 1

1.1.4 3

Notes on format: Col. 2: Activity A brief summary explaining the activity. Col. 3: Priority It is sometimes impossible for various reasons to complete all planned activities so it is useful for project staff, PICs and UNDP if there is a

clear sense of priority: Priority 1 is highest; priority 2 activities are important but can if necessary be delayed; priority 3 could be delayed to allow completion of higher priority work.

Col 4: Timing Indicate the week or month work is expected to begin and expected to be completed. Often the expected completion date is more important. Col 5/6: Responsibility Indicate the PIEPSAP staff member responsible for carrying out the work or overseeing others; indicate government officers or others

who share responsibility. Col 7: Cooperation Indicate EWG organisation, government departments or others who are actively participating in the activity. Col 8: Finance To the extent practical indicate the cost to the project in $ or at least the non-staff input (e.g. 500 copies of a report) Col 9: Comments Any brief comments useful for the context of activity, links to other activities, reasons for delays, etc. With relatively minor changes, as shown on the next page, the format can be adapted for summary reporting purposes as well.


66

PIEPSAP Summary Report for the Period: month day 2004 – month day 2004 The PICs will be most interested in activities in their own countries so try to separate reporting into national and regional activities in a way which is easy to read and follow.

Outcome 1: Repeat from the project document (or latest agreed revision). : Comment: Provide explanatory note if needed so that the output or objective is quite clear. Output 1.1: State the agreed output. Note if this has changed from the previous workplan. If so, who authorised the change? National: Results Achieved for Individual PICs During Reporting Period: Quarter ending June 2004




Results for reporting period (include any recommendations)

1.1.1 1

1.1.2 2

1.1.3 1

1.1.4 3

Notes on format: Col. 2 - 6: Same as workplan format on previous page Last column: Summary of what was actually achieved and the reasons for any delays or reasons if target has not been met.

Include any proposed remedial actions or other recommendations. Regional: Results Achieved at the Regional Level During Reporting Period: Quarter ending June 2004




Results for reporting period (include any recommendations)

1.1.1 1

1.1.2 2

1.1.3 1

1.1.4 3


62

PIEPSAP Annex H: Job Descriptions and Terms of Reference

Project Manager (PM) Energy Adviser (EA) on Economic, Financial,

Legal and Regulatory Issues Project Officer (PO)

Note on Consultants’ TOR

Regional Project Advisory Committee (RPAC)

Annual Review Meeting (ARM)

PIEPSAP Country Teams


63

Pacific Island Energy Policies and Strategic Action Planning Project (PIEPSAP)

Terms of Reference: Project Manager (PM) Overview of the project and position. The development goal of the Pacific Island Energy Policies and Strategic Action Planning Project (PIEPSAP) is the development of national energy policies, strategic action plans and practical mechanisms within fourteen Pacific Island Countries (PICs), to influence national efforts toward achieving available, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for sustainable development for all Pacific islanders. PIEPSAP is a 3-year project financed by the Government of Denmark, through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as implementing agency and executed by the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) based in Suva, Fiji. The Project Manager (PM) will have overall responsibility for managing PIEPSAP. Recruitment will be within Grade J of the SOPAC scale, equivalent to a Senior Energy Adviser.

Background. The PICs are heavily dependent on imported petroleum fuels, which account for well over 80% of commercial energy use within nearly all countries. There has been assistance from a number of agencies over the past 20 years to assess energy issues and options, negotiate improved terms of petroleum fuel supply, expand urban and rural electrification, and develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels. However, these efforts have largely been piecemeal rather than part of broad internally consistent energy policies and have had limited success. Among the PICs, only two have up-to-date energy policies approved at Cabinet level. Two or three others are under development, a few countries have policies from about 1996 which were never formalised or are effectively defunct, and several have sought assistance from SOPAC and others to update or develop policies. Even where policies are in place, they tend to be weak regarding the role of energy in poverty reduction and environmental sustainability. The energy sections of national strategic plans, where they exist, are also weak, tending to concentrate on national power sector investment needs. Policy frameworks also lack practical and achievable associated action plans for implementing the policies. This project is part of a partnership between the European Union Energy Initiative for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development (EUEI) and the Pacific Islands Energy for Sustainable Development (PIESD) initiative. It is designed to improve the capacity of PICs to develop practical national energy policies, and the strategic plans to implement the policies. Assistance will help develop practical instruments and mechanisms (legal, regulatory and financial incentives; institutional and capacity building support; investment opportunities, etc.). It will be carried out within the broad guidelines of the regional Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan (PIEPP), the policy portion of which was approved by PIC energy officials in 2002 as a framework for providing ‘available, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for sustainable development for all Pacific islanders.’ Main Functions of the Project Manager. The PM will be accountable to both the Director of SOPAC and to UNDP Samoa for the overall management of PIEPSAP, the quality, timeliness and effectiveness of the services PIEPSAP provides and the activities it carries out, and for the use of funds provided to it. He/she may also work, if so directed by UNDP Samoa, on a day-to-day basis with identified staff at the UNDP Suva office. The PM will be the focal point for communications to the participating countries, regional organisations, and others concerning the implementation of the project. The PM will provide a coordination and management structure for the implementation of PIEPSAP, functioning in accordance with the rules and procedures of UNDP. The PM, operating as an employee of SOPAC, will liaise with national PIEPSAP Country Teams, the Regional Project Advisory Committee (RPAC) and UNDP Samoa, in developing the annual project work plan. The work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day implementation of the project activities, priorities for those activities, and the integration of parallel initiatives. He/she will be responsible for the project execution, which will be fully consistent with UNDP National Execution (NEX) procedures, as


64

described in the NEX Manual, and for the achievement of project development objectives. He/she will also be responsible for providing to UNDP all required reports, including the submission of work plans and financial reports. SOPAC on the advice of the PM shall recruit, as appropriate, experts to undertake activities at regional and national levels in cooperation with the participating PICs and the PAC. The PM will develop a concept proposal for a possible subsequent Phase II of the project. The PM will be responsible for all substantive, managerial and financial reports from the project. Within SOPAC, the PM will work exclusively with the PIEPSAP project. As a staff member of SOPAC, the PM will consult and coordinate closely with SOPAC management and other representatives of SOPAC (including the Manager of the Community Lifelines Programme), reporting periodically to the SOPAC Director and to the UNDP Resident Representative in Samoa or their delegated representatives on developments and progress on the project. Supplementary technical guidelines will be provided by UNDP Samoa. He/she will be required to travel extensively within the region, which has health hazards including malaria, dengue fever, non-potable water supplies and poor sanitary facilities. In particular the PM will: Assume general responsibility for the day-to-day management and implementation of all project

activities and ensure the realization of project objectives. Prepare the annual work plans of the project, in a manner consistent with the reporting, budgeting,

monitoring and evaluation procedures of SOPAC, and UNDP’s guidelines for National Execution (NEX), on the basis of the Project Document (ProDoc), and in close consultation and cooperation with the national PIEPSAP Country Teams and regional PAC.

Coordinate and monitor the activities described in the work plan. Ensure that project activities conform to the agreed ProDoc. Be responsible overall for the preparation of a Regional Planning and Consultative Meeting to

provide a clear understanding by project proponents on the objectives and outputs of the project, and to modify as necessary, and agree on, contents and priorities within the ‘menu of options for possible PIEPSAP interventions’ described in Part II of the ProDoc.

Facilitate the detailed in-country assessments of the status and needs of participating countries’ energy policies and plans.

Coordinate with experts the preparation and implementation of In-country Workshops in the participating PICs as necessary to discuss national needs, results of in-country studies and draft intervention mechanisms, and follow-up needs.

Foster and establish links with, and cooperate closely with, the staff of other related energy initiatives such as REEP, PIREP, the PPA EUEI project and RCESD* including, where practicable joint or co-sponsored activities, workshops, studies, etc.

Work on appropriate and viable follow-up investments which result from the project (and from the work of other related initiatives such as REEP, PIREP, the PPA EUEI project and RCESD.

Develop a project concept proposal for a possible Phase II of PIEPSAP. Prepare and oversee the development of Terms of Reference (TOR) for the necessary contractors and

consultants; and oversee the work of the consultants. Prepare progress reports in accordance with SOPAC and UNDP requirements and procedures. Provide guidance to consultants and any contractors. Review consultants' reports and ensure that their results and data are provided to PIEPSAP in

electronic as well as hard-copy form.

* REEP is the ADB’s Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program for the Pacific, PIREP is the

UNDP/GEF/SPREP Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Project, the PPA/EUEI project is Human Resource Development and Energy Efficiency within PIC National Power Utilities, and RCESD is the UNDP’s Asia/Pacific Regional Cooperation Initiative on Energy and Sustainable Development project, based in Bangkok.


65

Facilitate liaison and networking between and among the PIEPSAP Country Teams, regional organisations, key stakeholders and other individuals involved in project planning, monitoring and implementation.

Serve as the Secretary of the RPAC and ensure the accuracy of its reports. Ensure to the extent possible consistency among the various PIEPSAP project elements and the

related activities provided or funded by other donor organisations. Coordinate and oversee the preparation of the substantive and operational reports for PIEPSAP

implementation. Prepare progress reports concerning project activities. Prepare financial reports.

Timing. This assignment is to be undertaken over a 36 months period.

Qualifications. The PM preferably shall have all of the following basic qualifications and expertise: Advanced university degree (at least MSc or equivalent) from a recognised university in energy

policy or planning, energy economics, or another field relevant to the needs of the project;

• A minimum of 15 years experience working in relevant fields, at least for part of this time in management positions.

Extensive knowledge and experience with the policy, legal, institutional, economic, financial and regulatory framework of the energy sector, preferably in the Pacific;

Previous experience in the operational aspects of large UN-funded projects or similar regional / multi-country projects;

The ability to manage the work of subordinates and consultants; A proven ability to work as part of an interdisciplinary and/or multi-cultural team; Demonstrated capacity for project leadership and management of a high quality, including the ability

to meet deadlines; Excellent working knowledge of written and oral English.

Selection Criteria. In addition to having the above required knowledge, skills and experience, applicants will be assessed based on interview performance and work sample and the following additional criteria: • Proven management skills relevant to regional programmes; • Aptitude for the provision of high quality service; • Clarity, confidence and articulateness in both oral and written communication; • Strong analytical skills and the ability to master new material quickly; • Ability to set priorities successfully in order to meet tight deadlines; • Ability to work effectively in a cross cultural environment; and • Willingness to undertake frequent travel within the PIC region.


66


Terms of Reference: Energy Adviser (EA) on Economic, Financial, Legal and Regulatory Issues

Overview of project and position. The development goal of the Pacific Island Energy Policies and Strategic Action Planning Project (PIEPSAP) is the development of national energy policies, strategic action plans and practical mechanisms within fourteen Pacific Island Countries (PICs), to influence national efforts toward achieving available, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for sustainable development for all Pacific islanders. PIEPSAP is a 3-year project financed by the Government of Denmark, through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as implementing agency and executed by the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) based in Suva, Fiji.

The Energy Adviser (EA): Economic, Financial, Legal and Regulatory Issues will be responsible, under the PM, for developing and implementing a broad range of interventions to improve the legal and regulatory mechanisms to implement PIC energy policies and plans. He/she will be recruited within SOPAC grade I, equivalent to an Energy Adviser.

Background. The PICs are heavily dependent on imported petroleum fuels, which account for well over 80% of commercial energy use within nearly all countries. There has been assistance from a number of agencies over the past 20 years to assess energy issues and options, negotiate improved terms of petroleum fuel supply, expand urban and rural electrification, and develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels. However, these efforts have largely been piecemeal rather than part of broad internally consistent energy policies and have had limited success. Among the PICs, only two have up-to-date energy policies approved at Cabinet level. Two or three others are under development, a few countries have policies from about 1996 which were never formalised or are effectively defunct, and several have sought assistance from SOPAC and others to update or develop policies. Even where policies are in place, they tend to be weak regarding the role of energy in poverty reduction and environmental sustainability. The energy sections of national strategic plans, where they exist, are also weak, tending to concentrate on national power sector investment needs. Policy frameworks also lack practical and achievable associated action plans for implementing the policies. This project is part of a partnership between the European Union Energy Initiative for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development (EUEI) and the Pacific Islands Energy for Sustainable Development (PIESD) initiative and is designed to improve the capacity of PICs to develop practical national energy policies, and the strategic plans to implement the policies. Assistance will help develop practical instruments and mechanisms (legal, regulatory and financial incentives; institutional and capacity building support; investment opportunities, etc.). It will be carried out within the broad guidelines of the regional Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan (PIEPP), the policy portion of which was approved by PIC energy officials in 2002 as a framework for providing ‘available, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for sustainable development for all Pacific islanders.’

Main functions of the Energy Adviser. Under the direction of the PM, the EA will assist develop, plan, implement and coordinate activities of PIEPSAP dealing with economic, financial, legal and regulatory mechanisms for practical implementation of PIC energy policies and plans. The EA should be capable of working with a minimum of supervision, able to establish priorities in his/her designated areas of responsibility, and be proactive in developing appropriate activities within his/her area of responsibility. The EA should have a broad understanding of energy policy development, energy planning, and possess a high level of interpersonal skills and cultural sensitivity. The EA Adviser will be required to provide a wide range of practical advice regarding energy policies and plans, particularly developing a range of economic, financial, legal and regulatory mechanisms. He/she will be required to travel extensively within the region, which has health hazards such as malaria, dengue fever, non-potable water supplies and poor sanitary facilities.


67

In particular the EA will: Prepare analyses, reports and case studies of economic, financial, legal and regulatory mechanisms

which are practical for small island states, including benefits and costs of various approaches. Provide a wide range of practical advice regarding energy policies and plans, particularly developing

a range of appropriate economic, financial, legal and regulatory interventions and mechanisms. Deputise for the PM in his/her absence. Cooperate closely and proactively with the staff of other related energy initiatives such as REEP,

PIREP, the PPA EUEI project and RCESD* including, where practicable development of joint or co-sponsored activities, workshops, studies, etc.

Conduct, facilitate and coordinate regional and national training activities, seminars and workshops related to energy policy and planning.

Assess opportunities for energy sector investments which arise from PIEPSAP or other initiatives and advise PICs on follow-up action required for appropriate investments to occur.

Asses PIC requests for project assistance, draft Terms of References (TORs) for consultancy services, and monitor consultants’ performance.

Carry out other duties appropriate to the position, as directed by the PM. Timing. This assignment is to be undertaken over a 36 months period. Required Knowledge, Skills and Experience. The EA preferably will have: • An MSc/MA (or equivalent) from a recognised university in energy policy or planning, energy

economics, energy law & regulation or another field relevant to the needs of the position. • Preferably five to ten years of experience in the energy sector in the region or other developing

countries with practical experience in economic/financial or legal/regulatory mechanisms for energy policies and plans.

• Fluency in written and spoken English. Selection Criteria. In addition to having the above required knowledge, skills and experience, applicants will be assessed based on interview performance and work sample and the following additional criteria: • Aptitude for the provision of high quality service; • Clarity, confidence and articulateness in both oral and written communication; • Strong analytical skills and the ability to master new material quickly; • Ability to set priorities successfully in order to meet tight deadlines; • Ability to be proactive in developing effective mechanisms for the PICs to implement their energy

policies and plans’ • Ability to work effectively in a cross cultural environment; and • Willingness to undertake frequent travel within the region.

* REEP is the ADB’s Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program for the Pacific, PIREP is the

UNDP/GEF/SPREP Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Project, the PPA/EUEI project is Human Resource Development and Energy Efficiency within PIC National Power Utilities, and RCESD is the UNDP’s Asia/Pacific Regional Cooperation Initiative on Energy and Sustainable Development Project, based in Bangkok.


68


Terms of Reference: Project Officer (PO)

The PIEPSAP Project Officer (PO) will be a Pacific Island national and will provide a range of administrative and substantive support including travel and workshop arrangements to the Project Manager (PM) and other project staff of PIEPSAP. He/she will assist with the preparation of project reports, energy policy/planning input to SOPAC’s Pacific Energy News (PEN) newsletter, case studies, a project web page and related work. The PO will be engaged at SOPAC salary scale E or F depending upon qualifications and experience. The PO will be responsible for:

• Providing efficient administrative and technical support services to the PM of PIEPSAP, to help achieve the goals and agreed outcomes of the project.

• Assisting other staff of PIEPSAP, and Pacific Islanders on attachment to PIEPSAP, to develop, plan and implement activities of the project.

The PO will provide timely and relevant assistance on a wide range of issues within PIEPSAP and should be capable of carrying out work under limited supervision, and be able to establish priorities in his/her designated areas of responsibility. A confident, mature and personable approach is expected. The PO will be part of a multidisciplinary team that may be required to travel within the region that has health hazards such as malaria, dengue fever, non-potable water supplies and poor sanitary facilities. Responsibilities. The PO will report to the PM. His/her duties will include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: 1) Day-to-Day Administration. Assist in the day-to-day administrative activities of the project: Drafting routine communications such as faxes, letters and memorandums. Completing local purchase requisitions and liaising with SOPAC’s Corporate Services division to

ensure that these are actioned. Maintaining the PIEPSAP filing system (electronic and hardcopies of all inward and outward

communications). Arranging travel and per diem for project staff. Maintaining a schedule of activities of project staff and consultants away from SOPAC. Other duties as may be assigned from time to time.

2) Workshops and Meetings. Assist the Travel and Conference Officer with the following activities of PIEPSAP relating to workshops and meetings: Preparing budgets for workshops and meetings. Arranging travel for workshop and meeting participants. Assist project professionals responsible for convening workshops and meetings with development of

provisional agendas and preparing presentations (e.g. PowerPoint). 3) Technical Activities Provide support to project professionals in the preparation and distribution of PIEPSAP reports

including input to SOPAC’s PEN. Provide materials relating to PIEPSAP to the SOPAC website and help develop the website as

appropriate for dissemination of project materials. Provide support to PIEPSAP professional staff in the delivery of training workshops. Provide other technical support (such as processing of data), as required by project professional staff..

Required Knowledge, Skills and Experience Relevant tertiary qualification(s) with demonstrated administrative and technical experience.


69

Good understanding of the working environment in Pacific Island countries. Preferably three years of relevant work experience. Demonstrated oral and written communication skills. Strong analytical and problem solving skills. Understanding of planning and budget processes. Strong PC based computer skills, preferably with Microsoft programmes [Word, Excel, PowerPoint]

and ability to use e-mail and the Internet. . Understanding of Excel spreadsheet principles. Demonstrated ability to take initiative and work under limited supervision.

Selection Criteria. In addition to having the above required knowledge, skills and experience, applicants will be assessed based on interview performance and work sample and the following other requirements: Aptitude for the provision of high quality service. Demonstrated oral and written communication skills in English. Strong analytical skills and the ability to master new material quickly. Demonstrated ability to meet deadlines. Ability to work as part of a team, with a high level of interpersonal skills and under limited

supervision. Demonstrated professional ethics. Ability to work effectively in a cross-cultural environment and awareness of the need for gender

sensitivity. A flexible approach and a willingness to assist with a variety of other tasks within the Secretariat and

a willingness to work outside normal hours.


70


Note on Terms of Reference for PIEPSAP Consultants PIEPSAP will engage a number of international/regional consultants to carry out specialist tasks, particularly those related to practical and achievable legal, regulatory, economic and financial mechanisms so that energy policies and plans can be effectively implemented. It is likely that of international/regional consultants will also be required to help PICs develop practical and viable partnership arrangements for energy sector investments. A number of national consultants will also be engaged to work with the international/regional consultants, to adapt their work to the context of their country, and/or to work on their own on implementation mechanisms, case studies, in-country workshops, etc. As early as possible in the implementation phase, the Project Manager (PM) will prepare Terms of Reference (TOR) for all consultancies expected to be carried out. However, in a complex project covering 14 countries, conditions may change and opportunities may arise which need to be dealt with quickly. The following overall guidelines apply to the project’s use of consultants.

• Where a consultant is to be engaged by SOPAC for PIEPSAP, UNDP Samoa must approve the TOR at least two weeks before the consultant begins.

• UNDP Samoa will advise SOPAC on specific requirements as per the UNDP procurement policies, rules and guidelines, e.g. the conditions under which SOPAC can engage consultants directly, the number of short-listed candidates required, remuneration levels, etc.

• Consultants will normally not be used for tasks which project staff can carry out but rather for studies, assessments, advice, etc. where specialist skills are needed. Where there is a heavy demand for specific services which are more general (e.g. strategic plans), consultants may be used with UNDP Samoa’s approval.

• International consultants working within PICs will often be expected to work as part of a team including any local consultants engaged by the project. In these cases, the TOR may include a mentoring or teaching role for the international consultant. Where local consultants contribute to a report, their input should be acknowledged.

• All TOR will include the obligation of the consultant to provide the report(s) in electronic as well as hard-copy form. To the extent applicable and practicable, data collected will be provided to the project on CD-ROM and copies of key reports received will be made available to PIEPSAP.

• All local consultants must also be approved by UNDP Samoa and their TOR and remuneration levels also approved.


71


Terms of Reference: PIEPSAP Regional Project Advisory Committee (RPAC) A Regional Project Advisory Committee (RPAC) will be established to provide technical advice and guidance to the Project Manager (PM) in planning, managing and co-ordinating PIEPSAP.

Main Functions. The RPAC has the following main functions: • to provide technical expertise, experience and knowledge from the Pacific region in energy sector

matters in general, and energy policy and planning in particular; • to be responsible for the coordination of PIEPSAP activities and activities of the regional

organisations the committee members represent to avoid duplication of effort; • to ensure that its advice regarding PIEPSAP activities is consistent with the Pacific Islands

Energy Policy and Plan (i.e. those sections approved by the PICs); • on request of the PM, to provide technical guidance on the execution of national level activities

under the PIEPSAP framework; • on request of the PM, to advise on the kinds and amounts of technical assistance (national,

regional or international) most appropriate for particular in-country activities; • on request of the PM, to advise on the appropriate division of responsibilities between the PM

and relevant regional organisations. Additional functions can be added by group consent as required.

Members. The RPAC will consist of representatives from regional organisations that participate in the CROP Energy Working Group (whether or not these organisations are CROP members), as well as two country representatives. It is preferable that one RPAC member represents a relevant civil society organisation. Other organisations with relevant activities (e.g. ADB) may be co-opted by the chair as appropriate and invited to attend RPAC meetings as observers. The following will be members of the RPAC:

ForSec EWG representative (chair) PPA EWG representative SOPAC EWG representative UNDP Samoa EWG representative SOPAC PIEPSAP PM (ex officio) PICs Two country representatives USP EWG representative NGO If co-opted * * NGO membership would probably be from Greenpeace Pacific, WWF Pacific, or Pacific Concerns Resource

Centre depending on which had an active interest at the time

Meeting Frequency. The RPAC will meet in person at least annually during the project period or more often if there is a need. The initial meeting will be at the inception Regional Planning and Consultation Meeting early in Year 1. The final RPAC meeting will be held during the final year at either the Ministerial Meeting (if it occurs) or with the DANIDA/EUEI external review mission.

If practicable, the RPAC will meet to discuss PIEPSAP matters at the same time as PAC meetings for PIREP or other regional energy initiatives with whom it shares overlapping memberships. The RPAC will communicate through e-mail, e-mail distribution lists, telephone, conference calls, fax, etc. between the meetings.

Since the majority of the RPAC members are EWG representatives, the RPAC meetings will typically be held back-to-back with EWG meetings.


72

Pacific Island Energy Policies and Strategic Action Planning Project (PIEPSAP) Terms of Reference: Annual Review Meeting (ARM)

The PM, in consultation with UNDP Samoa, will plan and coordinate the Annual Review Meeting (ARM). Main Functions. The ARM has the following main functions:

• to review the previous year’s performance of the project against its set targets and objectives; • to review, discuss, and approve the Annual Project Report (APR); • to consider, and advise on, the following year’s proposed work plan and budget; • to consider the extent to which project objectives are being met and advise, as necessary, on means

to improve project performance. Additional functions can be added by group consent as required. Members. The ARM will consist of representatives from each of the participating PICs, SOPAC as executing agency, UNDP Samoa as implementing agency and the Danish Government as donor (if practical). In addition if appropriate invitations will be sent to other developing partners working in the area of sustainable energy development in PICs. Meeting Frequency. The project will hold the ARM towards the end of each year. To the extent possible and practicable, the ARM will be held back-to-back with other relevant meetings.


73

Pacific Island Energy Policies and Strategic Action Planning Project (PIEPSAP) Terms of Reference: PIEPSAP Country Teams PIEPSAP Country Teams will be established in each of the participating countries to be responsible for management and coordination of the in-country project activities. Initially, the PIREP Country Team will meet with senior finance and planning officials and help select (self-select) the PIEPSAP Country Team with common membership of the two to the extent practical.

The PIEPSAP Country Team will meet prior to initial project activities and advise, clarify, and confirm the wider involvement of appropriate and relevant stakeholders at the national level; advise on the status of in-country activities; advise the Project Manager (PM) if, and to what extent external expertise/technical assistance may be required; and inform the PM about the scope of external expertise/technical assistance as necessary. In addition, the Country Teams will cooperate and coordinate with external experts and provide them with necessary input and assistance; inform the PM about progress and delays; and inform ministries and other agencies of government (officials and politicians) about PIEPSAP project and its outcomes. Main Functions. The main functions of the teams will be as follows: Prepare a preliminary meeting schedule based on the implementation plan/schedule of activities

specified in the project document (ProDoc) and confirmed or changed at the regional implementation/planning meeting.

Prepare a brief national status paper for each of the proposed in-country activities and thereby determine which, if any, of these activities does not need to be implemented (e.g. they already have been undertaken).

Based on the status paper, and in consultation with the PM, determine exactly which in-country activities are the highest priorities for implementation, which can be carried out by national professionals and other local experts, and which will require external assistance.

Prepare a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) or an Aide-Mémoire as appropriate to confirm implementation arrangements for in-country activities and confirm with the PM and UNDP Samoa.

Be responsible overseeing the PIEPSAP in-country activities implemented by national stakeholders (from government, private sector and/or civil society).

Through the PM, request external expertise/technical assistance for specific in-country activities that require external assistance.

Cooperate and coordinate with external experts (regional organisations, national consultants, regional consultants, international consultants, etc.) and provide them with necessary input and assistance.

Review external experts’ draft reports. Submit quarterly progress reports to the PM. Inform about, and justify to, the PM any delays or cost anomalies during the project. Inform government ministries and other agencies of government (professionals and politicians) about

PIEPSAP and its planned and actual outcomes.

Members. Because many of the planned interventions address economic, financial, legal and regulatory issues, a senior Ministry of Finance or National Planning representative will coordinate and chair the PIEPSAP Country Teams. Other representatives may also be involved as is appropriate, i.e. private sector and/or representatives from civil society. PIEPSAP Country Teams which will consist of a minimum of the following:

o a representative of the national planning or finance ministry (chair); o a senior officer from the PIC’s Energy Unit / Energy Office; and o a representative (additional to those above) of the PIREP Country Team (after PIREP ends, a

representative of the Environment department) Meeting Frequency. The Country Team will meet at least quarterly, and when the need arises.


74

PIEPSAP Annex I: Inception Report (to be attached later)


75

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

(Project of the Governments of the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu)

PROJECT DOCUMENT

Project Number: Project Title: Pacific Island Energy Policies And

Strategic Action Planning

Summary of UNDP and Cost- Sharing Financing (US$)

Project Short Title: PIEPSAP Other (Danish Government) 1,611,189

Implementing Agent: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Sub Total: 1,611,189

Executing Agent: South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC)

Beneficiary Countries: Parallel Financing: *

PIC governments (in-kind) 85,000

SOPAC (in-kind) 144,000

Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu

Sub Total: 229,000

Estimated Start Date: June 2004 Total: 1,840,189Estimated End Date: May 2007 * There is additional Danish parallel finance for a

joint review of PIEPSAP and the PPA PIC EUEI project.

Summary: PICs face a unique and challenging situation with respect to energy for sustainable development. Among others most of the population centres are small and isolated and markets are without economies of scale and furthermore are difficult to serve; supply security is vulnerable; a significant part of the PICs population has no access to electricity; generally PICs do not have indigenous petroleum sources and the development of renewable energy resources has been limited; the scope for market reform is restricted; environmental damage resulting from development and use of conventional energy sources has had significant effects on fragile island ecosystems; environmental vulnerability through climate change is very high; and the region has limited human and institutional capacity to respond to these challenges. There has been assistance from a number of agencies over the past 20 years that resulted in activities such as assessment of energy issues and options, negotiations to improve the terms of fuel supply, expanded urban and rural electrification and the development of renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels. However, these efforts have been largely piecemeal rather than part of clear and practical national energy policies and the strategic action plans to implement the policies and have been met with limited success. PIEPSAP is part of the EUEI/PIESD joint partnership initiative and is designed to improve the capacity of PICs to develop national energy policies, and the strategic plans to implement the policies. Assistance will help develop practical instruments and mechanisms (legal, regulatory, financial, incentives, institutional, capacity building, investment opportunities, etc.). It will be carried out within the broad guidelines of the regional Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Plan (PIEPP), the policy component of which approved by PIC energy officials in 2002 as a framework and guidance for providing ‘available, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for sustainable development for all Pacific islanders.’

On behalf of: Signature Date Name / Title SOPAC: _________________________________________________________________ UNDP: _________________________________________________________________

pacific islands energy policies and strategies action

Documents