also leads to the conclusion that when there are multiple institutions involved in the
implementation of a project, coordination among them needs to be planned from the
outset. Some of the case studies presented problems because they lacked such
coordination. Cultural, political, economic and social differences also play a role
and can be bridged through long-term social interaction and trust building.
Although this is possible and increasingly recognized, not all donor and development entities understand its importance or the need to allocate appropriate
resources. Social interaction should be a two-way learning process: the community
learns about the project and the means to achieve it, and the donor/developer learns
about the community including its needs and background, among other information
(GEF 2006).
The case studies analysed did not have a ‘social funding’ to help the poorest
people, which still can not count on renewable energy as a modern energy option.
Some projects would like to have one but presently can not afford one.
Implementing one would require increasing the electricity tariff which is not
possible. The lack of this ‘social funding’ mechanism is considered by some to
increase the inequality gap. During the planning and execution phases of projects,
social and economic differences among the population are not always considered,
leaving the poorest population vulnerable. As Krause and Nordstr€ om also found,
the high costs of renewable energy systems can also increase the inequality gap
(Krause and Nordstr€ om 2004) as the poorest segment of the population remains
unelectrified and unable to benefit the systems.
Technical quality was important in enabling project success. Poor technical
designs and lack of appropriate operation and maintenance protocols have
prevented some DRE projects from meeting stated goals: if the systems do not
work as expected, people will continue to use torch pine, candles, gas lamps, or
diesel gensets and will not be able to carry out the productive and social activities
the electricity has enabled. As was also seen in some of the case studies, poor
technical quality can also make the DRE systems, together with the users, vulnerable to extreme climate events, perhaps defeating their main purpose. In a subset of
the communities, systems used very low quality components, including, for example, non-listed and non-certified PV panels that were peeling within 5 years of being
installed (when their expected life ranges between 20 and 30 years) and car batteries
labeled as solar deep cycle batteries.
Monitoring and evaluations are essential to meeting the triple objective,
although this was very rarely carried out. Some of the projects visited could be
working today had proper monitoring and evaluation taken place. Unfortunately, a
number of communities where projects have failed remain without electricity and
there are few prospects for further investment.
The community of Nueva Alianza provides the best example of how meeting the
triple objective is possible. In the short period of time the micro hydroelectric and
biodiesel projects had been installed, the community has been able to reduce their
fossil fuel consumption and therefore their greenhouse gas emissions, improve the
quality of life of all the families and enable their survival and that of neighboring
communities in the aftermath of Hurricane Stan. This is an excellent example of
11 Sustainable Development, Climate Change, and Renewable Energy in Rural. . .
207
implementation of a project, coordination among them needs to be planned from the
outset. Some of the case studies presented problems because they lacked such
coordination. Cultural, political, economic and social differences also play a role
and can be bridged through long-term social interaction and trust building.
Although this is possible and increasingly recognized, not all donor and development entities understand its importance or the need to allocate appropriate
resources. Social interaction should be a two-way learning process: the community
learns about the project and the means to achieve it, and the donor/developer learns
about the community including its needs and background, among other information
(GEF 2006).
The case studies analysed did not have a ‘social funding’ to help the poorest
people, which still can not count on renewable energy as a modern energy option.
Some projects would like to have one but presently can not afford one.
Implementing one would require increasing the electricity tariff which is not
possible. The lack of this ‘social funding’ mechanism is considered by some to
increase the inequality gap. During the planning and execution phases of projects,
social and economic differences among the population are not always considered,
leaving the poorest population vulnerable. As Krause and Nordstr€ om also found,
the high costs of renewable energy systems can also increase the inequality gap
(Krause and Nordstr€ om 2004) as the poorest segment of the population remains
unelectrified and unable to benefit the systems.
Technical quality was important in enabling project success. Poor technical
designs and lack of appropriate operation and maintenance protocols have
prevented some DRE projects from meeting stated goals: if the systems do not
work as expected, people will continue to use torch pine, candles, gas lamps, or
diesel gensets and will not be able to carry out the productive and social activities
the electricity has enabled. As was also seen in some of the case studies, poor
technical quality can also make the DRE systems, together with the users, vulnerable to extreme climate events, perhaps defeating their main purpose. In a subset of
the communities, systems used very low quality components, including, for example, non-listed and non-certified PV panels that were peeling within 5 years of being
installed (when their expected life ranges between 20 and 30 years) and car batteries
labeled as solar deep cycle batteries.
Monitoring and evaluations are essential to meeting the triple objective,
although this was very rarely carried out. Some of the projects visited could be
working today had proper monitoring and evaluation taken place. Unfortunately, a
number of communities where projects have failed remain without electricity and
there are few prospects for further investment.
The community of Nueva Alianza provides the best example of how meeting the
triple objective is possible. In the short period of time the micro hydroelectric and
biodiesel projects had been installed, the community has been able to reduce their
fossil fuel consumption and therefore their greenhouse gas emissions, improve the
quality of life of all the families and enable their survival and that of neighboring
communities in the aftermath of Hurricane Stan. This is an excellent example of
11 Sustainable Development, Climate Change, and Renewable Energy in Rural. . .
207