Background sawep phase 1 (2008 – 2010): Outcome



Yüklə 461 b.
tarix30.07.2018
ölçüsü461 b.



  • Background

  • SAWEP Phase 1 (2008 – 2010): Outcome

  • SAWEP 1 lessons

  • SAWEP 2 (2015 – 2019)

  • SAWEP 2 Components

  • SAWEP 2 Context

  • SAWEP 2 updates, budget “shortcomings”



1995 1st Wind Atlas – mostly moderate to some good coastal wind

  • 1995 1st Wind Atlas – mostly moderate to some good coastal wind

  • 1996 Private developer approached DBSA for support of Darling Wind farm demo

  • 1997 SA ratified UNFCCC - make it eligible for GEF support

  • 1998 White Paper on the Energy Policy (research and development of alternative and renewable energy sources promoted)

  • 1999 Darling Wind farm PPA with Eskom not successful

  • 2000 Minister declare Darling Wind Farm a national demonstration project with request for Danced and GEF support

  • 2001 Danced (Danced USD180,000 and GEF (PDF B) USD295,000 support (remove barriers to large-scale commercial wind energy generation in SA & preparation of UNDP/GEF full size project)

  • 2003 White Paper on Renewable Energy Policy (10 000 GWh (0.8 Mtoe), 1667 MW) renewable energy contribution to final energy consumption by 2013,

  • 2008 to 2010 SAWEP Phase 1, GEF USD2 million (USD560,000 Guarantee grant), USD10 mill co-financing (Darling investment)

  • 2008 Darling Wind farm commissioned (debt, equity, grants, PWA with Eskom and PPA with City of Cape Town

  • 2010 IRP 8.4 GW new build wind by 2030



Support through the Green Power Guarantee Fund at the DBSA that enabled the City of Cape Town to sign a 20 year Power Purchase Agreement with the Darling Wind farm, South Africa’s 1st IPP wind farm and still operating today. The Darling Wind farm broke the ground for other wind IPPs that followed later on and supported through DoE RE IPPPP.

  • Support through the Green Power Guarantee Fund at the DBSA that enabled the City of Cape Town to sign a 20 year Power Purchase Agreement with the Darling Wind farm, South Africa’s 1st IPP wind farm and still operating today. The Darling Wind farm broke the ground for other wind IPPs that followed later on and supported through DoE RE IPPPP.

  • The public recognition and confirmation, through the work of WASA 1 (project of SAWEP 1) by the DoE Minister in her speech that was delivered by Acting DoE DG at Windaba 2014 that South Africa has an excellent wind resource and captured in the WASA 1 booklet http://www.wasaproject.info/docs/WASABooklet.pdf that was launched in Sept 2015.

  • WASA 1 masts still operating today and building up a long term, uninterrupted, wind data base for South Africa which is particular useful for studying the seasonal and prediction of climate change impact on SA’s wind resource which is of great importance for long term energy policy and growth of the wind industry in SA

  • SAWEP 2 recognized in the report of the Secretary General's High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing 2010 as one of 5 examples globally of 'Spending Wisely' on climate finance.

  • Formulation of SAWEP 2 focussing on DoE RE IPPPP, completion of WASA, Small scale wind development, training and education



Catalytic impact: SAWEP provided key necessary information, knowledge, tools, and capacities for an enabling wind sector environment; however, as always, the catalytic impact is highly sensitive to the high-level decision makers and here SAWEP in come instance was highly successful (e.g. in including relevant Ministers on several occasions), in others not so (e.g. in getting involved in the key decision making processes leading to e.g. REFIT, PPA, etc.)

  • Catalytic impact: SAWEP provided key necessary information, knowledge, tools, and capacities for an enabling wind sector environment; however, as always, the catalytic impact is highly sensitive to the high-level decision makers and here SAWEP in come instance was highly successful (e.g. in including relevant Ministers on several occasions), in others not so (e.g. in getting involved in the key decision making processes leading to e.g. REFIT, PPA, etc.)

  • Lesson learned (process): Programme management (project manager, PMU, donor, etc.) has to keep trying to get key high-level decision makers on board, some times it succeeds, some times not, but that is not the key issue, the key is the continuous attempts with the multiple different techniques such attempts can use (inclusion in seminars, work groups, technical questions, working more closely together on e.g. less political issues, etc). SAWEP programme management did throughout project implementation continue to push for high-level inclusion



Delivery of direct and indirect benefits: The direct benefits to the private wind sector stakeholders come mainly from private sector investments and governmental incentive schemes, e.g. REFIT. SAWEP has little influence on these direct benefits, and might even, if as planned for the SAWEP through direct feasibility support to individual wind developers, become entangled in situations and games of who to benefit, who not

  • Delivery of direct and indirect benefits: The direct benefits to the private wind sector stakeholders come mainly from private sector investments and governmental incentive schemes, e.g. REFIT. SAWEP has little influence on these direct benefits, and might even, if as planned for the SAWEP through direct feasibility support to individual wind developers, become entangled in situations and games of who to benefit, who not

  • Lessons learned (design): Project design has to carefully consider the type of programme to be implemented, direct or indirect support to key private sector stakeholders, and should not mix these into one project as professionalism on both issues might suffer. The programme, correctly, choose to only support the wind industry indirectly through TA, removal of barriers, etc.



Adaptive Management: The management of SAWEP effectively adapted to the needs and circumstances as they were expressed during implementation. Therefore, the actual project implementation indeed differed substantially from the initial design, but the actual intended impact remained similar

  • Adaptive Management: The management of SAWEP effectively adapted to the needs and circumstances as they were expressed during implementation. Therefore, the actual project implementation indeed differed substantially from the initial design, but the actual intended impact remained similar

  • Lessons learned (process): The dynamics of the project’s environment shall always be considered and flexibility for adaptive management granted. UNDP and DoE provided the platform for these necessary adjustments during project implementation

  • Lessons learned (design): The overall aim of the project remained valid, but the overall objectives (CO2 reduction, number of MW installed, etc.) did not, and this provides for potential misunderstandings and dangers (e.g. as the outcomes were not reformulated, could this evaluation have rates the project very low!). One lesson learned here is that outcomes should have been reformulated. Another is that the outcomes formulated in the design phase were highly unrealistic and impractical as they did not link (LFA-wise) to actual planned, outputs, activities and inputs



Choice of Project Manager: Selecting the right project manager is invaluable for the project’s success. Both the SAWEP project manager, and the flexible functioning of the PMU, contributed to the creation of mutual confidence between the manager, the executing partners, and the many wind sector stakeholders providing the ground for impact and relevance of outputs

  • Choice of Project Manager: Selecting the right project manager is invaluable for the project’s success. Both the SAWEP project manager, and the flexible functioning of the PMU, contributed to the creation of mutual confidence between the manager, the executing partners, and the many wind sector stakeholders providing the ground for impact and relevance of outputs

  • Lesson learned: This time lucky!



Coordination with parallel initiatives: Projects can be complemented substantially by other initiatives - nationally funded or funded by bilateral/multilateral aid - even if they are not properly identified at the project design. This certainly was one to the main achievements of SAWEP, the effective coordination with numerous key stakeholders on many different levels (national, provincial, local, interdepartmental, etc.), within many different professional spheres (policy, research, private sector, financing institutions, etc.) and with many different financial and donor stakeholders, all with the aim to become lead donors / financiers to the renewable energy sector at national level. SAWEP is one of only very few international projects in South Africa that actually managed to establish successful donor co-funding during implementation

  • Coordination with parallel initiatives: Projects can be complemented substantially by other initiatives - nationally funded or funded by bilateral/multilateral aid - even if they are not properly identified at the project design. This certainly was one to the main achievements of SAWEP, the effective coordination with numerous key stakeholders on many different levels (national, provincial, local, interdepartmental, etc.), within many different professional spheres (policy, research, private sector, financing institutions, etc.) and with many different financial and donor stakeholders, all with the aim to become lead donors / financiers to the renewable energy sector at national level. SAWEP is one of only very few international projects in South Africa that actually managed to establish successful donor co-funding during implementation

  • Lesson learned (design and process): Coordination with parallel initiatives should be attempted designed into the projects from the beginning, not being the sole responsibility of the project manager during implementation.



DoE Executing Agency, UNDP support services, SANEDI program manager support

  • DoE Executing Agency, UNDP support services, SANEDI program manager support

  • USD3.5 mill, USD35 mill co-financing

  • PPG develop over 2013/14

  • Prodoc approved May 2015 to May 2019 (4 years), Prodoc signed Des 2015, PM appointed Aug 2016 (less than 3 years left for implementation)

  • Main Objective: To support progress towards the IRP 2010 target of 8.4 GW (new build) wind capacity by 20130 (updated IRP 2016 37GW wind by 2015)



Components:Component 1: Monitoring and Evaluation of the implementation of local content requirements

  • Components:Component 1: Monitoring and Evaluation of the implementation of local content requirements

  • Component 2: Resource-mapping and wind corridor development support for policy-makers:

  • Component 3: Support for the development of small-scale wind sector

  • Component 4: Training and human capital development for the wind energy sector





SAWEP PPG developed 2013/14. Updates and adjustments to SAWEP 2 components, outputs and activities were then identified with key stakeholders prior to and as reported in the Inception Workshop report. The SAWEP Prodoc to be updated accordingly.

  • SAWEP PPG developed 2013/14. Updates and adjustments to SAWEP 2 components, outputs and activities were then identified with key stakeholders prior to and as reported in the Inception Workshop report. The SAWEP Prodoc to be updated accordingly.

  • SAWEP 2 budget does not provide, as in SAWEP 1 for reporting costs (e.g. printing) and also not for Miscellaneous expenses (information banners, pamphlets) nor project workshop e.g. catering costs






Dostları ilə paylaş:


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©muhaz.org 2017
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə