Content uploaded by Rolando Madriz-Vargas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rolando Madriz-Vargas on Dec 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
A Cross-case Analysis of Needs, Barriers and Opportunities from
Community Renewable Energy Projects in Central America
Rolando Madriz-Vargas1,2, Anna Bruce1, Muriel Watt3
1School of Photovoltaics and Renewable Energy Engineering
University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
2Solar Energy Laboratory, Department of Physics
Universidad Nacional, Heredia 86-3000, Costa Rica
3ITP Renewables, Turner ACT 2601, Australia
E-mail: r.madrizvargas@student.unsw.edu.au
Abstract
Community Renewable Energy (CRE) projects from Central America can offer useful insights for
further deployment of CRE for energy poverty alleviation in developing countries. Hence, an analysis
of local capabilities supporting decision making processes, as well as common needs, barriers, and
opportunities from CRE projects in Panama, Nicaragua and Costa Rica are presented after fieldwork
conducted for 8 months in 2016. Findings highlight that the main needs and barriers are more related
to legal, organisational, and political aspects rather than social, technical or environmental ones.
Additionally, there are now opportunities for strategic planning, design, and supportive policy
arrangements for new CRE initiatives, given the increasing availability of modern rural electrification
technologies. Results from this study may help to inform policy making, support practical knowledge
exchange, and create bridges for future research between CRE stakeholders across developing regions.
1. Introduction
The absence of access to electricity has been highlighted as a key factor in perpetuating poverty
in developing countries (Paleta, et al., 2012). Energy poverty
1
is an issue that still needs to be tackled
to enable socio-economic development, particularly in rural areas. Hence, a target of the United
Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal 7 is to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and
modern energy for all. However, experts have estimated that, even under optimistic scenarios, there
will be over 500 million people worldwide living in the same conditions by 2040 (OECD/IEA, 2016,
REN21, 2017).
Sustainable provision of modern energy services is especially challenging for communities
living in remote areas. Here, local governments and the local Renewable Energy (RE) industry are
typically less engaged with provision of electricity for the poor. Most projects to increase electricity
access levels in off-grid areas in developing countries are therefore led by donors and international
institutions. While these projects are usually reported as successfully implemented, after
commissioning the reality is often different (Canessa, et al., 2014, Terrapon-Pfaff, et al., 2014).
Community Renewable Energy (CRE) initiatives can play a role in alleviating energy poverty
and complement the rural electrification efforts of utilities, donors and governments, which often
struggle financially and politically to achieve energy access and RE targets. CRE research (Bomberg
and McEwen, 2012, Madriz-Vargas, et al., 2015, Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008) shows that when
an RE power system is owned, operated or maintained by a community organisation there are direct
socio-economic benefits, particularly around the energy nexus with other sectors, such as water,
education, and health. CRE approaches can also help to overcome some of the challenges associated
1
Energy poverty is variously defined as percentages of earnings spent on electricity, numbers of litres or kilograms of fuel
use by households, or even as a minimum of use for covering basic family needs, e.g. 120kWh per year (Sovacool, 2014).
2
with other energy project ownership and implementation models, such as utility and private business
(Franz, et al., 2014, Madriz-Vargas, et al., 2015). Therefore, promoting CRE models is potentially an
important means to achieve energy access goals, as well as broader development agendas.
Nevertheless, previous studies have reported a number of technical and non-technical
shortcomings in community-based energy projects (Madriz-Vargas, et al., 2015, Rae and Bradley,
2012, Terrapon-Pfaff, et al., 2014, Walker, 2008). In summary, it is common to observe operational
sustainability issues in these types of projects within a couple of years due to factors including: low
sense of ownership and project acceptance by locals; low engagement and abandonment by external
stakeholders after implementation; loss of capabilities built in previous stages of the project; and lack
of supportive policy instruments.
Given the important role of CRE initiatives, securing their long-term sustainability is vital and
obviously requires suitable engineering design and planning, along with appropriate models for
operation, maintenance and management beyond the project execution period (one to three years),
where project resources tend to be focussed, and throughout the whole technology/service lifetime of
20-30 years.
Studies on CRE experiences with decades of continuous operation are rare in the body of texts
and their absence has been highlighted as a key barrier to improving CRE sustainability
(Bhattacharyya and Palit, 2014). This paper, therefore, aims to provide insights from three relevant
CRE projects in Central America; see Section 2. For the analysis, we used a framework around
community capabilities derived from the CRE literature, along with common needs, barriers and
opportunities observed. As described in Section 3, an extensive fieldwork was conducted in Panama,
Nicaragua and Costa Rica, with results from the Central American context briefly presented in Section
4. Some final remarks and general lessons learnt are discussed in Section 5, which may offer insights
for energy access experts and community activists in the region and more broadly.
2. Background on case studies
Three CRE initiatives in challenging rural conditions that have been recognized locally as
positive examples of RETs implementation via community-based models are used as case studies.
These are (see also Figure 1): Coopeguanacaste in Costa Rica (Madriz-Vargas, et al., 2016),
Aprodelbo in Nicaragua (Madriz-Vargas, et al., 2017a) and Boca de Lura in Panama (Madriz-Vargas,
et al., 2017b) which are briefly described as follows:
Coopeguanacaste- is a rural electric cooperative responsible since 1965 for grid extensions to
reach remote communities in the Nicoya Peninsula, in the Guanacaste province, Costa Rica.
Coopeguanacaste currently works with nearly 3 700 km of distribution network (24.9kV)
serving over 73 000 connections, and also with a social SHS program for off-grid households.
Operations over five decades have been supported by a local utility, banks, training
institutions, and by a consortium of rural electric coops in Costa Rica.
Aprodelbo- is a not-for-profit organisation created by local leaders representing different
sectors in San Jose del Bocay, Department of Jinotega, Nicaragua. Aprodelbo is responsible
for a 185 kW micro hydro minigrid built in 1994, now operating in both off- and on-grid
modes with around 55 km of distribution network (24.9kV) serving around 2000 connections,
and with an additional Solar PV Home Systems (SHS) program for the most isolated
households. This project has been supported by a local NGO, the Ministry of Energy and
Mines and international solidarity groups, also with technical and financial assistance from
North American and European countries for over two decades.
Boca de Lura- is an off-grid PV-Wind-Battery hybrid stand-alone system installed in a local
school in 2011. It serves as a community centre for around 160 people in the community of
Boca de Lura, in the Cocle province, Panama. It is operated by a school parent association and
supported by a local university and the Ministry of Education.
3
Boca de Lura
Aprodelbo
Coopeguanacaste
2.17 kW PV-Wind-battery hybrid
Off-grid stand-alone power system
185kW micro hydro with network of 24.9kV
On/off-grid plus a social SHS program
Grid extensions with network of 24.9kV
On-grid plus a social SHS program
Governed by a School Parent Association
Governed by a not-for-profit local organisation
Governed by a rural electric cooperative
Figure 1. CRE case studies from Central America
3. Research design
The overall methodology to conduct this investigation consisted of two main stages. Firstly, a
CRE literature review revealed that the presence of specific skills, knowledge and resources in isolated
off-grid communities critically influences long-term system and project survival. An assessment
framework was developed using capabilities theory to observe the relationships between the
management and use of the RE technologies within the energy project across six vital dimensions, as
shown in Figure 2 (left), and the community energy service outcomes and impacts on end-users and
external stakeholders. The framework also permits the evaluation of decision-making processes and
interactions between the internal and external environment (i.e. between community leaders and non-
community actors). Detailed explanation of the development of the assessment framework will be
presented in a forthcoming publication by the authors.
Secondly, an empirical research was undertaken for 8 months from March to October 2016.
This allowed the completion of three case studies (Section 2) where the framework was used to guide
technical analysis of RE power systems and qualitative data collection in parallel. Data was obtained
using different tools during visits to the communities, as shown in Figure 2 (right).
Integration of technical and non-technical observations of interactions between locals and
outsiders influencing the project allowed appraisal of the capabilities built, as well as evaluation of
current challenges, barriers and opportunities for wider adoption of CRE in the Central American
region, as later discussed in Section 4.
Figure 2. CRE assessment framework (left) and fieldwork methodology (right)
1.Community
governance
2. Capacity
building and
engagement
3. Ownership
structures
4. Technical
design
5. Operation,
maintenance
& management
6. Follow up
measures for
sustainability
Comparison and analytical generalization
Multi-dimensional assessment
Data collection tools:
- Semi-structured interviews
- Participant observations
- Archival studies
- RE power system survey
Boca de Lura
Capabilities
theory and
practice
Rural
electrification
with RETs in
rural areas
Community
-based rural
sustainable
developmen
t
Aprodelbo
Coopeguanacaste
CRE internal
environment
CRE external environment
4
4. Assessment results and discussion
Specific assessment results for each case study have been published recently by the authors, for
Coopeguanacaste see (Madriz-Vargas, et al., 2016), Aprodelbo (Madriz-Vargas, et al., 2017a) and
Boca de Lura (Madriz-Vargas, et al., 2017b). In this paper, therefore, the focus is on commonalities
and differences observed during the field research. First, capability requirements built through the
project are discussed in Section 4.1 and compared in Figure 3. Second, current needs, barriers, and
opportunities are briefly described in Section 4.2, and also summarised in Figure 4.
4.1. Community capabilities
Local capabilities - abilities to perform a variety of tasks to support CRE project
implementation - are typically weak or non-existent in rural communities. Across the case studies, it
was noted that capabilities created within social organisations and among leaders in charge of the
initiative played a pivotal role, particularly to establish or maintain relevant activities or processes
involving interaction with external people or organisations. These interactions later yielded useful
input and yet supported self-governance, usually locally-led.
For instance, the generation of governance capabilities was observed in the building of skills
including: leadership; convocation of community members to have general assemblies (sometimes
held on the streets as in Aprodelbo); fundraising; and handwritten minute-taking. These skills were put
to work to establish adequate channels for mobilization of shared resources, promoting democratic
decision-making with active participation of women (observed in all cases). Consequently, more
participative choices were possible which supported acceptance of the RE project as a whole, as well
as implementation of energy efficiency measures at community level for load management.
Another relevant aspect to take into account is the time needed for acquiring the capabilities
shown in Figure 3. From the interviews, it is clear that only over some time were these skills fully
developed to the point that the community could control the project with confidence and independence.
For example, in Coopeguanacaste, local management of grid extensions was possible after a couple of
years of working side-by-side with external organisations, but technical abilities were consolidated
only after 5 years. In the case of Aprodelbo, the project was immediately handed over to the
community after construction of the minigrid, but it took 3 years to be formally operated by locals. In
contrast, Boca de Lura still has pending work on the technical aspects regarding the hybrid plant as no
local technicians have been trained in the 6 years of almost 24/7 operation; however, end-users
consider other areas are working satisfactorily.
It is clear that capacity development should be prioritised in project planning and design, and
the time needed for this should not be underestimated in order to reduce the risk of project failures or
disengagement of locals. Similar finding were also reported by Terrapon-Pfaff, et al. (2014) after a
follow up of over 20 RE community-based projects where critical situations were observed within a
period of 2-8 years, and by Smillie (2000) after decades working in the donor sector in developing
countries.
The field investigations provided information on the operational sustainability of each CRE
venture. Long-term technical operation of RE power systems appears to be possible with ad-honorem
support from civil organisations, NGOs, and tertiary institutions, which was observed in all cases.
Moreover, the high levels of “passion” by project implementers (all cases) and employees (Aprodelbo
and Coopeguanacaste) have boosted the levels of engagement of locals in the energy project from the
outset. Further, public recognition by ministries and international institutions has promoted a positive
environment and interest in supporting these projects, allowing opportunities for implementing
survival measures through time.
Additional capabilities found to be required across the CRE case studies are summarised in
Figure 3 and presented according to assessment dimensions shown in Figure 2 (left).
5
2. Capacity
building and
engagement
3. Ownership
structures
1. Community
governance
Capabilities needed for
Supporting Actions / Processes
Leading to Outcomes / Choices
5. Operation,
maintenance &
management
6. Follow up
measures for
sustainability
4. Technical
design
Leadership
Convocation
Fundraising
Minute writing
Legal organisation
Assets inventory
Bankability
Recruiting
Team work
Planning
Accounting
Reporting practices
Customer service
Entrepreneurship
Self-evaluation
Negotiation with externals
Computer technologies
Electricity fundamentals
RET fundamentals
Safety handling of RET, electric
circuits and batteries
Understand foreign languages
Use communication technologies
Self-learning
Self-motivation
Shared resource mobilization
Debate and decision making
Training and practical activities
Knowledge-transfer activities
Informative and participatory activities
Analysis and selection of ownership models
Registration in relevant institutions
RE resource assessment and selection
Energy demand and load assessments
Techno-economic analyses
RE power system sizing and configuration
Analysis and selection of operational models
Technical & non-technical maintenance
On-going operation and troubleshooting
RETs surveillance and protection from vandalism
or robbery
Productive uses of electricity
Debate on EE measures
Debate on sustainability measures
Decision choice: Acceptance/ rejection initiative
Implementation of EE measures
Implementation of sustainability measures
Skills building and development
Increased levels of engagement
Increased levels of trust between community members
Linkage between community and outsiders
Ownership choices: Charities; cooperatives; development
trust; shares owned by the community; not-for-profit
organization or civil associations.
Increased sense of ownership in the internal environment
Visibility in the external environment
Recourse choices: single (Solar, Wind, Hydro) or
hybrid (Solar-Wind; Solar-Diesel; etc.)
RET choices: PV or solar thermal home systems; stand-
alone power system for a community facility; village
microgrid; grid extensions; or a mixed.
Under or over power system installed capacity
Operation choices: energy service company (ESCO);
private business (regulated or unregulated);
community-based; or a hybrid partnership.
Prompt response during operational emergencies
Credibility and accountability to stakeholders
Increased user satisfaction
Additional income generation
Load and energy demand management
Enhanced system operation and project survival
Figure 3. Capabilities found in CRE projects from Central America
6
4.2. CRE needs, barriers and opportunities
As mentioned, overall sustainability perspectives for the three CRE cases were found to be
positive; however, they are not without barriers. Common needs, as well as opportunities have been
collated from the case studies and reported in this section; see also a summary in Figure 4.
4.2.1 Needs: (six essentials aspects to consider for project and RE system design)
Local leaders involved must be recognised members of the community to ensure democratic
governance of the energy project and its outcomes. This way, the best interests of locals are taken
into account during decision-making, and decisions can be better understood by other members.
This was observed in all three case studies. In Coopeguanacaste a new board is elected every year
and only energy meter owners from local communities can participate in this process. In Boca de
Lura almost all school children belong to the locality, hence most families are also members of the
parent association that governs the power system. Likewise, Aprodelbo have had a semi-
permanent board with local members from San Jose del Bocay. These local institutions are
generally viewed as legitimate and trusted to make collective decisions.
Capacity rebuilding and wider involvement within the community are essential. Constant training
and regular participatory and engagement sessions throughout the project lifetime are fundamental
because of regular migration of technicians to cities, implementation of new policies and
regulations, technological upgrading of RE power plants, and generational change within the
community. While commonly reported in energy access programs, continuous capacity rebuilding
activities in Coopeguanacaste and Aprodelbo over decades have avoided these issues.
Legal ownership of RE technologies, system components, and related infrastructure must be kept
within the community. New or already existent social organisations need to make the necessary
arrangements to be formally recognised in order to: receive private donations; access funds from
donors and embassies; formalise documentation related to transference of assets; be eligible to
hold insurance; and lead fundraising activities. This was possible in Coopeguanacaste and
Aprodelbo, but for Boca de Lura ownership remains only symbolic as the RE hybrid plant is
located in a public school, leaving the community vulnerable.
External advice for RE technology selection, sizing, and configuration is commonly needed.
Without specialist technical capabilities within the communities, design criteria selected by trusted
outsiders have been necessary and usually included: selection of high quality and maintenance-
free system components; sizing including future demand growth; prioritising robust
configurations; and budget compliance for installation, commissioning, and training on basic
maintenance and safety for end-users.
There is a need for stable and long-lasting external support for locals to perform O&M tasks. For
Coopeguanacaste, a local utility and a brotherhood of rural electric coops in Costa Rica and in the
USA have made this possible. For Aprodelbo, support is mainly provided by a Nicaraguan NGO;
and for Boca de Lura this is done via a public university in Panama. In all cases, this permanent
support has allowed: a) better negotiations with suppliers; b) mobilisation of financial and non-
financial resources for O&M; c) coordination of shared maintenance responsibilities; d) technical
and non-technical aid during operational and managerial emergencies; and e) maintenance of
levels of trust and engagement between key stakeholders.
Complementary commercial activity in parallel to the energy service income is a must. This
allows implementation of survival measures and supports future investments. In Coopeguanacaste
this has been achieved, for instance, by selling efficient electrical appliances at low interest rates,
wholesaling air time for prepaid mobile phones, and offering high speed internet and digital TV.
In Aprodelbo, some agricultural business have been explored. In Boca de Lura, selling cold drinks
and providing photocopying services have allowed some income generation.
7
4.2.2 Barriers: (six sources of obstacles/struggles)
There is a general lack of historical information and statistics. This situation affects mainly the
monitoring and evaluation of CRE projects, and therefore ongoing operations and any potential
improvements. This was noted in the majority of communities visited in Central America,
including Boca de Lura. For instance, not all meetings held are documented, operational logs (if
any) are not taken properly, and there is almost nil follow up of conflicts with end-users and
stakeholders. Good reporting practices were evident in Coopeguanacaste and Aprodelbo, probably
because both are subject to regulation where basic indices must be reported regularly, but most of
this data is either not made publicly available, or is published only in the form of basic general
annual reports. Thus, evaluators have to guess the working conditions of RE power systems,
which may lead to inaccurate conclusions and/or recommendations.
Administrative processes from international organisations and donors are sometimes not suitable
for CRE. This has affected access to grants and loans as locals usually struggle with: accessing
internet webpages in foreign languages; traveling to cities for collecting the required paper work;
finding adequate legal advice; and matching the interests and expectations of outsiders. Aprodelbo
reported periods when project financiers only accepted specific projects, e.g. water over electricity,
or climate change mitigation over infrastructure. Coopeguanacaste suffers from this lack of
appropriate support as well because rural electric coops are considered as private organisations
and are sometimes excluded from donations and credits, leading to dependency on intermediaries.
There is low level of trust on the part of local leaders towards government. In Boca de Lura there
is a general feeling of neglect by local institutions among members. Also, pressure to hand over
the CRE project to private companies was reported by interviewees in Aprodelbo, which may be
associated with subtle corruption. Further, community leaders in Coopeguanacaste feel they could
not compete with multinational utilities if the regional electricity market, currently working only
at transmission level, would be extended to the distribution level as political support tends to
reside with the big players.
Local supply chains of RE generators and system components are limited. Although local markets
for RETs are increasing in the region, there is still high dependency on external suppliers (from
the USA and EU), reducing options for training of local technical staff and exploration of local
technological solutions in the region. In Nicaragua, there is a good example of manufacturing of
RE generators in a local workshop (ATDER-BL, 2017) which is currently supporting operations
in Aprodelbo.
SHS programs are perceived as a social commitment and not as a commercial opportunity.
Coopeguanacaste and Aprodelbo have deployed SHS programs (systems between 50-120Wp) to
reach extremely isolated households, but only as a subsidised secondary activity. In contrast,
community members in Boca de Lura have opted to buy small SHS (<50Wp) with personal funds
for lighting and entertainment at home, indicating willingness to pay and the potential for a
sustainable business model.
Political biases tend to limit rural electrification efforts via community-driven models. In Panama
and Costa Rica there is a traditional preference for national grid extensions for rural electrification,
while letting donors implement SHS programs and stand-alone systems (school/clinics) in remote
areas. In Nicaragua, off-grid micro grids across the country are enthusiastically promoted. The
attitudes of central government towards different electrification models may negatively influence
the country statistics on electricity access, as people served with SHS and stand-alone systems are
sometimes not included in the national data and could also diminish interest in supporting new
CRE projects.
8
4.2.3 Opportunities: (four ways to increase CRE adoption)
There is a huge potential for implementing bioenergy CRE initiatives. Electricity production from
small-scale biomass projects is generally overlooked despite the abundance of natural resources
and agricultural activities present in rural areas in Panama, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. For instance,
biomass generators and/or gasifiers could be fuelled using agricultural bio-waste from nearby
farms or from other sources. For instance, Coopeguanacaste is exploring the adoption of a new
power plant of 5 MW using municipal waste from neighbouring communities.
Exploit modern rural electrification technologies. Pilot stand-alone systems (e.g. in schools or
clinics) could later be upgraded into minigrids to increase access levels and support domestic and
productive uses, as suggested for Boca de Lura (Madriz-Vargas, et al., 2017b). Where appropriate,
minigrids already in operation could be connected to existing minigrids in nearby villages or to the
central grid to increase redundancy and reliability of the networks (Pokhrel, et al., 2013), as
implemented in Aprodelbo. In both cases, original RE generators can be reused in new
configurations and even configured in hybrid modes, e.g. PV-hydro, or PV-wind-hydro. Currently,
there are commercial repowering and automation solutions to convert old systems into new ones
with sophisticated control features that offer high efficiency and reliability. Implementation of
new modern minigrids can serve areas neglected by utilities, as generally observed in Nicaragua.
Exploit the energy nexus with other sectors. Most current projects are perceived as electricity only,
but multi-sector goals in new initiatives must be encouraged as a means of capturing funds to
sustain current project needs and attracting new investment for capacity development, engagement
activities, and promote productive uses. Beyond the typical energy-water connection for education
or health, CRE projects may also create conditions for (Ley, 2017, TERI, 2016): a) women’s
empowerment, b) securing food supply, and c) enhancing resilience to climate change. These
nexus could be part of the rationale for new proposals and local policy arrangements.
Policy could be implemented to support new CRE initiatives. In particular for: fulfilling CRE
general needs (Section 4.2.1); helping current CRE projects to overcome common struggles
(Section 4.2.2); and encouraging new CRE endeavours by creating policy instruments that support
them, and regulation to prevent unfair competition from private or public sectors.
See a summary of the common needs, barriers and opportunities in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Summary of needs, barriers and opportunities for CRE in Central America
Needs:
Recognised local governance
Capacity rebuilding and wider community involvement
Legal ownership within the community
External advice for RET system design
Stable and long-lasting external support to perform O&M
Complementary commercial activities
Community Capabilities
Opportunities:
Huge potential for using bioenergy and biomass technologies
Exploit rural electrification modern technologies
Exploit the RE nexus with other development sectors
Policy arrangements for current and new CRE projects
Barriers:
Lack of historical information and statistics
Complex admin processes from financiers and donors
Distrust from locals towards governments
Limited local supply chains
SHS programs seen only as social and not commercial
National policies limit community-driven models
CRE in
Central
America
9
5. Final remarks
This comparative study has set out the main findings after an extensive field investigation on
rural electrification projects involving community-based models in three Central American countries.
The selected community renewable energy (CRE) projects have been recognised nationally and
internationally as positive experiences leading to rural socio-economic development and energy
poverty alleviation in the Boca de Lura community (Boca de Lura, Panama), in the San Jose del Bocay
town (Aprodelbo, Nicaragua), and in several communities located in the Nicoya Peninsula
(Coopeguanacaste, Costa Rica).
In general, a basic level of community capability across the major activities in CRE projects
seems to be the major factor influencing success within the case studies. In addition, the main needs
and barriers relate more to legal, organisational, and political aspects than to social, technical or
environmental ones. Therefore, suitable interventions and policy arrangements to cover current needs
and overcome present struggles would seem to be critical to ensure operational sustainability of these
CRE projects.
Some opportunities point to more strategic project planning and renewable energy system
design using newly available rural electrification technologies and creation of adequate policy
instruments. In particular, project planning should aim to capture complementary budgets for:
1. social engagement activities after commissioning
2. access further training for capacity rebuilding on a yearly basis, and
3. expand the capacity installed in RE power plants to meet non-residential demand.
Although the common needs, barriers and opportunities discussed are specific to the Central
American region, some general lessons learnt are:
Implementation of a strict 100% community-based energy venture, that is completely owned,
managed, operated and maintained by locals, is not practical.
Having a local social structure legally acknowledged is critical for gaining credibility and
bankability to access funds from private or public sources.
A combination of rural electrification models is the most effective way to increase electricity
access levels, e.g. minigrids plus SHS programs in the same village, or grid extension plus
stand-alone systems in the same concession area, etc.
Permanent presence of a local champion (or supportive external organisation) is vital for
continuous training of local technicians and community capacity development.
A closer look at political realities around CRE is fundamental to unlock potentialities
regarding the energy nexus with other rural development sectors.
It is expected that findings from this cross-case study will assist debates on policy making by
providing evidence-based insights from successful CRE projects, promoting knowledge exchange
across developing regions, and creating bridges between energy access experts, community activists,
and industry stakeholders for future research and successful deployment of CRE in: Latin America and
the Caribbean; the sub-Saharan Africa; the Middle East; and the Asia-Pacific.
References
ATDER-BL, 2017. ‘Project History-Aprodelbo’, [Online]. Association of Rural Development
Workers - Benjamin Linder. Available: http://www.atder-bl.org/Projects.html [Accessed 29-01
2017].
Bhattacharyya, S.C. and Palit, D. 2014. ‘Mini-grids for rural electrification of developing countries:
analysis and case studies from South Asia’, Switzerland, Springer International
Bomberg, E. and McEwen, N., 2012, ‘Mobilizing community energy’, Energy Policy, 51, p435-444.
Canessa, R., Santome, J.M. and Buss, I.N., 2014, ‘EURO-SOLAR program ex post evaluation ’, ICD-
ALA European Program for Latin America, SACO Consortium (SAFEGE-COWI).
Franz, M., Peterschmidt, N., Rohrer, M. and Kondev, B., 2014, ‘Mini-grid Policy Toolkit - Policy and
Business Frameworks for Successful Mini-Grid Roll-outs’, RECP. Eschborn, Germany.
10
Ley, D. 2017. ‘Sustainable Development, Climate Change, and Renewable Energy in Rural Central
America’. In: Uitto, J.I., Puri, J. and Berg, R.D.v.d. (ed.) Evaluating Climate Change Action for
Sustainable Development. Springer International Publishing.
Madriz-Vargas, R., Bruce, A. and Watt, M., 2015, ‘A review of factors influencing the success of
community renewable energy in developing countries’, Proceedings Asia-Pacific Solar Research
Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 8-10 Dec
Madriz-Vargas, R., Bruce, A. and Watt, M., 2017a, ‘Community Renewable Energy in Nicaragua:
Sustainability Assessment of "APRODELBO".’, Solar Energy Lab, Universidad Nacional. Heredia,
Costa Rica [Original in Spanish].
Madriz-Vargas, R., Bruce, A., Watt, M., Mogollón, L.G. and Álvarez, H.R., 2017b, ‘Community
renewable energy in Panama: a sustainability assessment of the “Boca de Lura” PV-Wind-Battery
hybrid power system’, Renew. Energy Environ. Sustain., 2, p1-7.
Madriz-Vargas, R., Bruce, A., Watt, M. and Rojas, Y.A., 2016, ‘Energy with Development: 50-years
Experience of Community-driven Rural Electrification and Future Challenges for
COOPEGUANACASTE in Costa Rica’, Proceedings Asia-Pacific Solar Research Conference,
Canberra, Australia, 28 Nov to 1 Dec.
OECD/IEA, 2016, ‘World Energy Outlook’, International Energy Agency. Paris.
Paleta, R., Pina, A. and Silva, C., 2012, ‘Remote Autonomous Energy Systems Project: Towards
sustainability in developing countries’, Energy, 48, p431-439.
Pokhrel, S., S.K.Singal and Singh, S.N., 2013, ‘Comprenhensive Study of Community Managed Mini
Grid’, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 3, p514-520.
Rae, C. and Bradley, F., 2012, ‘Energy autonomy in sustainable communities—A review of key
issues’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, p6497-6506.
REN21, 2017, ‘Renewables 2017 Global Status Report’, Renewable Energy Policy Network for the
21st Century. Paris: REN21 Secretariat.
Seyfang, G., Park, J.J. and Smith, A., 2013, ‘A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of
community energy in the UK’, Energy Policy, 61, p977-989.
Smillie, I. 2000. ‘Mastering the machine revisited: poverty, aid and technology’, Intermediate
Technology.
Sovacool, B.K. 2014. ‘Defining, Measuring, and Tackling Energy Poverty’. In: Halff, A., Sovacool,
B.K. and Rozhon, J. (ed.) Energy Poverty. Global Challenges and Local Solutions. UK: Oxford
University Press.
TERI, 2016, ‘Exploring Factors that Enhance and restrict Women’s Empowerment through
Electrification’, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). New Delhi, India.
Terrapon-Pfaff, J., Dienst, C., Konig, J. and Ortiz, W., 2014, ‘How effective are small-scale energy
interventions in developing countries? Results from a post-evaluation on project-level’, Appl.
Energy, 135, p809-814.
Walker, G., 2008, ‘What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy
production and use?’, Energy Policy, 36, p4401-4405.
Walker, G. and Devine-Wright, P., 2008, ‘Community renewable energy: What should it mean?’,
Energy Policy, 36, p497-500.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Government of Australia through the “Australia Awards Program”,
and the Government of Costa Rica through the “Costa Rica Higher Education Project” executed with
funds from the World Bank. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Australian or Costa Rican Governments nor the World Bank. B”H.
