Emerging Forms of Entrepreneurship: For-Profit and Non-Profit Partnerships for the Dissemination of Solar Power into Rural Sub-Saharan Africa

Simon Willans Executive Director Energy For Opportunity Amé Christiansen Lecturer Victoria University Paul Munro PhD Research Fellow University of Melbourne

1

Abstract Energy For Opportunity’s Community Charging Station (CCS) model provides a concrete example of how the non-profit and for-profit sectors can be merged to effectively serve bottom of the pyramid markets. Markets such as those in rural Africa often remain outside the reach of traditional business models, especially regarding the introduction of new technologies. This paper summarises a case study analysis of the Energy For Opportunity CCS in Kamabai, Bombali District, Sierra Leone. This CCS operates through a social enterprise model, creating significant revenue and employment while serving as a focal point in the community for the introduction of solar powered products. Research was conducted over a twelve month period and included active participation, unstructured interviews with people involved with the CCS and quantitative analysis of financial records generated as part of the project. ---------------------------------Introduction Despite ongoing advances in business and finance models, some bottom of the pyramid markets, particularly those in Africa, remain outside the reach for many products and business entities (Prahalad and Hart 2002). These gaps create opportunities for unique partnerships and synergies between the for-profit sector and the charitable (or non-profit sector) of the economy and for models that bridge the two. One specific example of where these innovative forms of entrepreneurship are required is in the introduction of new technologies. African markets typically comprise conservative, risk averse consumers and specific challenges emerge in attempting to penetrate these markets with new and unknown technologies (Lighting Africa 2010), even if cost and performance indicators support the intervention. This paper will look at the off-grid lighting market in Africa and the role that non-traditional partnerships and business models are having in the penetration of improved lighting sources into this market. A specific 2

case study of Energy For Opportunity’s (EFO) work with solar power in Sierra Leone will be utilised to highlight the role that models which incorporate both for-profit and non-profit actors are able to play in reaching markets that would be underserviced by traditional business models. It is widely recognised that access to modern forms of energy is a necessary precursor for stimulating economic development and ensuring improved (and diversified) livelihoods (UNDP 2005; Madamombe 2005; World Bank 2008; Christian Aid 2006). This is a challenge in Sub-Saharan Africa, as it is estimated that around 585 million people (about 70 percent of the population) in the region have no direct access to electricity. Eighty per cent of this population without electricity live in rural areas (IEA 2010). Nevertheless, rural electrification tends to be of secondary importance in relation to urban electrification for Sub-Saharan African Governments (Acker and Kammen 2006). Urban centres across the region currently have a varying quality of electricity access, and therefore the focus on them is unsurprising as cities are seen as the main drivers of economic growth at the national level. Furthermore, extending conventional grid electricity to rural households has generally been deemed financially unviable and difficult to achieve since the 1970s (Wamukonya 2007). Thus, for the foreseeable future, it seems that the widespread expansion of grid electricity networks into rural Sub-Saharan Africa is highly unlikely, meaning that the majority of the region’s population will have their developmental opportunities constrained. In response to the challenges above, decentralised electricity systems are often seen as a potential solution. In particular, the use of solar power has been identified as a key technology to achieve this, as Sub-Saharan Africa has a high solar energy endowment (i.e. solar irradiation from the sun), which is almost twice as high as Europe’s, where the world’s largest market for solar power currently exists. As Deichmann et al further note: 3

Solar energy is a particularly attractive renewable option for Africa because it is naturally decentralized, available in huge supply, falling steadily in cost as the technology advances, immune from supply or price uncertainty, and eligible for support from bilateral and multilateral institutions that are seeking to increase low-carbon energy production (Deichmann et al. 2011:217). Solar power is ultimately seen as a potential leapfrog technology that can copy the success of the widespread uptake of mobile phones across the continent.1 However, this perceived potential is yet to become a reality with the dissemination of solar power into rural areas being extremely limited (Phan 2009). This has largely been due to a lack of relevant private sector actors and products in the region. There is a overall general reluctance to promote expansion into rural African markets as they present many unknown factors and thus constitute a high level of risk (Crawley, Holland, and Gitonga 2001). Meanwhile, the non-profit (charity) sector has generally operated with a project mentality for solar power distribution, conducting single installations rather than facilitating conditions for the technology's widespread dissemination. This paper argues that there needs to be strategic interaction between both the private and non-profit sectors to facilitate solar power uptake in rural Sub-Saharan Africa, and will present the creation of Community Charging Stations in Sierra Leone as a potential method to achieve this. The research for this paper has been conducted over the past twelve months. The methodology is based on a case study of the Energy For Opportunity Community Charging Station model. This model and EFO blend non-profit and for-profit operating philosophies in a unique way that highlights the potential of partnerships between actors across the two sectors. The data was collected through multi-strategy research, including active participation (and

1

From 1960 to 2000 landline telephone access in Africa grew at 3.2 percent per year, with only 1.4 percent of the population having access. Access to mobile phones, in contrast, has grown at a rate of 55 percent per year since 1993, with only 22.5 percent of the population now having access. Landline telephones have essentially been made redundant (see Deichmann et al. 2011:217).

4

observation),2 unstructured interviews with people involved with the CCS and quantitative analysis of financial records generated as part of the project.

Literature Review: Solar Power and Sub-Saharan Africa Markets for solar power were developing in Africa as early as the 1970s. This was largely on the back of the oil price shocks of 1973-74 and a subsequent period of high investment in renewable energy research. However, dissemination during the 1970s and 1980s was largely restricted to more affluent sections of the population (Acker and Kammen 1996), with only Kenya and South Africa developing some form of a domestic solar power market (Bawakyillenuo 2009; Grimshaw and Lewis 2010). There was substantial multilateral and bilateral funding to promote the use of solar power in rural areas during this period, although these efforts largely failed (Chaurey and Kandpal 2010). This was due to solar power being perceived as an inferior technology, numerous faulty and substandard installations (van der Plas and Hankins 1998), and an overall greater focus on modern grid expansion by African Governments (Bawakyillenuo 2009). Most of the projects did not establish institutional and commercial viability and they ultimately lacked mechanisms for equipment maintenance, sources of credit and expertise, and incentives for continued operation and expansion (Nygaard 2009). Subsequently, by the late 1980s, aid donors became disenchanted and beneficiaries had come to view solar power as a second-class technology that developed countries were unwilling to adopt themselves (Martinot et al. 2002). As the German Technical Assistance (Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) (GTZ) noted, during this period, there had “not been a single project [focused on solar power was] designed expressly to disseminate the technology” (Martinot et al. 2002).

2

The co-author of the paper, Simon Willans, has been involved in the CCS model from project design through implementation, and is intimately familiar with the successes and failures of the model.

5

Over the past decade there has been a renewed interest in the potential of solar power as an appropriate technology for rural electrification in Africa. This is due to increasing concerns surrounding climate change, improved technologies, most notably with light-emitting diode (LED) lighting (Pode 2010), and a dramatic reduction in the over-pricing of solar power equipment (Nygaard 2009). Yet the question remains, how do we ensure the rapid dissemination of solar power into rural Africa without falling into the pitfalls of historical attempts to do so? A substantial amount of recent literature has argued that a proactive role from African Governments is a key factor for facilitating private sector involvement in the spread of solar electricity to their rural constituents (Breyer et al. 2009). While this paper does not dispute the important role governments can play in such dissemination, it will be emphasized here that partnerships between private sector and non-profit actors can be key in helping to achieve solar powered rural electrification in Africa. In the last few years, the notion of a ‘social enterprise’ approach to development interventions has arisen. In Africa the non-profit sector has often operated independent of the private sector and often played the role of vocal critic regarding private sector actors. A social enterprise approach attempts to break down this divide between the non-profit and private sectors; recognising the potential for market based approaches and smart development strategies to be considered synergistic (Hammond et al. 2007). It understands that the nonprofit sector can generate desired social impacts and change through the strategic use of market and business approaches (Alter 2007). The role of the non-profit sector therefore is to identify ‘service and trade gaps’ (Van Rensburg, Veldsman, and Jenkins 2008) and address them through the strategic facilitation of private sector involvement. For this approach, the lack of access to modern forms of energy in rural Sub-Saharan Africa should not be perceived as a problem, as it would be in traditional approaches, but rather it should be conceptualised as an 6

opportunity. The challenge is to find a way to take advantage of this opportunity to create optimal social and economic outcomes. Conceptualising opportunities in Africa’s rural lighting market is straightforward. Currently the majority of the African, rural population rely on kerosene, battery powered lanterns and, to a lesser extent, candles for their lighting needs. Africa-wide, it is estimated that more than 580 million inhabitants employ kerosene lamps as their primary light source (Lighting Africa 2010). Yet kerosene is an extremely inefficient source of lighting and provides only very dim light. Kerosene lanterns provide between 30 to 60 lumens of light, 3 compared to 900 lumens of light provided by conventional light globes (Pode 2010). Such a low output of lighting is deemed insufficient for reading and has direct impacts on children’s ability to study hindering the most highly correlated positive outcomes of increasing access to electricity (Pode 2010). Furthermore, as the World Bank initiative Lighting Africa (2010:14) has noted in a recent report, “*these+ traditional lighting alternatives [such as candles and kerosene] are typically expensive and often both dangerous and environmentally harmful.” They produce toxic smoke, and represent fire and burn hazards at the household level (Chaurey and Kandpal 2009). According to recent research by Pode (2010), rural Africans spend five hundred times more than people in industrialised countries for their lighting in terms of lumens of light produced. Evidently there are great opportunities in the rural lighting market to produce beneficial social, economic, health and educational outcomes. The challenge is to overcome the financing and technological barriers that prevent LED lighting and solar power technologies from penetrating into these rural African markets (Breyer et al. 2009; Chaurey and Kandpal 2009). This paper looks at Energy For Opportunity’s Community Charging Station (CCS) model as a social enterprise approach to the dissemination of solar power in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. 3

Candles provide around 13 lumens of light.

7

Similar CCS models utilised elsewhere in the world, have specifically demonstrated their ability to provide an enhanced quality of life, through less hazardous lighting, improved access for both adult literacy and children’s education, increased community entertainment, diversification of income generation and community security (see Dung et al. 2003; Gustavsson and Ellegard 2004; Amissah-Arthur and Amonoo 2004). Yet there is no specific literature discussing how a CCS might

be self-sustaining, and even more importantly, how they can act as centres from which to expand lighting and solar expansion in the rural context. Most literature about CCSs, discuss them in the context of comparing them to Single Household Systems (SHS) and mini-electrical grids as strategies for using solar power at the village level. Generally SHSs are understood to be most beneficial for dispersed settlements, mini-grids best for strongly nucleated villages, while CCSs are seen as best for settlements somewhere in between (Mohanty, Dasgupta, and Sharma 2010; Chaurey and Kandpal 2009; Nyaard 2009). Yet, it is argued here that such debates are

enmeshed in a narrow perspective. The CCS model developed by Energy For Opportunity (EFO), also acts as a centralised point from which to sell SHSs and provide potential localised grid access. Furthermore they are linked to, and provide lighting for, public structures and act as a source of community managed revenue for community led projects.

Case Study: Community Charging Stations (CCS) in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone’s economy and infrastructure were left in ruins by over twenty years of misrule and a subsequent civil war (1991-2001). This has caused to the country to be consistently hovering near the bottom of the United Nations Develop Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI),4 with an annual Gross Domestic Product of US$825 per capita

4

Since the HDI ranking began in 1990, Sierra Leone had always been ranked in one of the bottom two positions until 2010 when it rose to a ranking of 158 out of a 169 countries.

8

per year (UNDP 2010). In combination with the overall damage to the economy, the country has an extremely low rate of electricity access with only ten percent of the population having access to mains electricity and a rural access (or connection) rate of only one percent (Conteh 2009; MEWR 2009). This vast majority of grid connections are limited to the capital city of Freetown and the major eastern urban centres of Bo and Kenema, with most remaining populations without any grid access. This combination has led to a heavy reliance on personal generators for electricity generation, with solar power and other forms of generation and supply being insignificant in the overall energy mix. However, generators and their running costs remain far beyond the reach of the average citizen, with average ownership rates being as low as one to two percent in rural areas (MEWR 2009). Most lighting in the rural areas still comprises standard off-grid options such as kerosene lanterns, candles, fire and more recently battery powered hand held lights (EFO 2010). Energy For Opportunity’s Community Charging Station (CCS) provides one example of an innovative business model that is combining for-profit and non-profit operating procedures. The CCS is mimicked on the tele-centre model, which has been so influential in propagating the usage of mobile phones in Africa (Hammond et al. 2007). A central kiosk is built adjacent to a strategic communal structure such as a market or court barri. This serves as a hub for services such as phone charging and as a point to introduce solar powered, rechargeable lighting which rival the cost of candles and kerosene, yet provide a much higher lumen output (EFO 2011). The CCS is initially funded through non-profit finance. However, its operating model is based on purely for-profit principles. All services, including charging, light rental and sales, are done on a for-profit basis with these revenues being put back into the operations. Ongoing support for the CCS, such as maintenance and resupply of lighting products is also handled by strictly for-profit principles. This model has proven to be effective in addressing many of the traditional issues 9

affecting entry and penetration into bottom of the pyramid markets, three of which will be the focus of the case study analysis: 1) lack of for-profit entities in the market; 2) ongoing institutional and commercial viability of the models; and 3) financial and technological barriers. Lack of for-profit entities in the market In Sierra Leone, there are currently no existing wholesalers or for-profit vendors for micro-solar products.5 Typical challenges cited from local actors during the research included the high duty and tariff costs, challenges with reaching the necessary economies of scale, limited access to business finance and start-up capital, and a lack of distribution and credit networks in the country. These challenges create significant risk for for-profit entities and severely hinder the establishment of a vibrant market sector, despite the apparent willingness of local actors to take up these technologies. While non-profit actors cannot fully overcome all these issues they can fill short term voids in markets, creating the necessary conditions for the entry of for-profit entities. EFO was able to fund its initial project work through a grant provided by an international non-governmental organisation. By focusing on the numerous social and health benefits of solar lighting and also connecting the CCS to a communal structure the model is appealing to donors (Christian Aid 2010), and allows access to vital start-up capital. Other funding schemes exist that seek to promote for-profit activity in the sector and are often only accessible to applications that involve for-profit and non-profit partnerships, or provide a significant social benefit to the target or partner communities.6 These alternative funding mechanisms provide a strong incentive for partnerships and dramatically reduce the risk involved during the initial stages of entering the market, as the funding is made available on a grant or subsidy basis. 5

Micro-solar products cover the range starting at desk lamps or task lights and go up to small, solar home systems ranging in size from 0.5 - 10W.. 6 Daey Ouwens (www.agentschapnl.nl/en) and the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (www.reeep.org) are two examples of the various funding mechanisms available to these forms of partnership.

10

A lack of distribution facilities in these isolated rural markets is also a significant issue affecting the emergence of the market in Sierra Leone, as establishing a full distribution chain requires significant capital and human resource development. The CCS overcomes these issues as it serves as a permanent distribution location in the community and can be used for sales, after sales service and as points for credit schemes. EFO also provides substantial training to the CCS staff in both the technical and administrative management of the centres, with staff remaining on-site for two weeks during the initial installation phase. Interviews with CCS staff undertaken by EFO in 2010 demonstrated that the employment opportunities provided by the CCS provided for capacity development through both the acquisition of transferrable work skills and re-entry into secondary schooling for those young people most marginalised from educational and employment opportunities; including those excluded due to lack of financial resources and teenage motherhood. Ongoing support is also provided by the organisation, as the CCS provides the basis for ongoing project work in the community and is vital to EFO’s overall programme model. Non-profit actors can substantially reduce the risk associated with entering these markets by providing alternative funding mechanisms and assisting in the development of necessary distribution networks. Both of these risk mitigation factors can create opportunities for immediate for-profit intervention or the possibility of piggybacking where the projects have been successful. Ongoing institutional and commercial viability An often cited criticism of non-governmental organisation projects is that they lack the necessary mechanisms to continue after the initial funding period. This can be linked directly to the project-to-project operating philosophy of the sector but also to a lack of personnel skilled in areas such as supply chain management and basic business development. Another associated 11

issue is that non-profit sector projects are not founded on solid business models and cannot function in a market system, or more critically that they may actually hinder the future introduction of private sector initiatives by distorting prices and market conditions (ARE 2006). These are significant areas for potential partnerships between the two sectors, along with issues that must be addressed during the initial project design. The EFO CCS model provides an example of both the positive and negative aspects of the non-profit sector as the model is based on solid market principles, but appears to be stagnating due to the limited business management skills within the organisation and at the community level. All products available through the CCS are priced at market rates with average profit margins of 10-15 percent for sales and an average payback period of less than one year on all rental products.7 On a more macro scale the entire CCS model is viable as a private sector initiative. According to data provided from the Kamabai CCS, it recorded overall revenues of US$1,965.22 and profit of US$1,339.71 during the first eleven months of operations. 8 This represents an estimated payback period of 2.6 years based on a standard CCS installation, although this figure varies depending on the level of initial inventory. 9 These figures indicate that the model can be utilised as a private sector initiative and that many of the issues such as price distortion have been avoided. Further analysis of the financial records from the Kamabai CCS highlights the issue of commercial viability as it relates to business and supply chain management. During the first two months of the project there were significant products sales, with revenues of $217.07 and $180.68 respectively. These dropped to zero in the third month and then rebounded to $97.56

7

Data provided by EFO and verified by authors. These price points and payback periods are based on full product costs including full duty and Good and Services Tax (GST), despite the organisation being exempt from these costs. 8 Figures are based on Sierra Leonean Leone(SLL) values and exchanged at an estimated blended annual rate of Le4100/US$ 9 Calculations based on costs provided by EFO and assume an estimated initial inventory of two months.

12

in months four and five, at which point all initial inventory had been sold. Since this period all revenue has been generated from the charging of phones and light rentals as the CCS has not been able to import additional stock, despite a clear demand from the community. This is due to the low quantities required for the initial project sites, the necessary economies of scale and capital required to support expansion are not available and this has led to stagnation in the project. The CCS model is founded on solid market fundamentals, has demonstrated that a demand exists for the products and that profit can be made in the sector. It also highlights a weakness of the non-profit sector and another potential area of collaboration for the private sector, as effective supply chain management and access to additional capital have led to stagnation in the further dissemination of solar products. Financial and technological barriers A final area that provides opportunities for effective partnerships between non-profit and private sector entities is in overcoming the dominant financial and technological barriers that exist in introducing new products into risk averse, bottom of the pyramid markets. These are two of the most critical issues affecting the penetration of micro-solar products into markets, despite their apparent superiority to existing options. The case study provides an example of effective methods of providing credit or facilities that allow for product access without the need for the full initial cost of the product. Credit is provided in two tiers in the project design, first by EFO to the CCS in the form of inventory and then from the CCS to the customer. In the first case, EFO supplies the CCS with initial inventory that can be sold or used as product rentals. The cost for the initial inventory is then available to purchase replacement inventory or can be merely paid back to the supplier. This is an extremely low risk model as the CCS is also generating revenue from phone and other electronics charging 13

and light rentals, which diversifies the revenue stream and provides for payback options outside of pure sales. The CCS then supplies products to community members on either a rent to own or pure credit basis. This is based on a local trust exchange, commonly used in Sierra Leone for purchasing products and is an extremely simple and effective means of providing local credit. Technological barriers have historically been an issue affecting solar power in these markets as low quality products have led to some market spoilage. However, within the last few years high quality products, designed for these markets have begun to emerge.10 Initiatives such as the World Bank’s Lighting Africa project have supported these advances and also provide significant product information to wholesalers and other organisations in the field (Avato and Madiera 2010). A more prominent issue now is addressing previous market spoilage and gaining the confidence of the customers in the quality and effectiveness of the products. Non-profit actors provide significant advantages in this area as they typically have relationships with communities that can prove vital in building the required trust to introduce these new technologies. EFO provides a unique and significant case study in this regard as it has utilised the CCS to build a programme in the community. Revenue from the CCS has been used to provide community matching funds for larger, traditional solar installations at the senior secondary school and the community health clinic. Additionally, EFO staff are lodged and fed by Kamabai community members during installations and monitoring visits, highlighting the partnership aspect of the model. To develop this partnership, EFO has had to react to issues with the products and operations quickly and thoroughly. An example of this was a direct and intentional campaign by the other generator powered charging station operators that (falsely) claimed solar

10

Companies such as Barefoot Power (www.barefootpower.com), D.light (www.dlightdesign.com) and Greenlight Planet (www.greenlightplanet.com) are examples of businesses working in this emerging sector.

14

power damaged phones and provided low voltage in rainy periods. Whereas a private sector would likely not have had the required community links to address this, EFO was quickly able to call a community meeting to further explain the technology and rebut the rumours at the community level that could have crippled the project.

Conclusion Bottom of the pyramid markets represent some of the most challenging and underserviced markets in the world and combine high risk with the potential for massive rewards. This is even more acute in areas that require the introduction of new technologies, as risk averse consumers, combine with limited distribution networks and credit facilities create a dramatic challenge for for-profit market penetration. It is exactly these challenges that require the innovative and flexible business models that partnerships between for-profit and non-profit entities and the blending of the various business models can offer. Non-profit actors often have strong community links and relationships that can prove vital in building the required trust to introduce these new technologies and the critical finance mechanisms that support their disbursement. Whereas a private sector entity will be met with scepticism, well placed local non-profits can immediately access the markets. Conversely, non-profit actors will typically lack an understanding of effective supply chain management, including international procurement, and also the core business fundamentals required to manage cash flows in an ongoing for-profit entity. Attempting to address the issue of poor quality, high cost lighting from a purely nonprofit perspective will not be sufficient, as the ability to go to scale and fill all aspects of the supply chain cannot be met. In a similar vein, only viewing the issue from a for-profit perspective will overlook the potential in these bottom of the pyramid market areas and fail to realise the intricate challenges of introducing these new and unknown products. 15

Energy For Opportunity’s Community Charging Station model provides a unique case study of an approach that is blending non-profit and for-profit concepts. Community relationships and communal benefit have been a prominent aspect of EFO’s operating philosophy and it has proven successful in eliminating fears regarding the technology. Sound pricing and market principles have also been followed, with reasonable payback periods and price points that can be serviced by for-profit partners (or competitors). The model also highlights the potential for a for-profit partner to support the initial work that has been done on opening the market, as the project has stagnated due to a lack of ability to resupply the spent inventory and bring the initiative to scale. Overall, the case study showcases that the goals and objectives of non-profit and for-profit actors are not incompatible but rather that models that combine the two will lead to outcomes that support the ideals of both sectors.

16

Bibliography Acker, R. H. and D. M. Kammen (1996). “The quiet (energy) revolution: Analysing the dissemination of photovoltaic power systems in Kenya,” Energy Policy, 24 (1), 81-111. Alter, K. (2007). Social Enterprise Typology. Virtue Ventures LLC. Alliance for Rural Education (ARE) (2006). Green light for renewable energies in developing countries Brussels: ARE. Amissah-Arthur, J. and J. A. Amonoo (2004). Study of the Social and Poverty Impacts of Energy Interventions on Rural Communities in Ghana, Kumasi Institute of Technology and Environment. Avato, P. and L. Madeira (2010). “Innovative marketing and business models for the rapid development of off-grid lighting markets in Africa” Boiling Point, 58, 6-8. Bawakyillenuo, S. (2009). “Policy and Institutional Failures: Photovoltaic Solar Household System (PV/SHS) Dissemination in Ghana,” Energy and Environment, 20 (6), 927-947. Breyer, Ch., A. Gerlach, M. Hlusiak, C. Peters, P. Adelmann, J. Winiecki, H. Schützeichel, S. Tsegaye, W. Gashie (2009). Electrifying the Poor: Highly Economic Off-Grid PV Systems in Ethiopia: A Basis For Sustainable Rural Development. Hamburg: QCells. Chaurey, A. and T. C. Kandpal (2010). “Assessment and evaluation of PV based decentralized rural electrification: An overview,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14 (8), 2266–2278. Chineke, T. C. and F. M. Ezike (2010). “Political will and collaboration for electric power reform through renewable energy in Africa,” Energy Policy, 38 (1), 678-684. Christian Aid (2006). The Climate of Poverty: fact, fears and hopes. London: Christian Aid. Conteh, M. A. (2009). Regional Report and Market Analysis. Unpublished report. Crawley, K., R. Holland, and S. Gitonga (2001). “Design, Development, and Marketing of Solar Lanterns,” paper presented at the Development by Design: 1st International Conference on Open Collaborative Design of Sustainable Innovation Boston, MA. Deichmann, U., C. Meisner, S. Murray, and D. Wheeler (2011). “The economics of renewable energy expansion in rural Sub-Saharan Africa,” Energy Policy, 39 (1), 215-227. Dung, T. Q., M. Anisuzzaman, S. Kumar, and S. C. Bhatyacharya (2003). “Demonstration of multi-purpose battery charging station for rural electrification,” Renewable Energy, 28 (11), 2367-2378. Energy For Opportunity (EFO) (2010). STEWARD Site Review Outamba Kilimi National Park – Summary Report, Makeni: EFO. Energy For Opportunity (EFO) (2011). Energy For Opportunity (EFO) Annual Report 2010. Freetown: EFO. Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) (2008). Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund. Grimshaw, D. J. and S. Lewis (2010). “Solar power for the poor: facts and figures,” Science and Development Network, 24 March. Gustavsson, M. and A, Ellegard (2004). “The impact of solar home systems on rural livelihoods. Experiences from the Nyimba Energy Service Company in Zambia,” Renewable Energy, 29 (7), 1059-1072. Hammond, A. W. J. Kramer, J. Tran, R. Katz, and C. Walker (2007). The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy at the Base of the Pyramid, Washington DC: World Resources Institute (WRI). International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010). World Energy Outlook 2010. Paris: OECD/IEA. 17

Lighting Africa (2010). Solar Lighting for the Base of the Pyramid - Overview of an Emerging Market. The World Bank: Washington DC. Madamombe, I. (2005). “Energy key to Africa's prosperity Challenges in West Africa's quest for electricity,” Africa Renewal, 18 (4), 6-8. Martinot, E., A. Chaurey, D. Lew, J. R. Moreira, and N. Wamukonya (2002). “Renewable Energy Markets in Developing Countries,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 27, 309-48. Ministry of Energy and Water Resources (MEWR) (2009). National Energy Policy and Strategic Plan: Energy for Poverty Alleviation and Socio-Economic Development, Part I: National Energy Policy, Freetown: Government of Sierra Leone. Mohanty, P., N. Dasgupta and A. Sharma (2010). “Centralized solar lantern charging station under ‘lighting a billion lives’ campaign: a technological evolution,” Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 18 (7), 516-534. Nygaard, I. (2009). “The compatibility of rural electrification and promotion of low-carbon technologies in developing countries - the case of Solar PV for Sub-Saharan Africa,” European Review of Energy Markets, 3 (2). Phan, H-V. (2009). “The Elusiveness of Light: The Difficulty with Harnessing the Omnipresent Solar Energy in Africa,” ISP Collection, Paper 780. Pode, R. (2010). “Solution to enhance the acceptability of solar-powered LED lighting technology,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14 (3), 1096–1103. Prahalad, C. K. and S. L. Hart (2002). “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid,” Strategy+Business Magazine, 26, 1-14. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2005). The Sustainable Difference Energy and Environment to Achieve the MDGs. New York: UNDP. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2010). Human Development Report 2010 —20th Anniversary Edition: The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. New York: UNDP. van der Plas, R. J. and M. Hankins (1998). “Solar electricity in Africa: a reality,” Energy Policy, 26 (4), 295305. Van Rensburg, J., A. Veldsman and M. Jenkins (2008). “From Technologists to Social Enterprise Developers: Our Journey as “ICT for Development” Practitioners in Southern Africa,” Information Technology for Development, 14 (1), 76-89. Wamukonya, N. (2007). “Solar home system electrification as a viable technology option for Africa’s development,” Energy Policy, 35 (1), 6-14. World Bank (2008). The Welfare Impact of Rural Electrification: A Reassessment of the Costs and Benefits: An IEG Impact Evaluation. Independent Evaluation Group: World Bank, Washington DC.

18