From

WRAP-UP POSTINGS

1. From: "MF-Asia Moderator" <apmn@mtnforum.org>
Subject: [RETs] Wrap up: Message from your MF-Asia Moderator
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:18:17 -0600

As you know, the week 4 discussion on 'Policies' is effectively over. We will wrap up the e-conference in the next couple of days (Dec 17-19). The discussions,
henceforth, will be open-ended and will not be moderated. However, the moderators will be receiving your postings and may feel the 'itch' to comment on them, if they happen to be related to their weekly topics/subtopics.

In the next couple of days, you may address any of the issues/questions which you believe were not addressed during the month-long e-conference or comment on the postings that follow. If you want to add anything new to what has already been discussed, please feel free to do so. However, please avoid repeating what has already been discussed, as there is really no point in 'reinventing the wheel'.

I also urge you to visit/revisit the e-conf website at <http://www.mtnforum.org/apmn/RETs.htm> to read your postings/contributions. The e-conf site will be updated regularly, as it is work-in-progress. You may share the website address with your colleagues/friends/students or whoever so that they, too, may benefit from the fruits of your labour.

For your information, I shall post the week 2 and week 3 summaries as soon as they are made available. And the week 4 summary a week from now. Please be sure to submit the evaluation survey by Dec 19 - so that I can post the results a couple of days later.

Last but not, be sure to make the most of the days remaining till Dec 19 to say what you haven't said but want to say, or what you think hasn't been said so far
on the overall topic of 'RETs'. If you think there have been any 'missed opportunities' then this is the chance to make up for them. If you want to contribute papers,
case studies, research reports, you can send them to me at <apmn@mtnforum.org>.

Looking forward to hearing from you still.

Best of best regards,

Ujol Sherchan
MF-Asia Moderator

2. From: "MF-Asia Moderator" <apmn@mtnforum.org>
Subject: [RETs] Wrap-Up: Re: Message from your MF-Asia Moderator
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:13:59 -0600

Dear all,

Me again. My colleagues just said how can the wrap-up discussions be 'open-ended'. The point well taken. I meant let the thrust of the wrap-up be two-fold.

Let us in the days remaining
1. address issues/questions which have not hitherto been addressed;
2. and also work toward some sort of agreetment on the issues that have been addressed so far, and also come up with recommendations.

Best of best regards,

Ujol Sherchan
MF-Asia Moderator

3. From: "Usha Acharya" <usha_2032@yahoo.com>
Subject: [RETs] Wrap-UP: Subsidy
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:01:41 +0000 (GMT)

It's nice to hear lots of ideas although some are mere repetitions. Critics of some institutions and their activities and non-transparency have also
contributed. They should also give supporting facts and reasons but those criticised should also come up with clarifications.

Solar PV subsidy issue was a paradox. Let's see what the experts and participants have to say in the final wrap-up.

The issue of externality that Mr Amatya added to Bikshaji's points, was already there in Mr G Pokharel's discussions. Please add some thing new rather than repeat what has already been said.

Thanks to all contributors for the good stuff.

Usha
Sociology student

4. From: "G Neville" <gneville@infonie.fr>
Subject: [RETs]Wrap-Up: Re: Subsidies
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:35:16 +0100

I'd like to make a few points about subsidies:

1. I think we all need to be aware about the limitations of economic evaluation techniques. There seems to be considerable agreement that some development interventions can help enhance social capital, yet who can put a monetary value on this to include in a benefit / cost analysis? And these evaluation techniques usually struggle to account for benefits and costs that arise at different points in time, and the longer the separation between benefits and costs the more difficult it becomes to value them.

2. If a subsidy is internal to the group where it is paid - eg if subsidised electricity is provided within a community and the community as a whole, perhaps by taxes
on the better-off members, foots the bill for the "subsidy", then the subsidy has some potential to be sustainable, at least for as long as the community accepts this
arrangement.

3. As far as "external" subsidies are concerned, a good case can be made for them in certain situations - for example when a new technology is being introduced and benefits (or entitlements to benefits) are not guaranteed, or where a potential beneficiary group has low risk tolerance perhaps due to poverty. In the interests of building ownership and establishing commitment it is always desirable that subsidies be only partial and that beneficiaries make a significant contribution.

Consider community forestry in Nepal 20 years ago when subsidies were an issue - looking back today, I doubt that community forestry would have attained its present stature without those subsidies. At that time one argument for subsidies was the lengthy wait for a full payback on forestry investment.

I think it is important that subsidies be explicit and that the funder is fully aware of the subsidy component of their investment.

4. While the social capital "dividend" from construction of community infrastructure projects is important, to my mind infrastructure construction is no where near as big an issue as infrastructure maintenance, and it is important that there be sufficient social capital developed to ensure adequate maintenance of community infrastructure.

Gerry Neville
Forestry and Rural Development Specialist
11 rue Ernest Renan
35400 St Malo
France
Tel +33 2 99 56 07 97
Email gneville@mail.com

5. From: "Ramesh Maskey" <ge14@pop.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Subject: [RETs] Wrap-Up: Hydro based renewable hybrid power system
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:49:51 -0600

[To read Mr. Ramesh Maskey's excellent concept paper entitled 'Hydro based Renewable Hybrid Power System for Rural Electrification', please visit
<http://www.mtnforum.org/apmn/hybridconcept.htm>. You may also request the same as an email attachment by writing directly to <apmn@mtnforum.org>.
- MF-Asia Moderator]

Dear Dr. Rijal/ Participants,

With great interest, I have been watching the development on e-conference. It was my first e-conference and I really enjoyed it. It gave me a lot of insights in the RET and policies for its large scale deployment. I would like to congratulate with thanks to organisers, moderators and all active participants of this e-conference for their time and efforts to resolve many important issues. For me it would have been impossible to collect so many useful and concentrated information related to my own work. I would like to see more often such e-conference related to energy technologies for mountain development organised by ICIMOD.

Though, I did not actively participate in the discussions, I was using this time to read the e-conference postings and to complete my article on Hydro based renewable hybrid power system for rural electrification: A concept paper. This is attached herewith. I am sending this still at last minute (it is 2:45 AM here) with the hope that this article will answer, though not directly, just before you finally wrap-up the conference, some of the questions raised by Mr. Kharel, Moderator for Week 1 and particularly:

*Where does micro-hydro fit in with along with all the other RETs? Is it complementary to other RETs or does it compete with them, for example, with PVs?,
*Is providing lighting the main objective? Does emphasis on lighting, and hence smaller plants, mean that people will be denied the benefits of drudgery reduction because these small plants are unable to drive machines like grinders, hullers etc.?

And to address the request of Mr. Sherchan, MF-Asia Moderator, and particularly the issues which have not been addressed, in my opinion, in this e-conference.

I hope this article will inform participants with the current research work on RET development and decision making. I will inform you about the future progress
too. Any comments/views on this article will be highly appreciated.

I wish you and your team a good health and all the best for wrapping-up the discussions and publishing them.

Sincerely yours,
Ramesh Maskey
Email: <ge14@pop.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>

6. From: "SauShrestha" <saushrestha@aepc.gov.np>
Subject: [RETs] Wrap-Up: Opinion on RETs in Nepal
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:35:44 -0600

Dear Friends,

I think it has been a very good and productive e-conference specially for the first timers like me. I have taken full advantage of it. Next time I will
give the email address of my home also because during office hours I could hardly follow the discussion properly. I would like to express at this wrap-up stage,
my very personal opinion in the context of Nepal.

We discussed much of bigger RETs like Micro-hydro, Solar PV and others and at the same time ignored the IMPROVED WATER MILL which could also generate electricity. And is very appropriate in the context of Nepal since it is affordable and does not need subsidy. When I attend meetings on ICS participants they like talking about Micro-hydro and Solar PV. We know that RETs are very expensive and new technologies to Nepal. I think to popularise RETs and to make affordable to rural people, subsidy is provided. Sometime the subsidy seems double because of tax waivers on RET parts and accessories. In fact
I think this is done to bring the cost down. We have not discussed the marketing approach for high-cost RETs, which might help to bring cost down without compromising quality. The rural people when they make up their mind and start saving up for RETs, for Solar PV, for instance, it takes time despite the provision of subsidy as the price is still very high. It might also happen that there might not be subsidy for the real poor people because the Government Subsidy Policy would decrease subsequently.

Merry Christmas and wish you very happy days ahead.

Saurav K. Shrestha
Energy Officer
Alternative Energy Promotion Centre

7. From: "VBAmatya" <vbamatya@aepc.gov.np>
Subject: RE: [RETs] Wrap-UP: Subsidy
Date sent: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:28:47 +0545

This is "something new to add" to the issue raised by Ms. Usha Acharya.

When I repeated the GHG...etc. for justification of subsidy, it was mentioned as an example only. Where Ms. Nepal went off the mark (probably, something wrong with my writing) is that the point I was trying to make is when an individual makes investment (private investment) that creates a public good (you can have all kinds of public goods created by investments on RETs. I leave that to you to imagine). But the investor needs to be compensated as all the benefits of the investments are not enjoyed by the individual alone. I hope this clarifies.

VBAmatya

Energy Planning and Productive End-Use Adviser
Energy Sector Assistance Programme/Danida
Alternative Energy Promotion Centre, Nepal

| Main E-Conf Page | Top |