piloting sustainabilitymonitoring for micro … · 2018. 7. 1. · piloting...

PILOTING SUSTAINABILITYMONITORING

for MICRO HYDROPOWER PLANTS

Final Report

Submitted to:

Alternative Energy Promotion Centre Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal

July 2016

In association with

Knowledge Holding International Pvt. Ltd. Upveda Technology Pvt. Ltd.

Piloting Sustainability Monitoring Framework for MHP KHint with Upveda Technology

_________________________________________________________________________ 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Renewable Energy for Rural Livelihood (RERL), working closely with the Alternative Energy Promotion Canter (AEPC), awarded the contract for Piloting Sustainability Monitoring assignment to Knowledge Holding International Pvt. Ltd. (KHint) in association with Upveda Technology Pvt. Ltd. (UTPL) of Kathmandu, Nepal. The core team who carried out this assignment consisted of Barun Kanta Adhikari (Senior Monitoring Expert), Tej Raj Oli (MHP Engineer), Chanchal Jha (MHP Geo Technical Engineer), Nayana Amatya Rajbhandari (Project Manager / Technical Editor), Shashi Bhattarai (Team Leader / Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Expert) of KHint and Aashish Bhandari (Technology and Innovation Expert of UTPL). The core team has been generously supported with valuable input from participants in our fieldwork as well as consultation meetings with RERL/AEPC. The team would like to extend gratitude to all of them. Satish Gautam, Senior National Advisor and Sunjita Pradhan, Management Information System Associate of RERL have played a keen role as means of communication with the client, towards a logical end to what has proved to be a rather demanding assignment. Sources In assembling this report the team has drawn on many published sources, as well as on the team’s own resources. To keep the report readable, references to sources have not been provided at every occurrence; our main sources are identified in Reference section. Figures without specific attribution can be assumed to be the team’s own creation. We thank all authors of sources. Disclaimer The views expressed in this report are those of the consultancy team. They do not commit either RERL or AEPC in any way.


_________________________________________________________________________ 3

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AEPC : Alternative Energy Promotion Centre AGM : Annual General Meeting AHP : Analytic Hierarchy Process BMO : Business Member Organization CBO : Community Based Organization CC : Consumers Committee CCM : Consumers Committee Meeting CD ROM : Compact Disk Read Only Memory CI : Consumer Interview CIF : Climate Investment Funds COO : Chief Operating Officer CP : Country Partners CSD : Commission on Sustainable Development (of UN) CSP : Country Strategy Paper CT : Community Technician CV : Cross Verification / Curriculum Vitae CW : Community Worker DDC : District Development Committee DEEU/S : District Energy and Environment Unit/Section DR : Document Review EDR : Eastern Development Region EF : Environmental Flow ELC : Electronic Load Controller ESAP : Energy Sector Assistance Programme ESP : Environmental Source Protection F : Fair FGD : Focused Group Discussion G : Good GAD : Gender and Development GF : Gravity Flow GHG : Green House Gas GNP : Gross National Product GON : Government of Nepal GWh : Gigawatt Hour HH : House Hold HSE : Health and Sanitation Education HSG : Hundred Seeds Game IChemE : Institution of Chemical Engineers ICT : Information and Communication Technologies IGA : Income Generating Activities IHA : International Hydropower Association IREF : Interim Rural Energy Fund IRR : Internal Rate of Return KAP : Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices KHint : Knowledge Holding International Pvt. Ltd. KII : Key Informant Interview kW : Kilowatt kWh : Kilowatt Hour LTS : Long Term Sustainability M&E : Monitoring and Evaluation MCA : Multi Criteria Analysis MCDM : Multi Criteria Decision Making


_________________________________________________________________________ 4

MHP : Micro Hydropower Plant MHVEP : Micro Hydro Village Electrification Programme MM : Management Meeting MPA : Methodology for Participatory Assessment MS : Microsoft MW : Mega Watt NEA : Nepal Electricity Authority NGO : Non-Governmental Organization NPC : National Planning Commission O : Observation O&M : Operation and Maintenance OECD : Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development OPIT : Organization, Planning, Investment and Training PAW : Plant Area Walk PC : Photo Capture PDF : Power Development Fund PLA : Participatory Leaning and Action, PME : Project Monitoring and Evaluation POT : Power Output Test POV : Power Output Verification PRA : Participatory Rural Appraisal PV : Photo Voltaic QARQ : Quality, Accessibility, Reliability and Quantity REDP : Rural Energy Development Programme REMO : Research Monitoring (Software platform, Rooster Logic) RERL : Renewable Energy for Rural Livelihood RET : Renewal Energy Technology ROB : Response to Breakdown SCF : Strategic Climate Fund SD : Sustainable Development SDG : Sustainable Development Goal SREP : Scaling up Renewable Energy Program in Low Income

Countries SWOT : Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat T&D : Transmission and Distribution TL : Team Leader TOR : Terms of Reference TOT : Training of Trainers’ TS : Technical Supervisor UC : Users Committee UCM : Users Committee Meeting UI : Users Interview UN : United Nations UNDP : United Nations Development Programme UTPL : Upveda Technologies Pvt. Ltd. VHP : Village Health Promoter VMW : Village Maintenance Workers WB : World Bank WCED : World Commission on Environment and Development WDR : Western Development Region WSUC : Water supply user group WT : Weighted Table


_________________________________________________________________________ 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement

List of Acronyms 1. About the Report ........................................................................................................... 11

1.1 General.................................................................................................................. 11 1.2 Definition of Key Terms Used in the Study ............................................................ 12 1.3 Organization of Report .......................................................................................... 14

2. Background on the Monitoring Framework Development ............................................. 15 3. Context, Objectives and Scope of the Assignment ....................................................... 16

3.1 Objectives of the Piloting ....................................................................................... 16 3.2 Limitation of the Pilot Monitoring ........................................................................... 17

4. Approach and Methodology .......................................................................................... 18 4.1 General.................................................................................................................. 18 4.2 Administrative Arrangement .................................................................................. 18 4.3 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 18

5. The Monitoring Framework ........................................................................................... 22 5.1 General.................................................................................................................. 22 5.2 The Sustainability Monitoring / Assessment Framework ....................................... 24 5.3 Multi Criteria Analysis ............................................................................................ 25 5.4 Information Collection ............................................................................................ 26 5.5 Participatory Tools ................................................................................................. 26 5.6 Summary of Indicators and Weight Distribution .................................................... 29

6. Indicator Definition and Measurement Details .............................................................. 31 6.1 Indicator Definition and Measurement ................................................................... 31

7. Results and Discussions ............................................................................................... 39 7.1 General.................................................................................................................. 39 7.2 Feedback from Field .............................................................................................. 39 7.3 MHP Sustainability Results ................................................................................... 41 7.5 Sustainability Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................... 43 7.6 Summary of Project SWOT Analysis ..................................................................... 45 7.7 Constraints ............................................................................................................ 46 7.8 Innovation Aspects of the Study ............................................................................ 46

8. Observation and Recommendation ............................................................................... 48 8.1 General.................................................................................................................. 48 8.2 Observation on Piloted MHP Plant SWOT ............................................................ 48 8.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 48 8.4 Application of Framework for Sustainability Enhancement ................................... 49 8.5 Field Assessment Sheets ...................................................................................... 49 8.6 Sustainability Monitoring Framework Utilization .................................................... 50 8.7 Standardization of Sustainability Monitoring Framework ...................................... 50

References Annex I: Field Information Collection Sheets


_________________________________________________________________________ 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective and Scope This Pilot Sustainability Monitoring exercise is based on the modified Sustainability Monitoring Framework (yard stick for sustainability measuring / monitoring) for Micro Hydropower Plants (MHPs) developed earlier for RERL/AEPC. The monitoring assignment has initiated “Piloting” of the modified framework in order to evaluate sustainability performance of MHPs that have been implemented and to assess the existing capabilities of the beneficiaries to operate and manage their physical, socio-economic, environmental, financial and institutional assets. The assignment has also assessed the factors affecting sustainability of MHPs as well as identified and recommended specific measures to strengthen the sustainability of the plants. The scope of the study is focused on piloting sustainability monitoring framework based on multiple criteria approaches consisting of technical, financial, environmental, socio-economic and institutional criteria. Integrated assessment of the listed criteria along with various corresponding factors and sub-factors within the criterion has been considered to evaluate the status of sustainability in a holistic manner. Methodology The approach that has been utilised to conduct the sustainability monitoring is based on multi criteria analysis (MCA). The simplest form of MCA called a weight table (WT) or weighted summation as well as high end MCA, based on theory of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), has been utilized in the sustainability monitoring of 11 micro hydro plants (MHPs). The methodological steps adopted in carrying out the assignment in order to achieve the desired objectives consists of: modification and refinement as needed on the sustainability framework, development and definition of criteria, factors and sub-factors for MHP, preparation of field sustainability assessment sheets / checklists, preparation of midterm reports, preparation of sustainability measurement template (spread sheet based) for weighted table (WT) sustainability scoring, preparation of sustainability ranking hierarchies for AHP based Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA), information analysis on weighted table and AHP based software for sustainability scoring / ranking / benchmarking and report preparation. The Sustainability Monitoring Framework and Piloting Results

The sustainability monitoring framework has been integrated with technical, financial, environmental, socio-economic and institutional aspects of sustainability. The various indicators are split into criteria, factors and sub-factors to better quantize and monitor sustainability of MHP. The criteria, actors and sub factors included in the sustainability monitoring framework are based on the earlier phase of framework development (mainly consisting of literature review) and pre-testing, stakeholder consultation and refining based on the reviews and feedback. With strong backing of literature on sustainability as well as the criteria governing the sustainability in small rural projects and similar kinds of sustainability monitoring experience in Nepal, and supported by the positive results of pre-testing at earlier phase, the team had adequate grounds for finalizing the below listed criteria for sustainability monitoring framework.


_________________________________________________________________________ 7

The framework consists of five Criteria, sixteen Factors and forty-seven Sub-factors. Two sub-factors are categorized as Core Indicators, which are extremely significant to plant sustainability. The framework constitutes distinct sets of sustainability monitoring indicators or pointers. The generated information in isolation is integrated with the scoring system, making it comparatively easier to judge, by examining the composite indicator value on a plant, whether or not the project under consideration is sustainable. Furthermore, the obtained score is distributed into three situations: sustained, partially sustained or sustained at risk and not sustaining. As the situation demands, the integrated framework is capable of reflecting sustainability status as well as its sensitivity to the various factors. A value-added solution utilizing multi-criteria monitoring tool, based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), has been utilized to generate sustainability index of the plant, group of plant, implementing agency etc., depending on the need of representation. The study team highly appreciates the interactive process of developing sustainability monitoring system with the client and the consultant.

MHP Sustainability Monitoring Framework

Criteria Factors Sub factors: Assigned maximum score

1:

Tech

nic

al

11: Plant Efficiency: 5 111: Plant sizing: 2 112: Load factor: 3

12: Geotechnical Stability: 10

121: Geotechnical stability of Power House: 2 122: Geotechnical stability of Canal (head and tail race): 2 123: Geotechnical stability of Intake and Diversion Structure: 2 124: Reliability of Water Sources (CORE Indicator): 4

13: Quality of Civil Works: 10

131: Quality of Intake and Diversion Structure: 3 132: Quality of canal Structures: 3 133: Quality of Forebay, De-silting basin & Power House : 3 134: Quality of Penstock & Anchor Structure: 1

14: Functioning of Electro Mechanical Installations: 5

141: Functioning of Generator, Turbine and Anchor Structure: 3 142: Functioning of Power House (PH) Circuits & ELC: 1 143: Functioning of Power Lines (Transmission & Distribution): 1

15: Operation & Maintenance (O&M): 10

151: Status of Safety Measures: 1 152: Continuation of Power Supply: 2 153: Non-occurrence of Outage: 2 154: Technical skill of Plant Operators & Village Proximity to PH: 3 155: Time taken to respond Breakdown: 2

2:

Fin

anci

al

21: Cash Coverage: 3 211: Capital Cost Repayment: 0.5 212: Fund Availability for Regular O&M: 2 213: Saving (Cash Reserve) from Income: 0.5

22: Tariff & Revenue: 5 221: Metering & Billing Arrangements: 2 222: Revenue Collection: 2 223: Energy Pricing: 1

24: Governance (UC): 2 241: Book Keeping: 0.5 242: Debt Servicing & Regulation Compliance: 1 243: Maintenance of Meetings & Minutes: 0.5

3:

Envi

ron

men

tal 31: MHP’s Fitness to

Local Environment: 5

311: Fitness of PH, Intake & canal structures to Environment: 3 312: Plant structure Hazard Mitigation / Conservation / Adaptation measures: 2

32: MHPs Fitness to Local Livelihood & Culture: 5

321: MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Livelihoods: 3 322: MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Culture: 2


_________________________________________________________________________ 8

Criteria Factors Sub factors: Assigned maximum score

4:

So

cio

-Eco

no

mic

41: Access: 14

411: Access to Road Services at MHP: 5 412: Access to National Grid Connection (CORE INDICATOR): 9

42: Livelihood & Enterprises: 8

421: Energy use to increase Agro & Forest Products: 1 422: Energy Consumption by Local Entrepreneurs: 2 423: Multiple use of Tailrace Water: 5

43: Inclusion / Safeguard: 8

431: Gender Equity in MHP Management: 2 432: Representation of People from Disadvantaged Community in Management: 2 433: Beneficiary Coverage at MHP: 4

5:

Inst

itu

tio

nal

51: Functioning of User’s Committee: 5

511: Capacity of User’s Committee to Manage MHP: 1 512: Capacity & Functioning of System Operators (Plant): 3 513: Continuity of UC Meetings: 1

52: Coordination & Relationship: 3

521: Coordination among Board Members: 1 522: Coordination between Board & Operation Staff: 1 523: Coordination between MHP Management & Beneficiaries / Local bodies / Stakeholders: 1

53: Transparency: 2 531: Polity & Operational Procedure: 1 532: Disclosure of Reports & Book of Accounts: 1

Results of Piloted MHPs The monitored MHPs had performing rather well while considering the Core Indicators, with only one project under the yellow zone (partially sustained) in Water Sources reliability core indicator whereas three plants are in partially sustained zone with respect to the access to National Grid core indicator.

Sustainability Status / Scores of Piloted MHPs

S. No.

MHPs

Sustainability Score and Rank Core Indicator Score

Water Sources

Reliability

Access National

Grid Composite Rank Criteria Average Rank AHP Rank

1 Gringdi 68.85% 4 72.58% 4 68.80% 4 50% 70%

2 Praopkar 74.25% 1 80.47% 1 74.30% 1 100% 50%

3 Daram 70.90% 2 75.22% 3 71.50% 2 100% 70%

4 Labdi Khola 65.95% 5 69.75% 6 67.60% 5 70% 70%

5 Nishi III 61.60% 9 65.22% 9 63.70% 8 100% 70%

6 Nishi II 64.20% 6 70.52% 5 65.40% 6 100% 50%

7 Nishi I 53.80% 10 50.50% 10 59.50% 10 100% 70%

8 Bhimghat I 69.40% 3 77.42% 2 69.90% 3 100% 70%

9 Baya Khola 48.50% 11 47.43% 11 57.70% 11 100% 70%

10 Mid-Bhimghat 62.75% 7 67.33% 7 64.30% 7 70% 70%

11 Badighat 61.70% 8 65.23% 8 63.00% 9 100% 50%

Status Range: Sustained (>= 70%); Partially or Sustained at Risk (30%-69%); Not Sustained (<30%)

If we look at the criteria average score, it can be seen that most of the monitored plants under the Pilot scheme are partially sustained, (6 out of 11). The ranking of 11 MHPs are almost the same even with the sustainability scores calculated differently, i.e. composite score, criteria average scores and AHP scores are similar. It can also be observed that Criteria Score average gives a higher number of sustained plants while AHP and Composite scores give lower sustained MHPs, and have approximately same results and ranking.


_________________________________________________________________________ 9

Recommendations

The piloting process has refined the framework for MHPs sustainability monitoring and evaluation. The framework results in sustainability status of micro-hydro plants, based on their performance across various indicators included. Since the sustainability status of a plant is dependent on the indicators used, weight and score distribution to the various indicators, the first and the foremost concern is consensus on the indicators and weight distribution in the framework among all the concerned agencies that will be using the framework in an extensive manner in future. The agreed framework can thus become a MHP sustainability benchmarking tool. After the piloting of 11 MHPs, the refined multi criteria analysis (MCA) based sustainability monitoring framework has become a much more reliable compared to the framework prepared at the initial phase of pretesting. Further sustainability monitoring with diverse nature of MHPs will generate supplementary feedback to refine the framework. This is basically learning by doing process, capturing true conditions of usability across the diverse nature of MHPs scattered all over Nepal. Further stakeholder consultation and more diversified MHPs monitoring needs to be conducted for advance refinement of the framework, which should be considered an ongoing process. Based on the pilot monitoring of MHPs, recommendations for sustainability enhancement may be broadly classified into two categories, as mentioned during pre-testing phase, which is still valid:

I. Sustainability enhancement on the operating Plants II. Sustainability enhancement on up-coming or New Plants, learning from monitoring

process Sustainability enhancement on the operating projects: With the knowledge gained from the piloted MHPs, following priority for sustainability enhancement strategy is recommended:

a) Sustainability enhancement focusing on Core Indicator’s performance, as far as possible

b) Sustainability enhancement on the technical aspects and in criteria aspects, based on their performance ranking

c) Sustainability enhancement on productive energy use aspects d) Sustainability enhancement on entrepreneurial or business sense development

aspects of consumers community Sustainability enhancement on new plants: The strategy for the new plants focusing on sustainability differs from the operating plants. Based on the pilot monitoring, the following strategy is recommended:

1. Give high importance on or focus on most frequently rated ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ indicators in the piloted plants and address then from initial stage, before implementation

2. Consider weakness and threat identified in the plants, summarised in the SWOT section

3. Take consideration on the unique sustainability success factors 4. Technological innovation as per project situation: hybrid system, like combined /

integrated with drinking water, irrigation and milling


_________________________________________________________________________ 10

Field Assessment Sheets The field assessment sheets were modified drastically at the stage of piloting. The assessment sheets and guidelines were found to be satisfactory with the study field team members. They had very few difficulties with the assessment sheets themselves, and have noted and presented comments and feedback from the field in all the five aspects. However, in future monitoring exercises, field officers would need in-depth orientation on the use of the sheets in the field. It is recommended that the implementing agency conduct interactive workshops with the prospective partner staff on the use and improvement on the guidelines at the field assessment sheets. The field assessment sheets can also serve as community MHP self-monitoring tool, if translated into Nepali, along with proper orientation of MHP personnel on the use and assessment of their facility. It is also recommended that sustainability monitoring be conducted with more representative MHPs in the process of bringing the framework into wide-scale use. Sustainability Monitoring Framework Utilization It is recommended that Spread Sheet based Weighed Table framework be utilized by the AEPC partners or for low end use. The weighted table spreadsheet template developed in MS Excel is easy to use. The information gathered from field in Field Assessment Sheet is the only input required for the Excel based spreadsheet (called weighted table). As soon as input is given to the weighted table, the plant sustainability score is generated automatically in the spreadsheet whereby performance of plant on its various criteria is clarified. The weighted table is flexible as well; weights and score assigned to various factors can be modified to view all possible scenarios of sustainability score by changing weights or score distribution among the indicators. This would indeed be very helpful in conducting sensitivity analysis on new Plants to determine which factors would prove most significant in deciding the plant’s sustainability and effective operation. The AHP based framework should be useful for AEPC to decide which project and what service area needs to be financed for sustainability enhancement. The AHP based framework needs expert orientation and software to process the plant data over the framework, so for the initial years it is recommended that AEPC be prepared for AHP processing and higher level use. The input to the AHP based framework will be the weighted table. Standardization of Sustainability Monitoring Framework It is recommended that the criteria, factors and sub-factors or indicators, their definition and score distribution used in sustainability monitoring framework be uniform among all the agencies that are conducting sustainability monitoring in Nepal. It is found that there exists no standard indicators and framework for sustainability monitoring of MHP. It is recommended that AEPC advocate for the establishment of relevant policy in this regard. This requirement becomes even more essential as more agencies start working in MHP sector in Nepal, and a standard sustainability monitoring framework be required to establish comparable sustainability status across those assessments / agencies.


_________________________________________________________________________ 11

1. About the Report 1.1 General

This Report on the “Piloting of Sustainability Monitoring Framework for Micro Hydropower Plants” is the proceeds of the agreement signed with the RERL / AEPC for development of sustainability monitoring framework for micro hydropower plants. The main objective of this assignment is to improve and pilot the Sustainability Monitoring Framework for micro hydro power plants (MHPs) developed earlier by RERL/AEPC. The Sustainability Assessment Framework is compatible with multi criteria analysis (MCA) based on the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The schematic diagram presented below in Figure 1.1 represents the phased development, pre-testing, piloting and further adaptation process of the Sustainability Monitoring Framework for MHPs utilization in the days to come. The shaded green Phase II is current process and detailed in this report.

Figure 1.1: Sustainability Monitoring Framework Development Phases

The pilot sustainability monitoring provided an opportunity to the assigned professionals to work in a coordinated group, forming “triangulated learning and iterative scrutiny”, as one of the guiding principles of the methodology utilized. The domain of the methodology systematically endorses the concepts of Participatory Leaning and Action (PLA), Gender and Development (GAD), Poverty Alleviation through People's Empowerment, Multi Criteria Integration and Informed Decision-Making. These key words formed the basis of the framework improvement and set out a strong guideline for development, application, interpretation and innovation on sustainability monitoring of micro hydropower plants.

Phase I

Design

•Framework Design, Development and Pre-testing

•Literature review

•Internal Consultation

•Framework Development

•Pre-testing at Pinthali, Daune Khola MHP

Phase II

Piloting

•Refinement and Piloting

•Wider Consultation

•Modified field assessment sheets and Piloting at 11 MHPs

•Learning from field experience and improvement Recommendations

•Recommendation for next Phase of Adoptation / Deployment Sustainability Monitoring at mixed sample environment

Phase III

Adoptation

•Adoptation process start with modification recommended in Phase II

•Wider / diversified MHPs to monitoring

•Improvement by learning as monitoring process moves forward / Learning by doing and improving as per feedback

•Adoptation of the Framework for Sustainability Monitoring


_________________________________________________________________________ 12

1.2 Definition of Key Terms Used in the Study

Sustainability (of MHP): Degree to which services of Micro-hydro plant is meeting demands or needs of customers, within the range of available options, standards and norm, currently and expected in the future. Overall sustainability status of a MHP services, at any given time, is dependent on or mutually governed by the degree of technical efficiency; extent of energy demand and uses in the locality; performance standards of its running; scale of environmental vulnerability and influence of local socio-economic dynamism. Sustainability of MHP services has been interpreted as ‘Sustainability of MHP’ in this framework, only for the sake of easy understanding by the common people. Sustainability Monitoring Framework: A systematic and formal process for structured holistic measurement of Sustainability. The framework is expected to serve as yard-stick for sustainability measurement. Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA): MCA is a process of integrated assessment of projects, alternatives or options for ranking or selecting, priority setting among the finite set of projects, alternatives or options. MCA is a structured approach to determine overall preference among alternatives, where the alternatives accomplish several objectives. The advantage of the MCA processes is that is enables an integrated assessment of subjective and objective information with stakeholders’ values in a single framework. Two approaches of MCA were utilized in the study, one is the simplest form called Weighted Table (WT) method and the other is high-end MCA tool based on the theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP is a well-established MCA tool, mainly in business and industry and it is gaining importance in development as well. However, AHP is quite new in the field of Micro Hydropower in specific and RET in general. Weighted Table method of MCA: Weighted table or weighted summation is a form of MCA and is often referred to as “additive weighting.” Weighted summation is matrix-based and is considered as the simplest MCA technique to understand. Alternatives are scored for each comparison criteria and then an importance weight is applied to each criterion. Criteria are weighted because they are not equally valued by individuals; what is important to one person is not always to another. Therefore, a range of weights for criteria could also be produced based upon different interest group concerns (Buselich, 2002) The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): The AHP based multiple criteria analysis starts from building tree-like structure, with criteria at higher level and factors and sub-factors are at the lower level. Objective of evaluation lies at the top and the options or alternatives to be evaluated are placed at the lowest level of the hierarchy. The AHP structuring problems into hierarchically allows identifying multiple criteria, factors and sub-factors related to problem to be addressed. The importance or weight to the factors can be either directly applied or could be generated by making pair-wise judgment between the various factors. Performance of project is applied at the lowest level of the hierarchy. AHP produces flexible and efficient hierarchic framework for integrated or holistic sustainability monitoring process. Because all parts of the hierarchy are interrelated, it is easy to see how a change in one factor will affect the other factors. By laying out sustainability monitoring framework in AHP format, many types of data can easily be incorporated, differences in levels of performance can be accommodate, trade-offs among


_________________________________________________________________________ 13

factors with different weight can be identified. AHP based personal computer software makes things much easier for evaluation and assessment. AHP facilitates to see ‘what if?” scenario on ranking of project based on sustainability score generation by changing weights among criteria, factors and sub-factors. It is also possible to dynamically see sensitive criteria, factor or sub-factor from among the selected projects from the long list of projects monitored. AHP and WT Method: The Framework for Sustainability Monitoring is developed based on the art and science of AHP, however, field information collection and initial analysis is focused for WT method (the framework is made compatible with both the method). The WT process is targeted for the lower end use, but AHP is meant for high end use. AHP based software is to be used for in-depth analysis of sustainability of single or multiple MHPs within the framework. Criteria, Factors, Sub-factors and Indicators: Criteria are the highest level of sustainability monitoring indicator, Factors are mid-level, whereas sub-factors are at the lowest level indicators. Sub-factors are measured or judged or rated for each project while field sustainability monitoring of MHPs. Criteria are sub-divided into factors and factors are further sub-divided in to sub-factors. For example, technical, financial, environmental, socio-economic and institutional are the criteria taken in the study. The technical criterion is divided into four factors: plant efficiency, geo-technical stability, quality of civil works and functioning of electro mechanical installations. The factor "plant efficiency" is further divided into two sub-factors, namely plant sizing and load factor. The sub-factors are the indicators under each criterion or factors are measured/judged or rated at plant site while conducting sustainability monitoring. Indicator may be a single sub-factor or factor consisting of few sub factors. Core Indicator / Core Sustainability Score: Core indicator in Sustainability monitoring are those indicators (factor or group of sub-factors) which are considered as key or must perform to certain level to establish the plant as sustainable, partly sustainable / sustained at risk or not sustained. In the framework two core indicators are identified. Core sustainability indicators / score are the key sustainability indicators of the MHP under monitoring. The core indicators are the key factors to be identified in the weighted table. Composite Indicator / Composite Sustainability Score: Composite indicator is the indicator value consisting of all the sub-factors or indicators assessment result. For example, plant performance in technical, financial, environmental, socio-economic and institutional in combination. Sustainability Score: Evaluated numerical value based on the plant sustainability assessment (currently field Piloting result based on the framework developed), rating or judgement of each sub factors are called sustainability score. Cumulative value of all the sub-factors generates the composite sustainability score, whereas numeric value of core factor or sub-factors, which are designated as core indicators, is the core sustainability score or core sustainability indicator value or performance. Sustainability Sensitivity Analysis: This sustainability monitoring study is to be based on the score, which is variable depending on the weight given to various criteria. Change in sustainability performance of plant by changing criteria weight is called project sustainability sensitivity analysis. The plant sustainability is seen making criteria weight equal, as at the normal or base case the criteria weights are not equal. The sensitivity analysis or “what-if” situation analysis may vary depending on the requirement, to observe plant performance on sustainability with respect to specific factor/s.


_________________________________________________________________________ 14

The sensitivity analysis has more value for projects which are in cut-off range of sustainability score between sustainable, partially sustainable (sustained at risk) or not sustainable. The insights of a plant that could be obtained from sensitivity analysis among sustainability indicators could generate meaningful knowledge for future project development and sustainability management for projects. Base Case Sustainability Status: Base case sustainability status is the sustainability score with the initial criteria weight. Initial criteria weight considered in the framework is 40%, 10%, 10%, 30% and 10% for technical, financial, environmental, socio-economic and institutional criteria respectively. Whereas, all five criteria weight is made equal to 20% while conducting sensitivity analysis of sustainability of plant with respect to criteria, which is called criteria weight equal case in the study. 1.3 Organization of Report The final report of the pilot sustainability monitoring is presented in single volume with main text and annexes. Details of field level information collected on field assessment sheets during monitoring of MHPs at site has been submitted earlier as Field Report. The field level detail information is not included in this phase of reporting. This report is presented in chapters, sections and one annex for field assessment sheet. The core component of the report is detailed in section five, six, seven and eight, which contains the monitoring framework, indicator definition and measurement details, pilot monitoring results, discussion, observation and recommendation respectively. The last section contains list of documents and relevant literature reviewed. The second and third section of the report contents the background for sustainability, describes the context, objective and scope of the sustainability framework development for MHP.


_________________________________________________________________________ 15

2. Background on the Monitoring Framework Development The sustainability monitoring framework design, development and pre-testing was conducted in the first phase of the process of multi criteria based sustainability monitoring system development. Key parts in the development phase were:

a. Literature Review

b. Internal consultation

c. Framework development, and

d. Pre-testing of the framework, which was conducted at Daune Khola MHP at Pinthali,

Kavrepalanchowk district.

Prior to commencement to this second phase of piloting, wider consultative workshop was conducted by RERL/AEPC. The workshop feedback has been reflected in the refined framework for field piloting. Literature review conducted at the earlier phase set the basis to establish five Criteria, Factors and Sub-factors. The guiding literature and reports are mainly United Nations reports on Sustainability, Earlier conducted sustainability studies by AEPC, ADB conducted study on “Sustainable Energy Access Planning A Framework” by Shrestha, R. M. et al. (2015). The International Hydropower Association (IHA) led Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol (http://www.hydrosustainability.org/) is the resources not to miss while working on the sustainability of hydropower. The framework covers aspects of United Nations SDG 2030 (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs). The framework development and refining process is focused to rural micro-hydro plants in Nepalese context, the reviews set base to customize the multiple criteria sustainability monitoring framework development and refinement. The reference literature is again cited at the end of the report.


_________________________________________________________________________ 16

3. Context, Objectives and Scope of the Assignment

The Government of Nepal (GoN) has been promoting micro hydro for rural electrification since 1980s. As Nepal has difficult topography and scattered settlements, particularly in the hills, extension of the national electricity grid for rural electrification would be exorbitantly expensive and micro hydro has proven to be an appropriate solution. Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) has supported communities to install over 1,000 MHPs all over the country. However, studies have indicated that all of the micro hydropower plants are not operating smoothly. Some plants have been running for over 15 years without any major breakdowns whereas some others are facing existential problems. Studies also indicate that although most of the MHPs are facing problems of one kind or the other, they are still operational and supply electricity. However, reliability, quality of electricity supplied, revenue generated, plant load factor, end-use applications, etc. vary considerably among the MHPs promoted by AEPC. These raises the questions on what basis should the project be considered as sustained, or at sustain risk or not sustained. So far, there has not been any standard reference established in the sector that describes the sustainability/functional status of completed MHPs. This situation has seriously impeded the efforts towards establishing sustainability database, designing of rehabilitation projects and clarity on other sustainability issues. In this context, AEPC plans to develop a framework that will incorporate all aspects related to sustainability of MHP. This assignment has been prepared to acquire services of a qualified Nepali firm to pilot sustainability monitoring of MHPs based on the multi criteria framework developed by AEPC earlier. The piloting exercise also enhanced the framework proposed earlier for its compliance, to make efficient and effective management decision, utilizing advanced tools such as multi criteria analysis (MCA) with sound theoretical base such as analytical hierarchy process (AHP). 3.1 Objectives of the Piloting The main objective of this assignment is to Pilot Sustainability Monitoring of micro hydro power plants (MHPs) using the earlier developed Sustainability Assessment Framework. The specific objectives of the assignment are: Piloting of sustainability monitoring framework to be further critically reviewed to ensure technical, financial, environmental, socio-economic and institutional aspects of sustainability represented in a single system. The piloting will provide feedback to decision makers ensuring the followings on the sustainability monitoring framework developed earlier:

a) can holistically represent all concerned aspects of sustainability b) consisting of all factors, criteria, indicators of associated stakeholders c) can establish transparency of various aspects of sustainability, which can take care

of subjective and objective indicators d) piloting of 11 MHPs for sustainability monitoring using the framework e) refining, modifying and recommending to the framework based on the learning from

the piloting exercises. f) preparing and recommending a robust decision support system for strategic

information on status of MHPs sustainability, for rehabilitation of existing plants and to serve as feedback for implementing new MHPs.

g) The recommendation is also expected to include best possible way to use ICT that can enhance the monitoring the geographically diverse and remotely located MHPs in Nepal and efficiently generate sustainability status result.


_________________________________________________________________________ 17

The pilot monitoring assignment includes the following tasks and activities: 1. Review earlier developed sustainability monitoring framework and improve as

needed. 2. Assessment and incorporation of the comments and feedback received by RERL /

AEPC on the earlier developed sustainability monitoring framework. 3. Refinement and Improvement in the Framework and field assessment sheets 4. Selection and finalization of sample MHPs for pilot monitoring and field mobilization

planning 5. Reporting – I: Midterm Report based on the above studies, receiving comments

and suggestion before moving for field monitoring for piloting 6. Orientation and training to the field sustainability monitoring team before moving to

field for sustainability monitoring 7. Field Visits for monitoring in Teams of Engineers 8. Reporting – II: Field Monitoring Reporting 9. Information analysis, sustainability score generation and processing using Weighted

Table as well as AHP based software 10. Sensitivity analysis of sustainability against various aspects for each monitored

MHPs 11. Reporting with critical analysis 12. Concluding and Recommending for further utilization of the Framework 13. Reporting – III: Draft Final Report Submission, receiving comments and suggestion

and Final Report submission

3.2 Limitation of the Pilot Monitoring The main part of the piloting is improving sustainability monitoring framework developed earlier. The integrated sustainability-monitoring framework has been piloted for 11 pre-chosen MHPs, analysis and presentation of sustainability results are the major activities of the study. Due to limited resources, the sample MHPs selected were of same cluster located in the Baglung and Gulmi districts. The MHPs are close enough the travel time from one plant to another was around three hours, either by walking or by local transportation. The monitoring approach is different from the conventional questionnaire and checklist based method. The various monitoring indicators, grouped in a systematic hierarchy within the monitoring framework, are rated or evaluated at the plant site to be assigned score based on the pre-defined performance status of the indicator. Cumulative scores from among the various indicators within the framework generate the scores to reveal the status of sustainability of plant under monitoring. The approach uses appropriate participatory process to judge the particular grade for the indicator to be rated. The study does not cover survey of physical components, household surveys or socio-economic surveys. The sustainability framework piloting is based on technical vulnerability, functionality as well as environmental, financial and institutional performance. The framework development is not for an impact assessment, nor does it cover project impact indicators or reflect the impact at the community after several years of completion of the plant. The sustainability monitoring framework requires refinement and modification according to recommendations, mainly based on the field experience during the piloting.


_________________________________________________________________________ 18

4. Approach and Methodology 4.1 General The sustainability monitoring framework refinement and piloting assignment is grounded on the philosophy that domain experts and at least ten pilot sites are required, to establish a high level of commitment to work with the grass-roots level people, especially with women and poorest of the poor in the communities, and possess a refined understanding of participatory research methods, for the study to commence effectively. In view of the rigor desired in the framework development and learning, the team demonstrated the qualities and capabilities to comprehensively internalize both the software and the hardware parts of the sector and have respectfully accepted the guidance of AEPC. 4.2 Administrative Arrangement The pilot monitoring has been conducted with strategic administrative approach. The study team consisted of five professionals, three at the office and two for the field, coordinated by a team leader with knowledge and experience on multiple disciplinary approach, multi criteria sustainability analysis and hydropower sector. The task has also been overseen by KHint COO for qualitative aspects in parallel with the study team leader. Well-triangulated framework for best utilization of collected information is the key to reflect the true situation of sustainability of plants under monitoring and its reporting. As such, conducting strategically planned information collection and analysis was the main challenge to the team leader and professionals involved in the Sustainability Framework Refinement and Piloting. The consultants took the responsibility of orienting AEPC and their staff on the essence of the multi criteria framework. The monitoring assignment has tried to do so by interpreting the developed indicators of monitoring, information collection tools, such as field assessment sheets and impart knowledge to solicit information from the piloted micro-hydro plants. During the on-site sustainability monitoring, the team interviewed associated stakeholders and beneficiaries while gathering information. The team carried out plant sustainability studies in accordance with the highest standards of professional and ethical competence and integrity, guided by the modified field assessment sheets. 4.3 Methodology The pilot sustainability monitoring and reporting methodology has been divided into eight stages. The eight stages are discussed below: 1. Framework Assessment: The strategic tasks involved project sustainability monitoring framework revision, refinement, finalization and piloting. As the monitoring is focused on the various indicators / factors on MHPs, the framework assessment task was considerable benefit to the monitoring system as the indicators; scoring and framework are the basis of sustainability monitoring and generating sustainability score by various methods calculating sustainability scores, mainly weighted table (WT) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. The framework consists of five Criteria, sixteen Factors and forty seven Sub-factors. The framework constitutes sets of sustainability monitoring indicators or pointers. Generated information from the field in isolation is to be integrated with the scoring system, making it


_________________________________________________________________________ 19

comparatively easier to judge, looking at the composite indicator value on a plant, whether or not the plant under consideration is sustainable. Furthermore, scores are distributed across three situations: sustained, partially sustained or sustained at risk and not sustaining. As the situation demands integrated framework to reflect sustainability status and its sensitivity with factors, a value-added solution utilizing multi criteria based monitoring tool based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been utilized to generate sustainability index of the project, group of project or group of project in a plant site, implementing agency, depending on the need of representation. Details on sustainability monitoring framework is discussed in next Chapter of the report. 2. Tools Assessment: The Consultant identified the right tool to be used to solicit the right information (approach to judge particular indicator on the framework). In this context, various participatory tools were evaluated against the information to be collected to arrive at the best combination of methodological tools to utilize during the fieldwork. The tool recommended during the pre-testing phase was verified for its utility. 3. Finalization of Field Assessment Sheets: Based on the tools identified in the above stage, the Consultants modified and finalized the field sustainability assessment sheets (checklist, observation and information collection and indicator judgement / rating sheets). Key informant interview, focused group discussion, consumers committee meeting were the basis to most of the indicators for getting information from community and beneficiaries to arrive at the appropriate rating of the indicators specified in the field assessment sheets. 4. Field Visit Planning and Orientation of the Consultants’ Team: The consultant orientated its field piloting team (Micro-hydropower Engineer and Geo-technical Engineer) prior to the commencement of the fieldwork for Piloting. The selected 11 MHPs were scheduled for visit via the best fitting route, which could be travelled within the budgeted time-frame. 5. Field Work: The fieldwork consisted of random beneficiary interview, focus group discussions, key informant (operator’s team, consumers’ committee members, etc.) interview, transect walk (intake, transmission canal, powerhouse), observation and photo capture. The consultant generated input for the sustainability assessment sheets from the field interviews, focus group discussions and key informant surveys. Village / Plant service area walk was guided by the monitoring indicators at field assessment sheets. The consultant appraised the major groups involved at the field level and their impression of the plant and benefit rendered was collected. While soliciting information, the consultant ensured that all field teams followed an iterative process to recount all the information to the best of their precisions. Field work activity flow is presented in Figure 4.1.


_________________________________________________________________________ 20

Figure 4.1: Field Activity Flow Chart 6. Analysis of Information: Analysis of the information was conducted separately for each project using spreadsheet template developed in MS Excel. The spreadsheet template is basically a weighted table (WT) for sustainability indexing and assessment of plant based on the score. A value added analysis was also conducted using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) framework utilizing AHP processing software. The information synthesized for Piloting MHPs were consolidated to analyse the sustainability status and behaviour change. 7. Outcomes from the Framework Piloting: Outcome from the piloting is presented in the results and discussion section of the report. The outcome includes the factors effecting sustainability of plant, physical functional status and use of plant. SWOT analysis, status of in socio-economic, innovation aspects from the piloting etc. in addition to the comprehensive sustainability results generated by multi criterion tool based on WT and AHP based sustainability scoring methods. WT is the input for AHP, both use the same framework, only the robustness of calculation is different while sustainability sensitivity calculation is determined using AHP processing software. Extensive interpretation and further analysis out of WT and AHP results are possible; however this report is limited to the specific requirements indicated in the MHP Sustainability Pilot Monitoring based on the TOR.

MHP Village Walk With senior community / CC

members

Discussion & Meetings with Beneficiaries & CC Members

Key points Observation, Photo Capture and Interview

On the spot interviews with Consumers / Students / Locals

passing by

Arrival at Plant Service Area Planning & Arrangement for Assessment

Completion of Field Judgment and Assessment


_________________________________________________________________________ 21

Following are the specific outcomes of the pilot sustainability monitoring exercise:

1. Understanding on the factors affecting sustainability of MHP plants by technological, financial, socio-economic, environmental and institutional aspects.

a. Existing weaknesses, problems, constrains, threats together with its causes. b. Existing strengths, potentials, opportunities etc. c. Plant selectiveness, effectiveness, influence, organization etc.

This part of the outcome is covered mainly in the project SWOT analysis

2. Understanding on status of plant categorically by core indicators and age

3. Developing innovative approach for sustainability monitoring of MHPs. The framework developed and utilized in this phase and added realization on the innovation part is discussed.

4. Recommendations for future adaptation, continuation, modifications, modernization, and innovations for better sustainability of MHPs developed all over Nepal in general, and AEPC supported MHPs in particular.

5. Added realization on sustainability of plant at community level. 8. Reporting: The reporting has been conducted in three stages: the Midterm Report, Field Report with field experience sharing at the AEPC office and the Final Report, incorporating the concerns and suggestions on earlier consultations and reporting. The final Report is divided in two parts. The first part consists of main text and second part with annexure. The report is presented with the refined sustainability monitoring framework, modified field assessment sheets and field piloting results. The conclusions and recommendations are drafted based on the findings from the Pilot monitoring of MHPs using the improved framework.


_________________________________________________________________________ 22

Box 5.1: Factors influencing Sustainability of MHP

All technical, financial, social, environmental and institutional aspects of MH operation were seen to influence the MHP sustainability, with good management being the key element in all aspects. These components are clearly interlinked: a small change in one of these components may hinder all the other factors. ~ Winrock (2012)

5. The Monitoring Framework

5.1 General

The sustainability monitoring framework for micro hydropower plant (MHP) is based on generating score or numerical value of various indicators on performance of plant under monitoring / observation. The composite sustainability indicator has been generated based on the framework consisting of various criteria, factors and sub-factors or indicators. Agreed or consensus weights have been assigned to each indicator, sub-factors, factors and criteria. The indicators are the lowest level of the sustainability framework and rated at the field. The composite indicator is generated from the weighted table (WT) method. The core indicator is the basic sustainability status of the facility under monitoring and is a kind of Litmus test for sustainability assessment. Improved and refined indicators used in the sustainability monitoring framework for MHP are presented in Table 5.1.The table also indicates the participatory tools to be used to acquire information / to judge the status / rating of the indicator at project.

Table 5.1: Indicators used in the sustainability monitoring framework for MHP

TECHNICAL CRITERIA

Factors Sub factors Assessment Tools 11: Plant Efficiency 111: Plant Size KII / DR

112: Load Factor KII / DR

12: Geo-technical

Stability

121: Geo-technical Stability of Powerhouse O / PC / KII / FGD

122: Geo-technical Stability of Canal, Head Race and

Tail Race

O / PC / KII / FGD

123: Geo-technical Stability of Intake & Diversion

Structure

O / PC / KII / FGD

124: Reliability of Water Source

[CORE INDICATOR]

O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

13: Quality of Civil

Works

131: Quality of Intake and Diversion Structures O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

132: Quality of Canal Structures O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

133: Quality of Fore Bay, De-silting Basin & Power

House


134: Quality of Penstock and Anchor Structures O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

14: Functioning of

Electro-Mechanical

Installations

141: Functioning of Generator, Turbine and Belt O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

142: Functioning of Powerhouse (PH) Circuits & ELC O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

143: Functioning of Power Lines (Transmission &

Distribution)


15: Technical

Operation and

Maintenance

151: Status of Safety Measures O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

152: Continuation of Power Supply O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

153: Non-occurrence of Outage O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

154: Technical Skill of Plant Operator and Proximity of

Village from Power House


155: Time Taken to Respond Breakdown O / PC / KII / FGD / DR


_________________________________________________________________________ 23

FINANCIAL CRITERIA

Factors Sub factors Assessment Tools 21: Cash Coverage

211: Capital Cost Repayment MM / KII / DR

212: Fund Availability for Regular O&M MM / KII / DR

213: Savings from Income MM / KII / DR / FGD

22: Tariff &

Revenue

221: Metering and Billing Arrangements MM / KII / DR / FGD

222: Revenue Collection MM / KII/ DR / FGD

/CCM

223: Energy Pricing MM / KII/ DR / FGD

/CCM

23: UC Governance

231: Book Keeping MM / KII / DR

232: Debt Servicing & Regulation Compliance MM / KII / DR

233: Maintenance of Meetings & Minutes MM / KII / DR

ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA

Factors Sub factors Assessment Tools 31: MHP’s Fitness to

Local Environment

311: Fineness of Powerhouse, Intake and Canal

structures to Environment

KII / FGD / PAW

312: Plant structures Hazard Mitigation /Conservation /

Adaptation Measures

KII / FGD / PAW

32: MHP’s

Environmental

Fitness to Local

Livelihood & Culture

321: MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Livelihoods

KII / FGD / PAW

322: MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Culture KII / FGD / PAW

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CRITERIA

Factors Sub factors Assessment Tools

41: Access

411: Access to Road Services at MHP O / KII / FGD / DR

412: Access to National Grid Connection

[CORE INDICATOR] O / KII / FGD / DR

42: Livelihood and

Enterprises

421: Energy Use to Increase Agro & Forest Products. O / KII / FGD

422: Energy Consumption By Local Entrepreneurs O / KII / FGD

423: Multiple use of Tail race water O / KII / FGD

43: Inclusion

Safeguard

431: Gender Equality in MHP management O / KII / FGD / MM

432: Representation of People From Disadvantaged

Community

in Management

O / KII / FGD / DR /

MM

433: Beneficiary Coverage O / KII / FGD / DR

INSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA

Factors Sub factors Assessment Tools 51: Institutional

Functioning of User’s

Committee

511: Capacity of User’s Committee to

Manage MHP

MM / KII / DR

512: Capacity and Functioning of System

Operators

MM / KII / DR

513: Continuity of UC Meetings MM / KII / DR

52: Coordination and

Relationship

521: Coordination Among Board Members MM / KII / DR

522: Coordination Between Board &

Operational Staff

MM / KII / DR

523: Coordination Between MHP MM / KII / DR


_________________________________________________________________________ 24

INSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA

Factors Sub factors Assessment Tools Management and Beneficiaries/Local

Bodies/Stakeholders.

53: Institutional

Transparency

531: Transparency of Institutional policies

and operational procedures

MM / KII / DR

532: Disclosure of Reports and Books of

Accounts

MM / KII / DR

O: Observation; PC: Photo Capture; CCM: Consumers Committee Meeting; FGD: Focused Group Discussion; KII: Key Informant Interview; DR: Document Review; MM: Management Meeting; CI: Consumer Interview

5.2 The Sustainability Monitoring / Assessment Framework

The sustainability monitoring has been conducted utilizing an integrated framework, taking into consideration technical, financial, environmental, socio-economic and institutional aspects of sustainability. Various indicators have been distributed into criteria, factors and sub-factors to monitor sustainability of MHP. The sustainability assessment output is sustainability score, which is generated by two approaches of multi criteria analysis (calculation): Weighed Table and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Commercially available software has been utilized to process of AHP part. The weighted table has been enhanced during this phase of piloting the framework and re-organized to suit the same framework in AHP hierarchy. Details of weighted table and weight distribution among the various criteria, factor and sub-factors are presented in the following tables. The weighted table (WT) or AHP generates sustainability score or index, as presented on the scoring table based on the details of factors and weight distribution. Rating grade is for the indicator level. The composite score percentage is aggregated range is also indicated in the Table 5.2, to classify or categorise the sustainability status in three status.

Table 1: Scoring System for Sustainability Analysis

Grading Nomenclature

Score Distribution for Different Grading Sustainability Status

Very Good 70-100% Sustained

Good 50-69% Partially Sustained or Sustained at Risk

Fair 30-49%

Poor <30% Not Sustained


_________________________________________________________________________ 25

Box 5.1: Multi Criteria Analysis MCA is a process of integrated assessment of alternatives or options for priority setting, ranking or selecting among the finite set of alternatives or options. MCA approaches make the options and their contribution to the different criteria open, and all require the exercise of judgment. MCA processes are gaining importance because of its power of integrated assessment of subjective and objective information with stakeholders’ values in a single framework. MCA is a structured approach to determine overall preference among alternatives, where the alternatives accomplish several objectives.

Box 5.2: Analytical Hierarchy Process The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) uses subjective judgement for structuring and solving multi-person, multi-criterion and multi-time period problems, Structuring problems hierarchically allows for the identification of multiple actors and interests while resulting in prioritization of impacts and/or preferences through pair-wise comparisons by those who have first-hand knowledge to the system. The AHP allows for a margin of inconsistency (or intransitivity) of preferences and is equally suitable for scenario construction and policy selection. The technique draws upon the human ability to conceptualise problems as sets or systems of interdependent factors while simultaneously decomposing the problems in terms of those factors, which are perceived to have the highest priorities. The AHP's flexible and efficient hierarchic framework guides the decision making process. Because all parts of the hierarchy are interrelated, it is easy to see how a change in one factor will affect the other factors. By laying out decisions in this format, many types of data can easily be incorporated, differences in levels of performance can be accommodate, trade-offs among things that look different can be identified. (Sources: Saaty, T.L (1980), The Analytical Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw Hill, Saaty and Kerns: 1995 and Expert Choice 9.5 Help Manual: 1998)

5.3 Multi Criteria Analysis

Revised multi criteria sustainability analysis hierarchy / framework based on AHP is presented in Figure 5.1.For the hierarchy development, being part of AHP process, the factors identified earlier and discussed with AEPC have been re-arranged, forming weighted table as well as AHP hierarchy. Input for multi criteria analysis is the weighted table base level indicator rating score collected / judged at the field. Sustainability sensitivity analysis with factors for the piloted plants is conducted in AHP. The hierarchies presented in the figure contain details up to factors level; for sub-factors under the factors score distribution tables need to be referred. Both the weighted table as well as AHP method use multiple criteria and are based on the integrated framework with same criteria, factor, sub-factors or indicators. Both approaches are multiple criterion approach, but there are fundamental differences while doing in-depth analysis. Weighted table is primitive form of multi criterion approach, whereas AHP based MCA is a state of the art tool and is the true multi criterion approach.

Further analysis for ranking of plants at a later stage, would require base case priority or weight to criteria, factors and sub-factors to be taken the same as in the case of weighted table (WT) method. Sensitivity of ranking of plant is seen by equalling the weight to criteria and maintaining same priority to factors and sub-factors.


_________________________________________________________________________ 26

5.4 Information Collection

Sustainability assessment information collection sheets, known as “Field Information Collection Sheets” consist as following section of information collection and guidelines for field team:

Project Basic Information

Field Information Collection Guidelines

List of Sustainability Assessment Criteria, Factors, Sub-factors & assessment tools

On Site Sustainability Assessment Checklist / with indicator rating sheets

Overall SWOT Analysis of Plant

Open sheet on any other matter related to Sustainability Indicators are grouped into five criteria, namely Technical, Financial, Environmental, Socio-economic and Institutional, which are considered the five pillars of sustaining a MHP. The performance assessment of each sub-factor was based on the following rating: 1. Rating based on the performance status of indicator – Getting input from field

assessment sheets, like Geotechnical Stability of Powerhouse: fully safe, reliable, somewhat safe, unsafe

2. Rating based on subjective status of indicator or subjective assessment of performance of indicator

The first type of rating, distribution of performance status was used mainly for key / core indicators, like status of Geotechnical stability, which contributed significantly to sustainability status. The second type of rating, based on the subjective indicators is normally used for financial, environmental, institutional and socio-economic factors and is mainly not contributing significantly. Ratings of indicators were conducted using score distribution (Table 5.2), depending on the importance of indicator. The sustainability assessment was based on the consumer / community / beneficiary response and on site situation and observation. The participatory tools mentioned in Table 5.1and discussed at the following section were used to generate information from community. The Field Information Collection Sheets are presented at Annex of the report. 5.5 Participatory Tools

The sustainability assessment has been based on the community / beneficiary response as well as on site situation and observation. Except for a few technical matters, most technical, financial, socio-economic, environmental and institutional situation assessment have been based on community response and team observation. The participatory tools identified have been used to generate information from the community. These participatory tools are: Key Informant Interview (KII), Village / Plant Area walks (PAW), Semi-structured interview, Consumer Community Meetings (CCM), Focused group discussion (FGD), Management Meetings (MM). On-site assessments/observations were made with Photo capture by the field assessment team members consisting of MHP / Electrical Engineer and Geo-technical Engineer. Participatory tools recommended for various indicators are indicated in Table 5.1. Among the recommended tools, hundred seeds game (HSG) was not required on the pre-test as well as on the piloted plants. While the study team did not see any situation requiring the need to


_________________________________________________________________________ 27

utilize it in the pre-tested / piloted plant, the HSG tool is still perceived to be necessary in certain community/situation for utilization for rating of certain indicator of the Sustainability Monitoring Framework in the future.


_________________________________________________________________________ 28

Figure 5.1: Sustainability Monitoring Framework for MHP (for AHP based Multi Criteria Analysis)

MHP Sustainability

Technical

Efficiency

Geotechnical Stability

Civil Works

Electro-Mech Installations

Plant O & M

Financial

Cash Coverage

Tariff & Revenue

Governance

Environmental

Fitness to Local Environment

Fitness to Livelihood &

Culure

Socio-Economic

Access

Livelihood & Enterprises

Inclusion & Safeguard

Institutional

Functioning

Coordination

Transparency

Sustainability Status of MHP under Monitoring


_________________________________________________________________________ 29

5.6 Summary of Indicators and Weight Distribution

The weight distribution in order to arrive at the sustainability score is as presented in the following table. Based on the score generated by a particular Plant, it is categorized as: Sustained, Partially sustained (Sustained at Risk) or Not sustained, if the total score falls on the category mentioned in Table 5.2. The weight distribution tables generate the answer for the three basic monitoring questions as discussed below. Details of weight distribution for each sub-factors are presented in Table 5.3. Monitoring Question: What is the sustainability status of the MHP? Sustained and will sustain, partly sustained, sustained at risk, may sustain or not sustained and will not be sustained without intervention. To answer the first monitoring question, Plant assessment based on the score generation, Table 5.3 and grading for sustainability score Table 5.2 is to be referred.

Table 5.3: Detail Framework and Score Distribution

Criteria Factors Sub factors: Assigned score

1:

Tec

hn

ical

11: Plant Efficiency: 5 111: Plant sizing: 2

112: Load factor: 3

12:Geotechnical

Stability: 10

121: Geotechnical stability of Power House: 2

122:Geotechnical stability of Canal (head and tail race): 2

123:Geotechnical stability of Intake and Diversion Structure: 2

124: Reliability of Water Sources (CORE Indicator): 4

13: Quality of Civil

Works: 10

131:Quality of Intake and Diversion Structure: 3

132: Quality of canal Structures: 3

133: Quality of Forebay, De-silting basin & Power House : 3

134:Quality of Penstock & Anchor Structure: 1

14: Functioning of

Electro Mechanical

Installations: 5

141: Functioning of Generator, Turbine and Anchor Structure: 3

142: Functioning of Power House (PH) Circuits & ELC: 1

143: Functioning of Power Lines (Transmission & Distribution):

1

15: Operation &

Maintenance (O&M):

10

151: Status of Safety Measures: 1

152: Continuation of Power Supply: 2

153: Non-occurrence of Outage: 2

154: Technical skill of Plant Operators &Village Proximity to

PH: 3

155: Time taken to respond Breakdown: 2

2:

Fin

anci

al

21: Cash Coverage: 3 211: Capital Cost Repayment: 0.5

212: Fund Availability for Regular O&M: 2

213: Saving (Cash Reserve) from Income: 0.5

22: Tariff & Revenue:

5

221: Metering & Billing Arrangements: 2

222:Revenue Collection: 2

223: Energy Pricing: 1

24: Governance (UC):

2

241: Book Keeping: 0.5

242: Debt Servicing& Regulation Compliance: 1

243: Maintenance of Meetings & Minutes: 0.5

3:

Envir

onm

enta

l 31: MHP’s Fitness to

Local Environment: 5

311:Fitness of PH, Intake & canal structures to Environment: 3

312:Plant structure Hazard Mitigation/Conservation/Adaptation

measures: 2

32:MHPs Fitness to

Local Livelihood &

Culture: 5

321:MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Livelihoods: 3

322: MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Culture: 2

4:

So

cio-

Eco

no

mic

41: Access: 14

411: Access to Road Services at MHP: 5

412: Access to National Grid Connection (CORE

INDICATOR): 9

42: Livelihood&

Enterprises: 8

421:Energy use to increase Agro & Forest Products: 1

422: Energy Consumption by Local Entrepreneurs: 2

423:Multiple use of Tailrace Water: 5


_________________________________________________________________________ 30

Criteria Factors Sub factors: Assigned score 43:Inclusion /

Safeguard: 8

431: Gender Equity in MHP Management: 2

432:Representation of People from Disadvantaged Community in

Management: 2

433:Beneficiary Coverage at MHP: 4 5

: In

stit

uti

on

al

51: Functioning of

User’s Committee: 5

511: Capacity of User’s Committee to Manage MHP: 1

512:Capacity & Functioning of System Operators (Plant): 3

513:Continuity of UC Meetings: 1

52: Coordination&

Relationship: 3

521:Coordination among Board Members: 1

522:Coordination between Board &Operation Staff: 1

523:Coordination between MHP Management & Beneficiaries /

Local bodies / Stakeholders: 1

53: Transparency: 2 531:Polity &Operational Procedure: 1

532: Disclosure of Reports& Book of Accounts: 1


_________________________________________________________________________ 31

6. Indicator Definition and Measurement Details

This section deals with the indicators used in the sustainability framework and their definitions and their implication on sustainability. Judgment or measurement or rating situation of indicators are described in the field assessment sheets. 6.1 Indicator Definition and Measurement

Indicators are divided into five criteria, Technical, Financial, Environmental, Socio-economic and institutional. Each criteria is further divided in various factors and sub-factors to arrive at the indicator level. Each indicator is measured to arrive at the composite sustainability score. Indicators are measured on rating scale based on the categorised scenario of particular indicator in four scale of rating (Refer Field Assessment Sheets at the Annex of the report).

Following table gives Sustainability Assessment Criteria, Factors and Sub Factors with Sub factor as Indicators. The indicators performance is measured based on the judgment or performance in accordance to the indicator definitions to get the ranking option classified in four point rating options in the field assessment sheet. Selecting the most appropriate ranking option in the field assessment sheet reflects the real condition of performance of particular indicator.

1. TECHNICAL CRITERIA: Factors Indicators Indicator Definition

11

: P

lan

t E

ffic

ien

cy

111: Plant Size

[Design Vs. Actual]

Status of plant sizing whether it is sound or not; design & actual

generation ratio; functionality with respect to design mark; level of

satisfaction between owners& operators, level of problem in the past,

concern with the operators, need and urgency of level of repair and

maintenance.

112: Load Factor

(Average Load with

respect to Peak

Load)

Range of Plant load factor at the time of visit, range to rank the

performance is greater than 50%; 40 – 49%, 30 to 39% or less than

30 % at the time of visit. Rating to be done accordingly as Very Good,

Good, Fair and Poor.

12:

Geo

-tec

hn

ical

Sta

bil

ity

Vu

lner

abil

ity o

f M

HP

Syst

em w

ith N

atura

l D

isas

ter,

Susc

epti

ble

to

ph

ysic

al h

arm

or

dam

age]

, R

isk

to

sust

ainab

ilit

y o

f M

HP

agai

nst

nat

ura

l /

man

mad

e d

isas

ter

incl

ud

ing r

elia

bil

ity o

f w

ater

so

urc

es a

t p

lan

t is

con

sid

ered

under

the

fact

or

121: Geo-technical

Stability of

Powerhouse

Threat Categories:

Geotechnical

stability, landslide,

flood, Earthquake

etc.

Sustainability status monitoring ranking to be carried out based on the

status of safety; reliability of safety; adequacy and indication of any

threats from the date of installation (or in the past five years),

expectation of damage in near future from all threat categories.

Existence of vulnerability from number of threat categories, threat

events in the past, expected duration, likelihood timing of threat event.

Safety / vulnerability status from number of threat categories;

Operational status, somehow operating/not operating. Chances of not

being operational in near future. Need of rehabilitation works.

122: Geo-technical

Stability of Canal,

Head Race and Tail

Race

Status of damage or damage level, if any; natural or manmade

disturbance after project completion (or within last 5 years); damage

expectance in near future from all threat categories (i.e. Geotechnical

un-stability, landslide, flood, Earthquake etc..). Status of prolonged

disturbance (repaired within 7 days) for power generation; level of

indication of vulnerabilities from all threat categories. Longevity of

disturbance for power generation; anticipation of vulnerabilities; Level

of rehabilitation is needed over coming years.

123: Geo-technical

Stability of Intake

& Diversion

Structure

Status of damage, if any; no natural or manmade disturbance after

project completion (or within last 5 years); damage expectance in near

future from all threat categories. Damage level occurred after

completion of project (or within last five years). Status of prolonged

disturbance (repaired within 7 days) for power generation; level of


_________________________________________________________________________ 32

Factors Indicators Indicator Definition indication of vulnerabilities from all threat categories. Damage from

threat categories but not prolonged disturbance (repaired within a

month) for power generation; anticipation of vulnerabilities. Level of

rehabilitation is needed over coming years.

124: Reliability of

Water Source

[CORE

INDICATOR]

[High risks due to

source depletion

naturally and

emergence of new

priority areas of

people. e.g. drinking

water, irrigation etc]

Level of water availability in the intake (river, rivulet, spring, lake, and

pond); Problem to meet required discharge to run the MHP in future, if

any; Potential to tap more water in future; Sign of water depletion in the

source.

Level of indication of water depletion or increasing pressure on water

sources for other use (drinking water, irrigation etc) in future.

Technical and economic viability of constructing reservoir for storage;

Other chance of adding new water source; Demands of water for

drinking water and irrigation purpose in upstream side (may be due to

rapid urbanization or new irrigation project)

13

: Q

ua

lity

of

Civ

il W

ork

s

Focu

sing o

n:

Ove

rall

Qu

ali

ty o

f d

esig

n a

nd

co

nst

ruct

ion;

typ

e o

f st

ruct

ure

(p

erm

an

ent,

sem

i

per

manen

t and t

empo

rary

); l

evel

of

sati

sfa

ctio

n o

f u

sers

/co

nsu

mer

s w

rt q

ua

lity

; d

am

ag

e (l

eaka

ge,

cra

cks,

bre

aka

ge

etc)

and

fun

ctio

na

lity

.

131: Quality of

Intake and

Diversion Structure

Type of Diversion and Intake structures (Permanent, Semi-permanent,

Temporary); Design and construction quality (sound, poor); Level /

severity of problem reported; Satisfaction level of owners, operators,

users or beneficiaries(fully satisfied, somehow satisfied / has concern or

not satisfied).

Problem in design; foundation scouring; poor construction quality;

temporary structures; needs immediate rehabilitation; operators or

beneficiaries are NOT satisfied are the indication to rate the indicator

poor.

132: Quality of

Canal Structures

Types:

Power canal, lined,

partially lined,

unlined or earthen,

natural etc.

Status of canal (lined, partially lined or not lined); Level of design and

construction quality; Level / severity of problem reported; Satisfaction

level of owners, operators, users or beneficiaries (fully satisfied,

somehow satisfied / has concern or not satisfied).

Problem in design; poor Construction quality; unlined or earthen or

natural canal; needs immediate rehabilitation; operators or beneficiaries

are NOT satisfied are the indication to rate the indicator poor.

133: Quality of Fore

Bay, De-silting

Basin & Power

House

Type of structure (permanent, semi-permanent, and temporary); Level

of design and construction quality; Functioning status; Level / severity

of problem reported; Satisfaction level of owners, operators, users or

beneficiaries (fully satisfied, somehow satisfied / has concern or not

satisfied).

All temporary structures; Problem in design; Poor construction quality;

Needing immediate rehabilitation; operators or beneficiaries are NOT

satisfied is the condition to rate poor.

134: Quality of

Penstock and

Anchor Structures

Type of structures (permanent, semi-permanent, temporary); Level of

design and construction quality; Material (steel, HDPE, etc.) of

penstock pipe; Functioning level; Level / severity of problem reported;

Satisfaction level of owners, operators, users or beneficiaries(fully

satisfied, somehow satisfied / has concern or not satisfied).

Temporary structures; problems in design; poor construction quality;

poor quality of Penstock pipe or its material; needs immediate

rehabilitation. Operators or beneficiaries are NOT satisfied are the

conditions leading to Poor rating to this indicator.

14

:

Fu

nct

ion

i

ng

of

Ele

ctro

-

Mec

han

ic

al

Inst

all

ati

o

ns

[Qu

ali

ty o

f

All

ele

ctro

-

mec

hanic

al

equ

ipm

ents

an

d

com

pon

ent

s, s

uch

as

Gen

era

tor,

EL

C,

Tu

rbin

e,

Po

wer

hous

e, B

elt,

Sw

itch

yard

,

Tra

nsm

issi

on

&

dis

trib

uti

o

n l

ines

,

Pla

nt

size

(co

mp

ari

so

n w

ith

des

ign a

nd

act

ual

op

era

tiona

l o

utp

ut)

etc]

141: Functioning of

Generator, Turbine

and Belt

Level of design, manufacturing and installation electro mechanical

system (generator, turbine & belt); Quality of system (sound, fair, bad

or poor / concern over quality); Level of functioning of generator and

turbine. Reporting of problems; Level of satisfaction of owner/s and

operator/s. Anticipation of problem in future (immediate, within 1 year;


_________________________________________________________________________ 33

Factors Indicators Indicator Definition midterm, within 5 years; long term, after 5 years).

Poor status of indicator is the situation of “Prominent problems reported

in design or in manufacturing or in alignment of Generator, Turbine and

Belt. Needs frequent major repair and maintenance. Operators NOT

satisfied”

142: Functioning of

Powerhouse (PH)

Circuits & ELC

Condition of Power House, Electronic Load Controller (ELC) and

Circuits; Functioning of PH, ELC and Circuits; Reporting of problems

(major, moderate, small); Level of satisfaction of owner/s and

operator/s.

Situation of Poor performance of Indicator is like “ELC & PH Circuits

condition is poor; frequent troubles are reported. Needs major repair and

maintenance. Owner and/or Operators is/are NOT satisfied”

143: Functioning of

Power Lines

(Transmission &

Distribution)

Condition of Power lines; Functioning status; Reporting of problems;

Level of satisfaction of owner/s and operator/s.

Situation of Poor performance of Indicator islike “Power lines all

condition is poor with frequent interruptions. Needs major repair and

maintenance. Operators NOT satisfied”

15:

Tec

hn

ica

l O

per

ati

on

an

d M

ain

ten

an

ce

[Op

era

tion a

nd m

ain

tenan

ce s

tatu

s of

MH

P i

s m

easu

red

wit

h r

esp

ect

to t

he

safe

ty

mea

sure

s ta

ken

,

ou

tag

e dura

tion a

nd f

requen

cy,

ava

ilab

ilit

y o

f op

era

tion

al

hu

ma

n r

eso

urc

es (

HR

) a

nd

ho

w q

uic

kly

bre

akd

ow

n i

s re

spo

nd

ed]

151: Status of

Safety Measures

[Safety measures to

plant system and

human for continued

and long lasting

operation]

Status of MHP from safety perspectives. Safety measures to plant

system and human for continued and long lasting operation. Level of

planned and implementation of technical O&M system from safety

prospective. Safety measures adopted in plant, its components and

human (operational, non operational and consumers). Status of safety

breach in past; O&M plan in place.Safety standards / following the

standards. Poor safety condition of indicator is defined as of the

situation “No plan and implementation of O&M system; no safety

measures; no safety guards installed; several safety related problems in

the past including human casualty and generation halt; reported more

than one major destructive incidents in a year.

152: Continuation

of Power Supply

[Low outage

duration is desired]

The continuation of power supply indicator is measured with the

duration of power outage in a year. The four ranges is categorized as: 1)

Less than 7 days outage in a year; 2) 7 to 15 days outage duration in a

year; 3) 15 to 30 days outage duration in a year and 4) More than 30

days outage duration in a year.

153: Non-

Occurrence of

Outage

[Low outage

frequency is desired]

The indicator is focused to measure outage frequency, as the desired

frequency of outage to be lowest. Outage frequency is very low

considered when once or no outage in a year (same condition retained

in last five years)

Rest outage frequency is measured as low i.e. 2 – 3 time outage per year

(same condition retained in last five years); Outage is critically frequent

i.e. 4-5 times in a year; Outage is very frequent i.e. more than 5 times in

a year. Based on the outage frequency the indicator is rated in four point

scale.

154: Technical Skill

of Plant Operator

and Proximity of

Village From PH.

[Skill &

Qualification or

Capacity of Human

Resources (HR);

Availability of HR;

Distance between

operators residence

and plant; Turnout of

Technical skill of Plant Operator, Skills and qualification (training etc.

operational level) of operators; Level of demonstration on capacity to

run Micro Hydro plant; Level of turnout of technical personnel (HR);

Level of shortage or vacancy gap of operators / technical staff. Issue or

problem related to plant site and residence distance with the operational

staff; Distance of powerhouse location(within 15 min walking reach,

15- 30 min reach, 30-45min reach, more than 45 min to reach from the

nearest settlement).

Poor rating to the indicator is led by the situation of less skilled and not

qualified operators; problem in meeting capacity to run the plant; high

turnout of technical HR; difficulty to manage during vacancy gap;

shortage of technical HR. Work and residence distance is a problem;


_________________________________________________________________________ 34

Factors Indicators Indicator Definition operational staff] Powerhouse is very far from settlement; takes more than 45 min to

reach the nearest settlement.

155: Time Taken to

Respond

Breakdown

[How quickly and

efficiently

responded, in case

any breakdown of

plant; preparedness

to respond

breakdown]

How quickly and efficiently response made to breakdown of Plant;

Quickness, efficiently; with what time and cost; Breakdown is

responded in less than a day in a very good indicator situation;

Preparedness to respond any breakdowns.

The indicator is rated poor when “Breakdown response is slow and not

efficient; with more time and high cost than expected; any breakdown

response time needed is more than3 days (in past), not prepared to

respond any breakdown”.

2. FINANCIAL CRITERIA:

Factors Indicators Indicator Definition

21:

Cash

Cover

age

[Fin

anci

al

statu

s in

ter

ms

of

mee

ting c

ost

,

savi

ngs

or

rese

rve

statu

s]

211: Capital Cost

Repayment

[Status of Capital

repayment out of

revenue generated;

regularity in paying

Interest & principle;

Payment of

dividends, etc.]

Status of investment capital repayment (regularity on payment of

liability), if any;Level of default of any instalment of interest and

principal payment; Status of dividends payment (if applicable); Level of

liability (bad dept) for payment towards the capital cost / principle,

interest or any other operational liabilities.

Poor performance of this indicator is described as “Not repaid any

instalment (Interest and principal); bad dept is accumulating; no

response on re-structuring for capital repayment. No plan or idea to

overcome this financial problem / clearance of liabilities or debts.

212: Fund

Availability for

Regular O&M

Financial / liquidity situation for regular Operation and Maintenance

(O&M); Status of record of plant stoppage due to lack of fund; Status of

funding mechanism for regular O&M.

213: Savings from

Income

[Cash Reserve]

Liquidity situation / saving or reserve from income or revenue generated

and its sufficiency for administrative, operational and maintaining costs.

Level of duration of sufficiency of reserve of fund for the regular

administrative and O&M;“Potential of” or “System” of raising fund for

emergency maintenance; Status of funding for expansion of plant or

other development plant works using reserve fund. The indicator is rated

“Poor” in situation of “No or very small reserve fund available; reserve

fund is available only for a month or less”

22:

Tari

ff an

d R

even

ue

221: Metering and

Billing

Arrangements

Level of installation of energy meter at generation point (Powerhouse)

and at distribution ends (Households - HH or Consumers point);

Regularity of monitoring or metering of energy generation and

consumption; Provision for billing (may be based on number of bulbs or

consumption type) Regularity of billing of consumed energy. Poor

performance of this indicator is led by situation of “No energy meter

installed at Generation point and at HH or Consumers point; NOT

monitored or metered energy consumption for a long time; NOT

regularly billed”.

222: Revenue

Collection

Status of revenue collection from consumed energy. Status of bill

realization and period; Level of revenue to be collected, Period of

revenue realization, if not paid within the stipulated. Level of realization

of energy consumption billed by number of bulb. The indicator is rated

Poor in the situation of “Majority energy consumption bill exceeds the

due period BUT within the FY; revenue collection due exists; bad dept

is more than 2%”.


_________________________________________________________________________ 35

Factors Indicators Indicator Definition 223: Energy Pricing

Status / appropriateness of Energy pricing or billing rate of energy

consumption, attractiveness to energy consumers; Level of satisfaction

to consumers and willing to pay to meet debt servicing, O&M and

emergency reserve funds; Competitiveness of energy price; Cheap /

expensive than grid connected energy price. Appropriateness of

opportunity pricing of energy. Potential for raising more revenue from

the plant Consumer Committee/Cooperative/Company. The indicator is

rated “Poor” is the situation of “Too low or too high energy pricing;

low energy pricing; pricing rate is NOT appropriate; consumers NOT

satisfied; NOT meeting Debt servicing, O&M and emergency reserve

funds; NOT competitive price; very expensive than grid connected

energy price”.

23:

UC

Gov

ern

ance

231: Book Keeping

Level of maintaining of books of accounts / status of accounts;

Regularity of auditing and status of up keeping of financial records;

Level of maintaining financial standards. The indicator is rated “Poor”

in the situation of “Not maintained proper book keeping; not audited for

more than a year”

232: Debt Servicing

and Regulation

Compliance

Creditability, Due

diligence, Fiscal

discipline, Tax &

Compliance with]

Status of debt servicing and meeting regulation compliance. Status of

serving debts, reporting and renewals as required; Exemption (tax or

any other regulatory obligations) certification, if applicable by company

register or local authorities as needed. The indicator is rated “Poor” if

“Deliberately defaulted; not good financial discipline practiced in terms

of debt payment; not reported or registered with authorities or not

meeting any compliance”.

233: Maintenance of

Meetings and

Minutes (with focus

on financial matters)

Status of hosting meetings / level of following schedule or timeliness

and as required; Level of maintaining recorded Minutes / decisions;

Status of signatory by participants; Level of meeting required quorum.

Level of maintaining financial discipline.

The indicator is rated “Poor” in situation of “Meetings NOT happening;

NOT conducted when required; no/lost recorded Minutes; not signed by

majority participants; Quorum generally not realized/met”

3. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA:


31:

MH

P’s

Fit

nes

s to

Lo

cal

En

vir

on

men

t

[Mea

sure

to c

op

e w

ith

en

vir

on

men

tal

dam

age

on f

lora

, fa

un

a o

r cl

imat

e C

han

ge]

311: Fineness of

Powerhouse, Intake

and Canal

structures to

Environment

Measure to cope with environmental damage on flora, fauna, Level

of hazard or degradation to local environment due to Plant

structures; Incidents of harm reporting in the past; Likeliness to

harm in near future.

The indicator is rated “Poor” is the situation of “Frequent and

significant hazard or degradation of local environment noticed due

to Plant structures; there are threats of hazard prevailing due to

plant structures; more degradation is anticipated in coming days.

312: Plant

structures Hazard

Mitigation /

Conservation /

Adaptation

Measures

Level of need of conservation measures. Status of

Mitigation/Conservation/Adaptation (responding to climate change)

measures taken in the past and need in near future.

The indicator is rated “Poor” in the situation of “NO

Mitigation/Conservation/Adaptation measures taken or not aware

on this issue”.

32

: M

HP

’s

En

vir

on

men

tal

Fit

nes

s to

Loca

l

Liv

elih

ood

an

d

Cu

ltu

re

321: MHP’s

Environmental

Fitness to Local

Livelihoods

[Longer term Impact

to people’s

livelihood means due

to the MHP]

Level of negative environmental impact on people’s livelihoods

(agriculture and forestry etc), its reporting / observation. Level of

dissatisfaction among individuals / community members in the

vicinity of the plant.

The indicator is rated “Poor” in the situation of “Serious

environmental impacts reported to the means of peoples’

livelihoods; impact is reported /observed and is substantial in

nature”.


_________________________________________________________________________ 36

Factors Indicators Indicator Definition 322: MHP’s

Environmental

Fitness to Local

Culture

[Negative Impact on

local Temple / God /

Goddess / Guthi /

meeting place etc]

Level of negative environmental impact on people’s

tradition/culture and its reporting and observation. Level of

dissatisfaction with the members within the catchment of the plant.

The indicator is rated “Poor” in the situation at the plant site of

“Serious environmental impacts reported on people’s

culture/tradition. Impact is reported /observed and is substantial”.

4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CRITERIA:


41

: A

cces

s

[It

con

sist

s o

f R

oad

&N

atio

nal

Gri

d C

on

nec

tio

n n

ear

the

Pla

nt

site

. T

hes

e in

fras

tru

ctu

res

are

con

sid

ered

as

hig

hly

in

flu

enci

ng

soci

o-e

con

om

ic f

acto

rs t

o t

he

Su

stai

nab

ilit

y o

n t

he

MH

P]

411: Access to Road

Services at MHP

Status of accessibility (nearness and vehicle reach) to MHP system i.e.

Powerhouse and Intake. Ease of movement by public / private transport

for maintenance and supervision by Plant personnel / operators’

movement.

Level of inaccessibility; Accessibility effect to MHP sustainability.

The indicator is rated “Poor” in the condition of “Plant is located in

Remote area; road head is situated in more than 3 hours walking

distance from MHP; In case of Plant breakdown, accessibility is

problem for repair and maintenance; Sustainability is at stake due to

poor access to Road”.

412: Access to

National Grid

Connection

[CORE

INDICATOR]

[Community’s plan to

capitalize the benefits

of national Grid

connection]

Status of access to National Electricity Grid to Village / MHP

Community catchment area. Status of problem for sustainability of

MHP with Grid energy. Cost of Grid energy in comparison to MHP

energy; Status of energy is being sold to NEA, if any. Status of load

shedding with MHP. Status of other benefits from MHP, such as

Irrigation, Milling, other economic or productive energy use as per the

need.

The indicator is rated “Poor” in the status of “Village / community is

connected or will be connected by national grid soon; exists serious

problems for sustainability; grid energy is much expensive than MHP

energy; MHP is too small so surplus power cannot be sold to NEA;

user’s are not interested in managing MHP but willing to pay little more

for NEA supply. People believe that it is good to abandon the MHP

from economic, social and technical point of views”.

42:

Liv

elih

ood

an

d E

nte

rpri

ses

421: Energy Use to

Increase Agro &

Forest Products.

Status of energy used for productive economic activities, such as

Agriculture and Forestry products / processing. MHP power use to

increase production and productivity of Agricultural and Forest products

at household level (heating/cooling/processing/storing of agricultural

and forest products such as seeds, vegetables, fish, fruits, herbal, milk,

meat etc).

The indicator is rated “Poor” in the situation of “MHP power is not at

all used to increase production and productivity of Agricultural and

forest products at household level (cooking,

heating/cooling/processing/storing of agricultural and forest products

such as seeds, vegetables, fish, fruits, Herbal, milk, meat etc)”.

422: Energy

Consumption By

Local

Entrepreneurs

Range of contribution on energy consumption made by local

enterprises, broken-down into four range to measure indicator, I.e.

roughly more than 20%; 10-19%; 5- 9% and less than 5% of total

income of MHP, rest is earning or revenue from community or HH

consumption of energy.

Potential Enterprises may be Hotel and service industries including

baking, ICT related enterprises, educational, health, entertainment, agro-

forestry and other manufacturing industries.

423: Multiple use of

Tail race water

Status of use of tail race / head race water (used for other two or more

productive purposes i.e. irrigation, drinking water, fishing, Ghatta,

recreation, industry etc. will be rating the indicator “Very Good”.


_________________________________________________________________________ 37

Factors Indicators Indicator Definition Subsequent decrease in the additional use will down rate the indicator.If

tail race water is used for other only one productive purpose, the

indicator is rated “Good”. The indicator will be “Fair” if trail race water

is disposed in river/stream, however, the indicator will be “Poor”, if tail

race water is disposed haphazardly and not being used for any

productive purpose rather creating environmental threats.

43:

Incl

usi

on

Safe

gu

ard

431: Gender

Equality in MHP

management

[Representation in

management]

Gender representation, specially by women in User Committee or

Management of MHPs; The representation is considered best if, it is

more than or equal to 50% represented by women (out of total) in

management, operation, consumers committee or any other formal

Group for MHP.

The rating is subsequently down rated with the block of representation

range 30-49%, 10 to 29% and less than 10.

432: Representation

of People From

Disadvantaged

Community

in Management

Representation of people from disadvantaged community in

management. The representation is considered best (Very Good) if more

than 70% representation of people from disadvantaged people (Dalit,

Janajati, economically poor) in management, operation, consumers or

any other formal group for MHP. The rating is subsequently down rated

with the block of representation range 50-69%, 30-49% and less than

30%.

433:MHP’s

Beneficiary

Coverage:

[Inclusion of people

in getting benefits

from MHP]

Range of coverage / inclusion of people to get benefits from the MHPs.

The best situation of beneficiary coverage is “MHP covering all

households / families and public institutions, and are connected by

electricity with reduced tariff to poor; MHP affected people and

disadvantaged people are subsidized in tariff.

The indicator is rated “Poor” in the situation, if HH / Family in the

command area, mostly economically poor or Dalit or disadvantaged HH

/ Family are left out due to social and economic reason.

5. INSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA:


51:

Inst

itu

tion

al

Fu

nct

ion

ing o

f U

ser’

s C

om

mit

tee 511: Capacity of

User’s Committee to

Manage MHP

Status of overall operation and management of MHP as an

institution; demonstration of capacity in the past years of operation;

level of concern of consumers with management of MHP; status of

meeting / fulfilment of legal requirements (such as company

registration, Water use license or registration etc.). The indicator is

considered “Poor” if MHP is not managed properly as institution /

organization; capacity of leadership in the past years of operation

was creating problem in MHP; consumers are very much concerned

with the management capacity and key legal requirements are not

meet or fulfilled.

512: Capacity and

Functioning of

System Operators

Capacity and functioning of MHP system operators, behaviour and

technical skill / training. Status related to retention of operators.

The indicator is rated “Poor” if the capacity, technical skills and

behaviour of operators is questionable. MHP is facing frequent

problems from the operators.

513: Continuity of

Institutional

Meetings

[AGM, Board

Meetings, Committee

Meetings, Consumers

Committee Meetings

– CCM]

Quality and regularity of UC, CC, AGM, Board meetings; regular;

status of following rules; maintaining meeting / decision minute

and signature by participants; Status of meeting quorum

maintenance.

The indicator is rated “Poor” in the situation of “Meeting is rarely

conducted; NOT following institutional rules; decision minted &

signed BUT not of all meetings, not signed by majority

participants; Quorum is not maintained”.


_________________________________________________________________________ 38

Factors Indicators Indicator Definition 52:

Coord

inati

on

an

d R

elati

on

ship

521: Coordination

Among Board

Members

Status of coordination within the MHP Board / Management

Committee / Users Committee members; Level of conflict, if any,

among the members; Level of participation of members. Status of

coordination related problem for smooth operation of MHP as

institution.

The indicator is rated “Poor” if “Coordination within the MHP

Board members is not good as expected; conflict exists& is

frequent; not are actively participating; there are serious impacts on

key decision making process and smooth operation of the plant”.

522: Coordination

Between Board &

Operational Staff

Status of coordination between MHP management Board and

operational staff. Level of conflict among them, if any. Level of

problem in smooth operation of MHP. The indicator is rated “Poor”

if there is Bad coordination between staff and board; difference of

opinion exists AND affecting MHP operation; majority of board

members and staff are NOT admiring each other.

523: Coordination

Between MHP

Management and

Beneficiaries/Local

Bodies/Stakeholders.

Status of coordination and rapport between MHP management and

beneficiaries / local bodies and stakeholders. Level / frequency of

interaction / culture of receiving / giving feedbacks etc. Level of

conflict of interest, if exists.

The indicator is rated “Poor” if Coordination between MHP

management and majority users is not good as expected; serious

conflict of interest exists; Interaction and culture of

receiving/giving feedbacks is rare.

53:

Inst

itu

tion

al

Tra

nsp

are

ncy

531: Transparency of

Institutional policies

and operational

procedures

Overall transparency of institutional operation and maintenance of

operational policy and procedure; level of keeping informed to all

concerned; satisfaction level of staff with the operational

transparency; level of objection from any concerned with the MHP

regarding the operational transparency.

The indicator is rated “Poor” in the situation of “No operational

policy and procedure exists at minimum in written or understanding

forms; staffs are NOT satisfied with the operational transparency;

frequent objections are emerging from concerned with the MHP

regarding the poor operational transparency condition”.

532: Disclosure of

Reports and Books of

Accounts

Status of disclosure of institutional reports and books of accounts,

availability reports and documents to all concerned people of Plant

as well as to the external agencies.

The indicator is rated “Poor” if “Reports and Books of accounts are

NOT disclosed or not available to all concerned people of Plant and

stakeholders”.


_________________________________________________________________________ 39

7. Results and Discussions

7.1 General

The pilot sustainability monitoring (Phase II) has been focused more on learning, with the improved framework and field assessment tools prepared earlier in the framework development and pre-testing phase (Phase I). The first part in this section is the presented and discussed feedback from the field team, divided into the five criteria of sustainability measurement indicator grouping. Sustainability monitoring results from field in terms of score and their sensitivity analysis are discussed in the second part. The third part of this chapter is on SWOT on MHPs focused on Sustainability representative for the cluster is discussed. List of Piloted MHPs is presented in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: List of Pilot Sustainability Monitored MHPs

S. No. MHP Name Age, Years (Operation)

Design Capacity,

Kw District

1 Baya Khola 4 50 Baglung

2 Bhimghat I 13 42 Baglung

3 Badighat Khola 2 100 Gulmi

4 Dharam Khola 10 70 Gulmi

5 Grindhi Khola 9 75 Baglung

6 Labdhi Khola 14 56 Baglung

7 Mid-Bhimghat Khola

4 85 Baglung

8 Nishi Khola I 10 48 Baglung

9 Nishi Khola II 5 100 Baglung

10 Nishi Khola III 3 100 Baglung

11 Paropakar Cooperative

5 100 Gulmi

7.2 Feedback from Field

Field team comprising of an electrical engineer and geotechnical engineer monitored 11 MHPs for sustainability as pilot application of the refined Sustainability Monitoring Framework. The piloting was conducted with Modified Framework along with the Modified Field Assessment Sheets, within a single cluster of Baglung and Gulmi districts. The Piloting process went smoothly and was completed within the stipulated time schedule. The essence of Rapid Sustainability Measuring and Reporting was captured well. Criteria wise feedback from the field and assessment is outlined in the following write-ups with the observation, comments and recommendation on the further monitoring process in the next phase. Technical Plant size, design and actual information was not available at the site, which were normally carried out by power output verification (POV) or power output tests (POT), and were made available by AEPC through the POV/POT tests that had been completed. Measurement of technical parameters was not under the scope of this sustainability monitoring assignment. Orientation is seen to be required for any field assessment teams on judgements to find the level of owners / operators satisfaction. It was felt in the field that, operators should be


_________________________________________________________________________ 40

oriented trained about load factor or utilization factor, which needs to be incorporated in training / training of trainers (ToT) for operators. It was also suggested from the field, on Geo-Technical Stability indicator, that past events and future possibilities should be separated, and assigned different weight value. Components of structures could also be assessed separately (Diversion, Intake, Canal, Headrace, Tailrace, Power House, etc.). The framework was designed by grouping of structures, to minimize the number of judgement at the same time to capture the key structure sustainability status. It was good feedback from the field on needing orientation to assess problem in design, soundness of design and construction, with respect to structures as well as hydraulics. Safety standards for MHPs for comparison with actual in the field was also felt necessary by the field engineers. With respect to quality of fabrication / manufacturing of plant, existing guidelines for MHPs, if any, was the matter of exploration to the field team. Technical skill of plant operator, basis to assess and minimum required skills & qualification was found to be good orientation tips to the field sustainability monitoring team. Financial It was felt by the field team that, the indicator of Capital cost repayment, is not applicable to those MHPs which has no initial loan. For ”metering and billing” indicator, billing based on energy meter and number of bulbs as well as energy meter sealing condition needs to be incorporated into the indicator itself. Energy pricing, judgement on consumer satisfaction or other basis (comparative to grid), as well as criteria to assess how MHP energy is cheaper than grid energy need to be included into the framework as well. For “tariff” indicator, the field team members required that scientific tariff system be defined properly. Book keeping and financial standard or guidelines for MHPs was felt needed by the team. Meetings (UC meeting continuity) were included in two places: Finance and Institutional (233 & 513), the first one is focused to financial governance and the other one is for institutional governance in totality. Environmental Field team recommended that past and future assessments should be separated and given different weight and also observed that the indicator MHPs environmental fitness to local livelihood needs to be reviewed. It was also suggested that the orientation to field team clarify these matters. Socio-economic As per the suggestion from field team, for “access to national grid (Core Indicator)”, the possibility of not being connected to grid should be incorporated into the framework. Power trade with NEA or possibility of mini-grid too needs to be considered, and to be refined in the field assessment sheet. It was also observed that the field team needs to have a clear definition and view of “MHPs beneficiaries” within the catchment of MHP from the inclusion perspective. Institutional There may be different Indicator / Criteria for Private and Community owned MHPs, however this framework is prepared as a universally applicable model. System operators, mentioned in the institutional criteria, should be clarified, which include operators/managers and not only technical operators. Field team identified that the age of MHPs to be a judgement point as well, and have been noted it in the MHPs profile. Behaviour of people (towards irrigation / other facility along or around MHP area) needs to be included in the sustainability indicator, to be discussed and decided after monitoring more number of MHPs. It is also felt by the


_________________________________________________________________________ 41

field team that the level of understanding and awareness towards MHP could be a possible indicator for measurement.

7.3 MHP Sustainability Results

Sustainability result in the form of numerical score is based on the outcome of score generated by the piloting exercise at the plants monitored. The sustainability monitoring results have been calculated using two approaches, as indicated in the earlier section of the report: Sustainability of projects based on weighted table and sustainability based on AHP based MCA analysis. The results, analysis and discussion section is divided into three sections to present the various outcomes from the study as indicated in the earlier section of the report. The details of sustainability status result of MHPs Piloted are presented in Table 7.2 and Figures below. It is worthy to see that none of the Pilot MHPs are in the “Not Sustained” category. Most of the MHPs are either “Partially Sustained” or “Sustained at Risk”. Approximately 20% MHPs are in “Sustained” category (2 out of 11). If the criteria score is averaged, however, the scenario is different, with 5 out of 11 (almost 45%) MHP are falling under the “Sustained” category.

Table 7.2: Sustainability Status / Scores of Piloted MHPs

S.

No.

MHPs

Sustainability Score and Rank Core Indicator Score

Water Sources

Reliability

Access

National Grid Composite Rank

Criteria

Average Rank AHP Rank

1 Gringdi 68.85% 4 72.58% 4 68.80% 4 50% 70%

2 Praopkar 74.25% 1 80.47% 1 74.30% 1 100% 50%

3 Daram 70.90% 2 75.22% 3 71.50% 2 100% 70%

4 Labdi Khola 65.95% 5 69.75% 6 67.60% 5 70% 70%

5 Nishi III 61.60% 9 65.22% 9 63.70% 8 100% 70%

6 Nishi II 64.20% 6 70.52% 5 65.40% 6 100% 50%

7 Nishi I 53.80% 10 50.50% 10 59.50% 10 100% 70%

8 Bhimghat I 69.40% 3 77.42% 2 69.90% 3 100% 70%

9 Baya Khola 48.50% 11 47.43% 11 57.70% 11 100% 70%

10

Mid-

Bhimghat 62.75% 7 67.33% 7 64.30% 7 70% 70%

11 Badighat 61.70 8 65.23% 8 63.00% 9 100% 50%

Looking at the Core Indicators, none of MHPs have serious issues with “Water Source Reliability” indicator, with only one (Gringdi MHP) falling in the “Sustained at Risk” or “Partially Sustained” category, eight (8) MHPs are “Sustained” and two (2) have scored at boundary between “Sustained” and “Sustained at Risk” (i.e. 70, which is just enough to be Sustained). However, with “Access to National Grid”, three (3) MHPs are in the Yellow zone with a score of 50%, while eight (8) MHPs are at the boundary scoring 70%, barely at Sustained level. The piloted MHPs were also analysed using AHP based software Expert Choice. As the number of piloted MHPs is eleven (11), the AHP Rating model was used to view the ranking of the MHPs. The expert choice generated score with the same weights are also presented in Table 13.


_________________________________________________________________________ 42

Score is distributed between five criteria with overall score is presented in figure 7.1. The results in graphical form are presented in the following Figures.

Figure 7.1: Overall Sustainability Score and Distribution within Five Criteria The figure 7.2 below compares overall sustainability score with the Core sustainability Indicators. For seven out of eleven MHPs, at least one core indicator score is observed to fall on the sustained at risk or partially sustained category.

Figure 7.2: Comparison of Overall sustainability score with Core sustainability Indicators


_________________________________________________________________________ 43

Criteria averaged (criteria weighted average) scores, composite scores and AHP scores are compared and presented at figure 7.3. Interestingly, it can be seen that the criteria weighted average shows better performance scores for all the MHPs than Composite score, which is only the cumulative indicator scores. The composite score is similar with AHP score, which is expected to be same, with slight difference considered normal, with most of the MHPs. However, in case of two MHPs, there is slightly larger difference, the reason for which is being explored.

Figure 7.3: Sustainability score calculated / generated by three methods 7.5 Sustainability Sensitivity Analysis

The sustainability sensitivity analysis was conducted to get insight on the sustainability status of MHPs under Piloting. The sensitivity analysis result is compared with base case results; i.e. increased weight to Environmental criteria case and equal criteria weight case. The sensitivity of sustainability ranking of MHPs has been conducted using AHP based software Expert Choice. In the base case, technical criteria was weighted 40%, financial criteria weighted 10%, environmental criteria 10%, Scio-economic criteria 30% and institutional criteria 10%. The scenarios of sustainability sensitivity analysis is presented and discussed in the following section. Sensitivity Analysis for the best six MHPs with their base case ranking and increasing weight in Environmental criteria is presented in Figure 7.4


_________________________________________________________________________ 44

Figure 7.4: Sensitivity Analysis with respect to Environmental criteria, best 6 MHPs

Sensitivity Analysis for the remaining five MHPs with their base case ranking and increasing weight in Environmental criteria is presented in Figure 7.5

Figure 7.5: Sensitivity analysis with respect to Environmental criteria for rest 5 MHPs The base case rankings and change in rankings due to change in weightto Environmental criteria can be seen in the figures above. It can be seen that Nishi II MHP performs better in Sustainability status with respect to the changing Environment.

Base case of best sustainability performing 6 MHPs

Same 6 MHPs, Increasing weight of Environmental Criteria

Base case of rest 5 MHPs which were at lower ranks

Same 5 MHPs, Increasing weight of Environmental Criteria


_________________________________________________________________________ 45

Further, sustainability sensitivity is seen putting all criteria weight equal, following Figure 7.6 displays the 11 MHPs changed ranking.

Figure 7.6: Sensitivity analysis with equal weights to all five Criteria

With equal weightage, the ranking of some MHPs are changed, but not of the best and worst performing MHPs.The results of this case of sensitivityanalysis can be compared with base case result / ranking to demonstrate the importance of the weight derived and the impact it has on the ranking. It is also be noted that, numerous scenario analysis can be conducted to see the impact of each criteria or sub criteria (for any immidiate future changes) with the help of senistivity analysis of sustaniability using AHP model. The sustainability sensitivity analysis presented here is just arepresentative model, the power of AHP model based analysis can be demonstrated with the help of sensitivity analysis. 7.6 Summary of Project SWOT Analysis

Summary of SWOT recorded from the eleven monitored MHPs is presented below. The MHP SWOT Box below reflects the most common SWOTs among the observed MHPs. The best performing MHPs demonstrated the key hint for better performance with sustainability through their Strengths. The Weakness of MHPs, lists key reason on demonstrating low performance for sustainability status.


_________________________________________________________________________ 46

Strength Internal, within community and facility (Technical, Financial, Social-economic, Environmental, Institutional and any other potential aspects)

Trust

Enough generation to meet demand

Financial transparency

Trained technician & operators

Regular revenue collection

Ownership & Responsible feelings

Well aware & coordinated users committee

Strong financial base for O&M

Skilled managers and operators

Sound civil structures

Fast decision making

Privately owned

Weakness Internal, within consuming community and Plant facility(Technical, Financial, Social-economic, Environmental, Institutional & any other potential aspects)

No regular meetings

Scattered settlement & difficult topography

Non-transparency

Lack of training (operation, management, semi or unskilled operators & managers)

No office facility

Weak management skill

Gear Box is not working properly

Energy meters not functioning

Non-continuous supply of energy / Not enough power generation

Long power canal, difficult to maintain

Low energy consumption

Lack of fund / cash / liquidity

Lack of technical understanding

Opportunity External situations

Employment Creation

Entrepreneurs development

Growing energy demand

Possibility of supplying energy for industrial use

Investment opportunity

Upgrading existing system

Power trade with NEA

Connection to mini-grid

Threat External, beyond the control of consuming community and Plant facility (Technical, Financial, Social-economic, Environmental, Institutional & any other potential aspects)

Competition with community based MHPs

Landslide / Geotechnical

The opportunity from the MHPs demonstrates the expected outcome from any projects, including MHPs. The opportunity listed in the SWOT box is demonstrated fairly well by the performance of the MHPs monitored. Threats, as outlined are numerous; with only landslide / geo-technical problem being a serious natural threat. However, while competition with the community based MHPs may not sound very serious, this threat is one that could be managed well with the management / institutional enhancement of the MHPs.

7.7 Constraints

The piloted MHPs do not reveal any serious constraints for its sustainability. The core indicator indicates that six out of eleven MHPs are in partially sustained status. Only one MHP is in partially sustained category from “Reliability of Water Source” Core indicator. Common constraints are geo-technical condition, scattered service area, human resources, maintenance support and specific location. However, the monitored MHP shave not exhibited any severity on those constraints. 7.8 Innovation Aspects of the Study

On top of the sustainability monitoring framework refinement and piloting of 11 sample MHPs, the piloting monitoring, in the process, resulted in strengthening or validation of three innovations identified at the earlier stage of pre-testing. The identified potential further


_________________________________________________________________________ 47

validated as first of its kind on multi criteria sustainability and mobile sustainability monitoring of MHPs. The following are the three reconfirmed monitoring process innovations: 1. Weighted Table (WT) Method: Spreadsheet based multiple criteria sustainability

assessment framework for Micro Hydro Plants (MHPs). WT method is also some time

termed as weighted summation method and considered as simplest form of MCA

technique as good as AHP while generating result for the base case and using pre-

assigned weights. The WT based process is the simplest form and easy to understand

at any level.

2. AHP Method: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) based multiple criteria sustainability

assessment framework for MHPs is applicable giving insights of sustainability status and

its sensitivity with respect to weights of various criteria, factors and sub-factors. AHP is

advanced MCA tool, not yet been popular for real life MHP sustainability monitoring

application.

3. Mobile based Sustainability Monitoring: Possibility of mobile phone based

Sustainability Monitoring of MHPs was verified. Smart phone application to be used for

sustainability monitoring with the framework piloted, using Research and Monitoring

Platform (REMO) can be readily customised. REMO is product of local ICT Company

called Rooster Logic, focused on innovative ICT application and research. REMO

captures, analyzes and visualizes data, together. Very useful and cost effective, REMO

opens a new frontier on how surveys / monitoring are conducted. Smartphone-enabled

and tablet-compatible, surveys can be created in a fly and modified on the go. Data /

information / judgement collected / made gets seamlessly aggregated on the system

allowing web-based access that dynamically produces meaningful reports in real time.

REMO works offline transcending geographical boundaries with field monitoring

professionals having ease of reading field assessment indicators on their handheld

device. Capturing physical location is automated.

So far, the knowledge of the monitoring team, the approach of AHP based sustainability assessment of projects for real life use is first of its kind, even though AHP is considered as most widely used tool for multiple criteria analysis in business, industry and development. The monitoring exercise also conducted comparative evaluation of results from these two calculation approachesto the same framework. As the comparative study between WT and AHP methods generated comparable composite sustainability values, WT method could be utilized in future sustainability monitoring of plants even in the absence of AHP processing software. These two approach of processing score or method are perceived to be useful as sustainability measuring yardstick, which could generate comparable figure among the projects developed by wider spectrum of agencies. With the piloting field experience and monitoring framework refined for the at this stage of piloting, it is apparent that mobile based monitoring of MHPs is possible by making use of smart phone available with MHP personnel residing at the plant site.


_________________________________________________________________________ 48

8. Observation and Recommendation 8.1 General

In general, applicability of the refined sustainability monitoring framework is quite encouraging. Replication of the refined framework for next phase of sustainability monitoring with larger pool of MHPs is ready, with adaptation of field learning recommendation made during the piloting phase. The framework can be easily modified as needed. The unique sustainability success situation of the most of the piloted MHPs was observed as follows:

Technical soundness and good performance with Core indicators

Higher level of ownership feeling among beneficiaries and operators

Financial good governance and readiness to contribute in cash and kind

Stable consumers committee and good institutional governance

Stable operation team at place and accessible plant location

Trained technician and operators

Regular revenue collection

Ownership and Responsible feelings

Aware and coordinated users committee

Strong financial base for O&M

Skilled managers and operators

Sound civil structures

Fast decision making

Privately owned 8.2 Observation on Piloted MHP Plant SWOT

The plant SWOT analysis had generated specific weakness and threat as discussed in the earlier section. The weakness and threat noted from the piloted plant needs to be converted into strength and opportunities for the sustainability enhancement of plant. SWOT had also generated ample knowledge for solutions to convert weakness of the plant on to strength, such as involving strong members of the communities to empower weaker section for awareness, use, activation, mobilization and participation. 8.3 Recommendations

The piloting process refined the framework for MHPs sustainability monitoring and evaluation. The framework results in sustainability status of plants based on their performance with various indicators included. As the sustainability status of plant is dependent on the indicators used, weight and score distribution to the various indicators, the first and the foremost issue is that there should be consensus on the indicators and weight distribution in the framework among all the concerned agencies that will be using the framework in extensive manner in future. The agreed framework thus becomes a MHP sustainability benchmarking tool. With the piloting of 11 MHPs the refined multi criteria analysis (MCA) based sustainability monitoring framework is a much more reliable incorporation to the framework prepared at the initial phase of pretesting. Further sustainability monitoring with diverse nature of MHPs will generate further feedback to refine the framework. This is basically the learning by doing process-capturing condition of usability with diverse nature of MHPs scattered all over Nepal.


_________________________________________________________________________ 49

Further stakeholder consultation and more diversified MHPs monitoring needs to be conducted for further refinement of the framework, which is considered as ongoing process. 8.4 Application of Framework for Sustainability Enhancement

Based on the pilot monitoring of MHPs, recommendations for sustainability enhancement may be broadly classified as two categories, as mentioned during pre-testing phase, which is still valid:

I. Sustainability enhancement on the operating Plants II. Sustainability enhancement on up-coming or New Plants, learning from monitoring

process Sustainability enhancement on the operating projects: With the knowledge gained from the piloted MHPs, following priority for sustainability enhancement strategy is recommended: a) Sustainability enhancement focusing on Core Indicator’s performance, as far as

possible b) Sustainability enhancement on the technical aspects and at criteria level, based on their

performance ranking c) Sustainability enhancement on productive energy use aspects d) Sustainability enhancement on entrepreneurial or business sense development aspects

of consumers community Sustainability enhancement on new plants: The strategy for the new plants focusing on sustainability differs from the operating plants. Based on the pilot monitoring, the following strategy is recommended: 1. Give high importance on or focus on most frequently rated ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ indicators in the

piloted plants and address then from initial stage, before implementation 2. Consider weakness and threat identified in the plants, summarised in the SWOT section 3. Take consideration on the unique sustainability success factors 4. Technological innovation as per project situation: hybrid system, like combined /

integrated with drinking water, irrigation and milling 8.5 Field Assessment Sheets

The field assessment sheets were modified drastically at the stage of piloting. The assessment sheets and guidelines were found to be fine with the study field team members, noted and presented comments and feedback from the field in all the five aspects. However, in future monitoring exercise, need orientation on the use of the sheets in the field. It is recommended that the implementing agency conduct interactive workshops with the prospective partner staff on the use and improvement on the guidelines at the field assessment sheets. The field assessment sheets can also serve as community self MHP monitoring tool, if translated in Nepali and MHP personnel oriented properly on the use and assessment of their facility. It is also recommended that sustainability monitoring to be conducted with more representative MHPs in the process of bringing the framework into wide-scale use.


_________________________________________________________________________ 50

8.6 Sustainability Monitoring Framework Utilization

It is recommended that Spread Sheet based Weighed Table framework is utilized by the AEPC partners or for low end use. The weighted table spread sheet template developed in MS Excel is easy to use. The information gathered from field in Field Assessment Sheet is the input information for the Excel based spreadsheet (called weighted table). As soon as input is given to the weighted table, the plant sustainability score is generated in the spreadsheet whereby performance of plant on its various criteria would be clarified. The weighted table is flexible as well; weights and score assigned to various factors can be modified to view all possible scenarios of sustainability score by changing weights or score distribution among the indicators. The AHP based framework is useful for AEPC to decide which project and what service area to be financed for sustainability enhancement. The AHP based framework needs expert orientation and software to process the plant data over the framework, so for the initial years it is recommended that AEPC be prepared for AHP processing and higher level use. The input to the AHP based framework will be the weighted table. 8.7 Standardization of Sustainability Monitoring Framework

It is recommended that the criteria, factors and sub-factors or indicators, their definition and score distribution used in sustainability monitoring framework be uniform among all the agencies that are conducting sustainability monitoring in Nepal. It is found that there exists no standard indicators and framework for sustainability monitoring of MHP. It is recommended that AEPC advocate for the establishment of relevant policy in this regard. This requirement becomes even more essential as more agencies start working in MHP sector in Nepal, and a standard sustainability monitoring framework would be required to establish comparable sustainability status across those assessments / agencies.


_________________________________________________________________________ 51

References (The literature includes cited and referred in the earlier phase of the sustainability framework development)

AEPC (2015). Development of Sustainability Assessment Framework, Final Report, September 2015, Alternate Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC), Kathmandu, Nepal.

AEPC (2013). Annual Progress Review of AEPC 2012-2013, AEPC, Kathmandu, Nepal

Arter, A. (2011). Micro Hydro in Nepal, Enhancing Prospects for Long Term Sustainability

Final Report, Kathmandu.

Beach, K. (2010). Edmond Oklahoma Info for Citizens Planning to Survive Sustainability. Available from: http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/edmond-info-for-citizens-planning-to-survive sustainability derived on 5/19/2015

Bhattacharya, S. C. (2012). Energy Access Programmes and Sustainable Development: A Critical Review and Analysis. Energy for Sustainable Development 16: 260–271, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK, De Montfort University

Buselich, K. (2002). An outline of current thinking on sustainability assessment”, A background paper prepared for the Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy. Murdoch University, Australia: Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy.

Geniaux, G, Bellon, S., Deverre, C., Powell, B. (2009). Sustainable Development Indicators Frameworks and Initiatives. France D: System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling.

International Hydropower Association (2010). Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol. www.hydrosustainabiliy.org

Ilskog, E. (2008). Indicators for assessment of rural electrification – an approach for comparison apples and pears, Energy Policy, 36, pp. 2665-73.

M. Rosso, M. Bottero, S. Pomarico, S. LaFerlita, E. Comino (2014). Integrating multi criteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower projects, Energy Policy 67, 870–881

Nieves, L. J., & Rio, P. D. (2010). Contribution of Renewable Energy Sources to the Sustainable Development of Islands: An Overview of the Literature and a Research Agenda.

Open Access, Sustainability. Open Access, Sustainability, ISSN 2071-1050, 2, 783-811.

Panthi, K and Bhattarai, S. (2008). A Framework to assess sustainability of community based water projects using multi criteria analysis, Karachi Pakistan, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries.

Register, F. (2009). Executive Order 13514 “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance". Washington D.C.


_________________________________________________________________________ 52

Singh, R. K.et. al. (2012). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Elsevier Ecological Indicators, 15, 281–299

Sovacool, B. K. (2013). A qualitative factor analysis of renewable energy and Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) in the Asia-Pacific. Elsevier Energy Policy, 59, 393–403

Saaty, T. L., (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, New York

Shrestha R. M. and Acharya, J. S. (2015). Sustainable Energy Access Planning A Framework. Asian Development Bank Manila, Philippines

The World Bank. (1997). Expanding the Measure of Wealth. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), Washington D.C., USA

UN. (1996). Sustainable consumption and production: clarifying concepts. In: DPCSD (Ed.), New York: The Rosendal workshop

United Nations, WCED (1987). Our Common Future / Brundtland Report. New York: United

Nations, World Commission on Environment and Development

WaterAid Nepal (2009). Long Term Sustainability Monitoring: WaterAid’s Experience in Nepal

www.environet.ie/news/sustainability-what-can-it-mean-your-business

Winrock International (2012). Assessment of Micro hydro Power Plants

1

PILOTING SUSTAINABILITYMONITORING

for MICRO HYDROPOWER PLANTS

ANNEX - I

Field Information Collection Sheets

Alternative Energy Promotion Centre

Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal

July 2016

In association with

Knowledge Holding International Pvt. Ltd. Upveda Technology Pvt. Ltd.

Contents I. Basic Information II. Field Information Collection Guidelines III. Sustainability Assessment Criteria, Factors and Sub-factors IV. On-site Sustainability Assessment Checklist V. SWOT Analysis of MHP VI. Other Information (List of Person meet with their contact numbers)

Plant Name:

District:

VDC/Municipality with Ward No:

Powerhouse Location:

Plant Code/ID:

Date of Survey:

Sustainability Assessment Sheets: Page 2 of 23

I. Basic Information:

1. Name and Designation of Field Assessment Team:

S.N Name Designation Contacts

2. Salient Features of the MHP:

Name of Installer Company:

Name of Local Partner:

Plant Start Year:

Plant Commissioned Year:

Distance of Plant from Black Topped Road:

Distance of Plant from Earthen Road:

Coordinate of Powerhouse (using GPS for Smartphone):

Coordinate of Intake (using GPS for Smartphone):

Plant Type:

Design Capacity:

Present Capacity:

Length of Canal:

Length of Transmission Line:

No of HH Points:

No of Commercial Points:

No of Institutional/Public Points:

Communities Served:

VDC Ward No. Name of Communities No of HHs

Total


3. Additional Information (if any, relevant to sustainability of the Plant): List of People Contacted and Contact mobile number of Key Informant and others.


II. Field Information Collection Guideline

Background: The Sustainability Assessment Framework for MHP is designed based on integrated assessment, consisting performance assessment of various indicators over several years of operation. There are 5 criteria of sustainability assessment such as technical, financial, environmental, socio-economic and institutional. A total of 16 factors are defined as key sustainability factors under the five main criteria. Factors are considered as sub-division of main criteria. Since truthful decision can only be made at the lowest level of information, these 16 factors are therefore further divided into 47 sub-factors. Determining performance level of these 47 sub-factors is the main task of the field assessment team. Performance Rating: To make participatory assessment of the various sub factors (indicators), appropriate participatory tools are recommended. Among the recommended tools, single or multiple tools may be used as per the situation demand to arrive at the fairly accurate performance rating of the particular indicator. The performance rating of various sub-factors (indicators) are to be derived directly by single judgment. The qualitative rating method has been adopted to assess the performance level of each sub-factor. The performance level of sub-factors are further categorized as Very Good (V. Good), Good, Fair and Poor. Assessments have to be performed for sub-factors only by choosing most appropriate ranking options. The ranking codes of sub-factors are linked with performance of sustainability Factors and Sustainability Criteria through the automated computing system, for which the survey team need not be worried. Before making any judgment, the assessment team must read all definitions, tips and indicators carefully. A small mistake can adversely affect overall sustainability result of the MHP. Methodological Tools: The field assessment team should strictly use and follow the recommended tools only to assess the performance level of sub factors (indicators). Use of wrong tool can lead to wrong decision making. There are 8 tools in total recommended for the assessment as below to be used as appropriate. Tool-1: Consumers’ Committee Meeting (CCM): Consumers’ are the beneficiary of the MHP. To establish and strengthened rights of the consumers, such committees are formed. These committees also provide feedback and suggestions to the management committee from time to time to ensure expected services. Organization of consumer’s meeting is instrumental to answer specific questions regarding sustainability of system and services. If such committees do not exist, the team should rely on the Tool-2 below. Tool-2: Consumer Interview (CI):It is recommended to randomly select few consumers/users to provide required information on specific sub-factor. The views of the majority respondent should be considered as inputs for performance ranking by the team. Better to select such users from different social categories including potentially disadvantaged communities. Tool-3: Document Review (DR): The document review is usually done for evidence based decision making process and to verify reported quantitative information with the record books or reports. Tool-4: Focused Group discussions (FGD): The focused group discussion is usually done to conclude relatively complex decisions. In other words, it is used to assess the views and perspective of different people of different roles and responsibility, different needs and different capacities. Views of majority people or a concern of people from weaker section of the society (Dalit, Women, Disable, economically poor, backward ethnic group etc) is considered as genuine inputs for decision making. The FGD members may include but not limited to Community Energy Consumers, Volunteers, Women Group, Maintenance workers, Teachers and members of ethnic minority. Note that you have to be prepared in advance with the


discussion agenda to be floated for the focused group discussion. Pick up those indicators/agenda requiring FGD tools for the assessment from the questionnaire sheet and make a systematic plan before jumping into the action. Your jobs is just carefully listening the discussion on your agendas and make your own judgments for the assessment. Tool-5: Key Informants Interview (KII): It is not possible to gather many people and hold them for a longer time for discussion. Therefore, it is advisable to identify 1 or 2 key informant who knows almost everything about the MHP project. Please note that socially reputed and educated people (Teacher, retired employees of army/government, social activists etc) are more appropriate persons. It is recommended to identify these people in consultation with Users committee leadership to avoid conflict of interest. It is also good to book his/her time for relatively longer time on request. Provision of appropriate insensitive to KIIs helps to complete the job on time. Too-6: Management Meeting (MM): This tool is mainly used to collect information related to financial and institutional sustainability criteria. It is advised that the survey team book the time of user’s committee leadership and key members (not necessarily all) immediately after reaching the site. No need of longer discussions on single agenda but give more focus on the information requirements of many sub-factor to be covered. Tool-7: Observation (O): The information to be gathered using observation tool is totally dependent on the perspective of survey team. Careful and sharp observation gives more accurate judgmental results. Tool-8: Photo Capture (PC): Usually photo capture tool is used to gather evidence of physical units or surrounding landscape. It increases the credibility of information collected from the field so that the client becomes assured on the decisions made by assessment team. Photo capture is a must in specific cases which are highlighted the checklist.

Field Activity Steps: Plant Sustainability Assessment Team (PSAT), consisting of MHP Engineer and Multiple Discipline Expert (Governance or Social with exposure in business / finance is recommended) reaches to the Plant Community with prior review of Project Completion Report (PCR), if available. The assessment team will also be informed by the team leader or can get necessary information of the Plant from AEPC or Construction Company or User’s Committee. Step 1: User’s committee consultation and Planning for field work: Start with an introductory Meeting with User’s committee (preferably with Chairman and other leadership position holders).Get quick overview of plant site, settlement distribution pattern, list of physical plant components, locality, consumers and plant components etc. Identification of most suitable Community Guide/s (preferably key informants), who may be adult, residing in the community, can coordinate, knowledgeable and can provide maximum information about the MHP. Step 2: Plant / Plant Area / Village Walk (PAW): Carry out Plant/Plant Area/Village walk by PAST with Community guide/s. While performing PAW, conduct Observation (O) of system and facility, Photo Capture (PC), Consumer Interview (CI) simultaneously.

o Civil Works: Start the work by observing the Intake site first, Canal line, fore bay, Penstock pipe, Power House and Tail race systematically.

o Electrical works: Start observing from power house, transformer, distribution lines and household connection systematically.

o Compulsorily meet the Caretaker/operator of the plant who usually lives in the powerhouse premise. This person is one of the l key informants of the entire functionality of the system.


Step 3: Conduct Key Informant Interview (KII): Key informant interview can be conducted during village walk (Step 2), on the spot interview as and when a Key informant is met during the PAW session or at local shop, if some key informant is identified. This step can be conducted in parallel with Step 2, 4 & 5. Please be aware on the assessment questions that are recommended to use KII tool so that you will not miss important questions during the interview process. Step 4: Conduct Focused Group Discussion (FGD): This activity shall be conducted after completion with Plant Area/Village Walk and may be combined with Step 5. The FGD members may include but not limited with Community Energy Consumers, Volunteers, Women Group, Maintenance workers, Teachers and members in minority in the community. Step 5: Conduct Management Meeting (MM), Consumers’ Committee Meeting (CCM) and Document Review (DR):Meeting with Chairperson, Vice chair, General Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Members of Plant Board / Management / Consumers / Users’ Committee at the place where the related Documents are kept. Step 6: Final Assessment and Information Collection check: Check the completeness of field assessment sheets, Photo capture etc. ADVISORY NOTES:

IT IS ADVISED THAT THE TEAM PREPARE A PLAN OF OPERATION SEPARATELY FOR EFFECTIVE TIME MANAGEMENT. LIST OUT THEDETAIL INFORMATION AREAS THAT CAN BE COLLECTED DURING o WALKING (observation, consumer’s interview, interview with care takers/operators etc o FOCUSSED GROUP DISCUSSION o MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND RECORD VERIFICATION

DIVIDE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TEAM LEADER AND TEAM MEMBER TO COLLECT SPECIFIC INFORMATION SUB-FACTOR LEVEL SO THAT BOTH CAN WORK SIMULTENEOUSLY.


III. List of Sustainability Assessment Criteria, Factors, Sub-factors and Assessment Tools 1. TECHNICAL CRITERIA:

Factors Sub factors Page No. Assessment Tools Ranking

11: Plant Efficiency

111: Plant Size 9 KII / DR

112: Load Factor 9 KII / DR

12: Geo-technical Stability

121: Geo-technical Stability of Powerhouse 9 O / PC / KII / FGD

122: Geo-technical Stability of Canal, Head Race and Tail Race

10 O / PC / KII / FGD

123: Geo-technical Stability of Intake & Diversion Structure

10 O / PC / KII / FGD

124: Reliability of Water Source [CORE INDICATOR]

10 O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

13: Quality of Civil Works

131: Quality of Intake and Diversion Structures 11 O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

132: Quality of Canal Structures 11 O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

133: Quality of Fore Bay, De-silting Basin & Power House


134: Quality of Penstock and Anchor Structures 12 O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

14: Functioning of Electro-Mechanical Installations

141: Functioning of Generator, Turbine and Belt 12 O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

142: Functioning of Powerhouse (PH) Circuits & ELC


143: Functioning of Power Lines (Transmission & Distribution)


15: Technical Operation and Maintenance

151: Status of Safety Measures 13 O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

152: Continuation of Power Supply 13 O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

153: Non-occurrence of Outage 13 O / PC / KII / FGD / DR

154: Technical Skill of Plant Operator and Proximity of Village from Power House


155: Time Taken to Respond Breakdown 14 O / PC / KII / FGD / DR



21: Cash Coverage

211: Capital Cost Repayment 14 MM / KII / DR

212: Fund Availability for Regular O&M 14 MM / KII / DR

213: Savings from Income 15 MM / KII / DR / FGD

22: Tariff & Revenue

221: Metering and Billing Arrangements 15 MM / KII / DR / FGD

222: Revenue Collection 15 MM / KII/ DR / FGD /CCM

223: Energy Pricing 15 MM / KII/ DR / FGD /CCM

23: UC Governance

231: Book Keeping 16 MM / KII / DR

232: Debt Servicing & Regulation Compliance 16 MM / KII / DR

233: Maintenance of Meetings & Minutes 16 MM / KII / DR



31: MHP’s Fitness to Local Environment

311: Fineness of Powerhouse, Intake and Canal structures to Environment

17 KII / FGD / PAW

312: Plant structures Hazard Mitigation /Conservation / Adaptation Measures

17 KII / FGD / PAW

32: MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Livelihood & Culture

321: MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Livelihoods

17 KII / FGD / PAW

322: MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Culture

17 KII / FGD / PAW



Factors Sub factors Page No. Assessment Tools Ranking 41: Access

411: Access to Road Services at MHP 18 O / KII / FGD / DR

412: Access to National Grid Connection [CORE INDICATOR]

18 O / KII / FGD / DR / O / CV

42: Livelihood and Enterprises

421: Energy Use to Increase Agro & Forest Products.

18 O / KII / FGD

422: Energy Consumption By Local Entrepreneurs 19 O / KII / FGD

423: Multiple use of Tail race water 19 O / KII / FGD

43: Inclusion Safeguard

431: Gender Equality in MHP management 19 O / KII / FGD / MM

432: Representation of People From Disadvantaged Community in Management

19 O / KII / FGD / DR / MM

433: Beneficiary Coverage 20 O / KII / FGD / DR


Factors Sub factors Page No. Assessment Tools Ranking 51: Institutional Functioning of User’s Committee

511: Capacity of User’s Committee to Manage MHP

20 MM / KII / DR

512: Capacity and Functioning of System Operators

20 MM / KII / DR

513: Continuity of UC Meetings 20 MM / KII / DR

52: Coordination and Relationship

521: Coordination Among Board Members 21 MM / KII / DR

522: Coordination Between Board & Operational Staff

21 MM / KII / DR

523: Coordination Between MHP Management and Beneficiaries/Local Bodies/Stakeholders.

21 MM / KII / DR

53: Institutional Transparency

531: Transparency of Institutional policies and operational procedures

22 MM / KII / DR

532: Disclosure of Reports and Books of Accounts 22 MM / KII / DR


IV. On-site Sustainability Assessment Checklist:

Following table gives Sustainability Assessment Criteria, Factors & Sub Factors with Sub factor performance ranking options. Select the most appropriate ranking option that reflects the real condition of performance of particular sub-factor (indicator) at the field. Please tick in the bulleted box.

1. TECHNICAL CRITERIA:

Factors Sub factors Sub-factor Performance Ranking Options

11

: P

lan

t Ef

fici

en

cy

(Des

ign

vs.

Act

ua

l)

111: Plant Size [Design Vs. Actual] Tools: Key Informant Interview (KII) / Document Review(DR)

V. Good: Plant sizing is sound; design & actual generation meets; functioning well to the design mark or above; owners & operators are fully satisfied.

Good: Plant sizing is good; actual Vs design generation ratio is 0-5%; functioning well; owners & operators are satisfied.

Fair: Plant sizing is fair; actual Vs. design generation ratio is 6-10%; no major problem reported so far (or in last five years). BUT there are indications of fluctuation problems; operators have concerns; NOT fully satisfied.

Poor: Plant sizing is poor, actual Vs design generation ratio is more than 10%; needs major repair and maintenance soon; operators NOT satisfied.

Assessment Notes:

112: Load Factor (Average Load with respect to Peak Load) Tools: KII / DR

V. Good: Plant load factor is greater than 50% at the time of visit.

Good: Plant load factor is in between 40% to 49% at the time of visit.

Fair: Plant load factor is in between 30 to 39% at the time of visit.

Poor: Plant load factor is less than 30 % at the time of visit. Assessment Notes

12

: G

eo

-te

chn

ical

Sta

bili

ty

[Vu

lner

ab

ility

of

Mic

ro H

ydro

po

wer

Pla

nt

Syst

em w

ith

Na

tura

l Dis

ast

er]

[Su

scep

tib

le

to p

hys

ical

har

m o

r d

amag

e] R

isk

to s

ust

ain

abili

ty o

f M

HP

aga

inst

nat

ura

l / m

anm

ade

dis

aste

r in

clu

din

g re

liab

ility

of

wat

er s

ou

rces

at

pla

nt

is c

on

sid

ered

un

der

th

e fa

cto

r 121: Geo-technical Stability of Powerhouse

Tools: Observation (O) / Photo Capture (PC) / Key informant interview (KII) / Focused Group Discussion (FGD) Threat Categories: Geotechnical stability, landslide, flood, EQ etc.

Very Good – Fully safe; fully reliable on safety; adequate and no indication of any threats noticed from the date of installation (or in the past five years) and no such damage is expected in near future from all threat categories.

Good –Reliable; some indication of threat was seen due to one of the categories; no indication of any damage in near future; no any damage in last five years or from the date of installation..

Fair – Somewhat safe; vulnerability exists from two or more threat categories s BUT not under immediate threat; experienced some damage due to at least one category in last five years or from the date of installation.

Poor –Unsafe; vulnerability exists from more than two threat categories; damaged in last five years due to two or more categories; somehow operating/not operating. Very high chance of not being operational soon. In any way needing rehabilitation works.

Assessment Notes

122: Geo-technical Stability of Canal, Head Race and Tail Race Tool: Observation / Photo capture / Key informant interview Threat Categories: Geotechnical stability,

V. Good: No damage; no natural or manmade disturbance after project completion (or within last 5 years); damage is not expected in near future from all threat categories.

Good: Minor damage occurred after completion of project (or within last five years) but not prolonged disturbance (repaired within 7 days) for power generation; no serious indication of vulnerabilities exists from all threat categories..

Fair: Damage occurred after completion of project (or within last five years) due to one or two threat categories but not prolonged disturbance (repaired within a month) for power generation; however vulnerabilities are anticipated in coming years.


Factors Sub factors Sub-factor Performance Ranking Options landslide, flood, EQ etc.

Poor: Multiple and frequent damages occurred after completion of the project (or within five years) due to two or more threat categories with significantly prolonged disturbance for power generation. Major rehabilitation is needed in coming years.

Assessment Notes

123: Geo-technical Stability of Intake & Diversion Structure Tool: Observation / KII / FGD

Threat Categories: Geotechnical stability, landslide, flood, EQ etc

V. Good: No damage; no natural or manmade disturbance after project completion (or within last 5 years); no damage is expected in near future from all threat categories.

Good: Minor damage occurred after completion of project (or within last five years) but no prolonged disturbance (repaired within 7 days) for power generation; no serious indication of vulnerabilities exists from all threat categories.

Fair: Damage occurred after completion of project (or within last five years) due to one or two threat categories but not prolonged disturbance (repaired within a month) for power generation; however vulnerabilities are anticipated in coming years.

Poor: Multiple and frequent damages occurred after completion of the project (or within five years) due to two or more threat categories with significantly prolonged disturbance for power generation. Major rehabilitation is needed in coming years.

Assessment Notes

124: Reliability of Water Source [CORE INDICATOR] [High risks due to source depletion naturally and emergence of new priority areas of people. e.g. drinking water, irrigation etc] Tool: Observation / KII / FGD

V. Good: There is enough water available in the intake (river, rivulet, spring, lake, and pond); no problem to meet required discharge to run the MHP in future; rather potential to tap more water in future; no sign of water depletion in the source.

Good: There is adequate water available in the intake (river, rivulet, spring, lake, and pond) at the moment; no problem to meet required discharge to run the MHP in future. There are indications of water depletion or increasing pressure on water sources for other use (drinking water, irrigation etc) in future.

Fair: There is minimum required water available in the intake (river, rivulet, spring, lake, and pond) at the moment; need to reserve the water or there is specific time allocated to supply water in MHP. There are indications of water depletion or increasing pressure on water sources for other purpose but MHP is running any ways. However there are chances of connecting with additional water sources.

Poor: Shortage of water is already started that is impacting heavily on power generation; rapid water depletion process is continued from past few years.; constructing reservoir for storage is technically or economically not viable; there are no other chance of adding new water source as well; there is pressing demands of water for drinking water and irrigation purpose in upstream side due to rapid urbanization or new irrigation project.

Assessment Notes


Factors Sub factors Sub-factor Performance Ranking Options 1

3:

Qu

alit

y o

f C

ivil

Wo

rks

Focu

sin

g o

n:

Ove

rall

Qu

alit

y o

f d

esig

n a

nd

co

nst

ruct

ion

; typ

e o

f st

ruct

ure

(p

erm

an

ent,

sem

i per

ma

nen

t a

nd

tem

po

rary

); le

vel o

f sa

tisf

act

ion

of

use

rs/c

on

sum

ers

wrt

qu

alit

y; d

am

ag

e (l

eaka

ge,

cra

cks,

bre

aka

ge

etc)

an

d f

un

ctio

na

lity.

131: Quality of Intake and Diversion Structure Tool: Observation, Key Informant Interview, focused group discussion

V. Good: Both Diversion & Intake are of permanent structure; design & construction quality is sound; no problem reported; owners, operators, users or beneficiaries are fully satisfied.

Good: One of the structures (Intake or Diversion) is permanent and other semi permanent; design & construction quality is sound; no problem reported; owners, operators, users or beneficiaries are fully satisfied.

Fair: Both semi-permanent structures; design & construction quality is sound; no major problem reported in last five years BUT anticipating some problem in future. Users have some concerns; NOT fully satisfied.

Poor: Problem in design; foundation scouring; poor construction quality; temporary structure; needs immediate rehabilitation; operators or beneficiaries are NOT satisfied.

Assessment Notes

132: Quality of Canal Structures Types: Power canal, lined, partially lined, unlined or earthen, natural etc. Tools: Observation, Key Informant Interview, focused group discussion

V. Good: Lined canal; design & construction quality is sound; no problem reported; owners, operators, users or beneficiaries are fully satisfied.

Good: Lined canal; design & construction quality is sound; minor problem reported; owners, operators, users or beneficiaries are satisfied.

Fair: Partially lined canal; design & construction quality is sound; no major problem reported so far (or in last five years) BUT experiencing minor problems frequently. Users have some concerns; NOT fully satisfied.

Poor: Problem in design; poor Construction quality; unlined or earthen or natural canal; needs immediate rehabilitation; operators or beneficiaries are NOT satisfied

Assessment Notes

133: Quality of Fore Bay, De-silting Basin & Power House Tool: Observation, Key Informant Interview, focused group discussion

V. Good: All permanent structure; design & construction quality is sound; functioning well; no problem reported; owners, operators, users or beneficiaries are fully satisfied.

Good: All permanent structure; design & construction quality is sound; functioning well; some minor problem reported in any one of the structures; owners, operators, users or beneficiaries are satisfied.

Fair: Any two semi-permanent structures; design & construction quality is sound; minor problem reported in any one of the structures; anticipating some problem to come. Users have concerns; NOT fully satisfied.

Poor: All temporary structures; problem in design; poor construction quality; needs immediate rehabilitation; operators or beneficiaries are NOT satisfied

Assessment Notes

134: Quality of Penstock and Anchor Structures Tool: Observation, Key Informant Interview, focused group discussion

V. Good: Permanent structures; design & construction quality is sound; steel penstock pipe; functioning well; no problem reported; owners, operators, users or beneficiaries are fully satisfied.

Good: : Permanent structures; design & construction quality is sound; HDPE penstock pipe; functioning well; some problem reported; owners, operators, users or beneficiaries are satisfied.

Fair: Semi-permanent structures; design& construction quality is sound; HDPE Penstock pipe; no major problem reported in last five years BUT anticipating some problem to come. Users have concerns NOT fully satisfied

Poor: Temporary structure; problem in design; poor construction quality;


Factors Sub factors Sub-factor Performance Ranking Options poor quality of Penstock pipe; needs immediate rehabilitation. Operators or beneficiaries are NOT satisfied.

Assessment Notes

14

: Fu

nct

ion

ing

of

Ele

ctro

-Me

chan

ical

In

stal

lati

on

s [Q

ua

lity

of

All

elec

tro

-mec

ha

nic

al e

qu

ipm

ents

an

d c

om

po

nen

ts, s

uch

as

Gen

era

tor,

ELC

, Tu

rbin

e,

Po

wer

ho

use

, Bel

t, S

wit

ch y

ard

, Tra

nsm

issi

on

& d

istr

ibu

tio

n li

nes

, Pla

nt

size

(co

mp

ari

son

wit

h d

esig

n a

nd

a

ctu

al o

per

ati

on

al o

utp

ut)

etc

]

141: Functioning of Generator, Turbine and Belt Tool: Observation / Key informant interview Components: Turbine Generator & Belt

V. Good: Design, manufacture & installation are excellent; quality is sound; functioning well; no problem reported; owners & operators are fully satisfied.

Good: Design, manufacture & installation are fair but there are minor concerns in one of the areas; quality is sound; functioning well; no problem reported; owners & operators are fully satisfied.

Fair: Design, manufacture, & installations qualities are good with minor problems reported in two of the areas; no major problem reported so far (or in last five years) BUT anticipating some problem in near future. Operators have concerns NOT fully satisfied

Poor: Prominent problems reported in design or in manufacturing or in alignment of Generator, Turbine and Belt. Needs frequent major repair and maintenance soon. Operators NOT satisfied.

Assessment Notes

142: Functioning of Powerhouse (PH) Circuits & ELC Tools: Observation, Key Informant Interview

V. Good: ELC & PH Circuits all condition is excellent; functioning well; no problem reported; owners & operators are fully satisfied.

Good: ELC & PH Circuits all condition is fine; functioning good, no major problem reported; owners & operators are satisfied.

Fair: ELC & PH Circuits condition are fair with minor problems; no major problem reported BUT anticipating some problem; Operators have concerns NOT fully satisfied.

Poor: ELC & PH Circuits condition is poor; frequent troubles are reported. Needs major repair and maintenance. Operators NOT satisfied

Assessment Notes

143: Functioning of Power Lines (Transmission & Distribution) Tools: Observation / Plant Area / Key Informant Interview / DR

V. Good: Power lines all condition is excellent; functioning well; no problem reported; owners & operators are fully satisfied.

Good: Power lines all condition is normally good; functioning good; no problem reported; owners & operators are satisfied.

Fair: Power lines condition are fair with some minor problems; no major problem reported BUT anticipating some problem soon. Operators have concerns NOT fully satisfied

Poor: Power lines all condition is poor with frequent interruptions. Needs major repair and maintenance. Operators NOT satisfied

Assessment Notes:

15

: Te

chn

ical

Op

era

tio

n a

nd

Mai

nte

nan

ce

[Op

era

tio

n a

nd

ma

inte

na

nce

sta

tus

of

MH

P is

mea

sure

d

wit

h r

esp

ect

to t

he

safe

ty m

easu

res

take

n, o

uta

ge

du

rati

on

an

d f

req

uen

cy, a

vaila

bili

ty o

f o

per

ati

on

al h

um

an

res

ou

rces

(HR

) a

nd

ho

w q

uic

kly

bre

akd

ow

n is

res

po

nd

ed]

151: Status of Safety Measures [Safety measures to plant system and human for continued and long lasting operation] Tools: Observation / Plant Area / Key Informant Interview / DR

V. Good: Well planned and implemented technical O&M system from safety prospective. Excellent safety measures in plant, its components and human (operational, non operational& consumers). No safety breach in the past; O&M plan in place. Safety standards followed.

Good: Planned and implemented O&M system from safety prospective; Good safety measures in plant, its components and human (operational, non operational& consumers). No safety breach in the past; O&M plan in place. No specific standard followed.

Fair: Partially implemented O&M plan from safety prospective. Low level of safety measures to plant, its components and human; Safety breach in the past BUT no casualty & generation halt; O&M plan in place. No specific technical standard followed

Poor: No plan and implementation of O&M system; no safety measures; no safety guards installed; several safety related problems in the past including human casualty and generation halt; reported more than one major destructive incidents in a year.

Assessment Notes



152: Continuation of Power Supply [Low outage duration is desired] Tool: Key informant interview / Document review (DR)

V. Good: Less than 7 days outage in a year

Good: 7 to 15 days outage duration in a year

Fair: 15 to 30 days outage duration in a year

Poor: More than 30 days outage duration in a year. Assessment Notes

153: Non-Occurrence of Outage [Low outage frequency is desired] Tools: Observation / KII / DR

V. Good: Outage frequency is very low; once or no outage per year (same condition retained in last five years)

Good: Outage frequency is low; 2 – 3 time outage per year (same condition retained in last five years)

Fair: Outage is critically frequent; 4-5 times in a year

Poor: Outage is very frequent; more than 5 times in a year Assessment Notes

154: Technical Skill of Plant Operator and Proximity of Village From PH. [Skill & Qualification or Capacity of Human Resources (HR); Availability of HR; Distance between operators residence and plant; Turnout of operational staff] Tools: MM / KII / DR

Very Good: Highly skilled & qualified operators; well demonstrated capacity to run the plant; manageable turnout of technical HR; no shortage or vacancy gap. Work & residence distance is not a problem; powerhouse is located within 15 min reach from the nearest settlement.

Good: Skilled & qualified operators; demonstrated capacity to run the plant successfully; turnout of technical HR is managed during vacancy gap; no serious shortage of HR. Work & residence distance is not a major problem; powerhouse is located 15- 30 min reach from the nearest settlement

Fair: Semi-skilled & qualified operators; somehow meeting capacity to run the plant; high turnout of technical HR BUT managed during vacancy gap; some time shortage of technical HR. Work & residence distance has some problem; powerhouse location is 30-45min reach from the nearest settlement.

Poor: Less skilled & not qualified operators; problem in meeting capacity to run the plant; high turnout of technical HR; difficulty to manage during vacancy gap; shortage of technical HR. Work & residence distance is a problem; Powerhouse is very far from settlement; takes more than 45 min to reach the nearest settlement.

Assessment Notes

155 Time Taken to Respond Breakdown [How quickly and efficiently responded, in case any breakdown of plant; preparedness to respond breakdown] Tools: MM / KII / DR / CCM

V. Good: Breakdown is responded very quickly & efficiently; within minimum expected time & cost; any breakdown is responded in less than a day (in past); well prepared to respond any breakdowns.

Good: Breakdown is responded quickly & efficiently; within expected time & cost; any breakdown is responded in within 2 days (in past); prepared to respond any breakdown.

Fair: Breakdown is responded quickly & efficiently; with limited time & cost; any breakdown is responded in 3 days (in past). NOT adequately prepared to respond any breakdown

Poor: Breakdown response is slow & not efficient; with more time & high cost; any breakdown response time needed is more than3 days (in past), not prepared to respond any breakdown.

Assessment Notes



Factors Sub factors Sub-factor Performance Ranking Options 2

1:

Cas

h C

ove

rage

[F

ina

nci

al s

tatu

s in

ter

ms

of

mee

tin

g c

ost

, sa

vin

gs

or

rese

rve

sta

tus]

211: Capital Cost Repayment [Status of Capital Investment repayment out of revenue generated from the Plant; regularity in paying Interest and principle; Payment of dividends, if applicable] Tools: MM / KII (Accounts) / DR (Books of Accounts)

Very Good: Well replayed; no default of any installment of interest & principal; all dividends are paid (if applicable); no liability for payment towards the capital cost of Plant; fully paid back all capital debt.

Good: Principal & Interest paying regularly; some installment defaulted BUT covered later on; no overdue towards capital cost; minor liabilities exists BUT to be repaired on time.

Fair: Principal and Interest paying BUT some installment defaulted; some overdue towards capital cost; interest component paid regularly; liabilities exists BUT planned to manage.

Poor: Not repaid any installment (Interest and principal); bad dept is accumulating; no response on re-structuring for capital repayment. No plan or idea to overcome this financial problem.

Assessment Notes

212: Fund Availability for Regular O&M Tool: MM / KII / DR

V. Good: No financial shortage for regular O&M; no record of plant stoppage due to lack of fund; well established funding mechanism for regular O&M.

Good: Financial shortage for regular O&M was not reported; record or information of plant stoppage due to lack of fund was happened once and was informed BUT managed well.

Fair: Somehow managed fund for regular O&M; no record of plant stoppage due to lack of Fund; O&M could be effected due to lack of fund in near future if there is shortage of cash flow.

Poor: No regular O&M happening due shortage of funds; plant operation halted frequently in the past due to lack of fund. O&M activities being affected and cause serious consequences if not managed timely.

Assessment Notes

213: Savings from Income [Cash Reserve] Tool: MM / DR

V. Good: Reserve of fund is more than sufficient for the regular administration and O&M (for more than a year); system of raising fund for emergency maintenance exists; funded for expansion of plant or other development works using fund.

Good: Reserve of fund is sufficient for the regular administration, O&M (for more than a year) and other necessary activities.

Fair: Reserve of fund is critically adequate for regular administration, O&M.BUT is sufficient for next 6 months

Poor: No or very small reserve fund available; reserve fund is available only for a month or less

Assessment Notes

22

: Ta

riff

an

d R

eve

nu

e

221: Metering and Billing Arrangements Tool: MM / KII / / FGD / DR

V. Good: Generation at Powerhouse and HH or Consumers point are installed with energy meter; regularly monitored or metered energy generation & consumption; regularly billed; billing for collection is based on number of light points.

Good: Generation at Powerhouse and HH or Consumers point are installed with energy meter; NOT regularly monitored or metered energy generation & consumption; irregularly billed;billing of collection is based on number of light points

Fair: Generation at HH or Consumers point is installed with energy meter; NOT regularly monitored or metered energy consumption; not regularly billed, BUT collected based on number of light bulb installed

Poor: Generation at HH or Consumers point NOT installed with energy meter; NOT monitored or metered energy consumption for a long time; NOT regularly billed.

Assessment Notes



222: Revenue Collection Tool: MM / KII / DR / FGD

V. Good: All energy consumption bills are realized within the due period; no or very less revenue collection ‘due’ exists (less than 2% of total revenue) but realized within FY; all revenue (in any means) from plant is realized without overdue.

Good: All energy consumption billed by number of bulb is realized within the due period; no or very less revenue collection due exists (less than 2% of total revenue) but realized within FY.

Fair: All energy consumption billed is realized; exceeds the due period BUT within FY; very less revenue collection due exists; bad dept is less than 2%.

Poor: Majority energy consumption bill exceeds the due period BUT within the FY; revenue collection due exists; bad dept is more than 2%.

Assessment Notes

223: Energy Pricing Tool: MM / KII / DR / FGD / CCM

V. Good: Energy pricing or rate is attractive to consumer; consumers are satisfied and willing to pay meeting Debt servicing, O&M and emergency reserve funds; competitive price; cheaper than grid connected energy pricing.

Good: Energy pricing or rate is appropriate; consumers are satisfied and willing to pay meeting Debt servicing, O&M and emergency reserve funds; competitive price; cheaper than grid connected energy pricing.

Fair: Energy pricing or rate is appropriate; consumers are satisfied and somehow willing to pay meeting Debt servicing, O&M and emergency reserve funds; NOT competitive price; expensive than grid connected energy pricing BUT appropriate opportunity pricing. Revenue is spilled or there is potential for more raise of revenue to the plant Consumer Committee/Cooperative/Company.

Poor: Too low or too high energy pricing; low energy pricing; pricing rate is NOT appropriate; consumers NOT satisfied; NOT meeting Debt servicing, O&M and emergency reserve funds; NOT competitive price; very expensive than grid connected energy price

Assessment Notes

23

: U

C G

ove

rnan

ce

231: Book Keeping Tool: MM / DR

V. Good: Excellently maintained; audited; up-to-date financial record keeping; maintained financial standards.

Good: Well maintained; audited; up-to-date financial record keeping; moderately maintained financial standards

Fair: Acceptably maintained; up-to-date important financial record keeping; consumer committee satisfied

Poor: Not maintained proper book keeping; not audited for more than a year

Assessment Note

232: Debt Servicing and Regulation Compliance [Creditability / Due diligence / Financial discipline / Compliance with Company registration, Tax, Local authorities etc] Tool: MM / KII / DR

V. Good: Well served to debts, reported and renewed as required; No record of default; reported to TAX and paid as required; exemption certified by company register or local authorities as needed.

Good: Served to debts adequately, reported and renewed as required; no record of default; reported to TAX and paid as required; exemption certified by Company register, local authorities as needed

Fair: Served debt BUT with some defaults; maintained understanding with financier or Investor; renewed as required; reported to TAX, Company register, local authorities as needed

Poor: Deliberately defaulted; not good financial discipline practiced in terms of debt payment; not reported or registered with authorities

Assessment Notes



233: Maintenance of Meetings & Minutes Tool: MM / DR

V. Good: Meetings happening as per the schedule; conducted timely & as required; recorded Minutes; signed by all participants; Quorum met.

Good: Meetings happening; conducted irregularly; delayed but happening when required; recorded Minutes but not properly; signed by majority of participants; Quorum not met rarely.

Fair: Meetings happening; conducted irregularly; delayed & not happening when required; recorded Minutes but not up to date; Quorum does not met some time.

Poor: Meetings NOT happening; NOT conducted when required; no/lost recorded Minutes; not signed by majority participants; Quorum generally not realized/met.

Assessment Notes



31

: M

HP

’s F

itn

ess

to

Lo

cal E

nvi

ron

me

nt

[Mea

sure

to

co

pe

wit

h e

nvi

ron

men

tal d

am

ag

e o

n f

lora

, fa

un

a

or

clim

ate

Ch

an

ge]

311: Fineness of Powerhouse, Intake and Canal structures to Environment Tool: KII / FGD / Plant Area Walk (PAW)

V. Good: No hazard or degradation to local environment due to Plant structures noticed; Incidents OF harm not reported in the past; less likely to harm in near future too.

Good: No hazard or degradation to local environment due to Plant structures noticed; very minor incidents occurred but well managed in the past.

Fair: No major hazard or degradation to local environment due to Plant structures noticed; very minor incidents reported in the past BUT threats are anticipated in near future.

Poor: Frequent and significant hazard or degradation of local environment noticed due to Plant structures; there are threats of hazard prevailing due to plant structures; more degradation is anticipated in coming days. .

Assessment Notes

312: Plant structures Hazard Mitigation/Conservation / Adaptation Measures Tool: KII / FGD / PAW

V. Good: No need of any conservation measures.

Good: Well taken Mitigation/Conservation/Adaptation measures in the past and no such requirements are needed in near future.

Fair: Mitigation/Conservation/Adaptation measures are normally taken BUT not sufficient.

Poor: NO Mitigation/Conservation/Adaptation measures taken or not aware on this issue.

Assessment Notes

32

: MH

P’s

En

viro

nm

en

tal

Fitn

ess

To

Lo

cal L

ive

liho

od

An

d

Cu

ltu

re

321: MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Livelihoods [Longer term Impact to people’s livelihood means due to the MHP] Tool: KII / FGD / CCM / PAW

V. Good: No negative impact on people’s livelihoods (agriculture and forestry etc) is reported/ observed.

Good: No negative environmental impact to people’s means of livelihoods (agriculture and forestry) except minor dissatisfaction among few individuals.

Fair: Minor environmental impact to the means of people’s livelihoods. Some impact is reported/ observed BUT minor, no substantial effect on larger society/area.

Poor: Serious environmental impacts reported to the means of peoples’ livelihoods; impact is reported /observed and is substantial in nature.

Assessment Notes



322: MHP’s Environmental Fitness to Local Culture [Negative Impact on local Temple/God/Goddess, /Guthi/meeting place etc] Tools: KII / FGD / CCM / PAW

V. Good: No negative impact on people’s tradition/culture is reported /observed

Good: No negative environmental impacts on people’s tradition/culture except minor dissatisfaction.

Fair: Minor environmental impact on people’s tradition/culture. Some impact is reported /observed BUT minor, no substantial effect on larger society.

Poor: Serious environmental impacts reported on people’s culture/tradition. Impact is reported /observed and is substantial.

Assessment Notes



41

: A

cce

ss

[It

con

sist

s o

f R

oa

d &

Na

tio

na

l Gri

d C

on

nec

tio

n n

ear

th

e P

lan

t si

te. T

hes

e in

fra

stru

ctu

res

are

co

nsi

der

ed a

s

hig

hly

infl

uen

cin

g s

oci

o-e

con

om

ic f

act

ors

to

th

e Su

sta

ina

bili

ty o

n t

he

MH

P]

411: Access to Road Services at MHP Tool: Observation, KII / FGD / DR

V. Good: Powerhouse and Intake both are closely accessible by vehicle; easy movement by public/private transport for maintenance & supervision by Plant personnel /operators movement

Good: Powerhouse or Intake is closely accessible by vehicle, easy access for maintenance & key plant personnel/ operators movement

Fair: Not closely accessible by vehicle BUT takes less than 3 hours walking distance to reach MHP from Road head; somehow the Plant is coping with inaccessibility; NOT a problem for MHP sustainability.

Poor: Plant is located in Remote area; road head is situated in more than 3 hours walking distance from MHP; In case of Plant breakdown, accessibility is problem for repair & maintenance; Sustainability is at stake due to poor access to Road.

Assessment Notes

412: Access to National Grid Connection [CORE INDICATOR]

[Community’s plan to capitalize the benefits of national Grid connection] Tools: KII / FGD / DR or Cross Verification (CV)

V. Good: Village is already connected with central electricity Grid BUT no problem for sustainability; Grid energy is too expensive than MHP energy; surplus energy is being sold to NEA.

Good: Village to be connected with central electricity Grid soon BUT No problem for MHP sustainability; grid energy is too expensive than MHP energy; surplus energy will be sold to NEA; MHP has no Load shedding and other benefits also exists from the Plant, such as Irrigation, Milling, other economic or productive energy use as per the need.

Fair: Village will be connected by National grid soon BUT some problem exists for sustainability; grid energy is equally or slightly expensive than MHP energy; no load seeding is a benefit; not sure surplus MHP electricity may or may not be sold in future; some other productive benefit also exists.

Poor: Village is connected or will be connected by national Grid soon; exists serious problems for sustainability; grid energy is much expensive than MHP energy; MHP is too small so surplus power cannot be sold to NEA; user’s are not interested in managing MHP but willing to pay little more for NEA supply. People believe that it is good to abandon the MHP from economic, social and technical point of views.

Assessment Notes

42

: Li

velih

oo

d

and

En

terp

rise

s 421: Energy Use to Increase Agro & Forest Products. Tools: KII / FGD / CV

V. Good: MHP power is optimally being used to increase production and productivity of Agricultural and Forest products at household level (heating/cooling/processing/storing of agricultural and forest products such as seeds, vegetables, fish, fruits, herbal, milk, meat etc)

Good: MHP power is normally being used to increase production and productivity of Agricultural and forest products at household level (Heating/Cooling/processing/storing of agricultural and forest products


Factors Sub factors Sub-factor Performance Ranking Options such as seeds, vegetables, fish, fruits, herbal, milk, meat etc)

Fair: MHP power is thinly being used to increase production and productivity of Agricultural and forest products at household level (Heating/Cooling/processing/storing of agricultural and forest products such as seeds, vegetables, fish, fruits, herbal, milk, meat etc)

Poor: MHP power is not at all used to increase production and productivity of Agricultural and forest products at household level (heating/cooling/processing/storing of agricultural and forest products such as seeds, vegetables, fish, fruits, Herbal, milk, meat etc).

Assessment Notes

422: Energy Consumption By Local Entrepreneurs [Hotel, saw mill, chicken farm, baking, ICT, educational, health, entertainment, agro based industry, Service industry, manufacturing industry etc] Tools KII/FGD/CV

Very Good: Enterprise sector contributes roughly more than 20% of total income of User’s committee.

Good: Enterprise sector contributes roughly 10-19% of total income of User’s committee.

Fair: Enterprise sector contributes more 5- 9% of total income of User’s committee.

Poor: Enterprise sector contributes less than 5% of total income of User’s committee.

Assessment Notes

423: Multiple use of Tail race water Tools Observation, KII

Very Good: Tail race water is used for other 2 productive purposes(irrigation, drinking water, fishing, Ghatta, recreation, industry etc)

Good: Tail race water is used for other one productive purposes

Fair: Trail race water is disposed in river/stream

Poor: Tail race water is disposed haphazardly and not being used for any productive purpose rather creating environmental threats.

Assessment Notes

43

: In

clu

sio

n S

afe

guar

d

431: Gender Equality in MHP management

[Representation in management] Tools: MM / KII / DR / CV

V. Good: Well represented by women in UC; more than or equal to 50% women (out of total) in management, operation, consumers committee or any other formal Group for MHP.

Good: Standard representation by Women; 30-49% women (out of total) in management, operation, consumers committee or any other formal Group for MHP (In total)

Fair: Moderate representation by women, 10 to 29% women in management, operation, consumers committee or any other formal Group for MHP in total

Poor: Low representation by Women, No or less than 10% women in management, operation, consumers committee or any other formal Group for MHP in total

Assessment Notes

432: Representation of People From Disadvantaged Community in Management Tool: MM / KII / DR / CV

V. Good: More than 70% representation of people from disadvantaged people (Dalit, Janajati, economically poor) in management, operation, consumers or any other formal group for MHP

Good: 50-69% representation of people from disadvantaged people (Dalit, Janajati, economically poor) in management, operation, consumers or any other formal group for MHP

Fair: 30-49% representation of people from disadvantaged people (Dalit, Janajati, economically poor) in management, operation, consumers or any other formal group for MHP


Factors Sub factors Sub-factor Performance Ranking Options Poor: Less than 30% representation of people from disadvantaged

community (Dalit, Janajati, economically poor) in management, operation, consumers or any other formal group for MHP

Assessment Notes

433:MHP’s Beneficiary Coverage: [Inclusion of people in getting benefits from MHP] Tools: MM / KII / DR / CV

Very Good: All households / families and public institutions are connected by electricity with reduced tariff to poor; MHP affected people and disadvantaged people are subsidized..

Good: All household / family and public institutions are connected by electricity with equal tariff to all beneficiaries institution/HHs.

Fair: Out of total HH / Family in the command area, few households are still left out due to technical reasons.

Poor: Out of total HH / Family in the command area, mostly economically poor or Dalit or disadvantaged HH / Family are left out due to social and economic reason.

Assessment Notes



51

: In

stit

uti

on

al F

un

ctio

nin

g o

f U

ser’

s C

om

mit

tee

511: Capacity of User’s Committee to Manage MHP [Overall Operation and Management of MHP as institution] Tool: MM, KII, Observation, DR Judgment Tips: Formal legal status (Company registration, Water use license / Registration)

Very Good: Well managed MHP as an institution; demonstrated capacity in the past years of operation; no concern with consumers with the management of MHP; legal requirements are intact.

Good: Managed MHP as institution smoothly; demonstrated good capacity in the past years, if there is any problem; there are some concerns of consumers with the management of MHP BUT not serious; legal requirements are intact.

Fair: Somehow managed the MHP as an institution; capacity demonstrated in the past years of operation is normal with some capacity gaps; some concerns of consumers are there with the management of MHP BUT not very serious; legal requirements are partly intact.

Poor: MHP is not managed properly as institution; capacity of leadership in the past years of operation WAS the cause for problem with MHP; consumers are very much concerned with the management capacity of MHP; key legal requirements are not intact.

Assessment Notes

512: Capacity and Functioning of System Operators Tool: MM, KII

V. Good: Well functioning team of operators with having good behavior and technical training

Good: Functioning team of operators with having good behavior and technical skills but minor management problems exists.

Fair: Functioning team of operators with having good behavior and technical skills but major management problems exists related to retention.

Poor: Capacity, technical skills and behavior of operators is questionable. MHP is facing frequent problems from the operators.

Assessment Notes

513: Continuity of UC Meetings [AGM, Board Meetings, Committee Meetings,

V. Good: Excellently conducted; regular; following rules; decision minute& signed by all participants; Quorum is maintained.

Good: Well conducted; not regular; somehow following rules; decision minute& signed by all participants; Quorum is maintained.

Fair: Conducted normally; not regular; somehow following rules; decision



Consumers Committee Meetings – CCM] Tool: KII, MM, DR

minute& signed by majority of participants; Quorum is somehow maintained one way or other.

Poor: Meeting rarely conducted; NOT following institutional rules; decision minted & signed BUT not of all meetings, not signed by majority participants; Quorum is not maintained.

Assessment Notes

52

: Co

ord

inat

ion

an

d R

ela

tio

nsh

ip

521: Coordination Among Board Members Tool: KII, MM, DR

V. Good: Excellent coordination within the MHP Board members; no conflict exists within the Board members; all board members are actively participating.

Good: Coordination status is fine in general; no serious conflict exists; no problem in smooth operation of MHP.

Fair: Minimum level of coordination is maintained within the MHP Board members; some difference of opinion exists BUT not effecting in making key decisions; majority of board members are actively participating.

Poor: Coordination within the MHP Board members is not good as expected; conflict exists within the Board members frequently; board members not are actively participating in the meeting; there are serious impacts on key decision making process and smooth operation of the plant.

Assessment Notes

522: Coordination Between Board & Operational Staff Tool: KII, MM, DR

V. Good: Excellent coordination; no conflict exists; no problem in smooth operation of MHP.

Good: Coordination is fine in general; no conflict exists; no problem in smooth operation of MHP.

Fair: Coordination is fine; some difference of opinion exists BUT not effecting on operation; majority of board members and staff interact frequently.

Poor: Bad coordination between staff and board; difference of opinion exists AND affecting MHP operation; majority of board members and staff are NOT admiring each other.

Assessment Notes

523: Coordination Between MHP Management and Beneficiaries/Local Bodies/Stakeholders.

Tool: KII, MM, DR

V. Good: Excellent l coordination between MHP management and users; no conflict of interest exists; frequent interaction takes place and good culture of receiving/giving feedbacks from time to time.

Good: Coordination between MHP management and users is good in general; no serious conflict of interest exists; but limited interaction takes place between MHP management and beneficiaries. Culture of receiving/giving feedbacks from time to time is at the limited level.

Fair: Coordination between MHP management and users is okay any way; no serious conflict of interest exists; but level of interaction and culture of receiving/giving feedbacks is lacking.

Poor: Coordination between MHP management and majority users is not good as expected; serious conflict of interest exists; Interaction and culture of receiving/giving feedbacks is rare.

Assessment Notes

53

: In

stit

uti

on

al

Tran

spar

en

cy 531: Transparency of

Institutional policies and operational procedures Tool: DR / MM / KII

V. Good: Well maintained operational policy and procedure; well informed to all concerned; all staff are satisfied with the operational transparency; no objection from any concerned with the MHP regarding the operational transparency.

Good: Not maintained detailed operational policy & procedure document; but maintained understanding in minutes or verbal; all staff are satisfied with the operational transparency; no objection from any



concerned with the MHP regarding the operational policies and transparency.

Fair: Operational policy and procedure are not developed in book form but exists in any forms of decision making process; staff are satisfied with the operational transparency; minor objection from concerned with the MHP regarding the operational transparency BUT no major operational bottleneck encountered.

Poor: No operational policy and procedure exists at minimum in written or understanding forms; staff are NOT satisfied with the operational transparency; frequent objections are emerging from concerned with the MHP regarding the poor operational transparency condition.

Assessment Notes

532: Disclosure of Reports and Books of Accounts Tool: MM / KII / DR

V. Good: Reports and Books of accounts are readily available to all concerned people of Plant as well as to the external agencies.

Good: Reports and Books of Accounts are readily available to all concerned people of Plant

Fair: Reports and Books of accounts are available BUT not readily or not disclosed to all interested to review (among the concerned people of the plant)

Poor: Reports and Books of accounts are NOT disclosed or not available to all concerned people of Plant and stakeholders.

Assessment Notes


V. Overall Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) Analysis of Plant

This analysis can be done by analyzing sub-factors. It is however suggested to carry out the analysis at the

field using participatory methods so that the information can be cross-checked and validated more precisely.

Strength Internal, within community and facility (Technical, Financial, Social-economic, Environmental, Institutional & any other potential aspects)

Weakness Internal, within consuming community and Plant facility (Technical, Financial, Social-economic, Environmental, Institutional & any other potential aspects)

Opportunity External situations

Threat External, beyond the control of consuming community and Plant facility (Technical, Financial, Social-economic, Environmental, Institutional & any other potential aspects)


VI. Other Information:

Additional information from the Plant related to Sustainability of Physical Facility and Energy Consumer Behavior Change: