Mid-term review RenewableNepal - Kathmandu University

MID‐TERM REVIEW OF RENEWABLENEPAL 

‐ A PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH BASED INDUSTRIAL 

DEVELOPMENT IN NEPAL 

FINAL REPORT 

DECEMBER, 2011

Consulting Engineers and Planners 

Nedre Skøyen vei 2 

N‐0276 Oslo, Norway 

Tel +47 21 58 50 00 

E‐mail norplan@norplan.com 

www.norplan.com 

MID‐TERM REVIEW OF RENEWABLENEPAL 

‐ A PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH BASED INDUSTRIAL 

DEVELOPMENT IN NEPAL 

FINAL REPORT 

Date of issue: 19 December 2011 

Prepared by: 

Checked by: 

Approved by: 

Solveig Ulseth, Joakim Arntsen (NORPLAN), Dr. Hari Prasad Pandit (NorNepal) 

Nicolai Løvdal (NORPLAN) 

Jan‐Olav Øderud (NORPLAN)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page i 


The RenewableNepal Programme for research based industrial development in Nepal was established 

in 2009. The purpose of the Programme is “to build research capacity at Nepalese Universities 

and Research Institutions that can serve Nepalese energy industry in developing high quality products 

and services directed at utilizing the country’s renewable energy sources.” The Programme will be 

concluded in 2013. 

Kathmandu University (KU) has the overall responsibility for planning, implementation, reporting and 

monitoring of the Programme. The Programme management is performed by a Programme Office on 

behalf of KU. SINTEF Energy Research AS assists KU in the overall Programme management. A Steering 

Committee (SC) makes decisions on Programme operation and project funding, aiming at ensuring 

that the goal and purpose of the Programme are satisfied. 

Out of the total Programme budget of NOK 8.6 million, NOK 4.8 million has been made available for 

funding. The first call for projects was performed in April 2010, and the second in March 2011. A final 

application call is expected in March 2012. The Programme awarded 7 projects in 2010 and 4 projects 

in 2011. 

PROGRESS 

The overall progress of the Programme is satisfying according to the identified Programme indicators. 

The implementation is characterized by highly professional planning and management from the 

PM. Several of the projects are reporting promising (interim) results that might lead to commercialization. 

The achievements of milestones to date are presented in the table below. It includes the indicators 

presented in the Agreement. 

INDICATOR TARGET 2012 TARGET 2011 ACHIEVEMENTS SO COMMENT 

(2010) FAR (2011 / 2010) 

Number of research 2 1 (0) In process / 0 

projects completed 

Number of partners 

involved 

Max 8, min 4 Max 16, min 8 

(‐) 

10 (13) Two international institutions 

and one Norwegian 

industry partner 

Number of prototypes 

2 Minimum 1 (0) 1 (0) 

of products 

and services developed 

Number of products 

put into the market 

2 1 (0) 1 (0) 

Project contribution 

to the development 

of Nepali Power 

System 

Assessment 

report has 

been carried 

out 

Assessment 

report has 

been carried 

out 

None ‐ to be assessed. 

This is not a SMART 1 indicator, 

and cannot be quantitatively 

measured. A qualitative 

assessment must be 

performed. 

1 SMART = Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely


Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page ii 

EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY 

The overall programme effectiveness is satisfying. Main objectives are being met through a well run 

evaluation and award process for new research projects, thorough reporting and monitoring. The 

programme management from Kathmandu University is a major positive contributor to the high effectiveness 

observed. The overall steering and management structure of the programme is relevant 

and support effective implementation of the programme. 

The Programme spending compared to budgets is low due to cost efficient Programme management. 

It has high administration costs compared to project funding (41 % of the total), but this is to be expected 

as a lot of work has been put into development of the administrative framework. 

The awarded projects have to a lesser degree than planned utilized Norwegian expertise or included 

Norwegian partners in their project applications. According to the project owners they question both 

the cost‐level and the relevance of use of Norwegian competence, as regional expertise is considerably 

cheaper and hence more available for the projects within the financial framework. Many of the 

awarded projects are doing research on technologies were Norwegian universities and industry do 

not have their core competence. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REMAINING TERM 

‣ Norad and the Embassy should clarify roles and responsibilities for the remaining part of the 

Programme period. 

‣ There is a mismatch between contractual objective and actual implementation of the Programme. 

The SC should address this discrepancy, either through modified implementation or 

through a revised objective as an amendment to the existing contract. 

‣ One of the focus areas of the Programme has been capacity building on preparing good proposals. 

To strengthen this approach it is recommended that all applicants get proper feedback 

on their project application, regardless of outcome. This would increase competence on 

preparing good research proposals, as well as strengthen transparency of the process. 

‣ Projects experience time consuming reporting requirements. Actions to reduce highly time 

consuming reporting should be considered without compromising on transparency and the 

building of research capacity. 

‣ The result monitoring of the Programme should be further developed. A comprehensive list 

of expected outcomes must be developed as soon as possible, accompanied by quantitative 

and/or qualitative indicators with targets. 

‣ Potential future Norwegian support to R&D programmes should to a lesser degree tie its aid 

to Norwegian companies and institutions were they do not have a competitive advantage 

over regional institutions. 

‣ Considering the resources that have been put into developing the detailed and high quality 

Programme framework, and the promising interim results from projects, it is recommended 

that the Programme is allowed a one‐year extension, and provided funds to allow for startup 

of an additional 3‐5 projects (1 and 2 years duration). It would justify the amount of resources 

put into administration and management in the start‐up phase, and provide a 

broader basis upon which to assess the end‐term outcomes. This would allow for more partners 

to benefit from the Programme, and will give better basis for assessing the Programme’s


Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page iii 

sustainability. It will also allow sufficient time for planning of a possible second phase of energy 

related R&D support to Nepal. 

‣ The SC should initiate a discussion on the way forward at least one year ahead of the planned 

Programme phase out. 

FUTURE INTERVENTIONS 

The Programme is relevant for Nepal’s energy sector, and a second phase of support to development 

of R&D competence is recommended. A thorough needs assessment in the Nepali industry, including 

assessment of willingness and ability to pay, should be done as part of long term planning. A second 

phase should take into consideration the remarks made on the need for clear objectives and roles of 

all involved parties. 

A future programme should take national and regional priorities into account, and preferably be 

linked to existing national strategies or strategic processes. The Programme lacks a focus on large 

scale hydropower and energy systems which is Nepal’s main priority and a potential large scale industry. 

Hydropower is also in line with the Norwegian bilateral development strategy. Norway has 

through its funding of Hydro Lab and the newly established Turbine Testing Laboratory contributed 

to a substantial strengthening of high quality infrastructure for hydropower research and development. 

A holistic Norwegian approach to energy development assistance would consider measures 

that could maximise the use of the established research facilities. As the support to RenewableNepal 

and the support to the Hydro Lab project both expires in 2013 potential synergies of the projects 

should be discussed when considering further support.

TOC 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................... iv 

LIST OF APPENDICES, FIGURES AND TABLES ................................................................................................... v 

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Report structure ........................................................................................................................................ 1 

2 NORWEGIAN ENERGY ASSISTANCE TO NEPAL .............................................................................................. 2 

2.1 Clean Energy for Development Initiative .................................................................................................. 2 

2.2 Norwegian bilateral energy cooperation with Nepal ................................................................................ 2 

2.3 The Norwegian energy portfolio ............................................................................................................... 2 

3 THE RENEWABLENEPAL PROGRAMME ......................................................................................................... 4 

3.1 The planning process ................................................................................................................................ 4 

3.2 Programme objectives .............................................................................................................................. 4 

3.3 Organisation and roles .............................................................................................................................. 5 

3.4 Programme Implementation..................................................................................................................... 7 

4 PROGRAMME PROGRESS ............................................................................................................................ 11 

4.1 Overall progress assessment ................................................................................................................... 11 

4.2 Review of the result based monitoring system ....................................................................................... 11 

4.3 Outputs ................................................................................................................................................... 13 

4.4 Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................ 14 

5 PROGRAMME EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................................... 15 

5.1 Overall Programme Effectiveness ........................................................................................................... 15 

5.2 Steering Committee and Overall Management ...................................................................................... 15 

5.3 Programme Management ....................................................................................................................... 16 

5.4 Risk management .................................................................................................................................... 18 

6 PROGRAMME EFFICIENCY .......................................................................................................................... 20 

6.1 Review of budgeting and expenditures .................................................................................................. 20 

6.2 Overall Programme efficiency ................................................................................................................. 21 

7 RELEVANCE, SUSTAINABILITY AND FUTURE INTERVENTIONS .................................................................... 23 

7.1 Relevance of the Programme .................................................................................................................. 23 

7.2 Sustainability of the Programme ............................................................................................................. 25 

7.3 Future interventions ............................................................................................................................... 26 

8 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................... I 

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................. III

TOC 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page v 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A1 

Appendix A2 

Appendix A3 

Appendix A4 

Appendix A5 

Appendix A6 

Projects funded by RenwableNepal 

Interview guides 

Activities and internal progress reporting 

List of persons / organisations met 

Project owners and partners 

Terms of reference Mid‐term review 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Organisation of RenewableNepal Programme (including key officials per April 2010) ............................ 6 

Figure 2: Project implementation period for the 11 awarded projects ................................................................... 9 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Ongoing Norwegian energy sector development assistance to Nepal ...................................................... 3 

Table 2: Projects’ duration ....................................................................................................................................... 8 

Table 3: Programme progress to date ( (RenewableNepal, 2011) ......................................................................... 13 

Table 4: Annual reporting 2010/11 illustration...................................................................................................... 18

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page vi 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS 

AEPC 

BPC 

DOED 

ESAP 

GON 

KU 

NEA 

NGO 

NOK 

Norad 

NTNU 

NVE 

ODA 

PD 

PM 

RENP 

RNE 

R&D 

SC 

SEfAS 

Alternativ Energy Promotion Centre 

Butwal Power Company 

Department of Electricity Development, Minstry of Energy, Nepal 

Energy support and assistance programme 

Government of Norway 

Kathmandu University 

Nepal Electricity Authority 

Non‐governmental organization 

Norske kroner (the Norwegian currency) 

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation 

Norwegian University for Science and Technology 

Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate 

Official Development Assistance 

Programme Document 

Programme Manager 

RenewableNepal 

Royal Norwegian Embassy 

Research and Development 

Steering Committee 

SINTEF Energiforskning AS / SINTEF Energy Research AS

INTRODUCTION 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page 1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

RenewableNepal was proposed by Kathmandu University (KU) in cooperation with SINTEF Energiforskning 

AS (SEfAS) in 2009 with an objective of building applied research capacity at Nepalese universities 

and research institutions. When the programme received Norad funding for the period 2009 

– 2013, it was decided that a mid‐term review should be carried out halfway through the period, in 

2011. This report is the scheduled mid‐term review of RenewableNepal. 

The mid‐term review examines whether the Programme proceeds according to plan, it examines 

progress to date, efficiency and effectiveness in reaching the intended purpose. It is a document 

which Norad can use in its monitoring of the Programme and which can serve as a basis upon which 

corrective adjustments to the remaining 2011‐2013 period could be taken. 

Norplan was engaged by Norad to undertake the mid‐term review. The review team consisted of 

Solveig Ulseth (team leader), Joakim Arntsen and Dr. Hari Prasad Pandit subcontracted from the 

Nepali company NorNepal. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the review 

team and do not necessarily reflect the position of one specific stakeholder. 

1.1 Methodology 

The team used a triangulation methodology which combined document review, interviews in Oslo 

and Kathmandu, and inspection of a random sampling of projects in Kathmandu. The mid‐term review 

has been carried out in three phases; 

1: Initial work 

Desk review of 

documents, start‐up 

meetings, planning 

study approach and 

field programme. 

2: Data collection 

Field trip to Kathmandu 

to meet programme 

management, partner 

and other stakeholders 

3: Analysis and 

reporting 

The review team met with a wide range of stakeholders in Norway and Nepal to obtain a full picture 

of the Programme status and progress. Stakeholders in the Nepali energy sector were divided into 

categories; (a) institution/ company with funding; (b) institution/ company with failed application, 

and (c) institution/ company with relevant activities that have not applied or shown interest 

The interviews were semi‐structured and guided by interview guides (found in Appendix A2). The 

review uses OECD DAC definitions of efficiency, effectiveness, relevance and sustainability. 

1.2 Report structure 

The report has been structured into the following three main sections; 

1: Chapter 2 and 3 presents background and Programme baseline upon which review has been done 

2: Chapter 4 to 7 review Programme progress, effect, relevance and sustainability, and 

3: Chapter 7 provides recommendations for remaining period and long‐term planning.

BACKGROUND 


2 NORWEGIAN ENERGY ASSISTANCE TO NEPAL 

2.1 Clean Energy for Development Initiative 

The Norwegian Clean Energy for Development Initiative was launched in 2007, to “assist developing 

countries in their efforts to provide increased access to renewable energy at an affordable price based 

on the long‐term management of natural resources and efficient energy use” (MFA, 2007). The initiative 

covers all Norwegian development assistance to clean energy. Among the prioritized areas of the 

Initiative the following are the most relevant for the RenewableNepal Programme; (1) development 

of clean energy related knowledge, competence and technology, (2) rural electrification, (3) energy 

production from renewable sources and (4) energy systems planning. For more information reference 

is made to Norad Clean Energy website 2 . 

2.2 Norwegian bilateral energy cooperation with Nepal 

RenewableNepal is one of several renewable energy Programmes and projects funded through Norwegian 

development assistance to Nepal. According to the Embassy (Vognild, 2011) the three main 

thematic areas for Norwegian bilateral energy cooperation with Nepal are: 

i. Accelerated Hydropower Development 

ii. Rural Renewable Energy and Development 

iii. Technical Energy Research 

The Embassy is in the process of finalizing a new 10 year energy strategy. 

2.3 The Norwegian energy portfolio 

Ongoing Norwegian energy sector development assistance to Nepal includes the programmes presented 

in Table 1 below (Norad, 2011). The support is either provided by the Norwegian embassy or 

as in the case of RenewableNepal, directly by Norad. 

2 http://www.norad.no/en/thematic‐areas/energy/clean‐energy

BACKGROUND 


Programme 

Cooperating institution 

Total 

funding 

Period 

Objective 

Energy support and 

assistance programme 

(ESAP) – Off‐grid energy 

solutions 

Alternative Energy 

Promotion 

Centre (AEPC) 

MNOK 

125 

2007‐ 

2012 

The immediate development objective of 

ESAP is to improve the living conditions 

of the rural population by enhancing 

their energy access with solutions that 

are efficient, environmentally friendly 

and socially justifiable. 

Addendum to ESAP 

(Gender equality and 

social inclusion) 

AEPC 

MNOK 

22.4 

2010‐ 

2012 

Gender and Social inclusion in implementation 

and operation of Mini Grid and 

Improved Water Mills 

Rural electrification and 

mitigation 

Butwal Power 

Company 

MNOK 

12.8 

2006‐ 

2011 

Increase access to the targeted population 

to economic and social activities, 

leading to a balanced and sustainable 

social‐economic growth and well‐being 

Khimti neighbourhood 

and development project 

MNOK 

19.6 

Himal Power Limited 

2007‐ 

2011 

Increase the living standards and potential 

of people living in the project area 

GON, NVE 

MNOK 

10 

Institutional cooperation 

NVE‐DOED (small 

hydro feasibility studies) 

2004‐ 

2012 

Contribute to economic and social development 

in rural areas 

RenewableNepal 


(KU), 

SINTEF Energy 

Research AS 

MNOK 

8.643 

2009‐ 

2013 

To build applied research capacity at 

Nepalese universities and research institutions 

that can serve the Nepalese energy 

industry. 

Hydro Lab phase II 

HYDRO LAB TVT. 

LTD. 

MNOK 

6.5 

2006‐ 

2013 

Supporting Hydro Lab in becoming a centre 

of excellence in water resource development 

in steep sediment‐loaded 

rivers with focus on hydraulics and sediments 

Turbine Laboratory at 


KU 

MNOK 

4.6 

2009‐ 

2011 

Buliding applied research and development 

capacities at Nepalese universities 

in order to serve the industry and private 

sector system analysis. 

Nepal Electricity 

Authority (NEA), 

Statnett 

MNOK 

1.5 

Feasibility study for a 

twinning arrangement 

between NEA and Statnett 

2009‐ 

2011 

To examine to what extent there is a 

basis for long term cooperation between 

NEA and Statnett 

Table 1: Ongoing Norwegian energy sector development assistance to Nepal

RENEWABLENEPAL PROGRAMME 


3 THE RENEWABLENEPAL PROGRAMME 

This chapter provides an overview of the Programme background, objectives, organisation and implementation. 

3.1 The planning process 

The concept of RenewableNepal was first discussed in 2006, when Dr. Bhupendra Chhetri of Kathmandu 

University (KU) proposed a model of cooperation between KU and SINTEF Energy Research 

(SEfAS) based on discussions with Dr. Petter Støa (SEfAS). Initially the model considered capacity 

building of Nepalese research institutions and enterprises by obtaining expertise support from SEfAS. 

This was extended to the establishment of an applied research programme which had the intention 

of being open to all in the Nepali industry to participate. 

The Programme concept was further developed in September 2008 when KU arranged a Norad 

funded seminar on the “role of research in hydropower development”. Participating institutions and 

industries from Norway and Nepal expressed their interest and intent to take part. As a result KU and 

SINTEF submitted a proposal to Norad for financial support in January 2009. A revised application 

was submitted in June 2009 after receiving comments from Norad, and in October 2009 the Programme 

got final approval. The agreement between Norad and KU was signed in October 2009, and 

in December 2009 KU and SINTEF entered into an institutional cooperation agreement regarding 

support to RenewableNepal. 

The following agreements and documents define the Programme: 

• RenewableNepal Application (Kathmandu University, 2009) 

• Bevilgningsdokument for RenewableNepal (Norad, 2009) 

• Agreement between Norad and KU regarding support to RenewableNepal (Norad‐KU, 2009) 

• Institutional Cooperation Agreement between SINTEF and KU (SEfAS; KU, 2009) 

• Programme document for RenewableNepal (RenewableNepal, April 2010) 3 

• Programme Handbook for RenewableNepal (RenewableNepal, Oct 2010) 

3.2 Programme objectives 

The Programme is marketed as a programme for supporting research based industrial development 

in Nepal that provides funding to collaborative research and development (R&D) projects related to 

renewable energy technology, planned and implemented by R&D institution in Nepal in cooperation 

with local industries and Norwegian institutions and industries. 

3 In Norwegian development cooperation a project application is normally referred to as a Program Document 

(i.e. the Partner’s strategy, plan or programme to be considered for support). This is not the case for 

RenewableNepal where the Program Document was prepared after the contract signing, and is not identical to 

the application. All references to the Programme Document in this report relate to this document prepared in 

April 2010, i.e. NOT the application.



The Programme Document (PD) outlines the following goal hierarchy (RenewableNepal, April 2010): 

Programme Goal 

Enable Nepal to utilize its natural resources of energy to develop a renewable energy supply for social 

and economic development in an environmentally sustainable manner. 

Programme Purpose 

Build research capacity at Nepalese Universities and Research Institutions that can serve Nepalese 

energy industry in developing high quality products and services directed at utilizing the country’s 

renewable energy sources 

Programme Outputs 

Number of research projects, number of partners involved, number of prototypes of products and 

services developed, number of products put into the market, and contribution to the development of 

Nepali Energy/Power Systems 

Programme Outcome 

Relevant competence and capacity built at KU 4 to design and implement research projects together 

with the Nepalese energy industry 

3.3 Organisation and roles 

Programme organisation as described in the Project Document (RenewableNepal, April 2010) is illustrated 

in Figure 1. 

4 This is the outcome formulated in the BD (Norad, 2009), the Agreement Norad‐KU (Norad‐KU, 2009) and the 

Programme Document (RenewableNepal, April 2010). As the intention has been to include all R&D institutions 

in Nepal this was changed in the Programme Handbook to ”… built at KU or other institutions..” 

(RenewableNepal, Oct 2010).



Figure 1: Organisation of RenewableNepal Programme (including key officials per April 2010) 

Role of Kathmandu University 

According to the Norad‐KU agreement (Norad‐KU, 2009), KU shall have the overall responsibility for 

planning, implementation, reporting and monitoring of the Programme. This includes supporting projects, 

making sure that the grant is used according to approved work plans and budgets, and that 

Programme funds are properly accounted for. The Vice‐Chancellor of KU is the chief institutional responsible, 

while the Dean of School of Engineering of Kathmandu University is chief responsible for 

the implementation in cooperation with SEfAS. 

KU will, according to the agreement (Norad‐KU, 2009) provide access to laboratory facilities, equipment, 

local personnel and other resources at KU for the projects 5 . It has the responsibility to ensure 

that the Programme is implemented according to the work plan and budget approved. KU provides 

the logistical support needed to run the Programme, as well as administrative and financial management. 

Role of Programme Office 

The Programme Office is managing the Programme on behalf of KU. It is operated by a Programme 

Manager (PM) and an Assistant Programme Manager. The PM is the executive manager of the Programme 

and reports to the SC. 

5 In reality, this option has not been used by any of the non‐KU‐lead projects.



The Programme Office has the following mandate (RenewableNepal, April 2010): 

• Call for, process and assess project applications for decision in the SC 

• Assist the SC in establishing guidelines for program operation and project selection 

• Advise industries and R&D institutions in Nepal and Norway on the Programme 

• Monitor all running projects on behalf of the SC 

• Be advisor to the participants in the projects 

Role of Steering Committee 

The Steering Committee (SC) makes decisions on Programme operation and project funding to ensure 

that the goal and purpose of the Programme are satisfied. This includes deciding project application 

evaluation criteria, developing guidelines for operation of the Programme, making the Programme 

known and encouraging project proposals, deciding on reporting requirements and ensuring 

that projects get advice on commercial utilisation on their R&D results. 

The SC consists of five members, with one from each of the institutions (1) Kathmandu University, (2) 

a Nepal Energy Industry Company (Essel‐Clean Solu Hydropower 6 ), (3) SINTEF Energiforskning AS, (4) 

a Norwegian Energy Industry Company (SN Power) and (5) the Research Council of Norway. 

Role of SINTEF Energy Research 

SEfAS shall assist KU in the overall Programme management and perform specific activities related to 

the Programme. SEfAS will coordinate Norwegian actors participating in the Programme, and perform 

all Norwegian partner related financial transactions. More specifically: 

• Identify universities and industries in Norway for possible participation as project partners 

• Assist Nepalese institutions and industries to design and conduct applied research projects 

• Fill in the areas where Nepalese researchers lack competence 

• Assure quality of research works in the projects 

• Promote SEfAS participation in the projects 

3.4 Programme Implementation 

The Programme has a thorough framework guiding project design, contracting and implementation 7 . 

The most important document is the Programme Handbook (RenewableNepal, Oct 2010) presenting 

procedures in a comprehensive manner. 

Programme period 

The Programme started in October 2009 and will conclude in December 2013. It is expected that the 

last months will be needed for concluding, thus all projects will be ended by October 2013. 

6 Mr. Balaram Pradhan was previously the CEO of Nepal Hydro and Electric (NHE), and is now the Vice President 

of Essel‐Clean Solu Hydropower 

7 Modelled after applied research program management at the Research Council of Norway.



Application and award process 

RenewableNepal calls for project applications annually. The first call for proposals was made 14 April 

2010, the next in March 2011 and the final call is expected in March 2012. Possible project duration 

is limited by the Programme period, and the table below shows the distribution of granted projects. 

1 year duration 2 year duration 3 year duration 

Application in 2010 2010‐2011 (1 project) 2010‐2012 (2 projects) 2010‐2013 (4 projects) 

Application in 2011 2011‐2012 (0 projects) 2011‐2013 (4 projects) NA 

Application in 2012 2012‐2013 NA NA 

Table 2: Projects’ duration 

Applications are subject to a three party evaluation based on a predefined set of criteria; a first 

short‐listing by the Programme office, then evaluation by a member of the Steering Committee as 

well as an external expert reviewer. 

The Programme Office ranks the applications according to marks from all the three reviewing parties, 

and the overall assessment is presented to the SC for award decision. The presentation is accompanied 

by a recommendation on the total funding to be approved, mandatory changes required and 

other relevant aspects. 

Decisions on program operation and project funding are made by a simple majority vote in the SC. 

The decisions regarding proposal evaluation and selection are open for the public. 

Project selection criteria 

All projects related to renewable energy within the following thematic areas can apply for funding: 

1. Hydropower 

2. Bio‐energy 

3. Solar and wind energy 

4. Energy/power systems 

A wide range of areas was chosen to allow for a bottom‐up approach, enabling the stakeholders to 

identify relevant projects within renewable energy. According to the Programme Handbook 

(RenewableNepal, Oct 2010) the following set of criteria is given weight in evaluation of project applications. 

1. The project application should be by an R&D institution from Nepal 

2. At least one enterprise of Nepal should participate as main industrial partner 

3. The project should be aimed at developing products, services or tools 

4. The project should have well defined assessable research and development objectives with 

commercial aims



5. The project should have anticipated positive socio‐economic and environmental effects 

6. The project should preferably involve Norwegian enterprises and institutions/ researchers as 

partners if they contribute with vital competence and resources 

7. The project should have minimum 50% of budgeted activity in Nepal if international partners 

8. The project should have at least 20% industry contribution of the total project cost in cash or 

in kind 

9. The project should encourages participation of women in research 

10. Partnerships with Norwegian institutions and industry will be preferred, but other foreign 

partners may participate in the project on a similar basis. 

Project award and funding 

Out of the total Programme budget of NOK 8.6 million, NOK 4.8 million has been made available for 

project funding. This will cover around 6 projects per year, with an average project funding of NOK 

200 000 per year. Total funding has been limited to NOK 500 000 per project. 

The 2010 call for applications received 20 applications, of which 14 were prepared by KU. The Programme 

awarded 7 8 projects, amounting to NOK 2 316 000. In 2011, 10 applications were received, 

and the total project allocation was NOK 1 280 000 distributed to 4 projects 9 . In addition a call for 

reinforcements was made in September 2011 with a total budget of NOK 501 000. 10 NOK 703 000 

thus remains for project allocations in 2012 (for the period 2012‐2013) 11 . 

Figure 2: Project implementation period for the 11 awarded projects 

Figure 2 provides an overview of the implementation period for the awarded projects. A list of these 

projects is provided in Appendix A1. 

8 KU were awarded 6 out of 8 projects in total in 2010, but one awarded KU project never contracted. 

9 KU prepared 3 applications in 2011, and 1 was awarded funding. 

10 Based on the experiences so far the Programme launched a funding extension where ongoing projects can 

apply for additional funding for reinforcement of project activities and enhancement of results. 

11 This is based on the budgeted total project allocation of MNOK 4.8 and the project allocations made so far.



Project management, monitoring and reporting 

Projects are required to have frequent communication with the Programme Office. Projects are carried 

out by the project owners according to the approved work plan, work schedule and budget. 

These are updated annually, depending on actual activities and expenditures. The projects are required 

to provide mid‐year progress reports, annual reports (including audit reporting) and a final 

project report. The project owner and project partner obligations are described in Chapter 2 in the 

Programme handbook. 

80% of the first year Programme funding is disbursed to the project as soon as the contract is signed 

and the Project Consortium Agreement, first year work plan, schedule and budget are approved. Further 

disbursements from the Programme are made annually as soon as the Annual report, expenditures, 

work plan, schedule and budget are approved. 

All ongoing projects are evaluated by the Programme based on reports and monitoring by the Programme 

Officer, a Steering Committee member or by an independent evaluator. Poor evaluation results 

may result in withholding of remaining disbursements or termination of the contract. 

Partners/ stakeholders 

The main beneficiaries of the Programme are Nepalese Universities and Research Institutions and the 

Nepalese energy industry. KU and SEfAS have the opportunity to be a research partner in projects, on 

the same basis as other Universities and research institutions; however SEfAS and other Norwegian 

stakeholders may only take part in projects when Nepalese expertise is not available.

PROGRAMME PROGRESS TO DATE 


4 PROGRAMME PROGRESS 

This chapter investigates Programme progress to date and the following documents (in addition to 

framework documents in Chapter 2.3) provide information on progress and performance. 

• RenewableNepal. Meeting Minute RENP‐001/2009. (RenewableNepal, Oct 2009) 

• RenewableNepal. Steering Committee Meeting Minute RENP‐2010‐05‐27‐SCM‐001 (SC, 

2010) 

• RenewableNepal. Steering Committee Meeting Minute RENP‐2010‐10‐27‐SCM‐002‐MINUTE 

(SC, 2010) 

• RenewableNepal. Annual report 2010 (RenewableNepal, 2011) 

• RenewableNepal. Steering Committee Meeting Minute RENP‐2011‐05‐27‐SCM‐003‐MINUTE 

(SC, 2011) 

• RenewableNepal. Interim report 2011 (RenewableNepal, 2011) 

4.1 Overall progress assessment 

Implementation of the Programme is according to plans, with highly professional planning and management 

from the PM. Several of the projects are reporting promising (interim) results that might 

lead to commercialization. The one‐year project “Developing Electrical Load Controller of Low Head 

Propeller Pico Turbine and Field Research for Rural Use in Nepal” scheduled to complete in 2011 has 

installed an operational prototype system. Commercialization of products would be a clear indication 

of the potential for applied research in Nepal. 

4.2 Review of the result based monitoring system 

The Programme goal hierarchy is presented in Chapter 3.2. 

Outputs with indicators and targets 

The output indicators identified are well suited to measure progress; however, outputs described in 

chapter 3.2 are not outputs but indicators. These indicators have been translated into the following 

outputs: 

• Implementation of research projects 

• Involvement of Universities, Research Institutions and energy industry (Nepalese and 

foreign) 

• Prototypes of products and services developed 

• Products put into the market 

• Contribution to the development of Nepali Energy/Power Systems 

The outputs lack end‐term targets for 2013 as targets are set for one year at a time. This makes it 

harder to measure real progress on the overall level, as progress monitoring is performed on an annual 

basis.



Each year the PM prepares a Programme work plan, and all activities that are to be performed in relation 

to this plan are categorized into work packages with expected outputs. These outputs have 

been assigned internal progress indicators with annual performance targets. These internal indicators 

make an appropriate check‐list for Programme management, and the targets facilitate continuous 

progress assessment. An overview of these activities and outputs are provided in Appendix A3. 

Outcomes with indicators and targets 

In the PD the purpose of the Programme is been stated as “build research capacity at Nepalese Universities 

and Research Institutions that can serve Nepalese energy industry in developing high quality 

products and services directed at utilizing the country’s renewable energy sources.” 

(RenewableNepal, April 2010). This is reflected in the Programme outcome, however, both the KU‐ 

Norad agreement, the PD and the BD focus the outcome on capacity building at KU only: 

“Relevant competence and capacity built at KU to design and implement research projects 

together with the Nepalese energy industry.” (RenewableNepal, April 2010) 

In the Programme Handbook (RenewableNepal, Oct 2010) the scope of the outcome has been 

changed into: 

“Relevant competence and capacity built at KU or other institutions to design and implement 

research projects together with the Nepalese energy industry.” 

The Consultant has not found any reference to this change in approach, and even if the new approach 

is more in line with the overall purpose of the Programme this is a discrepancy that should be 

addressed by the Steering Committee. 12 

The outcome of the Programme relates to the R&D projects’ performances (technical, institutional, 

publications, creation of jobs, budget use economical, transparent reporting). However, no monitoring 

system has been developed to ensure results on this level. A list of expected outcomes must be 

identified as soon as possible, accompanied by quantitative and/or qualitative indicators with targets. 

As a starting point for this work the team proposes the following possible outcome indicators: 

‐ Increased research capacity at Nepalese Universities and research institutions 

o % of project applications approved 

o # of projects implemented 

o # of researchers involved 

o # of publications 

‐ Increased quality of research performed by Nepalese Universities and research institutions 

o # of products commercialized 

o # of publications 

o Transparency of implemented projects (qualitative indicator) 

12 Through approving the Programme Handbook the parties informally and in practice approved this change.



‐ Increased number of joint research projects with the Nepalese energy industry 

This list of indicators is general, and it should be considered whether it should target the RenewableNepal 

projects more specifically. This list should also be further developed with accessible baseline 

data, to allow for setting of appropriate targets. One thing to consider is whether the two last 

overall indicators measuring Programme performance (Number of products put into the market and 

Project contribution to the development of Nepali Power systems) really measure performance on the 

outcome level, the Consultant perceives the last two outputs more as outcomes than outputs. 

4.3 Outputs 

The overall progress of the Programme is satisfying according to the identified Programme indicators. 

The achievements of milestones to date are presented in the table below. It includes the indicators 

presented in the Agreement. 

INDICATOR TARGET 2012 TARGET 2011 

(2010) 

Number of research 

projects completed 

Number of partners 

involved 

Number of prototypes 

of products 

and services developed 

Number of products 

put into the market 

Project contribution 

to the development 

of Nepali Power 

System 

ACHIEVEMENTS 

(NOV 2011 / 2010) 

2 1 (0) In process / 0 

Max 8, min 4 Max 16, min 8 

(‐) 

2 Minimum 1 (0) 1 (0) 

2 1 (0) 1 (0) 

Assessment 

report has 

been carried 

out 

Assessment 

report has 

been carried 

out 

Table 3: Programme progress to date ( (RenewableNepal, 2011) 

COMMENT 

10 (13) Only two international institutions 

and one Norwegian 

industry partner 

None ‐ to be assessed. 

This is not a SMART 13 indicator, 

and cannot be quantitatively 

measured. A qualitative 

assessment must be 

performed. 

In addition to the overall progress indicators the Programme has identified a number of internal Programme 

performance indicators. The management and monitoring of these work packages has been 

reported in detail in the Annual report 2010 (RenewableNepal, 2011) and in the Interim report 2011 

(RenewableNepal, 2011). According to the internal progress indicators the Programme progresses 

satisfactorily. A main deviation is the low number of partners in projects (fewer foreign research institutions 

and industrial partners than targeted). 

The PM has done more than should be expected regarding management of projects. SC meetings 

have been arranged as planned, and programme information has been disseminated through appropriate 

publications. The process of awarding new projects has been implemented smoothly, the 

13 SMART = Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely



awarded projects are managed appropriately, and mitigation actions have been performed as needed 

14 though the annual project reporting and monitoring visits have been delayed in 2011. More details 

regarding PM’s activities and performance are provided in Appendix A3, with targets and progress 

to date. 

4.4 Outcomes 

The outcomes from the Programme relate to the R&D projects’ performances (technical, institutional, 

publications, creation of jobs, budget use economical, transparent reporting). It is out of the 

scope of a mid‐term review to consider the progress related to outcomes, but the overall impression 

is that the projects are progressing in a satisfactory manner. 

14 Apart from the cancelled project application support workshop, but this was outside of the PM’s influence.

PROGRAMME EFFECTIVENESS 


5 PROGRAMME EFFECTIVENESS 

This chapter investigates the extent to which the Programme achieves its objectives (effectiveness), 

and major factors influencing the objective achievements or non‐achievements. 

5.1 Overall Programme Effectiveness 

The overall Programme effectiveness is satisfactory. Main objectives are being met through a well 

run evaluation and award process for new research projects, thorough reporting and monitoring. 

The Programme office at Kathmandu University is a major positive contributor to the high effectiveness 

observed. 

The Programme interventions are reaching the intended beneficiaries 15 . The 11 awarded projects 

involve two Nepalese universities (KU and TU) and four 16 Nepalese Research Institutions (KAPEG, 

PEEDA, CEEN and NAST). From the Nepalese energy industry 13 partners are involved. It is too early 

to conclude on fulfilment of overall objectives, but considering the number of researchers, master 

students and industry participating in the supported projects it is likely that successful projects will 

stimulate to further research and cooperation between institutions and the energy industry in the 

years to come. The relatively high involvement of women in the projects shows that the Programme 

will probably succeed in increasing female participation in research. The relevance of the Programme 

is discussed further under chapter 7.1 Relevance. 

Some threats to effectiveness are identified below. 

5.2 Steering Committee and Overall Management 

The overall steering and management structure of the Programme is relevant and support effective 

implementation of the Programme. Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined in the Agreements 

and Programme Document. Reporting and monitoring arrangements are well suited to ensure 

effective achievement of objectives. Varying fulfilment of roles and responsibilities may however influence 

achievement of objectives. 

The division of role and responsibility between Norad and the Embassy is unclear. The funding 

agreement was signed between Norad and Kathmandu University. While Norad is the contractual 

party, Article II Item 3, states: 

“In matters pertaining to the implementation of the Programme the Norwegian Embassy in 

Kathmandu shall be competent to represent Norad. All communication to Norad regarding 

the Agreement shall be directed to the Embassy”. 

However, the Embassy has to a smaller degree been involved in follow up of the Programme. It is 

observed that Norad and the Embassy has a differing understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities 

regarding RenewableNepal, and it is questionable whether the arrangement ensures 

optimal follow‐up from the Donor side. To ensure that a possible second phase is in line with the 

15 Nepalese Universities and Research Institutions and the Nepalese energy industry 

16 Including KAPEG – private research, development and manufacturing industry



Embassy’s overall strategic priorities, the Embassy should be more involved in both planning and implementation. 

The Steering Committee generally works well in accordance with its mandate and provides timely, 

well documented decisions. The responsibility of the Steering Committee is to ensure efficient operation 

of the Programme through decisions on Programme operation and project funding. Although 

its overall performance is good the following aspect regarding management of Programme operation 

should be addressed: 

There is a mismatch between contractual objective and actual implementation of the Programme. 

Contractually the Programme is an Institutional Cooperation between SEFAS and Kathmandu University. 

The planned outcome is to increase capacity at Kathmandu University for design and implementation 

of research projects (Norad‐KU Agreement Annex 1). The actual situation is that the Steering 

Committee seeks to increase participation of other Nepali research institutions and the Programme 

communicates neutrality in its award of projects. The actual implementation is in line with the 

Agreement’s Article I (Norad‐KU, 2009) and the Programme Handbook (RenewableNepal, Oct 2010). 

Through approving the Handbook the SC indirectly approved the change in approach, even if it is not 

noted formally in any minutes of meeting. 

There is a mismatch between the intended and the actual role of SEfAS. In the framework of the 

Programme SEfAS is assigned an active role, helping Nepalese institutions and industries in design 

and implementation of applied research. SEfAS should coordinate Norwegian actors participating in 

the Programme, and perform all Norwegian partner related financial transactions. In reality, the projects 

strive to minimize their use of Norwegian expertise as this is perceived as too expensive and not 

sufficiently efficient. If SEfAS is to perform its originally intended role, additional funding must be 

made available for this. We understand the “Call for reinforcements” as the SC’s response to the 

challenge of including experienced (foreign) R&D institutions in the projects, including SEfAS. The 

added value of increased SEfAS participation should be assessed before other measures are considered. 

Recommendations: 

• Norad and the Embassy should clarify roles and responsibilities for the remaining part of the 

Programme period. Possible new agreements should be anchored at the Embassy and not be 

managed by Norad (regardless of who is providing the funding). 

• The Steering Committee should address the discrepancy between objective and implementation, 

either through modified implementation or through a revised objective as an amendment 

to the existing contract. 

• The Steering Committee should address the mismatch between intended and actual role of 

SefAS and assess whether corrective measures are needed 

5.3 Programme Management 

The Programme Office at Kathmandu University handles RenewableNepal with high quality and in 

accordance with its mandate. The Programme Office is dedicated and has a strong focus on following 

time frames, reporting and documentation requirements. The progress reporting is detailed and



clear. Project evaluations and awards are done in a timely, transparent and apparently fair manner. 

The documentation (webpage, Programme handbook, regular reporting, etc.) developed by the PM 

is informative and of good quality. All major stakeholders in Nepal are well informed about the Programme. 

The thorough management support effective implementation and is a major reason behind 

the fulfilment of planned Programme objectives. The following aspects are however noted and could 

influence the Programme effectiveness: 

The time available for project application evaluation is too short. Applications are subject to a three 

party evaluation based on a predefined set of criteria; a first short‐listing by the Programme office, 

then evaluation by a member of the steering committee as well as an external expert reviewer. The 

external reviewer is contacted based on the type of R&D application in question. In 2010 the proposal 

submission deadline was 17 May, 20 applications were received and the SC meeting with 

award decisions was on 27 May. In 2011 this period was extended significantly as the deadline for 

submission of applications was 31 March, while the SC meeting was held on 27 May. The Consultant 

is of the opinion that the work has been done in a good manner; however there are clear indications 

that the period for evaluation in 2010 was too short. In addition to the large workload on the Programme 

Office and the trouble finding external evaluators, the rushed evaluation process could have 

jeopardized the quality of evaluation. 

Applicants with failed applications miss feedback on why their project did not qualify for support. 

Applicants with successful applications are generally satisfied with the feedback they receive, while 

those with failed applications request more feedback as to why their project failed to receive funding. 

Institutions/ companies with limited knowledge of the design process that want to start R&D 

projects are in particular need of instructive feedback. Lack of feedback could negatively influence 

the objective of building research capacity in Nepal. 

Failed applications are not archived. The Programme office is not saving or archiving applications 

that are not awarded funding. All applications, successful or failed, should be archived by RenewableNepal 

as a matter of good practice and transparency 

Programme monitoring systems is comprehensive and challenging. As discussed in Chapter 4.2 an 

overall Programme monitoring system is in place, and progress and results of the Programme are 

well documented in progress reports. However, the overall indicators lack 2013 targets, and this 

makes it challenging to assess whether progress is as expected. Targets are identified per year, allowing 

for progress monitoring on a yearly basis, and we recommend that 2013 targets are identified as 

soon as possible. 

Detailed Programme management increase the work load of the Programme Office, and it appears 

that the monitoring of projects suffers from this. It could be questioned whether the system is too 

comprehensive for a programme of this restricted size. 

Project reporting requirements are extensive and time consuming. All projects are required to submit 

mid‐year (interim) progress reports, technical and financial annual reports and final project report. 

Several projects, in particular those not hosted by Kathmandu University, indicate that the reporting 

requirements are time consuming and challenging. It could on the other hand be argued the



heavy reporting is a necessary part of the capacity building in the research projects. The documentation 

further increases the transparency of the project disbursements. 

Some projects estimate that they have spent more than 2 months of work to prepare the annual report. 

A reduction in the reporting requirements could be considered for all projects after their first 

one‐year cycle. 

The annual financial reporting requires among other a detailed report on expenditures and contributions 

with all certified copies of documentary evidence attached. All annual reports are to be reviewed 

and approved by the PM and there are indications that the audit work is affecting the PM’s 

time available for monitoring and close follow‐up of the project implementation. As an illustration of 

the annual reporting requirements the extent of annual reporting 2010‐11 for the “Development of 

hydraulic turbines with new design philosophy as a foundation for turbine manufacturing in Nepal” 

project is presented in the table below. 

Report name 

Annual project report 21 

Annual technical report E.1.1. 72 

Pages 

Annual expenditure record E.1.2 Part I (Cash transactions) 102 

Annual expenditure record E.1.2 Part II (Kind transactions) 32 

Annual detail expenditure report E.1.3 2 

Annual detail budget versus expenditure report E.1.4 1 

Detailed project budget for next and future year E.1.6 3 

Project output indicating attachments E.2 80 

Table 4: Annual reporting 2010/11 illustration 

There has been a delay in the annual reporting of the projects that started up in 2010. As the reporting 

requirements are quite comprehensive, the PM has allowed for a slight delay. However, this has 

delayed the evaluation of the annual report, progress monitoring, cost approval and subsequent disbursements. 

It is likely that the reporting requirements are diverting focus away from the R&D aspect 

of the projects and also resulting in less time available for PM for monitoring of the projects. 

350 


• The PM should emphasise thorough feedback to failed applicants to build their R&D capacity 

• All applications, successful or failed, should be archived by RenewableNepal as a matter of 

good practice and transparency 

• Lighter reporting requirements could be devised without compromising on transparency and 

should be considered. Accounts should not be audited by the PM for each project. 

5.4 Risk management 

The Programme assesses and addresses risks annually, and the Programme management makes 

necessary adjustments and remedial steps in activity plans as needed. One example is the call for 

reinforcements; a strengthening of the projects’ research capacity. Another challenge identified was



obtaining well designed and objectively and financially clear R&D project applications from Nepali 

institutions and industries. To mitigate this PM provided support for application preparation. 

The PD discusses several risk factors associated with the Programme: 

1. The political development in Nepal that might make it difficult to operate the Programme 

2. The project starts and gets initial funding, but nothing happens 

3. Organisational risk 

4. Not attracting good projects to the programme 

5. Not reaching the objectives for the projects that has started (to early) 

Only risk #1 has had some influence on Programme operation so far. The political situation in Nepal 

in general appears stable and there are no reasons to believe that this will change in the immediate 

term. However, student issues at KU have affected Programme operation twice. There is no simple 

measure to avoid recurring incidents.

PROGRAMME EFFICIENCY 


6 PROGRAMME EFFICIENCY 

This chapter investigates whether Programme activities have been cost‐efficient and implemented in 

the most efficient way compared to alternatives. The term efficiency is relating to what degree donor 

assistance uses the least costly resources possible in order to achieve the desired result. 

6.1 Review of budgeting and expenditures 

The financial grant from Norad to Kathmandu University for the Programme in the planned 2009‐ 

2013 period was NOK 8 643 000 based on budget in the table below. 

It shows that that of the total budget: 

• 59 % is allocated to funding of R&D projects 

• 41 % is allocated to administrative activities (Programme Management and Steering 

Committee) 

It further shows that the Norwegian administrative part (SINTEF administration and Steering Committee) 

is: 

• 52 % of the total administration budget 

• 22 % of the total budget 

NOK (in 1000) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Total % 

Programme Management 

KU Admin. 125 359 299 299 149 1231 14 

SINTEF Admin. 40 60 60 60 40 260 3 

Steering Committee 

SC Nepal part 19 138 138 138 69 502 6 

SC Norway part 200 400 400 400 200 1600 19 

Projects 

Projects 400 1400 1200 1200 600 4800 56 

Miscellaneous 50 50 50 50 50 250 3 

Total budget 834 2407 2147 2147 1108 8643 100



The 2009‐10 expenditures versus approved budget are summarised in the table below 17 . For 2011 

only interim expenditures are currently available. 

The 2009‐10 figures show that the expenditures for the period were substantially lower than budgeted. 

This was mainly due to fewer Steering Committee travels than budgeted, and that only 7 projects 

were approved and started in 2010, not 8 as budgeted 18 . 

NOK (in 1000) Budget Expenditure Balance 

PM 374 327 47 

SC 644 420 224 

Projects 1263 991 272 

Misc 60 41 19 

6.2 Overall Programme efficiency 

Based on available documents and collected information the following efficiency remarks are drawn. 

The Programme spending compared to budgets is low due to cost efficient Programme management. 

The lower than budgeted spending can to a large degree be explained by reduced activity, but 

should also be attributed efficient budget management by the Programme office and indicates that 

activities are executed economically. All in all an indication of cost efficient Programme management. 

The Programme has high administration costs compared to project funding. As shown in the budget 

review, around 41% of the total Programme budget is allocated to administration, of which Programme 

Management amounts to 17 % and Steering Committee 25 %. Relatively high administration 

costs are to be expected as a lot of work has been put into development of the administrative 

framework. It is noted that the Programme has a steering structure in place that would be adequate 

for a substantially larger project portfolio. The high share of costs related to the Steering Committee 

is due to the Norwegian majority participation and the biannual SC meetings in Norway and Nepal 

with related travel costs.The administrative part of the budget would be relatively lower if the overall 

project funding was increased, even if this would require increased staff at the Programme Office. 

The 22 % Norwegian administration share of the total budget reflects the intention of capacity building 

at Kathmandu University where SEfAS was intended to have an active role in training and 

knowledge sharing. It also reflects the emphasis put on establishing good procedures for R&D management 

and strong anti‐corruption measures. 

17 NPR/NOK conversion at exchange rate 1 NOK = 12 NPR 

18 Due to failure in contracting after award for one of the projects.



The use of Norwegian/ international expertise is not cost‐efficient in all projects. The awarded projects 

have to a far lesser degree than planned utilised Norwegian expertise or involved Norwegian 

partners in their project applications. Since use of Norwegian R&D competence for competence 

transfer was a main objective, the Programme has launched a NOK 500 000 funding extension (Project 

Reinforcement) where ongoing projects can apply for additional funding for reinforcement of 

project activities and enhancement of results. Increased use of Norwegian competence is a main objective 

of the Project Reinforcement. However, interviews with project owners indicate that they 

question both the cost‐level and relevance of use of Norwegian research competence in their projects. 

It is emphasised that regional (South‐Asian) expertise would be considerably cheaper and 

hence more available for the projects within the financial framework of the RenewableNepal Programme. 

Many of the awarded projects are doing research on technologies were Norwegian universities 

and industry do not necessarily have core competence, for these projects it makes more sense 

to use regional competence when available. 


• Norad should assess the need for biannual face‐to‐face SC meetings for this relatively 

small programme, and instead consider teleconference alternatives as a substitute for 

the May SC meetings in Norway. 

• If planning of a continued RenewableNepal becomes a reality, Norad is recommended to 

consider how regional R&D competence with core technological competence could be 

more involved to maximise efficient use of donor funding and capacity building

RELEVANCE, SUSTAINABILITY AND FUTURE INTERVENTIONS 


7 RELEVANCE, SUSTAINABILITY AND FUTURE INTERVENTIONS 

This chapter examines the extent to which the Programme is suited to the priorities of the target 

group, recipients and donor (relevance) as well as the extent to which benefits of the Programme are 

likely to continue after the donor funding is withdrawn (sustainability). It further looks at major factors 

influencing the achievement or non‐achievement of a relevant and sustainable programme. 

7.1 Relevance of the Programme 

The Programme is relevant for development of competence and technologies needed in the Nepali 

energy sector. Nepal generally has limited opportunities to support R&D projects. RenewableNepal 

provides an opportunity for the Nepalese energy sector to perform research based industrial development, 

and the number of project applications received shows this is relevant to the sector. RenewableNepal 

increase the research capacity in Nepal, and the projects are attractive to students 

and researchers that would otherwise choose to do their research elsewhere (outside Nepal). 

The RenewableNepal concept of industry ‐ R&D partnerships for mutual benefit seems to be working 

well. The review team met industry partners that expressed satisfaction with the Programme and 

planned continuation of the partnership to commercialize their product. The Programme appears to 

be particularly appropriate when supporting development of smaller scale manufacturing and/or 

adapting technological concepts to local needs. The Programme establishes a valuable link between 

research institutions and energy industry. 

The selected projects are thematically relevant to the Programme. The focus areas of the Programme 

are hydropower, bio‐energy, solar and wind energy and energy/power systems. The 11 projects 

funded so far focus all on themes within these areas. The Programme takes national and regional 

priorities into account, but should preferably have been linked to existing national strategies 

or strategic processes. It links the national and local level, for example through supporting projects 

targeting rural electrification or improved cooking stoves, and awards funding to projects relevant for 

the challenges seen in the Nepali energy sector. The Programme however lacks a focus on large scale 

hydropower which in Nepal’s main priority and a potential large scale industry. The importance of 

hydropower is acknowledged in the Programme framework, and measures to increase hydropower 

related research should be considered. 

The Programme is highly relevant for Kathmandu University. Kathmandu University has a major role 

through its overall responsibility for planning, implementation, reporting and monitoring of the Programme. 

In addition to its role as Programme owner, KU has applied for 17 projects and 6 projects 

have been granted funding (though only 5 have been contracted). 

Interviews with stakeholders in Nepal indicate that the Programme is widely perceived as a programme 

by and for Kathmandu University. This can be related to the fact that KU has been awarded 

6 of the 11 RenewableNepal projects so far, and the active role of the University in Programme management. 

There is also the discrepancy mentioned in chapter 5.2 between objectives and implementation 

in the Programme framework that can easily be misunderstood. Considering the fact that KU 

has easy access to information on the Programme with its opportunities, procedures and processes, 

it is no surprise that the university has prepared the highest number of good quality applications.



Improved award processing with feed‐back to failed applicants could clarify to the broader Nepali 

research community that KU is not being prioritized. 

The Programme appears to be less relevant for other Universities and R&D institutions in Nepal. 

Tribhuvan University (TU) is by far the largest and oldest institution of higher education in Nepal. TU 

is a non‐profit making autonomous institution and operating expenses is fully funded by the Government 

of Nepal. The Institute of Engineering (IOE) offers academic programs in various engineering 

disciplines, and has different autonomous institutions to perform, research, training and consulting 

services. Centre for Energy studies (CES) is among them, and is involved in promoting research and 

training in Renewable Energy sector. TU has been involved in seven project applications in 2010 and 

2011, out of which two have been contracted. 

HydroLab Pvt Ltd is Nepal's leading independent hydraulic laboratory established in 1999 with continued 

Norwegian assistance. The objective of Hydro Lab is to assist in the achievement of national 

goals by providing a base for research and development, training and consultancy services in the field 

of water resources. Hydro Lab is providing consultancy services and model testing for clients both in 

Nepal and abroad. Hydro Lab planned to place an application in 2010 but never submitted, and they 

cooperate with both KU and TU on other projects. Hydro Lab recommends that the Programme 

should be organised as an independent institution to be perceived as neutral. 

The Programme is to a lesser degree relevant for Norwegian and International Universities and Research 

Institutions, and prioritization of Norwegian expertise over other international expertise is 

not relevant for fulfilment of the overall objectives of the Programme. A Norwegian core competence 

is larger scale hydropower technologies which is to a lesser degree involved in the Programme. 

Further, RenewableNepal limits the possible participation of international universities and research 

institutions through the funding limitations of NOK 500 000 per project, and at least 50% of the funding 

going to Nepalese partners. However, this is not the case for competent institutions from lowcost 

countries such as India. For these institutions RenewableNepal should be a highly relevant Programme. 

The Programme is to a lesser degree relevant for the hydropower industry. Nepal has a number of 

hydro power companies that could be interested in applied research. This was confirmed in 2008 

when several companies signed a Letter of Intent to participate in the Programme, these included 

Butwal Power Company, Nepal Hydro & Electric (NHE), Sanima Hydro Pvt Ltd, Himal Power Ltd , SN 

Power Nepal, Nepal Electricity Authority and DynaVec AS of Norway. Of these only NHE and DynaVec 

have applied for project funding and participated in meetings. 

The hydropower industry is to varying degree informed about the possibilities in the Renewable‐ 

Nepal Programme. Some feedback from hydropower developers that could explain the low interest 

from the hydropower sector include; 

• Smaller scale hydropower developers prefer well tested technologies with documented 

performance in their projects, and has few incentives for R&D; 

• The RenewableNepal financial limitation of maximum NOK 500 000 funding per project is 

a limitation for most of the relevant hydropower research;



• Large scale hydropower developers would not use RenewableNepal as a mechanism to 

initiate important R&D projects, would use international research institutions in cooperation 

with local competence 

• Norwegian hydropower R&D competence is attractive for Nepali hydropower developers 

and the willingness to pay for relevant research appears to be high 


• It is recommended that RenewableNepal targets hydropower to a larger extent to improve 

its relevance. Norway has through its funding of Hydro Lab and the newly established 

Turbine Testing Laboratory contributed to a substantial strengthening of high quality 

infrastructure for hydropower research and development. A holistic Norwegian approach 

to energy development assistance would consider measures that could maximise 

the use of the established research facilities. As the hydropower industry has shown little 

interest to the Programme during implementation, targeted actions to attract the industry 

should be considered for a potential second phase. This could include increased 

financialsupport, targeted information strategy and needs assessment. 

• Potential future Norwegian support to R&D programmes should to a lesser degree tie its 

aid to Norwegian companies and institutions were they do not have a competitive advantage 

over regional institutions. 

7.2 Sustainability of the Programme 

The financial sustainability of RenewableNepal is weak. Financial sustainability has to do with the 

Programme’s ability to attract funds from participants and not donations. The Programme is today 

fully financed by Norad, and would not be financially self sustained should Norad decide to stop its 

funding. The Nepali industry is not participating in cash, only in kind. To increase the financial sustainability 

of the Programme it would have to be reorganised and linked to other energy related strategic 

processes in Nepal. If the Nepali government or strong industrial actors saw the benefits of having 

the Programme in place the sustainability could have been increased. 

The prominent role of KU is preventing broader academic participation. As previously discussed the 

Programme is not crystal clear on whether this is specific capacity building of Kathmandu University 

or it is a neutral R&D funding programme where all research institutions have equal access to funds. 

There are indications that other Universities and research institutions are hesitant to participate in 

the Programme due to their perception of KU’s role. 

Other sustainability issues are well included in the Programme. The Programme framework explicitly 

favours project applications that relate to the Programme objectives, this included gender issues. 

Anti‐corruption is actively promoted through extensive reporting and an emphasis on transparency 

on all levels. 

The Programme does not have an exit strategy in place. In the approved minutes of meeting (Oct 

2009) it is stated that: “Norad will conduct a mid‐term review of the RenewableNepal Project and will 

formulate an exit strategy” So far no concrete exit strategy has been developed. The Consultant as‐



sumes that this review will constitute a basis for the exit strategies to be developed, as described in 

Norad’s BD (Norad, 2009). The fact that an exit strategy was not developed in the start‐up phase of 

the Programme is perceived by the team as an indication that sustainability criteria have had little 

focus during Programme planning. 


• The Programme should be allowed a one‐year extension, and provided funds to allow for 

start‐up of an additional 3‐5 projects (1 and 2 years duration). This would allow for more 

partners to benefit from the Programme, and will give better basis for assessing the Programme’s 

sustainability. It will also allow sufficient time for planning of a possible second 

phase of energy related R&D support to Nepal. 

• The SC should initiate a discussion on the way forward at least one year ahead of the planned 

Programme phase out. 

7.3 Future interventions 

The Programme is relevant for Nepal’s energy sector. A second phase of support to development of 

R&D competence is recommended. A thorough needs assessment in the Nepali industry, including 

assessment of willingness and ability to pay, should be done as part of a long term planning. A second 

phase should take into account the remarks made on the need for clear objectives and roles of 

all involved parties. 

A future programme should take national and regional priorities into account, and preferably be 

linked to existing national strategies or strategic processes. The Programme today lacks a focus on 

large scale hydropower and energy systems which in Nepal’s main priority and a potential large scale 

industry. Hydropower is also in line with the Norwegian bilateral development strategy. As the support 

to RenewableNepal and the support to the Hydro Lab project both expires in 2013 potential 

synergies between the different projects should be discussed when considering further support. 

Some questions raised during the MTR field work should be discussed when considering a potential 

second phase of support to RenewableNepal. One is whether RenewableNepal should be organised 

as an institution independent of a particular university. Further, TU has reported some problems related 

to accommodate projects within their internal financial rules and regulations. 

Communication and role between Embassy and Norad should be clear before a second phase is 

commenced to anchor the ownership and ensure dedicated follow‐up of the implementation. 

‐‐‐‐‐ o ‐‐‐‐‐

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page I 

8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Haaland, Næss, & Støa. (2010). Oppsummering prat om RenewableNepal. Oslo. 

Kathmandu University. (2009). Tilskuddsordninger til næringslivet ‐ Renewable Nepal Application. 

Kathmandu: Kathmandu University. 

MFA. (2007). Clean Energy for Development Initiative ‐ Policy Platform. 

Norad / NVE. (2010). Bilateral Cooperation with Nepal in the Energy Sector ‐ Recommendations for a 

New Ten Year Strategy; 2011‐2021. Draft Final report. Oslo: Norad. 

Norad. (2009, October 22). Bevilgningsdokument ‐ NPL‐3029 NPL‐09/005 ‐ Institutional Development 

and Cooperation Program betweeen Kathmandu University (KU) and SINTEF Energy Research 

AS (SEfAS). Oslo, Norway. 

Norad. (2011). Clean Energy for Development Initiative. Annual Report 2010. Oslo: Norad. 

Norad‐KU. (2009). Agreement between Norad and KU regarding support to RenewableNepal ‐ A 

programme for research based industrial development. 

RenewableNepal. (2011). Annual Report 2010. Dhulikel: RenewableNepal Programme. 

RenewableNepal. (2010). Annual work plan and budget 2010 (updated version). RenewableNepal. 

RenewableNepal. (2011). Interim Report 2011. Dhulikel: RenewableNepal Programme. 

RenewableNepal. (Oct 2010). Programme Handbook. Kathmandu: RenewableNepal Programme. 

RenewableNepal. (April 2010). RenewableNepal ‐ A Programme for Research Based Industrial 

Development in Nepal 2009‐2013 ‐ Programme Document. Dhulikel: RenewableNepal 

Programme. 

RenewableNepal. (Oct 2009). RENP‐001/2009 RenewableNepal Meeting Minutes. Kathmandu 

University, Dhulikel. 

SC. (2010). RENP‐2010‐05‐27‐SCM‐001 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes. The Research Counsil 

of Norway, Oslo. 

SC. (2010). RENP‐2010‐10‐27‐SCM‐002‐MINUTE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes. Kathmandu 

University, Dhulikel. 

SC. (2011). RENP‐2011‐05‐27‐SCM‐003‐MINUTE Steering Committee Meeting Minutes. Trondheim: 

RenewableNepal. 

SEfAS; KU. (2009, Decemnber). Institutional Cooperation Agreement between SINTEF Energiforskning 

AS (SEfAS) and Kathmandu University (KU) regarding support to RenewableNepal.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page II 

Vognild, I. H. (2011, December 06). E‐mail from the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Kathmandu 

providing comments to the MTR draft appraisal report of RenewableNepal. Kathmandu.

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page III 

APPENDICES 

A1 

A2 

List of RenewableNepal funded projects 

Interview guides 

A3 Activities and outputs 2010 and 2011 

A4 

A5 

A6 

List of persons/ organizations met 

Project owners and partners 

Terms of Reference

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page IV 

APPENDIX A1: PROJECTS FUNDED BY RENEWABLENEPAL 

Projects 1 to 7 were awarded in Call for Applications 1 (2010) 

Projects 8 to 11 were awarded in Call for Applications 2 (2011) 

1: Production of biomass briquetted fuel based on agro forestry waste as substitute for fuel wood 

in domestic and industrial sector of Nepal 

Project period: 2010 ‐ 2013 

Project owner: 

Project leader: 

Industry partner: 

International partner: 

Centre for Energy and Environment Nepal (CEEN) 

Prof. Krishna R. Shrestha 

Mhepi Briquette Industries, Nepal Academy of Science and Technology 

(NAST) 

None 

Programme funding: NOK 390,000 

2: Design and Development of Mini‐Grid for Efficient Use of Distributed Hydropower System 


Project Owner: 

Project Leader: 

Industry partners: 


Kathmandu University (KU), Nepal 

Brijesh Adhikary 

Krishna Grill and Engineering, Center for Excellence in Production and Transportation 

of Energy (KU) 

None 

Programme Funding: NOK 400,000 

3: Design, fabrication and test of a biomass gasifier for small size petrol and diesel engines 


Project Owner: 

Kathmandu University (KU), Nepal

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page V 




Dr. Bivek Baral 

Sun Works Nepal 

None 


4: Solar and WLED for Greener and Brighter Nepal 






Kathmandu University(KU), Nepal 

Diwakar Bista 

Altitude Innovation 

None 


5: A statistical analysis of parameters measuring the socio‐economic impacts of renewable energy 

projects specially biogas on its consumers and the use of the results obtained on product development 

and improvement 






Kathmandu University, Nepal 

Dr. Jyoti Upadhyaya 

Rapti Renewable 

None 


6: Development of Hydraulic Turbines with new Design Philosophy as a foundation for Turbine 

Manufacturing in Nepal 



Kathmandu University, Nepal

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page VI 




Tore Skeie 

Nepal Hydro and Electric 

Dynavec, Norwegian University of Science and Technology 


7: Developing Electrical Load Controller of Low Head Propeller Pico Turbine and Field Research for 

Rural Use in Nepal 

Project period: 2010‐ 2011 





People Energy & Environment Development Association (PEEDA), Nepal 

Govinda Devkota 

Kathmandu Alternative Power & Energy Group (KAPEG) 

None 


8: Viable Charring technology to meet the industrial demand of char, as an alternative fuel in brick 

kilns 






Central Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University, Nepal 

Ms. Rejina Maskey Byanju 

MinErgy Pvt. Ltd. and Shree Satya Narayan Itta Bhatta Pvt. Ltd. 

None 


9: Development of commercially viable wind power system in Nepal 




Practical Action, Nepal 

Dr. Shirish Singh

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page VII 



Kathmandu Alternative Power and Energy Group (KAPEG) 

RISOE National Laboratory Technical University of Denmark (RISOE DTU) 


10: To study the potentiality of agriculture wastes as a source of xylose/glucose for production of 

ethanol and using it as biofuel 

Project period: 2011‐ 2013 





Kathmandu University, Nepal 

Dr. Bhupal Govinda Shrestha 

Everest Biodiesel Company Pvt. Ltd. 

None 


11: Investigation on practical realization of a reactive power compensator for grid connected wind 

turbine driven induction generator 






Research Training and Consultancy Unit, Department of Electrical Engineering, 

Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Nepal 

Prof. Dr. Indraman Tamrakar 

Power Tech Nepal Pvt. Ltd. 

None 

Programme funding: NOK 300,000

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page VIII 

APPENDIX A2: INTERVIEW GUIDES 

Interview guide ‐ to guide a natural conversation 

R&D institutions/ Industry actors with RNEP funding 

Name of company: 

Name and position of interviewee: 

Name of research programme: 

Where did you hear of RenewableNepal 

Who took initiative to apply for funding for your 

program 

What role did your company have in the planning 

process 

What role does your company have in the execution 

How many staff do you have in the programme (# 

full‐time, # part‐time, # men/women) 

Is your participation and contribution as planned 

Is your program progressing according to plan 

What are the main opportunities for success in 

your project 

What are the main barriers for success to your project 

Are you aware of the overall objectives and plans 

for your project 

What support and follow‐up do you get from RenewableNepal 

Are you satisfied with the support and follow‐up 

from RenewableNepal 

If not, what could have been done differently 

Were you involved in R&D before RNEP 

If yes, how have you been funding previous research 

Any other comments

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page IX 

Interview guide ‐ to guide a natural conversation 

Potential R&D institutions/ Industry applicants 

‐ institution/ company with failed RNEP application, or 

‐ institution/ company with relevant activities that have not applied or shown interest 

Name of company: 

Name and position of interviewee: 

Nature of business: 

Have you or are you involved in any energy research 

related activities 

If yes, what kind of research and how is it funded 

What do you know about RNEP 

Where do you get information 

Have you previously applied for RNEP funding 

If no, why not 

If yes, who took initiative to apply for funding for your 

program 

If yes, please elaborate on experience from application 

process. 

What is your overall impression of RNEP 

Would you be interested in applying for RNEP funding 

in the future 

If yes, why If no, why not 

Any other comments

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page X 

APPENDIX A3: ACTIVITIES AND INTERNAL OUTPUTS 

As described in Chapter 0 the Programme office is in charge of Programme management. It has the 

following mandate: 

• Calls for application, processes and assesses the project applications, and prepares them for 

the decision in the SC 

• Assists the SC in establishing guidelines for program operation and project selection 

• Advises industries and R&D institutions in Nepal and Norway on projects that will fit within 

the framework of the Program 

• Monitors all running projects on behalf of the SC, call in project reports, assess the progress 

and present the reports to the SC 

• Be an advisor to the participants in the projects 

Each year the PM prepares a work plan, and all activities that are to be performed in relation to this 

plan are categorized into work packages with expected outputs. The management and monitoring of 

these work packages has been reported in detail in the annual progress reports. 

2011 PROGRESS 19 

Each work package is related to a number of planned outputs. To enable proper monitoring of the 

activities the PM has proposed internal indicators related to these outputs. The Programme progress 

reports (Annual report 2009/2010 and Interim report 2011) monitor the progress of the work packages. 

To give a more detailed impression of the progress of the Programme Management on output 

level reporting on work packages are presented in the following. 

The Annual work plan and budget 2011 (RenewableNepal, 2011) includes the following Programme 

work packages: 

1. WP‐11‐B.1 Manage the projects awarded in 2010 

2. WP‐11‐B.2 Manage the new projects award procedure in 2011 

3. WP‐11‐B.3 Manage the projects awarded in 2011 

4. WP‐11‐B.4 Hold SC meeting in Norway 

5. WP‐11‐B.5 Organize Annual and SC meeting in Nepal 

6. WP‐11‐B.6 Submit final annual report and audit report of 2009/10 to NORAD and obtain 

disbursement for 2011 

7. WP‐11‐B.7 Manage Day‐to‐Day Activities of the Programme 

8. WP‐11‐B.8 Perform appropriate publications and visibility actions 

The following paragraphs make a comparison of planned versus actual outputs of the efforts made. 

19 Based on the Interim report that looks at the period January to September 2011. Progress made from October 

to December 2011 will be included in the Annual report 2011.

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page XI 

WP‐11‐B.1 – Manage the projects awarded in 2010 

From the documentation provided to the Consultant it is apparent that the PM has done more than 

could be expected regarding management of projects. We find the organization of an annual reporting 

seminar a good idea to ensure best possible quality on the annual project reporting. However, 

the reports have been delayed, and as a result the PM has not performed project monitoring visits. 

As no audit exists on either project an intermediate measure on disbursements was suggested to enable 

the projects to continue their work. 

WP‐11‐B.2 – Manage the new projects award procedure in 2011 

In 2011 only 10 applications were received (compared to 20 in 2010). There could be several reasons 

for this: 

• The number of energy researchers in Nepal is limited. 

• The RenewableNepal programme is not perceived as neutral but as pro‐KU as KU has so 

many of the awarded 2010‐projects. 

• The institutions who had failed applications did not believe it would be possible to get support 

this year either 

• There was a closure of KU at the time of the application process, and the planned project application 

workshop was not held. 

It is the Consultant’s impression that the process of awarding new projects was implemented 

smoothly, even though only 10 applications were received. 10 project applications allowed for a real 

evaluation process as only 4 projects were to receive funding. The fact that the project application 

support workshop was not held was outside the PM's influence. 

One challenge identified by the SC after the process in 2010 was the challenge of involving Norwegian 

institutions in new applications. 

WP‐11‐B.3– Manage the projects awarded in 2011 

Fund disbursements are completed for all four projects. Representatives from all projects participated 

in the Annual meeting. The monitoring visit has been delayed and will be conducted in November/December 

2011. 

WP‐11‐B.4 ‐ Hold SC meeting in Norway 

The SC meeting was held as planned in Norway. Decisions have been followed up. 

WP‐11‐B.5 ‐ Hold Annual and SC meeting in Nepal 

The 2011 Annual meeting was held in November 2011 in conjunction with the semi‐annual SC meeting. 

The contract between KU and Norad says that the Annual meeting:

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page XII 

“..(will be held).. in order to Rewiew the progress of the Programme, discuss and, if feasible, 

approve work plans and budgets for the following year and to discuss issues of special concern 

for the implementation of the Programme.” 

Representatives from all projects participated in the meeting, presenting their progress. Further, the 

contract states that: 

“The Parties may include SEfAS and others to participate as observers or as advisors to their 

delegations.” 

This opens up for inviting additional participants. However, the Consultant questions the use of the 

Annual meeting as a marketing event for KU. 

WP‐11‐B.6 ‐ Submit final annual report and audit report of 2009/10 to NORAD and obtain 

disbursement for 2011 

The reports were completed as planned, though somewhat delayed. The Annual report was submitted 

without the audit report and updated with financial information as soon as this was available. 

The disbursements was obtained and confirmed as planned. 

WP‐11‐B.7 ‐ Effectively Manage Day‐to‐Day Activities of the Programme 

The day‐to‐day activities of the Programme appear to have been performed well. The new assistant 

manager was recruited through a competitive process, performed in a manner that allowed for important 

continuity training before the former assistant manager left his position. 

Delays in reporting and monitoring lead to a delay in the planned mid‐term review of the Programme 

and a delay in the progress monitoring of the projects. This hindered the SC in their decision making 

on the SC meeting in November, and decisions on some issues were postponed until next meeting in 

May 2012. 

Apparently the Programme is in the process of developing a project accounting software. The Consultant 

is not familiar with the reasons for doing this, but questions the necessity of the Programme 

performing project accounting. Is this the job of the Programme Office 

WP‐11‐B.8 ‐ Perform appropriate publications and visibility actions 

In 2011 the Programme Office published a programme brochure (2011 version) and a project information 

flyer. The Programme Handbook was not published in a new version as only small adjustments 

have been made to the framework. Generally, the Consultant finds the publications to be of 

high quality and relevance. 

Internal Programme Performance reporting 

To assess performance of the Programme and Projects the Programme has devised many internal 

indicators. The internal Programme Performance Indicators, targets and performance results for the 

Programme’s activities in 2011 are presented in the table below (RenewableNepal, 2011):

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page XIII 

INDICATORS TARGETS ACHIEVEMENTS IN 2011 

Performance indicator of attracting R&D projects for funding application 

Number of project applications received ‐ 10 

Number of institutions applying for projects 

from Nepal 

‐ 5 ‐ RETSC, TU, KU, Practical Action, 

PEEDA 

Number of industrial partners from Nepal ‐ 12 ‐ Hydro Energy, Rasunga Prasodhan, 

Sagun Concrete, Eco Friends, 

Fresh Himalayan Agro, Solar 

Udhyog, Min Ergy, Satyanarayan Itta 

Bhatta, KAPEG, Everest Biotech, Osin 

Power, Power Tech 

Institutions in projects from Norway / abroad ‐ 1 ‐ RISØ National Laboratory Technical 

University 

Industrial partners from Norway / Abroad ‐ 0 

Performance indicator indicating project application processing efficiency 

Number of applications processed and evaluated 

by the Programme Office 

‐ 10 

Number of applications evaluated by independent 

‐ 10 

reviewers 

Number of independent project application reviewers 

‐ 1 

(Nepal) 

Number of independent project applications 

‐ 6 

reviewers (abroad) 

number of applications formally reviewed by 10 10 

the SC members 

Reinforcement application new being processed 

Performance indicator indicating project contracting, fund disbursement and project support efficiency 

Number of projects contracted 4 4 

Disbursements fo funds to the project 1908150 major disbursements remain in 2011 

NOK 

Number of research insitutions in new projects 4 3 ‐ KU, TU, Practical Action 

from Nepal 

Number of industrial partners from Nepal 4 5 ‐ Min Ergy, Satyanarayan Itta 

Bhatta, KAPEG, Everest Biotech, 

Power Tech 

Number of research institutions in new projects 

from Norway / abroad 

4 1 ‐ RISØ National Laboratory Technical 

University 

Number of industrial partners from Norway / 4 0 

abroad 

Project support provided project support staff service provided, 

other general supports are 

also provided as required 

Performance indicator indicating progress reporting, progress reviewing and programme planning 

efficiency 

monitor proejct progress after mid‐year reporting 

appropriately 

after 

report submission 

abandoned; will be done after 

evaluation of annual report in 

Nov/Dec

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page XIV 

holding of SC meeting in Norway in spring; project 

award and review progress 

holding annual meeting in Nepal, and SC meeting 

in Nepal; review progress and plan for 2012 

conduct project start up monitoring for new 

projects 

interim report for 2011 submit 4 

weeks before 

AM 

annual plan for 2012 submit 4 

weeks before 

AM 

award 4 

projects 

yes 

conducted 

and reported 

submitted 

submitted 

held, 4 projects awarded, progress 

reviewed 

held 

will be conducted 

progress review workshop at KU conducted will be conducted 

Performance indicator indicating efficiency in communication and visibility 

number of workshops and seminars 2 1 (reporting seminar held, the symposium 

and progress review workshop 

will be held) 

number of Programme related publications 3 3 

website setup and upgrading good good 

Performance indicator indicating general and stakeholder's interest in the Programme 

participants in annual reporting seminar new project leaders and staffs 

Rentech symposium new to be held 

annual meeting November to be held 

progress review workshop December to be held 

Performance indicator physical and procedural infrastructure setup 

accumulated physical assets 

as appropriate 


developed documents for programme and project 

management 


updated application, annual reporting 

format etc 

Performance indicator indicating processing efficiency of reports from projects 

review mid‐year progress of projects within 2 delayed slightly, performed 

weeks, 7 

reports 

review annual reports within 1 

month of 

submission, 

7 reports 

delayed both from project and programme. 

Not all reports were obtained 

in November.

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page XV 

APPENDIX A4: LIST OF PERSONS / ORGANISATIONS MET 

Wedn 12 Oct Norad Brita Næss Seniorrådgiver brita.naess@norad.no 

Thursday 13 Oct Forskningsrådet Hans Otto Haaland Programkoordinator RENERGI hoh@forskningsradet.no 

Tuesday 25 Oct SEfAS Petter Støa Forskningsdirektør petter.stoa@sintef.no 

Sunday 6 Nov Royal Norwegian Embassy Alf Arne Ramslien 

Ambassador 

Alf.arne.ramslien@mfa.no 

Inge Harald Vognild 

First Secretary ‐ Energy 

Inge.harald.vognild@mfa.no 

Monday 7 Nov HydroLab Dr. Meg Bishwakarma General Manager mbb@hydrolab.org 

SN Power Nepal Sandip Shah Vice President & Country Director sandip.shah@snpower.com 

Programme Management RenewableNepal (PM RENP) Bhupendra Bimal Chhetri Associate Professor, Programme Manager 

renewablenepal@ku.edu.np 

Tuesday 8 Nov Butwal Power Company Limited (BPC) CEO Ranjan Lohar Chief Executive Officer ranjan.lohar@bpc.com.np 

Nepal Hydro and Electric Ltd. (NHE) Roshan Soti Acting DGM ‐ Technical rosan.soti@nhe.com.np 

Centre for Energy and Environment Nepal (CEEN) / 

Nepal Academy of Science & Technology (NAST) 

Nawa Raj Shrestha Dep. General Manager marketing@nhe.com.np 

Dr. Krishna Raj Shrestha Chairman shresthakr@hotmail.com 

People, Energy & Environment Development Association 

(PEEDA) 

Dr. Ramesh Man Singh Vice Chairman rameshmsingh@hotmail.com 

Dr. Arabinda Dey Executive Director dey@peeda.net 

Gaurav Dahal Project Development Manager gaurav@peeda.net 

Wednesday 9 Nov Various KU projects 

PM RENP Bhupendra Bimal Chhetri Associate Professor, Programme Manager 

renewablenepal@ku.edu.np 

Kathmandu University (KU) Bhola Thapa Dean, School of Engineering, SC member 

bhola@ku.edu.np 

Thursday 10 Nov Annual meeting RenewableNepal Repr. from all projects 

Friday 11 Nov HydroLab Padam Prasad Pokharel Head of Research ppp@hydrolab.org 

Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) Dr. Narayan Prasad Chaulagain Executive Director narayan.chaulagain@aepc.gov.np 

Ram Prasad Dhital Senior Energy Officer ram.dhital@aepc.gov.np 

InterKraft Ratna Sansar Shrestha Senior Water Resource Analyst rsansar@mos.com.np 

BPC HydroConsult Manohar Shrestha Chief Executive Officer manohar.shrestha@bpch.com.np

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page XVI 

APPENDIX A5: PROJECT OWNERS AND PARTNERS 

PROJECT OWNERS 

Centre for Energy and Environment Nepal (CEEN), Nepal 

People Energy & Environment Development Association (PEEDA), Nepal 

Kathmandu University (KU), Nepal 

Tribhuvan University (TU), Nepal 

Practical Action, Nepal 

INDUSTRY PARTNERS 

Mhepi Briquette Industries 

Nepal Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) 

Krishna Grill and Engineering 

Center for Excellence in Production and Transportation of Energy (KU) 

Sun Works Nepal 

Altitude Innovation 

Rapti Renewable 

Nepal Hydro and Electric (NHE) 

Kathmandu Alternative Power & Energy Group (KAPEG) 

MinErgy Pvt. Ltd. 

Shree Satya Narayan Itta Bhatta Pvt. Ltd. 

Everest Biodiesel Company Pvt. Ltd. 

Power Tech Nepal Pvt. Ltd. 

INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS 

Dynavec, Norway 

Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway 

RISOE National Laboratory Technical University of Denmark (RISOE DTU), Denmark

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page XVII 

APPENDIX A6: TOR MID‐TERM REVIEW 

TERMS OF REFERENCE 

Midterm review (MTR) 

of 

RenewableNepal, 

A program for research based industrial development in Nepal (2009-2013) 

1. Background 

RenewableNepal is a program aiming to stimulate applied research at Nepalese universities 

and research institutions. the program is managed by Kathmandu University in partnership 

with Sintef Energy Research (SEfAS) and financed by Norad. 

The Goal of the Program is: 

‐ To enable Nepal to utilize its natural resources of energy to develop a renewable energy 

supply for social and economic development in an environmentally sustainable 

manner. 

The Purpose of the Program is: 

‐ To build applied research capacity at Nepalese Universities and research institutions 

that can serve Nepalese energy industry in developing high quality products and services 

directed at utilizing the country’s renewable energy sources. 

According to the agreement between Norad and Kathmandu University, dated 27 October 

2009, a mid-term review focusing on progress to date, the effectiveness of the program and 

the quality of the technical assistance provided shall be carried out the second half of 2011. 

2. Purpose of the review 

The MTR mission will review various documents and program information as well as carry 

out on-site interviews with stakeholders, service providers, partner institutions and clients to 

assess RenewableNepal’s achievements to date.

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page XVIII 

The MTR will also provide recommendations and lessons learnt to improve Renewable- 

Nepal’s effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its purpose. 

The review will be used by Norad for monitoring purposes and as a basis for discussions with 

the program management regarding any necessary adjustments or action. 

3. Scope and Issues to be Addressed 

The review shall cover but not necessarily be limited to the following issues: 

1) Assess the attainment of milestones to date against overall goals of the program as reflected 

in the current logical framework. 

2) Assess whether the program interventions are reaching the intended beneficiaries. 

3) Assess the cost efficiency and effectiveness of the overall program. 

4) Assess project management and Steering Committee/Coordination arrangements and 

the extent to which timely and appropriate decisions are being made to support effective 

implementation and problem resolution. 

5) Review the log frame with special attention on appropriateness of indicators, targets 

and attribution rules. 

6) Assess the quality of operational work planning, budgeting and risk management. 

7) Review the sustainability and exit strategies for the program. 

8) Assess RenewableNepal’s continued relevance and responsiveness to address issues 

faced by the energy sector. 

9) Assess the practice of knowledge and lessons dissemination. 

10) Assess the systems RenewableNepal has in place for monitoring its projects. 

11) Assess the duration and life-cycle of the program including extension, expansion and 

geographical strategy. 

12) Identify specific constraints affecting efficiency of the implementation and the effectiveness 

of the program (program design, institutional framework, organizational relationships, 

performance of consultants, international and local, as well as performance 

of other participants involved in various interventions of the program.

APPENDICES 

Mid‐term review RenewableNepal Final report Page XIX 

4. Recommendations 

1) To make recommendations and guidance for implementation during the remaining period 

with a view to ensure maximum levels of efficiency and effectiveness. 

2) To identify lessons learned and suggest possible improvements to inform the development 

of future interventions – project design and relevance, efficiency/effectiveness, 

sustainability of results. 

5. Implementation of the review 

The work shall comprise 

‐ Start-up meeting with Norad; 

‐ Preparatory reading and information gathering, including relevant documents relating 

to the cooperation. Such documents shall be received from Norad 

(brita.naess@norad.no) and KU/project manager at least two weeks before the start of 

the review 

‐ Field work in Kathmandu including meetings with Kathmandu University, Sintef Energy 

Research and with other partner institutions and stakeholders in Nepal 

‐ Meeting with the Norwegian Embassy in Kathmandu, and 

‐ Reporting during and after field work 

The field work in Kathmandu shall take place during one working week. 

In pursuing the above stated objectives and scope of work, the consultants should use a good 

combination of desk reviews of relevant documents and reports, and interviews with a wide 

range of stakeholder representatives (KU, Sintef, research institutions, government officials, 

private sector, project owners, donors). 

The review team will be composed of Solveig Ulseth (team leader) and Joakim Arntsen, Multiconsult 

AS. A local consultant shall be part of the team. 

6. Reporting 

A draft report shall be sent to Norad, Embassy and nominated partners within two weeks after 

the end of the field work. Comments will be given to the draft report within two weeks from 

receiving the draft report, and a final report shall be sent one week after receiving comments 

to the draft. 

The final report shall be written in English and shall not exceed 30 pages including an executive 

summary, conclusions and recommendations. 

NÆRING/BNAE/17.10.2011

Mid-term review RenewableNepal - Kathmandu University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?