Skip to content
← Back to SearchPDF(836 KB)

Mid-term evaluation of the Liberian energy sector support program

2013EnglishUSAID indefinite quantity contract no. listed on document as AID-RAN-I-00-09-00015 | Title in footer: Mid-term evaluation of LESSP | Evaluated project title: Liberian energy sector support program (LESSP) Energy supplyCODE: 669; Liberia

Metadata

Contract/Code
AID-669-TO-12-00005 | AID-RAN-I-00-09-00015 | RAN-I-00-09-00015-00 | 669-C-00-10-00059-00 | AID-669-C-00-10-00059 | 669-C-00-00059-00
Institution
11492 - Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS) 8570 USAID. Mission to Liberia | 13413 Bur. for Policy, Planning and Learning. Ofc. of Learning, Evaluation Research
Keywords
Electricity | Access to resources | Private sector | Investment | Energy supply | Energy resource development | Renewable energy resources | Rural areas | Urban areas | Socioeconomic development FE00 Renewable energy resources (1370.2) | Energy conservation (1060.3) | Alternative energy technology (826.2)
ID
PDACU973
File size
836 KB
Source
Open PDF

Abstract

Liberia's electricity sector is one of the most underdeveloped of any USAID-assisted country.  Rates of access to publicly provided electricity are among the lowest in the world, while the per-unit cost of electricity is among the highest.  There is little private investment in the sector, and the Ministry of Lands, Mines & Energy lacks the technical capacity to champion meaningful reform and expand access in Monrovia or throughout the country.  The lack of access is a significant barrier to Liberias economic development.  The Liberia Energy Sector Support Program (LESSP) was designed by USAID/Liberia to increase access to affordable renewable energy services in geographically focused rural and urban areas in order to foster economic, political and social development.  Key evaluation objectives included the following: (1) identifying and assessing progress toward achieving each LESSP objective; (2) identifying unexpected implementation obstacles and the program's responses; (3) identifying which aspects of the program worked, which did not, and why; (4) assessing the effectiveness of the program's grant component; (5) analyzing the relationships between resources available, resources used and results achieved to determine the specific cost-effectiveness of USAID's programming in each objective, as well as the program as a whole; and (6) making specific recommendations for the final two years of the program, including eventual modification of the program.  (Excerpt, modified)