**2.2 The structure of the SRMP approach**

The SRMP, in general, weights factors related to the regulatory framework, economy, technology, finance and eventually education. These five categories are evaluated based on qualitative and quantitative data, resulting into a risk score that ranges from very low (1) to very high (6). The final score indicates the holistic risk level for implementing mini-grids in a specific region (here: Tsumkwe). Those marks than flow into a combined score (see **Figure 1**).

**Figure 1.** *Framework of the SRMP [6].*

Each of the five criteria described previously is weighted individually to obtain a single score of the five criteria to form a profile. For example, the regulatory framework score is combined with the economic score at an equal weighting of 50% to generate the overall "framework and economic effectiveness" profile. The scores from the remaining three criteria, i.e., the Technology, Finance, and Education scores, each account for 33% of the total "Flexibility and Performance Profile." The two scores from these intermediate profiles are then combined resulting in a rating level that represents the final, overall mini-grid rating (see **Figure 1**).

The overall rating of the mini-network is aggregated and expressed in the form of rating levels from AAA to D and is derived from an equal weighting of the intermediate profiles at 50% each. Consequently, the ratings obtained correspond to the credit ratings commonly used on the capital markets and published by the international rating agencies, e.g. Standard & Poor or Moody's and Fitch. The reason for this is to provide institutional investors with a decision-making tool with which they are familiar, one of the stakeholders in mini-grid projects.
