**6.1 Relevance**

96 Sustainable Growth and Applications in Renewable Energy Sources

obtained results?

specific objectives?

framework

dynamics)

objectives?

Are the results feasible and relevant to the achievement of the logical framework? Are they formulated in terms of impact?

What was the level of compliance with each of the activities?

What was the degree of compliance with each of the results?

What was the relationship between invested resources and

Has the management of staff been adequate? Which was the

Has the project follow-up been adequate? How was the

What is the level of compliance of the specific objectives? Which factors have facilitated/ impeded the fulfilment of the

Were the benefits of the project well received by the population? Were there problems to access to these benefits? What is the perception of utility that people and community

Contribution of the project to the achievement of logical

Project's positive impacts on beneficiaries, on the economic,

Unexpected impacts (positive and negative, on all players and

Factors and interventions outside the project have been able to

Political factors, Institutional factors, Gender factors, Economic

The design of the facilities meet the needs of the usersand the

Facilities are in accordance with the design and standards

Is there a local government department responsible of the

Do the identified problems correspond to the purposed

Factors that have facilitated / impeded the project's contribution to the achievement of logical framework

environmental, social, and organizational aspects. Project's negative impacts on the social, economic, organizational and environmental aspects

generate positive or negative effects on the impacts

processes established by the project?

standard IBNORCA NB-1056

according to design Facilities are operating according to the design

factors, Technological factors, Other factors

leaders have about the objectives of the project?

What factors facilitated and hindered compliance?

What factors facilitated or hindered performance? Were there any unanticipated results? Which ones?

What were the results in relation to time spentlike ?

commitment of staff with the communities?

relationship with the field team?

CRITERIA INDICATORS COMPONENTS

Analysis of the relationship between results and resources invested

Analysis of management in relation to the results

Performance analysis of the specific objectives

availability of the specific

Analysis of compliance of logical framework

Impacts from a broad

Analysis of the possibility that each of the processes and their positive impacts

Factors that facilitate / impede the permanence of the positive effects

Relation with the strategical policies of public sector

The design of the facilities meet the regulation

Facilities are in accordance with the

Facilities are operating

Table 1. Criteria, indicators and assessment components.

design

perspective

are sustainable

Usefulness and

objectives

Analysis of the achievement of individual results from realized activities

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Impact

Sustainability

Coherence

Facilities

The results of the evaluation confirmed that these projects have made a direct benefit for the families supplying access to electricity in their households. The field assessment after the implementation of the project has revealed that electric service has given them the ability to access telephone communication (cell phones had network coverage only needed electricity to recharge) and audiovisual media (television, radio, etc.).

However, the degree of satisfaction of the beneficiaries is not for all the same. Some of the beneficiaries are completely satisfied with the recent access to electricity, whereas others are only partially satisfied because their expectations were superior to actual performance and possible uses of electricity. Some of the beneficiaries confirm they use electricity for lighting and some low power appliances, as it was planned in the logical framework of the project but, at the same time, they claim that they wish to have more energy for other uses. In Turco, 6 out of 11 beneficiaries are completely satisfied and 5 are partially satisfied. In contrast, In Challapata almost all beneficiaries are completely satisfied, 7 out of 8. Among other factors, the difference is probably due to the difference in wind potential in the communities; the wind potential available in the Challapata is greater than in Turco, thus, the same generation equipment generates much more energy.
