SIERRA LEONE Beyond Connections Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework SIERRA LEONE Beyond Connections Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework Safa Khan and Bryan Bonsuk Koo ©2024 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org Publication date: March 2024 This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Report and Cover design: Lauren Kaley Johnson, GCSPM, The World Bank Group Text Layout: Duina Reyes Cover photo: © Dominic Chavez/World Bank CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Access to the Grid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Policy Recommendations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Access to Clean Cooking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Policy Recommendations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Gender Analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Policy Recommendations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 MEASURING ENERGY ACCESS IN SIERRA LEONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Multi-Tier Framework (MTF): Rationale and Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Country Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Sector Context: Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Sector Context: Cooking Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Measuring Access to Electricity Using MTF.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Measuring Access to Modern Energy Cooking Solutions Using MTF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 MTF Survey in Sierra Leone.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Sampling.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Assessing Access to Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Electricity Access by Household Economic Status.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Analysis of MTF Attributes for Electricity Access.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Availability.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Affordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Formality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Health and Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 i SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework Improving Electricity Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Giving Electricity Access to Those without Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Improving the Quality, Reliability, and Affordability of Electricity for Grid-Connected Households. . . . 27 Policy Recommendations on Electricity Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Fuel Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 MTF Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 MTF Attributes for Cooking Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Cooking Exposure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Convenience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Fuel Affordability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Safety of Primary Cookstove.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Fuel Availability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Improving Access to Modern Energy Cooking Solutions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Policy Recommendations on Cooking Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Increasing the Adoption of Improved Cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Increasing Penetration of Clean Fuel Stoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 GENDER ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Household Status, Employment, and Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Women’s Empowerment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Access to Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Access to Electricity by Gender of Household Head.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Tier Access by Gender of Household Head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Willingness to Pay for Grid Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Willingness to Pay for Solar Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Access to Cooking Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Time Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Policy Recommendations on Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Access to Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Access to Clean Cooking Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 ANNEX 1: SAMPLING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Sampling Strategy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Sampling Determination.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Sample Size Calculation for the Stratum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 ANNEX 2: ELECTRICITY TARIFFS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 ii ANNEX 3: MULTI-TIER ENERGY ACCESS TRACKING FRAME FOR ELECTRICITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 ANNEX 4: MULTI-TIER ENERGY ACCESS TRACKING FRAME FOR COOKING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 REFERENCES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 FIGURES FIGURE 1 • Access to electricity (binary definition, by technology).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 FIGURE 2 • Distribution of off-grid sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 FIGURE 3 • MTF Aggregate Tier (rural, urban, nationwide). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 FIGURE 4 • MTF Tier by technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 FIGURE 5 • Main source of electricity by household expenditure quintiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 FIGURE 6 • Capacity attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 FIGURE 7 • Availability attribute (daily) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 FIGURE 8 • Availability attribute (evening). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 FIGURE 9 • Reliability attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 FIGURE 10 • Quality attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 FIGURE 11 • Affordability attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 FIGURE 12 • Formality attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 FIGURE 13 • Health and Safety attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 FIGURE 14 • Household grid connection status vis-à-vis enumerator area (EA) status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 FIGURE 15 • Households’ willingness to connect to grid (leones, nationwide).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 FIGURE 16 • Households’ willingness to connect to grid (no access households in electrified enumeration areas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 FIGURE 17 • Barriers to gaining electricity access (urban). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 FIGURE 19 • WTP for Tier 1 device: Solar lighting system with mobile phone charger and 12V DC appliances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 FIGURE 18 • Barriers to gaining electricity access (rural).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 FIGURE 20 • WTP for Tier 2 device: Advanced solar home system with 120kWh per day.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 FIGURE 21 • Back-up sources of lighting for grid-connected households (lighting only).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 FIGURE 22 • Stove usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 FIGURE 23 • Cooking fuel usage indicated by households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 FIGURE 24 • MTF Aggregate Tier for cooking solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 FIGURE 25 • Cooking Exposure attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 FIGURE 26 • Convenience attribute .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 FIGURE 27 • Fuel Affordability attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 FIGURE 28 • Safety attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 FIGURE 29 • Fuel Availability attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 iii SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 30 • Willingness to pay for improved cookstoves (leones, nationwide) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 FIGURE 31 • Willingness to pay for improved cookstoves (bottom 40% household income group, leones, nationwide). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 FIGURE 32 • Willingness to pay for improved cookstoves (above 40% household income group, leones, nationwide) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 FIGURE 33 • Willingness to pay for improved cookstoves (urban, leones).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 FIGURE 34 • Willingness to pay for improved cookstoves (rural, leones) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 FIGURE 35 • Availability of primary fuel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 FIGURE 36 • Access to finance for adult females in households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 FIGURE 37 • Access to electricity by household head’s gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 FIGURE 38 • Aggregate Tier by household head’s gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 FIGURE 39 • Aggregate Tier in urban areas by household head’s gender.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 FIGURE 40 • Aggregate Tier in rural areas by household head’s gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 FIGURE 41 • Willingness to pay for grid access (leones, by gender of household head) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 FIGURE 42 • Willingness to pay for solar devices (male-headed households) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 FIGURE 43 • Willingness to pay for solar devices (female-headed households) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 FIGURE 44 • Stove usage by household head’s gender (nationwide). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 FIGURE 45 • Stove usage in urban areas by household head’s gender.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 FIGURE 46 • Stove usage in rural areas by household head’s gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 FIGURE 47 • Minutes per day spent acquiring fuel (by household members). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 FIGURE 48 • Minutes per day spend preparing fuel (by household members). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 BOXES BOX 1 • STOVE TYPOLOGY IN SIERRA LEONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 MAPS MAP 1 • Household sample distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 TABLES TABLE 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TABLE A1.1 • Summary of sample frame.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 TABLE A1.2 • Parameters used to determine the sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 TABLE A1.3 • Optimal Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 TABLE A1.4 • Final sample size.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 TABLE A1.5 • Adjusted final sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 TABLE A2.1 • Electricity tariff applicable for the MTF survey (2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Multi-Tier Framework’s (MTF’s) international initiative is technically and financially supported by the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) administered by the World Bank. ESMAP is a partnership between the World Bank and over 20 partners to help low- and middle-income countries reduce poverty and boost growth through sustainable energy solutions. ESMAP’s analytical and advisory services are fully integrated within the World Bank’s country financing and policy dialogue in the energy sector. Through the World Bank Group (WBG), ESMAP works to accelerate the energy transition required to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. It helps to shape WBG strategies and programs to achieve the WBG Climate Change Action Plan targets. The financial and technical support provided by ESMAP for the MTF survey is gratefully acknowledged. This Energy Access Diagnostic Report details the results of the MTF survey in Sierra Leone in 2021 and provides the country’s status in terms of access to electricity and access to modern energy cooking solutions. The initiative has relied on the critical support of multiple entities and individuals that the MTF team would like to acknowledge. First and foremost, MTF-ESMAP would like to thank the Government of Sierra Leone for its enthusiasm and continued support for this project, particularly Alhaji Kanja Sesay (Minister of Energy), Dr Eldred Taylor (Deputy Minister of Energy), Raymond T. Gbetuwa (Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Energy), Ing. Benjamin Kamara (Chief Director of Energy), Ing. Robin Mansaray (Director of Renewable Energy), Mustapha Sannoh (Director of Rural Energy), Shebora Kamara (Director of Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation), and Cyril Grant (Executive Technical Advisor to the Minister of Energy), who proactively helped guide the MTF team throughout survey preparation, implementation, and data analysis. The MTF team would also like to thank and recognize Emmanuel Mannah, Director General of the Sierra Leone Electricity and Water Regulatory Commission (EWRC) Sierra Leone and his team. The MTF team would like to acknowledge Statistics Sierra Leone for its support on survey preparations and the Center for Economic and Social Policy Analysis (CESPA), which has been critical to the successful implementation of this national survey initiative.. The MTF would like to highlight the support and contributions of Rhonda Jordan-Antoine (Senior Energy Specialist), Kagaba Paul Mukiibi (Senior Energy Specialist), Anshul Rana (Energy Specialist), Ibrahim Jalloh (Energy Specialist), Adwoa Asantewaa (Energy Economist), and Jingyi Wu (Energy Consultant). The MTF team would like to extend thanks to the Living Standards Measurement Study Team, whose support was critical to the realization of the MTF. The team would also like to recognize Marlee Jennean Beers (Consultant) from the Cartography Unit of the World Bank Group for her support in creating the sample distribution map. v SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AfDB African Development Bank CESPA Center for Economic and Social Policy Analysis EA enumeration area EDSA Electricity Distribution and Supply Authority EGTC Electricity Generation and Transmission Company ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program EVD Ebola virus disease ICS improved cookstove kV kilovolt kW kilowatt Le Sierra Leone leone (currency) LED light-emitting diode LPG liquefied petroleum gas MTF Multi-Tier Framework MW megawatt SDG Sustainable Development Goal SHS solar home system SLS solar lighting system SSA Sub-Saharan Africa W watt WTP willingness to pay vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACCESS TO THE GRID The survey shows that nationwide 21.1% of Sierra Leone households have access to electricity via the national grid (20.5%) or mini-grids (0.6%) and 14.7% have off-grid access. Off-grid sources predominantly include solar products such as solar lanterns, solar home systems, and solar lighting systems, and off-grid use is largely limited to rural areas. The adoption of solar lanterns, however, is significantly higher than the use of other products in rural areas. Other off-grid sources include electric generators and rechargeable batteries. Access to electricity varies between rural and urban areas. Populations in urban areas are more likely to be connected to the national grid (44.7%) than in rural areas (1.3%). Given the level of accessibility of the grid network in rural areas, the penetration of off-grid energy solutions in rural areas (17.4%) is relatively higher than in urban areas (11.6%). Sierra Leone households’ electricity access is measured based on the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) with seven attributes: Capacity, Availability, Reliability, Quality, Affordability, Formality, and Safety. Households are scored in Tiers for each attribute, and the lowest score among the seven becomes the final Tier classification, Aggregate Tier (ranged from Tier 0 to Tier 5, from close to no access to full access). The MTF assessment shows that nationwide, 24% of Sierra Leone households have the level of electricity that can be considered as having access (Tier 1 or above). Out of those who have access, the highest share of Sierra Leone households falls into Aggregate Tier 2 (15.8%), which indicates that many households experience problems with electricity affordability, availability, and/or capacity. The level of electricity access is worse in rural areas, with a higher share of households in Aggregate Tier 0 (close to no access), 95.7%, compared to 52.6% in urban areas. The economic status of households is one of the key determinants for connecting to the national grid: the disparity in the level of electricity access is noticeable by households’ expenditure level. In Sierra Leone, households with higher expenditure levels are more likely to be connected to the grid. Grid connectivity is at 5.5% for the bottom quintile group, while it is 38.9% for the highest quintile group. The main challenges with the national grid are its cost burden on households, poor power quality, and limited capacity to power appliances. More than three-fifths of Sierra Leone households (63.8%) currently allocate 5% or more of the household budget to grid payment, which indicates that the cost of grid electricity is financially burdensome to households. Many households also suffer from the poor quality of the national grid. Nationwide, 40.3% of households using the grid as the main electricity source experience appliance damage from voltage fluctuations, and 34.6% of households are interrupted by frequent unscheduled outages. One of the first steps to improving access to electricity is to focus on the uptake rate in areas where the grid network already exists. According to MTF findings, approximately one-third of the population lives in areas where grid infrastructure is available. Out of these, only one-third are connected to the grid. Most of this population has indicated that the high up-front connection cost is a barrier for them to access grid electricity. 1 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework Willingness to pay (WTP) for the grid is also very high in Sierra Leone. A large share of households would connect to the grid depending on the cost of connection and the flexibility of payment. Accordingly, 46.9% of households were willing to pay up front if the connection cost was 14% of the existing connection cost. Only 12.5% indicated they were willing to pay if the existing connection cost was offered. Households were also more likely to opt for more flexible payment options for higher connection costs. Furthermore, analysis also suggests that WTP is higher for households who are not connected to the grid but are in electrified areas, compared to the average national WTP figures. This represents a section of the non- electrified population that could potentially connect to the grid in the near term. However, more than two-thirds of the population in Sierra Leone live in the areas where the grid network is not available. Off-grid solutions could be one way of addressing low electricity access in these areas. The WTP analysis for solar devices shows that there is a significant proportion of households agreeing to purchase both low- and high-end solar devices up front at various price points. Nationwide, 64.1% of Sierra Leone households still do not have access to any electricity sources, and they indicated that the grid is too expensive. Distance from the grid is the second most critical barrier to grid connection for many households. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Improving electricity affordability, reliability, and quality will be crucial to providing a higher level of electricity access in Sierra Leone. It is critical to provide households access to electricity through the national grid, mini-grids, or other off-grid solutions. Improvement in reliability (reducing the number and duration of outages), availability (increasing the amount of time during which electricity service is available), and quality (reducing voltage fluctuation), could shift nearly 15.1% of households to the highest Tiers (Tier 4 or 5). Optimal energy solutions with the least cost need to be formulated, considering the population density, the distance to the national grid network, potential electricity demand from various types of customers, and the socioeconomic environment. These optimal energy solutions potentially could be devised using the geospatial planning methodology. Densification of the grid is critical and can be accomplished by offering payment periods for the connection cost as well as more financing options, which would effectively address the financial barrier of the connection fee that households face. Beyond grid densification, expansion of the grid infrastructure can provide electricity to those without it if this is the lowest-cost approach. For improvement in the reliability of existing connections, distribution networks should be upgraded, and operational efficiency should be enhanced. Curtailing commercial losses is important. For settlements located far from the grid infrastructure with sizeable electricity demand from households as well as productive uses, mini-grid development should be considered. Off-grid solar products may often be a more feasible solution for households living in areas where the grid infrastructure is not available. The market for solar products needs to be developed, and one way for boosting consumer demand is through consumer awareness programs. This could also raise their WTP for solar products. 2 The Sierra Leone Electricity and Water Regulatory Commission recently revised tariff rates for all customers. Given that affordability is a concern for Sierra Leone, the new revision is likely to impact the MTF Affordability attribute, with more households citing this as an issue. Considering this development, it is also important to continue ensuring the formality and safety of electricity connections. ACCESS TO CLEAN COOKING A majority of households (71.2%) in Sierra Leone use three-stone open-fired stoves as their main cookstove. This is followed by traditional cookstoves (27.9%). Households rarely use multiple stoves (2.3%). There is very little adoption of clean stoves, with gas stoves—using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)—accounting for only 0.6% of main stoves across households. Biomass and biogas stoves amount to a very small share (0.3%). There is a large variation between urban and rural areas in terms of stove usage, with traditional stoves being more prevalent in urban areas (56.6%) compared to rural areas (4.7%). Most of the rural population use three-stone open-fired stoves (95%). LPG stoves seem more likely to be used in urban areas, with 1.2% usage compared to none in rural areas. Fuel usage for cooking largely depends on the type of stove used by a household. Often, households may use two different types of fuels for the same type of stove. In the case of Sierra Leone, both firewood and charcoal can be deployed in traditional cookstoves. We do see households stacking three types of fuels: firewood that has been purchased, firewood that has been collected, and charcoal. Fifty-three percent of households across the country use collected firewood. Rural households largely rely on both wood collected (82%) and wood purchased (12.2%), while urban households depend more on charcoal (63.2%) compared to rural households (5%). The share of fuels such as kerosene and coal is quite limited. The main barrier to transitioning to LPG stoves is the high fuel cost, as LPG is significantly more expensive than wood or charcoal. The MTF measures clean cooking access in Sierra Leone based on five attributes: Cooking Exposure, Convenience, Safety, Fuel Affordability, and Fuel Availability. As with the MTF electricity access measurement, households are scored in Tiers for each clean cooking attribute, and the lowest score among the five becomes the final Tier classification, Aggregate Cooking Tier, ranged from Tier 0 to Tier 5; Tiers 0–1 denotes no access; Tiers 2–3 denote access to improved cooking or being in transition to clean cooking, and Tiers 4–5 denote access to clean cooking. The analysis shows that in Sierra Leone, households are largely in Tier 1 (70.3%), followed by Tier 0 (15.8%). There is some variation between aggregate tiers in rural and urban areas. In urban areas, 26.5% households fall in Tier 2, while this is the case only for 2.1% of rural households. No rural household falls in higher tiers (Tiers 3–5), while 1.7% of urban households fall in higher tiers. Households are largely in lower tiers for cooking exposure and convenience. The Cooking Exposure attribute is meant to assess exposure that family members may face due to cooking activities. The majority of both rural (81.1%) and urban households (48.9%) fall under Tier 1, that is, 67.6% overall of households spend more than or equal to 7 hours per week on acquiring fuels (Tier 1). 3 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework The main challenges around access to clean cooking include households’ low ability to afford cleaner technologies and lack of awareness of the need for improved cookstoves. In the MTF survey, households using three-stone open fire stoves and traditional or locally built stoves were asked if they are willing to pay for improved biomass stoves. Many households were willing to pay, especially at lower price points, either in full or in instalments. However, this was also found to be largely dependent on household expenditure; households in higher expenditure brackets were found to be more likely to pay for improved cookstoves. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS To improve clean cooking practices in Sierra Leone, clean cooking options should be expanded. The use of clean fuels and efficient stoves should be encouraged and promoted. Households could be financially supported with microfinance schemes, so that they can switch to clean stoves. An interim measure may be to encourage a transition to biomass stoves, which can reduce the time spent in collecting firewood (because manufactured biomass stoves use considerably less fuel than three- stone and traditional stoves). Sixteen percent of households who fall in Tier 0 can be moved to Tier 1 or higher if the market for improved cookstoves (ICSs) is developed and cost-friendly models are introduced. Awareness campaigns around the importance of ICSs are also needed to allow households to understand the benefits of ICSs. Both cooking exposure and efficiency can be improved substantially by switching to ICSs. Secondly, the LPG network should be expanded. Only 0.6% of households indicate that they use an LPG cookstove, and none indicate LPG as primary fuel. These figures are quite low given Sierra Leone’s target to have 25% of households adopt LPG as their main source of cooking fuel. Awareness campaigns advertising benefits of LPG stoves are crucial, and the government of Sierra Leone could offer targeted subsidies for LPG to support especially the poor households. Partnering with private sector companies, the government could expand the distribution of LPG cylinders and stoves in rural and low-income areas. GENDER ANALYSIS Nationwide, 29.1% of Sierra Leone households are led by female heads, and household headship does not show major differences by locality. More than 40 percent of female-headed households (44%) are in rural areas, compared to 58% of male-headed households that are in rural areas. The average age of female household heads is 47, compared with 46 for male household heads. Female heads have lower education levels and employment rates compared to male heads. Both female-headed and male-headed households have similar electricity access nationwide and do not show substantial differences in their access to the national grid and off-grid technologies. In terms of MTF measurement, the gender gap for Tier 0 is wider in urban areas, where more female-headed households (57.3%) are in Tier 0 compared to male-headed households (50%). There is a gendered difference between willingness to pay for grid connections—13.7% of female-headed households are not willing to pay for the connection fee under any given terms, compared with 11.4% of male-headed households. 4 In terms of access to cooking solutions, male-headed households are more likely to use a three-stone stove than female-headed households are, and female-headed households are more likely to use a traditional stove than male-headed households are. In both urban and rural areas, male-headed households are more likely to use a three-stone stove as their primary stove. In rural areas, women spend an average of 44 minutes a day acquiring fuel, compared with 31 minutes for men. In urban areas, time spent acquiring fuel is almost halved for men, but the gap between men and women remains. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS In terms of access to electricity, female-headed households are narrowly behind male-headed households or on a par. The status of clean cooking does not show big differences by gender of household head. There is a time-use gap concerning the acquisition of fuel for cooking. Women spend more time in cooking or fuel collection compared to men, potentially leading to more health impacts. Willingness to pay for both grid connection and solar devices for female-headed households is lower compared to that of male-headed households, but this may be influenced by gender-specific financing mechanisms. Policy makers must ensure this while improving access to modern energy so that women are not left behind. 5 MEASURING ENERGY ACCESS Photo: ©Dominic Chavez/World Bank IN SIERRA LEONE MULTI-TIER FRAMEWORK (MTF): RATIONALE AND EVOLUTION Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy is one of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, electricity has traditionally been measured as a binary (that is, whether or not a household has access). This measure is no longer considered adequate for determining effective access. For instance, grid-connected households in developing countries usually suffer from unreliable and poor quality supply. There may also be issues around the affordability of electricity services, the legality of connections, as well as safety issues arising from electricity use. In addition, decentralized off-grid solutions are also often not included in assessing access to electricity. These are important to consider, because off-grid solutions are viable alternatives to the grid across many geographies. To address these issues, the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), a global knowledge and technical assistance program in the World Bank, in consultation with multiple development partners, has developed MTF to measure and monitor energy access in a more nuanced way. Launched in June 2015, MTF collects a comprehensive set of data at the country level and analyzes it to deliver an innovative narrative about the country’s energy status, acknowledging that electricity access is a spectrum of service levels experienced by households, businesses, and institutions, and using that knowledge to inform the policy-making process (ESMAP n.d.). This framework takes into account several aspects of energy service, and transitions from the traditional binary definition of access to a multi-dimensional one that considers the ability to obtain energy that is adequate, available when needed, reliable, of good quality, affordable, legal, convenient, healthy, and safe for all required energy applications across households, productive enterprises, and community institutions. MTF is thus meant to improve our understanding of electricity access as well as identify bottlenecks that hold back households and institutions from benefitting fully from electricity access. And unlike a traditional approach, MTF considers off-grid sources as valid sources of electricity. Using this framework, this report provides measures and assesses Sierra Leones’ state of access to electricity and cleaning cooking, based on data collection that was undertaken in 2021. The report is structures as follows: overview of the country and sectoral contexts (electricity and cooking); explanation of the MTF methodology; summary of the survey process and sampling methodology; analysis and recommendations on improved access to electricity and cooking; and analysis of gender considerations. 7 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework COUNTRY CONTEXT Located along the Atlantic Ocean in West Africa, Sierra Leone is a country of approximately 7.1 million people.1 It has a total land area of 72,325 square kilometers and shares borders with Guinea in the north and Liberia in the southeast. Sierra Leone emerged from a decade-long civil war in 2002 that severely affected its social, economic, and physical infrastructure. Since the end of the war, Sierra Leone has made significant progress, reflected in poverty reduction from 66.4 percent to 52.3 percent between the end of the war and just before the Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic in 2014 and iron ore price shocks in 2015. The pace of poverty reduction has slowed in recent years. Poverty fell by 1.5 percentage points annually between 2003 and 2011, and by 0.8 percentage points between 2012 and 2018, reaching 56.8 percent in 2018. While the share of food-insecure Sierra Leoneans decreased from 49.8 percent to 43.7 percent (2012–18), 3.2 million people remain food-insecure. COVID-19 has likely put additional stress on poor households due to slowing food production, shortages in food imports, and higher food prices. One of the major binding constraints to growth and poverty reduction in Sierra Leone is the lack of reliable and affordable energy (electricity) supply services. During the period of unrest (1991–2001), the country’s physical infrastructure, particularly electricity, water and sanitation, and human capital, was severely damaged. In the following years, the EVD epidemic combined with the closure of the two largest iron ore mines resulted in a sharp contraction in economic growth. According to the African Development Bank (AfDB), the country’s infrastructure compares poorly to the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): it was ranked 46 out of 54 countries on the AfDB’s Infrastructure Development Index in 2016. Inadequate and unreliable power supply constitutes a major barrier to the country’s economic recovery and poverty reduction ambition. A recent World Bank survey of 152 private firms in Sierra Leone shows that they lost on average 11.2 percent of revenue as a result of unreliable electricity services, as compared with the average of 5.3 percent in SSA (World Bank 2020). SECTOR CONTEXT: ELECTRICITY As of 2021, Sierra Leone has as an installed capacity of 238 MW (IRENA 2022), out of which 61 MW is from hydropower. This is primarily from the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Power Station, which operates at approximately 50 MW during the rainy season and 8 MW in the dry season. The electricity delivered is very expensive (USITA 2021), with the country implementing one of the highest tariffs in the region despite subsidies. Sierra Leone’s vision for improved energy supply is outlined in the National Energy Strategy Plan, which covers activities in the short term (2010 to 2015), medium term (2015 to 2020), and long term (2020 to 2025) (GoSL MoEWR 2009). Objectives listed in this plan are cross-sectoral and summarize the sub- sectoral objectives and strategies to be undertaken to meet energy demand. In terms of the administrative setup of the sector, the National Electricity Act, 2011 (the Electricity Act) repealed the National Power Authority Act of 1982 and established two state-owned enterprises: (1) the Electricity Generation and Transmission Company (EGTC) and (2) the Electricity Distribution and Supply 1 2015 Sierra Leone Population and Housing Census. 8 Authority (EDSA). EGTC is responsible for power generation and transmission at high-voltage levels, while EDSA is responsible for the distribution network at 66 kV to low voltage customer connections as well as for electricity sales to customers. In 2011, an independent electricity regulator, the Electricity and Water Regulatory Commission, was also established. Sierra Leone also has one of the lowest electricity access rates in the world. As the main grid and the isolated grids serve only the Freetown area and some district headquarter towns, almost all these households are considered urban. Furthermore, access to electricity for health and education facilities is limited. As of 2019, about one quarter of health facilities have access to the grid or off-grid solar systems. A tiny portion of health facilities relies on diesel generators which are poorly maintained. It is also estimated that about 90% of primary schools are not connected the grid (SEforALL 2023). Service quality varies significantly among consumers served by the main grid, isolated grids, and mini- grids. Since June 2018, the electricity service of the main grid has improved to an average of 18 hours per day, although supply interruptions are frequent due to planned and unplanned outages of generators, transmission lines, and the distribution network (World Bank 2020). The service quality in the isolated grids of EDSA varies by town, depending on fuel availability and by season where electricity is partly supplied by seasonal hydropower plants. It is not uncommon that the electricity supply in some towns could be interrupted for days or even weeks. The mini-grids are supposed to provide electricity for 8 hours per day, but this is yet to be verified, as most mini-grids commenced operation only in November 2019. There has also been a push to set up independent solar power plants: for instance, a 5MW solar power plant is the first phase of a 25MW solar photovoltaic power project in Yamandu, near Bo town in Sierra Leone. The project is expected to add approximately 15% to Sierra Leone’s total electricity generation capacity (Norfund n.d.). The government has also taken steps to promote the import of solar equipment to increase the usage of solar products. Transmission losses of 38% (in 2020) are among the highest in Africa,2 and tariffs have historically been below cost recovery levels (World Bank 2018). There are ongoing projects that focus on improving the operational performance of the national electricity distribution utility (World Bank 2024). The limited generation, weak and limited transmission, and low distribution capacity of the main grid, and non- technical deficiencies with the utility, result in high technical and commercial losses that are bottlenecks to expanding electricity access and improving the service quality. In addition, seasonal variability in hydropower generation and institutional constraints are the challenges that the power sector is facing. SECTOR CONTEXT: COOKING SOLUTIONS The most common household solution for cooking in Sierra Leone includes three-stone open-fire stoves and metal clay stoves (often referred to as coal pots). While these appear to be the least-cost option for most households, they constitute some of the most inefficient and pollution-inducing solutions because they use firewood or charcoal as a primary fuel. The use of charcoal and firewood by these stoves contributes to both indoor pollution leading to adverse health impacts. There is also an associated burden of deforestation, as the widespread use of firewood has been putting pressure on forest reserves in the country. It is estimated that 7,984 tons of firewood and 457 tons of charcoal are consumed in the country daily. This amounts to an annual production of 2,914,160 tons of firewood and 166,809 tons of charcoal (GoSL MoE 2021). 2 The average losses were about 38.8 percent in the last 12 months of 2019, compared with the average of 40 percent in 2016 (World Bank 2019). 9 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework Less common options adopted by households include biogas and LPG stoves. The use of electricity for cooking in Sierra Leone is mainly confined to commercial sectors and is now being adopted by higher- income households in urban areas. LPG is gradually gaining ground in the country, with several models of LPG stoves now available in the market, although still limited to urban areas. The Ministry of Energy has committed to the “SDG7 Cleaner Cooking Energy Compact” (GoSL MoE 2021), in which the country pledges to ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services with the following targets for 2030: • Increase the use of LPG to an adoption rate of 25% as an alternative to wood fuel. The adoption rate as per the MTF survey results is discussed in this report’s section on cooking solutions. • Aim for all households to have access to energy-saving cooking solutions Through this effort, the government is also focusing on the energy-efficient production and utilization of charcoal for cooking. MEASURING ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY USING MTF The MTF captures information on seven types of energy services, called “attributes.” Capacity (“What appliances can I power?”): The capacity of the electricity supply (or peak capacity) is the ability of the system to provide a certain amount of electricity to operate various appliances, ranging from a few watts for light-emitting diode (LED) lights and mobile phone chargers to several thousand watts for space heaters or air conditioners. First, appliances are classified into tiers based on their power ratings. Then, each household’s Appliance Tier is determined by the highest tier of all its appliances; that is, if a household owns multiple appliances, the highest-capacity appliance determines the household tier. Capacity is measured in watts for grid, mini-grid, and fossil-fuel-based generators, and in watt-hours for rechargeable batteries, solar lanterns, solar lighting systems, and solar home systems. It may be difficult to determine the Capacity attribute of the system by simple observation. An estimate of the available capacity may be done based on the source of the supply (for example, the grid is considered greater than 2,000 watts) or appliances used. Availability (“Is power available when I need it?”): The availability of supply refers to the amount of time during which electricity is available. It is measured through two indicators: the total number of hours per day (24-hour period) and the number of evening hours (the 4 hours after sunset) during which electricity is available. Reliability (“Is my service frequently interrupted?”): The reliability of electricity supply is a combination of the frequency and the duration of unexpected disruptions. In this report, the Reliability attribute is measured only for households connected to the grid. Quality (“Will voltage fluctuations damage my appliances?”): The quality of the electricity supply refers to the absence of severe voltage fluctuations that can damage a household’s appliances. Electric appliances generally require a certain level of voltage to operate properly. Low or fluctuating voltage can damage appliances, and even result in electrical fires. A low or fluctuating voltage supply tends to result from an overloaded distribution system or from long-distance low-tension cables connecting 10 dispersed households to a singular grid. The MTF survey does not measure voltage fluctuation directly but uses incidence of appliance damage as a proxy. In this report, the Quality attribute is measured for households connected to the grid only. Affordability (“Can I afford to purchase the minimum amount of electricity?”): The affordability of the electricity service is determined by comparing the price of a standard electricity service package (1 kWh of electricity per day or 365 kWh per year) with household expenditure. The price of the package is determined from the prevailing lifeline tariff. If the package costs more than 5% of the household expenditure on electricity, then electricity service is considered unaffordable for that household. Formality (“Is grid electricity provided through a formal connection?”): The formality of the grid connection is important, since it ensures that the electricity authority gets paid for the services it provides, besides providing for the safety of electric lines. A grid connection is considered formal when the bill is paid to the utility, a prepaid card seller, or an authorized representative. Informal connections pose a significant safety risk and affect the financial sustainability of the utility. Reporting on the formality of a connection is challenging. Households may be sensitive about disclosing such information in a survey. The MTF survey, thus, infers information on formality from indirect questions that respondents may be more willing to answer, such as what method a household uses to pay the electricity bill. If households use the electricity service from the grid, but do not pay anyone for the consumption, their connection is assumed to be an informal connection. Health and Safety (“Is it safe to use my electricity service?”): This attribute refers to any injuries to household members from using electricity service from the grid during the preceding 12 months of the survey. “Injury” could mean limb injury or even death from burns or electrocution. Such injuries can result not just from faulty internal wiring but also from the incorrect use of electrical appliances or negligence. The MTF analysis, however, does not make a distinction between the two. Electricity access is considered safe when users have not suffered from past accidents from their electricity supply resulting in permanent injuries. Each attribute, depending on the level of service a household receives from its main source of electricity, is assigned one of the six tiers—Tier 0 referring to the lowest level of service and Tier 5 the highest. MEASURING ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SOLUTIONS USING MTF The following attributes are integrated to capture detailed, indicator-level data for tracking stepwise progress across tiers of access: Cookstove Exposure (“How is the user’s respiratory health affected”): This is based on personal exposure to pollutants from cooking activities, which depends on stove emissions, ventilation structure, and contact time. Cookstove Efficiency (“How much fuel will a person need to use?”): Cookstove efficiency is a combination of combustion efficiency and heat-transfer efficiency. Laboratory testing of the efficiency of various types of cookstoves informs the breakdown of efficiency levels by cookstoves and fuel combinations, which can be observed in the field with relative ease. 11 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework Convenience (“How long does it take to gather and prepare the fuel and stove before a person can cook?”): Convenience is measured by the amount of time a household spends collecting or purchasing fuel and preparing the fuel and the stove for cooking. Affordability (“Can a person afford to pay for both the stove and the fuel?”): Affordability assesses a household’s ability to pay for both the cookstove and fuel. For this report, affordability is measured using the levelized cost of fuel. A cooking solution is considered affordable if a household spends less than 5% of total household expenditure on cooking fuel. Health and Safety (“Is it safe to use the stove?”): The degree of safety risk can vary by the type of cookstove and fuel used. Risks may include exposure to hot surfaces, fire, or the potential for fuel splatter. Reported incidences of past injury or fire are used to measure safety. Fuel Availability (“Is the fuel available when a person needs it?”): The availability of a given fuel can affect the regularity of fuel use, while shortages in the fuel can cause households to resort to inferior secondary fuel types. This attribute assesses the availability of fuel as needed for a household’s cooking purposes. A methodology similar to the electricity framework is applied to obtain the Aggregate Tier for modern cooking solutions. The lowest tier among the attributes is taken as the final tier for the household- Tier 0 referring to the lowest level and Tier 5 the highest. See Box 1 for an overview of cookstoves used in Sierra Leone. 12 BOX 1 • STOVE TYPOLOGY IN SIERRA LEONE During the survey, enumerators observed the following key types of cookstoves in Sierra Leone: Three-stone stove: This stove is characterized by open fire. Fuel rests on the ground. The stove consists of three large stones or blocks placed on a flat naked floor/ground in a triangular shape. There is limited or no cost of acquisition associated with this stove type. Traditional stove: This is made of mud or metal, and the fire is enclosed in the combustion chamber that is not fully insulated. Fuel rests on the ground. These are locally produced and distributed. Most stoves can use both wood and charcoal. They have low energy efficiency capacity and can expose naked flames when wood is used as fuel. LPG/gas stove: This stove uses biogas, natural gas, or LPG. The fuel is at a distance from the stove. Such stoves are mostly seen in urban areas. 3 stone/Open fire Self-buil/traditional LPG stove Source: Photos taken during CESPA’s field visits 13 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework MTF SURVEY IN SIERRA LEONE No comprehensive household energy access studies have been conducted in Sierra Leone in the past few years. The MTF household energy access baseline survey is expected to fill this gap. The MTF survey work began in April 2020 and the fieldwork was completed on April 23, 2021. This was followed by a comprehensive data review and analysis. The impact of COVID-19 was not addressed during the MTF survey. SAMPLING The sampling strategy used in this survey was based on the 2015 Population and Housing Census frame of Statistics Sierra Leone (Stats-SL 2015). The frame contains population, households, and enumeration areas (EAs). The sample frame contained a population of 7,092,113 people, 1,347,231 households, and 12,856 EAs. This was disaggregated at the district, local council, and rural/urban locality levels. The information was used as the basis to select a sample that was allocated at all levels of local government administrative divisions. The frame was used to determine an appropriate sample for the survey based on the MTF sampling protocol. A two-stage stratification sample design was followed, with census EAs selected in the first stage as survey clusters, and then 12 households within each EA or clusters selected in the second stage for the survey. In the first stage of the selection, the sample n is distributed by district and by rural/urban locality to obtain 16 districts x 2 = 32 strata.3 The sample of 4,608 households was divided among the 31 strata using probability proportional to size as per household count in the first stage. Table 1 presents the optimal households’ sample and the number of clusters. TABLE 1 District Sample EAs Sample HHs from frame Total EAs Rural Urban Total HHs Rural Urban Kailahun 27 15 12 324 180 144 Kenema District 34 16 18 408 192 216 Kono District 28 20 8 336 240 96 Bombali 21 13 8 252 156 96 Falaba 10 9 1 120 108 12 Koinadugu 11 6 5 132 72 60 Tonkilili 28 21 7 336 252 84 Karene 12 10 2 144 120 24 Kambia 17 11 6 204 132 72 Port Loko District 27 17 10 324 204 120 Bo 31 19 12 372 228 144 Bonthe District 11 8 3 132 96 36 Moyamba 15 14 1 180 168 12 Pujehun 17 15 2 204 180 24 Western Area Rural 28 2 26 336 24 312 Western Area Urban 67 0 67 804 0 804 Total 384 196 188 4,608 2,352 2,256 Source: Author Analysis Note: EA = enumeration area; HH = household. 3 This was eventually 31 strata as no rural sampled EAs exist for Western Area Urban or Freetown City. 14 MAP 1 • Household sample distribution Source: Cartography Unit of the World Bank Group 2023. Source: Cartography Unit of the World Bank Group 2023. 20 15 ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY Photo: ©World Bank / Curt Carnemark ASSESSING ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY In Sierra Leone, 21.1% of households have access to electricity via the national grid (20.5%) or mini-grid (0.6%), and 14.7% have off-grid access (figure 1). The grid/mini-grid electrification rate is about 44.7% in urban areas, but only 1.3% in rural areas. The difference between rural and urban grid electrification is therefore quite stark. Averaging both, 64.1% of all households don’t have access to electricity. FIGURE 1 • Access to electricity FIGURE 2 • Distribution of off-grid sources (binary definition, by technology) 0.1% Rechargeable battery 81.3% 0.4% 0.3% SHS 64.1% 0.1% 43.7% 44.7% 1.8% SLS 1.0% 21.1% 8.8% 17.4% 14.7% Solar lantern 15.5% 11.6% 1.3% 0.6% Electric generator 0.4% No access Grid access Off-grid access Rural Urban Nationwide Note: SHS = solar home system; SLS = solar lighting system. Off-grid sources predominantly include solar products such as solar lanterns, solar home systems (SHS), and solar lighting systems (SLS). Figure 2 provides a breakdown of technologies used for off-grid access. Data suggest that off-grid use is limited to rural areas. The adoption of solar lanterns, however, is significantly higher in rural areas. Other off-grid sources include electric generators and rechargeable batteries. 76.0% 0.3% 15.8% 2.4% 4.2% 1.3% Nationwide 52.6% 31.2% 0.6% 4.0% 2.8% 8.8% 17 Urban 0.3% 21.1% 8.8% 17.4% 14.7% Solar lantern 15.5% 11.6% 1.3% 0.6% Electric SIERRA LEONE | Energy generator Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework 0.4% No access Grid access Off-grid access Based on MTF, households above Tier 0 are considered to have access to electricity. Based on this, 24% of households in Sierra Leone are in Tier 1 or above, with about 4.1% in rural and almost 47.4% in share of urban areas. Tier 0 has the highest Rural Nationwide nationwide, 95.7% in rural areas, and households—76% Urban 52.6% in urban areas. These are households who largely don’t have a source of electricity, barring a small fraction of households who rely on off-grid sources of electricity. Across other tiers, there is an urban-rural disparity. Only 0.3% of rural households are in Tier 3, while this figure is 8.8% for urban areas. Similarly, only 2.8% of rural households are in Tier 2, while this figure is 31.2% for urban areas. Only 0.3% of households fall under Tier 5. No households in rural areas fall in Tier 5 (figure 3). FIGURE 3 • MTF Aggregate Tier (rural, urban, nationwide) 76.0% 0.3% 15.8% 2.4% 4.2% 1.3% Nationwide 52.6% 31.2% 0.6% 4.0% 2.8% 8.8% Urban 0.3% 95.7% 2.8% 1.0% Rural Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 In Sierra Leone, 19.7% of grid-connected households are in lower levels of service (Tiers 0–3) (figure 4). Households in Tiers 2–5 are almost all grid-connected, with less than 1.9% being users of off-grid sources (in Tier 2). On the other hand, households in Tier 0 are largely without any source of electricity, except for a fraction (11.5 %) who use off-grid sources of electricity. FIGURE 4 • MTF Tier by technology 1.9% 1.0% 64.1% 4.0% 1.3% 0.2% 13.9% 1.4% 11.5% 0.4% Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 No access Off-grid access Grid access 18 1.0% 64.1% 4.0% 1.3% 0.2% 13.9% ELECTRICITY ACCESS BY HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC STATUS 1.4% 11.5% The economic status of households is one of the key determinants for connecting to the national 0.4% grid (Sarkodie and Adams 2020). This makes it important to take a deeper look at the distribution of household Tier 0 expenditure Tier 1 for household (proxy Tier 2 Tier 3 by the source income) quintiles Tier 4 Tier of electricity. 5 Low-quintile households are often seen as a later connector No access to electricity. Off-grid access Grid access In Sierra Leone, it is evident that higher-quintile households are more likely to be connected to the grid (figure 5). Grid connectivity is at 5.5% for the lowest quintile group, while this is 38.9% for the highest quintile group. FIGURE 5 • Main source of electricity by household expenditure quintiles 44.8% 56.8% 63.4% 64.1% 74.9% 80.0% 0.4% 13.8% 0.3% 1.5% 0.7% 0.2% 17.7% 0.3% 14.8% 0.2% 14.0% 0.3% 0.2% 1.3% 0.5% 11.0.% 0.4% 38.9% 0.6% 0.2% 12.7% 0.1% 23.5% 21.0% 20.5% 0.4% 13.7% 0.4% 5.5% 1st Quintile 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile 5th Quintile Total National grid Local mini-grid Electric generator Solar lantern/SLS/SHS Rechargeable battery No electricity Note: SHS = solar home system; SLS = solar lighting system. ANALYSIS OF MTF ATTRIBUTES FOR ELECTRICITY ACCESS CAPACITY The Capacity attribute represents the ability to provide a certain amount of electricity to power various appliances, ranging from a few watts for light-emitting diode (LED) lights and mobile phone chargers to several thousand watts for space heaters or air conditioners. All grid-connected households are considered to have high-capacity electricity (over 2 kW) and are consequently assigned a Tier value of 5. Similarly, households using mini-grids are assumed to have high-capacity electricity (Tier 5) unless the use of appliances is constrained by the capacity limit imposed by the supplier. Households using SHSs are assigned to Tiers based on their appliances. For Sierra Leone overall, 21.5% of the households are in Tier 5, and 78.2% are in Tier 0 (figure 6). Thus, capacity can be seen as a major constraint for households. 19 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 6 • Capacity attribute 78.2% 0.9% 21.5% 1.0% Nationwide 55.7% 1.1% 45.5% 1.1% Urban 1.4% 97.2% 0.8% 0.9% Rural 78.2% 0.9% 21.5% 1.0% Nationwide Tier 0 (< 3W) Tier 1 (3–49W) Tier 2–4 (50–1999W) Tier 5 (> 2kW) 55.7% 1.1% 45.5% 1.1% AVAILABILITY Urban 3.0% 12.8% 46.6% 29.4% 8.3% The Availability attribute consists of two components: daily (24 hours) and evening availability (4 hours 1.4% between 6 pm and 10 pm). Nationwide, only 8.3% of the household with electricity access 0.8% 0.9% enjoy over 97.2% Nationwide 23 hours of service a day, and among the urban and rural households, the share of such households Rural is 10.8% and respectively. About 1.7%, 12.5% 1.6% 3% of all households with electricity 35.5% 39.5%access get a maximum10.8% of 4 hours of service per day. Out of all Availability tiers, the largest share of households gets between 4 hours of service Tier and 8Urban per0day (figure 7). (< 3W) Tier 1 (3–49W) Tier 2–4 (50–1999W) Tier 5 (> 2kW) FIGURE 7 •6.6% Availability 13.4% attribute (daily) 75.0% 3.3% 1.7% Rural 3.0% 12.8% 46.6% 29.4% 8.3% Nationwide Tier 0 (<4 hours) Tier 2 (4–8 hours) Tier 3 (8–16 hours) Tier 4 (16–23 hours) Tier 5 (>23 hours) 1.6% 12.5% 35.5% 39.5% 10.8% 1.1% Urban 4.8% 23.6% 31.7% 38.8% Nationwide 6.6% 13.4% 75.0% 1.7% 3.3% 1.1% Rural 5.7% 28.4% 24.6% 40.1% Urban Tier 0 (<4 hours) Tier 2 (4–8 hours) Tier 3 (8–16 hours) Tier 4 (16–23 hours) Tier 5 (>23 hours) 1.0% 2.8% 11.7% 49.1% 35.4% 1.1% 4.8% 23.6% 31.7% 38.8% Rural Nationwide 1.1% Tier 0 (<1 hours) Tier 1 (1–2 hours) Tier 2 (2–3 hours) Tier 3 (3–4 hours) Tier 5 (4 hours) 5.7% 28.4% 24.6% 40.1% Urban 1.0% 2.8% 11.7% 49.1% 35.4% Rural 20 1.6% 12.5% 35.5% 39.5% 10.8% Urban 6.6% 13.4% 75.0% 1.7% 3.3% As for Rural the evening Availability, 38.8% of households enjoy good hours of service (4 hours). However, a bulk of households (61.2%) still receive less than 4 hours of service (figure 8). Tier 0 (<4 hours) Tier 2 (4–8 hours) Tier 3 (8–16 hours) Tier 4 (16–23 hours) Tier 5 (>23 hours) FIGURE 8 • Availability attribute (evening) 1.1% 4.8% 23.6% 31.7% 38.8% Nationwide 1.1% 5.7% 28.4% 24.6% 40.1% Urban 1.0% 2.8% 11.7% 49.1% 35.4% Rural Tier 0 (<1 hours) Tier 1 (1–2 hours) Tier 2 (2–3 hours) Tier 3 (3–4 hours) Tier 5 (4 hours) RELIABILITY The Reliability attribute captures the frequency and duration of unscheduled outages, and it applies only to grid-connected households. Reliability is a critical issue in Sierra Leone, where 34.6% of grid- connected households have more than 14 outages per week, and 62% report 3–14 interruptions per week. Compared to urban households, rural households face more than twice the number of interruptions that are greater than 14 per week. Only 3.4 households nationwide indicated high reliability (figure 9). FIGURE 9 • Reliability attribute 34.6% 62.0% 3.4% Nationwide 35.4% 61.2% 3.4% Rural 12.9% 84.2% 2.8% Urban Tier 3 (>14 interruptions) Tier 4 (3-14 interruptions or <=3 interruptions lasting >2 hours in total) Tier 5 (<=3 interruptions lasting <=2 hours in total) 40.3% 59.7% Nationwide 40.7% 59.3% 21 Urban 34.6% 62.0% 3.4% Nationwide SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework 35.4% 61.2% 3.4% QUALITY Rural The Quality attribute applies only to the grid-connected households. Electric appliances require a certain 12.9% 84.2% 2.8% voltage supply to operate properly. A low or fluctuating voltage can damage appliances, and even worse, may result Urban in electrical fires. A low or fluctuating voltage supply tends to result from an overloaded distribution system or from long-distance low-tension cables connecting dispersed households to a 34.6% 62.0% 3.4% single grid. The MTF survey does not measure voltage fluctuations directly but uses incidents of appliance damage as a proxy for voltage fluctuations. Nationwide In Sierra Leone, 40.3% of grid-connected households face Tier 3 (>14 interruptions) voltage issues, resulting in appliance damage. Tier 4 or <=3 a This is quite (3-14 interruptions significant interruptions amount lasting (figure >2 hours 10). There is a in total) large difference between35.4%urban and rural areas for voltage issues—40.7% Tier 5 (<=3 interruptions lasting <=2 hours in total) 61.2% of urban households report 3.4% inadequate voltage while this figure is at 29.1% for rural areas. Rural FIGURE 10 • Quality attribute 12.9% 84.2% 2.8% 40.3% 59.7% Urban Nationwide 40.7% Tier 3 (>14 interruptions) 59.3% Tier 4 (3-14 interruptions or <=3 interruptions lasting >2 hours in total) Urban Tier 5 (<=3 interruptions lasting <=2 hours in total) 29.1% 70.9% Rural 40.3% 59.7% Tier 3 (inadequate voltage) Tier 5 (adequate voltage) Nationwide AFFORDABILITY 40.7% 59.3% 63.8% 36.2% Affordability Urban is determined by comparing the price of a standard electricity service package with household Nationwide expenditure, where the standard/basic service package is defined as the consumption of 1 kWh of electricity a29.1% day or 365 kWh/year. In Sierra Leone, the tariff 70.9% for residential consumers is Le 49.3% service charge of Le 10,500. This amounts 1,840 per Kwh, along with a monthly 50.7%to Le 797,600 for basic Rural electricity service per year. Affordability becomes a major constraint for households, with electricity Urban amounting to more than 5% of household expenditure for 63.8% of households nationwide (figure 11). At 76%, this is higher for rural households voltage)to urban households compared 76.0% Tier 3 (inadequate (49.3%). Tier 5 (adequate voltage) 24.0% Rural FIGURE 11 • Affordability attribute 63.8% 36.2% Tier 2 (cost of 365kWh/year > 5% household expenditure) Tier 5 (cost of 365kWh/year < 5% household expenditure) Nationwide 49.3% 50.7% Urban 76.0% 24.0% Rural Tier 2 (cost of 365kWh/year > 5% household expenditure) Tier 5 (cost of 365kWh/year < 5% household expenditure) 22 FORMALITY Formality refers to a household grid connection that is provided and/or sanctioned by the authority. Thus, this attribute is applicable only to grid-connected households. The MTF survey questionnaire does not ask directly about the Formality of the connection, as respondents may not be forthcoming. Instead, the respondents are asked whom they pay for the electricity use, and any response indicating a non-payment is inferred as having an informal connection. In Sierra Leone, informal grid connection is not seen as an issue (figure 12). FIGURE 12 • Formality attribute 100.0% Nationwide Tier 5 (formal connection) SAFETY HEALTH AND 0.3% 99.7% TheNationwide Health and Safety attribute refers to any injuries to household members from using electricity service from the grid during the preceding 12 months of the survey. Injury could mean limb injury or even death from burns or electrocution. Such injuries can happen not just from faulty internal wiring 100.0% or from incorrect use of electric appliances Tier 3 (accidents or negligence. in the past 12 months) MTF analysis, Tier however, 5 (no accidents does in the past 12 not make a months) distinction Nationwide between the two. Incidents of injuries from electricity use are very low, affecting only 0.3% of grid-connected households. Safety is not a constraint for electricity service users in Sierra Leone (figure 13). Tier 5 (formal connection) FIGURE 13 • Health and Safety attribute Live in non-electrified Eas 66.0% 0.3% 99.7% Not connected to grid but in electrified Eas Nationwide 11.3% (in proximity to the grid) Connected Tier to grid 3 (accidents in the past 12 months) 22.8% Tier 5 (no accidents in the past 12 months) Live in non-electrified Eas 66.0% 4.4% 5.4% 7.8% 6.8% 10.0% 12.0% 8.9% 12.7% Eas Not connected to grid but in electrified 15.7% 24.4% 12.8% 11.3% (in proximity to the grid) 28.5% 19.4% 31.7% 16.4% 25.5% 26.4% 10.7% 21.2% to grid Connected 22.8% 28.8% 17.6% 30.6% 11.5% 18.8% 8.2% 12.5% 46.9% 8.9% 8.1% 5.3% 30.0% 25.3% 4.4% 15.4% 14.7% 12.5% 189,000 391,500 580,500 769,499 958,500 1,350,000 (14%) (29%) (43%) (57%) (71%) (100%) 4.4% 5.4% 7.8% 6.8% 10.0% 12.0% 8.9% 12.7% 6 months 23 Up front 3 months 12 months 15.7% Connection fee waived Never 12.8% 24.4% 19.4% 28.5% 31.7% SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework 100.0% IMPROVING ELECTRICITY ACCESS Nationwide Tier 5 (formal connection) GIVING ELECTRICITY ACCESS TO THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS 0.3% in areas where the grid network is available The uptake rate 99.7%presents the opportunity for progress if the demand-related barriers are assessed and appropriately tackled. In Sierra Leone, approximately two- Nationwide thirds of population currently live in the areas where the grid network is not available. About one-third of the population live in the areas where the grid infrastructure is available (“proximity to the grid”), but only about one-third of them are connected to the grid. The majority of these populations mentioned Tier 3 (accidents that the high up-front connection is past in the cost 12 months) a barrier for them Tier 5 (no accidents to access in the past 12 grid electricity months) (figure 14). FIGURE 14 • Household grid connection status vis-à-vis enumerator area (EA) status Live in non-electrified Eas 66.0% Not connected to grid but in electrified Eas 11.3% (in proximity to the grid) Connected to grid 22.8% For this reason, a willingness-to-pay (WTP) analysis has been carried out. During the survey interviews, non-grid households were asked if they would adopt grid electricity if it was offered to them at a certain price and with a certain payment plan, which were randomly selected from a range of prices and payment options 4.4% to pay for the connection. Households 5.4% (not connected to the grid) were randomly 6.8% 7.8% 10.0% 12.0% the following: 14%, assign one of 8.9% 12.7%29%, 43%, 57%, 71% or 100% of the connection cost. They were then 15.7% 24.4% given the option12.8% to choose the tenure of payment they preferred. As reference, a current connection 19.4% 28.5% 31.7% fee (residential) is Le 1,350,000 (figure 15). Results showed that 46.9% of households were willing to 16.4% 25.5% connection cost. This amount fell to 12.5% pay up front, if the connection cost was 14% of the existing26.4% 21.2% if the existing 10.7% connection cost was proposed. 28.8% 17.6% 30.6% 11.5% 18.8% WTP for the grid is very high in Sierra Leone. 46.9% A large share of households 8.2% would connect to the grid 12.5% 8.1% 8.9% depending on (1) the flexibility of payment 30.0% and (2) 25.3% cost of connection. Across the 5.3% board, WTP significantly 4.4% increases if longer financing terms are offered. It is clear that relatively more 15.4% 12.5% might affluent households 14.7% be able to afford access 189,000 now if the right 391,500 financing is 580,500 offered. 769,499 958,500 1,350,000 (14%) (29%) (43%) (57%) (71%) (100%) Up front 3 months 6 months 12 months Connection fee waived Never 24 Connected to grid 22.8% FIGURE 15 • Households’ willingness to connect to grid (leones, nationwide) 4.4% 5.4% 7.8% 6.8% 10.0% 12.0% 8.9% 12.7% 15.7% 24.4% 12.8% 19.4% 28.5% 31.7% 16.4% 25.5% 26.4% 10.7% 21.2% 28.8% 17.6% 30.6% 11.5% 18.8% 8.2% 12.5% 46.9% 8.9% 8.1% 5.3% 30.0% 25.3% 4.4% 15.4% 14.7% 12.5% 189,000 391,500 580,500 769,499 958,500 1,350,000 (14%) (29%) (43%) (57%) (71%) (100%) Up front 3 months 6 months 12 months Connection fee waived Never Taking a closer look at WTP specifically for households who are not connected to the grid but are located in electrified areas (figure 16), we see that WTP for each category of grid connection fee is higher than the national average. This represents a section of the non-electrified population that could potentially connect to the grid in the short run. FIGURE 16 • Households’ willingness to connect to grid (no access households in electrified enumeration areas) 5.4% 8.1% 9.8% 8.5% 5.0% 16.7% 12.7% 4.9% 9.9% 18.2% 21.6% 16.2% 12.9% 14.9% 15.8% 9.3% 12.9% 9.2% 11.1% 23.5% 22.5% 10.4% 12.3% 21.0% 10.0% 13.2% 17.6% 14.9% 62.3% 14.2% 9.9% 37.0% 32.7% 21.1% 29.8% 24.3% 189,000 391,500 580,500 769,499 958,500 1,350,000 (14%) (29%) (43%) (57%) (71%) (100%) Up front 3 months 6 months 12 months Connection fee waived Never However, more than two-thirds of population in Sierra Leone live in the areas where the grid network available. is notArea A majority under new 1.8% Other households report that the grid is of both urban (64.1%) and rural (92.6%) It is uncertain for those living in the areas with too far. development no grid Area under newinfrastructure when the grid will be 2.7% eventually Company expanded refused to cover the community where these 0.1% households are living. development Submitted application 2.1% Company refused 0% and waiting Submitted application Complicated 0.4% and waiting 0.1% administrative process Complicated 3.3% Service unreliable 0.1% administrative process Monthly fee 1.9% 0.1% Service unreliable is expensive Too expensive 27.7% Too expensive 1.1% Too far 64.1% Too far 92.6% 25 37.0% 32.7% 21.1% 29.8% 24.3% 189,000 391,500 580,500 769,499 958,500 1,350,000 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework (14%) (29%) (43%) (57%) (71%) (100%) Up front 3 months 6 months 12 months Connection fee waived Never FIGURE 17 • Barriers to gaining electricity FIGURE 18 • Barriers to gaining electricity access (urban) access (rural) Area under new Other 1.8% development Area under new 2.7% Company refused 0.1% development Submitted application 2.1% Company refused 0% and waiting Submitted application Complicated 0.4% and waiting 0.1% administrative process Complicated 3.3% Service unreliable 0.1% administrative process Monthly fee 1.9% 0.1% Service unreliable is expensive Too expensive 27.7% Too expensive 1.1% Too far 64.1% Too far 92.6% Given the fact that a majority of unelectrified households indicate they are not yet connected to the grid because it is cost prohibitive, and that a large number of households use off-grid solutions, it is expected that the energy consumption of currently grid unelectrified households will be much lower than the currently electrified households. Off-grid solutions could be one way of addressing low electricity access in these areas. The analysis of the WTP for solar devices4 is high for Tier 1 solutions,5 with 49.4% of households agreeing to purchase up front if the purchase price was 33% of the existing price (figure 19). Similarly, 16.5% of households agreed to purchase a Tier 2 device6 up front if the purchase price was 33% of the existing price (figure 20). FIGURE 19 • WTP for Tier 1 device: Solar FIGURE 20 • WTP for Tier 2 device: Advanced lighting system with mobile phone charger solar home system with 120kWh per day and 12V DC appliances 8.5% 10.2% 11.7% 7.8% 5.5% 24.7% 28.3% 42.3% 9.4% 13.1% 17.0% 22.9% 21.4% 21.2% 26.3% 27.5% 27.2% 25.8% 29.5% 22.8% 49.4% 15.4% 39.9% 7.9% 8.7% 28.9% 6.3% 16.5% 14.0% 10.2% 99,000 198,000 300,000 1,481,700 2,963,400 4,490,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) Up front 6 months 12 months Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never 24 months Never Note: WTP = willingness to pay. Note: WTP = willingness to pay. 4 Households were randomly assigned one of the following: 33%, 66%, or 100% of the cost of either a Tier 1 or Tier 2 solar device. They were then given the option to choose the tenure of payment they preferred. 5 Solar lighting system with mobile phone charger and 12V DC appliances. 6 WTP for Tier 2 device—advanced solar home system with 120kWh per day. 26 1.2% 0.7% 3.8% 10.1% 77.6% 4.5% IMPROVING THE QUALITY, RELIABILITY, AND AFFORDABILITY OF ELECTRICITY FOR GRID-CONNECTED 8.5% HOUSEHOLDS 10.2% 11.7% 7.8% 5.5% 24.7% 28.3% 42.3% 9.4% households consume Grid-electrified 13.1% 17.0% 49.9 kWh per month on average, but this figure declines to 41.6 kWh among rural populations. While the top quintile of grid-electrified households consume 68.2 kWh 22.9% 21.4% per month, the bottom 21.2% 40% households consume 40.86 kWh per month. 26.3% 27.5% 25.8% Despite having access to the grid network, grid-connected 27.2% households can hardly maximize the benefits 29.5% 22.8% of electricity due to (1) unreliable supply of electricity with voltage fluctuations, (2) unaffordable price 49.4% 15.4% of 39.9%of supply. As seen in the analysis 7.9% of electricity, and (3) poor quality of the reliability 8.7% attribute, 34.6% 28.9% grid-connected households have more than 14 outages per week, and 62% report 14.0% 6.3% per 3–14 interruptions 16.5% week. Rural households face more than twice the number of interruptions that are up to 14 per week. 10.2% Affordability is a major 99,000 constraint, with 198,000 electricity amounting 300,000 1,481,700 to more than2,963,400 4,490,000 5% of household expenditure for 64.6% (33%) of households (66%) nationwide.(100%) (33%) Lastly, 40.3% of grid-connected (66%) households face (100%) voltage issues, resulting inUpappliance front damage. 12 months 6 months Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never 24 months Never Grid-connected households, therefore, rely on the backup sources to cope with insufficient supply and frequent interruptions. In Sierra Leone, more than 85% of the grid-connected households use a back-up source for lighting purposes (figure 21). Out of those, 3.8% use generators and 10.1% use solar lanterns. Most households rely on a dry cell battery to power a flashlight (77.6%). This use of backup sources is an additional cost that households need to incur to supplement electricity access. FIGURE 21 • Back-up sources of lighting for grid-connected households (lighting only) 1.2% 0.7% 3.8% 10.1% 1.5% 0.7% 77.6% 4.5% Nationwide Electric generator Solar lantern Solar lighting system Solar home system Rechargeable battery Candle Dry-cell battery Other POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON ELECTRICITY ACCESS 71.2% 27.9% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% Nationwide Sierra Leone has seen an improvement in electricity access in recent years. However, a lot needs to be done to move households to higher Tiers. Nationwide, 76% of households fall in Tier 0, with0.1% a larger 41.7% 56.6% 0.1% burden being borne by rural areas (95.7% under Tier 0). It is critical to provide 1.2% 0.4% these households to electricity through national, mini-grid, or other off-grid solutions. Some of the specific policy access Urban recommendations include the following: 95.0% 0.2% 4.7% 0.1% For grid-connected households, address reliability, availability, and quality concerns. Improvement Rural (reducing the number and duration of outages), as well as in its availability (increasing the in reliability amount of time during which electricity service is available) and quality (reducing voltage fluctuation), could shift nearly 15.1% of households to the highest tiers (Tier 4 or 5). These issues are a function of 3-stones/open fire both utility health (transmission stove and Locally distribution) built/traditional and Manufactured constraints with respect biomass to generation capacity- LPG stove both require continued focus. Biogas Electric stove Other 27 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework Affordability for grid connection costs and tariffs should be considered. The Sierra Leone Electricity and Water Regulatory Commission recently revised tariff rates for all customers (GoSL EWRC 2023). Given that affordability is a concern for Sierra Leone, the new revision is likely to impact the MTF Affordability attribute, with more households citing this as an issue. Considering this development, it is also important to continue ensuring the formality and safety of electricity connections. For off-grid households, the following strategies can be used to improve access: • Improve access to the national grid and mini-grids. • Optimal energy solutions with the least cost need to be formulated, considering the population density, the distance to the national grid network, potential electricity demand from various types of customers, and the socioeconomic environment. With the advancement in the geographic information system technology, the optimal energy solutions are often devised using the geospatial planning methodology. • Densify the grid, especially by offering payment periods for the connection cost and more financing options, which would effectively address the financial barrier of the connection fee that households face. Beyond grid densification, expansion of the grid infrastructure can provide electricity to those without electricity if this is the lowest-cost approach. • For settlements located far from the grid infrastructure with sizeable electricity demand from households as well as productive uses, mini-grid development should be considered. • Improve access to off-grid solutions. • Off-grid solar products may often be a more feasible solution for households in areas where the grid infrastructure is not available. The market for solar products is not yet developed in Sierra Leone. Very few products are distributed, and few households use them. Consumer programs could raise awareness among potential customers and build the demand. It could also raise their willingness to pay for solar products, as would providing subsidies and leasing opportunities to increase the adoption of solar devices. • The government of Sierra Leone has already taken important steps to promote the use of off- grid solar solutions. § Elimination of import duties for qualifying solar equipment § Establishment of the quality standards—IEC global quality standards which is harmonized with IFC/World Bank standards—as a requirement for tax-free status § Mandating that the Ministry of Energy maintain the list of qualifying products § Implementation of tax-free status with customs and port officials to enable expedited “green lane” importation for qualifying products. These policies and initiatives have seen the rise of solar product importation, marketing, and use in the country over the past four years. Several solar product distribution companies have emerged in the country as a result, leading to an increase in the use of solar products both for lighting and other domestic energy uses. Solar energy products are often openly visible in the local market with varieties of end-uses. including solar off-grid and stand-alone solar home systems. 28 ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING Photo: ©Flore de Preneuf / World Bank SOLUTIONS 49.4% 15.4% 39.9% 7.9% 8.7% 28.9% 6.3% 16.5% 14.0% 10.2% 99,000 198,000 300,000 1,481,700 2,963,400 4,490,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) Up front 6 months 12 months Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never 24 months Never TECHNOLOGY A majority of households (71.2%) in Sierra Leone use three-stone open-fired stoves as their main cookstove. This is followed by traditional cookstoves (27.9%). Households rarely use multiple stoves (2.3%). There is very little 1.2%adoption of clean stoves, with gas stoves using liquefied petroleum gas 3.8% 10.1% 0.7% 77.6% 4.5% (LPG) accounting for only 0.6% 1.5% 0.7%stoves across households. Biomass and biogas stoves of main amount to a very small share (0.3%). Nationwide There is a large variation between urban and rural areas in terms of stove usage, with traditional stoves being more prevalent in urban areas (56.6%) compared to rural areas (4.7%). Most of the Electric generator Solar lantern Solar lighting system Solar home system rural population use three-stone open-fired stove (95%). LPG stoves seem more likely to be Rechargeable battery Candle Dry-cell battery Other used in urban areas, with 1.2% usage in urban areas compared to none in rural areas (figure 22). FIGURE 22 • Stove usage 71.2% 27.9% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% Nationwide 41.7% 56.6% 0.1% 0.1% 1.2% 0.4% Urban 95.0% 0.2% 4.7% 0.1% Rural 3-stones/open fire stove Locally built/traditional Manufactured biomass LPG stove Biogas Electric stove Other Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. FUEL USE Fuel usage for cooking largely depends on the type of stove used by a household. Often, households may use two different types of fuel for the same type of stove. In the case of Sierra Leone, both firewood and charcoal can be deployed in traditional cookstoves. We see households stacking three types of fuels (figure 23): firewood that has been purchased, firewood that has been collected, and charcoal. Fifty-three percent of households across the country use collected firewood. Rural households largely rely on both wood collected (82%) and wood purchased (12.2%), while urban households depend more on charcoal (63.2%) compared to rural households (5%). 31 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework The share of fuels such as kerosene and coal is quite limited, and only 0.5% of households indicate using “other fuels.”7 FIGURE 23 • Cooking fuel usage indicated by households 82.7% 63.2% 53.0% 82.7% 31.4% 17.2% 18.1% 14.8% 12.2% 63.2% 44.7% 53.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.5% Wood purchased Wood collected Charcoal Kerosene/paraffin Coal/lignite Other fuels Rural Urban Nationwide 31.4% 17.2% 18.1% MTF ANALYSIS 12.2% 14.8% 15.8% 44.7% 70.3% 13.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.5% Households Nationwide are largely in Tier 1 (70.3%), followed by Tier 0 (15.8%). There is some variation between aggregate and urban tiers in ruralWood Wood purchased areas: 26.5% collected of urban Charcoal households fall Kerosene/paraffin in Tier 2, while Coal/lignite thisfuels is the case Other only for 2.1% of rural 15.9%households. No rural 0.6% Rural households 55.8% Urban fall under higher tiers (Tiers Nationwide 3–5), 26.5% while 1.1% 1.7% of urban households fall under higher tiers (figure 24). Urban FIGURE 24 • MTF Aggregate Tier for cooking solutions 15.7% 82.1% 2.1% 15.8% 70.3% 13.1% 0.3% Rural 0.5% Nationwide Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 5 15.9% 55.8% 26.5% 1.1% 0.6% Urban 0.7% 16.0% 66.6% 16.6% 0.1% 15.7% 82.1% 2.1% Nationwide Rural 16.1% 48.9% 33.4% 1.6% Urban Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 5 0.1% 15.9% 81.1% 2.9% 0.7% Rural 16.0% 66.6% 16.6% 7 These include biomass, biogas, garbage/plastic, and LPG/cooking gas. 0.1% Nationwide 32 Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 5 16.1% 48.9% 33.4% 1.6% The State of Access to Electricity for Enterprises in Nepal 15.8% 70.3% 13.1% 0.3% 0.5% MTF ATTRIBUTES FOR COOKING SOLUTIONS Nationwide 15.9% 55.8% 26.5% 0.6% 1.1% Urban COOKING EXPOSURE 15.7% 82.1% 2.1% The Cooking Exposure attribute is meant to assess exposure that family members may face due to cooking activities. The majority of both rural (81.1%) and urban households (48.9%) fall under Tier 1. A Rural significant number of urban households fall under Tier 2 (33.4%) compared to rural households (2.9%) (figure 25). Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 5 FIGURE 25 • Cooking Exposure attribute 0.7% 16.0% 66.6% 16.6% 0.1% Nationwide 16.1% 48.9% 33.4% 1.6% Urban 0.1% 15.9% 81.1% 2.9% Rural Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 5 CONVENIENCE The Convenience attribute is calculated based on how much time is spent acquiring fuels (through collection or purchase), as well as preparing fuels and the stoves for cooking. Given that firewood and charcoal are the most commonly used cooking fuels in Sierra Leone, it is expected that households spend a significant time collecting fuel. As such, 66.7% of all households spend more than or equal to 7 hours per week on this. There is also an urban-rural gap—36.3% of urban households are in Tier 2, while less than 13.6% of rural households fall in the same tier. Only 2.1% of households fall in Tiers 4-5, and these are located in urban areas (figure 26). FIGURE 26 • Convenience attribute 0.8% 67.6% 23.8% 1.3% 6.6% Nationwide 1.7% 46.2% 36.3% 2.8% 13.0% Urban 84.9% 13.6% 1.5% Rural Tier 1 (>=7 hr/wk) Tier 2 (<7hr/wk) Tier 3 (<3 hr/wk) Tier 4 (<1.5 hr/wk) Tier 5 (<=0.5 hr/wk) 33 0.8% 67.6% 23.8% 1.3% 6.6% Nationwide SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework 1.7% 46.2% 36.3% 2.8% 13.0% FUEL AFFORDABILITY Urban 1.5% The Fuel Affordability attribute seeks to understand 84.9%whether households are restricted from adopting 13.6% cleaner cooking options due to cost constraints. It is a binary attribute and is measured by comparing Rural the levelized cost of cooking solution (stove and fuel). A household is assigned Tier 5 if the cost is less than 5% of its overall expenditure, and Tier 3 otherwise. In Sierra Leone, 92.5% of rural households 0.8%and 67.6% 23.8% 1.3% 79.1% of urban household fallTier in Tier 5. This 1 (>=7 hr/wk) is because a bulk Tier 2 (<7hr/wk) of these households Tier 3 (<3 hr/wk) 6.6% rely on firewood NationwideMeanwhile, 20.9% of all households spend more than 5% of their overall expenditure on collection. Tier 4 (<1.5 hr/wk) Tier 5 (<=0.5 hr/wk) fuel, and this is higher in urban areas (37.4%) compared to rural areas (7.5%) (figure 27). 1.7% 46.2% 36.3% 2.8% 13.0% FIGURE 27 • Fuel Affordability attribute Urban 20.9% 79.1% 84.9% 13.6% 1.5% Nationwide Rural 37.4% 62.6% Urban Tier 1 (>=7 hr/wk) Tier 2 (<7hr/wk) Tier 3 (<3 hr/wk) 7.5% Tier 4 (<1.5 hr/wk) Tier 5 (<=0.5 hr/wk) 92.5% Rural 20.9% 79.1% Tier 3 (cooking fuel exp > 5% & <10% HH total exp) Tier 5 (cooking fuel exp < 5% HH total exp) Nationwide Note: HH = household. 37.4% 62.6% Urban 15.7% 21.0% 63.3% SAFETY OF PRIMARY COOKSTOVE Nationwide 7.5% 92.5% This attribute assesses the safety of the primary cookstove, determined by the incidents of serious Rural 20.3% 18.3% 61.4% health issues arising from the use of the cookstove during the year preceding the survey. Households Urban Tier 2 if they report serious incidents, Tier 3 if they report minor incidents, and Tier 5 are assigned otherwise. Both rural and urban households indicate serious as Tier 3 (cooking fuel exp > 5% & <10% HH total exp) well as minor accidents; 63.3% of all Tier 5 (cooking fuel exp < 5% HH total exp) 12.0% 23.2% 64.8% households fall in Tier 5, with no reported incidents of injury due to cookstove use (figure 28). Rural FIGURE 28 • Safety attribute 15.7% 21.0% 63.3% Tier 2 (Serious accidents) Tier 3 (Minor accidents) Tier 5 (None) Nationwide 20.3% 18.3% 61.4% Urban 12.0% 23.2% 64.8% Rural Tier 2 (Serious accidents) Tier 3 (Minor accidents) Tier 5 (None) 34 The State of Access to Electricity for Enterprises in Nepal FUEL AVAILABILITY A very small proportion of households indicate that the primary fuel is always available (6.5%), while 39.8% indicate that the fuel is “mostly available.” However, a sizable share (over 40%) of households also report issues with fuel availability. While this a critical area for improvement, these results are not surprising, because firewood and charcoal are the primary fuels for a majority of the households (figure 29). FIGURE 29 • Fuel Availability attribute 40.7% 13.0% 39.8% 6.5% Nationwide 33.8% 19.5% 38.0% 8.7% Urban 46.1% 7.9% 41.1% 4.9% Rural Tier 2 (rarely available) Tier 3 (sometimes available) Tier 4 (mostly available) Tier 5 (always available) IMPROVING ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SOLUTIONS Given that households find fuel availability an issue, and the fact that three-stone and traditional 8.3% cookstoves result in 14.3% there is 13.2% safety risks, 17.3% a need to move toward 15.5% 19.1% better cooking solutions. To that 3.4% end, a willingness-to-pay (WTP) analysis 3.7% for improved cookstoves (ICSs) has been carried out. For 14.7% households who use 10.4%or traditional stoves three-stone 7.5% only, one of the three ICS options were offered 11.1% 12.7% randomly (low-cost wood-based ICS at Le 175,000, and high-cost 14.3% wood-based ICSs and charcoal ICSs at 63.6% Le 3,500,000). Each of these were offered either with up-front, biannual, annual, or 24-month payment 21.0% 24.7% 21.3% 23.7% 78.7% options. Findings from the WTP analysis are quite useful in understanding the specific price points and 85.1% 27.7% payment options that could nudge households toward ICSs. 25.6% Households are interested 24.3% in up-front payments (52.5%) 22.1% 23.3% if the cost of the low-cost stove is further reduces consistently with increments reduced to 33% (at Le 57,750). The willingness to pay up front19.3% 14.9% 52.5% Only 4.4% of households are willing to pay up front for the charcoal-based ICSs, even in stove prices. 42.6% when its price has dropped by 33% (to Le 1,155,000) (figure 30). 28.4% 28.5% 11.5% 26.4% 15.9% 21.6% 11.3% 7.4% 1.2% 0.8% 3.0% 4.4% 1.6% 0.5% 57,750 115,500 175,000 82,500 165,000 250,000 1,155,000 2,310,000 3,500,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) ICS- Wood based (175,000) ICS- Wood based (250,000) ICS- Charcoal based (3,500,000) Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never 35 Tier 2 (rarely available) Tier 3 (sometimes available) Tier 4 (mostly available) Tier 5 (always available) SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 30 • Willingness to pay for improved cookstoves (leones, nationwide) a. ICS: Wood-based (175,000) b. ICS: Wood-based (250,000) c. ICS: Charcoal-based (3,500,000) 8.3% 17.3% 14.3% 13.2% 15.5% 3.4% 19.1% 3.7% 14.7% 7.5% 10.4% 11.1% 12.7% 14.3% 63.6% 21.0% 24.7% 21.3% 23.7% 78.7% 85.1% 27.7% 25.6% 22.1% 24.3% 23.3% 19.3% 14.9% 52.5% 42.6% 28.4% 28.5% 11.5% 26.4% 15.9% 21.6% 11.3% 7.4% 1.2% 0.8% 3.0% 4.4% 1.6% 0.5% 57,750 115,500 175,000 82,500 165,000 250,000 1,155,000 2,310,000 3,500,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) ICS- Wood based (175,000) ICS- Wood based (250,000) ICS- Charcoal based (3,500,000) Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never The income status of households determines whether households are likely to adopt ICSs or not. For households that fall in the bottom 40% of income (figure 31), no household indicates readiness to pay up front or even through a six-month payment tenure for an improved charcoal stove. Higher income households are more likely to switch to ICSs (figure 32). FIGURE 31 • Willingness to pay for improved cookstoves (bottom 40% household income group, leones, nationwide) a. ICS: Wood-based (175,000) b. ICS: Wood-based (250,000) c. ICS: Charcoal-based (3,500,000) 12.1% 22.0% 18.9% 18.1% 19.3% 22.5% 5.8% 4.9% 18.4% 11.5% 15.4% 16.5% 16.9% 18.9% 18.6% 84.1% 27.8% 22.4% 25.8% 95.8% 97.4% 30.7% 23.0% 20.5% 17.6% 17.9% 15.8% 45.0% 29.4% 7.7% 21.2% 21.6% 20.5% 19.9% 8.2% 1.4% 4.2% 1.1% 57,750 115,500 175,000 82,500 165,000 250,000 1,155,000 2,310,000 3,500,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) ICS- Wood based (175,000) ICS- Wood based (250,000) ICS- Charcoal based (3,500,000) Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never 36 5.8% 21.2% 21.6% 7.7% 20.5% 19.9% 8.2% 1.4% 4.2% 1.1% 57,750 115,500 175,000 82,500 165,000 250,000 1,155,000 2,310,000 3,500,000 of Access(66%) (33%) The State (100%) to Electricity for Enterprises in(33%) Nepal (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) ICS- Wood based (175,000) ICS- Wood based (250,000) ICS- Charcoal based (3,500,000) FIGURE 32 • Willingness toUp front pay 12 months (above 6 months cookstoves for improved 24 months Never 40% household income group, leones, nationwide) a. ICS: Wood-based (175,000) b. ICS: Wood-based (250,000) c. ICS: Charcoal-based (3,500,000) 5.8% 1.8% 13.7% 11.2% 10.6% 12.7% 16.8% 12.3% 3.1% 4.5% 7.3% 7.2% 10.4% 11.2% 20.6% 54.6% 22.7% 22.4% 22.3% 26.1% 68.7% 77.3% 27.5% 12.1% 22.0% 18.9% 18.1% 19.3% 22.5% 25.6% 26.7% 5.8% 27.2% 4.9% 18.1% 18.4% 11.5% 15.4% 16.5% 21.7% 57.5% 16.9% 18.9% 49.9% 15.8% 33.8% 32.8% 19.3% 84.1% 18.6% 27.8% 30.7% 95.8% 17.6% 22.4% 25.8% 22.8% 97.4% 11.7% 30.7% 23.0% 1.3% 1.3% 4% 6.3% 2.5% 0.8% 57,750 115,500 175,000 82,500 165,000 250,000 1,155,000 2,310,000 3,500,000 20.5% (33%) (66%) 17.6%(100%) (33%) (66%) 17.9%(100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) 15.8% ICS- Wood based (175,000) ICS- Wood based (250,000) ICS- Charcoal based (3,500,000) 45.0% Up front 6 months 29.4% 12 months 24 months Never 21.2% 21.6% 7.7% 20.5% 19.9% 8.2% 1.4% Taking a closer look at the WTP by location (figure 33 and figure 34), a larger proportion 4.2%households of rural 1.1% 57,750 refuse 115,500 to switch 175,000 to an improved 82,500 Urban cookstove. 165,000 250,000are also households 1,155,000 2,310,000 to be 3,500,000 more likely able to pay (33%) up-front to make (100%) costs (66%) (33%) this switch compared to(66%) (100%) rural households. (33%) However, (66%) this trend (100%) could also be ICS- Wood based (175,000) ICS- Wood based (250,000) ICS- Charcoal based (3,500,000) indicative of the differential income between urban and rural households. Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never FIGURE 33 • Willingness to pay for improved cookstoves (urban, leones) a. ICS: Wood-based (175,000) b. ICS: Wood-based (250,000) c. ICS: Charcoal-based (3,500,000) 5.8% 1.8% 13.7% 11.2% 10.6% 12.7% 16.8% 12.3% 3.1% 4.5% 7.3% 7.2% 10.4% 11.2% 20.6% 54.6% 22.7% 22.4% 22.3% 26.1% 68.7% 77.3% 27.5% 25.6% 26.7% 27.2% 18.1% 57.5% 21.7% 49.9% 15.8% 33.8% 32.8% 19.3% 30.7% 17.6% 22.8% 11.7% 1.3% 1.3% 4% 6.3% 2.5% 0.8% 57,750 115,500 175,000 82,500 165,000 250,000 1,155,000 2,310,000 3,500,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) ICS- Wood based (175,000) ICS- Wood based (250,000) ICS- Charcoal based (3,500,000) Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never 37 8.2% 1.4% 4.2% 1.1% 57,750 115,500 175,000 82,500 165,000 250,000 1,155,000 2,310,000 3,500,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) ICS- Wood based (175,000) ICS-LEONE SIERRA Wood | Energy based Access Diagnostic Report (250,000) ICS-Based on the Charcoal Multi-Tier based Framework (3,500,000) Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never FIGURE 34 • Willingness to pay for improved cookstoves (rural, leones) a. ICS: Wood-based (175,000) b. ICS: Wood-based (250,000) c. ICS: Charcoal-based (3,500,000) 5.8% 1.8% 13.7% 11.2% 10.6% 12.7% 16.8% 12.3% 3.1% 4.5% 7.3% 7.2% 10.4% 11.2% 20.6% 54.6% 22.7% 22.4% 22.3% 26.1% 68.7% 77.3% 27.5% 25.6% 26.7% 27.2% 18.1% 57.5% 21.7% 49.9% 15.8% 33.8% 32.8% 19.3% 30.7% 17.6% 22.8% 11.7% 1.3% 1.3% 4% 6.3% 2.5% 0.8% 57,750 115,500 175,000 82,500 165,000 250,000 1,155,000 2,310,000 3,500,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) ICS- Wood based (175,000) ICS- Wood based (250,000) ICS- Charcoal based (3,500,000) Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON COOKING SOLUTIONS INCREASING THE ADOPTION OF IMPROVED COOKSTOVES An interim measure may be to encourage a transition to manufactured biomass stoves, which can reduce the time spent in collecting firewood (because manufactured biomass stoves use considerably less fuel than three-stone and traditional stoves). This benefits women in particular because they carry the largest burden of firewood collection (see section on “Gender Analysis”). There are several new varieties of improved stoves now available in the market (such as the clay “wonder stove”) which are more energy efficient than regular traditional (“coal pot”) stoves. Sixteen percent of households who fall under Tier 0 can be moved to Tier 1 or higher if the market for ICSs is developed and cost-friendly models are introduced. As is suggested by the WTP analysis, the high up-front cost poses are a significant barrier. Despite this, households are willing to pay up front for wood-based and charcoal-based ICSs at a specific price threshold. Awareness campaigns around the importance of ICSs are also needed to allow households to understand the benefits of ICSs. Both cooking exposure and efficiency can be improved substantially by switching to ICSs. 38 The State of Access to Electricity for Enterprises in Nepal INCREASING PENETRATION OF CLEAN FUEL STOVES A very small proportion of household use clean fuel stoves. For instance, only 0.6% of households indicate using an LPG cookstove and none indicate LPG as primary fuel. This figure is quite low given Sierra Leone’s target to have 25% of households adopt LPG as their main source of cooking fuel. Households also have major issues around both availability and convenience with respect to accessing fuels as indicated in Figure 35. These can be addressed by introducing fuels such as LPG. FIGURE 35 • Availability of primary fuel 22.4% 77.6% Coal/lignite 44.9% 29.9% 25.2% Kerosene/paraffin 8.7% 38.1% 20.9% 32.2% Charcoal 6.3% 39.6% 8.4% 45.7% Wood collected 3.1% 58.1% 12.2% 26.6% Wood purchased Rarely available Sometimes available Mostly available Always available Since costs of LPG may be prohibitive, the government could consider offering subsidies to increase 92.10% uptake, especially in urban areas where LPG-based cookstoves can be seen on the market. LPG is currently distributed in cylinders weighing 5 kilograms (kg) and 12.5 kg and is available in many urban outlets, including petroleum distribution stations. 7.09% 0.25% 0.55% No account Own account Joint account Joint account (with spouse) (with savings group) 41.4% 48.0% 63.0% 64.6% 82.1% 81.1% 12.4% 10.1% 12.8% 15.5% 41.9% 46.2% 24.2% 19.9% 16.1% 17.8% 1.8% 1.2% 39 Female-headed Male-headed Female-headed Male-headed Female-headed Male-headed GENDER ANALYSIS Photo: ©Dominic Chavez/World Bank HOUSEHOLD STATUS, EMPLOYMENT, AND EDUCATION Nationwide, 29.1% of households are headed by women.8 Forty-four percent of female-headed households are in rural areas, compared to 58% of male-headed households that are in rural areas. The average age of female household heads is 47, compared with 46 for male household heads. Just under two-thirds, 22.4% 61.6%, of female household heads have never attended any level 77.6% of school, compared to 46.5% of male household heads. And about 76% of female household Coal/lignite heads are employed (formally and informally), compared with 91% of male heads. 44.9% 29.9% 25.2% Kerosene/paraffin WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT 8.7% 38.1% 20.9% 32.2% Charcoal 6.3% to finance, 92.1% In terms of access 8.4% no access to bank of households indicate 39.6% accounts for adult 45.7% female members. Only 7% of adult females have their own bank accounts, with 0.8% holding Wood collected accounts either with the spouse or at a savings group (figure 36). Meanwhile, 44.2% of households 3.1% members that are part have adult female of a women’s group (such 58.1% 26.6% health as savings, religious, 12.2% care–related, self-help, cooperative, or income-generating group). Additionally, 5.7% of households Wood purchased are located in areas with village electrification committees. Out of these, 22.6% households have female participation in the committees. Rarely available Sometimes available Mostly available Always available FIGURE 36 • Access to finance for adult females in households 92.10% 7.09% 0.25% 0.55% No account Own account Joint account Joint account (with spouse) (with savings group) 41.4% 8 This is self-declared by the household head 48.0% 63.0% 64.6% 82.1% 81.1% 12.4% 41 10.1% Wood purchased SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework Rarely available Sometimes available Mostly available Always available ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY 92.10% ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY BY GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD Sixty-three percent of female-headed households have access to a source of electricity, compared with 64.6% of male-headed households. In urban areas a smaller proportion of female-headed households have access to the grid (41.9%) compared to male-headed households (46.2%). In rural areas a smaller proportion of female-headed households 7.09% have access to both grid and off-grid electricity compared 0.25% 0.55% to male-headed households (figure 37). No account Own account Joint account Joint account (with spouse) (with savings group) FIGURE 37 • Access to electricity by household head’s gender 41.4% 48.0% 63.0% 64.6% 82.1% 81.1% 12.4% 10.1% 12.8% 15.5% 41.9% 46.2% 24.2% 19.9% 16.1% 17.8% 1.8% 1.2% Female-headed Male-headed Female-headed Male-headed Female-headed Male-headed Nationwide Urban Rural No access Off-grid access Grid access TIER ACCESS BY GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD In Sierra Leone, 74.7% of female-headed households are in Tier 0 for access to electricity, compared with 76.6% of male-headed households. For Tier 2, the share of female-headed households is higher than the share of male-headed households, but there is no significant gap in higher Tiers (figure 38). FIGURE 38 • Aggregate Tier by household head’s gender 0.3% 76.6% 2.5% 15.3% 1.1% 4.2% Male 0.3% 74.7% 1.9% 17.9% 1.2% 4.0% Female Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 42 57.3% 4.2%0.3% 76.6% 2.5% 15.3% 1.1% Male 4.2% Male 0.3% All Enterprises: Improving Access to Electricity 1.2% 74.7% 1.9% 17.9% 4.0% 0.3% 74.7% 1.9% 17.9% 1.2% Female 4.0% The gender gap for Tier 0 is wider in urban areas, where more female-headed households (57.3%) are Female in Tier 0 compared to male-headed households (50%) (figure 39). There is not much of a gap for Tier Tier 96.6% 0 in rural areas, where 0 of female-headed Tier 1 households Tier 2 are3in Tier 0Tier Tier compared 4 to 95.5% Tier 5 of male- headed households (figure 40). Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 FIGURE 39 • Aggregate Tier in urban areas by household head’s gender 57.3% 57.3%50.0% 50.0% 32.6% 30.3% 32.6% 30.3% 9.6% 7.0% 4.6% 2.9% 9.6% 2.1% 2.6% 0.5.%0.6% 7.0% 4.6% 2.9% 2.1% 2.6% 0.5.%0.6% Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 0 Tier 1 Male Tier 2 Female Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Male Female FIGURE 40 •96.6% 95.5% Tier in rural areas by household head’s gender Aggregate 96.6% 95.5% 0.8% 1.1% 2.3% 3.0% 0.3%0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 1.1% 2.3% 3.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier0.4% 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 0 Tier 1 Male Tier 2 Female Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Male Female WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR GRID ACCESS In Sierra Leone, 13.7% of female-headed households are not willing to pay for the connection fee under any given terms, compared with 11.4% of male-headed households (figure 41). However, female-headed households are more likely to pay up-front connection fees compared to male-headed households. Gender-targeted financing mechanisms may be required to increase grid connections for female- headed households. 43 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework FIGURE 41 • Willingness to pay for grid access (leones, by gender of household head) a. Male-headed households b. Female-headed households 3.6% 5.5% 6.1% 6.7% 4.9% 3.3% 7.4% 8.4% 11.1% 11.4% 11.9% 9.5% 13.7% 11.6% 6.7% 14.1% 15.6% 12.4% 20.4% 14.0% 33.7% 25.3% 19.6% 36.3% 19.3% 30.2% 19.5% 35.8% 17.2% 27.1% 13.8% 24.8% 21.5% 11.2% 23.3% 9.2% 15.1% 28.8% 30.1% 18.4% 31.3% 29.0% 10.2% 15.4% 18.5% 28.6% 12.0% 6.1% 13.7% 49.4% 13.4% 19.5% 46.1% 9.2% 9.4% 9.5% 5.5% 34.6% 7.4% 28.3% 28.2% 4.4% 5.1% 5.6% 4.3% 18.7% 15.6% 18.1% 13.3% 12.7% 10.1% 7.9% 189,000 391,500 580,500 769,499 958,500 135,0000 189,000 391,500 580,500 769,499 958,500 1,350,000 (14%) (29%) (43%) (57%) (71%) (100%) (14%) (29%) (43%) (57%) (71%) (100%) Up front 3 months 6 months 12 months Connection fee waived Never WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR SOLAR SOLUTIONS WTP for an off-grid solar solution that allows a household to reach Tier 1 for access to electricity is significantly lower for female-headed households (44%) than for male-headed households (51.6%) (figure 42 and figure 43). This is true for both Tiers of solar devices offered. The gender gap in WTP indicates that gender-targeted financing mechanisms are required to enable female-headed households to benefit equally from off-grid solar solutions. FIGURE 42 • Willingness to pay for solar devices (male-headed households) a. Tier 1 device: Solar lighting system with b. Tier 2 device: Advanced solar mobile phone charger and 12V DC appliances home system with 120kWh per day 6.8% 9.9% 11.1% 6.5% 4.4% 22.0% 25.9% 7.8% 14.2% 39.9% 15.5% 24.3% 19.9% 20.8% 25.5% 28.0% 26.2% 26.3% 30.7% 23.6% 51.6% 16.2% 8.4% 42.3% 10.1% 30.4% 7.1% 19.1% 14.9% 10.6% 99,000 198,000 300,000 1,481700 2,963,400 4,490,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never 44 10.6% 99,000 198,000 300,000 1,481700 2,963,400 4,490,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) All Enterprises: Improving Access to Electricity Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never FIGURE 43 • Willingness to pay for solar devices (female-headed households) a. Tier 1 device: Solar lighting system with b. Tier 2 device: Advanced solar mobile phone charger and 12V DC appliances home system with 120kWh per day 12.7% 11.0% 13.2% 8.4% 30.6% 33.7% 11.0% 13.2% 48.2% 10.4% 20.7% 19.2% 24.5% 21.9% 27.9% 26.4% 29.3% 24.8% 27.0% 20.8% 44.0% 13.5% 33.6% 6.7% 5.5% 25.1% 4.3% 11.2% 12.1% 9.2% 99,000 198,000 300,000 1,481,700 2,963,400 4,490,000 (33%) (66%) (100%) (33%) (66%) (100%) Up front 6 months 12 months 24 months Never ACCESS TO COOKING SOLUTIONS TECHNOLOGY Male-headed households are more likely to use a three-stone stove than female-headed households are, and female-headed households are more likely to use a traditional stove than male-headed households (figure 44). FIGURE 44 • Stove usage by household head’s gender (nationwide) 74.23% 44.7% 44.7% 24.76% 0.07% 0.16% 0.11% 0.37% 0.63% 0.03% 0.15% 0.24% Male Female 3-stones/open fire stove Locally built/traditional Manufactured biomass LPG stove Biogas Electric stove Other Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 59.13% 45 55.29% 44.7% 0.07% 0.16% 0.11% 0.37% 0.63% 0.03% 0.15% 0.24% SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework 44.7% Male Female 24.76% 3-stones/open fire stove Locally built/traditional Manufactured biomass In urban areas, 59.1% of female-headed households LPG stove Biogas use a traditional stove Electric as their primary stove, stove compared with 55.29% of male-headed Other 0.07% 0.16% households 0.11% (figure 45). 0.37% 0.63% 0.03% 0.15% 0.24% FIGURE 45 • Stove usage in urban areas by household head’s genderFemale Male 3-stones/open fire stove Locally built/traditional 59.13% Manufactured biomass LPG55.29% stove Biogas Electric stove Other 42.67% 39.65% 59.13% 55.29% 42.67% 39.65% 1.56% 0.39% 0.66% 0.27% 0.29% 0.08% Male Female 3-stones/open fire stove Locally built/traditional LPG stove Biogas Electric stove Other 1.56% 0.39% 0.66% 0.27% 0.29% Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 0.08% 95.51% Male Female In rural as well as areas, male-headed households are 39.50% more likely to use a three-stone stove as their 3-stones/open fire stove Locally built/traditional LPG stove primary stove (figure 45 and figure 46). Biogas Electric stove Other FIGURE 46 • Stove usage in rural areas by household head’s gender 95.51% 39.50% 4.17% 6.34% 0.12% 0.19% 0.16% Male Female 3-stones/open fire stove Locally built/traditional Manufactured biomass LPG stove Biogas Electric stove 4.17% Other 6.34% 0.12% 0.19% 0.16% Male Female 3-stones/open fire stove Locally built/traditional Manufactured biomass LPG stove Biogas Electric stove Other Note: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 46 Improving Access to Electricity TIME USE In rural areas, women spend an average of 44 minutes a day acquiring fuel, compared with 31 minutes for men. In urban areas, time spent acquiring fuel is almost halved for men, but the gap between men and women remains (figure 47). FIGURE 47 • Minutes per day spent acquiring fuel (by household members) 33.04 33.65 23.12 24.60 Nationwide 30.27 23.42 16.50 15.73 Urban 33.04 33.65 23.12 24.60 35.13 43.93 27.73 31.12 Nationwide Rural 30.27 23.42 16.50 15.73 Urban Female (under 15) Female (above 15) Male (under 15) Male (above 15) 35.13 43.93 27.73 31.12 Rural In rural areas women spend an average of 25 minutes a day preparing fuel,9 compared with 15 minutes for men. Time spent lower for both men12.28 preparing fuel was21.53 14.02 and women in urban areas compared to 12.28 rural areas Nationwide (figure 48). Female (under 15) Female (above 15) Male (under 15) Male (above 15) FIGURE 48 • Minutes 9.45 18.02 preparing fuel per day spend 9.47 (by household 8.46 members) Urban 14.02 21.53 12.28 12.28 17.47 25.06 14.23 15.08 Nationwide Rural 9.45 18.02 9.47 8.46 Urban Female (under 15) Female (above 15) Male (under 15) Male (above 15) 17.47 25.06 14.23 15.08 Rural Female (under 15) Female (above 15) Male (under 15) Male (above 15) 9 This involves setting up the fuel and stove before cooking. 47 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON GENDER ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY Female-headed households are narrowly behind male-headed households or on a par. Willingness to pay for grid connection and solar devices for female-headed households is lower compared to that of male-headed households, but this may be influenced through gender-specific financing mechanisms. Several pro-poor targeting actions, whereby female-headed households may be automatically eligible, may be considered, including interest-free credit for the purchase of energy equipment, credit schemes allowing payment of connection fee in affordable installments, subsidized connection costs, and lifeline tariffs. Policy makers have to ensure that while improving access to modern energy so that women are not left behind. ACCESS TO CLEAN COOKING SOLUTIONS Women spend more time in cooking or fuel collection compared to men. They are thus much more likely to be affected by indoor air pollution and thus more likely to benefit from cleaner cooking solutions. Transitioning to a manufactured biomass stove can deliver important benefits—namely, less time collecting firewood (because manufactured biomass stoves use considerably less fuel than three- stone and self-built stoves). This freed time benefits women in particular because they carry the largest burden of firewood collection. Affordability constraints should be addressed for poor households and female-headed households, for example through targeted financing mechanisms. Education campaigns are also recommended to raise awareness on the benefits of clean and efficient cooking solutions targeting both men and women. 48 Improving Access to Electricity ANNEX 1: SAMPLING SAMPLING STRATEGY The sampling strategy is based on the 2015 Population and Housing Census frame at Statistics Sierra Leone (Stats SL 2015). The frame contains population, households, and enumeration areas (EAs) by local council areas (city and district councils) and rural/urban locality (table A1.1). TABLE A1.1 • Summary of sample frame Local Total Rural Urban Rural Urban Councils Population Households EA Population Households EA Population Households EA Kailahun 526,379 87,192 891 373,093 59,941 615 153,286 27,251 276 Kenema City 203,415 37,670 315 2,972 763 7 200,443 36,907 308 Kenema District 406,476 79,869 804 335,220 66,060 671 71,256 13,809 133 Koidu City 124,662 25,830 201 n.a. n.a. n.a. 124,662 25,830 201 Kono District 381,438 64,474 586 295,418 47,270 443 86,020 17,204 143 Makeni City 125,970 26,091 224 1,336 295 3 124,634 25,796 221 Bombali 276,912 54,863 474 243,450 47,690 429 33,462 7,173 45 Falaba 205,353 27,718 354 191,221 26,014 330 14,132 1,704 24 Koinadugu 204,019 31,559 394 144,626 22,131 271 59,393 9,428 123 Tonkilili 531,435 93,410 1,068 424,105 73,410 861 107,330 20,000 207 Karene 285,546 49,583 435 266,672 46,110 409 18,874 3,473 26 Kambia 348,101 58,688 581 246,646 40,588 381 101,455 18,100 200 Port Loko City 43,037 9,871 104 n.a. n.a. n.a. 43,037 9,871 104 Port Loko District 487,828 95,249 896 373,790 73,221 706 114,038 22,028 190 Bo City 174,369 32,234 295 n.a. n.a. n.a. 174,369 32,234 295 Bo District 401,109 78,828 736 380,397 74,594 708 20,712 4,234 28 Bonthe City 10,075 1,299 16 n.a. n.a. n.a. 10,075 1,299 16 Bonthe District 190,706 34,042 445 162,796 28,789 390 27,910 5,253 55 Moyamba 318,588 69,983 616 295,891 64,891 579 22,697 5,092 37 Pujehun 346,461 54,630 582 318,344 49,988 549 28,117 4,642 33 Western Rural 444,270 98,876 700 43,638 9,653 65 400,632 89,223 635 Western Urban 1,055,964 235,272 2,139 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,055,964 235,272 2,139 Total 7,092,113 1,347,231 12,856 4,099,615 731,408 7,417 2,992,498 615,823 5,439 Source: Stats-SL 2015. Note: EA = enumeration area, n.a. = not applicable. 49 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework The sample frame contained a population of 7,092,113 people, with households totaling 1,347,231, and 12,856 enumeration areas reported at the national level as disaggregated at the districts, local council, and rural/urban localities. This information is used to select the sample and is allocated at all levels of administration. The frame was thus used to determine an appropriate sample for the survey based on the MTF sampling protocol discussed below. SAMPLING DETERMINATION A survey sample was drawn in collaboration with Stat-SL for the Multi-Tier Energy Baseline Survey jointly with CESPA and the ESMAP team in the World Bank. In determining the sample size for the survey, the following formula was used to calculate the sample size: z 2 r (1 - r ) fk z 2 r (1 - r )[1 + r (m - 1)]k 1. n= = e2 e2 !" = ( ∗ , , 0/); Table A1.2 presents the parameter #" used to determine the sample size of 4,624. The proposed cluster size is 12 households, which is thus used to round down the 4,624 household sample size obtained by hh _to the formula above dsreflect ij the 12 households per EA/cluster. dsij = *n Thh TABLE A1.2 • Parameters used to determine the sample $$"!"#$%$ *++,- = ∗ = ∗ 4608 = 204 Definition Parameter Estimate %&'()$$" -.,/0.- Final sample size n 4,608 z-score ℎℎ ℎℎ z 1.96 1.96 ∗ (√1 + + / ∗ ( − 1)4 ∗ 5 6 ℎℎ √ℎℎ Energy access rate (obtained = from World Bank strategy) ∗ 100 r 0.5 Sample design effect (calculated using the formula: f = 1 + ρ (m – 1) f 7.3 Intra-cluster correlation coefficient (there is a 45% chance that households in the same cluster access energy form the same source) ρ 0.45 Number of Household per cluster or enumeration are/principle sampling unit (PSU) m 15 Factor accounting for non-response (household surveys in Sierra Leone show that non-response is usually 5% or less, 5% is really very conservative) k 1.05 Margin of error (4% was used as error margin) e 0.04 Source: World Bank. z r (1 - r ) fk z 2 r (1 - r )[1 + r (m - 1)]k 2 n= 2 = The calculatedenumber of clusters for e 2 this survey are therefore derived as follows: !" 2. = ( ∗ , #" , 0/); Where fs = final sample size rounded figure, ns = national sample size (4,624), and cs = cluster sample hh _ dsij 2 on 12 households proposed for this survey), ds size ofzhouseholds 2 *znr (1 - r )[1 + r (m - 1)]k (1 - r ) fk (based r= ij n= Thh = Therefore, e2 e2 !" = =4,608/12 ( ∗ $$" = 384 clusters/EAs !"#$%$ , , 0/) *++,- ; nationwide. = ∗ #"= ∗ 4608 = 204 %&'()$$" -.,/0.- hh _ dsij dsij = 1.96 ∗ (√1 + + *n ℎℎ / ∗ ( − 1)4 ∗ 5 ℎℎ 6 50 = Thh ℎℎ √ℎℎ ∗ 100 Improving Access to Electricity SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION FOR THE STRATUM A two stage stratification sample design was followed, with census enumeration areas (from the 2015 census) selected in the first stage as survey clusters, and then 12 households within each EA or cluster selected in the second stage for the survey. In the first stage of the selection, the sample n is distributed by local council area and by rural/urban locality to obtain 22 local councils x 2 = 44 strata. In practice, however, 37 strata were obtained as no rural sampled EAs exist for Kenema City, Koidu City, Makeni City, PortzLoko 2 r (1 - City,r ) fk Bo z 2 - r )[1 + r r (1Bonthe City, (m - City, 1)]k and Western Area Urban or Freetown City. The sample of 4,608 n= = households e were 2 divided among e 2the 37 strata using probability proportional to size per household z 2r count z( in 1r( -1r -)r )fk 2the first instance. fk z z22 Table A1.3 presents the optimal households sample and the margin of errors r (1 - r1 !" r (1 - r )[ )[ +1r +(mr- (m k 1)]k 1)]- n derived =n = = using ( 2∗ the formulas== , #" , 0/);below: 2 2 2 ee e e hh = ( ∗ 3.= ( _ ds ,!", 0/); !" ij , #" , 0/); ds ∗ = ij *n #" Thh hh _ dsij ds Where ij hh = _ ds dsij=sample *n Thh ij allocated to a given district stratum, hh_dsij=households in stratum ij, Thh=total ds = households ij in the country %&'()$$" = $$" -.,/0.- !"#$%$ *n ∗ = *++,- ∗ 4608 = 204 and n is the overall sample of 4608 households. For example, to get the Thh number of households allocated to Kailahun district (i) and Rural (j) statum, we use: $$"!"#$%$ *++,- = ∗ =ℎℎ ∗ 4608 = 204 ℎℎ %&'()$$" / ∗ ( − 1)4 ∗ 5 1.96 ∗ (√1 + + -.,/0.- ℎℎ 6 –rounded number of households in the rural Kailahun. This √ℎℎ that = 204 means$$" !"#$%$ households *++,- will be selected ∗ 100 in Rural Kailahun District out of the 4608 households = ∗ = ∗ 4608 = 204 %&'()$$" -.,/0.- ℎℎ ℎℎ The standard 1.96 ∗errors are (√1 + +ℎℎ /∗ inversely proportional ( − 1)4 ∗ 5 6 to the square root of the sample size: e=z*σ⁄√n). It is √ℎℎ = by using the formula below: ∗ 100 calculated ℎℎ ℎℎ 1.96 ∗ (√1 + + / ∗ ( − 1)4 ∗ 5 6 ℎℎ √ℎℎ 4. = ∗ 100 Where: shh=stratum households (Kailahun Rural household, for example) Thh=total households in the country cs=cluster sample of household sshh=stratum selected household for the particular stratum (Kailahun Rural) spop=stratum population 51 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework TABLE A1.3 • Optimal Sample Optimal HHs by PPS Margin of error Local Councils Total EAs Rural Urban National Rural Urban Kailahun 300 204 96 2.5 2.7 3.9 Kenema City 132 n.a. 132 3.6 n.a. 3.6 Kenema District 276 228 48 3.0 3.2 5.8 Koidu City 84 n.a. 84 4.9 n.a. 4.9 Kono District 228 168 60 2.7 2.8 5.4 Makeni City 84 n.a. 84 4.9 n.a. 4.9 Bombali 192 168 24 3.4 3.5 8.8 Falaba 84 84 n.a. 3.2 3.2 n.a. Koinadugu 108 72 36 3.3 3.8 5.4 Tonkilili 324 252 72 2.5 2.7 4.6 Karene 168 156 12 3.1 3.2 10.6 Kambia 204 144 60 2.8 3.1 4.8 Port Loko City 36 n.a. 36 7.8 n.a. 7.8 Port Loko District 324 252 72 2.8 3.1 4.8 Bo City 108 n.a. 108 3.9 n.a. 3.9 Bo District 264 252 12 3.0 3.1 11.8 Bonthe City - - - --- --- --- Bonthe District 120 96 24 3.6 3.9 7.7 Moyamba 240 228 12 3.5 3.5 13.0 Pujehun 180 168 12 2.8 2.8 9.5 Western Rural 348 36 312 3.1 7.5 3.2 Western Urban 804 n.a. 804 2.6 n.a. 2.6 Total 4,608 2,508 2,100 1.9 1.8 2.2 Source: World Bank. Note: EA = enumeration area; HH = household; n.a. = not applicable; PPS = probability proportional to size. As expected, the rounded optimal sample households followed the overall trend of rural dominance seen in the sample frame. However, if we maintained this, the Western Area Urban District, which is the capital city of Freetown, would have overwhelmingly dominated the sample, while Bonthe City would have no representation in the sample, and no urban locality will be visited in Falaba District. Standard errors were particularly high for some urban areas, which potentially have access to electricity compared to rural areas. For a better national representation of the sample, especially with regard to the urban areas, adjustment was made to ensure that domains are represented enough in the sample to ensure representativeness in the analysis at the local council level. Urban communities, which have greater access to energy, especially electricity, were given due consideration. The adjustment was guided by expert knowledge of 52 Improving Access to Electricity energy facilities, as well as the initial contributions of the domains in the sample frame. The adjustment was done such that: • The total number of households remained the same at 4,608 for the survey. • The percentage standard error for each domain remained low at the national level. • The rural and urban areas have equal number of households/EAs targeted by the survey. Table A1.4 provides the final sample for the survey based on adjustments made for oversampling. TABLE A1.4 • Final sample size Practical adjusted sample households Margin of error Local Councils guided by energy facilities Total HHs Rural Urban National Rural Urban Kailahun 324 204 120 2.4 2.7 3.5 Kenema City 156 n.a. 156 3.3 3.3 Kenema District 264 204 60 3.0 3.4 5.2 Koidu City 96 n.a. 96 4.6 n.a. 4.6 Kono District 240 168 72 2.6 2.8 4.9 Makeni City 96 n.a. 96 4.6 n.a. 4.6 Bombali 156 132 24 3.7 3.9 8.8 Falaba 120 108 12 2.7 2.8 6.9 Koinadugu 132 84 48 3.0 3.6 4.7 Tonkilili 324 240 84 2.5 2.8 4.3 Karene 156 144 12 3.2 3.3 10.6 Kambia 204 132 72 2.8 3.2 4.4 Port Loko City 36 n.a. 36 7.8 n.a. 7.8 Port Loko District 288 204 84 3.0 3.4 4.5 Bo City 132 n.a. 132 3.5 n.a. 3.5 Bo District 228 216 12 3.3 3.3 11.8 Bonthe City 12 n.a. 12 7.3 n.a. 7.3 Bonthe District 120 96 24 3.6 3.9 7.7 Moyamba 180 168 12 4.0 4.1 13.0 Pujehun 204 180 24 2.6 2.7 6.7 Western Rural 336 24 312 3.2 9.2 3.2 Western Urban 804 n.a. 804 2.6 n.a. 2.6 Total 4,608 2,304 2,304 1.9 1.9 2.1 Source: World Bank. Note: HH = household; n.a. = not applicable. 53 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework The final sample allocated has a total number of 4,608 households, of which 2,304 households (50.0%) or 192 EAs were in the rural areas and 2,304 households (50.0%) were in the urban areas. Table A1.5 shows the distribution of the final sample of households and the EAs required for each local council by rural (192 EAs) and urban (192 EAs), reaching the 50% urban and 50% rural target. TABLE A1.5 • Adjusted final sample Sample HHs Sample EAs Local Councils Total EAs Rural Urban Total EAs Rural Urban Kailahun 324 204 120 27 17 10 Kenema City 156 0 156 13 0 13 Kenema District 264 204 60 22 17 5 Koidu City 96 0 96 8 0 8 Kono District 240 168 72 20 14 6 Makeni City 96 0 96 8 0 8 Bombali 156 132 24 13 11 2 Falaba 120 108 12 10 9 1 Koinadugu 132 84 48 11 7 4 Tonkilili 324 240 84 27 20 7 Karene 156 144 12 13 12 1 Kambia 204 132 72 17 11 6 Port Loko City 36 0 36 3 0 3 Port Loko District 288 204 84 24 17 7 Bo City 132 0 132 11 0 11 Bo 228 216 12 19 18 1 Bonthe City 12 0 12 1 0 1 Bonthe District 120 96 24 10 8 2 Moyamba 180 168 12 15 14 1 Pujehun 204 180 24 17 15 2 Western Area Rural 336 24 312 28 2 26 Western Area Urban 804 0 804 67 0 67 Total 4,608 2,304 2,304 384 192 192 Source: World Bank. Note: EA = enumeration area; HH = household. 54 Improving Access to Electricity ANNEX 2: ELECTRICITY TARIFFS TABLE A2.1 • Electricity tariff applicable for the MTF survey (2019) Electricity tariff (Le per kilowatt hour for 2018 and 2019) 2018 2019 Client category Without Service Service With GST Without GST With GST GST charge charge 1. Residential households 1,415 1,627.25 10,500 1,600 1,840 10,500 2. Commercial - shops, hotels, etc. 1,641 1,887.15 14,115 1,870 2,150.5 1,4115 3. Institutions: MDAs, NGOs, etc. 1,526 1,754.9 14,730 1,800 2,070 14,730 1. Industries: Manufacturing, etc. 1,754 2,017.1 75,630 1,890 2,173.5 75,630 2. Welding 1,811 2,082.65 39,570 1,900 2,185 39,570 Source: EDSA 2020. Note: GST = Goods and Services Tax ; MDA = Ministries, Departments and Agencies ; NGO = nongovernmental organization. 55 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework ANNEX 3: MULTI-TIER ENERGY ACCESS TRACKING FRAME FOR ELECTRICITY Aggregate Attributes  TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 Attributes Tier Capacity 50W– 200W– 800W– < 3W 3W–49W ≥ 2kW 3 (power capacity ratings) 199W 799W 1999W 8–16 Day < 4 hrs 4–8 hrs 16–22 hrs ≥23 hrs 4 hrs Availability Evening < 1 hr 1–2 hrs 2–3 hrs 3–4 hrs 4 hrs 3 (Frequency (4–14 of disruptions) Disrup- disruptions OR tions Reliability per week) Disruptions > 14 (≤ 3 ≤3& 4 disruptions duration MTF (Duration of aggregate disruptions & ≥ 2 hrs < 2 hrs duration) tier will be per week) the lowest Quality qualifying (voltage problems tier 3 Yes No among all 5 affect the use of desired appliances) attributes. e.g. → Affordability (cost of a standard ≥ 5% of household < 5% of household expenditure 5 consumption package of expenditure(income) (income) 365 kWh/year) Formality (bill is paid to the utility, No Yes 5 pre-paid card seller, or authorized representative) Health and Safety (having past accidents Yes No 5 and perception of high risk in the future) Source: World Bank. Note: hrs = hours; kW = kilowatt; w = watt. 56 Improving Access to Electricity ANNEX 4: MULTI-TIER ENERGY ACCESS TRACKING FRAME FOR COOKING Attributes  TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 Emission: Conventional or Rocket stove Rocket stove Three-stone ICS + chimney, Stove old generation with high with chimney LPG, electricity fire, tripod rocket stove Cooking design ICS insulation (well sealed) Exposure Ventilation: No openings Two or more Indoors with One opening Veranda Open Structure to outside openings chimney Fuel acquisition and ≥7 <7 <3 < 1.5 < 0.5 preparation time (hours Convenience per week) Stove preparation time ≥10 < 10 <5 <2 (minutes per meal) Safety Serious Minor None Affordability: Fuel cost as share of household ≥10 < 10 <5 expenditure (%) Readily available Available 80% Fuel Availability Primary fuel available less than 80% of the year throughout the of year year Source: World Bank. Note: ICS = improved cookstove; LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. 57 SIERRA LEONE | Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework REFERENCES EDSA (Electricity Distribution and Supply Authority). 2020. “EDSA Tarriff.” https://ewrc.gov.sl/wp-content/ uploads/2020/10/EDSA-Tariff.pdf ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program). n.d. “Multi-Tier Framework for Energy Access (MTF).” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.esmap.org/mtf_multi-tier_framework_for_energy_access. GoSL EWRC (Government of Siera Leone Electricity and Water Regulatory Commission). 2023. “Approved Tariff by Sierra Leone Electricity and Water Regulatory Commission for Electricity Distribution and Supply Authority (EDSA) Effective 1st. October 2023.” Freeport: GoSL EWRC. https://ewrc.gov.sl/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ Approval-for-Gazette.pdf. GoSL MoE (Government of Siera Leone Ministry of Energy and Water Resources). 2021. “SDG7 Cleaner Cooking Energy Compact of Sierra Leone.” Freetown: GoSL MoE. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/09/ energy_compact_for_sierra_leone_.pdf. GoSL MoEWR (Government of Siera Leone Ministry of Energy). 2009. Sierra Leone National Energy Strategic Plan. Freetown: GoSL MoEWR. http://www.ecowrex.org/system/files/repository/2009_energy_strategic_ plan_-_min_ener.pdf. IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). 2022. “Renewable Energy Statistics 2022: Sierra Leone” https:// www.irena.org/Data Norfund. n.d. “Sierra Leone’s First Independent Power Project Reaches Commercial Operations.” Oslo: Norfund. https://www.norfund.no/sierra-leones-first-independent-power-project-reaches-commercial- operations/#:~:text=The%205MW%20solar%20power%20plant,more%20electricity%20in%20the%20 country. Sarkodie, Samuel Asumadu, and Samuel Adams. 2020. “Electricity Access, Human Development Index, Governance and Income Inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Energy Reports 6 (November): 455–466. https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484719310443. Statistics Sierra Leone. 2015. “Census 2015.” https://www.statistics.sl/index.php/census/census-2015.html SEforALL (Sustainable Energy for All). 2023. “Powering Social Infrastructure in Sierra Leone: Market Assessment and Roadmap for Schools.” https://www.seforall.org/system/files/2023-03/Sierra%20Leone%20Roadmap%20 -%20Education_FINAL050323.pdf USITA (US International Trade administration). 2021. “Sierra Leone: Country Commercial Guide.” Washington, DC: USITA. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/sierra-leone-energy-infrastructure. World Bank. 2018. “Final Solutions Brief: Sierra Leone WAPGP Power Project.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/794041518206128869-0100022018/original/ BriefsGuaranteesSierraLeonePower.pdf. World Bank. 2019. “Restructuring Paper on a Proposed Project Restructuring of Sierra Leone Energy Sector Utility Reform Project.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ en/769881591717501130/pdf/Disclosable-Restructuring-Paper-Sierra-Leone-Energy-Sector-Utility-Reform- Project-P120304.pdf. World Bank. 2020. “Project Information Document (PID): Enhancing Sierra Leone Energy Access (P171059).” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/280151606474691353/pdf/ Project-Information-Document-Enhancing-Sierra-Leone-Energy-Access-P171059.pdf. World Bank. 2024. “Sierra Leone Energy Sector Utility Reform Project.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P120304. 58