Recommendation 20

HM Government Accepted in Part

Government Response: Partially Agree 46. We agree in principle that energy access projects should consider and communicate the key trade-offs inherent in their design—such as technology choice, affordability versus financial sustainability, speed versus inclusion, and mitigation-adaptation co-benefits—alongside proportionate plans for monitoring impacts and communicating risks to stakeholders. 47. FCDO business cases already assess options, counterfactuals, value for money, and risk, and require arrangements for monitoring and learning. To avoid creating undue burdens—particularly for smaller, locally-led partners—we will make these trade-offs more explicit within existing guidance, rather than introduce a separate, standalone requirement. 48. Our approach will include: • Embedding a concise “trade-offs and choices” section in energy access bids, covering technology, targeting, affordability/tariffs, lifecycle operation and maintenance, and stakeholder inclusion. • Requiring a proportionate risk-communication plan (e.g., community meetings, accessible summaries, feedback mechanisms) tailored to context and delivery model. • Aligning these steps with the Programme Operating Framework (PrOF) and Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) standards to ensure consistency and avoid duplication. 49. This approach strengthens transparency and accountability while maintaining flexibility and proportionality, ensuring that requirements do not disadvantage smaller or locally led implementers.