Africa should put differences of opinion and policy aside and speak with one voice when it comes to sustainable renewable energy. This was the overarching message during the inaugural African Photo-voltaic Solar Energy Conference (AfricaPVSEC), held at the Durban International Convention Centre last month.

AfricaPVSEC attracted over 200 participants from 14 countries in Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas. It provided a platform to promote photovoltaic (PV) technology as a viable, cost-effective and sustain-able alternative source of energy in Africa through the exchange of views on broader policy, scientific and technological advances and investment and business opportunities.

“We need to start and speed up procedures where African States collaborate more and look at developing a joint strategy. There will be benefits for everyone. It is import-ant to see continual progress. This is the kick-off,” said Institute for Energy director and spokesperson for the European Commission Dr Giovanni De Santi.

He said although it was unlikely that any policy deals or product launches would result from this first event, this was a strong possibility as AfricaPVSEC was established as an yearly event held in different major centres.

He said AfricaPVSEC had started in South Africa as this country had already made progress in the development of alternative power sources and provided “a clear basis for dialogue”.

The University of Johannesburg’s Professor Vivian Alberts, part of PTiP South Africa, which recently launched a pilot plant for thin-film solar module technology in Stellenbosch, headed the AfricaPVSEC steering group. He said the African leg would learn from the European PVSEC, which began as a small event in Nice in 1993.

He said AfricaPVSEC provided an important opportunity for the largely technically based stakeholders to spread the good news. “We have an opportunity to bring politicians and government officials into the technical and commercial world. That is what we lack in South Africa.”

De Santi said that the inaugural conference showed that international stakeholders saw enough potential when it came to energy generation and economic benefit to engage with African stakeholders.

However, he said AfricaPVSEC needed to lead to the creation of a reliable source of information that would allow companies and potential investors to make informed decisions. “We need to shift from source mapping to economic potential and how companies can benefit from investment,” he said.

All speakers agreed that there were a number of challenges and “road blocks along the way”. These included the need to create a free market for energy that included other energy sources, address costs and funding shortfalls, implement a conversion strategy and put in place enabling legislation.

De Santi warned that the nonregulated environment which pervaded in Africa presented a very difficult environment for international investors. “We need to encourage different member States in Africa to put forward reforms and create a clear regulatory framework which can provide stability,” he said.

Alberts admitted that although Africa stood to learn from European experience in this sphere, it faced many more challenges. When it came to technical development, Africa was isolated and there was a need to “short-circuit this” in order to catch up.

Conversely, Alberts and Rafique Ishmail, of the Industrial Development Corporation, said that Europe also stood to learn from South African funding models.

Alberts explained that there were currently two funding models – the European one, which was based on tariffs, and the South African one, which encouraged competitive bidding. He said the latter had proved successful, not only in attracting capital backing for projects, but also in dramatically reducing the costs associated with the development of PV projects.

Ishmail said that, from a policy framework point of view, South Africa was ahead of most other programmes. By putting the “ball in the court of developers and pitting them against their peers”, South Africa had attracted many large international investors. He said another success factor was the fact that much of the credit risk was mitigated by government’s offtake agreement, which made projects both sustainable and viable for at least 20 years.

GCL Solar Energy VP in America Robert Blair added that the South African model was one of the best auction processes he had seen. “What I like about the South African approach is the viability of the process. “If a project wins a bid, there is a very high probability that it will be built,” he said.

In contrast, just 40% of projects in the likes of California, where it was “about price and not about viability”, would see the light of day. “I would be very surprised if a South African project would fail,” he said.

The next step towards the success of projects such as this was finalisation of policy on feed-in tariffs, all agreed. Ishmail stressed that it was important for all parties in the supply chain that investors be able to export energy that was in excess of their requirements to the grid.

He said at this stage the major stumbling block was local municipalities, which stood to lose revenue as wholesalers of electricity “bought”from Eskom. He said investigations were already under way to see how municipalities could be compensated for these losses.

Meanwhile, he said, lessons could be learnt from initiatives in the Eastern Cape, with the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan municipality being the most forward thinking.

He added that local content issues and downstream job creation were also becoming a major achievement for the South African PV sector. He said this was most evident in the Northern Cape, where, over the last 18 months, a hub of economic activity had resulted from the setting up of companies to manufacture components for sustainable-energy projects.

However, he cautioned that it was also imperative to ensure that returns continued to be “put on the table” to attract investors.

Blair admitted that local content stipulations were a big hurdle for outside investors and made projects more expensive.