Annual Biogas Users Survey 2010 - · PDF file5.1 Saving of Time and Money ... Questionnaire for Biogas Plant User ... The Annual Biogas Users’ Survey 2010 aims at making a comprehensive

Final Report

Annual Biogas Users Survey 2010

Submitted to

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (IDCOL)

National Domestic Biogas and Manure Programme (NDBMP)

29 November 2011

Page 2

Table of Contents

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 14

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 14

1.2 NDBMP ........................................................................................................................................ 15

2. Objective and Methodology .............................................................................................................. 16

2.1 Objective of the Survey ................................................................................................................ 16

2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Structure of this report................................................................................................................. 23

3. Information on Biogas Users & Plants................................................................................................ 24

3.1 Plant Size and Households ............................................................................................................ 24

3.2 Decision to install ......................................................................................................................... 25

3.3 Users’ Background ....................................................................................................................... 26

3.4 Daily Use of Biogas Plants by Households ..................................................................................... 27

3.5 Raw Materials .............................................................................................................................. 28

3.6 Bio-slurry Pits ............................................................................................................................... 29

3.7 Construction Related Aspects of the Plants .................................................................................. 31

3.8 Motivation behind Installation of Plant ........................................................................................ 35

3.9 Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 36

3.10 Financing for Biogas Plants ......................................................................................................... 40

3.11 Seasonality ................................................................................................................................. 43

4. Impact on Health and Sanitation ....................................................................................................... 46

5. Impact on Socio-economic Conditions ............................................................................................... 50

5.1 Saving of Time and Money ........................................................................................................... 50

5.2 Income Status .............................................................................................................................. 54

Page 3

5.3 Education ..................................................................................................................................... 55

6. Gender Implications of the Impact of Biogas on Users ....................................................................... 57

7. Impact on Agriculture........................................................................................................................ 64

8. Energy, Emission Reduction and Environmental Impact..................................................................... 70

9. Service Quality and Client Satisfaction ............................................................................................... 74

9.1 Management of Financial Services ............................................................................................... 74

9.2 Quality of Services ........................................................................................................................ 75

9.3 Client Satisfaction ........................................................................................................................ 76

10. Market ............................................................................................................................................ 79

10.1 Biogas Marketing: Potentials and Challenges .............................................................................. 79

10.2 Marketing of Bio-slurry ............................................................................................................... 81

10.3 Supply Chain of Biogas ............................................................................................................... 85

11. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 88

11.1 Removing Supply Side Constraints .............................................................................................. 88

11.2 Enhancing Demand .................................................................................................................... 89

Annex 1: Questionnaire for Biogas Plant User Survey under NDBMP, 2010 ........................................ 91

Annex 2: List of Bio gas plant users surveyed.................................................................................... 101

Annex 3: Checklist for Qualitative Data Collection ............................................................................ 108

Page 4

Acronyms

BAU Bangladesh Agriculture University

BCSIR Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

BP Biogas Plant

DPHE Department of Public Health Engineering

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GoB Government of Bangladesh

HHs Households

HSC Higher Secondary School Certificate

IDCOL Infrastructure Development Company Limited

IGA Income Generating Activities

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wideraufbau (Credit Institution for Reconstruction)

KG Kilogram

KII Key Informant Interview

LGED Government Engineering Department

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

NDBMP National Domestic Biogas and Manure Program

NGO Non- Government Organization

O&P Operation and Maintenance

PO Partner Organization

RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal

SNV Netherlands Development Organization

SSC Secondary School Certificate

TOR Terms of Reference

TV Television

Page 5

Executive Summary

Background

In the context of gradually increasing energy crises in Bangladesh, greater emphasis is being

given on expanding the use of renewable energy in the country. Biogas, which is derived from

animal and municipal wastes, has been considered as a promising renewable energy source for

the country while formulating the Renewable Energy Policy of Bangladesh.

Although the first use of biogas in the country dates back to 1972, it was really since the 1990s

when the expansion of biogas as a source of fuel has got some momentum. The Infrastructure

Development Company Limited (IDCOL) emerged in the scene in 2006 and has by now become

one of the major agencies expanding biogas plants across the country. With the support of

Netherlands Development Organization (SNV), IDCOL started National Domestic Biogas and

Manure Program (NDBMP) in Bangladesh from 2006 and later KfW also joined the program

from mid-2009. Some 15,600 domestic biogas plants have been installed by the end of 2010

under the NDBMP. The program aims to construct 37,269 high quality domestic biogas plants by

the end of 2012 across the country through the partner organizations.

Since the inception of NDBMP, Annual Biogas Users’ Surveys have been conducted regularly.

The Survey of 2010 manifests a continuity of that practice. The Annual Biogas Users’ Survey

2010 aims at making a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the biogas plants installed in

the year 2010 on energy, health and sanitation, and agricultural systems as well as technical,

socio-economic, market, environmental and gender concerns.

The methodology of the Survey represents an integration of quantitative and qualitative methods

of data collection and analysis although the former method was more prominent than the latter.

The main source of data is a questionnaire survey conducted on 300 biogas using households

selected from 12 upazilas of the country using a stratified random sampling approach. In

addition to the questionnaire survey, qualitative investigations were undertaken in the forms of

focus group discussion (FGD), case studies, and interviews.

Information on users

The surveyed biogas plants represent all sizes of plants installed in 2010 ranging from 1.6 cubic

meters to 4.8 cubic meters. The highest number of plants (134 out of 300) represents the middle

size i.e. 2.4 cubic meters. Out of the 300 plants surveyed, 253 are cow-dung based and the

Page 6

remaining 47 are poultry-litter based.

The decision for the household to install biogas plants has depended mainly on space

availability, livestock availability, and ability to invest and pay installments of loan. Most of the

biogas users have a fair level of educational background. Businessmen constitute the biggest

occupational group among the surveyed biogas users followed by farmers. These two groups

count for more than 60 percent of all the surveyed biogas users.

Single burner is the dominant form of using biogas in the surveyed households: 216 out of 300

households use single burners. The daily average use varies a little bit between single and

double burners: 4.42 hours for single burner and 3.72 hours for double burner.

The number of cattle used for biogas plants ranges from 4 to 13, according to the size of the

plant, and averages at 6. On the other hand, the number of poultry birds used for poultry-litter

based plants ranges from 250 to 1212, and averages at 1180. More than 80 percent of the plants

need to be loaded only once in a day. Out of the 300 plants, 232 use a one-to-one ratio of raw

materials and water.

The majority of the surveyed plants have one slurry pit and 72 plants have no slurry pit at all.

The plants having no slurry pit dispose the bio-slurry directly to nearby water-body. The size of

slurry pit is positively correlated to the size of biogas plants as expected. Almost half of the

plants have no pit boundary and 60 percent have not pit shed. The 300 surveyed biogas plants

have been constructed by 18 partner organizations (POs) of NDBMP. Plastic pipes are used

overwhelmingly (96 percent) as the gas distribution device, and for gas transmission, overhead

method is overwhelmingly preferred to underground method. Average distance of biogas plants

from the nearest water source is about 18 meters. Only 13 of the surveyed plants have toilet

attached, which is a reflection of different social taboos prevailing about the it. The respondents’

opinions about the skill of the mason who constructed the plan are very good although about

three fourths of the users do not think that the construction was up to the standard.

Economic benefits, saved time and energy, environmental benefits, health benefits, and non-

availability of other fuel sources have been reported as the greatest motivating factors for

installing biogas plants. Only a few of the biogas plants surveyed were found not function.

However, about one fifth of the plants are not functioning properly. Almost three fourths of the

surveyed users are fully satisfied with the functioning of the plants. In case of non-functioning,

poor construction has been identified as the main cause.

Most of the surveyed users have good knowledge about the daily amount of feeding materials

that need to be put into the plant. However, this knowledge has not necessarily come from

training since almost 60 percent of the surveyed users have not received any training on the

Page 7

operation of the plant.

The amount of investment required for installing a bio-gas plant depends on the size of the plant.

The average amount is about 40 thousand taka ranging between 28 thousand and 70 thousand

subject to size of the plant. A portion of the required investment is available in the form of a

grant from NDBMP and the remaining has to be incurred by the household. However, loans are

provided on installments by the POs working in the respective areas.

There are notable seasonal variations in the aspects of availability of raw materials, gas

availability and quantity of slurry produced. Rainy season is generally better for gas availability

whereas the flow really shrinks during the winter.

Impact

Use of biogas has contributed to significant benefits in terms of health, socio-economic status,

women’s workload, agriculture and environment. The users have reported significant health

benefits resulting from reduced air pollution and the associated eye and respiratory infections.

The environment has become cleaner, which has had positive indirect impact on the health of the

household members. One notable benefit is the reduction of fire-induced accidents resulting

from non-use of firewood and other traditional fuels.

The socio-economic benefits are quite remarkable. The greatest benefits come from saved time

and money. The 300 households in one year have saved 23,816 workdays through reduced time

required for cooking and management of fuel. Much of the saved time is being used for income-

generating activities (IGAs) and education of the children. The money saved from reduced fuel

costs account for more than five million taka for the surveyed households in one year. A

significant positive change in the economic status of the households has occurred resulting from

the saved money and time. Only 5 percent of the surveyed households now face deficit in

income, which was 23 percent before they started using bio-gas. Few households (24 in total)

even make some money by selling gas to other households. The saved time being invested in

children’s education is already contributing toward improving the status of education of

household members.

The FGD participants have stated several benefits of the use of biogas. Cooking is become

easier. Before using biogas they had to spend 4 to 5 hours a day for cooking and during the time

of cooking women could not do other works which they can easily do now. Discussions at the

FGDs come up with further qualitative aspect of time saved. Thus, although in terms of number

of hours, about an hour is saved per day per household, the actual saving is much more when it is

considered that women can attend other activities while cooking with the biogas. Cooking with

Page 8

firewood means that the person cooking has to be at the burner full time till the cooking is

finished as a consistent level of fire has to be maintained by continuously putting firewood into

the burner and controlling the heat. However, with biogas burners it is no more needed and

women can start cooking and come back to the burner at certain intervals depending on the

progress of cooking.

These impacts of the bio-gas on households have significant gender implications. Although most

of the decisions and management of the biogas plant are done by the male members of the

household, in terms of benefits, women are affected in a very positive way. Most of the benefits

go to women. Thus, biogas can be considered a gender sensitive intervention at the household

level. One of the female FGD participants said, “I cook three dishes in the morning, I have no

tiredness and it takes only thirty minutes. When children come back from school I can give them

snacks, which is a pleasure for me.” One male participant of FGD stated, “After getting biogas

facilities I come back to my house in the evening regularly and take snacks with my family

members which is great pleasure to me. If there is peace everything seems good.”

The majority of the households are not involved in agriculture as their main economic activity.

These households do have livestock and thus in a sense can be called farming households, but

are not involved in crop agriculture as their main activity. So the question is: why farmers are

not the major users of biogas. An analysis of the livestock mapping undertaken as a part of this

study reveals that in almost all the villages surveyed, the number of households having the

required livestock is far more than the households having biogas plants. In most cases, the

number of biogas plants can be increased several times than the current number if the livestock

availability is considered as the main pre-requisite for installing biogas plant.

The benefits of biogas in agriculture are enormous, particularly in terms of the use of bio-slurry

as fertilizer, which is very good for the soil fertility. The main use of the bio-slurry in the

surveyed plants is as fertilizer in the crop field. It is also used as fish feed by some of the

surveyed users. Significant benefits of biogas in improving cowshed management, soil fertility,

animal health, and fodder management have been reported by the surveyed users.

The saved firewood resulting from the use of biogas means that the 300 households in one year

have burned 900 metric tons less firewood. This results in less air pollution, less emission of

carbon and less deforestation, which are all great for the environment and climate. Apart from

the natural environment, the FGD participants explained how the social environment has

improved. It has mainly come from increased comfort in daily life and saved time from cooking

contributing to enhanced social interactions. The advent of biogas is also seen by the users as a

sign of urbanization as well. However, the social benefits remain limited mainly within the users

of biogas and cannot extend significantly to the communities at large because of limited

penetration of biogas plants in each of the villages. Had the number of users been significantly

larger, it would bring about more noticeable changes at the community level.

Page 9

The quantitative and qualitative data collected in the survey present a mixed picture in terms of

quality of services and client satisfaction. More than two dozens of partner organizations of

IDCOL are engaged in providing services to biogas users across the country. According to

qualitative findings of the selected study area, there are differences among the POs in terms of

the quality of services.

The level of client satisfaction is generally high and strongly correlated with the status of

functioning of the installed biogas plants. Although about three fourths of the clients are fully

satisfied as their plants are fully functional, it is important to note that more than a quarter of the

users are either partially unsatisfied or not satisfied at all. Moreover, a desegregated view of

these data across the POs needs to be adopted.

Market

The marketing aspects of the biogas plants and that of bio-slurry are interrelated. It is evident

that there are great potentials of biogas in Bangladesh, much of which still remains unexploited.

Livestock mapping in selected villages (conducted in the FGDs) clearly shows that the number

of biogas users is very low compared to the total number of households who can be considered

as potential users of biogas. It is clear from the above data and from FGDs with non-users that

there is significant demand for biogas which has not yet been exploited. A number of factors

appear to limit the expansion of biogas although the benefits are visible. The quality of services

by the POs manifested from the existing users, inability to arrange the required investment for

installing biogas plants, lack of sufficient space and inconsistent presence of skilled persons of

the POs are among the major factors hindering the expansion of the biogas market.

One of the important marketing aspects related to biogas is the bio-slurry that is extracted out of

the plant. The potential of bio-slurry as a good fertilizer has been discussed much and is well

recognized. However, it remains questionable whether much of the potentials of bio-slurry have

effectively been exploited so far or not.

It is evident that bio-slurry is an economically valuable product, if it is properly prepared for the

market. The data suggest that a huge potential of commercial utilization of biogas is not being

exploited, and thus the users are not maximizing their economic benefits from the biogas. It is

clearly from the qualitative data that there is a huge lack of knowledge about the marketing of

bio-slurry and making it marketable. Although many users are using the slurry for their own

crop fields, many are not farmers and in those cases, the slurry is just wasted. The role of the

biogas providers can be questioned here again. The diffusion of knowledge about the marketing

of bio-slurry should be integrated in the services and trainings provided by the NGOs.

Page 10

Another factor that limits the marketing potentials from buyers’ perspective is that in most cases

there is an absence of critical mass of bio-slurry in a particular village. As a result, it is not cost-

effective for the buyers to visit a village with a possibility of getting only a limited quantity of

bio-slurry.

There is a clear lack of efforts of making bio-slurry more marketable by improving it with

addition of organic materials and adding value to the product. Only 13 of the surveyed users (6

percent) have tried to do so. Among the materials added to the slurry, green compost manure

and chemical fertilizer are the most common. The lack of marketing efforts is also reflected in

the fact that more than half of the plant owners pile up the cow-dung/poultry-litter regularly, and

only a little more than one third of the plant owners compost those regularly. The quality of the

slurry also depends on the regular aeration of the decomposing materials, which is not done by

more than one third of the users. One of the major reasons behind this lack of marketing efforts

is the lack of know-how about these aspects. The training provided by the POs are already very

limited and do not include any component on bio-slurry management. Thus, due to the lack of

knowledge of the users, the major portion of the bio-slurry produced every day is not utilized

effectively.

The marketing aspects of biogas can be seen more clearly through a supply chain. All the inputs

(e.g. cash, equipment, technical support and service) are provided by the POs of IDCOL in the

NDBMP. At the local market level, biogas has two types of economic uses: (i) the gas itself as

fuel and (ii) the slurry as fertilizer. Both are marketable, but in most cases are consumed by the

plant owners. The ultimate use of the products depend on the end market, where we see a

number of players: farmers using slurry as fertilizer (both the plant-owning farmers and those

who are buying bio-slurry; plant owners using slurry as fish feed and, of course, the plant owners

themselves using the gas as fuel for cooking. Although most of these end-uses do not enter into

market, they represent clear value addition and are used as products the alternative to which had

to be otherwise procured from the market.

A lot of interesting information on the use of bio-slurry is collected from various FGDs. Many

participants labeled it as a magic. They have told that it is one of the best fertilizers that can

reduce the consumption of urea, phosphate and sulphur, and thus ultimately reduces the cost of

production. They have also reported that generally they would prepare fertilizer from cow-dung,

which is less effective due to having gas in it, but in the case of bio-slurry there is no gas and it is

very effective for soil. Most of the FGD participants have told that those who have plant can

save 700-800 taka per month. Some of the users are getting benefits by using bio-slurry as fish

feed. Earlier they had to use urea, phosphate and sulphur in the pond but now they don’t use any

fertilizer. As a result they get more benefit from fish culture and also helping to keep their pond

water free of chemical pollution.

Page 11

But, apart from the scattered cases, most of the slurry remains unused or misused due to the

following causes:

• Lack of adequate knowledge about the use and profitability of bio-slurry

• Lack of appropriate size of bio-slurry pits and shade of the biogas plants (most of the

users fail to preserve/dry bio-slurry for using it as fertilizer).

• The pond keeps dry during the early summer and become unsuitable for fish culture. As a

result bio-slurry is not use at that time of the year.

• Hesitation to handle slurry by hand, especially in case of poultry-litter

• Lack of adequate spaces around the biogas plant to manage slurry.

Recommendations

• There is a need for reviewing the role of the service providers in the field, i.e. the partner

organizations (POs). The review will help identify the gaps and variations in practices

that at times cause dissatisfaction among the current users and thus hinder the expansion

of bio-gas among new users. The review should be done by an independent team of

experts having very specific terms of reference.

• Appropriate and sufficient supervision and monitoring system should be in place by

IDCOL to make sure that the services provided in the field comply with the standards set

at the NDBMP level. The monitoring is particularly needed to make sure that the

financial incentives planned in the Program reach the users in reality. The system can

take the form of periodic verification with a set of randomly sampled users representing

all the regions and POs. The monitoring system should not involve the POs in any part of

its process.

• The current structure and nature of financial incentives given to the users need to be

reviewed to come up with more comfortable financial arrangements for the users of

biogas. In this regard, a number of aspects of the financial incentives should be re-

considered: size of grant and loan; number and size of installments. Scopes for tailoring

the financial incentives according to the need of the potential clients should be there.

• Greater attention should be given to improving the training for the biogas users. The

training component can be directly handled by NDBMP instead of the current

arrangement of providing it through the POs, who are clearly not providing sufficient

trainings to the users at present. A unified format and standard of the training should be

implemented across all the regions and POs. It is essential to make sure that all the bio-

gas users receive training of similar standards after installation of bio-gas plants.

• A centralized strategy should be devised to ensure regular quality services to the biogas

users to minimize the prevailing dissatisfaction among a significant proportion of the

current users. NDBMP needs to decide whether the service will be provided through a

Page 12

central mechanism or through the POs. If the POs are responsible for providing the

services, their contractual requirements should be very clear in terms of the frequency

and quality of service provision to the users.

• Greater diffusion of knowledge on marketing of bio-slurry should be initiated. While this

can be undertaken as a centralized strategy, the diffusion of knowledge should be done at

the partners’ level as well. Two specific suggestions are made in this regard:

o An independent study on the current capacity and potentials of marketing the bio-

gas plants and bio-slurry should be undertaken. The study should exclusively

focus on the marketing aspects and should be conducted by a team of marketing

and bio-gas experts. The study should also assess the needs for capacity building

among the partners vis-à-vis marketing of bio-gas plants and bio-slurry.

o Based on the recommendations of the study on marketing, all the POs should be

brought under training on marketing of bio-gas plants and bio-slurry.

• Agricultural research institutes like BARI should be involved in research for improving

the quality of bio-slurry as good and marketable fertilizer, and to devise ways for

expanding the use of it. A formal partnership with BARI could help in this regard.

• Overall, the delivery mechanism through the POs should be improved substantially to

make sure that the centrally planned packages are implemented with a unified standard

across different partners and regions.

• An independent country-wide needs assessment survey should be conducted to estimate

an overall demand for biogas at present. This will help in devising future investment

plan in this important sector of renewable energy.

• Integrating multiple uses of biogas instead of keeping it limited only within gas supply

will make biogas plants more lucrative for people, particularly in the areas currently

deprived of electricity. An independent strategy to reach the un-electrified areas of the

country with the technology of using biogas for electricity as well can be developed and

implemented.

• Popularizing biogas has to be given high priority. The vibrant media of Bangladesh

should be utilized for creating mass awareness among people about the benefits of biogas

and also as a means of connecting to wider population. Particularly, the use of electronic

media can be very effective in creating mass awareness about it. A communication

strategy should be developed by NDBMP for popularizing biogas in the country. While

the communication strategy should be developed and implemented by specialized

agencies, the following are few ideas for considering as inputs to the strategy:

o A short documentary film on bio-gas can be prepared to illustrate the benefits of

bio-gas, its use and its marketing potentials. The documentary can be customized

for a number of purposes: TV telecasting and screening in the fields by POs.

o One-minute TV spots on bio-gas can be a very effective tool for creating mass

awareness about the use and benefits of bio-gas. The TV spots can focus on

different aspects of bio-gas and be telecasted in the TV channels frequently over

Page 13

a specific period subject to resources available for investment for the purpose.

o TV talk shows on bio-gas can be arranged with a number of TV channels. This

can be done in two ways: (i) discussing the issues of bio-gas on popular TV talk

shows; and/or (ii) preparing special talk shows on bio-gas.

o Roundtable discussion with reputed daily newspapers involving the experts and

other stakeholders of the sector can be a very effective tool for drawing attention

of the policy makers and wider population.

• A central strategy to enhance the marketing of bio-slurry should be developed. Agencies

specializing in market development issues should be involved in developing the

marketing strategy. The marketing strategy should take into consideration the findings

of the study recommended in Section 11.1 and should involve all the POs who should be

trained on marketing issues before the strategy formulation.

• The common recommendation derived from the FGDs conducted at selected study

locations is that discussion and demonstration on biogas plants need to be organized in

rural areas (or at least at upazila level) to popularize the use of it. To make these

discussions more attractive and effective, visual demonstrations with videos (as

mentioned above) and pictures should be used.

Page 14

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Given the decline in fossil fuel availability, their predicted gradual extinction in the next few

decades and the resultant price volatility due to demand-supply gap, and the need to drastically

cut global emission for mitigating climate change1, efficient utilization of renewable energy

resources is being considered as one of the major potential solutions to the problem of current

and predicted energy crisis in Bangladesh. In that context, biogas, which is derived from animal

and municipal wastes, has been considered as a promising renewable energy source for the

country while formulating the Renewable Energy Policy of Bangladesh2.

There are indications that consumption of biomass energy has already exceeded the regenerative

limit and there prevails energy crisis in the rural areas of Bangladesh. Because of energy

shortage, more and more agricultural residues and animal dung are being used as fuel depriving

the soil of organic matter and essential nutrients. As a result, soil fertility is declining and the

farmers are becoming more and more dependent on chemical fertilizer. Moreover, use of

biomass, as fuel in traditional stoves, is responsible for in-door air pollution causing health

hazards to the users. It is apprehended that, with the population growth, the energy crisis,

environmental degradation, indoor air pollution-related diseases, deforestation, declining of soil

fertility, use of chemical fertilizer declining of agricultural yield and cost of production will

sharpen further if things move as usual and no alternative measures are undertaken. Biogas offers

a sustainable solution, at least in part, to all these problems. The technology is simple, proven

and acceptable to the common people. Raw materials are available easily and cheaply in the rural

areas. It is economic and affordable3.

Presently there are tens of thousands of households and village-level biogas plants in place

throughout the country. It is a potential source to harness basic biogas technology for cooking,

and rural and peri-urban electrification to provide electricity during periods of power shortfalls

(GOB 2008).

However, need and potential of biogas have been felt right after the Independence of

Bangladesh. Thus the history of the use of biogas goes back to 1972 with the installation of the

1 Renewable Energy Policy of Bangladesh 2008.

2 Ibid

3 Terms of Refernce provided by IDCOL.

Page 15

first biogas plant in the Bangladesh Agriculture University (BAU). But due to high costs, the

expansion of the use of biogas has remained limited in the 1970s and 1980s with a few hundred

plants constructed in the entire country in the two decades. A significant expansion move was

undertaken by the Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR) under the

Biogas Pilot Plant (1st Phase) Project that installed nearly 5,000 biogas plants during July 1995 to

June 2000. Soon the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) emerged as another

important agency undertaking the initiative and BCSIR continued their work for another phase.

In this trend, the Infrastructure Development Company Limited (IDCOL) emerged in the scene

in 2006 and has by now become one of the major agencies expanding biogas plants across the

country.

1.2 NDBMP

IDCOL with the support of Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) had started National

Domestic Biogas and Manure Program (NDBMP) in Bangladesh from 2006 and later KfW also

joined the program from mid-2009. Some 15,600 domestic biogas plants have been installed by

the end of 2010 under the NDBMP. The program aims to construct 37,269 high quality domestic

biogas plants by the end of 2012 across the country through the partner organizations.

It is observed by IDCOL that the success of a program cannot be judged merely by quantitative

figures of biogas plants. Rather the functioning of the installed plants is very crucial. On the

other hand, various direct and indirect but important benefits enjoyed by the users of biogas

technology should be taken into consideration. It is imperative to know how far the users of

biogas, who are the ultimate beneficiary of the program, have derived benefit from their plants

and the program as a whole and to what extent they are satisfied with the technology. It is

equally important to assess socio-economic impact brought about by this technology. Thus, in

order to obtain necessary feedbacks about the technology, it is essential to monitor both the

technology and its impact on user satisfaction by conducting appropriate and detailed surveys at

regular intervals4.

The annual Biogas Users Survey has been conducted since the inception of the NDBMP. The

program views Biogas Users Survey as one of the ways to keep in touch with the reality on

household level and as a means of generating findings and suggestions that can be used for the

improvement of the program deliveries. So far, 3 surveys have been conducted and hence the

current survey is the fourth one. This survey aims to assess various impacts of biogas as well as

to find out the effect of biogas on health, agriculture, climate change and workload of women

and children. The findings as well as recommendations of the survey report are to be used for

further improvements in the program deliveries.

4 Terms of Reference provided by IDCOL.

Page 16

2. Objective and Methodology

2.1 Objective of the Survey

The overall objective of the Biogas Users’ Survey 2010 is to make a comprehensive assessment

of the impact of the biogas plants installed in the year 2010 on energy, health and sanitation, and

agricultural systems as well as technical, socio-economic, market, environmental and gender

concerns.

The specific objectives of the survey are to assess and analyze following aspects of biogas:

A. Impact on Health and Sanitation

The survey focuses on the following health related issues:

• Exposure to indoor air pollution and reduction of smoke in the kitchen due to biogas

• Respiratory and eye infection

• Mosquito induced diseases and nuisance

• Status of toilets, toilets used and toilet attached biogas plant

• Fire/burning accidents, general physical condition (stress, free time, time for feeding etc)

among women, men and children

B. Impact on Socio-economic Conditions

Following issues having socio-economic implications are addressed in the survey:

• Time and money saved through different household and biogas related activities

• Use of the saved time in different income generating activities

• Changes in income and access to the natural resources

• Employment generation

• Determination of economic level of biogas owners as compared to the nonusers

• Financing source for biogas plants

• Educational status of the user

C. Information on Biogas plant owner and Biogas Plants

Following biogas plant related information has been collected:

• Information on demography, education, occupation, farm size, farming system

Page 17

components etc.

• Motivation of the households for the installation of the biogas plant

• What is the size of the plant and who and why that particular size was chosen?

• Who chose the site for construction of biogas plants?

• Number of bio-slurry pit, pit size and pit management

• Who conducted the feasibility visit and was the owner appropriately consulted?

• Instruction on operation as provided by the Partner Organizations (POs)

• Operation and maintenance of the biogas plant including trainings

• After- construction-services provided by the POs

• Plant operation rate, problem and maintenance cost

• Major problems faced by the users

• Dung availability per day and burning hours of biogas stove

• Functioning biogas plant

• Was the plant built in the time specified in the contract and/or as promised verbally?

• Was the mason skilful enough? Was it a trained mason or the local mason? Is the plant of

a good quality?

• Plants financed by financial institutions or cash

• Dealing with financial institutions; how difficult/easy?

• Other organizations supporting biogas

D. Users’ Satisfaction and Perception

Perceptions of the biogas users with regards to the following relevant issues are assessed:

• Their awareness, requirements and suggestions for possible improvement

• Operation and maintenance training received by them

• Means of communication on biogas

• Satisfaction/ dissatisfaction

• Sources of biogas information

• Repair and maintenance

• Family member responsible for contacting the PO

• Time and types of services provided by the PO

E. Impacts on Gender

Since biogas provides direct benefit to rural women especially, as a result of the reduction of

workload, following gender related issues should be assessed:

Page 18

• Women's participation in decision making process

• Construction, operation, maintenance and management of biogas plant

• Ability of women to contact the PO for services/repairs

• Technical know-how of either men or women

• Benefits derived by the women and children from the installation of biogas plant

• Health and workload change before and after biogas installation

• Enrolment of girls in schools

• Income generation and productive work

• Women's involvement in social works

• Time involvement of women vis-à-vis men in household chores like cooking, feeding,

fuel wood collection, operation of biogas plant, etc.

F. Impacts on Agriculture

The survey will focus on the following issues:

• Cattle population, grazing method (openly grazed /stall fed), shed management, animal

health, fodder management etc

• Changes in the above practices after the installation of biogas

• Quantity of dung produced each day and its utilization in the biogas (loading rate), dung

patties for burning purposes and manure for composting purpose

• Received training materials and training on bio-slurry management and utilization and

from whom

• Changes in the composting practices such as piling up the manure, turning the

decomposing materials for aeration and duration of bio slurry storage in the pit

• Bio slurry use pattern and their effectiveness on crop growth and yield, soil fertility and

ultimately the farm income

• Pond condition (Size, seasonal or annual) and its utilization

• Status of fish feeding and use of bio-slurry as fish feed

• Effectiveness of bio-slurry on fish growth, yield and farm income

G. Energy, Emission Reduction and Environmental Impacts

The survey will focus on the following issues:

• Household daily utilization of fire wood (quantity and quality of saving firewood),

agriculture residues, animal dung, kerosene, LPG for cooking and type of stoves

• Changes in the above practices after the installation of biogas

• Daily gas production and consumption

Page 19

• Local (household) environmental condition before and after the installation of biogas and

its impact on local environment

H. Integration in the Market System and scoping for new customer

The survey will capture the following issues:

• Rate of production of bio-slurry from the plant

• Amount of money earned from selling the bio-slurry/price of the bio-slurry at local

market.

• Number of potential customers visited the plant.

• Supply chain of biogas plant with associated value chains.

2.2 Methodology

The overall methodological approach is focused on integration of quantitative and qualitative

methods while the former dominates. Along with a questionnaire survey, which is the main

source of data, a number of qualitative tools have been used for data collection. The findings

from the questionnaire survey and qualitative investigation are made complementary to each

other throughout the phases of data collection to analysis.

2.2.1 Sampling

Sampling of households for survey has been done using a stratified random sampling approach.

The total number of households is 300. For sampling purposes, the country has been divided in

4 major regions representing the former Divisions of the country, i.e. Dhaka, Chittagong,

Rajshahi and Khulna. The required numbers of households have been selected from each region

to reach the total sample size of 300. The sample size for each region is proportionate to the

number of total households having biogas plants in the region. The sampling is done through the

following steps:

o From each of the 4 regions, 3 districts have been selected randomly to cover the major

ecological and socio-cultural variations prevailing in the region. The random sampling

has been repeated until the selected districts sufficiently represented the variations.

o The number of households in each region has been divided by 3 to get the required

number of households to be surveyed in each of the 3 districts of each region. The

districts having fewer households than the required number have not been considered.

o In case of large number and spread of households in a district, further stratification in

selecting sub-districts or communities has been undertaken to select the households from

Page 20

a randomly selected upazila.

o From the list of households having biogas in the selected district/upazila, the required

number of households has been sampled randomly for the survey.

Map of Sampled Study Districts

Page 21

Table 2.1: Sampling Distribution

Region District Upazila Number of Sampled Biogas Plants

(Sample Size)

Cattle Poultry Total

Dhaka Gazipur Sreepur 14 14 28

Munshiganj Sadar 28 0 28

Narayanganj Rupganj 18 10 28

Khulna +

Barisal

Jessore Monirampur 22 0 22

Kushtia Sadar 22 0 22

Meherpur Gangni 21 1 22

Rajshahi +

Rangpur

Pabna Sadar 24 12 36

Gaibandha Sadullapur 36 0 36

Rangpur Pirgachha 35 1 36

Chittagong

+ Sylhet

Noakhali Sadar 12 2 14

Habiganj Sadar & Nabiganj 14 0 14

Sylhet Biswanath 14 0 14

Total 260 40 300

2.2.2 Representation of Non-users and Partner Organizations

The non-users of biogas plants have been covered by qualitative investigation. A number of

FGDs have been conducted with the non-users. The sampled users have covered 18 POs in the

selected districts.

2.2.3 Data Collection Tools

Quantitative Data

A survey on plant-using households has been conducted using a structured and pre-coded

questionnaire developed in the light of the TOR.

Qualitative Data

A set of qualitative tools have been used to collect additional data apart from the questionnaire

survey. Table 2.2 presents a summary of the qualitative tools that have been used.

Page 22

Table 2.2: Collection of Qualitative Data

Tools Respondents Techniques Focus

FGD Selected members

of users and non-

users5

• Resource mapping

• Livestock mapping6

• Activity mapping7

• Seasonality analysis

• Discussion using

checklist

• Market actor mapping

Preparing a group profile with all

the relevant information for

analysis with the quantitative

data. Moreover, a market

potential of the impact of the

biogas plant on the non-users can

also be checked.

Case

Study

Selected HHs that

owns a biogas

plant8

One-to-one extended

interview (if required,

more than one session)

Collecting anecdotal evidences

on individuals in support of the

other group based or overall

data/statistics

KII Knowledgeable

individuals in the

community,

implementing

NGOs

One-to-one interview of

the nature of informal

discussion

Collecting information about the

locality and its different

dynamics related to the survey

issues e.g. market demand.

A number of FGDs have been conducted in selected study areas. Table 2.3 shows the locations

of the FGDs.

Table 2.3: Focus Group Discussion Matrix of Biogas Survey 2010

Division District Upazila Union Village/ para POs

Dhaka Munsiganj Sadar Mollahkandi Char Dumuria SUK

Khulna Jessore Monirampur Nanggurahat Grameen Shakti

Khulna Kustia Sadar Ailechara Khodra Ailechara Disha

Rajshahi Pabna Sadar Jotcolsha Jotcolsha Disha

Khulna Meherpur Gangni Gangni

Pourashava

Bashbaria Grameen Shakti

Rajshahi Pabna Tabunia Maligasa Boira Disha

5 All members in cases groups are too small (8 or 5 members) and two groups together when the groups are even smaller

(3 members) 6 For farmers’ groups

7 For other groups than farmers

8 Not necessarily each group

Page 23

2.3 Structure of this report

This report is divided in 11 Chapters. The first two chapters are on background and

methodologies. The third chapter presents detailed information on the surveyed users and their

plants. This is the most informative chapter of the report. The next five chapters (Chapter 4 to

Chapter 8) present findings on impact of biogas on users from different dimensions. Chapter 9

develops a brief analysis on quality of services and client satisfaction base on the data from

previous chapters. Chapter 10 focuses on the market dimension of biogas. The final chapter

presents a number of recommendations based on the findings presented in the previous chapters.

Each of the chapters has numerous tables, which are netted into the text of the chapter. The

qualitative data has been integrated within the quantitative data and thus do not always appear as

separate sections or chapters. However, brief summaries of the qualitative findings have been

given in selected chapters.

Page 24

3. Information on Biogas Users & Plants

3.1 Plant Size and Households

Among the households surveyed, five types of plant sizes ranging from 1.6 cubic meters (the

smallest) to 4.8 cubic meters (the largest) are found. However, a total of 134 out of 300 plants

are of size 2.4 cubic meter or larger. The medium size plant of 2.4 cubic meters seems to be the

most demanded one. Almost 45 percent of the total surveyed plants are of that size. A clear

tendency of larger plant size among the poultry-based plant users is also there. Out of the 47

poultry-based plants, 30

are of the largest size

(4.8 cubic meters). As

expected, bigger the

household size larger

the size of the plant.

The average household

size among all the plant

users is 6, which is

higher than the national

average of 4.4. Table

3.1 presents the

surveyed data on plant

size and household size.

Out of the 300 surveyed

households, 253 are

based on cow-dung and

the other 47 are based on poultry-litter.

Table 3.1: Distribution of plant user HHs by type of plants, average HH size and plant size

Plant size (m3) Number HHs Average HH size

Cow Poultry Cow Poultry

1.60 8 0 6 -

2.00 45 1 5 4

2.40 128 6 6 5

3.20 53 10 7 7

Page 25

4.80 19 30 9 6

Total 253 47 6 6

The regional distribution of the surveyed plants reflects the overall distribution of the total plants

installed in 2010 (Table 3.2) since the sample sizes are based on the proportions of plants across

the regions. Breaking down the household size further, it is found that the average number of

male members is a little higher than female members (Table 3.3), which is interesting given the

parity in male-female ratio in the population census 2011.

It is also notable that in two of the four regions, the presence of poultry-based biogas plants is

insignificant, one third of all poultry based plants are in Dhaka Division (Table 3.2). Household

size in the Chittagong region has been found very high (Table 3.3), which is somewhat expected

given the relatively bigger family sizes in some districts of Chittagong and Sylhet Divisions.

Table 3.2: Distribution of plants by region and feeding materials

Region Cow Poultry All

Number % Number % Number %

Chittagong 40 15.8 2 4.3 42 14.0

Dhaka 53 20.9 31 66.0 84 28.0

Khulna 65 25.7 1 2.1 66 22.0

Rajshahi 95 37.5 13 27.7 108 36.0

Total 253 100.0 47 100.0 300 100.0

Table 3.3: Average household size by sex and region

Region Male Female All

Chittagong 4.8 3.7 8.5

Dhaka 3.2 2.8 6.0

Khulna 2.9 2.3 5.2

Rajshahi 3.2 2.9 6.2

All regions 3.4 2.9 6.2

3.2 Decision to install

Qualitative investigation reveals that the decision regarding the size of biogas plants installed has

depended on a number of factors like the following:

• Space available in/around homestead for installation of the plant

• Availability of the required livestock (cattle or poultry)

• Amount of money and installments.

Page 26

It should be noted that although installments for repaying the loan given to the users are

supposed to be similar everywhere, the survey discovers different practices regarding this, which

clearly has implications on the decision of the households in installing biogas plants. This

particular aspect is further elaborated in the following chapters of this report.

3.3 Users’ Background

The biogas users have good level of education compared to the national averages. Only about 10

percent of the users do not have any education, and three fourths of the surveyed users have

education levels above primary (Table 3.4). This also reflects the fact that the poorest are not

usually the users of biogas plants as they need to have some resources (land and livestock) to be

able to install plants at their homesteads. This idea is further supported by the fact that

businessmen (39 percent) and farmers (23 percent) constitute the majority of the users of biogas

plants (Table 3.5). It should be noted that the occupation reported is the main one for the

household, and thus may have other secondary occupations as well. Information about average

landholding is presented and discussed in Chapter 7.

Table 3.4: Education of users by type of plants

Education Cow Poultry All


Illiterate 4 1.6 0 0.0 4 1.3

Literate but no institutional

education 23 9.1 2 4.3 25 8.3

Primary or equivalent 41 16.2 2 4.3 43 14.3

Secondary or equivalent 62 24.5 14 29.8 76 25.3

SSC passed or equivalent 44 17.4 14 29.8 58 19.3

HSC passed or equivalent 40 15.8 5 10.6 45 15.0

Graduation or equivalent 27 10.7 9 19.1 36 12.0

Post Graduation or equivalent 12 4.7 1 2.1 13 4.3

Total 253 100.0 47 100.0 300 100.0

Table 3.5: Main occupation of users by type of plants

Occupation Cow Poultry All


Service 34 13.4 2 4.3 36 12.0

Business 82 32.4 34 72.3 116 38.7

Farmer 63 24.9 6 12.8 69 23.0

Day laborer 7 2.8 0 .0 7 2.3

Page 27

Fisherman 1 .4 0 .0 1 .3

House wife 25 9.9 1 2.1 26 8.7

Others 41 16.2 4 8.5 45 15.0

Total 253 100.0 47 100.0 300 100.0

3.4 Daily Use of Biogas Plants by Households

Most of the biogas plant-using households use single burners (216 out of 300 plant users).

However, use of double burners is also quite substantial (88 out of 300 plant users). Some of the

households even have more than one single or double burner (Table 3.6 and 3.7).

The average hours of use correlates largely with the size of the plant as reflected in Table 3.8.

However, the average of use hours is less for double burners compared to single burners, which

is expected. It is also important to note that the average of use hours is higher in case poultry

based plants.

Table 3.6: Number of households using single burner by size of plants

Size of Plant

(m3)

Number of single burner

1 single 2 single 3 single All

1.60 5 0 0 5

2.00 38 0 0 38

2.40 89 11 5 105

3.20 17 21 2 40

4.80 9 12 7 28

Total 158 44 14 216

Table 3.7: Number of household uses double burner by size of plants

Size of Plant (m3) Number of double burner

1 double 2 double All

1.60 3 0 3

2.00 7 1 8

2.40 24 6 30

3.20 17 4 21

4.80 21 5 26

Total 72 16 88

Table 3.8: Daily average uses (hours) of burners by type and size of plants

Plant Size

(m3)

Cow Poultry All

Single

burner

Double

burner

Single

burner

Double

burner

Single

burner

Double

burner

Page 28

1.60 3.60 2.08 - - 3.60 2.08

2.00 5.76 3.43 - 2.50 5.76 3.31

2.40 3.77 3.55 4.00 2.33 3.78 3.43

3.20 3.84 3.21 4.83 3.13 3.98 3.19

4.80 4.58 4.50 6.56 4.93 5.81 4.76

All sizes 4.22 3.54 5.82 4.17 4.42 3.72

3.5 Raw Materials

As expected, the average numbers of cattle and poultry birds are found to be higher with the

larger plants. The overall average number of cattle is 6 and that of poultry birds is 1180 (Table

3.9). Similarly, the average quantities of raw materials (cow dung and poultry litter) used for the

different sizes of plants are presented in Table 3.10. The majority of the plants (242 out of 300)

operate with one-time daily loading of raw material irrespective of the size of the plants. The

loading frequency does not seem to correlate strongly with the size of the plants (Table 3.11).

Almost 80 percent of the plants use a 1:1 ratio of raw materials and water (Table 3.12).

Table 3.9: Average number of cattle and poultry birds by plant size

Size of Plant (m3) Average of number cattle Average of number of poultry bird

1.60 4 -

2.00 4 250

2.40 6 912

3.20 7 1340

4.80 13 1212

All sizes 6 1180

Table 3.10: Daily average amount (kg) of raw materials used by type and size of plants

Size of Plant

(m3)

Raw materials used kg/day

Cow Dung Poultry Litter All

1.60 46 - 46

2.00 46 20 46

2.40 62 84 63

3.20 90 85 89

4.80 139 104 119

All sizes 70 95 74

Table 3.11: Daily loading frequency by type and size of plants

Size of Loading frequency per day

Page 29

Plant (m3) Dung Poultry Litter All

Once Twice More Once Twice More Once Twice More

1.60 5 3 0 0 0 0 5 3 0

2.00 37 8 0 1 0 0 38 8 0

2.40 106 18 4 6 0 0 112 18 4

3.20 45 7 1 8 2 0 53 9 1

4.80 10 7 2 24 3 0 34 10 2

All sizes 203 43 7 39 5 0 242 48 7

Table 3.12: Number and percentage of users maintaining different ratios of raw materials

and water by type and size of plants

Size of Plant (m3) Ratio of raw materials and water

1:1 1:2 Total

1.60 7 1 8

2.00 37 9 46

2.40 104 30 134

3.20 52 10 62

4.80 32 14 46

All sizes 232 64 296

3.6 Bio-slurry Pits

Bio-slurry pits management is one of the important aspects of the use of biogas plants. Tables

3.13, 3.14 and 3.15 present different aspects of slurry pits associated with the biogas plants

surveyed. A number of weaknesses are observed in this regard. Out of the 300 surveyed plants,

72 do not have any slurry pit. These plants discharge the slurry directly to a water-body. This is

either due to unavailability of sufficient space for construction of slurry pits or due to simply

non-construction of the pits by the POs. This does not only contribute to the pollution of water,

but also deprive the households from taking the commercial benefits of the slurry. The majority

(58%) of the plants have one pit, 16% have two pits while few have more than two (Table 3.13).

Table 3.13: Distribution of number of slurry pits by type and size of plants

Size of

Plant

(m3)

Number of Slurry Pits

Cow Dung Poultry Litter Total

One Two Three One Two Three One Two Three

1.60 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0

2.00 29 7 1 0 0 0 29 7 1

2.40 84 21 0 0 1 0 84 22 0

3.20 30 14 1 4 0 0 34 14 1

4.80 8 3 2 15 2 1 23 5 3

Page 30

All sizes 155 46 4 19 3 1 174 49 5

The size of the slurry pits, as expected is positively correlated with the size of the plant: larger

the plant size the larger the size of the slurry pit (Table 3.14). Another aspect of the relatively

poor management of bio-slurry is reflected in the existence of pit boundary and pit shades. Since

the partner organization (PO) is responsible for constructing these, the existence of pit boundary

and pit shed is presented by POs in Table 3.15. Almost half of the plants do not have pit

boundary and more than half do not have pit shed. Only a few POs (3 in total) ensured pit

boundaries and pit sheds for all the plants they have constructed. But the total number of these

plants is 7 only, and thus do not have any significant effect on the overall average. In case of

some POs, none of their plants have pit boundaries and sheds.

Table 3.14: Average size of slurry pits by type and size of plants

Size of Plant

(m3)

Size of slurry pits (m3)

Cow Dung Poultry Litter All

1.60 12.67 - 12.67

2.00 23.85 - 23.33

2.40 26.93 7.37 26.05

3.20 55.04 29.49 50.99

4.80 107.85 39.29 65.88

All sizes 37.90 32.29 37.02

Table 3.15: Percentage/number of plants having pit boundary and pit shed by PO

Name of NGO Pit boundary exists Pit shed exists

Yes No Yes No

ASKS 2 (33.3) 4 (66.7) -- 6 (100.0)

BSUS 13 (76.5) 4 (23.5) 10 (58.8) 7 (41.2)

DESHA 21 (65.6) 11 (34.4) 6 (18.8) 26 (81.3)

DOPS 20 (87.0) 3 (13.0) 19 (82.6) 4 (17.4)

Grameen Shakti 68 (51.1) 65 (48.9) 63 (47.4) 70 (52.6)

IC 4 (100.0) -- 4 (100.0) --

Jahanara Biogas Construction Co. Ltd 1 (100.0) -- -- 1 (100.0)

Kamrul Biogas Co Ltd 1 (100.0) -- -- 1 (100.0)

Nirapad Engineering Ltd -- 3 (100.0) -- 3 (100.0)

RISDA 1 (100.0) -- 1 (100.0) --

RRF 1 (100.0) -- 1 (100.0) --

RSF 3 (42.9) 4 (57.1) 3 (42.9) 4 (57.1)

SETU 5 (71.4) 2 (28.6) 1 (14.3) 6 (85.7)

Shubashati 1 (100.0) -- -- 1 (100.0)

Page 31

Sonali Unnayan Foundation 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 2 (100.0) --

SOUL 7 (100.0) -- 6 (85.70) 1 (14.3)

Srizony Bangladesh -- 10 (100.0) -- 10 (100.0)

SUK 3 (6.8) 41 (93.2) 3 (6.8) 41 (93.2)

Total 152 (50.7) 148 (49.3) 119 (39.7) 181 (60.3)

Figures within parentheses represent percentages.

3.7 Construction Related Aspects of the Plants

The surveyed biogas plants have been constructed by 18 Partner Organizations (POs) of the

NDBMP project. Table 3.16 presents a distribution of the plants by size and POs. The scales of

operation among the POs vary to a great extent. While few of the POs (e.g. Grameen Shakti,

SUK, DESHA) constructed significant numbers of the surveyed plants, some POs constructed

only one or two plants among the surveyed ones.

Different types of materials have been used for the distribution pipes. However, for the

overwhelming majority (96 percent) of the plants, plastic pipes have been used (Table 3.17).

The use of other materials like GI pipe and MS pipe has been rare indeed. Only 4 out of the 300

surveyed users adopted the underground gas transmission method while the rest (296) have gone

for overhead transmission (Table 3.18). The average distance of the biogas plants from the

source of drinking water have been found to be 17.6 meters (Table 3.19).

Table 3.16: Distribution of POs responsible for constructing biogas plants by size of plant

NGO’s Name Size of Plant

1.60 2.00 2.40 3.20 4.80 Total

ASKS 0 2 2 1 1 6

BSUS 0 2 7 7 1 17

DESHA 0 0 13 13 6 32

DOPS 0 5 11 5 2 23

Grameen Shakti 2 22 59 26 24 133

IC 0 0 4 0 0 4

Jahanara biogas 0 1 0 0 0 1

Kamrul Biogas Co 0 0 1 0 0 1

Nirapad Engineer 0 0 0 1 2 3

RISDA 0 0 1 0 0 1

RRF 0 0 1 0 0 1

RSF 0 1 4 2 0 7

SETU 1 1 3 2 0 7

Page 32

Shubashati 1 0 0 0 0 1

Sonali Unnayan F 0 0 2 0 0 2

SOUL 0 0 7 0 0 7

Srizony Banglade 0 4 3 3 0 10

SUK 4 8 16 3 13 44

Total 8 46 134 63 49 300

Page 33

Table 3.17: Percentage of users using different types of gas distribution device by plant size

Size of

Plants (m3)

GI Pipe Plastic Pipe MS Pipe Total

Number % Number % Number % Number %

1.60 0 0.0 8 100.0 0 0.0 8 100.0

2.00 2 4.3 44 95.7 0 0.0 46 100.0

2.40 8 6.0 126 94.0 0 0.0 134 100.0

3.20 1 1.6 61 96.8 1 1.6 63 100.0

4.80 0 0.0 49 100.0 0 0.0 49 100.0

All sizes 11 3.7 288 96.0 1 0.3 300 100.0

Table 3.18: Percentage of users using different gas transmission method by plant size

Size of

Plants (m3)

Underground Overhead Total


1.60 0 0.0 8 100.0 8 100.0

2.00 0 0.0 46 100.0 46 100.0

2.40 3 2.2 131 97.8 134 100.0

3.20 0 0.0 63 100.0 63 100.0

4.80 1 2.0 48 98.0 49 100.0

All sizes 4 1.3 296 98.7 300 100.0

Table 3.19: Average distance of plant from sources of drinking water (m)

Source of drinking water Average distance

Tube well 17.54

Well 27.79

Pond 15.00

Any source 17.60

Only 13 out of the 300 surveyed plants have toilet attached to the plant, and all of these plants

are dung based ones (Table 3.20). Nine out of these 13 plants have been motivated by the plants

providers, i.e. the POs (Table 3.21). Different social taboos work behind not attaching toilet with

the biogas plant. The major one is the perception that the gas from the toilet attached is not

sacrosanct. Some people are just hesitant to handle bio-slurry from the plant with which toilet is

attached (Table 3.22).

Almost 85 percent of all the plant users think the biogas plants have been constructed by skilled

mason with good knowledge on biogas plant. About 11 percent of the users are not in a position

to judge the skill of the mason (Table 3.23). One very important aspect of client satisfaction

regarding construction of the plants is reflected in Table 3.24. Almost three fourths of the users

Page 34

think that the construction has not been done according to the standard as promised before the

installation of the plant. About 12 percent of the users are not in a position to make any

judgment about the standard of construction. These percentages should be considered with

caution as they reflect only perceptions of the users about the skill and standards. No attempt to

objectively measure the skill or standard is made as part of this study.

Table 3.20: Distribution of plants by toilet attached

Type of plant Number %

Dung 13 100

Poultry Litter 0 0

Total 13 100

Table 3.21: Different motivational factors behind attaching toilet to biogas plant

Motivating factors Feed Material/Type

Cow Dung Poultry Litter Total


Self 1 7.7 0 0.0 1 7.7

Service providers 9 69.2 0 0.0 9 69.2

Friends and relatives 2 15.4 0 0.0 2 15.4

Others 1 7.7 0 0.0 1 7.7

Total 13 100.0 0 0.0 13 100.0

Table 3.22: Social taboos in attaching toilets to biogas plants by district

District Social Taboos All

(%) No social taboo Gas from toilet

attached plants

not sacred

Hesitation in

handling bio-slurry

with toilet attached

Others

Number % Number % Number % Number %

Sylhet 4 28.6 10 71.4 0 .0 0 .0 100

Habigonj 1 7.1 13 92.9 0 .0 0 .0 100

Noakhali 4 28.6 10 71.4 0 .0 0 .0 100

Gazipur 0 .0 28 100.0 0 .0 0 .0 100

N’ganj 2 7.1 25 89.3 1 3.6 0 .0 100

M’ganj 15 53.6 13 46.4 0 .0 0 .0 100

Jessor 0 .0 13 59.1 9 40.9 0 .0 100

Kustia 2 9.1 19 86.4 1 4.5 0 .0 100

meherpur 0 .0 22 100.0 0 .0 0 .0 100

Gaibandha 36 100.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 100

Pabna 0 .0 23 63.9 10 27.8 3 8.3 100

Rangpur 0 .0 26 72.2 10 27.8 0 .0 100

Page 35

All dists. 64 21.3 202 67.3 31 10.3 3 1.0 100

Table 3.23: Opinion about the skill of plant construction worker by type of plant

Opinions Type of plant (%)

Dung Poultry All

Unskilled Mason 1.2 2.1 1.3

Skilled mason without knowledge on biogas plant 2.8 6.4 3.3

Skilled Mason with good knowledge on biogas plant 85.4 80.9 84.7

Do not know 10.7 10.6 10.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 3.24: Was the plant constructed according to standard set in advance by the service

provider by type of plant?

Answer Type of plant (%)

Dung Poultry All

Yes 16.3 .0 13.7

No 71.4 87.2 73.9

Don’t know 12.3 12.8 12.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

3.8 Motivation behind Installation of Plant

The factors contributing to motivating the users for installing the biogas plants can be

categorized in two types: those compelling the households to go for biogas and those pulling or

encouraging the households to install biogas plants. The former can be labeled as ‘push factors’

and the later as ‘pull factors’.

In a situation of scarcity of the traditional fuel sources resulting from gradual decline of those

sources, the households look for alternatives. Many households have been struggling to

regularly manage the traditional sources like firewood, the prices and availability of which show

frequent ups and downs. For those having poultry farms, the management of poultry litter is at

times an issue as the neighbors create pressure if the litter is not managed and disposed properly.

In such a situation of scarcity of traditional fuel sources (and neighbor’s pressure in case of

poultry), households are pushed to seek for alternative energy sources. Biogas gives them that

option.

The above need for shifting toward biogas is supplemented or further supported by the visible

benefits of biogas plants like economic benefits, saving of time and energy, environmental

benefits, health benefits and social benefits. In addition to all these benefits, the POs have come

Page 36

forward with offers (packages) like subsidy and loans. These benefits and offers were clearly

visible to the households from the existing plant owners. Thus, a combination of both of these

factors (push and pull) contributed to the decision of installing the biogas plants.

Figure 3-1: Motivation for Installation of Biogas Plants

3.9 Operation and Maintenance

While almost three fourths of the plants surveyed have been found fully operational, the

proportion of plants not functioning partially or at all is not insignificant as well (Table 3.25).

As expected, satisfaction of the users about functioning of the plants is strongly correlated to the

status of functioning as reflected in Table 3.26. About one fifth of the users who are not fully

satisfied with the functioning of the plants stated different reasons for their lack of satisfaction.

The most important reasons include insufficiency of gas, unavailability of the technicians and

other technical problems (Table 3.27). Among the reasons for failure (non-functioning) of the

biogas plants, the major one is the poor quality of construction. The other reasons are presented

in Table 3.28.

Factors pushing households

toward biogas

Non-availability of other fuel sources 34.0%

Neighbor’s pressure (in case of poultry) 2.0%

Decision to

Install Biogas

Plant

Factors pulling households

toward biogas

Subsidy 25.7%

Social benefits (prestige) 23.3%

Health benefits 33.7%

Environmental benefits 37.3%

Economic benefits 50.3%

Motivation from service provider 28.7%

Motivation from existing plant users 20.3%

Saving of time and energy 45.0%

Page 37

Table 3.25: Is the biogas plant functioning?


Dung Poultry All

No 6.7 8.5 7.0

Yes, partly 19.8 14.9 19.1

Yes, fully 73.4 76.6 73.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 3.26: Is the user satisfied with the functioning of plant by type of plant


Dung Poultry All

No 4.3 4.7 4.3

Yes, partly 22.6 11.6 20.9

Yes, fully 73.2 83.7 74.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 3.27: Reasons behind partial satisfiction with functionning of plant by type of plant

Reasons Dung Poultry All


Less gas for cooking/lighting 46 86.8 2 40.0 48 82.8

Difficult to operate 3 5.7 1 20.0 4 6.9

Often encounter technical problems 14 26.4 1 20.0 15 25.9

More added work 5 9.4 0 0.0 5 8.6

Food cooked in gas is not tasty 1 1.9 0 0.0 1 1.7

Technicians not available on demand 21 39.6 1 20.0 22 37.9

Others 5 9.4 2 40.0 7 12.1

Table 3.28: Reasons behind the failure of biogas plants as reported by the users

Reasons Dung (%) Poultry (%) All (%)

Poor construction 52.9 25.0 47.6

Low quality construction materials and appliances 17.6 25.0 19.0

Poor operation (over/under-fed, more water, less water) 17.6 0.0 14.3

Poor maintenance or, no maintenance service available 23.5 0.0 19.0

Non-availability of spare parts .0 0.0 0.0

Natural/man-made disasters 5.9 0.0 4.8

Slurry entered into the gas pipe 11.8 0.0 9.5

Water collected in pipe clogged it 23.5 0.0 19.0

Higher water table/flooding during rainy season 17.6 0.0 14.3

Page 38

Others 35.3 100.0 47.6

Proper

functioning

and

maintenance

of the biogas

plants also

depend on the

users’

knowledge on

handling the

plants. While

about three

fourths of the

surveyed users

have reported

to have

knowledge

about the

daily amount of feeding materials into their plants, the rest (about one fourth) do not have that

knowledge (Table 3.29) which definitely has significant impact on proper maintenance of the

plants. Interestingly, the percentage of plant owners not having knowledge is significantly

higher in case of the poultry-litter based plants, the reasons for which are not clear from the data

collected.

Table 3.29: Knowledge of the users about the daily amount of feeding materials into their

plant

Answer Feed Material/Type of Plant

Dung Poultry Litter All


Yes 206 81.7 23 48.9 229 76.6

No 46 18.3 24 51.1 70 23.4

Total 252 100.0 47 100.0 299 100.0

The lack of knowledge can be explained to some extent by the insufficiency of training on

operation and maintenance received by the plant owners. Less than one third of the surveyed

users have received any proper training on operation and maintenance of the biogas plant. More

than one third have received no training at all. The rest received either any written instructional

material or on-the-spot instructions by the mason/supervisor (Table 3.30).

Page 39

Table 3.30: Number/percentage of users who received training on operation and

maintenance of biogas plants by type of plant

Answer Type



No training received 93 36.9 13 27.7 106 35.5

Training not provided but

leaflet/booklet/manual provided 72 28.6 2 4.3 74 24.7

One day orientation training 54 21.4 4 8.5 58 19.4

Short O & M training (7days or less) 25 9.9 2 4.3 27 9.0

Long O & M training (more than 7days) 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

On the spot instructions from

mason/company supervisors etc 72 28.6 30 63.8 102 34.1

Others 1 .4 1 2.1 2 .7

Total 252 100 47 100 299 100

There are concerns regarding follow-up services as well. About one third of the surveyed users

have not received any follow-up services, some of them even after requesting for it (Table 3.31).

More than half of the service centers are located beyond 5 km from the plants (Table 3.32),

which also hinders receipt of regular follow-up services by the plant users.

Table 3.31: Number/percentage of users who received follow up services from the POs by

type of plant

Type



No, not even when requested 36 14.3 4 8.5 40 13.4

No, not at all 42 16.7 9 19.1 51 17.1

Yes, on call 84 33.3 22 46.8 106 35.5

Yes, regularly 90 35.7 12 25.5 102 34.1

Total 252 100.0 47 100.0 299 100.0

Table 3.32: Existence of service center nearby

Answer Feed Material Type



No service center 26 10.3 9 19.1 35 11.7

Very near (within 5 km reach) 87 34.5 9 19.1 96 32.1

Quite far (5-10 km reach) 73 29.0 11 23.4 84 28.1

Very far (more than 10 km) 66 26.2 18 38.3 84 28.1

Page 40

Total 252 100.0 47 100.0 299 100.0

Table 3.33 and Table 3.34 present the amount of money required annually for operation and

maintenance of the plant. As expected, the amount increases with the size of the plant. Also, the

amount of money required for poultry-based plants is a bit higher than the dung-based ones.

Table 3.33: Amount of money need for operation and maintenance of your plant in a year

by size of plant

Size of

Plant (m3)

Less than

Tk.100

Tk.100 –

300

Tk.400 –

600

Tk. 700 –

1000

More than

Tk. 1000

Total

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1.60 2 25.0 3 37.5 1 12.5 1 12.5 1 12.5 8 100.0

2.00 21 45.7 6 13.0 7 15.2 7 15.2 5 10.9 46 100.0

2.40 36 26.9 17 12.7 21 15.7 41 30.6 19 14.2 134 100.0

3.20 20 31.7 6 9.5 15 23.8 10 15.9 12 19.0 63 100.0

4.80 23 46.9 1 2.0 1 2.0 5 10.2 19 38.8 49 100.0

All sizes 102 34.0 33 11.0 45 15.0 64 21.3 56 18.7 300 100.0

Table 3.34: Amount of money required for operation and maintenance of plant in a year by

type of plant

Amount of money Type

Dung Poultry Litter All Types


Less than Tk.100 80 31.6 22 46.8 102 34.0

Tk.100 – 300 30 11.9 3 6.4 33 11.0

Tk.400 – 600 39 15.4 6 12.8 45 15.0

Tk. 700 – 1000 59 23.3 5 10.6 64 21.3

More than Tk. 1000 45 17.8 11 23.4 56 18.7

Total 253 100.0 47 100.0 300 100.0

3.10 Financing for Biogas Plants

Tables 3.35 to 3.42 present the different aspects of financing for installation of biogas plants.

Almost all the surveyed users (except 5 out of 300) received grants from IDCOL or its POs. The

grant covers on an average about 22 percent of the total costs required. The rest have to be

incurred by the users. Although the grant size is officially Taka 9,000, it varied a little bit

according to the amounts reported by the users (Table 3.36), which appear to be somewhat

correlated to the plant size (the differences are of course not significant except for the smallest

plants of 1.6 cubic meters. However, loans are available from the POs and other local sources.

On an average the users covered about two thirds of their costs (beyond the grant amount) of

Page 41

installing the plant with loans. Loans are available on monthly installments, the number of

which varies between 16 and 29. The number of installments and the amounts of loan are

smaller in case of smaller plant sizes.

Table 3.35: Distribution of users who received cash as Grant from IDCOL/PO by district

District Yes No Total


Sylhet 14 100.0 0 .0 14 100.0

Habigonj 13 100.0 0 .0 13 100.0

Noakhali 12 85.7 2 14.3 14 100.0

Gazipur 25 89.3 3 10.7 28 100.0

narayangonj 23 82.1 5 17.9 28 100.0

Munshiganj 19 70.4 8 29.6 27 100.0

Jessor 22 100.0 0 .0 22 100.0

Kustia 22 100.0 0 .0 22 100.0

meherpur 22 100.0 0 .0 22 100.0

Gaibandha 33 91.7 3 8.3 36 100.0

Pabna 17 47.2 19 52.8 36 100.0

Rangpur 30 90.9 3 9.1 33 100.0

Total 252 85.4 43 14.6 295 100.0

Table 3.36: Average amount of grant received from IDCOL/PO according to plant size

Size of Plant (m3) Average amount of grant (Taka)

1.60 7,000

2.00 8,175

2.40 8,562

3.20 8,741

Page 42

4.80 8,885

All sizes 8,545

Table 3.37: Total expenditure for biogas plant installation by plant size

Size of Plant (m3) Expenditure (Taka)

1.60 28,403

2.00 29,007

2.40 32,732

3.20 38,108

4.80 68,961

All sizes 39,182

Table 3.38: Expenditure by owner for biogas plant according to size of plant

Size of Plant (m3) Expenditure (Taka)

1.60 21265

2.00 21012

2.40 24161

3.20 27380

4.80 59897

All sizes 30307

Table 3.39: Average amount of loan according to size of plant

Size of Plant (m3) Amount of loan (Taka)

1.60 16,428

2.00 15,901

2.40 18,331

3.20 21,919

4.80 24,683

All sizes 19,253

Table 3.40: Average amount of repayment per installment by size of plant

Size of Plant (m3) Repayment per installment (Taka)

1.60 1,471

2.00 1,587

2.40 3,021

3.20 1,154

4.80 3,725

All sizes 2,394

Page 43

Table 3.41: Average number of loan recovery installments by size of plant

Size of Plant (m3) Number of Installment

1.60 16

2.00 20

2.40 23

3.20 22

4.80 29

All sizes 22

Table 3.42: Sources of loan for biogas plant installation

Sources Type

Dung Poultry Litter

Number % Number %

Local NGO 156 83.9 30 93.8

UP office 0 .0 0 .0

Upazila DPHE 0 .0 0 .0

Upazila LGED 0 .0 0 .0

Local Bank 0 .0 0 .0

IDCOL 10 5.4 0 .0

Others 20 10.8 2 6.3

Total 186 100.0 32 100.0

Investigation reveals that the provision of loan and management of repayment by local POs have

not often been done properly. For example, in one of the villages surveyed, the plant users, after

receiving the loan with an understanding of repaying over a number of monthly installments,

were pressurized by the local NGO that provided the plants to repay within 3 months without

interest. This worked as a deterrent for expansion of biogas plants in the village although there

are still substantial scopes for expansion. The research team met a couple of non-users who are

hesitant to go for installing biogas plants due to this money pressure although they are willing to

install the plants.

This is further explained elaborately in Chapter 9, in which the summary of some data regarding

the POs are presented with a view to comparing the quality of services across the different POs

of the NDBMP.

3.11 Seasonality

As part of qualitative investigations, seasonality mapping was undertaken in selected study

villages. Substantial seasonal variations have been found in terms of availability of raw

Page 44

materials, gas availability and quantity of slurry produced. The following figures present the

seasonality analysis for the cattle-based and poultry-based plants separately.

Figure 3-2: Seasonality of Cow-dung based Biogas Plants

Bangla Months (Starting from Boishakh: April-May)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Availability of raw

materials

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

Gas availability

~~

~~

~~

~~

Quantity of slurry

produced

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

Figure 3-3: Seasonality of Poultry-based Biogas Plants

Bangla Months (Starting from Boishakh: April-May)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Availability of raw

materials

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

Gas availability

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

Quantity of slurry

produced

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

Notes on Figure 3-2 and 3-3: More than normal; Less than normal; ~~ Normal

Months: 1 – Boishakh (April-May); 2 – Jaistha; 3- Ashar; 4 – Srabon; 5 – Bhadro; 6 – Ashwin; 7 – Kartik; 8 –

Agrahayan; 9 – Poush; 10 – Magh; 11 – Falgun; 12 – Chaitra (March-April).

The rainy season is the best time for the performance of the biogas plants, especially for the cow-

dung based ones. The cows produce more dung during the four months of rainy season as shown

in Figure 3-2. As a result gas flow increases as well. Moreover, the higher moisture content in

the dung also helps generating more gas. Since cow-dung is more available, bio-slurry is also

produced in greater quantity during rainy season. However, just opposite happens for the cow-

Page 45

dung based plants in winter. Availability of cow-dung reduces substantially and with that gas

flow and slurry quantity decline as well.

For poultry-based plants, it’s almost similar except the fact that poultry based slurry is less

available as it is difficult to store and often gets washed away by rain. The span of time during

rainy season when raw materials and gas are more available is a little bit shorter compared to

cow-dung based plants. The winter is bad for availability of both raw materials and gas just like

the cow dung based plants.

However, the rainy season is not particularly good for management of bio-slurry. The rain

washes away the bio-slurry and the quality of it is affected by rain-water. Thus, although the

rainy season is good for performance of the plants in terms of gas production, the bio-slurry

management is much more difficult.

Page 46

4. Impact on Health and Sanitation

The benefits of biogas plants in terms of improved health and sanitation status are enormous as

perceived by the surveyed respondents. The survey reveals clear improvements in the extent of

pollution and different diseases, accidents and in the status of sanitation used by the households.

Less air pollution, less infections

The main health benefits derive

from the reduction of different

diseases that links to the status of

pollution created by the smoke in

kitchen in absence of biogas. The

reduction in smoke pollution due to

use of biogas has been tremendous

as clearly reflected in the

comparison of the status of

pollution before and after

installation of biogas plants by the

users (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Level of pollution by smoke in kitchen before and after biogas plant installation

Level of pollution Before (% of users) After (% of users)

Severe 72.2 4.0

Moderate 13.4 8.7

Minimal 8.7 11.7

No pollution 5.7 75.6

Total 100.0 100.0

This tremendous improvement in the kitchen environment in terms of reduced air pollution

clearly led to the decline in the prevalence of some diseases or infections which can be directly

linked to air pollution by smoke. Prevalence of eye infections mainly caused by smoke in the

kitchen in absence of biogas reduced drastically once the users have started using biogas.

Previously, more than one fourth of the surveyed households had eye infections, which has now

gone down to less than 2 percent (Table 4.2). Similarly, the respiratory infections also reduced

enormously (Table 4.3). Previously, almost half of the eye surveyed households have respiratory

Page 47

infections in their members. Now, after the use of biogas, almost 9 out of 10 households do not

have any level of respiratory infection.

Table 4.2: Status of eye infection due to smoke in kitchen before and after biogas plant

installation

Status of eye infection Before (%) After (%)

Severe 26.4 1.7

Moderate 17.7 4.0

Minimal 21.4 8.0

No infection 34.4 86.3

Total 100.0 100.0

Table 4.3: Status of respiratory infection due to smoke before and after plant installation

Status of respiratory infection Before (%) After (%)

Severe 17.1 0.7

Moderate 16.7 5.4

Minimal 11.4 5.4

No infection 54.8 88.6

Total 100.0 100.0

Fewer mosquitoes, fewer accidents

Use of biogas has led to reduction in mosquito induced diseases as well. It is expected that due

to improved kitchen environment, there should be fewer mosquitoes in the households, and thus

would reduce the mosquito induced disease episodes. That has really happened in case of the

surveyed respondents. Almost 6 out of 10 households do not have any mosquito induced

diseases, which was previously at a level of one-third only (Table 4.4). The frequency of

accidents from fire in the kitchen has reduced drastically since the installation of biogas plants by

the surveyed households. The rate of severe accidents has gone down from 25 percent to about 3

percent only (Table 4.5). As the biogas users no more has to use firewood for cooking, the

reduction in the frequency of fire-induced accidents has anyway been expected. The survey only

confirmed this expectation from the experience of the households using biogas. It is significant

to note that more than half of the surveyed households had experienced fire-induced accidents

before they started using biogas. However, that rate has dramatically fallen down to about 20

percent as a result of the use of biogas. This is a remarkable improvement in terms of health and

Page 48

safety of the households members of biogas users.

Table 4.4: Incidence of mosquito/flies induced diseases before and after biogas plant

installation

Severity of diseases Before (%) After (%)

Severe 11.0 5.4

Moderate 34.1 18.4

Minimal 17.7 17.7

No diseases 37.1 58.5

Total 100.0 100.0

Table 4.5: Status of accident due to fire/burning before and after biogas plant installation

Severity of accident Before (%) After (%)

Severe 25.1 2.7

Moderate 13.7 6.4

Minimal 15.7 11.7

No pollution /infection/ diseases 45.5 79.3

Total 100.0 100.0

Improved sanitation, indirect health benefits

Improvement in the status of sanitation among the biogas users is expected mainly as a result of

improved living standards due to the increased income and productivity from the saved money

and time. The survey shows some improvement in that regard. The percentage of households

using sanitary latrines has gone up from 69 percent before biogas to 75 percent after biogas

plants have been installed (Table 4.6). Although marginal, this should bring about some health

benefits in the form of reduced prevalence of some diseases as indicated in Table 4.7. These

findings, however, need to be taken with caution as the reported reduction of the prevalence and

severity reflects only perceptions of the surveyed respondents, and with some of these diseases

no direct linkage can be established scientifically. Some of the reported reduction in the disease

prevalence may come from the slightly improved sanitation status, some from the overall

improvement in the living standards, and some may just come from the enthusiasm of the

surveyed respondents about the benefits of biogas that they have been enjoying. So, the findings

regarding the improvement in health status should in no way be considered as medically tested

Page 49

evidences, but only as perceptions of the surveyed respondents. Finally, the before-after

comparison does not guarantee that the improvements are due to biogas. There can be many

other factors that might have been active during this period.

Table 4.6: Status of toilet of households before and after biogas plant installation

Type of latrine % of users before biogas % of users after biogas

Sanitary Latrine 68.6 74.9

Ring slab 30.1 25.1

Hanging /pit 1.3 .0

No facilities/open 0.0 .0

Total 100.0 100.0

Table 4.7: Incidence of selected diseases before and after biogas plant installation

Severity of

diseases

Self assessed disease prevalence

Typhoid Tuberculosis Diarrhea Gastro-intestinal

Before After Before After Before After Before After

Severe 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.3 1.0 0.3

Moderate 19.1 8.0 9.4 4.7 22.7 6.0 23.0 11.7

Minimal 17.7 11.7 9.0 5.7 15.0 21.3 13.3 16.0

No diseases 62.2 79.9 81.6 89.6 58.0 72.3 62.7 72.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Summary of qualitative findings on health benefits

Most of the health benefits reported above were confirmed in the FGDs conducted in the study

villages at which the users described how they have been benefitted from reduced disease

prevalence and smoke-induced accidents in particular. The main emphasis was given on the

reduction in air pollution in the kitchen and the resultant health benefits in the form of reduced

eye and respiratory problems. However, there were no conclusive evidences about the

improvement in sanitation and reduction in the disease prevalence which are not directly related

to smoke pollution.

Page 50

5. Impact on Socio-economic Conditions

“You cannot label us as ‘rural people’ anymore. We now have all the urban facilities that you

have in Dhaka City. We already had electricity and now we have gas as well. It has changed our

life style. We have learned to think and plan about the future that has brought about

improvement at the individual, family and community level”, said one of the FGD participants.

The rest of the participants overwhelmingly supported the view. In fact, this view was more or

less common in most of the FGDs conducted by the survey teams.

The socio-economic benefits resulting from the use of biogas plants are discussed under a

number of headings.

5.1 Saving of Time and Money

Installation of biogas plants has been saving substantial time and money of the users. This has

been the greatest and the most reported benefits that the users are getting from biogas. This has

particularly benefitted the women which will be further elaborated in Chapter 6.

Table 5.1 shows reduction in daily average time for cooking since the installation of biogas

plants in the households. On an average, the use of biogas has saved almost one hour of cooking

time. A total of 262 surveyed users have reported that after installation of biogas plants, they

now enjoy saved time (Table 5.2). The saved time is being used for different purposes including

income generating activities, recreation, education, and simply for leisure (Table 5.3). Thus, the

saved time has brought about enhanced productivity and wellbeing among the biogas using

households.

Table 5.1: Daily average time for cooking before and after biogas plant installation by type

and size of plant

Plant size

(m3)

Daily average cooking time (hour)

Dung Poultry All

Before After Before After Before After

1.60 5.13 4.16 -- -- 5.13 4.16

2.00 4.82 3.51 3.50 2.50 4.79 3.48

2.40 4.73 3.79 3.50 7.01 4.67 3.94

3.20 4.55 3.73 4.67 3.26 4.57 3.66

4.80 5.74 4.37 4.47 3.61 4.96 3.90

All sizes 4.79 3.78 4.36 3.97 4.73 3.81

Page 51

Table 5.2: Number of users enjoying saved time after biogas plant installation by type and

size of plant

Plant

size

(m3)

Number of users enjoying saved time after biogas plant installation

Dung Poultry Litter Total

Yes No Yes No Yes No

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1.60 6 75.0 2 25.0 0 .0 0 .0 6 75.0 2 25.0

2.00 41 91.1 4 8.9 1 100.0 0 .0 42 91.3 4 8.7

2.40 115 89.8 13 10.2 6 100.0 0 .0 121 90.3 13 9.7

3.20 44 84.6 8 15.4 9 90.0 1 10.0 53 85.5 9 14.5

4.80 15 78.9 4 21.1 25 83.3 5 16.7 40 81.6 9 18.4

All 221 87.7 31 12.3 41 87.2 6 12.8 262 87.6 37 12.4

Table 5.3: Distribution of saved time used in different sectors by type of plant

Type of

plant

Percent of time used in different sectors

Income generating sector Recreation sector Education sector Not use

Dung 39.80 18.40 18.66 10.89

Poultry Litter 31.28 25.96 13.72 16.28

All types 38.47 19.58 17.88 11.73

There is yet another dimension of time saved by use of biogas. The biogas users no more need to

spend time to collect firewood. Some of them may need to spend a little time for the collection

of fire wood needed in excess of the biogas generated from the plant. But on average, this

reduced need for firewood collection has led to a saving of about 50 minutes per day per

household (Table 5.4).

Table 5.4: Daily average time spent for fuel collection before and after biogas plant

installation according to type of plant

Type of plant Time spent for fuel collection

hr/day (before)

Time spent for fuel collection

hr/day (after)

Dung 1.09 0.21

Poultry Litter 0.61 0.15

All types 1.02 0.20

Thus, the saving of time in the forms reduced cooking time and reduced time for collection of

Page 52

firewood aggregates to a great number of hours: 23,816 workdays in one year only for the

surveyed respondents. Substantial portions of these surplus workdays due to use of biogas has

been used for income generating activities (IGAs) and education. This should imply a

significant positive impact on socio-economic status of the surveyd households.

Total time saved = ((average daily time saved in cooking + average daily time saved from

firewood collection) multiplied by 300 households multiplied by 365 days a year) divided by 8

hours a day.

((0.82 + 0.92) hours x 300 x 365)/8 = 23,816 workdays

Time diverted to IGAs = 9,162 workdays

Time diverted to education = 4,258 workdays

While time saved is usually converted into enhanced income through increased productivity (or

more efficient use of time), the reduction in the fuel costs has been much more prominent. The

average monthly fuel costs for cooking have gone down from about 1,700 taka to only about 300

taka only (Table 5.5). The costs are saved because there has been substantial saving in the

amount of fuel, mainly for cooking. The average amount of all fuels saved per month is more

than 400 kg per household (Table 5.6) and the average amount of only firewood saved is about

250 kg per household per month (Table 5.7). The saved wood benefits from being used in IGAs

and also contributes to environmental conservation by not being used for cooking (Table 5.8).

Only through savings of fuel costs, the 300 households have gained more than 50 lac (5 million)

taka in a year (about 17 thousand taka per household). This estimation can be expanded to

estimate the aggregate gain from the total number of biogas plants installed in 2011.

Table 5.5: Monthly average fuel costs before and after biogas plant installation by type and

size of plant

Plant size

(m3)

Fuel cost per month (Tk.)

Dung Poultry All

Before After Before After Before After

1.60 1280 451 -- -- 1280 451

2.00 1188 177 640 0 1176 173

2.40 1553 188 747 0 1516 180

3.20 1669 235 1041 102 1575 215

4.80 4293 208 2130 1202 2958 821

All sizes 1700 206 1695 795 1699 296

Table 5.6: Average amount of fuel saved per month after biogas plant installation by size of

Page 53

plant

Size of plant (m3) Average amount of fuel (kg/month)

1.60 327

2.00 356

2.40 407

3.20 388

4.80 467

All sizes 401

Table 5.7: Average amount of firewood wood save per household per day after biogas plant

installation according to plant size

Size of plant (m3) Average amount of firewood wood (kg/month)

1.60 186

2.00 184

2.40 224

3.20 249

4.80 394

All sizes 249

Table 5.8: Distribution of saved wood by IGA (sale) and environment conservation (no use)

sectors according to plant size

Size of plant (m3) IGA (%) Environment conservation (%)

1.60 53.38 32.88

2.00 42.48 37.96

2.40 45.78 41.54

3.20 39.98 47.00

4.80 42.24 33.27

All sizes 43.68 40.56

Page 54

5.2 Income Status

As the biogas users are

saving substantial money,

this has led to enhancement

of the income status of the

households as reflected from

the comparative self-assessed

income status by the users.

The proportion of surplus

households among the users

has increased substantially

and that of deficit households

has declined drastically.

Only 5 percent of the current

users are running on income

deficit, which was 23 percent

before they became biogas users (Table 5.9). It should be noted that the reported economic

status of the households do not represent any objective economic methods. Instead the status

reflects the self-assessed subjective economic condition of the surveyed households. In addition,

some users are even making money by selling the biogas they produce, particularly the ones

having bigger plants (Table 5.10).

Table 5.9: Income status of users before and after biogas plant installation by size of plant

Size of plant

(m3)

Self assessed income status

Surplus Breakeven Deficit

before after before after before after

1.60 25.0 37.5 62.5 50.0 12.5 12.5

2.00 23.9 60.9 56.5 32.6 19.6 6.5

2.40 38.8 67.2 37.3 30.6 23.9 2.2

3.20 37.1 62.9 33.9 32.3 29.0 4.8

4.80 63.3 79.6 18.4 10.2 18.4 10.2

All sizes 39.8 66.6 37.1 28.4 23.1 5.0

Page 55

Table 5.10: Number of households selling gas to other households by type and size of plant

Size of plant

(m3)

HHs selling gas

Yes No

Number % Number %

1.60 0 0.0 8 100.0

2.00 0 0.0 46 100.0

2.40 5 3.7 129 96.3

3.20 5 7.9 58 92.1

4.80 14 28.6 35 71.4

All sizes 24 8.0 276 92.0

5.3 Education

The educational status of the household members is improving among the biogas users. More

than two thirds of the surveyed users confirmed this, while about 30 percent reports no change in

the education status implying no impact of biogas on education (Table 5.11). The percentage of

users reporting declining education is negligible.

A number of factors appear to have contributed to this enhanced educational status as revealed

from the qualitative investigation. The major factors include greater attention on children’s

education particularly by mothers due to saved time, and improved economic status of the

households.

Table 5.11: Status of education of the household members before and after biogas plant

installation

Size of

plant (m3)

Status of education of HH member

Improving Deteriorating No change Total

1.60 37.5 0.0 62.5 100.0

2.00 58.1 2.3 39.5 100.0

2.40 67.2 0.8 32.0 100.0

3.20 75.5 1.9 22.6 100.0

4.80 82.4 0.0 17.6 100.0

All sizes 68.5 1.2 30.4 100.0

Page 56

Further insights on socio-economic impact: qualitative findings

The participants of all the FGDs have been very enthusiastic in describing the enormous benefits

that they are enjoying since the installation of biogas plants. They have talked about various

advantages particularly in cooking and in bringing about significant changes in their daily life.

Cooking is become easier. Before using biogas they had to spend 4 to 5 hours a day for cooking

and during the time of cooking women could not do other works which they can easily do now.

Although the amount of time saved has been stated quantitatively above, discussions at the FGDs

come up with further qualitative aspect of time saved. Thus, although in terms of number of

hours, about an hour is saved per day per household, the actual saving is much more when it is

considered that women can attend other activities while cooking with the biogas. Cooking with

firewood means that the person cooking has to be at the burner full time till the cooking is

finished as a consistent level of fire has to be maintained by continuously putting firewood into

the burner and controlling the heat. However, with biogas burners it is no more needed and

women can start cooking and come back to the burner at certain intervals depending on the

progress of cooking.

Before using bio gas their hands, faces, cloths and utensils would become dirty with ashes. For

cleaning these more soap and detergent were used but now they can use less. While these

benefits are difficult to capture though quantitative data (using questionnaire), qualitative data

clearly reveals this. Earlier they had to make ghuta (dried cow dung) with cow dung as their fuel

by using hands which took more time and caused various skin diseases. Moreover, in the rainy

season it is very difficult to make ghuta and a huge amount of cow dung was destroyed by rains.

Also, they had to spend more time and labor to collect firewood, dry leaves and make them ready

for burning. Now they do not need to spend a single minute for these purposes. Earlier they also

needed accessories/supporting materials for firing wood and ghuta like dry leaves and kerosene

that are expensive and sometime difficult to manage. Besides firing the burner again after it was

put off was required a lot of efforts. Now they are relieved from these suffering. There is no need

for extra room for keeping the firewood. Ash was not used in any purpose, but now they can use

slurry as fertilizer. Moreover, now there is no need to use separate kitchen room. There is no

fear of firing from biogas burner.

Page 57

6. Gender Implications of the Impact of

Biogas on Users

The gender implications of the impact of biogas plants on the households are notable. Generally,

women have been disproportionately more benefited than men while the latter have been making

most of the important decisions regarding construction and maintenance of the biogas plants.

Ideally, it is expected that those who benefit most from a particular intervention should decide

about it. However, given the prevailing gender relations in the rural households, it is not

surprising that the men are making most of the decisions regarding installation of the biogas

plants even though it is used mostly by women. Also, it should not be expected that only

installation of biogas plants will bring about significant changes in the prevailing gender

relations in terms of making household decisions and sharing household responsibilities. These

are so deeply entrenched in the social norms and practices in Bangladesh that no single

intervention can have any significant impact in changing the overall gender-based power

structure in the households and in the society.

Tables 6.1 to 6.6 reflect clear male domination in making decisions regarding installation, and in

managing, maintaining and monitoring the biogas plants. Even in terms of having the technical

know-how about the plants, men are way ahead. Given the prevailing gender-based power

structure in the households, these results are very much expected. However, this dominance in

decision taking does not necessarily have negative impact on the women, as is explained later in

this chapter, although in theoretical terms, women being the main users of biogas should have a

greater say in the process of making decision regarding installation of biogas plants. This, of

course, may be well beyond the scope of NDBMP that focuses on providing biogas at the

household level.

Table 6.1: Distribution of household members taking initiative to install biogas plant by

type of plant

Family member Type


Male member 76.6 91.5 78.9

Female member 11.1 2.1 9.7

Both (male and female) 11.5 6.4 10.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Page 58

Table 6.2: Distribution of household members taking decision to install biogas plant

Family member Type (%)


Male member 81.3 89.4 82.6



Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 6.3: Distribution of household members responsible for operation of biogas plant

Member responsible for operation Type (%)


Male member 54.8 57.4 55.2


Children (girls) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Children (boys) 0.4 0.0 0.3

Servant (male) 15.1 25.5 16.7

Servant (female) 0.4 2.1 0.7


Others 0.8 0.0 0.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 6.4: Distribution of household members responsible for monitoring the construction

Member responsible for

monitoring construction

Type (%)


Male member 82.9 83.0 82.9




Servant (male) 0.4 4.3 1.0



Others 0.0 0.0 0.0

Page 59


monitoring construction

Type (%)


Male member 82.9 83.0 82.9







Others 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 6.5: Distribution of household members responsible for maintenance and

management of biogas plant

Table 6.6: Distribution of household members having technical knowledge about the plant


maintenance and management

Type (%)

Dung Poultry Litter (%) Total (%)

Male member 60.3 66.0 61.2







Others 0.8 0.0 0.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Technically knowledgeable HH

member

Type (%)


Male member 62.7 72.3 64.2




Page 60

However, when it comes to benefits, female members of the households clearly have the greater

share. In more than 88 percent of cases, female members had greater share of benefits than male

members of the households (Table 6.7).

Women are greatly benefited since the most significant positive change brought by biogas is the

time saved from cooking. More than 80 percent of the surveyed households have reported that

the cooking time has decreased (Table 6.8). This was discussed in Section 5.1 as well.

Table 6.7: Distribution of household members benefited mostly from biogas plant

Table 6.8: Status of average time involvement for cooking by type of plant

Status Type (%)


Increasing 3.6 4.4 3.7

Decreasing 80.7 84.4 81.3

No change 15.7 11.1 15.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

From the above findings, it can be concluded with some evidences that biogas is probably a




Others 16.3 6.4 14.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Benefited HHs member Type (%)


Male member 1.2 2.1 1.3







Others 1.6 2.1 1.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Page 61

much more gender sensitive interventions to the rural households. If the impact of biogas plants

is gender-desegregated, it clearly shows that it benefits both men and women in the households.

More importantly, it benefits women much more than men while the latter are taking almost all

the decision regarding the installation of it. This is probably a good example of men’s action

benefiting women in more than proportionate terms. A desegregated analysis of the impact of

biogas is presented in Figure 6-1.

Since entire household benefits from biogas all its members derive some kinds of benefits.

However, women are particularly benefited from many different ways as shown in Figure 6-1.

The benefits of increased income and social status mainly go to the male members, who are

usually the household heads, given the prevailing gender relations in Bangladesh. Some benefits

cannot really be desegregated as those really affect all members of the household including men,

women and children.

Figure 6-1: Gender-desegregated impact of biogas plants at household level

Interestingly, as revealed by the qualitative investigation, the saving of time has a qualitative

aspect along with the quantitative one (number of hours). While biogas saves about an hour per

day on average, it does not require full time attention while cooking. This was completely

different in case of cooking with fire-wood where women had to stay at/around the burner to

continuously control the fire or heat for cooking. On the other hand, with biogas that gives a

consistent level of heat, women can attend other activities while cooking goes on. Qualitative

data reveals further benefits in terms of saving more time in associated activities. Using biogas

means saving of time in cleaning the utensils used for cooking (as those become less dirty with

Benefits

of Biogas

Male members

Female members

Increased income: money saved and sale of slurry

Enhanced social status

Less hassles due to reduced health problems

Saved time, more attention to other HH activities

Greater comfort in work

Reduced eye and respiratory infections

Reduced hassles of collecting firewood

No need to handle ghuta (dried dung)

More leisure

Better health and cleanliness

Better education

Less fire-induced accidents

All members

Page 62

biogas) and from arranging the fuel wood which is no more required with biogas. This is

reflected in Table 6.10 that shows decline in time involvement for collection of fire-wood in

almost 93 percent of cases. Overall, the comfort in cooking cannot be measured in any

quantitative terms.

With the saved time, women can now spend more time attending their children and looking after

their education, which has already had a positive impact on the educational status as discussed in

section 5.3. Table 6.9 shows that the time involvement for children’s education has increased in

two thirds of the surveyed households. Since women play the main role in this, they get the

maximum benefit out of this in terms of ensuring better education for their children.

Table 6.9: Status of average time involvement for children’s education by type of plant

Status Type

Dung (%) Poultry Litter (%) Total (%)



No change 22.5 30.3 23.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 6.10: Status of average time involvement for fuel collection by type of plant

Status Type




No change 4.8 12.8 5.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Biogas helps both men and women: qualitative findings

Almost all female participants at FGDs stated that cooking has become very easy to them, and

now they can easily make various types of delicious foods like cake, payesh, luchi, noodles etc,

which they never thought to make before with the time and hassles needed for the main meals

Page 63

only. They have also shared that now they make snacks/tea in the afternoon for their family

members and eat together which increases their family bonding. Most of the participants have

expressed that they have no sufferings with cooking. They can save more time now and they can

care their children’s study easily, can work more which contribute to generation of extra income.

Besides that they get time for taking rest which makes them healthy. They also added that

socially now they are smarter than before. One of the female FGD participants said, “I cook three

dishes in the morning, I have no tiredness and it takes only thirty minutes. When children come

back from school I can give them snacks, which is a pleasure for me.” One male participant of

FGD stated, “After getting biogas facilities I come back to my house in the evening regularly and

take snacks with my family members which is great pleasure to me. If there is peace everything

seems good.”

Page 64

7. Impact on Agriculture

The use of biogas in the rural areas is strongly related to agriculture – from both demand and

supply sides. On the supply side, the availability of the required livestock is commonly found

with the farming households, and is even more related to the amount of cultivable land of the

households. Greater the amount of cultivable land greater the possibility of having larger

number of livestock. Further, if we define agriculture from a broader perspective, i.e. including

the non-crop agriculture like poultry farming, it reflects even stronger association of agriculture

with biogas from the supply side.

On the demand side, the bio-slurry derived as a product of biogas is used as a fertilizer, which is

much safer for the soil fertility than the chemical fertilizer and has significant implications on

lowering the input costs for the cultivators.

However, the above assumption is not supported by the survey data. The majority of the

households are not involved in agriculture as their main economic activity (Table 7.1). These

households do have livestock and thus in a sense can be called farming households, but are not

involved in crop agriculture as their main activity. In addition, Table 7.2 shows the average

landholding by the biogas users. So the question is: why farmers are not the major users of

biogas.

Table 7.1: Distribution of biogas users by involvement in agriculture as major occupation

Type of Plant

Involvement in Agriculture as major occupation

Yes No All


Dung 89 84.8 164 84.1 253 84.3

Poultry Litter 16 15.2 31 15.9 47 15.7

Total 105 100.0 195 100.0 300 100.0

Table 7.2: Average landholding of the biogas users

Type Average land owned (decimal)

Total

land

Agri

land

Share

d in

land

Mortgaged/l

eased in

land

Shared

out land

Mortgaged

/leased out

land

Amount of land

under

cultivation

Dung 393.52 307.99 9.25 19.99 80.51 39.93 216.79

Poultry 282.54 204.31 2.23 9.17 65.34 19.51 130.86

All 376.13 291.74 8.15 18.29 78.13 36.73 203.33

Page 65

An analysis of the livestock mapping undertaken as a part of this study reveals that in almost all

the villages surveyed, the number of households having the required livestock is far more than

the households having biogas plants. In most cases, the number of biogas plants can be

increased several times than the current number if the livestock availability is considered as the

main pre-requisite for installing biogas plant. But why the households having the required

livestock are not installing biogas plants is explained in Chapter 10. Here it is mentioned to

underline the fact that in most villages, many of the farming households are being left out from

biogas provision making the share of farmers in the total users minor.

However, the

benefits of biogas

in agriculture are

numerous as

shown in Tables

7.3 to 7.12. The

proportion of

using an improved

feeding method

(stall feeding

instead of open

feeding) has

increased to some

extent after the use

of biogas. The use

of slurry as

fertilizer has been one of the greatest benefits enjoyed by the users. More than two thirds of the

survey respondents have been found to use bio-slurry as fertilizer in the crop field. The

proportions of households using slurry as fertilizer in home gardening and as fish feed are also

notable.

Table 7.3: Grazing/feeding method before and after biogas plant installation

Method All (%)

Before After

Open 83.0 72.7

Stall feed 17.0 27.3

Total 100.0 100.0

Page 66

Table 7.4: Different uses of bio-slurry

Use of Bio-slurry Type

Dung (%) Poultry Litter (%) All (%)

As fertilizer in crop field 68.7 58.3 68.0

As fertilizer in home garden 6.7 0.0 6.3

As fish feed for fish culture 14.7 41.7 16.6

Patties for burning purpose 1.8 0.0 1.7

Sale to other farmer 0.6 0.0 0.6

Not use 6.7 0.0 6.3

Other 0.6 0.0 0.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Significant benefits of biogas in improving cowshed management, soil fertility, animal health,

and fodder management have been reported by the surveyed users (Tables 7.5 to 7.8).

Previously, the cowshed management was not systematic among one third of the surveyed

households, whereas, now after use of biogas, almost everyone (more than 96 percent) has a

systematic cowshed management. Almost all (97 percent) of the users think that the use of bio-

slurry in crop-field increases soil fertility.

Almost 84 percent of the users think bio-slurry is very effective as fertilizer (Table 7.9), and

none think that it is not effective.

Table 7.5: Cowshed management before and after installation of biogas plant

Status of Management Before (%) After (%)

Systematic 68.4 96.4

Non-Systematic 31.6 3.6

Total 100.0 100.0

Table 7.6: Percentage of user noticing that the use of bio-slurry in agriculture increases the

fertility of soil

Does use of bio-slurry increase soil

fertility?

Type


Yes 96.9 70.0 95.3

No 3.1 30.0 4.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Page 67

Table 7.7: Opinion of biogas users about current and previous health status of animal

Health status of

animals

Type


Before (%) After (%) Before (%) After (%) Before (%) After (%)

Good 40.4 66.8 76.3 78.1 45.5 68.2

Moderate 58.3 32.3 23.7 21.9 53.4 31.0

Poor 1.3 .9 .0 .0 1.1 .8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 7.8: Opinion of biogas users about current and previous status of fodder

management

Status of

fodder

management

Type


Before (%) After (%) Before (%) After (%) Before (%) After (%)

Good 43.0 65.2 73.0 87.5 47.2 68.0

Moderate 57.0 34.8 27.0 12.5 52.8 32.0

Poor .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 7.9: Opinion of biogas users about the effectiveness of bio-slurry

Level of

effectiveness

Type


Good 83.2 92.3 83.8

Moderate 16.3 7.7 15.7

Poor 0.5 0.0 0.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

The economic benefits of using bio-slurry as fertilizer are quite remarkable. Almost everyone

surveyed (almost 96 percent) involved in crop agriculture think that bio-slurry has contributed to

increasing crop productivity (Table 7.10). The use of bio-slurry in crop fields save about 3,000

taka per farming household annually from the cost of fertilizer. The amount of saving goes up to

about 5,500 taka for the largest of plant sizes (Table 7.11). But, do saving of money from

fertilizer and increased productivity transform into increased income? Overall, 9 out of 10 users

Page 68

notice an increase in agricultural income since they have started using biogas (Table 7.12).

Page 69

Table 7.10: Opinion of biogas users about the role of bio-slurry in increasing crop

productivity

Table 7.11: Amount of money saved per year from fertilizer by using bio-slurry

Table 7.12: Percentage of biogas users noticing an increase in income from agriculture

after installation of biogas plant

Does bio-slurry increase crop

productivity?

Type


Yes 97.4 62.5 95.7

No 2.6 37.5 4.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Size of plant Average amount of money (Taka)

1.60 1125

2.00 2521

2.40 2555

3.20 3068

4.80 5467

All sizes 2921

Size of plant % of users noticing increase in agricultural income

1.60 50.0

2.00 95.8

2.40 89.7

3.20 90.9

4.80 82.4

All 88.6

Page 70

8. Energy, Emission Reduction and

Environmental Impact

The use of biogas has clear positive environmental impact through reducing use of environment-

degrading fuel sources, reducing emission from the use of those fuel sources, and through

ensuring greater energy efficiency.

As stated in Section 5.1, each of the surveyed biogas users on an average saves 250 KG of

firewood. This means that only these 300 households burned 900 metric tons of wood in one

year. Given the large number of biogas users across the country, the total saving of firewood

must add up to hundreds of thousands metric tons.

Total reduction in firewood burning by surveyed households = reduction in the amount of burned

firewood per month per household multiplied by number of households multiplied by number of

months of the year.

250 KG x 300 households x 12 months = 900000 KG = 900 metric tons of firewood

The above figures indicate that the use of biogas has tremendous potentials to contribute

significantly to improved environment of the country in the forms of reduced emissions, reduced

air pollution and reduced deforestation.

Figure 8-2: Environmental benefits of biogas

Use of

Biogas

Reduced air pollution Reduced carbon emission Reduced deforestation

Improved environment

Page 71

In this regard, the most significant changes have come in the forms of fuels used by the

households for cooking. While fire wood, agricultural residues and cow dung constituted the

major fuel sources, with the advent of biogas, almost all users (about 95 percent) use that as the

main fuel. Of course, a little use of fire wood, agricultural residues and cow dung is still there to

cover the occasional irregularity or insufficiency of biogas (Table 8.1). Importantly, the users

perceive the use of biogas as more environment-friendly compared to the types of fuels they used

previously (Table 8.2).

Table 8.1: Types of fuels used for cooking before and after installation of biogas plants

Type of fuel

% of users using the fuel

Before After

Fire wood 88.4 19.8

Agriculture residues 67.8 13.7

Cow dung 52.7 2.7

Electric heater 0.3 0.0

Natural gas 3.4 3.1

Kerosene 0.3 0.0

Biogas 0.0 94.9

Table 8.2: Opinion of users: whether the fuels used before and after are environment

friendly

Are the fuels environment-friendly? Before After

Yes 6.8 85.2

Page 72

No 93.2 14.8

Clearly, the users are seeing significant improvement in different aspects of the environment

(Tables 8.3 to 8.6): household environment, kitchen environment, cow/poultry-shed

environment, and surrounding environment. Finally, the improvement in social environment has

been particularly noticeable (Table 8.7). To supplement this finding from the questionnaire

survey, the FGD participants explained how the social environment has improved. It has mainly

come from increased comfort in daily life and saved time from cooking contributing to enhanced

social interactions. The advent of biogas is also seen by the users as a sign of urbanization as

well. However, the social benefits remain limited mainly within the users of biogas and cannot

extend significantly to the communities at large because of limited penetration of biogas plants in

each of the villages. Had the number of users been significantly larger, it would bring about

more noticeable changes at the community level.

Table 8.3: Self assessed household environment (before and after biogas installation)

Status of household environment Before (%) After (%)

Good 15.1 76.5

Moderate 71.1 22.5

Bad 13.7 1.0

Table 8.4: Self-assessed kitchen environment before and after biogas plant installation

Status of kitchen environment Before (%) After (%)

Good 7.2 78.2

Moderate 45.4 19.8

Bad 47.4 2.0

Table 8.5: Self assessed cow/poultry-shed environment

Status of environment Before (%) After (%)

Good 36.3 73.2

Moderate 54.9 26.4

Bad 8.8 0.4

Table 8.6: Self assessed environment of surroundings


Good 20.2 67.2

Moderate 67.8 31.4

Bad 12.0 1.4

Page 73

Table 8.7: Self assessed status of social environment


Good 33.0 69.4

Moderate 61.9 30.2

Bad 5.2 0.3

Impact on natural resources and environment: summary of qualitative

findings

Before the installation of biogas plant the users had to use cow dung based fuels like

nunda/ghuta, firewood, bamboo, jute stick, straw, dry leaves etc as their fuel. They collected

these fuels from own trees, adjacent forest/jungle, roadside trees and market. But now they rarely

use these fuel materials. Only during the period of inadequate gas supply, social gathering and

large volume of rice cooking, they use these fuels.

Participants of FGD told that because of using biogas now they do not need to cut trees, and as a

result trees/jungle remains protected. Moreover, the environment is being preserved for the

harmful effects of burning wood.

Page 74

9. Service Quality and Client Satisfaction

Some of the preceding sections raised issues regarding the quality of services provided by the

POs and satisfaction of the client about the services. Some data derived from the questionnaire

survey have been presented as well, which indicate that the satisfaction of the clients have not

been very high in many cases. The clients have made negative comments as well about several

aspects of the services. This chapter tries to analyze those issues of services and client

satisfaction with references to the 18 POs that have been covered by this survey.

9.1 Management of Financial Services

The NDBMP provides different types of financial incentives to motivate households in installing

biogas plants. Those incentives include subsidy (grant) and loan. Table 9.1 shows wide

variations across POs in the practices of providing these financial packages. In few cases,

information was not available as the surveyed respondents could not provide it accurately.

The variations are important to note. In cases of some POs, significant proportions of the biogas

users reportedly are not aware of any grant that they are supposed to receive. Out of 300

surveyed respondents, 48 have not received any grant. It may well have been the case that they

received the grant, but the information was not provided to them with sufficient clarity, or they

might not have been able to distinguish the grant from the loan. Whatever the case, there are

issues of transparency that need to be looked into. The average size of grant is showing good

consistency across the POs. However, the amount is unusually low in case of at least two POs,

one of which has significant number of clients.

The proportion of loan recipients is even smaller than that of grant recipients. Out of 300

surveyed users, 72 have not received any loan from the POs. The average amounts of loan and

the average size of the installments for repaying the loan vary substantially, which is expected

given the different sizes of the biogas plants. However, the variation in the average number of

installments across the POs (ranging from 9 to 40 installments) is difficult to explain. This

perhaps reflects lack of uniformity in the practices of loan management, which is important in

terms of expanding the clientele of biogas plants (further details in the next chapter).

What Table 9.1 manifests is the fact that the practices of providing grants, loans and their

management are quite different for different organizations. Some of these differences may be

related to the overall practices and rules of particular organizations while some may simply be

related to lack of transparency and integrity.

Page 75

Table 9.1: Practices of POs in providing grant and loan for installing biogas plants

Name of PO Whether

received

any cash as

grant

Avg.

size

of

grant

(Tk.)

Whether

received

any loan

Avg.

amount

of loan

(Tk.)

Average

size of

installments

(Tk.)

Average

number of

installments

(number)

No. % No. %

ASKS 1 16.7 9000 6 100 19167 1176 22

BSUS 14 82.4 9000 9 52.9 16474 706 24

DESHA 21 65.6 9000 29 90.6 21041 1139 21

DOPS 21 91.3 9000 19 82.6 14711 1188 15

Grameen Shakti 126 95.5 8960 105 79.5 21257 1210 26

IC -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Jahanara Biogas Co. Ltd. 1 100 9000 -- -- -- -- --

Kamrul Biogas Co Ltd 1 100 9000 -- -- -- -- --

Nirapad Engineering Ltd 3 100 9167 2 66.7 23250 600 40

RISDA 1 100 9000 -- -- -- -- --

RRF 1 100 9000 1 100 14556 1213 12

RSF 7 100 8571 6 85.7 21342 953 24

SETU 6 85.7 9000 7 100 21468 1261 22

Shubashati 1 100 5000 1 100 12000 1130 12

SUF 2 100 9000 1 50.0 15000 1250 12

SOUL 6 100 9000 -- -- -- -- --

Srizony Bangladesh 10 100 8900 2 20.0 15000 918 18

SUK 30 69.8 5597 30 68.2 16033 5380 9

All POs 252 85.4 8545 218 72.9 19552 1737 21

9.2 Quality of Services

The quality aspects of the services provided by the POs also vary widely as reflected in Table

9.2. It is particularly disappointing to note that only about 11 percent of the biogas plant owners

received any training on operation and maintenance of the plants. This has resulted in

inefficiency in handling the problems of biogas plants as described in Chapter 3. It is further

disappointing to note that more than half of the plant users have not received any post-

construction services. Still a very high proportion of the users are feeling comfortable to deal

with the POs. Probably, as long as the plants function well, the clients are happy. Of course, all

the plants surveyed are still within the first year of operation and many of the users might not

have needed any post-construction service as well. More than half of the users have good

relationship with the POs. However, it needs to be reviewed why more than 10 percent of the

users have bad relationship with the POs. Parts of it can probably be explained with the date

presented in Tables 9.1 and 9.2. It may appear a little contradictory that a very high percentage

Page 76

of the plant owners feel comfortable with the POs while the percentage of them receiving

training is remarkably low, it can be explained by the strong correlation between functioning of

the plants and client satisfaction as discussed in Section 3.9 (Tables 3.25 and 3.26).

Table 9.2: Services and training provided by the POs and users’ opinions regarding those

Name of PO Whether

received

any

training on

O&M

Whether

received any

after sales

services

Whether

felt

comfortable

with this PO

for BP

construction

Relationship with POs

(%)

No. % No. % No. % Good Moderate Bad

ASKS 2 33.3 3 50 6 100 66.7 16.7 16.7

BSUS 1 5.9 12 70.6 15 88.2 91.7 0.0 8.3

DESHA 5 15.6 24 75 31 96.9 58.6 31.0 10.3

DOPS 0 0.0 8 34.8 11 47.8 47.4 31.6 21.1

Grameen Shakti 16 12.1 61 46.2 123 93.2 51.3 41.2 7.6

IC 0 0.0 2 50 3 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Jahanara Biogas Co Ltd 0 0.0 0 .0 1 100 0.0 100.0 0.0

Kamrul Biogas Co Ltd 0 0.0 1 100 1 100 100.0 0.0 0.0

Nirapad Engineering ltd 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 100 0.0 100.0 0.0

RISDA 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0

RRF 1 100 1 100 1 100 0.0 100.0 0.0

RSF 2 28.6 5 71.4 7 100 71.4 14.3 14.3

SETU 2 28.6 6 85.7 6 85.7 85.7 14.3 0.0

Shubashati 1 100 1 100 1 100 100.0 0.0 0.0

SUF 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

SOUL 0 0.0 2 28.6 2 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Srizony Bangladesh 1 10.0 4 40.0 7 70.0 30.0 20.0 50.0

SUK 3 6.8 14 31.8 41 93.2 55.2 37.9 6.9

All POs 34 11.4 144 48.2 259 86.6 54.7 34.7 10.6

9.3 Client Satisfaction

The level of client satisfaction is generally high and strongly correlated with the status of

functioning of the installed biogas plants (Table 9.3 and Table 9.4). Although about three

fourths of the clients are fully satisfied as their plants are fully functional, it is important to note

that more than a quarter of the users are either partially unsatisfied or not satisfied at all.

Moreover, a desegregated view of these data across the POs needs to be adopted. This is

important because for some POs the level of dissatisfaction is as high as half of their clients,

which is again very directly related to the proportion of fully functioning plants in their total

Page 77

plants.

Table 9.3: Status of functioning of the biogas plants

Name of PO

Status of functioning of biogas plant

Not functional Yes, Partly Yes, Fully


ASKS 0 0.0 3 50.0 3 50.0

BSUS 1 5.9 1 5.9 15 88.2

DESHA 3 9.4 8 25.0 21 65.6

DOPS 1 4.3 5 21.7 17 73.9

Grameen Shakti 6 4.5 23 17.4 103 78.0

IC 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0

Jahanara Biogas Co. Ltd 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

Kamrul Biogas Co Ltd 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

Nirapad Engineering Ltd 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 100.0

RISDA 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0

RRF 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

RSF 1 14.3 1 14.3 5 71.4

SETU 1 14.3 2 28.6 4 57.1

Shubashati 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

Sonali Unnayan Foundation 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 100.0

SOUL 1 14.3 3 42.9 3 42.9

Srizony Bangladesh 1 10.0 3 30.0 6 60.0

SUK 5 11.4 6 13.6 33 75.0

All POs 21 7.0 57 19.1 221 73.9

Quality of services: examples from qualitative data

More than two dozens of partner organizations of IDCOL are engaged in providing services to

biogas users across the country. According to qualitative findings of the selected study area,

there are differences among the POs in terms of the quality of services. For example, most of the

biogas users of Chardumuria village under Munshiganj Sadar Upazil are not happy with services

of SUK, the PO working in that area. They complain that the officials of SUK are not much

skilled and responsible. SUK agreed to provide all types of services before the plant installation,

but now they are reluctant to do that. The amounts of loan are also realized within three months

instead of two years. As a result the people of the areas are facing various problems for repaying

20,000 within three months. The research team tried to reach the SUK representatives and tried

to talk to them over phone. For reasons unknown they were not very keen to meet the

researchers. In Pabna area, various complaints including lack of services, wrong installation of

plant, ambiguities about the grant, loan and its repayment procedures have been reported.

Frequent changes of field workers of PO cause problem in Jessore area.

Page 78

Table 9.4: Level of satisfaction with the biogas plants

Name of PO

Status of satisfaction with the functioning of plant

No Yes, Partly Yes, Fully


ASKS 1 16.7 1 16.7 4 66.7

BSUS 0 0.0 1 6.3 15 93.8

DESHA 3 10.3 4 13.8 22 75.9

DOPS 0 0.0 6 27.3 16 72.7

Grameen Shakti 2 1.6 22 17.5 102 81.0

IC 0 0.0 1 33.3 2 66.7

Jahanara Biogas Construction Co. Ltd 0 0.0 1 100 0 0.0

Kamrul Biogas Co Ltd 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

Nirapad Engineering Ltd 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 100.0

RISDA 0 0.0 1 100 0 0.0

RRF 0 0.0 1 100 0 0.0

RSF 0 0.0 1 16.7 5 83.3

SETU 1 16.7 1 16.7 4 66.7

Shubashati 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Sonali Unnayan Foundation 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 100.0

SOUL 0 0.0 3 50.0 3 50.0

Srizony Bangladesh 2 22.2 2 22.2 5 55.6

SUK 2 5.1 13 33.3 24 61.5

All POs 12 4.3 58 20.9 208 74.8

“Neither we can run the plant, nor can we leave it”

Md. Rezaul Karim of Khudramatiabari village, Pabna sadar installed a biogas plant

with the help of DESHA, a PO of NDBMP, in 2010. Immediately after

establishing the plant Karim started to get inadequate gas for cooking. He experienced

problem with passing raw materials through pipe to gas chamber. Very often he needed

to use a stick to push cow-dung to the gas chamber. He informed the problem to

DESHA officials and they reconstructed the problematic part of the plant but after

three months it stopped working again due to a crack just below the gas chamber. He

requested DESHA officials again to see the problem. DESHA official came and

agreed to work on it on the condition that the whole tank had to be cleaned properly.

Karim cleaned the tank but nobody came to see the plant after informing again and

again. Finally, he plastered the cracked part of the gas chamber on his own but the

performance remains unchanged. Now he cooks only two times a day and prepares only

two dishes somehow at a time which is really so painful for his nine-member family. It was really a dream when DESHA told

that this plant would serve even more than 10-member family for cooking three meals a day, Karim said. Few months back he

requested a group of technicians (who are not involved with DESHA) to visit his plant. After seeing the plant they told that the

plant was installed in a wrong way at the beginning. It could have been 1.2 meters deeper. Almost all villagers know about the

story of my plant and that really discourages others to set up biogas plants, Karim says. He adds, this plant is now the biggest

User’s Name: Md. Razaul Karim

Village: Khudramatiabari

Union: Maligasa,

Upazila: Pabna Sadar

Page 79

problem of our family and our daily life. Neither we can run it not can we leave it.

10. Market

The market related aspects of biogas have to be viewed from two inter-related dimensions:

marketing of the biogas plants and marketing of bio-slurry. This section briefly analyzes both

the aspects in light of the survey findings.

10.1 Biogas Marketing: Potentials and Challenges

Clearly, there are great potentials of biogas in Bangladesh, much of which still remains

unexploited. This has been evident from the survey, particularly the qualitative investigation.

Livestock

mapping in

selected villages

(conducted in the

FGDs) clearly

shows that the

number of biogas

users is very low

compared to the

total number of

households who

can be considered

as potential users

of biogas.

Potential users are

those households

who have at least

4 cows or 250 poultry birds.

For example, in five selected communities a large gap between the number of current users and

potential users has been found. While only few households have biogas in each of those five

communities, the number of households having the required livestock (4 cows or 250 poultry

birds) is several times larger (as shown in the adjacent chart). Now the question is: given all the

great benefits of biogas as described in the preceding chapters, why are the potential users not

installing biogas plants? What factors are stopping them from becoming biogas users? The

following section tries to address the questions with a brief analysis of the factors limiting further

expansion of biogas in light of the data presented so far.

Page 80

10.1.1 Factors hindering fast expansion of biogas: non-users’ perspective

It is clear from the above data and from FGDs with non-users that there is significant demand for

biogas which has not yet been exploited. The natural question is why this is happening. A

number of factors seem to be responsible for more potential users not going for getting biogas

plants. While it is clearly evident that almost all of the non-users having the required livestock

are willing to set up biogas plants, the following are some of the factors that they think are not

encouraging them to do so.

• In many cases the quality of services of the plant providers (POs) has not been up to the

mark. This is being observed by the non-users from the experience of their biogas using

neighbors.

• The amount of money required for installing

a plant is not always suitable for all

households eligible to set up plants. It is

important to note that the amount varies

across regions and POs, which indicate that a

uniform standard of the investment amount

is not maintained across the country and

POs. Data presented in Chapter 9 present

this lack of uniformity.

• The provision of grant and loans are not

often done properly by the POs, which

results in greater hardships for the users to

purchase the plant and repaying the loans.

Substantial deviations in financial exchanges

have been observed in some cases, as a

result of which non-users cannot access the

opportunities of installing biogas plants in

favorable terms. Lack of transparency in

providing loans by the POs has been

reported in a number of places, which make

the non-users uncomfortable in going for

biogas.

• Problems in operation and maintenance of the biogas plants as observed by the non-users

also discourage them in setting up biogas plants. In some cases, problems of irregular

gas flow and insufficient pressure of the gas are encountered by the users, which are often

created due to faulty construction and lack of post-construction services. These problems

“Three times a day we have to arrange for

alternative fuel for cooking”

Rahim Mia

Vikompur, Ranipukur, Mithapukur, Rangpur

Rahim Mia is having bitter experience with Biogas plant.

His all complaints are against the service providing PO

working at their village. The name of the PO is

SOUL.He says that the PO told about many facilities

before the plant was installed (e.g. it would serve to cook,

electricity supply to run lights, fans, TV), but nothing is

there at present. It is too hard to cook even one menu at a

time for lack of gas flow. “Three times a day we have to

arrange alternative fuel for cooking”, Rahim Mia says.

Moreover, he adds, “Very often our burner needs to be

repaired and there is no support from the NGO”. Often

their cell phones are found switched off.

Rahim Mia says he invested about 30,000 taka to

establish the biogas plant. “I do not know anything about

the 9000 taka” he says when asked the grant by IDCOL,

“except burner and pipe that costs no more than 3000

taka”.

Page 81

encountered by the users are often observed by the non-users and that detracts them from

their plan of investing in biogas.

• Frequent changes of the field workers of the POs have also resulted in lack of consistency

in marketing biogas plants. It also creates a lack of trust on the service providing

organizations as the villagers lose contacts with the field workers.

• In some cases, lack of sufficient space has been identified as a hindering factor. In those

cases, the households even after having the required number of livestock are not able to

set up biogas plants. This is particularly true for semi-urban areas or villages adjacent to

urban areas (municipalities or towns).

10.2 Marketing of Bio-slurry

One of the important marketing aspects related to biogas is the bio-slurry that is extracted out of

the plant. The potential of bio-slurry as a good fertilizer has been discussed much and is well

recognized. However, it remains questionable whether much of the potentials of bio-slurry have

effectively been exploited so far or not. The survey reveals useful insights into the realities and

challenges of bio-slurry marketing. This is an extremely important aspect as this makes biogas

plant much more lucrative.

10.2.1 Forms of bio-slurry use

Bio-slurry is used in different forms by the biogas plant owners. The dominant form is dried.

However, for poultry based plants, the dominant form is liquid (Table 10.1). It is important to

note that only about 4 percent of the users use bio-slurry in the compost form, whereas this could

make bio-slurry much more marketable as good fertilizer.

The number of days the bio-slurry is stored in the pits varies significantly. However, it is not

particularly related to the size of the plant. The average number of days of storing slurry in pits

is 69 (Table 10.2). Most of the users do not dry bio-slurry (Table 10.3). Drying is more

prevalent in the dung based plants. Only about 20 percent of the poultry-litter based plant

owners dry bio-slurry.

Table 10.1: Use of bio-slurry in different forms by type of plant

Type of plant Type of use (%)

Liquid Semi-liquid Dried Compost Total

Dung 18.9 21.9 55.6 3.6 100.0

Poultry Litter 60.0 .0 33.3 6.7 100.0

All types 22.3 20.1 53.8 3.8 100.0

Page 82

Table 10.2: Average number of days of storing bio-slurry in pits by type and size of plant

Size of plant (m3) Average number of days

1.60 21

2.00 81

2.40 66

3.20 78

4.80 49

All sizes 69

Table 10.3: Proportion of users drying bio slurry by size of plant

Type of plant Do you dry bio-slurry? (% of users)

Yes No Total

Dung 48.5 51.5 100.0

Poultry Litter 19.4 80.6 100.0

All types 44.1 55.9 100.0

10.2.2 Economics of Bio-slurry

Obviously, the quantity of bio-slurry collected is strongly correlated with the size of the plant.

On an average, 262 KG of bio-slurry is collected from a plant in a week (Table 10.4). The

average quantity ranges between 92 KG (for the smallest plants) and 564 KG (for the largest

plants). However, most users do not sell bio-slurry although it has commercial value as

fertilizer. Only about 10 percent of the users who collect bio-slurry sell it (Table 10.5). One KG

of the dung-based bio-slurry sells at 1.27 taka on average and that of poultry-based slurry at 0.55

taka on average (Table 10.6). Clients for purchasing bio-slurry are also available. On an

average, 3 clients visited a biogas plant for slurry (Table 9.7).

Table 10.4: Average quantity of slurry collected from plant in a week by size of plant

Size of plant (m3) Average amount (KG )

1.60 92

2.00 192

2.40 215

3.20 322

Page 83

4.80 564

All sizes 262

Table 10.5: Number and percentage of users selling bio slurry

Size of plant (m3)

Number and percentage of users selling bio-slurry

Number %

1.60 0 0.0

2.00 6 19.4

2.40 12 10.9

3.20 3 6.4

4.80 2 5.3

All sizes 23 9.9

Table 10.6: Average price of slurry (per kg) by type of plant

Type of plant Average price of bio-slurry ( tk/kg)

Dung 1.27

Poultry Litter 0.55

All types 1.13

Table 10.7: Number of potential client visiting a biogas plant for slurry by size of plant

Size of plant (m3) Number

1.60 5

2.00 4

2.40 3

3.20 3

4.80 3

All sizes 3

The above figures suggest that a huge potential of commercial utilization of biogas is not being

exploited, and thus the users are not maximizing their economic benefits from the biogas. Why

is this happening? It is clearly from the qualitative data that there is a huge lack of knowledge

about the marketing of bio-slurry and making it marketable. Although many users are using the

slurry for their own crop fields, many are not farmers and in those cases, the slurry is just wasted.

The role of the biogas providers can be questioned here again. The diffusion of knowledge about

the marketing of bio-slurry should be integrated in the services and trainings provided by the

Page 84

NGOs.

Another factor that limits the marketing potentials from buyers’ perspective is that in most cases

there is an absence of critical mass of bio-slurry in a particular village. As a result, it is not cost-

effective for the buyers to visit a village with a possibility of getting only a limited quantity of

bio-slurry. The limited numbers of biogas plants in most villages thus limit the commercial

opportunities with bio-slurry. As discussed earlier, in most cases, there is ample scope for

increasing the number of biogas plants in a village given the availability of livestock. If that

could be done, more attractive masses of bio-slurry would be available in the villages and thus

buyers would be more attracted to visit and buy the slurry. Alternatively, in case of having a

critical mass in a particular village, one or a group of the villagers can take up the

entrepreneurship to market the product. But that is only affordable if there if a critical mass of

slurry is available at a time in the village, which again is only possible if there are sufficient

number of plants in the village. Thus the marketing potentials of bio-slurry is strongly correlated

with the marketing of biogas plants.

10.2.3 Making bio-slurry more marketable

Bio-slurry, like any other product, will be more marketable if value addition is done over it.

However, there is a clear lack of efforts of making bio-slurry more marketable by improving it

with addition of organic materials and adding value to the product. Only 13 of the surveyed

users (6 percent) have tried to do so (Table 10.8). Among the materials added to the slurry,

green compost manure and chemical fertilizer are the most common (Table 10.9). The lack of

marketing efforts is also reflected in the fact that more than half of the plant owners pile up the

cow-dung/poultry-litter regularly, and only a little more than one third of the plant owners

compost those regularly (Table 10.10). The quality of the slurry also depends on the regular

aeration of the decomposing materials, which is not done by more than one third of the users

(Table 10.11). One of the major reasons behind this lack of marketing efforts is the lack of

know-how about these aspects. The training provided by the POs are already very limited and

do not include any component on bio-slurry management. Thus, due to the lack of knowledge of

the users, the major portion of the bio-slurry produced every day is not utilized effectively.

Table 10.8: Users adding other organic materials with slurry by type and size of plant

Size of plant (m3)

Use of other organic materials

Number %

1.60 0 0.0

2.00 4 12.9

2.40 7 6.9

3.20 1 2.2

Page 85

4.80 1 3.0

All sizes 13 6.0

Table 10.9: Organic materials added by the users to slurry according size of plant

Size of

plant

Type of materials

Chemical

fertilizer (%)

Green compost

manure (%)

Kitchen wastage

(%)

Others

(%) Total

2.00 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 100.0

2.40 28.6 57.1 14.3 0.0 100.0

3.20 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

4.80 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

All 38.5 46.2 15.4 0.0 100.0

Table 10.10: Proportions of users pilling up and composting cow dung regularly

Do you pile up cow-dung/litter

regularly?

Do you compost cow-dung/litter

regularly?

Number % Number %

Yes 145 48.3 111 37

No 155 51.7 189 63

All 300 100 300 100

Table 10.11: Proportion of users turning the decomposing materials for aeration regularly

Do you regularly turn the decomposing materials for aeration?

Number %

Yes 192 64

No 108 36

All 300 100

10.3 Supply Chain of Biogas

It is useful to see the marketing aspects of biogas through its supply chain, which is tried in

Figure 10-1.

All the inputs (e.g. cash, equipment, technical support and service) are provided by the POs of

IDCOL in the NDBMP. At the local market level, biogas has two types of economic uses: (i) the

gas itself as fuel and (ii) the slurry as fertilizer. Both are marketable, but in most cases are

Page 86

consumed by the plant owners. The ultimate use of the products depend on the end market,

where we see a number of players: farmers using slurry as fertilizer (both the plant-owning

farmers and those who are buying bio-slurry; plant owners using slurry as fish feed and, of

course, the plant owners themselves using the gas as fuel for cooking. Although most of these

end-uses do not enter into market, they represent clear value addition and are used as products

the alternative to which had to be otherwise procured from the market.

Figure 10-1: Supply Chain of Biogas

Input

Level

Technologies:

installation, basic

training and post-sales

selling service

Cow dung base biogas plants (N=253)

Poultry base bio gas plants (N=47)

Equipments;:pip

e, burner, rod,

cement and

concrete

Loan Subsidy/grant;

technology and

equipment

PO1

IDCOL/NDBMP

Biogas

Local

Market

Use of bio-slurry as fertilizer by

farmer

Use of gas as fuel by plant

owner

End market Plant

owner

(Farmer)

Fish feed

used by plant

owner

Plant owner

Other

Farmer

PO2 PO18

Page 87

FGD findings on bio-slurry marketing

A lot of interesting information on the use of bio-slurry is collected from various FGDs. Many

participants labeled it as a magic. They have told that it is one of the best fertilizers that can

reduce the consumption of urea, phosphate and sulphur, and thus ultimately reduces the cost of

production. They have also reported that generally they would prepare fertilizer from cow-dung,

which is less effective due to having gas in it, but in the case of bio-slurry there is no gas and it is

very effective for soil. Most of the FGD participants have told that those who have plant can

save 700-800 taka per month. Some of the users are getting benefits by using bio-slurry as fish

feed. Earlier they had to use urea, phosphate and sulphur in the pond but now they don’t use any

fertilizer. As a result they get more benefit from fish culture and also helping to keep their pond

water free of chemical pollution. In some places, a number of users can earn 1000-1200 taka per

month by selling bio-slurry (e.g. Alamgir Hossain of Monirampur,Jessore). Billal of

Chardumuria village of Munshiganj Sadar told that he earns 8-10 thousand taka per year by

selling bio-slurry. But, apart from the scattered cases, most of the slurry remains unused or

misused due to the following causes:

• Lack of adequate knowledge about the use and profitability of bio-slurry

• Lack of appropriate size of bio-slurry pits and shade of the biogas plants (most of the

users fail to preserve/dry bio-slurry for using it as fertilizer).

• The pond keeps dry during the early summer and become unsuitable for fish culture. As a

result bio-slurry is not use at that time of the year.

• Hesitation to handle slurry by hand, especially in case of poultry-litter

• Lack of adequate spaces around the biogas plant to manage slurry.

Most of the FGD participants do not have sufficient knowledge about the marketing of bio-

slurry, and they use slurry in their own field and get benefits. So they do not have interest of

selling it though there is demand. Persons who sell slurry are basically business-men and they

sell slurry to the neighbors. There is hardly any scope of marketing outside the locality.

Page 88

11. Recommendations

The findings of the Biogas Users Survey 2010 indicate a number of areas that need improvement

for biogas to be more useful and economically beneficial for its users. It is also evident that

much of the great potentials of biogas are yet to be realized. It is evident from the findings

presented in previous chapters that there is high demand for biogas in the country, much of

which cannot be fulfilled due to supply side constraints. At the same time, there are ample

scopes for enhancing the demand from the current level. Thus, interventions on both demand

and supply sides are required for a more effective use of biogas in the country.

11.1 Removing Supply Side Constraints

A number of supply side constraints have been discussed in the preceding chapters. The

following interventions are recommended for removal of supply side constraints.

• There is a need for reviewing the role of the service providers in the field, i.e. the partner

organizations (POs). The review will help identify the gaps and variations in practices

that at times cause dissatisfaction among the current users and thus hinder the expansion

of bio-gas among new users. The review should be done by an independent team of

experts having very specific terms of reference.

• Appropriate and sufficient supervision and monitoring system should be in place by

IDCOL to make sure that the services provided in the field comply with the standards set

at the NDBMP level. The monitoring is particularly needed to make sure that the

financial incentives planned in the Program reach the users in reality. The system can

take the form of periodic verification with a set of randomly sampled users representing

all the regions and POs. The monitoring system should not involve the POs in any part of

its process.

• The current structure and nature of financial incentives given to the users need to be

reviewed to come up with more comfortable financial arrangements for the users of

biogas. In this regard, a number of aspects of the financial incentives should be re-

considered: size of grant and loan; number and size of installments. Scopes for tailoring

the financial incentives according to the need of the potential clients should be there.

• Greater attention should be given to improving the training for the biogas users. The

training component can be directly handled by NDBMP instead of the current

arrangement of providing it through the POs, who are clearly not providing sufficient

trainings to the users at present. A unified format and standard of the training should be

Page 89

implemented across all the regions and POs. It is essential to make sure that all the bio-

gas users receive training of similar standards after installation of bio-gas plants.

• A centralized strategy should be devised to ensure regular quality services to the biogas

users to minimize the prevailing dissatisfaction among a significant proportion of the

current users. NDBMP needs to decide whether the service will be provided through a

central mechanism or through the POs. If the POs are responsible for providing the

services, their contractual requirements should be very clear in terms of the frequency

and quality of service provision to the users.

• Greater diffusion of knowledge on marketing of bio-slurry should be initiated. While this

can be undertaken as a centralized strategy, the diffusion of knowledge should be done at

the partners’ level as well. Two specific suggestions are made in this regard:

o An independent study on the current capacity and potentials of marketing the bio-

gas plants and bio-slurry should be undertaken. The study should exclusively

focus on the marketing aspects and should be conducted by a team of marketing

and bio-gas experts. The study should also assess the needs for capacity building

among the partners vis-à-vis marketing of bio-gas plants and bio-slurry.

o Based on the recommendations of the study on marketing, all the POs should be

brought under training on marketing of bio-gas plants and bio-slurry.

• Agricultural research institutes like BARI should be involved in research for improving

the quality of bio-slurry as good and marketable fertilizer, and to devise ways for

expanding the use of it. A formal partnership with BARI could help in this regard.

• Overall, the delivery mechanism through the POs should be improved substantially to

make sure that the centrally planned packages are implemented with a unified standard

across different partners and regions.

11.2 Enhancing Demand

As indicated in the previous chapters, there are sufficient scopes for enhancing the demand for

biogas in the country by making it more attractive to people. For that, a number of initiatives can

be considered.

• An independent country-wide needs assessment survey should be conducted to estimate

an overall demand for biogas at present. This will help in devising future investment

plan in this important sector of renewable energy.

• Integrating multiple uses of biogas instead of keeping it limited only within gas supply

will make biogas plants more lucrative for people, particularly in the areas currently

deprived of electricity. An independent strategy to reach the un-electrified areas of the

country with the technology of using biogas for electricity as well can be developed and

implemented.

Page 90

• Popularizing biogas has to be given high priority. The vibrant media of Bangladesh

should be utilized for creating mass awareness among people about the benefits of biogas

and also as a means of connecting to wider population. Particularly, the use of electronic

media can be very effective in creating mass awareness about it. A communication

strategy should be developed by NDBMP for popularizing biogas in the country. While

the communication strategy should be developed and implemented by specialized

agencies, the following are few ideas for considering as inputs to the strategy:

o A short documentary film on bio-gas can be prepared to illustrate the benefits of

bio-gas, its use and its marketing potentials. The documentary can be customized

for a number of purposes: TV telecasting and screening in the fields by POs.

o One-minute TV spots on bio-gas can be a very effective tool for creating mass

awareness about the use and benefits of bio-gas. The TV spots can focus on

different aspects of bio-gas and be telecasted in the TV channels frequently over

a specific period subject to resources available for investment for the purpose.

o TV talk shows on bio-gas can be arranged with a number of TV channels. This

can be done in two ways: (i) discussing the issues of bio-gas on popular TV talk

shows; and/or (ii) preparing special talk shows on bio-gas.

o Roundtable discussion with reputed daily newspapers involving the experts and

other stakeholders of the sector can be a very effective tool for drawing attention

of the policy makers and wider population.

• A central strategy to enhance the marketing of bio-slurry should be developed. Agencies

specializing in market development issues should be involved in developing the

marketing strategy. The marketing strategy should take into consideration the findings

of the study recommended in Section 11.1 and should involve all the POs who should be

trained on marketing issues before the strategy formulation.

• The common recommendation derived from the FGDs conducted at selected study

locations is that discussion and demonstration on biogas plants need to be organized in

rural areas (or at least at upazila level) to popularize the use of it. To make these

discussions more attractive and effective, visual demonstrations with videos (as

mentioned above) and pictures should be used.

Page 91

Annex 1

Questionnaire for Biogas Plant User Survey under NDBMP, 2010

National Domestic Biogas and Manure Program

Biogas Users’ Survey 2010

Plant ID Number: Plant Size (cu.m):

Feed Material: (1=Dung, 2= Poultry Litter)

A. General information

1. Personal information of Biogas Plant (BP) owner

1.1 Name of Plant Owner: ................................................... 1.2 Age: .....................

1.3 Father's/Husband's Name: ..............................................................................................

1.4 Mother’s Name: ...........................................................................................................

1.5 Para/mahalla : ........................................................ 1.6 Village: ......................

1.7 Post Office : ........................................................ 1.8 Union: .........................

1.9 Upazilla : ........................................................ 1.10 Zilla: ..........................

1.11 Divison : ........................................................

1.12 Occupation (Code*): 1.13 Education (Code**):

1.14 Male member: 1.15 Female member:

*code: 1 - Service; 2 - Business (specify); 3 - Farmer; 4 - Day laborer; 5 - Fisherman; 6 - House wife; 7-

Others (Goldsmith, Potters, Carpenter, Tailor, Village Doctor, Mason, Barber, Vender, Van puller,

Rickshaw puller, Boatman etc. .............................. specify in any)

**code: 1- Illiterate; 2- Literate but no institutional education; 3- Primary or equivalent; 4- Secondary or

equivalent; 5- SSC passed or equivalent; 6- HSC passed or equivalent; 7- Graduation or equivalent; 8-

Post Graduation or equivalent

Page 92

2. Basic Information on biogas plant and related matters

2.1 Plant construction

period

St.

Date

Month Year Duration

(days)

2.2 Is it in operation (Yes=1, No=2)

2.3 Plant operation time From To 2.4 Use of plant for

cooking (Yes=1, No=2)

Month Year From Year

2.5 Use of plant for hajak ligh (Yes=1,No=2) 2.6 Total nos. of single burner

2.7 Total hrs. used for single burner (time

line)

2.8 Total nos. of double burner(time

line)

2.9 Total hrs. used for double burner 2.10 Total nos. of hajak light

2.11 Total hrs. used for hajak light

3. Source of raw materials for biogas plant

3.1. Number of cows 3.2. Number of buffalos

3.3 Number of calves 3.4 Number of ducks

3.5 Number of hens 3.6 a. Daily available raw materials(kg)

3.6 b. Daily loadning raw materials (kg)

3.7 Loading frequency to plant per

day*

3.8 Ratio of raw

materials : water

raw materials water

* Code: 1 - Once; 2 - Twice; 3 - More

4. Physical features of biogas plant

4.1 Serial number in main gas pipe (Yes=1, No=2)

4.2 Write the serial number

4.3 Number of slurry pits 4.4 What are the sizes

of the pits (m)

Length Width Depth

4.5 Pit boundary exists (Yes=1, No=2) 4.6 Pit shade exists (Yes=1, No=2)

4.7 Gas distribution device (Code: 1- GI pipe; 2- Plastic pipe; 3- MS pipe)

4.8 Gas transmission method (Code: 1- Under ground; 2- Over head)

4.9 Name of MPOs provided appliances for BP construction:

4.10. Is 180 degree principal follwed? (Yes=1, No=2)

4.11 How far is the water source(m)

4.12 Is toilet attached to biogas plant? (Code: 1=No, we do not have sanitary toilet; 2=We have toilet

but not attached to biogas plant; 3=Toilet is attached to biogas plant)

4.13 If toilet attached to plant, who encouraged you to attach toilet to biogas plant? (Code: 1=Self; 2=Service providers; 3=Friends and relatives; 4=Others (specify)

Page 93

4.14 Are there any social taboos in attaching toilets to biogas plants? (Code: 1=No; 2=Gas from toilet attached plants are considered to be un-sacred; 3=People are hesitant to

handle the bio-slurry from toilet attached plants; 4=Others (specify)

5. Installation and Functioning of Biogas Plant

5.1 What is the motivating reason(s) behind installing a biogas plant? (answers can be more than

one)

1 Subsidy 2 Non-availability of other

fuel sources 3 Social benefits/Prestige

4 Health benefits 5 Environmental benefits 6 Economic benefits

7 Motivation from service

provider 8

Motivation from existing

plant owners 9

Compulsion from

neighbors (in the case of

poultry)

10 Saves time and energy 11 Other (specify): …………….

5.2 Who constructed your biogas plant?

5.2 .1 Mention whatever is available, Name of the PO, Mason etc etc

Code: 1= Unskilled Mason; 2=. Skilled Mason without knowledge on biogas plant; 3= Skilled Mason

with good knowledge on biogas plant; 4= Do not know

5.3 Were any standards set by the service provider as regards the quality of construction

materials and mason to construct biogas plants? (1= No; 2=Yes; 3=Do not know)

5.4 If yes, what types of quality standards were set (answers can be more than

one)?

(Code: 1=Trained masons should be used; 2=Standards on construction materials; 3=Standards on pipe

and appliances; 4=Standards on plant design; 5=Do not know)

5.5 Are you satisfied with the functioning of the plant? (1= No; 2= Yes, partly; 3=Yes, fully)

5.6 If partly satisfied, what are the reasons for not fully satisfying? (answers can be more than one)

1 Less gas for cooking/lighting 2 Difficult to operate

3 Often encounter technical problems 4 More added work

5 Food cooked in gas is not tasty 6 Technicians not available on demand

7 Others (specify)

5.7 If fully satisfied, what are the reasons for fully satisfying? (answers can be more than one)

1 Enough gas for cooking/lighting 2 Trouble free functioning of plant

3 Easy cooking/lighting 4 Timely service by the technicians

5 Economic benefit 6 Health benefits

Page 94

7 Social benefits such as prestige 8 Environmental Benefits

9 Workload reduction 10 Food cooked in gas is more tasty

11 Others (specify)

5.8 If not satisfied, what are the reasons for not satisfying? (answers can be more than one)

1 Plant has failed, it does not work at

all 2

Very less gas for cooking/lighting

3 Very difficult to operate 4 Often encounter technical problems

5 More added work 6 Food cooked in gas is not tasty

7 Technician not available on demand 8 Others (specify)

5.9 If plant has failed, how long is the plant defunct? (Code: 1=Less than a month; 2=1 to 4

months; 3=4 to 12 months; 4=More than a year)

5.10 If plant has failed, what are the reasons for such failure? (answers can be more than one)

1 Poor workmanship during

construction 2

Sub-standard quality of construction

materials and appliances

3 Poor operation (over fed, under-

feed, more water, less water) 4

Poor maintenance/ No maintenance service

available

5 Non-availability of spare parts 6 Natural/manmade disasters

7 Toilet attachment in plant was

considered to be un-sacred 8 Slurry entered into the gas pipe

9 Water collected in pipe clogged it 10 Higher water table/flooding during rainy

season

11 Others (specify)

5.11 Do you feed other feeding materials besides dung?

1 No 2 Kitchen and household wastes

3 Human excreta 4 Poultry droppings

5 Agricultural wastes 7 Others (specify)

5.12 Is water easily available to mix dung/poultry dropping? ( 1=Yes; 2=No )

5.13 Do you know how much dung is required to be feed into your

plant daily? (1=Yes; 2=No)

If yes, mention

quantity (Kg)

5.14 Has anyone in your family received training on operation and maintenance of biogas plants?

Page 95

1 No training receive 2 Training not provided but

leaflet/booklet/manual provided

3 One day orientation training provided

by service provider 4

Short term O & M training (7days or less)

5 On the spot instructions from

mason/company supervisors etc 6 Others (specify)

5.15 Have you received any follow up services from the service provider? (Code: 1=No, not even when requested; 2=No, not at all; 3=Yes, on call; 4=Yes, regularly)

5.16 Is there any service center nearby? Code: 1=No; 2=Yes, very near (within 5 km reach); 3=Yes, quite far (5-10 km reach); 4=Yes, very

far (more than 10 km reach)

5.17 How much money you need per year for operation and maintenance of your plant? (Code: 1=Less than Tk.100; 2=Tk.100 – 300; 3=Tk.400 – 600; 4=Tk. 700 – 1000; 5=More than

Tk. 1000)

5.18 For those whose biogas plants are not working:

Will you like to adapt the technology again with some modifications? (1=No; 2=Yes) (Need to dig out the real reasons for the failure. No of the plants should be failed because of the

technical issues, if that is the case then POs must repair. Gatther info for future action)

6. Institutional Information (IDCOL) and cost

6.1 Do you know about

IDCOL/NDBMP (1=Yes; 2=No )

6.2 How did you know about the biogas

plant (Code: 1=PO; 2=Relatives; 3=LCPO; 4=Neighbour; 5=TV; 6=Friends; 7=Local NGO;

8=Other (Please specify....)

6.3 Have you got any cash as

grant from IDCOL/PO (1=Yes; 2=No)

6.4 Amount as grant from IDCOL /PO

(Tk.)

6.5 Total expenditure of

Biogas Plant (Tk.)

6.6 Expenditure by HH owner

6.7 Loan taken (1=Yes; 2=No) 6.8 From where (Code*)

6.9 Taka per installment 6.10 Number of loan recovery installment

6.11 O&M cost per month (Tk.) 6.12 Amount of loan (Tk.)

6.13 Are you getting any training

on O&M of BP provided by

PO (1=Yes; 2=No )

6.14 Are you getting any After-Sales-

Services (ASS) of BP provided by PO (1=Yes; 2=No )

6.15 Relation with PO (Code: 1=Good; 2=Moderate; 3=Bad)

6.16 Relationship with LCPO (Code: 1=Good; 2=Moderate; 3=Bad)

7. Impacts on institutional aspects (PO & LCPO)

7.1 Did you feel comfortable with this

type of PO/ LCPO for construction

of BP (1=Yes; 2=No )

7.2 If no, what type institute do

you suggest*

Page 96

7.3 Did you feel comfortable with PO/

LCPO for loan (1=Yes; 2=No )

7.4 If no, what type institute you

suggest

(*Code: 1=Local NGO; 2=UP office; 3=Upazila DPHE; 4=Upazila LGED; 5=Local Bank; 6=IDCOL;

7=others specify....................)

B. Impact Analysis

8. Impacts on socio-economic condition

Before biogas plant installation After biogas plant installation

8.1 Used time for cooking per day

(hour) 8.2 Use time for cooking per day

(hour)

8.3 Fuel cost per month (Tk.)

8.4 Fuel cost per-month (other than

biogas)

8.5 Lighting cost per month (Tk.) 8.6 Lighting cost

(other than biogas)

8.7 Do you save time? (1=Yes; 2=No )

8.8 If yes, the time used as below: (% of time)

8.8a Income generating sector

8.8b Recreation sector

8.8c Education sector

8.8d. No use


8.9 How much fuel (kg) wood used

from collection (bush and tree) 8.10 How much fuel (kg) wood use

from collection (bush and tree)

8.11 (a) Do you save fuel? (1=Yes; 2=No )

8.11(b) If yes, then how much (Kg. per month)?

8.12 If yes, please mention from which sector Kg. Price/Kg

8.12a Income generating sector (sale)

8.12(A)- i) Fire wood

8.12(A)- ii) Agriculture residues

8.12(A)- iii) Dung cakes

8.12(A)- iv) Rice husks

8.12(A)- vi) Kerosene

8.12(A)- vii) Electricity

8.12b Source of fuel wood (Code: 1=Forest; 2= Own farm trees; 3=Market)

8.12c How much fuel wood saving in Kg.

8.12d Income generating sector (sale)

8.12e Environmental conservation (no use)

Page 97


8.13 Total time (hour) spent for fuel

collection per day previously? 8.14 Total time (hour) spent for

fuel collection per day at present

8.15 Educational facilities of HH

Member*

8.16 Self assessed poverty

status** 8.17 Self assessed poverty

status**

8.18 Do you sell the gas to other HHs (If yes, answer question under item – 14) (1=Yes; 2=No )

*Code: 1- Improving; 3- Decreasing; 3 – No change **code: 1- Surplus; 2 – Breakeven 3- Deficit

9. Impacts on health and sanitation


9.1 Previous status of toilet of this HH* 9.2 Present status of toilet of this HH*

9.3 Do you have attached toilet to

biogas plant? (1=Yes; 2=No )

9.4 Previous air pollution status in

kitchen by smoke** 9.5 Present air pollution status in

kitchen

by smoke**

9.6 Previous infection due to smoke on 9.7 Present infection due to smoke**

9.6a Eye infection** 9.7a Eye infection**

9.6b Respiratory infection** 9.7b Respiratory infection**

9.8 Previous incidence from diseases**

9.9 Present incidence of diseases**

9.8a Typhoid** 9.9a Typhoid**

9.8b Tuberculosis ** 9.9b Tuberculosis **

9.8c Diarrhoea** 9.9c Diarrhoea**

9.8d Gastro-intestinal diseases** 9.9d Gastro-intestinal diseases**

9.10 Previous incidence of

mosquito/flies

induced diseases **

9.11 Present incidence of mosquito/flies

induced diseases**

9.12 Previous Accidents due to

fire/burning** 9.13 Present accidents due to

fire/burning**

*code: 1- Sanitary Latrine; 2- Ring slab; 3- Hanging /pit; 4- No facilities/open

**code: 1- Severe; 2- Moderate; 3 Minimal; 4 – No pollution /infection/ diseases

10. Impacts on gender

10.1 Who has taken initiative to install

BP*

10.2 Who has taken decision to install

BP*

Page 98

10.3 Who is responsible for operation* 10.4 Who was monitoring the

construction work*

10.5 Who is responsible for

maintenance & management of BP*

10.6 Who is responsible to contact with

CPO for servicing/repairing*


LCPO for servicing/repair and loan*


LPO for loan*

10.9 Who is technically knowledgeable

person about BP*

10.10 Who is benefited mostly in this

family from this BP*

10.11 Benefits derived by the women

& girls after BP, how**

10.12 Present status and work load***

hr. per day

10.13 Previously time involvement in

Cooking (hour/day)

10.14 Currently time involvement in

cooking***

10.15 Previously time involvement for

children education (hour/day)

Currently time involvement for

children education***


Meals (hour/day)

10.18 Currently time involvement for

meals ***


collecting of fuel wood (hour/day)

10.20 Currently time involvement for

collecting of fuel wood***

* Code: 1- Male member; 2- Female member; 3- Children (girls); 4-Children (boys); 5- Servant (male); 6-

Servant (female); 7- Both (male and female); 8- Others ( specify.........................)

** Code: 1- Increase enrollment of girls in schools; 2- Involve income generating activities; 3- Involve

social works; 4 – Involve educational work 5-Others (specify.....................)

***Code: 1- Increasing; 2- Decreasing 3- No change

11. Bio-slurry management, marketing and potentiality

11.1 How do you use bio-slurry? (Code: 1=Liquid; 2=Semi-liquid; 3=Dried;

4=Compost)

11.2 How many days you store bio-

slurry in pit?

11.3 Do you dry bio-slurry? (1=Yes; 2=No )

11.4 How do you dry bio-slurry*

1.5 How much (kg.) bio-slurry you

collect from plant in a week?

11.6 Do you sale bio-slurry locally? (1=Yes; 2=No )

11.7 If yes, price of bio-slurry (kg)? 11.8 How many potential customers

visited your BP for slurry?

11.9 Do you add any other organic

materials with bio slurry? (1=Yes; 2=No )

11.10 What type of materials you

add?**

11.11 Did you pile up cow dung

regularly? (1=Yes; 2=No )

11.12 Do you compost cow dung?

regularly (1=Yes; 2=No )

11.13 Do you regularly turn the decomposing materials for aeration? (1=Yes; 2=No )

*code: 1- Open sun shine; 2-Under shade

**code: 1- Chemical fertilizer; 2- Green compost manure; 3- Kitchen wastage; 4 -others.(specify..)

12. Impacts on Agriculture

12.1 Are you a farmer (1=Yes; 2=No ) 12.2 How many decimal land you have?

Page 99

12.3(a) Amount (decimal) of own land 12.3(b) Amount (decimal) of land

(shared in)

12.3(c) Amount (decimal) of land (shared

out) 12.3(d) Amount (decimal) of land

(mortgaged/leased in)

12.3(e) Amount (decimal) of land

(mortgaged/leased out) 12.3(f) Amount (decimal) of cultivable

land?

12.5 Previous number of livestock

population

12.6 Present number of livestock

population

12.7 What was the grazing/feeding

method for your cattle/poultry before BP (Code: Open-1; stall feed-2)

12.8 What is the grazing/feeding

method for your cattle/poultry after BP (Code: Open-1; stall feed-2)

12.9 Previous cow shed management (Code: Systematic-1; Non-Systematic -2)

12.10 Present cow shed management (Code: Systematic-1; Non-Systematic -2)

12.11 Do you use the bio-slurry (1=Yes; 2=No )

12.12 If yes, where**

12.13 In which form you used bio slurry (Code: Liquid-1, Semi-dried-2, Dried -3)

12.14 How many times you sell this

slurry per year

12.15 How many times you use this slurry

in agricultural land/pond per year

12.16 Is the bio-slurry increasing soil

fertility (1=Yes; 2=No )

12.17 Previous animal health status (Code: 1- Good; 2- Moderate; 3 –Bad)

12.18 Present animal health status (Code: 1- Good; 2- Moderate; 3 –Bad)

12.19 Previous fodder management status (Code: 1- Good; 2- Moderate; 3 –Bad)

12.20 Present fodder management

status (Code: 1- Good; 2- Moderate; 3 –

Bad)

12.21 Effectiveness of this bio-slurry (Code: 1- Good; 2- Moderate; 3 –Bad)

12.22 Is the bio-slurry helping to

increase crop productivity? (1=Yes; 2=No )

12.23 By using this manure at agricultural

sector how much money has been saved

per year from fertilizer (tk.)

12.24 Do you think the income from

agricultural sector is increasing after BP

installation? (1=Yes; 2=No )

**Code:1- As fertilizer in crop field; 2- As fertilizer in home garden; 3-As fish feed for fish culture; 4-

Patties for burning purpose; 5 - Sale to other farmer; 6- No use; 7- Other (specify.............)

13. Impacts on environment


13.1 What types of fuel did

you use for cooking*

13.2 What types of fuel do you

use for cooking*

13.3 Was this fuel environment

friendly (1=Yes; 2=No )

13.4 Is this fuel environment friendly (1=Yes; 2=No )

13.5 Self assessed household

Environment (Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

13.6 Self assessed household

environment (Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

Page

100

13.7 Self assessed kitchen


13.8 Self assessed Kitchen environment (Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

13.9 Self assessed cow/poultry-shed


13.10 Self assessed cow/poultry-shed


13.11 Previous status of surrounding


13.12 Present status of surrounding


13.13 Previous status of social


13.14 Present status of social


13.15 Source of drinking water (Code: 1-TW; 2- Well; 3- Pond; 4-

others………………………..specify)

13.16 Distance of BP from drinking

water source (m)

*Code: 1- Fire wood; 2- Agriculture residues; 3- Cow dung, 4- Heater; 5 -Natural gas; 6- Kerosene; 7 -

Biogas

14. Information on biogas consumers on payment

14.1 Rate: Tk. per month.........................................................................

14.2 Condition (if any):

14.3 Benefits any:

14.4 Problems any:

14.5 Suggestion any:

15. Benefits, Problems and Suggestions (General)

15.1 What are the main benefits perceived by plant owner?

15.2 What are the main problems faced by plant owner?

15.3 What are the main suggestion for solving problems?

16. Expert comment/observation:

Signature of Investigator

Date:

Page

101

Annex 2

List of Bio gas plant users surveyed

Name of plant owner Plant ID Plant size Upazila District

Syed Zaman DPSD1044 2.00 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Al-Beruni GSZS1058 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Abul Kalam Azad GSZS1062 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Mozaharul Islam DPGB1006 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Shahadat Hossain DPSD1042 3.20 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Amzad Hossain GSZS1041 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Serajul Islam GSZS1045 2.00 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Sree Badha Gobinda GSZS1047 4.80 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Kamrul Islam GSZS1055 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Dilip Kumar DPSD1038 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Abdul Jalil Sarkar DPGB1007 2.00 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Mahbub Khandakar DPSD1041 2.00 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Abdul Mannan Sarkar GSZS1039 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Monsur Ali Sheikh DPGB1008 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Nuruzzaman Prodhan DPSD1045 2.00 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Sree Niher Ranzan Biswas GSPA1040 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Razib Kumar Shaha GSZS1044 2.00 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Sree Bazromohan Sarkar GSZS1040 3.20 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Abdul Rouf Miah GSPA1045 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Sree Nipendra Nath GSZS1052 2.00 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Abdul Hasan Sarkar GSZS1054 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Anowar Hossain DPRP1101 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Rizanur Rahman GSZS1061 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Khondakar Abu Tayub DPSD1003 2.00 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Udai Sha GSZS1042 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Mohammad Ali BUGB1037 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Hafizur Rahman FBGB1003 3.20 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Khordesh Alam GSPA1043 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Mst. Parvin Begum GSZS1057 2.00 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Mahfuza Islam GSZS1036 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Rafiqul Islam DPSD1037 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Ataur Rahman DPSD1040 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Sree Bidyud Kumar Mondal DPGB1004 3.20 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Abul Hossain GSZS1038 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Md. Nazrul Islam GSPA1044 2.40 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Sree Mithu Kuma Saha GSZS1043 2.00 Sadullapur Gaibandha

Sree Asim Kumar DPRP1127 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Fullbanu RBRP1006 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Monoyara Begum DPRP1098 3.20 Pirgachha Rangpur

Page

102

Abdul Motaleb DPRP1105 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Mahbub Alam DPRP1106 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Sree Bhubati Chandra Sarkar BURG1008 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Rezwan Ahmed BRUG1015 3.20 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Shafiqul Islam DPRP1112 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Delowar Hossain SLRP1603 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Tachir Prodhan BURG1018 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Shahidul Islam BURG1009 3.20 Pirgachha Rangpur

Muzam Ali PBRP1004 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Hafizur Rahman PBRP1003 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Rafiqe RBRP1005 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Abdul Gapur BURG1021 2.00 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Alauddin DPRP1104 4.80 Pirgachha Rangpur

Abdul Hakim DPRP1099 3.20 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Abdur Rahman DPRP1102 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Abdul Gapur SLRP1605 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Habibur Rahman BURG1007 2.00 Pirgachha Rangpur

Golam Mostafa SLRP1613 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Rezaul Islam BURG1004 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Rafiqul Islam BURG1005 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Mahbub Alam DPRP1125 4.80 Pirgachha Rangpur

Chandrabati Roy GSKW1025 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Rupkumar Sarkar BURG1017 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Hasibur Rahman SLRP1606 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Md. Fazlul Hoque RDRP1025 2.40 Pirgachha Rangpur

Abdur Rahim Miah SLRP1011 2.40 Mithapukur Rangpur

Ashrafuzzaman RSFN1002 2.40 Mithapukur Rangpur

Moklesh Ali DSRP1011 3.20 Mithapukur Rangpur

Mahfuza Begum SURG1001 2.40 Mithapukur Rangpur

Md. Salauddin DSNM1005 2.00 Mithapukur Rangpur

Sree Subir Chandra Dash SLRP1604 2.40 Mithapukur Rangpur

Mst. Saleha Begum SURG1002 2.40 Mithapukur Rangpur

Md. Emdadul Hoque SLRP1610 2.40 Mithapukur Rangpur

Md. Ataur Raham GSKT1065 2.40 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Nikbar Ali Mondal DEKT1148 3.20 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Syab Ali DKET1205 2.40 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Rezaul Hoque DEKT1219 3.20 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Karuzzaman DEKT1142 2.40 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Amirul Islam Khan DEKT1249 3.20 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Shahidul Islam DEKT1143 2.40 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Rezaul Karim Molla SRKT1203 3.20 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Kamrul Hasan Laltu STKT1016 1.60 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Shahidul Islam STKT1044 2.40 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Rupali Khatun DKET1140 2.40 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Tofazzal Hossain GSKT1071 2.40 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Mucha Miah Mondal STKT1024 2.40 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Hazi Hasan Saroyar STKT1031 3.20 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Saher Ali DEKT1152 1.60 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Page

103

Mst. Parven Sultana GSKT1068 2.40 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Amirul Islam DEKT1172 3.20 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Abdul Kuddus Mondal DEKT1237 3.20 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Most. Josna Khatun DEKT1149 3.20 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. Jamal Uddin KBKT1133 2.40 Kumarkhali Kustia

Md. Badsha Sheikh JBKT1002 2.00 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Md. M. M. M. Rahmatullah DEKT1273 3.20 Kustia Sadar Kustia

Mst. Jesmin DEPB1156 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Dinaz Uddin SBPB1119 2.00 Iswardi Pabna

Mst. Monira Parvin DEPB1089 3.20 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Rezaul Karim DEPB1124 3.20 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Hossain Ali DEPb1078 4.80 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Panna Ali DEPB1124 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Aidul Islam DEPB1078 4.80 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Shahidul Islam DEPB1088 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Mst. Chaiti Hasan DEPB1107 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Mst. Afroza Khatun DEPB1089 3.20 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Wazali GSPB1125 3.20 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Abdus Samad Mollah GSBP1102 3.20 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Mst. Razia Sultana DEPB1124 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Edrish Ali DEKT1190 3.20 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Mst. Jarina Begum AKPB1059 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Abu Bakkar Khan DEPB1082 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Monzur Rahman GSPB1091 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Rozina AKPB1082 2.00 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Rozi Begum AKPB1060 2.00 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Mozibur Rahman DEPB1156 3.20 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Selim DEPB1109 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Mst. Iren Parvin DEPB1079 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Moniruzzaman DEPB1123 3.20 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Geas Ahmed DEKT1188 4.80 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Abdul Latif AKPB1087 4.80 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Wali Ahmed STPB1002 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Ibrahim DEKT1184 4.80 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Mojibar Rahman DEPB1106 4.80 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Mst. Halima Khatun DEPB1126 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

md. Aftab Hossain DEPB1149 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Rakibul Islam AKPB1080 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Noor Uddin Sardar AKPB1089 3.20 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Kaharul Islam PEPB1008 4.80 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Ziaur Rahman GSPB1103 4.80 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Jahangir Hossain GSIA1044 4.80 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Abul Hasem Sardar SKMG1023 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Mostafa Bepari SKMG1022 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Moyna Begum SKMG1024 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Tofazzal Bepari SKMG1018 2.00 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Mofazzal Bhuiyan SKMG1021 2.00 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Taslima Begum SKMG1019 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Page

104

Nasir Deyan GSMS1016 4.80 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Geas Uddin Deoyan GSMS1015 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Ibrahim Bepari GSMS1012 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Saheb Ali GSMS1017 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Abdur Rahman GSMS1013 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Selim Bepari SKMG1032 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Ruma Begum SKMG1010 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Sadek Bhuiyan SKMG1006 2.00 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Badsha Patan SKMG1016 2.00 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Jalal Bepari SKMG1009 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Rehena Parvin SKMG1014 4.80 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Abdus Sattar SKMG1004 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Solaiman SKMG1003 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Ekin Ali SKMG1029 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Nazma Begum SKMG1017 2.00 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Shafiuddin Sheikh RSMG1013 3.20 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Rehena Begum NLMU1003 4.80 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Kamal Mollah NLMU1001 4.80 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Sohel Sheikh RSMG1011 2.00 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Rafiq RSMG1009 2.40 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Monir Hossain Dali RSMG1003 3.20 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Rabeya Begum NLMU1004 3.20 Munshiganj Sadar Munshiganj

Md. Khorshed Alam SKDK1017 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Ayub Kabir SKDK1013 2.40 Rupganj narayangonj

Al Haj Momin Uddin SKDK1012 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Yeakub Ali SKDK1009 2.40 Rupganj narayangonj

Mst. Nargish Akhter SKNG1001 1.60 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Ziarul Hoque SKNG1002 1.60 Rupganj narayangonj

Peyara Begum SKDK1015 1.60 Rupganj narayangonj

Foymal Ahmed SKNG1003 1.60 Rupganj narayangonj

Hori Parshad SKNG1004 3.20 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Abul Hossain SKNG1017 2.00 Rupganj narayangonj

Aminul Hoque SKNG1018 2.00 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Selim Sakhayat SKNG1024 2.40 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Aowlad Hossain SKNG1016 2.00 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Jasim Uddin Bhuiyan SKDK1007 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Tabarak Hossain SKNG1015 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Taraz Uddin Gazi SKNG1013 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Abu Taher SKDK1010 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Motiur Rahman SKDK1014 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Shahidul Bhuiyan SKDK1008 3.20 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Belayet Hossain SKDK1004 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Amir Hossain SKDK1003 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Sikdar Ali SKDK1002 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Kamrul Hasan Feroj SKDK1001 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Md. Masud Rana GSVA1069 4.80 Rupganj narayangonj

Noor Mohammad RBNI1030 3.20 Rupganj narayangonj

Noor Mohammad SKNG1031 2.40 Rupganj narayangonj

Page

105

Md. Mahabub Alam SKNG1025 2.40 Rupganj narayangonj

Delowar Hossain SKNG1029 2.40 Rupganj narayangonj

Mst. Amena Begum BUJD1067 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Babul Hossain BUJD1024 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Shanaz Miah GSMN1166 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Babul Hossain GSMN1136 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Abdul Khalek GSMN1142 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Rasel Hoque GSMN1151 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Al Amin shikder GSMN1152 2.40 Sreepur Gazipur

M. N. Zaman GSMN1160 2.40 Sreepur Gazipur

Abdul Aziz BUJD1011 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Ali Dewyan GSGZ1154 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Kamal Hossain BUJD1049 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Kazal Miah BUJD1012 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Esmat Ara BUJD1050 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Nurul Islam GSMN1181 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Mukta BUJD1046 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Ismail GSMN1131 2.40 Sreepur Gazipur

Abdul Motaleb BUGZ1008 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Masud Rana BUJD1044 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Anowar Hossain RSMN 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Mst. Esrat Jahan Mini BUJD1018 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Geas Uddin Sardar BUJD1015 2.40 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Altaf Sardar BUJD1066 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Mst. Masuda Akhter BUJD1042 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Mostafa Alam GSMN1169 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Masud Rana GSMN1143 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Sultan Alam GSMN1154 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Saidur Rahman GSGZ2125 4.80 Sreepur Gazipur

Sohel Rana GSMN1128 3.20 Sreepur Gazipur

Md. Nurul Islam GSPB1090 2.40 Pabna Sadar Pabna

Md. Mozammel Hoque GSKU1010 2.00 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Lutfar Rahman GSKU1013 2.00 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Moniruzzaman GSKU1017 2.00 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Alamgir Hossain GSKU1020 2.00 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Anowar-ul-Islam GSKU1031 2.40 Monirampur Jessor

Md. A. Rashid Mowral GSKU1033 2.40 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Ziaur Rahman GSKU1036 2.40 Monirampur Jessor

Gobindra chandra mondal GSKU1041 2.00 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Golam Hossain GSNM1066 2.40 Monirampur Jessor

Abdul Sattar GSNM1069 2.40 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Abdul Kader Biswas GSNM1096 2.40 Monirampur Jessor

Billal Hossain GSNM1096 3.20 Monirampur Jessor

Abdur Salam HBJH1107 2.00 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Quasem Ali HBJS1096 2.00 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Hadiuzzaman RRJS1005 2.40 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Epas Uddin Gazi RSBI1071 2.40 Monirampur Jessor

Chanchal Kumar Bowtachacha SRJS1123 2.40 Monirampur Jessor

Page

106

Md. Mizanur Rahman SRJS1125 2.00 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Shafiqul Islam SRJS1129 2.40 Monirampur Jessor

Kamrul Hasan SRJS1135 3.20 Monirampur Jessor

Khandakar Mahbuber Rabbani SRJS1145 2.00 Monirampur Jessor

Mst. Khuki Begum SRJS1151 3.20 Monirampur Jessor

Md. Khorshed Alam GSMH1074 2.40 Gangni meherpur

Ashraful Hoque Babu DEKT1134 3.20 Gangni meherpur

Md. Abul Motin GSMH1076 2.00 Gangni meherpur

Md. Shajahan GSMH1105 2.00 Gangni meherpur

Md. Motiur Rahman GSMH1191 2.00 Gangni meherpur

Md. Abdul Mozid GSMH1194 2.40 Gangni meherpur

Md. Faruq Hossain GSMH1099 2.40 Gangni meherpur

Md. Aktaruzzaman GSMH1072 2.40 Gangni meherpur

Md. Robiul Islam GSMH1078 2.40 Gangni meherpur

Nazrul Islam GSMH1083 2.00 Gangni meherpur

Md. Abdul Mozid DEMH1002 2.40 Gangni meherpur

Md. Jalal Uddin Biswas GSKT1069 3.20 Gangni meherpur

Md. Monirul Islam GSMH1096 2.00 Gangni meherpur

Md. Ali Hossain GSJH1096 1.60 Gangni meherpur

Chan Mohammad GSMH1103 4.80 Gangni meherpur

Md. Hassan Ali GSMH1108 3.20 Gangni meherpur

Md. Aktaruzzaman GSMH1113 2.00 Gangni meherpur

Md. Moklesur Rahman GSMH1116 2.40 Gangni meherpur

Md. Bakul Hossain GSMH1120 2.40 Gangni meherpur

Md. Ruhul Amin GSMH1121 2.00 Gangni meherpur

Jamal Hossain GSMH1123 2.40 Gangni meherpur

Md. Tuhin GSMH1098 3.20 Gangni meherpur

Md. Harunur Rashid NLNK1012 4.80 Sonaimuri Noakhali

Md. Geas Uddin GSVJ1035 3.20 Kobirhat Noakhali

Md. Kawsar Ahmad GSGS1005 2.40 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Sha Md. Abul Khaier GSNQ1032 4.80 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Sree Sanzid GSB11014 2.00 Hobiganj Sadar Habigonj

Md. Joynal Abedin GSHB1016 2.40 Hobiganj Sadar Habigonj

Haji Md. Abdul Ali GSNQ1030 3.20 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Haji A. K. M. Faqrul Islam GSZA1032 2.40 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Md. Tara Miah GSNQ1025 3.20 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Quazi Shihab Chowdhuri GSZA1033 2.40 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Dr. Mozibur Rahman GSNQ1022 3.20 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Md. Hamidul Chowdhury GSHB1017 2.40 Hobiganj Sadar Habigonj

Md. Syed Miah Talukder RSHB1007 2.40 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Md. Faruq Miah GSNQ1026 2.40 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Md. Jahirul Islam GSCB1095 3.20 Sonaimuri Noakhali

Md. Anowar Chowdhury GSBJ1044 4.80 Kobirhat Noakhali

Md. Abdul Mabud GSBJ1042 3.20 Noakhali Sadar Noakhali

Md. Abur Rob SKNO1001 4.80 Kobirhat Noakhali

Md. Nazmul Anam Chowdhury GSVJ1036 2.40 Kobirhat Noakhali

Biswhadith Kumar GSCV1094 4.80 Sonaimuri Noakhali

Md. Rahim Ullah GSVJ1034 4.80 Kobirhat Noakhali

Page

107

Jarna Rani Dash GSCB1015 2.00 Subarnachar Noakhali

Md. Faruq Ahmed GSVT1008 1.60 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Monir Hossain GSCV1096 3.20 Sonaimuri Noakhali

Md. Abdul Kayium GSVT1044 2.40 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Tota Miah GSVT1035 3.20 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Owahad Ali GSVT1032 2.40 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Samir Uddin GSVT1027 2.00 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Billal Hossain GSVT1021 2.40 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Abdul Khalik GSVT1006 2.00 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Jasim Uddin GSVT1013 2.40 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Aliur Rahman GSVT1014 2.40 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Selim Ali GSLZ1015 2.40 Mimakazi Sylhet

Md. Alim Uddin GSVT1043 2.40 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Shamsuddin GSVT1038 2.40 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Arash Ali GSVT1053 2.40 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Foizul Islam GSVT1025 3.20 Biswanath Sylhet

Md. Rashed Hossain NLNK1019 4.80 Noakhali Sadar Noakhali

Md. Abdul Rakib GSNQ1033 3.20 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Md. Nazmul Miah RSNB1002 2.40 Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar Habigonj

Md. Abdul Kaiyum Mintu GSIL1001 3.20 Subarnachar Noakhali

Syed Mohammad GSCR1091 3.20 Sonaimuri Noakhali

Page

108

Annex 3

Checklist for Qualitative Data Collection

BIOGAS USERS SURVEY 2010

Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

Three (3) FGDs will be conducted in each district. All the 3 FGDs will take place in one

village/community having sufficient number of users. All of the FGD participants will not

necessarily be covered by the questionnaire survey.

FGD 1: Users Group

This FGD will cover only a few issues as almost all the relevant issues will be covered by the

questionnaire survey. However, to have a collective view on some of those issues, the FGD will

discuss a few of the questionnaire issues as well. Following are the issues to be covered in this

FGD:

- Expansion of the use of biogas as a source of energy. How it came in the

village/community? How flourished?

- Advantages of using biogas. Is there any disadvantage? Comparison with traditional and

non-renewable energy sources.

- Impact on the community as a whole (while the questionnaire survey captures impact on

individual households, this is more about impact at the community level).

- Quality of services of the providers? How they help in maintenance?

A number of mapping and interactive exercises will be done as part of the FGD.

Resource Mapping. Preparing with the participants a map of the existing resources that the

community depends on. Information covered in the mapping exercise will include the following:

- Location, scale and context of the resources (natural and social).

- Identification of resources having implications from the type of energy use.

- Impact of biogas on resources, particularly sustainability of natural resources.

Highlighting possible depletion of natural resources due to use of non-renewable and

traditional sources of energy.

Page

109

Livestock Mapping. Preparing in a participatory way a map of the existing livestock in the

community and the links to biogas. Information will include:

- Types of livestock available in the community and implications on the availability of raw

materials for biogas.

- Impact of biogas on the potentials of livestock in the community.

- Links with other farming activities e.g. use of bio-slurry as fertilizer for cultivation.

Activity Mapping. Use of biogas is likely to bring about significant changes in the household

activities through increasing the time use efficiency of its members. A participatory exercise

will be conducted to capture this aspect of biogas use. The issues to be covered will include the

following:

- Time use pattern of the members of the households using biogas plants. After-before

comparison.

- Changes in daily activities – types and nature of work – of the biogas plants owning

households.

- Impact on women in particular through changes in their activities related to collection

and utilization of different energy sources.

Seasonality Analysis. The seasonal variations of all the aspects of biogas use will be captured

through a participatory exercise. The following information will be gathered from the exercise:

- Seasonal variations in availability of raw materials for biogas plants and mechanisms

adopted by the households to adjust with that.

- Seasonal variations in marketing aspects (demand-supply) of slurry and the implications

of financial benefits from it.

- Seasonal variations in the activities and time-use patterns emerging from the use of

biogas in the household.

Market Actor Mapping. This participatory exercise will map the market actors in the locality to

assess the market potentials of biogas plants and bio-slurry. The following issues will be address

in the exercise:

- Identification of market actors with locations and scale of operation.

- Current role of the identified market actors in marketing bio-slurry.

- Links between the market actors and the community.

- Ways to make the market actors more active in enhancing the market potentials of bio-

slurry.

FGD 2: Non-users Group

Since non-users will not be covered by the questionnaire survey, it is important to ensure that all

the information required about the non-users are captured in this FGD. Following are the issues

to be covered.

- Why non-users? What factors are stopping them in becoming biogas users?

Page

110

- Extent of interest among the non-users?

- If the interest is high, what can be done to make them biogas users?

- How do they view the benefits of the use of biogas instead of the energy sources they are

using now?

- How do they compare the socio-economic status of the users and non-users? Do they

believe there has been significant socio-economic impact on the biogas using

households?

- Do they view themselves as potential biogas users in the near future? If yes, how will that happen?

- What are they loosing from not using biogas as energy source? Are they loosing

anything at all?

- If interested, what will be the purposes of using biogas?

- Capacity of installing biogas in terms of availability of raw materials and ability to

undertake the required investment.

- Factors determining expansion of biogas plants.

- Pricing and investment realities in expanding biogas plants.

- Market demand for biogas plants from economic perspectives.

- Ways to effectively promote biogas plants as economically and commercially viable

option for users.

FGD 3: Special RRA on Market Linkages

This FGD will involve the market players and the users together discussing the issues of

marketing bio-slurry. The following will be discussed:

- Market potentials of bio-slurry. Current demand and supply. Potential demand and

supply.

- Current and potential buyers of bio-slurry.

- Current and potential marketing channels of bio-slurry.

- Types of uses of bio-slurry having implications on marketing potentials.

- How to make bio-slurry more marketable? Ways of promoting bio-slurry as a more

attractive product for the market.

- Challenges in bio-slurry marketing. Ways to overcome the challenges.

Case Studies and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)

A number of case studies and KIIs will be carried out in the study locations although the number

of these will depend on the actual necessity of filling the gaps of information or of verifying

particular information. Therefore, no pre-defined checklist will be used for these. The

researchers on field will use their own judgment in carrying these out and will make sure that the

information collected is indeed useful.

Annual Biogas Users Survey 2010 - · PDF file5.1 Saving of Time and Money ... Questionnaire for Biogas Plant User ... The Annual Biogas Users’ Survey 2010 aims at making a comprehensive

Documents