Biogas User Survey 2010

Final Report

Annual Biogas Users Survey 2010

Submitted to

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (IDCOL)

National Domestic Biogas and Manure Programme (NDBMP)

29 November 2011

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

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

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 fr 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

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

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

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,

womens 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

childrens 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

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.

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.

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 dont 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.

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

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--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

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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--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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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)

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

NGOs 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

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

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

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

Nganj 2 7.1 25 89.3 1 3.6 0 .0 100

Mganj 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

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

Dont 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 neighbors 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

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%

Neighbors 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%

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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 availab

Biogas User Survey 2010

Documents