KENYA DOMESTIC BIOGAS USER SURVEY 2014 - SNV...Kenya. Viable mean number of cattle required to sustain biogas feeding are apparent. 02 Enhanced user training is urgently needed as

KENYA DOMESTIC BIOGAS USER SURVEY 2014

AUGUST 2014

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Biogas User Survey Objectives......................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Scope of work ................................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 8

2.0 Overall Study Process ....................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Desk Review ..................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 History of Biogas Technology in Kenya ........................................................................................ 11

2.3 Energy Situation in Kenya .............................................................................................................. 12

2.4 Background to the Problem............................................................................................................. 13

2.5 Background to the Organization ..................................................................................................... 14

2.6 Overview of the Biogas Program ................................................................................................... 14

2.7 Tool Development and Planning ..................................................................................................... 15

2.8 Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 15

2.9 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 16

CHAPTER THREE: SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................ 17

3.1 Background Information ................................................................................................................. 17

3.1.1 Response Rates ........................................................................................................................... 17

3.1.2 Age distribution .......................................................................................................................... 18

iii

3.1.3 Household Incomes ..................................................................................................................... 19

3.1.4 Sizes of biogas plants .................................................................................................................. 21

3.2 Baseline Survey Indicators.............................................................................................................. 22

3.2.1 Fuel use for cooking .................................................................................................................... 22

3.2.2 Cost of expenditure fuel types .................................................................................................... 24

3.2.3 Distance and Time ...................................................................................................................... 24

3.2.4 Sources of Fuel ........................................................................................................................... 25

3.2.5 Renewability and Non-renewability Indicators .......................................................................... 25

3.2.6 Sources of fuel five years ago and now ...................................................................................... 26

3.2.7 Distance and time ........................................................................................................................ 26

3.2.8 Number of animals ...................................................................................................................... 27

3.3 Monitoring Survey Indicators ......................................................................................................... 29

3.3.1 Fuel use for cooking ................................................................................................................... 29

3.3.1.1 Uses of frequent cook stoves .......................................................................................................... 30

3.3.1.2 Costs of fuels ............................................................................................................................... 31

3.3.1.3 Sources of fuels ........................................................................................................................... 32

3.3.1.4 Frequency of cook stoves ............................................................................................................ 33

3.3.2 Renewability and non-renewability indicators................................................................................... 34

3.3.2.1 Fuel situation five years ago and at Present ................................................................................ 34

3.3.2.1 Animal Waste Handling .............................................................................................................. 35

3.3.2.3 Bio-slurry Management .............................................................................................................. 36

3.3.2.4 Land use & Bio-slurry................................................................................................................. 37

3.3.2.5 Usage rates ...................................................................................................................................... 38

3.3.3 Sustainable Development Criteria ............................................................................................. 39

3.3.3.1 Yields and Farm Practices........................................................................................................... 39

iv

3.5 Other BUS Indicators ............................................................................................................................ 41

3.5.1 Biogas Awareness ....................................................................................................................... 41

3.5.2 Positive Effects of Biogas Plant Installation ............................................................................... 43

3.5.3 Biogas Plant Financing ............................................................................................................... 45

3.5.3.1 Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 45

3.5.3.2 Plant Operation ............................................................................................................................... 47

3.5.3.3 Plant Monitoring and User Training ............................................................................................... 49

3.5.3.4 Slurry Management ......................................................................................................................... 49

3.5.3.5 Energy Consumption .................................................................................................................. 50

3.5.3.6 Plant installation and Related Information Non-Users ................................................................... 50

CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................... 52

4.0 Findings, Recommendations and Conclusion ................................................................................. 52

5.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 58

Annexes ...................................................................................................................................................... 60

Sampling Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 60

Surveys ........................................................................................................................................................ 62

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Monitoring and baseline samples ............................................................................... 17

Figure 3.3: Distribution of Respondent’s by Age group ............................................................... 18

Figure 3.4: % of respondents who provided contact information ................................................. 19

Figure 3.5: Proportional Levels of Household Incomes ............................................................... 20

Figure 3.6: Main Sources of Household Incomes ......................................................................... 20

Figure 3.7: Sizes of biogas plants ................................................................................................. 21

Figure: 3.8: Frequency of use of various cook stoves .................................................................. 22

Figure 3.9: Reasons for change in fuel type ................................................................................. 25

Figure 3.10: Persons responsible for collecting fuel ..................................................................... 25

Figure 3.11: Sources of Fuel 5 years ago and Now ...................................................................... 26

Figure 3.12: Opinion on Wood Fuel ............................................................................................. 27

Figure 3.13: Percentage of manure storage techniques ................................................................ 28

Figure 3.14Fuel use for cooking ................................................................................................... 29

Figure 3.15: Frequency of use of cooking stove ........................................................................... 30

Figure 3.16: Use of cooking stoves............................................................................................... 30

Figure 3.17: Sources of Fuel ......................................................................................................... 32

Figure 3.18: Main Source of Fuel ................................................................................................. 34

Figure 3.29: Sources of Fuel 5 years ago and Now ...................................................................... 34

Figure 3.19: Opinion on Wood Fuel ............................................................................................. 35

Figure 3.20: Uses of bio-slurry ..................................................................................................... 37

Figure 3.21: Change in Living Conditions ................................................................................... 39

Figure 3.21: Changes in yields and farm practices ....................................................................... 41

Figure 3.22: Channels of Awareness ............................................................................................ 42

Figure 3.23: Factors influenced by Biogas ................................................................................... 45

Figure 3.24: Plant operation activities .......................................................................................... 47

Figure: 3.25: Improvement management practices ....................................................................... 48

Figure 3.26: Plant inspection ........................................................................................................ 48

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Approximate Percentage Distribution of Energy Sources in Kenya ............................. 2

Table 1.2: Percentage Sources of Lighting In Kenya ..................................................................... 3

Table 1.3: Regional Proportionate Fuel Use among the Poor in Kenya ......................................... 4

Table 1.4: Regional Proportionate Fuel Use among the Non-Poor In Kenya ................................ 6

Table 2.1: Surveyed Sample Sizes .................................................................................................. 8

Table 3.1: Monitoring and baseline samples ................................................................................ 17

Table 3.2: Cost (in Kenya shillings) of fuels in Kenya................................................................. 24

Table 3.3.Mean distance and time spent in collecting firewood and charcoal ............................. 27

Table 3.3: Mean rates of animals kept .......................................................................................... 27

Table 3.4: Mean rates of manure, measured in kg, produced ....................................................... 28

Table 3.5: People cooked for per meal compared to those living in the HH ................................ 31

Table 3.6: Weekly estimate costs (in Ksh) of fuels monitored ..................................................... 31

Table 3.7: Mean distances and time spent fetching firewood ....................................................... 32

Table 3.8: Mean distances and time spent fetching firewood and Charcoal ................................ 35

Table 3.9: Mean number of animal kept ....................................................................................... 36

Table 3.10: Mean annual animal movement, in days, rates .......................................................... 36

Table: 3.11 Mean dung production, in kg per day ........................................................................ 36

vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ABPP – Africa Biogas Partnership Program

AC- Animal Consumption

ANOVA – Analysis of Variance

CAN – Calcium Ammonium Nitrate

CO2 – Carbon Dioxide gases

CsPro – Census and Statistical Processing System

DAP – Di-ammonium Phosphate

HC – Human Consumption

IPCC – Inter-Panel for Climate Change

KBDM – Kenya Bio Digester Model

KENDBIP- Kenya National Domestic Biogas Program

KENFAP- Kenya National Federation for Agricultural producers

KNBS – Kenya National Bureau of Statistics

LPG – Liquefied Petroleum Gases

NGOs – Non-Governmental Organizations

SACCOs- Savings and Credit Co-operative Organizations

SSA – Sub-Saharan Africa

UN – United Nations

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

COVARD Consultants are grateful to KENDBIP, especially its senior management staff led by

Mr. George Nyamu to have accorded us this opportunity to conduct the 2014 Biogas User

Survey. Kindly, we warmly thank all KENDBIP Field Technicians who spared time to take our

field assessors round the homesteads in the counties of Kericho, Nakuru, Kiambu, Murang’a,

Machakos and Kajiado. It is your huge effort; sacrifice and spirit that made our assessors to carry

out successful data collection interviews for this report. Lastly, our assessors deserve gratitude.

You were trained and dispatched off to the field over a short notice to serve our country. You

neither disappointed nor disapproved. Thank you.

Any errors and mis-reporting is highly regrettable and as the authors we carry the responsibility.

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The primary objectives of BUS 2014 were three fold; first, to assess and ascertain the quality of

services rendered by KENDBIP; secondly, to quantitatively examine the impact of biogas plants

on the socioeconomic benefits per household; and thirdly, to carry out a baseline survey of fuel

situation A total of 240 households were sampled across the country representing Western,

Central and Eastern regions. For every region at least 120 households were sampled. In every

county 60 households were randomly selected for monitoring and baseline. The study employed

collection of quantitative data on identified baseline, monitoring and other aspects of BUS.

Descriptive as well as inferential analyses were performed using SPSS.

Our analyses revealed among other the following findings:-

01 Wood fuels are the dominant sources for cooking in Kenya. However, the prices of these

fuels have sharply risen. Thus, they are becoming scarce and limited. To satisfy this

persistent fuel demand, there is an urgent need to adopt alternative and renewable sources

of energy particularly biogas. An enormous potential for biogas development exist in

Kenya. Viable mean number of cattle required to sustain biogas feeding are apparent.

02 Enhanced user training is urgently needed as only less than one third has received

training. Even though the training content is relevant and useful, the number of plant

owners receiving training should be increased. Distribution of user manuals should be

increased. The coverage is below 50%. Poor coverage of communication information

channels persist. It is quite low at 10%. Farmers expressed a desire to be trained on

improved land use management practices. They are unaware of the importance of

shading pits.

03 High awareness biogas technology is apparent---over 90%. Contrastingly, this high

awareness levels have not been translated into adoption rates most farmers in Kenya.

Wood fuels still dominate energy consumption patterns ---firewood and charcoal account

90% of domestic energy supply. KENDBIP can address this anomaly through enhanced

civil education in partnership with corporate media on the importance of biogas

technology.

x

04 Construction costs of biogas plants are still extremely high, hence unaffordable to most

Kenyans. Low mean income levels are still widespread in Kenya. Potential bio-digesters users

should be encouraged to acquire funds from some of the credit outlets identified in this report.

05 Poor and inappropriate land use and soil management practices are still common. Nearly

all biogas users directly apply bio-slurry to their farms. Though fairly sound; it is not

fully beneficial. Intensive land use farming systems should be adopted.

06 Nearly all plants monitored didn’t have gas-manometers. Having functional gas-

manometers will not only enhance determination and estimation of household biogas

produced and consumed but initiatives would be helpful in future energy monitoring

exercises as well as other agricultural land use management is possible these serial

numbers are known and exist only in KENFAP database.

07 Intensify monitoring and baseline biogas surveys.

In conclusion, there exist an enormous potential for biogas biotechnology development in

Kenya. Strengthening and revamping the existing infrastructure should continue to

receive deserving attention from all stakeholders.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background

Since the UN Conference on New and Renewable Energy Resources in early 1980s, worldwide;

energy crisis and management has continued to receive urgent attention. In these new global

energy consumption patterns, biomass resources have drawn a great interest than before due to

their renewability and potential environmental contribution in mitigating climate change.

Biomass is a stored form of solar energy with relatively several uses including household

heating/cooking, organic farming fertilizer, and lighting as well as industrial production.

It is noteworthy to point out that biomass energy contributes to over one-third of energy

consumption in the developing world: Africa, Asia and Latin America. Furthermore, over 90%

of all rural populations in these regions depend on biomass energy supply for their daily

livelihood. Equally, the urban poor in these regions largely depend on biomass energy sources.

In Kenya, over half of the total population of 41 millions has no access to electricity (Table 1).

Thus, they wholly depend on biomass fuels particularly firewood (over 75%) for their daily

energy consumption for cooking, boiling and heating (KNBS, 2008). For lighting purposes,

Kenyans both in rural and urban areas largely depend on a commercialized fuel particularly

paraffin/kerosene. Nonetheless, it is important to observe the role played by biogas energy

supply in Kenya. Though it appears quite insignificant, biogas energy can play a substantively

prominent role in the energy supply in Kenya. Thus, the potential for biogas (a biomass product

of animal dung, urine and other residues) in transforming Kenya’s rural economy has received

less attention.

This is probably due to: inadequate technical installations skills, unawareness, inadequate

funding etc. One of the key objectives of study was to provide an adequate and sound

understanding of the role played by biogas users in the transformation of rural economy of

Kenya. In addition, the study examined key indicators of energy consumption patterns in Kenya.

The concentrated in three broad regions: Western, Central and Eastern. In this region, two

administrative counties were selected for household survey.

2

Table 1.1: Approximate Percentage Distribution of Energy Sources in Kenya

Fuel Types POOR NON- POOR

Kenya Rural Urban Kenya Rural Urban

Collected

firewood

75.4 87.4 17.9 48.4 66.9 3.3

Purchased

firewood

13.7 14.1 11.8 15.4 20.4 3.0

Grass 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2

Paraffin 9.7 1.4 42.9 24.7 9.2 56.9

Electricity 0.1 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.4 4.6

Gas 0.2 0.1 1.0 7.6 2.2 19.6

Charcoal 16.9 9.5 48.8 29.5 24.2 41.0

Biomass residue 1.3 1.5 0.1 0.8 1.0 0.3

Biogas 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Others 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.6 1.3

Not stated 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.4 0.4 0.4

No. of

households

2,632,455 2,172,383 460,072 4,285,748 3,003,784 1,281,964

Source: Well-being in Kenya, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) --- (2008)

Lighting is an important component of energy consumption both in rural and urban areas. In

urban areas, proper street lighting can lead to reduced crime rates; thus spurring business

opportunities and economic growth. On the other hand, in rural areas ample household lighting

can possibly lead to improved school performances---students are able read and punctually

complete their assignments besides increased household positive esteem and living standards.

Hence, this can lead higher literacy rates and innovations.

Overdependence on paraffin as a source household lighting is both environmental and social

hazardous. In Kenya, almost 80% poor household lighting is derived from paraffin. Paraffin is

carboniferous fuel---its continuous usage increases atmospheric levels carbon dioxide (CO2) ---a

greenhouse gas whose potential role in global warming is well documented (IPCC, 2001). Most

household fire outbreaks are often related to paraffin use either in cooking or lighting.

In Kenya, the potential use for biogas in domestic household lighting remains largely unknown

and least ventured. The main sources lighting in Kenya are shown below (Table 2).

3

Table 1.2: Percentage Sources of Lighting In Kenya

Sources of lighting POOR NON- POOR

Kenya Rural Urban Kenya Rural Urban

Collected firewood 14.3 16.7 1.8 3.7 5.2 0.2

Purchased firewood 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.4

Grass 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Paraffin 83.7 85.4 76.3 74.1 87.3 47.5

Electricity 4.5 0.7 22.4 23.3 6.5 62.0

Solar 0.5 0.4 0.7 3.3 4.3 1.0

Gas 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8

Dry cell 15.1 16.9 5.7 14.0 17.6 3.9

Candles 1.5 0.5 6.3 6.3 1.7 15.5

Biogas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Others 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5

Not stated 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.4

No. of households 2,632,455 2,172,383 460,072 4,285,748 3,003,784 1,281,964


In Kenya, firewood and paraffin accounts to over 95% of household energy supply and

consumption. This further translates to 60% of the households’ monthly expenditures (Tables 1.3

& 1.4). In rural Kenya, the monthly expenditure on paraffin is over 70% of the domestic

household budgets. It is slightly over 40% in urban areas.

One of the most important questions in this study was the perception of Kenyans in using human

dung/waste to generate biogas. Pilot programmes indicate that a huge potential exist in this area

particularly in the informal settlements of most urban areas where the population density is very

high.

4

Table 1.3: Regional Proportionate Fuel Use among the Poor in Kenya

Regions POOR

Electricity Gas/LPG Paraffin Firewood Charcoal Others Total No. of

household

Kenya 5.2 0.5 59.6 13.9 20.6 0.2 235.5 2,444,545

Rural 0.7 0.1 72.7 17.0 9.3 0.1 175.2 2,009,375

Central 2.1 0.8 58.3 24.1 14.7 0.0 304.7 183,848

Coast 0.0 0.0 87.7 9.5 2.8 0.0 195.2 179,639

Eastern 0.0 0.0 80.8 10.1 9.0 0.0 155.1 394,897

N/Eastern 0.0 0.0 73.4 23.4 3.2 0.0 83.0 72,222

Nyanza 0.1 0.0 74.3 13.9 11.6 0.1 147.8 353,509

Rift

Valley

1.2 0.0 72.4 16.1 10.0 0.4 170.9 528,636

Western 0.1 0.0 67.6 26.7 5.6 0.0 172.6 296,623

Urban 11.2 1.1 42.4 9.7 35.4 0.3 614.9 453,170

Nairobi 21.0 1.5 51.2 1.0 25.3 0.0 763.5 124,081

Mombasa 10.3 0.0 45.2 6.0 37.4 1.1 649.3 50,850

Kisumu 0.0 0.0 31.9 14.7 51.1 2.3 604.9 18,749

Nakuru 7.7 0.0 41.8 0.0 50.5 0.0 420.3 22,162

Others 5.0 1.1 35.6 18.0 40.2 0.1 543.3 219,329


1.1 Biogas User Survey Objectives

Since 2008, the Kenya Domestic Biogas Programme (KENDBIP) has been undertaking a biogas

plant awareness and installation in Kenya. This is a five-year programme being implemented by

Kenya National Federation on Agricultural Producers (KENFAP) under the auspices of Africa

Biogas Partnership Programme (ABPP) and other international donor agencies. The primary

objective of these agencies is to install over 70,000 bio-digesters in six African countries

including Kenya in a period of five-years of the implementation.

For that matter, this survey sought to evaluate the effects of domestic bio-digester installations

from a users’ standpoint. In order to achieve this broad objective, a representative quantitative

survey of households with biogas units built between 2009 and 2013 as well as those households

without biogas units was conducted. In addition, this survey sought to identify and quantify

users’ experiences with the programme activities including promotion, construction, quality

assurance, training and after-sales service as well as monitoring the quality of the program.

Specifically, this survey assessed and analyzed the following four main aspects of biogas plants

in Kenya:

5

The quality of services rendered by KENDBIP particularly training, construction, quality

control; operation and maintenance of biogas plants, slurry usage, functions/roles of

KENDBIP as well as other organizations/agencies in project propagation. Furthermore,

feedback loops on the role of training and promotion were examined as well as construction

management practices;

The impacts of biogas plants on socioeconomic, environmental, health and sanitation

particularly manure management; time expenditure, fuel substitution were examined;

The fuel-use situation of users’ without a biogas digester was undertaken. The assessment

focused on the fuel types used, quantities, cooking habits, manure management practices,

types of cook stoves used and size of households and;

The sustainable development parameters as stipulated under the Gold Standard were

assessed. This is important for KENDBIP in requesting for registration to obtain carbon

credits.

1.2 Scope of work

Data was collected based on the following broad categories:

a) Household identification

b) Socio-economic characteristics of each household (before construction of biogas)

c) Biogas awareness, financing, operation, monitoring and user training

d) Slurry management

e) Energy consumption

f) Time management and living standards quality

g) Satisfaction, recommendations and observations

h) Usage rate of biogas digesters installed by age group.

It is envisaged that upon the installation of biogas plants particularly in rural areas--- whereby

the animal dung and other agricultural plant animal wastes is plentiful---as well as in the peri-

urban centres; biogas biotechnology will diffuse exponentially.

This will most likely speed up socio-economic growth and ameliorate environmental damage

because; first, biogas energy source is highly renewable and inexpensive. Secondly, biogas

technologies are eco-friendly and environmentally sound. Thirdly, the bio-slurry can be used in

6

organic farming as well as fish/pig feeds. Fourthly, bio-slurry can form an additional source of

income to the households.

Table 1.4: Regional Proportionate Fuel Use among the Non-Poor In Kenya

Regions NON- POOR

Electricity Gas/LPG Paraffin Firewood Charcoal Others Total No. of

household

Kenya 19.8 13.0 39.5 8.2 19.4 0.2 630.6 3,980,715

Rural 4.2 6.3 50.1 16.4 22.8 0.2 401.6 2,774,230

Central 5.1 5.2 44.4 18.0 27.2 0.1 503.1 562,804

Coast 6.2 0.8 70.1 12.7 10.3 0.0 363.5 126,411

Eastern 3.0 4.2 54.8 22.2 15.4 0.3 358.7 475,902

N/Eastern 0.0 0.0 64.5 33.1 2.4 0.0 231.1 42,957

Nyanza 1.2 10.4 48.5 13.8 25.5 0.6 366.4 485,340

Rift Valley 5.9 7.4 47.8 11.4 27.3 0.2 434.0 743,739

Western 2.6 5.2 57.5 22.8 12.0 0.0 308.4 337,076

Urban 32.3 18.4 31.0 1.6 16.7 0.1 1,157.1 1,206,485

Nairobi 36.7 22.0 31.8 0.3 9.2 0.0 1,435.3 552,277

Mombasa 33.2 9.5 31.0 6.4 19.9 0.0 1,110.1 139,309

Kisumu 36.7 17.8 15.7 0.0 28.4 1.3 1,452.3 31,397

Nakuru 14.5 9.6 36.5 0.0 39.4 0.0 567.4 30,407

Others 23.1 14.9 31.0 2.5 28.4 0.2 8,591.5 453,096


Specifically, the primary objectives of this study were four fold, namely; first, to assess and

ascertain the quality of services rendered by KENFAP to its bio-digester farmers in six counties

sampled across three broad geographic regions in Kenya. These regions were selected

purposively and they included: Western (Nakuru & Kericho), Central (Kiambu & Murang’a) and

Eastern (Machakos &Kajiado). Secondly, this study evaluated the impacts of bio-digester on the

socio-economic status of the Kenyan households. Thirdly, this study examined the role of biogas

energy supply in the conservation and amelioration of the local environment. Fourthly, the study

undertook a baseline survey on the fuel situation for non-biogas users in Kenya.

From an environmental viewpoint, one should note that firewood and charcoal are the main

sources of energy supply in Kenya and agriculture is the mainstay of the economy. Most of the

firewood is derived from the local environment:-farm yard trees, forests (state/protected/planted)

while burning of charcoal occur in forests as well as grasslands. Both processes are a major

contributor to environmental degradation. Decreased tree-cover especially in major catchments

7

results to decreased precipitation amounts coupled with increased air temperatures. Further, this

leads to decreased river-flow regimes. Regional floods and droughts become much more

pronounced.

One should also note the close relationship between soil properties and plant cover. Adequate

plant cover is critical to a good soil structure and drainage, high fertility as well as soil organic

matter and other soil components. By adopting sound biotechnologies such bio-digester plant

installations in rural agriculture/farming, KENFAP envisions a multiplicity of advantages

Kenyan farmers namely:- zero tillage practices, vibrant organic farming, increased household

income--- better living standards, mixed farming, sound soil-water conservation practices etc.

With increased recycling practices in every household; sustainable farming practices will

become the norm of rural economy. This is likely to results to less consumption of firewood

fuels, hence less loading of atmospheric CO2 levels. One of the most important likelihood

outcome/benefit of biogas biotechnology is environmental conservation through increased spatial

tree/plant cover per unit farming area. In this study, farmers were asked to estimate the size of

land covered by various crops grown annually as well as monthly natural tree-cover extent.

8

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY

2.0 Overall Study Process

Data for the Kenya BUS 2014 was collected on 19th

– 25th

January 2014. Data was collected in

240 households across six counties namely: Kericho, Nakuru; Kiambu, Murang’a; Machakos and

Kajiado. This is 12.8% representation of all the counties in Kenya. It is important to note the six

counties represent differently huge broad geographic zones with unique agricultural potentials

and resources. For instance, the counties of Kericho and Nakuru lie in the central Rift Valley---

an area with rich agricultural soils and good weather patterns. These facilitate farming all year

round. In particular, Kericho is a well-known tea producing region. Moreover, adjoining counties

portray similar agricultural potentials. On the hand, Nakuru is a central cosmopolitan county. It

straddles and shares Western, Central and Eastern Kenya diversity---culturally as well as socio-

economically.

The 360 households were equally distributed for Monitoring and Baseline surveys as shown in

Table 2.1 below. A detailed sampling methodology is included on this report as annex.

Table 2.1: Surveyed Sample Sizes

Survey Type Monitoring Baseline

Households 120 120

Grand total 240

In terms of man-power distribution, three interviewing teams comprising of a team leader and

five assessors were dispatched to every county. It is important to highlight that these assessors

underwent a two-day training workshop in Nairobi prior to the fieldwork. Training of assessors

was held on 17th

– 18th

January 2014. This was undertaken to enhance the quality of data

collection and familiarization with the survey instruments. Trainers were drawn from COVARD

led staff.

Prior to the commencement of the field survey, preliminary contacts of KENFAP Field

Technicians were made by every team leader. These contacts were provided by KENFAP Head

Office in Nairobi. These technicians were quite instrumental in the identification and location of

9

biogas plant-owners built by KENFAP in every county. In the field, each assessor as well as their

team leader was assigned specific tasks and workloads to be accomplished in a given field day.

For instance, on day one every assessor was to cover at least two monitoring questionnaires and

carry out three baseline surveys in a given locality. Apparently, this scenario proved fairly tricky

especially where the frictional distance between plants was quite overwhelming and immense.

For example in the county of Machakos, biogas plant owners are sparsely spread across the vast,

hilly terrain of the Eastern region. A similar situation was also encountered in the county of

Murang’a---Central region. However, most of these challenges were overcome due to adequate

transport arrangement.

In addition, assessors were instructed to hire local means---bodaboda motorcycles or public

transport (e.g. matatus) --- to accomplish field tasks timely. On daily basis, every team met to

review the successes and failures of the previous day schedule and workloads. Redistribution and

adjustments were done. Equally, the team leaders were in constant communication with the

coordinating team in Nairobi for further consultations, logistics and directions. For that matter,

every county was covered in two-and-half days.

During the field survey, assessors were strictly instructed to edit and coded the tools soonest after

every interview. Further, they were informed to capture as much data both qualitative (e.g. using

mobile phone cameras/videos, note-taking etc) and quantitative as much as possible before

moving to the next respondent. Generally, all precautions were employed to minimize omissions

and duplicity.

Upon the completion of the fieldwork, all questionnaires and other data were collected by team

leaders and handed over to the COVARD Consultants for data processing and report writing.

2.1 Desk Review

In sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), about three-quarters of the total population derive their energy from

biomass. This includes fire-wood, charcoal, crop and wood residues as well as dung. It is

important to highlight that Africa is the largest dependant on biomass energy than the rest of the

world. In Africa, nearly all households especially in the rural areas as well as the urban poor

largely rely on biomass energy for domestic cooking, heating and lighting. This overwhelming

10

reliance consequently results to environmental degradation, hampers economic development and

growth.

This scenario leads to a series of questions including: - is there a possibility for a shift from

carboniferous fuels to bio-fuels? What is the mismatch between carbon-related fuels and

population growth? What is the environmental trade-offs between biomass dependency and

environmental degradation?

It is remarkable to note that energy policy-making instruments and implementation strategies in

Africa primarily have focused on fossil fuels and hydro-electricity generation. In all probability,

this occurs at the expense of the role played by bio-fuels in the livelihood of rural populations.

Although commercial fuels (e.g. oil, coal and hydro-electricity) continue to receive prominent

attention and investment in economic development, they provide less than half of most countries’

total energy supply. In Africa, the role played by biomass bio-fuels such biogas generation

remains largely unknown and poorly documented particularly in Kenya.

Even with modest urbanization occurring in Africa, the urban poor tend to use much more

biomass per capita than their rural cousins. Consequently, this leads to widespread environmental

degradation in most urban areas whereby usage of charcoal (an inefficient energy

transformation); thus quite very little is known what environmental benefits can be achieved by

weaning off the urban poor bio-fuel use.

Remarkably, one can point out that energy issues are relatively complex and poorly understood.

Possibly, these could be due to its nature as well as past neglect to quantify and document. For

instance and in particular sound information on biomass production and usage patterns in Kenya

is grossly inadequate. Leach and Mearns (1988) have observed that huge wood gaps and deficits

exist between forest and woodland fire-wood supply. One of the main problems of biomass

studies in paying great attention to fire-wood as the main source of biomass energy. Little

attention is given to seasonal and extensive use of crop residues, forest residues and dung in the

society. Estimates points out that these bio-fuels contribute about (30 – 40) % of total biomass

energy supply. One should observe that fire-wood energy supply necessarily does not mean

cutting down of trees and their branches, but often it consists of harvesting of twigs, small

branches without serious damage to these trees.

11

Biomass supply and use statistics must include all forms biomass monitored over spatial span to

discern trends and sound planning. Often, use of biomass data should encompass accurate

biomass supply information to ascertain and monitor resource depletion and/or sustainable

biomass supply plausibility. Making people to adapt to new and eco-friendly bio-fuel energy

supply systems requires critical and sound thinking.

In Africa and likewise in Kenya, perfect biomass data scarcely exists due to several factors. First,

neglect of rural energy economies compared to urban areas; secondly, complexity of biomass

sources; and thirdly, low monetary values of bio-energy. One of the main aims of this study is to

assess cost-effective and reliable methodologies developed which policy-makers and planners

can adapt by examining biomass supply and use at the household level in Kenya.

Foley (1988) has highlighted the paucity of biomass data in Africa. He notes inadequate data on

energy consumption patterns exist and poorly documented. On the other hand, Pasztor and

Kristoferson (1990) have noted the significance of local knowledge in the biomass studies:

‘Before any successful policy intervention can take place, therefore, the nature of size

and quality of biomass flows need to be known. The availability and prize of fuels, time

series data, end-user principles and cross-elasticity’s are lacking in most places. Only if

based on detailed, local knowledge of the above can problems and their root causes be

identified and formulated ways which lend themselves to policy intervention. The

importance this with local populations involved cannot be over-stressed.’

Thus, for a successful biogas intervention programme in Kenya, the involvement of the local

community knowledge is paramount.

2.2 History of Biogas Technology in Kenya

In Kenya, biogas production dates back to colonial times in mid 1950s. Evidence suggests that in

1954, Tim Hutchinson privately produced biogas. He was a large-scale colonial farmer who

appreciated the capability of this technology as well as its potential particularly bio-slurry in soil

management practices (O’Keefe et al., 1984). Over the years the demand and design frameworks

rose among large-scale farmers especially in the 1970s during the global energy crisis.

In 1984, the Special Energy Programme (SEP) under the auspices of the Ministry of Energy

(MoE) conducted a biogas survey. This survey provided benchmark data which indicated that of

the 160 biogas plants installed in the country only 25% were in operation. The MoE in

12

collaboration with the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) embarked on a training and

promotion programme on realization of the importance of biogas bio-technology. Since then the

SEP and GTZ have been instrumental in training and promotion of biogas human-resource in

Kenya. Nevertheless, attendant challenges have slowed down the pace of this programme

particularly high installation costs, inadequate technical expertise and inappropriate farming

systems (MoE, 2004).

2.3 Energy Situation in Kenya

In Kenya, consumption of electricity has been steadily growing leading persistent shortages.

Frequent shortages are probably due to over-reliance to hydro-power generation coupled with

limited power capacity. At the dawn of this Millennium, Kenya experienced an acute energy

crisis which led to energy rationing whose implications were severely low industrial production.

To overcome this short-term catastrophe, several fossil-fuelled power stations were installed as

well as contracting emergency suppliers. Fossil fuels are costly. These costs were directly passed

on to consumers and this accounted to about 40% of fuels’ cost price. The overall result was

rapid inflation and high living costs (Fischer et al., 2010). It is important to point out that

irregularly high prices on imported petroleum-related products especially paraffin has serious

economic consequences to rural poor. In order to attain self-sufficiency in energy consumption

and minimize pressure on traditional biomass fuels, biogas biotechnology is probably the best

alternative energy solution. This could be achieved through active mobilization and economic

utilization of local indigenous resources.

The potential role of alternative energy has received sufficient attention in the recent years

mainly due to climate change (Karakezi, 2002a). Furthermore according to the Vision 2030, the

Kenya Government strives to improve the livelihoods rural people as well as conserve the

environment. Undoubtedly, overdependence on conventional energy sources is unsustainable.

This poses a fundamental challenge to the energy sector. On that note supplementary energy

sources have to be sought. Such alternative and renewable energy sources have received

sufficient attention (Amigun & Von Blottnitz, 2007). Akinbami et al., (2001) has observed that

awareness and concern about environmental impacts of fossil fuels coupled with steep fuel prices

continues to slow the pace of migration to renewable energy sources. On the other hand,

Karekezi (2002b) has noted on the potential role in the development of renewable energy sources

13

as a viable solution to energy problems in developing countries including Kenya. Efforts to adopt

renewable energy sources option to complement the traditional sources and mitigate the current

energy crisis have been steadily growing. Thus, there is an urgent concern to examine biogas

biotechnology as an alternative renewable energy sources.

2.4 Background to the Problem

Kenya faces innumerable challenges towards improving the living standards of her population.

One of these major challenges is ensuring easy access to affordable energy alternatives

especially to the rural poor. The country is yet to exploit her petroleum potential in the county of

Turkana.

Kenya has not yet discovered petroleum and hence the cost of fossil fuel which keeps on rising,

is out of reach by most rural forks. Furthermore, the impacts of climate change have made

hydroelectric power production not reliable again making the problem even worse. Because of

high costs and environmental degradation of other energy sources, The Kenya National

Domestic Biogas Program was implemented in Kenya by the Africa Biogas Partnership Program

in 2009 with the aim of increasing biogas energy access to Kenyans since it was considered

cheaper, clean and affordable as it uses readily available raw materials. However, the actual

impact of these initiatives towards alleviating the energy problem and improving livelihoods was

not well known. This study therefore aimed at evaluating whether the socio-economic and

environmental aspects of the biogas programme were achieved which would be of relevance to

the implementing agency as further implementation is carried out.

Due to economic, ecological and environmental challenges of the commonly used non-renewable

energy and rapid depletion these conventional energy sources are becoming unsustainable and

continuation of the trend may lead to disastrous consequences. Biogas energy is a promising

remedy which could augment these energy sources but despite its advantages its use in Kenya

remains low due to technical, economic and socio-cultural impediments. According to Pandey

(2007) one biogas unit is estimated to directly help conserve 3 tons of fuel wood annually

through fuel switching. This results in substitution of unsustainably harvested biomass and

maintenance of forest habitat, with associated biodiversity benefits and local benefits to soil

stability and to the dry season stream flows in the region. The reduction translates into the

prevented release of 5.5 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually from an average

14

biogas digester, resulting in environmental benefits from a reduced contribution to global

warming and associated impacts.

Biogas can also be economically used to generate electricity, providing a carbon neutral energy

source with greenhouse gas benefits. Other benefits include substantial reduction of smoke

emission from fuel wood burning, improving outdoor as well as indoor air quality, while use of

biogas slurry as fertilizer, particularly when combined with composting, can help reverse soil

degradation (Pandey, 2007).

Rural women and children spend a substantial portion of each day gathering fuel wood and

cooking meals. In addition to this more time is spent in farming, household management and

childcare leading to some women working for up to 16 hours each day. The use of biogas is

estimated to reduce the daily search for fuel wood, cooking and washing up time by three hours,

benefiting rural women directly. The time saved can be utilized on other beneficial socio-

economic activities.

2.5 Background to the Organization

The Kenya National Domestic Biogas Programme (KENDBIP) is a component of the Africa

Biogas Partnership Programme, (ABPP), supported by the Directorate General for International

Cooperation (DGIS) under the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The support is

channeled through two Dutch international development organizations; Humanist Institute for

Cooperation with Developing Countries, (HIVOS) as the fund manager and The Netherlands

Development Organization (SNV), as the technical advisor. The national stakeholder-appointed

implementing agency is the Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers (KENFAP).

KENDBIP is the operational framework for ABPP in Kenya and seeks to meet a broad DGIS

goal; provision of sustainable energy to a target population in the Global South by

2015.KENDBIP has an ultimate goal of contributing to the achievement of Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) by disseminating biogas as a safe, locally available and sustainable

source of energy.

2.6 Overview of the Biogas Program

The Kenya National Domestic Biogas Programme (KENDBIP) was initiated in July, 2009 with

the aim to facilitate the provision of energy for cooking and lighting through dissemination and

15

construction of 8,000 bio digesters in Kenya by 2013. The Kenya Bio Digester Model

(KENBIM) was chosen by stakeholders as the most appropriate. The model is a hybrid version

of the CAMARTEC and AKUT models, also, currently being promoted in Kenya. The by-

product (slurry) will be used as an organic soil enriching material to improve soil fertility and

ultimately farm productivity. The program’s priorities include:

Improved health and living conditions in rural households, particularly for women and

children.

Reduced deforestation and forest degradation by cutting down the use of firewood

Improved soil fertility and agricultural production.

Reduction of greenhouse gas emission.

Creation of employment in the biogas technologies sector

Emergence of complementary businesses to form the core for cluster-based economic

development

2.7 Tool Development and Planning

Three different questionnaires were used in this survey namely: - Monitoring and Baseline (with

and without). These tools were prepared and developed by COVARD Consultant’s senior staff in

consultation with KENFAP. This information was also shared with the international donors of

the project situated in the Netherlands. Their comments and inputs were incorporated leading to

refined tools (see Appendix). On the other hand, qualitative data was captured using mobile-

phone cameras/videos, note-taking and detailed interviews with respondents.

2.8 Field Survey

This study was conducted in six counties: Kericho, Nakuru, Kiambu, Murang’a, Machakos and

Kajiado. During the exercise, 40 households were interviewed per county giving a total of 240

households for the six counties surveyed. For every county sampled 20 households with a bio-

digester were assessed for the monitoring survey while a similar number of 20 households

without this plant were subjected to a baseline survey. Research assistants were trained to only

interview responsible members of the household. These are members who were deemed to have

requisite knowledge of fuel used by the household and knowledge of the plant – where

necessary. For cases where these respondents were not available, research assistants made call

16

backs. However, there were cases where missing information could be observed by phone from

the main respondent.

2.9 Data Analysis

Regarding data analysis, only basic and simple indicator outputs are displayed. Only descriptive

analysis was undertaken. This is because of its simplicity and clarity in policy-making. Thus,

only percentages, charts coupled with graphics/photographs of key indicators are presented.

Noteworthy, to point out field data was coded and analyzed using CsPro, SPSS computer

software. The data entry screen was developed and pre-tested by COVARD Consultants

statisticians.

17

CHAPTER THREE: SURVEY RESULTS

The results of this study have been organized along five broad themes namely: - Background

information, Baseline, Monitoring and other BUS indicators.

3.1 Background Information

3.1.1 Response Rates

It is important to highlight that the target sample sizes for monitoring and baseline were realized

in all the six counties (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Monitoring and baseline samples

Counties Baseline Monitoring

Target Realized Target Realized

Nakuru 20.0 20 20.0 23

Kericho 20.0 20 20.0 17

Kiambu 20.0 21 20.0 21

Murang'a 20.0 20 20.0 20

Machakos 20.0 20 20.0 20

Kajiado 20.0 20 20.0 19

Total 120.0 121.0 120.0 120.0

Furthermore the proportion of the respondents by gender was skewed in favour of females. 60%

of the respondents were females. This is replicated across all three main parameters of the survey

(Fig 3.1). This could be attributed to their perceived role as homemakers.

Figure 3.1: Monitoring and baseline samples

42.1 40 41.3

57.9 60 58.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Baseline Monitoring KPT

Proportion of Respondents by Gender

Male Female

18

Assessing the relationship between of the respondents with the household head, it was realized

that 52% and 46 %of the respondents for baseline and monitoring respectively was household

heads. On the other hand, 28% and 31% of the respondents for baseline and monitoring were

spouses of the household head (Fig.3.2).

Figure 3.2: Distribution of Respondent’s relationship with the head

3.1.2 Age distribution

Regarding the age distributions of the respondents across the sample, most of the respondents

were over 50 years of age. Indeed, it should be pointed out that for monitoring over 60% of the

respondents were over 50 years of age; these are biogas plant owners (Fig. 3.3). These

homestead owners and well-established farmers.

Figure 3.3: Distribution of Respondent’s by Age group

19

From these field data, one can note that the proportions of the youth (20 – 29) years captured in

this survey was quite minimal. This age-group tends to leave the rural areas to urban centres to

seek jobs or further their studies.

Often, field surveys involving interviews using questionnaires tend puzzle respondents. Some

respondents absolutely shy off leading high rates of refusals. In this study, a very high rate of

acceptance was recorded across all the six counties surveyed as indicated in Fig (Fig.3.4).

Figure 3.4:Percentage of respondents who provided contact information

3.1.3 Household Incomes

Household monthly incomes were surveyed. Surprisingly, over 30% of all the respondents could

not roughly estimate household monthly incomes. A paltry about 5% estimated less than Ksh.

5,000 and over a quarter of the respondents earn between Ksh. (5001 – 20,000). Moreover,

about 15% of the respondents earn over Ksh. 50,000 monthly (Fig.3.5). The average household

income is imperative in two ways. First, households with low monthly incomes are most likely

incapable of installing a costly farm input such a biogas. Secondly, low income households tend

to spend over 60% of their earnings on subsistence and survivor.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Baseline Monitoring

Respondents who provided contact information

Yes No

20

From a socio-economic standpoint, this study tried understand the sources of various household

incomes in Kenya. Field data reveals that the main source of household income in Kenya is

agriculture. Agriculture accounts 77.1% of the household incomes in the six counties sampled.

The dairy sub-sector of agriculture plays a prominent role. It provides about 70% of rural

household incomes in these regions. The importance of private business as income generating

activities cannot be underestimated. From this study, private business accounted 38.9% of

household incomes. Additionally, it can be noted employment is still a significant source of

house hold income in Kenya as well as remittances and pensions. One can observe that by

strengthening the agricultural sector can substantially uplift rural livelihoods in Kenya.

Figure 3.5: Proportional Levels of Household Incomes

Figure 3.6: Main Sources of Household Incomes

4.2

12.3

38.3

38.9

69.7

77.1

95.8

87.7

61.7

61.1

30.3

22.9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Remittances

Pension

Employment

Private business

Dairy

Agriculture

Yes No

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

21

The fact that over a third of the respondents could not estimate their household incomes is not

surprising. Typically, wealthy household owners tend to be afraid of revealing their actual

earnings for a number of reasons. First, it is due security and safety. Secondly, it is an African

cultural norm for one not to reveal his financial earnings to strangers---researchers.

3.1.4 Sizes of biogas plants

Equally, households with biogas plants were surveyed. The various volumes of biogas plants

were also sampled (Fig. 3.7). Field data indicates that up to 40% of the biogas plants constructed

in the last five years or so by KENFAP are of capacities 4 – 6 m3. Majority of the households

(about 40%) monitored for the sizes of biogas plants have volumes of 8 m3.

Figure 3.7: Sizes of biogas plants

10%

33%

30%

16%

11%

4

6

8

10

12

22

3.2 Baseline Survey Indicators

It must be borne in mind that baseline indicators primarily refer to respondents without bio-

digesters. In most cases these potential biogas owners in the long run.

3.2.1 Fuel use for cooking

Three main responses for the frequency of cook stoves used across the surveyed regions are

shown below (Fig 3.8). It is apparent that three-stone cook stoves that are most preferred mode

of cooking with over 50% reporting rates. In addition, charcoal cook-stoves (about 25%) are

fairly common with kerosene (6%) least used. One should note three stone cook-stoves as well as

charcoal stoves predominantly used fuel wood. Indirectly, these portray the degree of

environmental degradation and potential contribution to increased atmospheric CO2 constituents

hence global warming.

Figure: 3.8: Frequency of use of various cook stoves

Notably, 82.6% of the respondents pointed out that the most frequently prioritized cook-stoves

are used thrice per day while 14% reported that charcoal cook-stoves are used twice per day.

Over 84.3% of the respondents cook for three people per meal while 13% cook for two people

per meal. Typically, about one fifth of households surveyed had about four to five people present

per meal (Table 3.2). Similarly, about a fifth of the households have between four to seven

members.

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

Three stone

Charcoal stove

Firewood

LPG Stove

Kerosene stove

Mostly

Sometimes

Hardly used

23

Table 3.2: Number of people per meal and per household

No. of people % people per meal % people per household

Two 9.1 9.9

Three 11.6 10.7

Four 20.7 21.5

Five 23.1 19.8

Six 17.4 18.2

Seven or more 18.2 19.9

It is important to observe that a close correlation is apparent between the percentage of people

per meal and number of people per household. This implies that during the data collection

exercise only regular family members were present. Few strangers were captured.

24

3.2.2 Cost of expenditure fuel types

The results of the weekly cost expenditure were surveyed and analyzed (Table 3.2). The weekly

mean costs of wood fuels (firewood and charcoal) are about Ksh. 300. Conventional fuels (LPG

& kerosene) cost slightly higher than wood fuels while electricity cost the least. However, in the

long run maximum wood fuels are costly than the rest with a maximum value Ksh.1500.

Table 3.2: Cost (in Kenya shillings) of fuels in Kenya

The two main modes of acquiring wood fuels were hand collection and purchasing. Over half of

the respondents (51.2%) noted that they collected firewood while 37.2% purchased; thus, about

40% of the charcoal used is purchased.

3.2.3 Distance and Time

The distance, measured in metres, and time (in minutes) to spent to collect firewood and charcoal

were portrayed using normal statistical curves. Apparently, the mean distance to collect firewood

is about 1092 m while the time is 51 minutes. Whereas for charcoal, the mean distance was

1430.8 m while time spent was 41 minutes. Clearly, less time is spent in collecting charcoal than

firewood and longer distances are covered in fetching charcoal than firewood. In most cases,

firewood is collected from the surroundings of the households using blunt cutting tools hence

more time.

Our analysis revealed that approximately 52% of respondents change their cook-stove due to

several factors namely: fuel price (17%), availability (30%) and seasonal food requirements

(3.3%). Moreover, respondents pointed out that they change fuel types at different times of the

year for similar reasons (Figure 3.9) --- namely price changes (17%), availability (29%) as well

as seasonal food requirements (3.3%).

Statistics Wood Charcoal LPG Kerosene Electricity

Mean 331.63 285.26 466.93 207.27 143.00

Median 300.00 240.00 350.00 150.00 140.00

Maximum 1,500.00 1,200.00 1,000.00 500.00 240.00

25

Figure 3.9: Reasons for change in fuel type

Figure: 3.10 displays results of persons responsible for collecting fuels. Generally, more adult

females are involved in fuel collection than adult males by about 22%. This is because females

are more tasked with kitchen work than males.

Figure 3.10: Persons responsible for collecting fuel

3.2.4 Sources of Fuel

From a baseline perspective, five main sources fuel were captured. These were firewood,

charcoal, LPG and kerosene. Imperatively, firewood and charcoal are the dominant sources of

fuel wood accounting for over 90%.

3.2.5 Renewability and Non-renewability Indicators

A comparative trend analysis of the renewability indicators in the last five years and the present

was quite remarkable. Resource renewability particularly regional tree cover is important for

16.5

28.9

3.3 0.8

50.4

Change inprice

Availability Seasonalfood requiresdifferent fuel

Other N/A

35.5

14.0 3.3 4.1

64.5

86.0 97 95.9

Adult female Adult male Female Children Male Children

Yes No

26

number reasons. First, extensive regional tree cover is a key to reliable precipitation and soil

moisture recycling and regime. Secondly, renewability is measure of the susceptible-ness to

environmental regeneration. Notably, in this study the sources of charcoal have dropped to 20%.

3.2.6 Sources of fuel five years ago and now

Five years ago the sources of firewood (99%) and charcoal (92%) were comparatively similar.

However, presently the sources of charcoal have dropped by 20% (Fig. 3.11) while firewood

stands at 76% as one the most dominant and reliable source of energy supply. Conventional fuels

revealed no significant change.

3.2.7 Distance and time

Both distance and time for collecting firewood and charcoal five years ago and presently were

analyzed (Table 3.3). Five years ago the mean distances to collect firewood and charcoal were

1333.5 m and 885.7 m respectively. Presently, these distances are 1387.5 m and 365.9 m,

respectively. Thus, mean distance for collecting firewood has increased by about 54.0 m. Even

though these changes are marginal, environmentally they are significant.

Figure 3.11: Sources of Fuel 5 years ago and Now

For instance, a decreased trend in time spent to fetch charcoal implies more efficient delivery

transport systems hence an intensified environmental degradation due to charcoal burning.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

Firewood Charcoal LPG Kerosene Electricity

5 years ago Now

27

Table 3.3.Mean distance and time spent in collecting firewood and charcoal

Statistics

Five years ago Present Present

Distance (m) Time (min) Distance (m) Time (min)

Firewood Charcoal Firewood Charcoal Firewood Charcoal Firewood

Charcoal

Mean 1,333.54 885.72 56.84 57.10 1,387.47 365.91 55.48 31.33

Median 1,000.00 500.00 60.00 30.00 1,000.00 60.00 60.00 30.00

Maximum 6,000.00 3,500.00 240.00 240.00 8,000.00 2,000.00 180.00 120.00

Equally, varied opinions on the sourcing of wood fuels were apparent. It is important to highlight

that strong opinion (Figure 3.12) indicated that prices have either increased or decreased or fairly

constant.

Figure 3.12: Opinion on Wood Fuel

3.2.8 Number of animals

The number of animals kept by potential digester respondents was investigated (Table 3.4). The

mean dairy as well as other cattle kept are closely similar. High mean values for breeding pigs

were notable.

Table 3.4: Mean rates of animals kept

Animals Dairy

Other

cattle

Market

pigs

Breeding

(pigs) Sheep Goats Poultry Others

Mean 3.36 3.42 2.50 9.83 5.35 4.53 21.46 6.13

Median 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 3.00 10.00 5.50

Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

Maximum 20 30 13 59 20 30 420 15

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Distance to collect Time to collect Price

Increased Decreased Constant

28

The manure handling process and dung (in kg) produced from animals kept was analyzed (Table

3.5). Clearly, dairy cattle and breeding pigs produce huge amount of dung than other animals

domesticated.

Table 3.5: Mean rates of manure, measured in kg, produced

Manure

Dairy

Other

cattle

Market

(pigs)

Breeding

(pigs) Sheep Goats Poultry Others

Mean 705.74 651.67 300.0 1,200 41.93 22.76 77.17 353.67

Median 30.00 50.00 300.0 0.00 2.00 2.00 11.00 10.00

Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Maximum 9,999.00 5,000 600 3,600 365 100 900 1,050

Investigating on animal husbandry practices particularly on the

Investigating on animal husbandry practices particularly on the number of days of confinement

and other movements---the mean number of days of confinement was about 332 days. It must be

noted that these are mainly dairy animals. Three dominant manure storage techniques included

daily spread (43%), dry-lot (34%) and composting (16%). Others included solid slurry (7%) ---

(Fig 3.13) ---liquid slurry 1.4% and uncovered lagoon less than 1%.

Figure 3.13: Percentage of manure storage techniques

05

1015202530354045

0.9 1.4 6.5

33.5

0

42.9

15.7

29

3.3 Monitoring Survey Indicators

Again, monitoring survey indicators targeted bio-digester owners only. In any cases, these are

farmers already well-established in the field of alternative energy sources. They are an important

asset in the diffusion of bio-digester knowledge.

3.3.1 Fuel use for cooking

In Kenya, the three stone fire stoves account for almost two-thirds as a reliable mode of cooking

human food. The role of charcoal stoves is also remarkable. They account for almost one-fifth of

cooking for human food consumed. With respect to the frequency of meals cooked per day,

82.6% of the respondents cook three times per day, while 14% cook twice a day. Cooking for

human consumption is undoubtedly the primary source of fuel consumption. It accounts for over

99% cooking for human food consumption (HC). Similarly, preparing coffee/tea as well as

boiling water for human consumption was a prominent cooking activity in most households

(Fig.3.14).

Figure 3.14Fuel use for cooking

Even though it is not a common practice in Kenya, cooking food for animals (AC) especially

dogs as well as boiling water of was reported at about 5%. Heating/or warming of the houses

during cold seasons is not a particularly common and conspicuous practice; only 4.1%. This is

because Kenya straddles the Equator; whereby the sun is always overhead throughout the year. A

revealing trend and the role of biogas cook stoves was apparent (Fig 3.15). 87% of the cook-

stoves monitored ‘mostly’ use biogas.

30

Figure 3.15: Frequency of use of cooking stove

3.3.1.1 Uses of frequent cook stoves

The cooking frequency of mostly used cook stoves revealed that 83% are used for cooking meals

three times per day while 16% are used to cooking two meals per day.

Figure 3.16: Use of cooking stoves

Regarding priority cook stoves, 85% of respondents reported to be using it more than three times

to cook meals in a day while 12% uses it to cook twice per day. Basically, about 28% of the

households cook for four people per meal (Table 3.6).

11.9 17.1 26.1 1.0

18.2 0.0

87.0

7.1 24.3 34.8

99.0

4.5

56.3

0.9

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Three

stone

Firewood

stove

LPG

stove

Kerosene

stove

Charcoal

stove

Electric

stove

Biogas

stove

Mostly Sometimes Hardly Not used

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Cooking forhuman foodconsumption

Cooking foodfor animal

consumption

Boiling waterfor human

consumption

Boiling waterfor animal

consumption

Preparingtea/coffee

Heating thehouse

Priority cook stove Biogas stove

31

Table 3.6: People cooked for per meal compared to those living in the HH

No. of people per HH % people per meal % of people living in HH

One 1.7 1.7

Two 10.0 10.2

Three 13.3 10.2

Four 27.5 23.7

Five 18.3 20.3

Six 13.3 16.1

Seven or more 15.8 17.8

Not stated N/A 17.8

These stoves are mainly used for cooking food for human consumption as well as boiling water

for domestic uses. Boiling of water is normally done for bathing as well as cleaning utensils.

Typically, a cook stove is normally used for at least 3 times daily as reported by 82.6% of

respondents. This correlates with the number of meals prepared per day as well as number

persons in a household. The number of members meals are prepared for is almost equal to the

size of the household - but to some extent, lower. This can be explained by some members of the

household being away from home, possibly, working or attending to business activity.

3.3.1.2 Costs of fuels

Estimating the costs of fuel per household was fairly challenging. This was because most

households monitored reported to be using biogas. Only 63 and 28 of total households

monitored, besides using biogas, they use firewood and charcoal respectively. It should also be

noted that we could, note estimate the cost of biogas used due to un-metered plants. Generally,

the mean and median weekly costs were comparatively similar.

Table 3.7: Weekly estimate costs (in Ksh) of fuels monitored

Statistics Wood Charcoal LPG Electricity

Mean 331.63 205.29 766.33 289.22

Median 300.00 122.50 700.00 220.00

Minimum 8 10 600 50

Maximum 1,500 700 999 868

32

3.3.1.3 Sources of fuels

Like in the baseline survey, firewood and charcoal are either hand collected or purchased (Fig.

3.17).

Figure 3.17: Sources of Fuel

The distance as well as time spent in acquiring these fuels is tabulated below. The mean distance

for collecting charcoal was about three times the distance for collecting firewood. However, the

mean time spent in collecting firewood was more by about 20 minutes than mean time spent in

collecting charcoal.

Table 3.7: Mean distances and time spent fetching firewood

Statistics Firewood Charcoal


Median 275.00 30.00 1,000.00 30.00

Minimum 0 0 10 5

Maximum 6,000 480 5,000 300

It should also be noted that less than one third of respondents provided reliable data these

indicators. The median distance on collecting firewood was 275 m - less than a kilometre, with

some respondents reporting distances of as high as 6 km. The median distance to collect charcoal

was 1000m. This is expected since most respondents reported to purchase charcoal. It is however

surprising that there was no much variability in time reported for collection firewood as well as

charcoal. These results should be interpreted cautiously due to few cases in the analysis.

72.9

8.8

27.1

91.2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Firewood Charcoal

Handcollected Purchased

33

The responsibility of collecting fuel wood portrayed a significant trend in terms of gender. While

almost equal proportions of adult males (90%) and adult females (92%) are involved in the

process; 53% of the female children collect fuel wood against 28% male children. In the African

cultural context, collection fuel wood is prominently a female activity; this is because they are

one most involved in kitchen work. However, male adults could be involved especially felling

huge log of trees to supply the household long term source of fuel wood.

3.3.1.4 Frequency of cook stoves

Behavioural change in cook stoves was monitored. Majority of the respondents (75%) stated not

changing cook stoves. For those who change seasonally--- about 24%---it was because different

fuel availability. Conspicuous changes were mainly during the wet seasons. The reporting rates

were price (12%), fuel availability (65%), and seasonality (19%) among others. About 77% of

the farmers monitored noted that they do not change their fuel types while 23% admitted to

change it. The main reasons for the change were: its availability (63%), price fluctuation (22%)

and seasonal food requirements (11%). These changes are most notable during the March –

May/November- December seasons accounting about 80%. March – May is along wet season in

most parts of the country while November – December typifies short rain season.

As would be expected, the main source of fuel among bio-digester farmers was biogas

accounting 86% of the domestic energy supply (Figure 3.18.). The other sources noted were

firewood (7%) --- often purchased (56%). Some obtained these from their farms (33%) as well as

state or community forests (11%). In Kenya, people are allowed to collect from firewood from

gazetted forests so long as they don’t use machetes and other powerful cutting tools e.g. power

saws.

34

Figure 3.18: Main Source of Fuel

3.3.2 Renewability and non-renewability indicators

3.3.2.1 Fuel situation five years ago and at Present

Typical sources of fuel five years ago and presently is depicted below (Fig 3.19). The primary

sources of energy are fuel wood: firewood and charcoal. However, presently the main source of

fuel to these farmers is biogas accounting for 60%.

Figure 3.19: Sources of Fuel 5 years ago and Now

With respect distance and time spent five years ago and now, all parameters decreased apart from

time spent collecting firewood in the last five years and now which has increased marginally by

over 10 minutes (Table 3.8).

7% 4% 3%

86%

Firewood

Charcoal

LPG

Biogas

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Firewood Charcoal LPG Kerosene Electricity Biogas

5 years ago Now

35

Table 3.8: Mean distances and time spent fetching firewood and Charcoal

Statistics Five Years Ago Present


Firewood Charcoal Firewood Charcoal Firewood Charcoal Firewood Charcoal

Mean 1,053.70 1,456.77 76.92 82.26 977.92 781.90 87.52 40.71

Median 750.00 1,000.00 30.00 60.00 500.00 500.00 30.00 30.00

Minimum 0 60 0 4 0 0 0 0

Maximum 6,000 5,000 480 300 6,000 4,000 500 120

Varied opinion explaining these differences were sort. Apparently, it was reported that price was

the main contributing factor for the observed wood fuel consumption patterns (Fig.3.20).

Figure 3.20: Opinion on Wood Fuel

3.3.2.1 Animal Waste Handling

The basic statistics for the numbers of animals domesticated and their annual dung production (in

kg) is shown in the Table 3.9. The mean animal number of dairy animals and market pigs kept

were 4.07 and 5.61 respectively. It is important to note that these are favourable figures for

sustaining and feeding of bio-digesters. The Table shows the average animal wastes produced

annually by domestic animals. Generally, dairy cows and market pigs have higher mean annual

waste production than other domestic animals. These statistics have broad implications on the

production and sustenance of a biogas plant. For household to continuously and comfortably

have a steady supply of biogas; it should have at least two dairy animals/other cattle confined

(zero grazing), or at least seven market pigs or at least 170 poultry (battery rearing system).

Therefore, based on this data the three regions surveyed portray an enormous potential of biogas

production.

0.0

50.0

100.0

Distance tocollect

Time to collect Price

Increased Decreased Constant

36

Table 3.9: Mean number of animal kept

Collection and management of animal waste is an important household activity in several ways.

First, it determines the production and supply of the biogas. The production of biogas largely

depends on the amount and steady feeding of the bio-digester. Secondly, it largely influences the

improvement of soil fertility, hence crop yield on a farm. Table 3.10 shows the average- and

median-day rates of animal confinements per year.

Table 3.10: Mean annual animal movement, in days, rates

Farmers were asked to state the proportion of the amount (in kg) of dung collected and feed into

their digesters daily. The maximum amount fed daily was 100 kg for dairy cows with a mean of

77kg per day (Table 3.11)

Table: 3.11 Mean dung production, in kg per day

Statistics Dairy

cows

Other

cattle

Market

pigs

Breeding

pigs

Sheep Goats Others

Mean 77.0 67.75 23.30 10.0 0 0 12.0

Median 90.0 85.0 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum 10.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 0 0 60.0

3.3.2.3 Bio-slurry Management

The management of bio-slurry---a decomposed by-product from a biogas plant ---in household is

an important land use activity. If well managed and utilized bio-slurry has immense use in a

household. In Kenya, our field data reveals that biogas farmers are primarily use bio-slurry for as

an alternative bio-fertilizer in farming (Fig 3.21). It is important to note that due to immense

Animals

Dairy

cows

Other

cattle

Market

pigs

Breeding

pigs Sheep Goats Poultry Others

Mean 4.07 1.77 5.61 0.50 3.12 4.44 87.73 3.92

Median 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 13.50 0.00

Maximum 40 8 54 12 40 48 1,200 20

Statistics Walk freely Confined area Other ways

Mean 176.90 256.54 184.00

Median 121.50 365.00 184.00

37

advantages of bio-slurry, it can be formidable source of income to farmers. On average, Kenyan

biogas plant owners produce about 12.8 tonnes of slurry per annum.

Figure 3.21: Uses of bio-slurry

Further, over 62% of farmers revealed that they apply wet bio-slurry to their farms, while almost

36% apply it in dry form. Less than 2% don’t apply it to their farms. Bio-slurry storage was

fairly important. About 70% store it in wet, open pits. One third of the famers store it in wet

covered pits. Indeed, rarely do biogas farmers (94%) sale dung to others farmers.

3.3.2.4 Land use & Bio-slurry

In Kenya, the management of bio-slurry remains a critical land use and soil management issue.

The KENDIP Quality Management Survey (2010) report noted that the program should train

biogas farmers to compost slurry rather than direct application to their farms. The report

qualitatively stated there was too much to be done to improve the quality of biogas production in

Kenya. It further recommended two levels of training namely masonry and users. The report

asserts grave deficiencies in training, repairs and maintenance of biogas plants as well as bio-

slurry management.

Kenya BUS (2014) noted that slurry management was still problematic. Most farmers (88.9%)

directly apply this loose-dung to their farms. Only 7% reported not having used it at all while

4.3% used it as fuel. Bio-slurry is a useful ingredient for soil enrichment and fertility.

Commenting on the effectiveness of bio-slurry as a soil enrichment component, over 83.3%

pointed out that it far outweighs raw dung. Only almost 10% felt that it is better than chemical

fertilizers. By implication the advantages of bio-slurry over chemical fertilizers are

0.020.040.060.080.0

Directlyas

fertilizer

Compostpit

Sold tofarmers

Given tofarmers

Dumpedas waste

38

overwhelming. The cost-effectiveness1 of bio-slurry compared to the two main of fertilizers used

by farmers revealed interesting patterns. By comparing the cost of fertilizers used before and

after bio-slurry application; these data indicated an average reduction in DAP by Ksh. 3,227

from Ksh. 30,000 p.a. On average, the cost of CAN reduced to Ksh. 3,704 from Ksh. 25,000 p.a.

These are mere conservative estimates. For one to draw a fair and standard conclusion, more

detailed field data is required.

3.3.2.5 Usage rates

In Kenya, the practice of heating houses during cold seasons is not widespread. It is not

surprising to learn that 82% of the famers strongly indicated that they don’t use biogas for

warming houses. In terms of operational period, over 86% of the bio- digesters were less than 3

years old. Significantly as shown in Table 3.12, 84% of all digesters constructed since 2009 are

still functional. This table further provides detailed information on functional digesters by first

year of use.

Biogas plant owners were asked whether they used alternative sources of fuel to compensate for

cases where biogas did not give off as much space heat as required. A majority of them (82%)

said that they not. This could be due to the fact that installed bio-digesters produce enough gas.

This situation rarely presents a scenario where alternative sources of heat might be required.

Regarding the usage of bio-digesters, most of them are them (84%) are still operational. Table

3.12

Table 3.12 Percentage of functional digesters

Age Group Period inclusive of all dates

Number of digesters surveyed

% in operation

dd/mm/yyy dd/mm/yyy

0 to 1 01/01/2013 14/06/2013 31 93.7

1 to 2 01/01/2012 31/12/2012 30 83.1

2 to 3 01/01/2011 31/12/2011 30 83.3

3 to 4 01/01/2010 31/12/2010 30 78.1

Total 121 84.6%

1In actual sense, this cost-savings might be higher than reported here. Most of respondents were unable to provide precise

information on the cost of fertilizers before and after bio-slurry. These calculations were based on a small sample size; thus they

should be interpreted carefully.

39

3.3.3 Sustainable Development Criteria

Biogas plant owners were asked whether there was a noticeable change in their living conditions

since the installation of the biogas digester. Figure 3.22, indeed shows that majority of biogas

plant owners (92%), indicated that their conditions had substantially improved and their lifestyle

were better than before. Therefore, several reasons were given to support this position. First, they

noted that biogas was cheaper compared to other forms of fuels. Moreover, they stressed that

upon its installation, no additional expenses were incurred in its operation. Secondly, they

observed improved hygienic conditions particularly in the kitchen. Through the elimination of

smoke, there was an enormous reduction in complaints of eye irritation as well as incidences of

asthma. Thirdly, increased crop yields due to improved soil management practices especially in

the use of bio-slurry as an alternative bio-fertilizer.

Figure 3.22: Change in Living Conditions

3.3.3.1 Yields and Farm Practices

Figure 3.21 depicts a general increase in crop yields in biogas household farms. About 84%

reported a substantial increase in farm crop yields since the installation of biogas plants.

Indirectly, these famers have a positive food security perception than before. Indeed, these

farmers to large extent tend to ‘fertilize’ their farms with wet bio-slurry. With intensified training

on slurry management, these famers can improve their soil management skills leading broader

food security systems in Kenya. Soil quality is measured through its pH, fertility, structure,

aeration, soil moisture content, organic matter as well as texture among others. In this study, all

these soil properties could not established in the field. However, assessors asked farmers to

describe their soils in terms drainage and type of crops grown.

Improved Stayed the same

Worserned

40

41

Figure 3.22: Changes in yields and farm practices

Generally, most farmers indicated ‘good’ soils (95% of the respondents) implying good drainage.

‘Poor’ quality soils meant that it requires chemical fertilizers as well as huge amounts of manure

for better crop yields. In contrast, 98% of the farmers especially those with biogas indicated that

they use bio-slurry to ‘fertilize’ the soils. Our analysis indicated that the initial installation cost

for a biogas plant was Ksh. 75,000. One should highlight that it is only after six months of its use

is when trickle gain-effects can be realized.

3.5 Other BUS Indicators

3.5.1 Biogas Awareness

The diffusion of knowledge, ideas and innovations is a significant departure towards regional

socio-economic growth and development. During this survey, the level of biogas technology was

investigated across the six sampled counties. In order to achieve this noble objective, a sub-set

population of non-biogas users was incorporated in the sample. Nevertheless, majority of non-

biogas users (94%) were fully aware of biogas as an alternative source of energy. 83% confirmed

of having received this information from biogas owners. Moreover, over 88% knew of a

particular household with bio-digester. Biogas owners were asked to indicate first-hand sources

of information for biogas technology. They were also asked to rate the consistency and content

of the information they received and the quality and advantages of biogas technology.

Figure 3.22, vividly shows that most of them learnt about biogas technology from their relatives

and other biogas owners. It is noteworthy to observe that these findings corroborate that the main

source of awareness among non-users are biogas users in Kenya. Furthermore, friends and

42

relatives play important roles in disseminating this crucial information. Statistically, these might

have been over-reported because friends and relatives are a possible sub-set of biogas owners,

conversely. Extraordinarily important to note is the fact that about 93 % of the respondents

confirmed that they received consistent and relevant information about the biogas technology.

However, the study sought to understand the main reason for installing biogas digesters.

Figure 3.22: Channels of Awareness

The main reason for biogas installation was to make cooking much more convenient (96.6%).

Close to 78.4% of the respondents installed it so as to save ‘money’ and time (70.5%). Most

biogas plants were mainly installed by local masons (66.4%). About one-fifth of the plants were

installed by contractors (19.8%) and the biogas supplier (13.8%) --- KENFAP. Construction of

biogas-plants is male dominated. Only 7% of plant installers in Kenya are women. The

government and other stakeholders should encourage women to enthusiastically train and acquire

skills in this viable energy sub-sector. The decision-making process for the installation of biogas

plants was largely done by male adults (39.5%). These are the heads of the households.

However, the role of women in decision-making of biogas installation was significant. About a

quarter (24.8%) of the decisions to install a biogas plant were done by female adults. Biogas

plant sizes are mainly driven by the family size needs (43.0%). The number of animals available

was an important factor in the determination of the capacity to install a plant. Over 40 % of the

biogas owners agreed that the number of animals was the driving force behind its installation.

Thirdly, the amount of money available for the construction was a key determinant at 11.4%.

43

3.5.2 Positive Effects of Biogas Plant Installation

Bio-digester owners were asked to state and rate its positive effects on their household. From our

data, it is apparent that the socio-economic living standards of these households have

significantly improvement (Fig. 3.23).Thus, the following observations can be made:-

01 Upon installation of a biogas plant cleanliness had improved both in the kitchen and the

natural surroundings. Combined together cleanliness scored 89.7% due its installation;

02 Environmental regeneration. Upon its installation, there was decreased pressure on wood

fuels energy sources– especially wood and charcoal. Decreased consumption of wood

fuels directly leads to increased vegetation cover in the local surroundings. Increased

vegetative cover in the homesteads has a direct bearing on the scenic beauty of the local

landscape. Moreover, greater vegetation growth results to increased moisture recycling

and precipitation amounts. Indirectly, this has positively contributed to a reduction in the

emission carbon into the atmosphere;

03 Reduced hazards. Households owning a biogas plant reported decreased: - eye-related

problems, less household fire hazards, shorter cooking time and decreased respiratory

illnesses; and,

04 Self-esteem. Owners of biogas reported to be leading positive and healthy lifestyles than

before. For instance, women reported to be spending less time in cooking meals for their

families. This allows them to participate in other social activities e.g. church and school

functions, entrepreneurial, merry-go-round without much ado.

To corroborate these statements a biogas owner told one of the authors of this report:

‘If there is any investment I have done in my life and I don’t regret is the installation of

the biogas plant. I longer worry about the cost of LPG; the number of times to cook; the

number of visitors coming to see me---during last Christmas holidays I was never worried

about fuels, when my neighbours were running all over! Actually, this one of the best

investment we have made as a family’---Biogas Owner_ Kiserian, Kajiado County.

On a different occasion another biogas owner told the same author that:-

‘From the time I installed this plant, I continuously harvest fresh and green vegetables from

my farm. They are very healthy even during a dry season. I have a continuous and steady

supply of greens. And vegetables grown by bio-slurry are not attacked by insects and pests’-

---- Biogas Owner_ Atop the slopes of Ngong’ Hills, Kajiado County

From these two quotes to a certain degree, it is observable that upon installation of biogas

plants; these farmers have positively improved their living standards. They are healthier, food

44

secure, safer and more comfortable than before. They have secure and consistent food security

plan. They use bio-slurry to improve the soil properties of their farms resulting to better annual

yields per hectare.

45

Figure 3.23: Factors influenced by Biogas

3.5.3 Biogas Plant Financing

3.5.3.1 Costs

The price of fuels sharply cuts a huge proportion in the household income. Upon installation of

bio-digesters, the owners cited a significant reduction in the cost of fuels. By using consistently

biogas, there was an absolute household transformation. This premise was verified through the

determination of the mean saving costs on energy as a result of biogas installation. This was

arrived at by subtracting the weekly cost of various fuels after installation from the same (weekly

costs) before installation. Our results were quite remarkable. First, weekly wood saving was Ksh.

217 while for charcoal it was Ksh. 312. Secondly, in some households LPG was a primary

source of conventional energy source. Upon adoption of biogas, the expenditure dropped by Ksh.

46

129; the weekly expenditures on kerosene dropped by Ksh.108. Households which mainly

depended on electricity witnessed the highest reduction costs on energy. These households

reported to be saving Ksh. 959 per month.

In order for one to install and operate a biogas plant, s/he requires a substantial costing plan and

funding. The Kenya BUS (2010) report pointed out that on average one requires Ksh. 83,844 to

construct a biogas plant. However, the reports put a maximum value of Ksh.180, 000 for

complete construction. Again, these costing differences may vary from one region to another

over a given time span. For the Kenya BUS (2014), the following information was apparent:-

01 The median cost for constructing a biogas plant was Ksh. 75,000. This amount excludes

payment of labour, mason and other miscellaneous costs (e.g. lunch for semi-skill

labourers). This amount includes construction materials (e.g. cement, sand, ballast, wire

mesh, iron erecting bars etc). One should seriously note the cost of building material

keeps on rising unabatedly due to inflationary forces;

02 The construction of bio-digesters was multi-funded: self-savings (74.4%); credit

schemes/loans from Savings and Credit Cooperative Societies Organizations (SACCOS).

SACCOS provided loans to about 50% of the respondents while the social groups (e.g.

merry-go rounds, church groups etc) funded about 20%. Family contributions financed

about 10%; banks: 15% and NGOs only 5%;

03 It is absolutely remarkable to observe that about 74% of the biogas plants surveyed were

fully funded with subsidies from KENDIP. Thus, the median construction costs drastically

dropped to Ksh 25,000. The median time for one to receive a KENDIP subsidy was 20 days.

From these findings, conservative estimates for constructing a biogas plant were over

Ksh.50, 000. In totality, biogas farmers overwhelming observed that such plants were worth

the financial outlays; hence KENFAP services were expressly good and useful. It should be

noted that the KENFAP biogas subsidization programme lapsed in 2013. However, a

programme should be initiated to sensitize potential owners to borrow loans from other

credit institutions.

47

3.5.3.2 Plant Operation

Field data and analysis revealed that most established plants were still operational. Significantly,

84% of the plant owners reported that biogas plants built in the last five years particularly by

KENDIP were properly functional and operational. Clearly, this implies that KENFAP offered

top quality products and services for sustainable development; hence poverty alleviation and a

substantial reduction CO2 levels. However, 17 households reported functional problems. Out of

these, 7 respondents reported poor quality of appliances while 10 complained of inadequate gas

production. On average, these digesters are fed five days/ week. Majority (59%) are fed on a

daily basis. Fig. 3.24 shows routine operational plant activities. Less than 50% of these owners;

monitor the gas usage because it is abundant and inexhaustible. On the other hand, slightly about

60% close the plant valve as well as drain the water. Routine feeding of the plant by animal urine

was about 40%.Strict observance of these practices should be encouraged for maximum benefit

of biogas production.

The general perception that routine biogas plant operations are too involving and demanding was

examined. However, 86% of the plant owners reported not facing any operational, repair and

maintenance problems.

Figure 3.24: Plant operation activities

Nonetheless, in case of a problem more than half of the owners (53.3%) report to a mason or a

local technician (38.1%). Furthermore, this study investigated the management practices

undertaken by bio-digester farmers on their plants (Fig. 3.25)

48

Figure: 3.25: Improvement management practices

Out the five basic management plant practices, the two most common were the ones with stables

less than 2 m and single slurry pit with a score of about 80%. The double slurry pit was the least

(23.4%) practice. Less than half of the plants have shaded pits. Shading is critical for co-

digestion chemical processes in the production of methane. It is important for plant owners to be

trained fully on the importance of the management practices for proper land intensification.

Regular plant inspection was an important routine maintenance practice. Apart from arresting

miscellaneous malfunctions, this practice reassures owners the gravity of the project particularly

as an alternative source of energy as well as his/her role in the mitigation of global climate

changes. Notably, plant inspection by masons/technicians occurred mainly prior to and during

construction stages (Fig. 3.26)

Figure 3.26: Plant inspection

Site inspections by masons/technicians were reportedly helpful. 94% of respondents noted with

satisfaction that site inspections were insightful and rewarding. And 93.2% reported that

construction occurred in constant consultations with the owners and the process was timely

executed. By extension, this shows that the services rendered KENFAP field staff was optimum

and reliable.

49

3.5.3.3 Plant Monitoring and User Training

For a successful community program and initiatives, incorporation of local participation is quite

instrumental. Generally, before undertaking robust biogas construction program farmers should

be trained on their roles, functioning and maintenance of bio-digesters. Such measures not only

enhance productivity but biogas plants sustainability. According to the KENDIP Quality

Management Survey (2010) it was emphasized that training aspects to be reinforced as well as

intensified biogas plants maintenance awareness for proper functioning. The report observed that

the Kenyan population was fairly literate, thus, with effective trainings at the household level

should be amplified. This would therefore result to improved household biogas management

with corresponding returns to sustainable rural energy supply. Unfortunately, only 24% of plant

owners had received training. Out of this, only 66% had received some training from masons,

44% from program staff while 10% from printed materials. User trainings are quite vital and

central to farmers. 88% of the farmers who received training were fairly satisfied. Slurry manuals

should be detailed, elaborate and made available and accessible at local gathering outlets e.g.

markets, churches, shopping centres, administrative posts (chiefs’ offices). Barely, 42.2% of the

users had received slurry manuals which were absolutely resourceful--- 92.7%.

3.5.3.4 Slurry Management

In Kenya, the management of bio-slurry remains a critical land use and soil management issue.

The KENDIP Quality Management Survey (2010) report noted that the program should train

biogas farmers to compost slurry rather than direct application to their farms. The report

qualitatively stated there was too much to be done to improve the quality of biogas production in

Kenya. It further recommended two levels of training namely masonry and users. The report

asserts grave deficiencies in training, repairs and maintenance of biogas plants as well as bio-

slurry management.

Kenya BUS (2014) noted that slurry management was still problematic. Most farmers (88.9%)

directly apply this loose-dung to their farms. Only 7% reported not having used it at all while

4.3% used it as fuel. Bio-slurry is a useful ingredient for soil enrichment and fertility.

Commenting on the effectiveness of bio-slurry as a soil enrichment component, over 83.3%

pointed out that it far outweighs raw dung. Only almost 10% felt that it is better than chemical

fertilizers. By implication the advantages of bio-slurry over chemical fertilizers are

50

overwhelming. The cost-effectiveness2 of bio-slurry compared to the two main of fertilizers used

by farmers revealed interesting patterns. By comparing the cost of fertilizers used before and

after bio-slurry application; these data indicated an average reduction in DAP by Ksh. 3,227

from Ksh. 30,000 p.a. On average, the cost of CAN reduced to Ksh. 3,704 from Ksh. 25,000 p.a.

These are mere conservative estimates. For one to draw a fair and standard conclusion, more

detailed field data is required.

3.5.3.5 Energy Consumption

Analysis of field data reveals significant energy consumption trends. Evidently that biogas is

mostly used for cooking (92.5%) with a small proportion (7.5%) used in lighting. Cooking is

mostly done using double burner stoves (77.5%) --- Plate 3.5; while single burners (10.8%). On

average, cooking takes 3 hours daily. Interestingly, absolutely no biogas user complained of

having a shortage of the gas (median = 0). Higher satisfaction ratings for biogas (82.2%) were

noted. To determine the reliability of these assertion farmers were asked if they could

recommend biogas to non-users. Indeed, 95% of the users strongly affirmed. Clearly, this

indicates that an immense and untapped potential for biogas use still exist not only in the

surveyed regions but in the entire country. Equally, 95% of the users observed that a countless

number of non-users showed great interest in having it installed. Inquiring about dissatisfaction

from 12 biogas users; our data indicates that the main reasons for these are: - poor stove quality

(5 respondents), less gas production (5 respondents) and biogas takes longer to cook.

3.5.3.6 Plant installation and Related Information Non-Users

Even though they don’t own a biogas plant, non-users showed great interest in matters related to

biogas alternative energy technology. 83% confirmed that they were familiar with biogas

technology and knew several households with these plants. Only 9.4% reported to have heard of

biogas users facing challenges and installation problems. Less than 3% of the non-users

confirmed of having had operational, repair and maintenance problems among users.

Interestingly, 99% of the non-users apply cattle dung to their farms. Human waste management

remains a contentious issue.

2In actual sense, this cost-savings might be higher than reported here. Most of respondents were unable to provide precise

information on the cost of fertilizers before and after bio-slurry. These calculations were based on a small sample size; thus they

should be interpreted carefully.

51

a b

Plate 3.5: Double biogas burner’s stoves---Jua kali (a) and Modern burner (b)

Even though more than half of respondents (52.1%) indicated there was ‘no problem’ in using

human waste to generate biogas for domestic purposes, 39.5% thought it was unacceptable and

unhygienic; 7% described it as ‘unsophisticated and primitive’ idea.

52

CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.0 Findings, Recommendations and Conclusion

Findings and recommendations for this report were grouped under four broad themes of the

survey ---baseline, monitoring indicators, as well as BUS.

Baseline Survey Indicators

01 Fuel use for cooking

Three-stone cook stove and charcoal stoves are the most dominant modes of cooking human

food for consumption. The preference rates for three –stone and charcoal stoves were reported at

50% and 25% respectively. In addition, they are used thrice and twice per day, respectively. Note

that these stoves wholly depend on firewood and charcoal as the main source of energy.

Therefore, these stoves contribute about 75% of environmental degradation through wood fuel

burning. We, therefore, strongly recommend increased civil education and campaigns to save the

environment through change behavioural cooking methods. Affordable alternative and energy

saving cooking methods should be adopted. For instance, households should encouraged to

reduce cooking rates e.g. thrice to twice or once per day.

02 Cost of expenditure fuel types

In Kenya, the most commonly used fuel types are firewood, charcoal, LPG, kerosene and

electricity. The mean weekly cost, in Ksh, was about 332, 285.30, 467, 207 and 143 respectively.

On the other hand, maximum weekly cost, in Ksh, was 1500, 1200, 1000, 500, and 240

respectively. Even though these are conservative estimates, in the long run wood fuels are

expensive than conventional fuels. Therefore, households should be encouraged to adopted cost

saving energy supply sources e.g. electricity or biogas. The initial installation costs are quite

similar.

03 Distance and Time

The mean distance and mean time to collect firewood are 1092 m and 51 minutes, respectively.

On the other hand, for charcoal the mean distance and mean time to fetch it are 1430.8 m and 41

min respectively. Undoubtedly, one spends less time in fetching charcoal than firewood because

53

it is purchased however from far. Firewood is collected in most cases from the surroundings of a

home stead using bare hands or blunt cutting tools hence more time than charcoal. Households

should be encouraged to seek cost saving energy methods.

04 Sources of Fuel

Three primary and dominant sources of fuel were firewood (78%), charcoal (14%), LPG (8%). It

must be highlighted that fuel wood account over 90% of the energy sources. Again, these are

wasteful and unsustainable sources of energy contributing significantly to global warming. We

strongly stress that households should be encouraged to seek viable and affordable sources of

energy.

05 Renewability and Non-renewability Indicators

For renewability and non-renewability indicators, a comparison in the sources of fuel five years

ago and presently as well as time spent and distance covered were examined. Five years ago the

sources of firewood (99%) and charcoal (92%) were comparatively similar. Presently, the

sources of charcoal have dropped by 20% while firewood stands at 76% as the dominant source

of energy. Conventional fuels showed no significant change. In terms of distance and time spent

to source fuels; five years ago the mean distances to collect firewood and charcoal were 1333.5

m and 885.7 m respectively. Presently, these distances are 1387.5 m and 365.9 m, respectively.

Thus, mean distance for collecting firewood has increased by about 54.0 m. Even though these

changes are marginal, environmentally they are significant. Time spent to fetch charcoal

decreased by almost half due improved transport delivery system. Thus, this has intensified

environmental degradation due to charcoal burning. Households should desist from over-

depending on non-renewable fuels.

06 Number of animals

Interestingly, very favourable mean numbers of dairy animals as well as market pigs are kept by

baseline farmers. On average, these farmers keep 3.4 and 9.8 dairy cows and market pigs,

respectively. These are sustainable and reliable values for biogas installation and operation.

These farmers should be sensitized to embrace intensive land use management systems.

54

Monitoring Survey Indicators

01 Fuel use for cooking

Biogas cook stoves were the most preferred and ‘mostly’ used with responses rates of 87%.

Firewood and three stone stoves reported 17% and 12%, respectively. Regarding frequency of

cooking, the most preferred stoves cook food for human consumption thrice in a day. Apart from

cooking human food, the most preferred cook stoves is also used for boiling bathing water,

preparing tea/coffee and sometimes warming the house or cooking animal food. Basically, about

28% of the households cook for four people per meal. Our observation is that households with

bio-digesters enormously enjoy abundant supply of energy for preparing meals

02 Costs of fuels

In these households, estimating the costs of fuel was challenging. It was because most of them

use biogas. Overall, these households reported drastic weekly energy cost reduction to almost nil

especially for LPG. We, remark that by adopting to alternative biogas energy sources, these

households have minimum costs.

03 Fuel situation five years ago and presently---evidently, the primary sources of domestic

energy supply was firewood and charcoal. However, biogas supply 60% of domestic energy

needs in the households monitored.

04 Animal wastage handling---basically, the mean number of dairy cows and market pigs

were 4.07 and 5.61, respectively. The mean number of day of confinement was 256 days and

median annual dairy dung production was about 6200 kg. One should note that these are

sustainable values for running a digester.

05 Bio-slurry---it was noted that 70% of the farmers use bio-slurry in growing subsistence

crops. It is applied directly to the farms in liquid form. There is need for more information on the

proper handling and storage of bio-slurry.

06 Usage rates---it was observed that 82% of the farmers don’t biogas for house warming. It

plausible to point out that Kenya lies along the Equator with the sun always overhead throughout

the year. Moreover, 87% of the plants were still fully functional and operational. This implies

that the construction process and services offered by KENDIP were fairly superb and reliable.

55

07 Sustainable Development Criteria---it is imperative to remark that upon installation of the

biogas plant, most households (92%) surveyed reported substantive positive socio-economic

transformation in their lifestyles, healthy, local surroundings as well as financial management.

We strongly feel these programme should be intensified and rolled to all parts of the country

because of its immense advantages.

08 Yields and farm practices---it is notable to point out that 84% of the households

monitored reported absolute increase in farm produce following installation of the digesters.

However, 72% pointed out that they had not fully changed their farm practices. But recall that

70% apply bio-slurry directly to their farms.

Biogas User’s Survey

01 Biogas Awareness---it was observed that very high awareness levels were quite apparent

particularly among non-biogas users. 94% were well aware of a household with bio-digester

plant. They received this information from several local channels. However, less than 5%

received the information from the radio/TV and other media. In order to translate this very high

awareness levels to high adoption rates; all stakeholders should revamp the campaign

programmes through the digital media, school curriculum among others.

02 Positive effects---understandably, biogas installation has received overwhelming positive

responses by users. They noted that they are less prone to respiratory ailments, reduction in fire

risks as well as increased self-esteem.

03 Financing---Upon installation of biogas plants, users had witnessed a drastic drop in

energy budgetary cost. For instance, the mean weekly cost for LPG, kerosene dropped by Ksh.

129 and Ksh. 108, respectively. Equally, some households were able to save monthly electricity

cost up to Ksh. 960. The cost constructions of bio-digesters were multi-funded.

04 Plant operation and monitoring ---majority of the plants were functional. 86% of the users

pointed out that their maintenance was less involving. 88% of the users confirmed to have

received relevant training on maintenance of bio-digesters. About 42% had received slurry

manuals with good content.

56

05 Slurry management---about 83% of the respondents monitored reported that bio-slurry

was better off than raw dung and chemical fertilizers. However, they expressed a desire to be

trained more bio-slurry handling.

06 Energy consumption----92.5% of the biogas owners use it for cooking human food for

consumption while 7.5% use it for lighting. We strongly recommend a diversification training

programme so as to tap the full potential of biogas plants.

Recommendations

4.1 It is evidently shown that majority of Kenyans still depend on wood fuels for

cooking. A significant amount also uses charcoal for fuel. The prices of these fuels have

sharply continued to rise. Periodically, they are becoming scarce and limited. To satisfy

the persistent fuel demands caused by population growth rates, there is an urgent need to

revert to alternative and renewable forms of energy. This situation provides a huge

potential for the development of biogas. It was reported that most non-biogas users

are willing to install biogas plants. The data provides sufficient evidence on the mean

number of animals particularly cattle raised and dung produce to sustain biogas feeding.

4.2 There is an urgent need for enhanced user training--- those who reported having

received training were less than one third. The data shows that the training content is

relevant and useful. However, what needs to be strengthened is the number of plant

owners being trained. Given that the study also reports a high percentage of plant owners

who have a good rapport with masons, they are far better placed of enhancing more

quality through training. Related to training are the user manuals which have not yet

reached the 50% coverage. There is also need for enhanced trainings. Coverage of

communication information is still quite at 10%. The need to train farmers on improved

management practices cannot be over- emphasized. Most of them, for instance, claimed

that they were unaware of the importance of a shaded pit.

4.3 Awareness–very high awareness level of biogas biotechnology persists. However; this

high awareness levels have been translated in adoption rates by the Kenyan population. Statistics

on energy show that wood-fuels and charcoal are still dominant among the poor Kenya

population. It should also be noted that the chief agents of information dissemination on biogas

57

technology are biogas users, friends and family. Most households adopt technologies that they

have witnessed to be successful. We therefore recommend that KENDBIP sets up model bio-

gas units within each unreached constituency. Regarding awareness, KENDIP should partner

with corporate media houses to educate Kenyans on the roles and importance of biogas

technology such as Citizen Caravan road shows.

4.4 Costs and subsidies – Despite of the myriad advantages of biogas plants, the cost of

establishment are still exorbitantly high to most Kenyans. Mean income levels in most

households are quite low. We recommend in order fully realize the overarching

environmental benefits; farmers should seek other alternative funding channels to assist

them construct digesters.

4.5 Quality-Construction quality received a favourable rating by a majority of

respondents. We, however, recommend that these levels of quality enhancement be

sustained even as most households adopt the biogas technology.

4.6 Alternative energy source--The critical role played by biogas as alternative source of

domestic energy in Kenya has been fully and well demonstrated. Biogas plant users noted

a significant and positive socio-economic growth and development. Moreover, these

users pointed out and stressed that many more non-users were interested in having

installed so as to reap and enjoy the biogas plant attendant benefits namely improved

kitchen and environmental cleanliness, reduced respiratory and eye ailments; safe and

amenable environments as well as proper land use management practices. Despite of

initial installation costs, KENDIP should revamp and repackage its awareness strategy, so

as to construct more bio-digesters in Kenya.

4.7 Infrastructural trainings in biogas biotechnology is urgently needed at the grass root

level. Site inspection and consultations during construction were positive steps towards

sustainability and maintenance of biogas plants. We, however, recommend sustained

efforts for training of masons/technicians as well as both users and non-users alike. Few

female biogas technicians exist in Kenya. All stakeholders should harness all efforts

available to incorporate females in biogas technology programmes.

58

4.8 Intensify and sustain sound land use and soil management practices. Evidence from

this report noted emphatically that most biogas users directly apply bio-slurry to their

farms. Even though it is a sound land use management practice; it is not fully beneficial.

We state that knowledge on the management of bio-slurry be intensified as well as the

importance of organic farming programmes. Quite few farmers have fully exploited the

immense benefits of bio-slurry as very low levels land of use intensification was

witnessed.

4.9 All biogas plants should be metered. Though, countrywide, there were few cases of

denials/or refusals particularly from biogas owners due to the prior and good

communication with KENDIP field staff. It was almost totally impossible to precisely

estimate the amount gas generated per plant day per day. We, therefore, strongly remark

that KENDIP should undertake a more robust registration program on existing plants in

the country. As such well geo-referenced database would be very handy in alternative

energy monitoring exercises as well as other agricultural land use management studies

coupled with advanced mobile telephone technology.

4.10 Promote and sustain more biogas plants in Kenya. Clearly, this report has vividly and

undoubtedly portrayed positive socio-economic as well as eco-environmental benefits of

biogas plants to rural and semi-urban households. Respondents expressed a fairly

significant degree of improved lifestyles in terms of comfort, satisfaction, relaxation,

cleanliness and living healthier than before plant installation. Their local environments

are much safer and greener due to increased vegetative cover. There was an extreme

reduction and over-reliance on wood fuels. On that note, we opine that KENDIP should

amplify sustain a rigorous drive on the construction of biogas plants in Kenya.

5.0 Conclusion

For any society to achieve sustainable development and faster economic growth, investment in

the energy sector is inescapable. Energy is one of the major primary sources of life and

sustenance. In this report, it has been demonstrated that majority of the Kenyan population

wholly depend on wood and charcoal as their main source of energy to cook and warm their

houses. Other commercial conventional fuels especially kerosene are used for lighting.

59

Nonetheless, a formidable alternative source of energy for domestic household consumption,

particularly, in rural densely areas is biogas.

Even though biogas biotechnology is not new in Kenya; notwithstanding its high awareness level

and importance and adoption rates are fairly still low. These can easily be attributed to poor

infrastructure, inadequate funds, and quite possibly, ignorance. We therefore, strongly remark

that KENDIP should undertake and run a cross-cutting awareness campaign on the immense

benefits of alternative domestic energy sources particularly biogas. They can achieve this

through serious sensitization in partnership with the local media houses/channels.

From an environmental standpoint, a widespread alternative energy program focusing on biogas

will lead to significant and sustainable land use management practices. In particular, a reduction

on wood fuels will lead to household reforestation and vegetation re-growth. UNEP other

infrastructural recommends that for sustainable growth and development; every household unit

as well as country units to maintain at least 10% tree-cover. Indeed, these can be important

carbon sinks. Thus, farmers can earn carbon credits from industrialized countries for their role in

mitigating global climate change.

60

Annexes

Sampling Methodology

Sample Size and Proposed Sampling Methodology

Sample Size

A total of 240 households were sampled for the three components of the study (Monitoring and Baseline)

as indicated in the table below.

Table 1: Proposed Sample Sizes by Survey

Survey Type Monitoring Baseline

Households 120 120

Grand total 240

Sampling Methodology

Multi-sampling techniques were used to arrive at the sample used for the survey. First we used stratified

sampling technique to select counties surveyed. The 42 counties were classified into three major regions

(strata) based on their geographical location namely Western, Central and Eastern regions. Western

region comprised counties in the former Rift Valley, Western and Nyanza provinces; Central: Nairobi

county and counties within the former central province and; Eastern: counties under the former Eastern

and Coast provinces.

A total of six counties were then randomly selected from the three strata (Western, Central and Eastern)

based on the population of digesters in the region as indicated in the table below.

Table 2: Bio digester population by proposed regions and allocated proportion

Region Provinces Number of bio-

digesters since 2009-

Nov.2013

Proportion

Western Western, Nyanza and Rift valley 5399 3

Central Nairobi, Central 3599 2

Eastern Eastern, Coast 1800 1

Total 10798 6

The next stage of sampling involved tallying all districts within each region from which the proportion

was picked as indicated below.

61

Table 3: Regional Frame and Selected Counties

Region Counties Proportion Sample

Western Kakamega, Vihiga, Bungoma, Busia,

Homabay, Kisii, Kisumu, Migori, Nyamira,

Transmara, Siaya, Bomet,

BaringoElgeyoMarakwet, Kajiado, Kericho,

Laikipia, Nakuru, Nandi, Trans-Nzoia, Narok,

West Pokot

3 Nakuru, Kajiado, Kericho

Central Nairobi, Kiambu, Kirinyaga,

Murang’aNyandarua, Nyeri

2 Kiambu and Murang’a

Eastern Embu, Kitui, Machakos, Makueni, Meru,

Tharakanithi, Isiolo, Mombasa, TaitaTaveta,

Kwale, Kilifi, Lamu

1 Machakos

An equal number of households to be interviewed were randomly selected from each of the six counties.

For the monitoring survey 20 households were selected and matched with another twenty for baseline

survey within the same district. In total, therefore, the survey covered 240 households in the six selected

counties as indicated in the table below.

Table 4: Sample distribution by Survey Type and County

Monitoring (With Digesters) Baseline (Without Digesters)

County Number of bio-

digesters

Number of

households

Number of households

Machakos 88 20 20

Kajiado 77 20 20

Kiambu 892 20 20

Murang’a 276 20 20

Nakuru 810 20 20

Kericho 96 20 20

Total 120 120

62

Surveys

Survey A Monitoring_Final.pdf

Survey B baseline_Final.pdf

KENYA DOMESTIC BIOGAS USER SURVEY 2014 - SNV...Kenya. Viable mean number of cattle required to sustain biogas feeding are apparent. 02 Enhanced user training is urgently needed as

Documents