Final Report

Annual Biogas Users Survey 2010

Submitted to

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (IDCOL)

National Domestic Biogas and Manure Programme (NDBMP)

29 November 2011

Table of Contents
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 14
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 14
1.2 NDBMP ........................................................................................................................................ 15
2. Objective and Methodology .............................................................................................................. 16
2.1 Objective of the Survey ................................................................................................................ 16
2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 19
2.3 Structure of this report................................................................................................................. 23
3. Information on Biogas Users & Plants................................................................................................ 24
3.1 Plant Size and Households ............................................................................................................ 24
3.2 Decision to install ......................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Users Background ....................................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Daily Use of Biogas Plants by Households ..................................................................................... 27
3.5 Raw Materials .............................................................................................................................. 28
3.6 Bio-slurry Pits ............................................................................................................................... 29
3.7 Construction Related Aspects of the Plants .................................................................................. 31
3.8 Motivation behind Installation of Plant ........................................................................................ 35
3.9 Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 36
3.10 Financing for Biogas Plants ......................................................................................................... 40
3.11 Seasonality ................................................................................................................................. 43
4. Impact on Health and Sanitation ....................................................................................................... 46
5. Impact on Socio-economic Conditions ............................................................................................... 50
5.1 Saving of Time and Money ........................................................................................................... 50
5.2 Income Status .............................................................................................................................. 54

Page 2

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

6. Gender Implications of the Impact of Biogas on Users ....................................................................... 57
7. Impact on Agriculture........................................................................................................................ 64
8. Energy, Emission Reduction and Environmental Impact..................................................................... 70
9. Service Quality and Client Satisfaction............................................................................................... 74
9.1 Management of Financial Services ............................................................................................... 74
9.2 Quality of Services........................................................................................................................ 75
9.3 Client Satisfaction ........................................................................................................................ 76
10. Market ............................................................................................................................................ 79
10.1 Biogas Marketing: Potentials and Challenges .............................................................................. 79
10.2 Marketing of Bio-slurry............................................................................................................... 81
10.3 Supply Chain of Biogas ............................................................................................................... 85
11. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 88
11.1 Removing Supply Side Constraints .............................................................................................. 88
11.2 Enhancing Demand .................................................................................................................... 89

Annex 1: Questionnaire for Biogas Plant User Survey under NDBMP, 2010 ........................................ 91
Annex 2: List of Bio gas plant users surveyed.................................................................................... 101
Annex 3: Checklist for Qualitative Data Collection ............................................................................ 108

Page 3

Acronyms
BAU Bangladesh Agriculture University
BCSIR Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
BP Biogas Plant
DPHE Department of Public Health Engineering
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GoB Government of Bangladesh
HHs Households
HSC Higher Secondary School Certificate
IDCOL Infrastructure Development Company Limited
IGA Income Generating Activities
KfW Kreditanstalt fr Wideraufbau (Credit Institution for Reconstruction)
KG Kilogram
KII Key Informant Interview
LGED Government Engineering Department
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
NDBMP National Domestic Biogas and Manure Program
NGO Non- Government Organization
O&P Operation and Maintenance
PO Partner Organization
RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal
SNV Netherlands Development Organization
SSC Secondary School Certificate
TOR Terms of Reference
TV Television

Page 4

Executive Summary
Background
In the context of gradually increasing energy crises in Bangladesh, greater emphasis is being
given on expanding the use of renewable energy in the country. Biogas, which is derived from
animal and municipal wastes, has been considered as a promising renewable energy source for
the country while formulating the Renewable Energy Policy of Bangladesh.
Although the first use of biogas in the country dates back to 1972, it was really since the 1990s
when the expansion of biogas as a source of fuel has got some momentum. The Infrastructure
Development Company Limited (IDCOL) emerged in the scene in 2006 and has by now become
one of the major agencies expanding biogas plants across the country. With the support of
Netherlands Development Organization (SNV), IDCOL started National Domestic Biogas and
Manure Program (NDBMP) in Bangladesh from 2006 and later KfW also joined the program
from mid-2009. Some 15,600 domestic biogas plants have been installed by the end of 2010
under the NDBMP. The program aims to construct 37,269 high quality domestic biogas plants by
the end of 2012 across the country through the partner organizations.
Since the inception of NDBMP, Annual Biogas Users Surveys have been conducted regularly.
The Survey of 2010 manifests a continuity of that practice. The Annual Biogas Users Survey
2010 aims at making a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the biogas plants installed in
the year 2010 on energy, health and sanitation, and agricultural systems as well as technical,
socio-economic, market, environmental and gender concerns.
The methodology of the Survey represents an integration of quantitative and qualitative methods
of data collection and analysis although the former method was more prominent than the latter.
The main source of data is a questionnaire survey conducted on 300 biogas using households
selected from 12 upazilas of the country using a stratified random sampling approach. In
addition to the questionnaire survey, qualitative investigations were undertaken in the forms of
focus group discussion (FGD), case studies, and interviews.

Information on users
The surveyed biogas plants represent all sizes of plants installed in 2010 ranging from 1.6 cubic
meters to 4.8 cubic meters. The highest number of plants (134 out of 300) represents the middle
size i.e. 2.4 cubic meters. Out of the 300 plants surveyed, 253 are cow-dung based and the
Page 5

remaining 47 are poultry-litter based.

The decision for the household to install biogas plants has depended mainly on space
availability, livestock availability, and ability to invest and pay installments of loan. Most of the
biogas users have a fair level of educational background. Businessmen constitute the biggest
occupational group among the surveyed biogas users followed by farmers. These two groups
count for more than 60 percent of all the surveyed biogas users.
Single burner is the dominant form of using biogas in the surveyed households: 216 out of 300
households use single burners. The daily average use varies a little bit between single and
double burners: 4.42 hours for single burner and 3.72 hours for double burner.
The number of cattle used for biogas plants ranges from 4 to 13, according to the size of the
plant, and averages at 6. On the other hand, the number of poultry birds used for poultry-litter
based plants ranges from 250 to 1212, and averages at 1180. More than 80 percent of the plants
need to be loaded only once in a day. Out of the 300 plants, 232 use a one-to-one ratio of raw
materials and water.
The majority of the surveyed plants have one slurry pit and 72 plants have no slurry pit at all.
The plants having no slurry pit dispose the bio-slurry directly to nearby water-body. The size of
slurry pit is positively correlated to the size of biogas plants as expected. Almost half of the
plants have no pit boundary and 60 percent have not pit shed. The 300 surveyed biogas plants
have been constructed by 18 partner organizations (POs) of NDBMP. Plastic pipes are used
overwhelmingly (96 percent) as the gas distribution device, and for gas transmission, overhead
method is overwhelmingly preferred to underground method. Average distance of biogas plants
from the nearest water source is about 18 meters. Only 13 of the surveyed plants have toilet
attached, which is a reflection of different social taboos prevailing about the it. The respondents
opinions about the skill of the mason who constructed the plan are very good although about
three fourths of the users do not think that the construction was up to the standard.
Economic benefits, saved time and energy, environmental benefits, health benefits, and nonavailability of other fuel sources have been reported as the greatest motivating factors for
installing biogas plants. Only a few of the biogas plants surveyed were found not function.
However, about one fifth of the plants are not functioning properly. Almost three fourths of the
surveyed users are fully satisfied with the functioning of the plants. In case of non-functioning,
poor construction has been identified as the main cause.
Most of the surveyed users have good knowledge about the daily amount of feeding materials
that need to be put into the plant. However, this knowledge has not necessarily come from
training since almost 60 percent of the surveyed users have not received any training on the

Page 6

operation of the plant.

The amount of investment required for installing a bio-gas plant depends on the size of the plant.
The average amount is about 40 thousand taka ranging between 28 thousand and 70 thousand
subject to size of the plant. A portion of the required investment is available in the form of a
grant from NDBMP and the remaining has to be incurred by the household. However, loans are
provided on installments by the POs working in the respective areas.
There are notable seasonal variations in the aspects of availability of raw materials, gas
availability and quantity of slurry produced. Rainy season is generally better for gas availability
whereas the flow really shrinks during the winter.

Impact
Use of biogas has contributed to significant benefits in terms of health, socio-economic status,
womens workload, agriculture and environment. The users have reported significant health
benefits resulting from reduced air pollution and the associated eye and respiratory infections.
The environment has become cleaner, which has had positive indirect impact on the health of the
household members. One notable benefit is the reduction of fire-induced accidents resulting
from non-use of firewood and other traditional fuels.
The socio-economic benefits are quite remarkable. The greatest benefits come from saved time
and money. The 300 households in one year have saved 23,816 workdays through reduced time
required for cooking and management of fuel. Much of the saved time is being used for incomegenerating activities (IGAs) and education of the children. The money saved from reduced fuel
costs account for more than five million taka for the surveyed households in one year. A
significant positive change in the economic status of the households has occurred resulting from
the saved money and time. Only 5 percent of the surveyed households now face deficit in
income, which was 23 percent before they started using bio-gas. Few households (24 in total)
even make some money by selling gas to other households. The saved time being invested in
childrens education is already contributing toward improving the status of education of
household members.
The FGD participants have stated several benefits of the use of biogas. Cooking is become
easier. Before using biogas they had to spend 4 to 5 hours a day for cooking and during the time
of cooking women could not do other works which they can easily do now. Discussions at the
FGDs come up with further qualitative aspect of time saved. Thus, although in terms of number
of hours, about an hour is saved per day per household, the actual saving is much more when it is
considered that women can attend other activities while cooking with the biogas. Cooking with

Page 7

firewood means that the person cooking has to be at the burner full time till the cooking is
finished as a consistent level of fire has to be maintained by continuously putting firewood into
the burner and controlling the heat. However, with biogas burners it is no more needed and
women can start cooking and come back to the burner at certain intervals depending on the
progress of cooking.
These impacts of the bio-gas on households have significant gender implications. Although most
of the decisions and management of the biogas plant are done by the male members of the
household, in terms of benefits, women are affected in a very positive way. Most of the benefits
go to women. Thus, biogas can be considered a gender sensitive intervention at the household
level. One of the female FGD participants said, I cook three dishes in the morning, I have no
tiredness and it takes only thirty minutes. When children come back from school I can give them
snacks, which is a pleasure for me. One male participant of FGD stated, After getting biogas
facilities I come back to my house in the evening regularly and take snacks with my family
members which is great pleasure to me. If there is peace everything seems good.
The majority of the households are not involved in agriculture as their main economic activity.
These households do have livestock and thus in a sense can be called farming households, but
are not involved in crop agriculture as their main activity. So the question is: why farmers are
not the major users of biogas. An analysis of the livestock mapping undertaken as a part of this
study reveals that in almost all the villages surveyed, the number of households having the
required livestock is far more than the households having biogas plants. In most cases, the
number of biogas plants can be increased several times than the current number if the livestock
availability is considered as the main pre-requisite for installing biogas plant.
The benefits of biogas in agriculture are enormous, particularly in terms of the use of bio-slurry
as fertilizer, which is very good for the soil fertility. The main use of the bio-slurry in the
surveyed plants is as fertilizer in the crop field. It is also used as fish feed by some of the
surveyed users. Significant benefits of biogas in improving cowshed management, soil fertility,
animal health, and fodder management have been reported by the surveyed users.
The saved firewood resulting from the use of biogas means that the 300 households in one year
have burned 900 metric tons less firewood. This results in less air pollution, less emission of
carbon and less deforestation, which are all great for the environment and climate. Apart from
the natural environment, the FGD participants explained how the social environment has
improved. It has mainly come from increased comfort in daily life and saved time from cooking
contributing to enhanced social interactions. The advent of biogas is also seen by the users as a
sign of urbanization as well. However, the social benefits remain limited mainly within the users
of biogas and cannot extend significantly to the communities at large because of limited
penetration of biogas plants in each of the villages. Had the number of users been significantly
larger, it would bring about more noticeable changes at the community level.
Page 8

The quantitative and qualitative data collected in the survey present a mixed picture in terms of
quality of services and client satisfaction. More than two dozens of partner organizations of
IDCOL are engaged in providing services to biogas users across the country. According to
qualitative findings of the selected study area, there are differences among the POs in terms of
the quality of services.
The level of client satisfaction is generally high and strongly correlated with the status of
functioning of the installed biogas plants. Although about three fourths of the clients are fully
satisfied as their plants are fully functional, it is important to note that more than a quarter of the
users are either partially unsatisfied or not satisfied at all. Moreover, a desegregated view of
these data across the POs needs to be adopted.

Market
The marketing aspects of the biogas plants and that of bio-slurry are interrelated. It is evident
that there are great potentials of biogas in Bangladesh, much of which still remains unexploited.
Livestock mapping in selected villages (conducted in the FGDs) clearly shows that the number
of biogas users is very low compared to the total number of households who can be considered
as potential users of biogas. It is clear from the above data and from FGDs with non-users that
there is significant demand for biogas which has not yet been exploited. A number of factors
appear to limit the expansion of biogas although the benefits are visible. The quality of services
by the POs manifested from the existing users, inability to arrange the required investment for
installing biogas plants, lack of sufficient space and inconsistent presence of skilled persons of
the POs are among the major factors hindering the expansion of the biogas market.
One of the important marketing aspects related to biogas is the bio-slurry that is extracted out of
the plant. The potential of bio-slurry as a good fertilizer has been discussed much and is well
recognized. However, it remains questionable whether much of the potentials of bio-slurry have
effectively been exploited so far or not.
It is evident that bio-slurry is an economically valuable product, if it is properly prepared for the
market. The data suggest that a huge potential of commercial utilization of biogas is not being
exploited, and thus the users are not maximizing their economic benefits from the biogas. It is
clearly from the qualitative data that there is a huge lack of knowledge about the marketing of
bio-slurry and making it marketable. Although many users are using the slurry for their own
crop fields, many are not farmers and in those cases, the slurry is just wasted. The role of the
biogas providers can be questioned here again. The diffusion of knowledge about the marketing
of bio-slurry should be integrated in the services and trainings provided by the NGOs.

Page 9

Another factor that limits the marketing potentials from buyers perspective is that in most cases
there is an absence of critical mass of bio-slurry in a particular village. As a result, it is not costeffective for the buyers to visit a village with a possibility of getting only a limited quantity of
bio-slurry.
There is a clear lack of efforts of making bio-slurry more marketable by improving it with
addition of organic materials and adding value to the product. Only 13 of the surveyed users (6
percent) have tried to do so. Among the materials added to the slurry, green compost manure
and chemical fertilizer are the most common. The lack of marketing efforts is also reflected in
the fact that more than half of the plant owners pile up the cow-dung/poultry-litter regularly, and
only a little more than one third of the plant owners compost those regularly. The quality of the
slurry also depends on the regular aeration of the decomposing materials, which is not done by
more than one third of the users. One of the major reasons behind this lack of marketing efforts
is the lack of know-how about these aspects. The training provided by the POs are already very
limited and do not include any component on bio-slurry management. Thus, due to the lack of
knowledge of the users, the major portion of the bio-slurry produced every day is not utilized
effectively.
The marketing aspects of biogas can be seen more clearly through a supply chain. All the inputs
(e.g. cash, equipment, technical support and service) are provided by the POs of IDCOL in the
NDBMP. At the local market level, biogas has two types of economic uses: (i) the gas itself as
fuel and (ii) the slurry as fertilizer. Both are marketable, but in most cases are consumed by the
plant owners. The ultimate use of the products depend on the end market, where we see a
number of players: farmers using slurry as fertilizer (both the plant-owning farmers and those
who are buying bio-slurry; plant owners using slurry as fish feed and, of course, the plant owners
themselves using the gas as fuel for cooking. Although most of these end-uses do not enter into
market, they represent clear value addition and are used as products the alternative to which had
to be otherwise procured from the market.
A lot of interesting information on the use of bio-slurry is collected from various FGDs. Many
participants labeled it as a magic. They have told that it is one of the best fertilizers that can
reduce the consumption of urea, phosphate and sulphur, and thus ultimately reduces the cost of
production. They have also reported that generally they would prepare fertilizer from cow-dung,
which is less effective due to having gas in it, but in the case of bio-slurry there is no gas and it is
very effective for soil. Most of the FGD participants have told that those who have plant can
save 700-800 taka per month. Some of the users are getting benefits by using bio-slurry as fish
feed. Earlier they had to use urea, phosphate and sulphur in the pond but now they dont use any
fertilizer. As a result they get more benefit from fish culture and also helping to keep their pond
water free of chemical pollution.

Page 10

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

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

Lack of appropriate size of bio-slurry pits and shade of the biogas plants (most of the
users fail to preserve/dry bio-slurry for using it as fertilizer).
The pond keeps dry during the early summer and become unsuitable for fish culture. As a
result bio-slurry is not use at that time of the year.
Hesitation to handle slurry by hand, especially in case of poultry-litter
Lack of adequate spaces around the biogas plant to manage slurry.

Recommendations

There is a need for reviewing the role of the service providers in the field, i.e. the partner
organizations (POs). The review will help identify the gaps and variations in practices
that at times cause dissatisfaction among the current users and thus hinder the expansion
of bio-gas among new users. The review should be done by an independent team of
experts having very specific terms of reference.
Appropriate and sufficient supervision and monitoring system should be in place by
IDCOL to make sure that the services provided in the field comply with the standards set
at the NDBMP level. The monitoring is particularly needed to make sure that the
financial incentives planned in the Program reach the users in reality. The system can
take the form of periodic verification with a set of randomly sampled users representing
all the regions and POs. The monitoring system should not involve the POs in any part of
its process.
The current structure and nature of financial incentives given to the users need to be
reviewed to come up with more comfortable financial arrangements for the users of
biogas. In this regard, a number of aspects of the financial incentives should be reconsidered: size of grant and loan; number and size of installments. Scopes for tailoring
the financial incentives according to the need of the potential clients should be there.
Greater attention should be given to improving the training for the biogas users. The
training component can be directly handled by NDBMP instead of the current
arrangement of providing it through the POs, who are clearly not providing sufficient
trainings to the users at present. A unified format and standard of the training should be
implemented across all the regions and POs. It is essential to make sure that all the biogas users receive training of similar standards after installation of bio-gas plants.
A centralized strategy should be devised to ensure regular quality services to the biogas
users to minimize the prevailing dissatisfaction among a significant proportion of the
current users. NDBMP needs to decide whether the service will be provided through a
Page 11

central mechanism or through the POs. If the POs are responsible for providing the
services, their contractual requirements should be very clear in terms of the frequency
and quality of service provision to the users.
Greater diffusion of knowledge on marketing of bio-slurry should be initiated. While this
can be undertaken as a centralized strategy, the diffusion of knowledge should be done at
the partners level as well. Two specific suggestions are made in this regard:
o An independent study on the current capacity and potentials of marketing the biogas plants and bio-slurry should be undertaken. The study should exclusively
focus on the marketing aspects and should be conducted by a team of marketing
and bio-gas experts. The study should also assess the needs for capacity building
among the partners vis--vis marketing of bio-gas plants and bio-slurry.
o Based on the recommendations of the study on marketing, all the POs should be
brought under training on marketing of bio-gas plants and bio-slurry.
Agricultural research institutes like BARI should be involved in research for improving
the quality of bio-slurry as good and marketable fertilizer, and to devise ways for
expanding the use of it. A formal partnership with BARI could help in this regard.
Overall, the delivery mechanism through the POs should be improved substantially to
make sure that the centrally planned packages are implemented with a unified standard
across different partners and regions.
An independent country-wide needs assessment survey should be conducted to estimate
an overall demand for biogas at present. This will help in devising future investment
plan in this important sector of renewable energy.
Integrating multiple uses of biogas instead of keeping it limited only within gas supply
will make biogas plants more lucrative for people, particularly in the areas currently
deprived of electricity. An independent strategy to reach the un-electrified areas of the
country with the technology of using biogas for electricity as well can be developed and
implemented.
Popularizing biogas has to be given high priority. The vibrant media of Bangladesh
should be utilized for creating mass awareness among people about the benefits of biogas
and also as a means of connecting to wider population. Particularly, the use of electronic
media can be very effective in creating mass awareness about it. A communication
strategy should be developed by NDBMP for popularizing biogas in the country. While
the communication strategy should be developed and implemented by specialized
agencies, the following are few ideas for considering as inputs to the strategy:
o A short documentary film on bio-gas can be prepared to illustrate the benefits of
bio-gas, its use and its marketing potentials. The documentary can be customized
for a number of purposes: TV telecasting and screening in the fields by POs.
o One-minute TV spots on bio-gas can be a very effective tool for creating mass
awareness about the use and benefits of bio-gas. The TV spots can focus on
different aspects of bio-gas and be telecasted in the TV channels frequently over
Page 12

a specific period subject to resources available for investment for the purpose.
o TV talk shows on bio-gas can be arranged with a number of TV channels. This
can be done in two ways: (i) discussing the issues of bio-gas on popular TV talk
shows; and/or (ii) preparing special talk shows on bio-gas.
o Roundtable discussion with reputed daily newspapers involving the experts and
other stakeholders of the sector can be a very effective tool for drawing attention
of the policy makers and wider population.
A central strategy to enhance the marketing of bio-slurry should be developed. Agencies
specializing in market development issues should be involved in developing the
marketing strategy. The marketing strategy should take into consideration the findings
of the study recommended in Section 11.1 and should involve all the POs who should be
trained on marketing issues before the strategy formulation.
The common recommendation derived from the FGDs conducted at selected study
locations is that discussion and demonstration on biogas plants need to be organized in
rural areas (or at least at upazila level) to popularize the use of it. To make these
discussions more attractive and effective, visual demonstrations with videos (as
mentioned above) and pictures should be used.

Page 13

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Given the decline in fossil fuel availability, their predicted gradual extinction in the next few
decades and the resultant price volatility due to demand-supply gap, and the need to drastically
cut global emission for mitigating climate change1, efficient utilization of renewable energy
resources is being considered as one of the major potential solutions to the problem of current
and predicted energy crisis in Bangladesh. In that context, biogas, which is derived from animal
and municipal wastes, has been considered as a promising renewable energy source for the
country while formulating the Renewable Energy Policy of Bangladesh2.
There are indications that consumption of biomass energy has already exceeded the regenerative
limit and there prevails energy crisis in the rural areas of Bangladesh. Because of energy
shortage, more and more agricultural residues and animal dung are being used as fuel depriving
the soil of organic matter and essential nutrients. As a result, soil fertility is declining and the
farmers are becoming more and more dependent on chemical fertilizer. Moreover, use of
biomass, as fuel in traditional stoves, is responsible for in-door air pollution causing health
hazards to the users. It is apprehended that, with the population growth, the energy crisis,
environmental degradation, indoor air pollution-related diseases, deforestation, declining of soil
fertility, use of chemical fertilizer declining of agricultural yield and cost of production will
sharpen further if things move as usual and no alternative measures are undertaken. Biogas offers
a sustainable solution, at least in part, to all these problems. The technology is simple, proven
and acceptable to the common people. Raw materials are available easily and cheaply in the rural
areas. It is economic and affordable3.
Presently there are tens of thousands of households and village-level biogas plants in place
throughout the country. It is a potential source to harness basic biogas technology for cooking,
and rural and peri-urban electrification to provide electricity during periods of power shortfalls
(GOB 2008).
However, need and potential of biogas have been felt right after the Independence of
Bangladesh. Thus the history of the use of biogas goes back to 1972 with the installation of the
1

Renewable Energy Policy of Bangladesh 2008.

Ibid
3
Terms of Refernce provided by IDCOL.
2

Page 14

first biogas plant in the Bangladesh Agriculture University (BAU). But due to high costs, the
expansion of the use of biogas has remained limited in the 1970s and 1980s with a few hundred
plants constructed in the entire country in the two decades. A significant expansion move was
undertaken by the Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR) under the
Biogas Pilot Plant (1st Phase) Project that installed nearly 5,000 biogas plants during July 1995 to
June 2000. Soon the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) emerged as another
important agency undertaking the initiative and BCSIR continued their work for another phase.
In this trend, the Infrastructure Development Company Limited (IDCOL) emerged in the scene
in 2006 and has by now become one of the major agencies expanding biogas plants across the
country.

1.2 NDBMP
IDCOL with the support of Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) had started National
Domestic Biogas and Manure Program (NDBMP) in Bangladesh from 2006 and later KfW also
joined the program from mid-2009. Some 15,600 domestic biogas plants have been installed by
the end of 2010 under the NDBMP. The program aims to construct 37,269 high quality domestic
biogas plants by the end of 2012 across the country through the partner organizations.
It is observed by IDCOL that the success of a program cannot be judged merely by quantitative
figures of biogas plants. Rather the functioning of the installed plants is very crucial. On the
other hand, various direct and indirect but important benefits enjoyed by the users of biogas
technology should be taken into consideration. It is imperative to know how far the users of
biogas, who are the ultimate beneficiary of the program, have derived benefit from their plants
and the program as a whole and to what extent they are satisfied with the technology. It is
equally important to assess socio-economic impact brought about by this technology. Thus, in
order to obtain necessary feedbacks about the technology, it is essential to monitor both the
technology and its impact on user satisfaction by conducting appropriate and detailed surveys at
regular intervals4.
The annual Biogas Users Survey has been conducted since the inception of the NDBMP. The
program views Biogas Users Survey as one of the ways to keep in touch with the reality on
household level and as a means of generating findings and suggestions that can be used for the
improvement of the program deliveries. So far, 3 surveys have been conducted and hence the
current survey is the fourth one. This survey aims to assess various impacts of biogas as well as
to find out the effect of biogas on health, agriculture, climate change and workload of women
and children. The findings as well as recommendations of the survey report are to be used for
further improvements in the program deliveries.
4

Terms of Reference provided by IDCOL.

Page 15

2. Objective and Methodology

2.1 Objective of the Survey
The overall objective of the Biogas Users Survey 2010 is to make a comprehensive assessment
of the impact of the biogas plants installed in the year 2010 on energy, health and sanitation, and
agricultural systems as well as technical, socio-economic, market, environmental and gender
concerns.
The specific objectives of the survey are to assess and analyze following aspects of biogas:
A. Impact on Health and Sanitation
The survey focuses on the following health related issues:

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

Respiratory and eye infection

Mosquito induced diseases and nuisance

Status of toilets, toilets used and toilet attached biogas plant

Fire/burning accidents, general physical condition (stress, free time, time for feeding etc)
among women, men and children

B. Impact on Socio-economic Conditions

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

Time and money saved through different household and biogas related activities

Use of the saved time in different income generating activities

Changes in income and access to the natural resources

Employment generation

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

Financing source for biogas plants

Educational status of the user

C. Information on Biogas plant owner and Biogas Plants

Following biogas plant related information has been collected:

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

Page 16

components etc.

Motivation of the households for the installation of the biogas plant

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

Who chose the site for construction of biogas plants?

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

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

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

Operation and maintenance of the biogas plant including trainings

After- construction-services provided by the POs

Plant operation rate, problem and maintenance cost

Major problems faced by the users

Dung availability per day and burning hours of biogas stove

Functioning biogas plant

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

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

Plants financed by financial institutions or cash

Dealing with financial institutions; how difficult/easy?

Other organizations supporting biogas

D. Users Satisfaction and Perception

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

Their awareness, requirements and suggestions for possible improvement

Operation and maintenance training received by them

Means of communication on biogas

Satisfaction/ dissatisfaction

Sources of biogas information

Repair and maintenance

Family member responsible for contacting the PO

Time and types of services provided by the PO

E. Impacts on Gender
Since biogas provides direct benefit to rural women especially, as a result of the reduction of
workload, following gender related issues should be assessed:

Page 17

Women's participation in decision making process

Construction, operation, maintenance and management of biogas plant

Ability of women to contact the PO for services/repairs

Technical know-how of either men or women

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

Health and workload change before and after biogas installation

Enrolment of girls in schools

Income generation and productive work

Women's involvement in social works

Time involvement of women vis--vis men in household chores like cooking, feeding,
fuel wood collection, operation of biogas plant, etc.

F. Impacts on Agriculture
The survey will focus on the following issues:

Cattle population, grazing method (openly grazed /stall fed), shed management, animal
health, fodder management etc

Changes in the above practices after the installation of biogas

Quantity of dung produced each day and its utilization in the biogas (loading rate), dung
patties for burning purposes and manure for composting purpose

Received training materials and training on bio-slurry management and utilization and
from whom

Changes in the composting practices such as piling up the manure, turning the
decomposing materials for aeration and duration of bio slurry storage in the pit

Bio slurry use pattern and their effectiveness on crop growth and yield, soil fertility and
ultimately the farm income

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

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

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

G. Energy, Emission Reduction and Environmental Impacts

The survey will focus on the following issues:

Household daily utilization of fire wood (quantity and quality of saving firewood),
agriculture residues, animal dung, kerosene, LPG for cooking and type of stoves

Changes in the above practices after the installation of biogas

Daily gas production and consumption

Page 18

Local (household) environmental condition before and after the installation of biogas and
its impact on local environment

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

The survey will capture the following issues:

Rate of production of bio-slurry from the plant

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

Number of potential customers visited the plant.

Supply chain of biogas plant with associated value chains.

2.2 Methodology
The overall methodological approach is focused on integration of quantitative and qualitative
methods while the former dominates. Along with a questionnaire survey, which is the main
source of data, a number of qualitative tools have been used for data collection. The findings
from the questionnaire survey and qualitative investigation are made complementary to each
other throughout the phases of data collection to analysis.

2.2.1 Sampling
Sampling of households for survey has been done using a stratified random sampling approach.
The total number of households is 300. For sampling purposes, the country has been divided in
4 major regions representing the former Divisions of the country, i.e. Dhaka, Chittagong,
Rajshahi and Khulna. The required numbers of households have been selected from each region
to reach the total sample size of 300. The sample size for each region is proportionate to the
number of total households having biogas plants in the region. The sampling is done through the
following steps:
o From each of the 4 regions, 3 districts have been selected randomly to cover the major
ecological and socio-cultural variations prevailing in the region. The random sampling
has been repeated until the selected districts sufficiently represented the variations.
o The number of households in each region has been divided by 3 to get the required
number of households to be surveyed in each of the 3 districts of each region. The
districts having fewer households than the required number have not been considered.
o In case of large number and spread of households in a district, further stratification in
selecting sub-districts or communities has been undertaken to select the households from

Page 19

a randomly selected upazila.

o From the list of households having biogas in the selected district/upazila, the required
number of households has been sampled randomly for the survey.
Map of Sampled Study Districts

Page 20

Table 2.1: Sampling Distribution

Region

District

Upazila

Number of Sampled Biogas Plants

(Sample Size)
Cattle
Poultry
Total
Dhaka
Gazipur
Sreepur
14
14
28
Munshiganj Sadar
28
0
28
Narayanganj Rupganj
18
10
28
Khulna +
Jessore
Monirampur
22
0
22
Barisal
Kushtia
Sadar
22
0
22
Meherpur
Gangni
21
1
22
Rajshahi + Pabna
Sadar
24
12
36
Rangpur
Gaibandha
Sadullapur
36
0
36
Rangpur
Pirgachha
35
1
36
Chittagong Noakhali
Sadar
12
2
14
+ Sylhet
Habiganj
Sadar & Nabiganj
14
0
14
Sylhet
Biswanath
14
0
14
Total
260
40
300

2.2.2 Representation of Non-users and Partner Organizations

The non-users of biogas plants have been covered by qualitative investigation. A number of
FGDs have been conducted with the non-users. The sampled users have covered 18 POs in the
selected districts.

2.2.3 Data Collection Tools

Quantitative Data
A survey on plant-using households has been conducted using a structured and pre-coded
questionnaire developed in the light of the TOR.
Qualitative Data
A set of qualitative tools have been used to collect additional data apart from the questionnaire
survey. Table 2.2 presents a summary of the qualitative tools that have been used.

Page 21

Table 2.2: Collection of Qualitative Data

Tools
FGD

Respondents
Selected members
of users and nonusers5

Case
Study

Selected HHs that

owns a biogas
plant8

KII

Knowledgeable
individuals in the
community,
implementing
NGOs

Techniques
Resource mapping
Livestock mapping6
Activity mapping7
Seasonality analysis
Discussion using
checklist
Market actor mapping
One-to-one extended
interview (if required,
more than one session)
One-to-one interview of
the nature of informal
discussion

Focus
Preparing a group profile with all
the relevant information for
analysis with the quantitative
data. Moreover, a market
potential of the impact of the
biogas plant on the non-users can
also be checked.
Collecting anecdotal evidences
on individuals in support of the
other group based or overall
data/statistics
Collecting information about the
locality and its different
dynamics related to the survey
issues e.g. market demand.

A number of FGDs have been conducted in selected study areas. Table 2.3 shows the locations
of the FGDs.
Table 2.3: Focus Group Discussion Matrix of Biogas Survey 2010
Division

District

Upazila

Dhaka

Munsiganj Sadar

Khulna
Khulna
Rajshahi
Khulna

Jessore
Kustia
Pabna
Meherpur

Monirampur
Sadar
Sadar
Gangni

Rajshahi

Pabna

Tabunia

Union

Village/ para

POs

Mollahkandi

Char Dumuria

SUK

Nanggurahat
Khodra Ailechara
Jotcolsha
Bashbaria

Grameen Shakti
Disha
Disha
Grameen Shakti

Boira

Disha

Ailechara
Jotcolsha
Gangni
Pourashava
Maligasa

All members in cases groups are too small (8 or 5 members) and two groups together when the groups are even smaller
(3 members)
6

For farmers groups

For other groups than farmers

Not necessarily each group

Page 22

2.3 Structure of this report

This report is divided in 11 Chapters. The first two chapters are on background and
methodologies. The third chapter presents detailed information on the surveyed users and their
plants. This is the most informative chapter of the report. The next five chapters (Chapter 4 to
Chapter 8) present findings on impact of biogas on users from different dimensions. Chapter 9
develops a brief analysis on quality of services and client satisfaction base on the data from
previous chapters. Chapter 10 focuses on the market dimension of biogas. The final chapter
presents a number of recommendations based on the findings presented in the previous chapters.
Each of the chapters has numerous tables, which are netted into the text of the chapter. The
qualitative data has been integrated within the quantitative data and thus do not always appear as
separate sections or chapters. However, brief summaries of the qualitative findings have been
given in selected chapters.

Page 23

3. Information on Biogas Users & Plants

3.1 Plant Size and Households
Among the households surveyed, five types of plant sizes ranging from 1.6 cubic meters (the
smallest) to 4.8 cubic meters (the largest) are found. However, a total of 134 out of 300 plants
are of size 2.4 cubic meter or larger. The medium size plant of 2.4 cubic meters seems to be the
most demanded one. Almost 45 percent of the total surveyed plants are of that size. A clear
tendency of larger plant size among the poultry-based plant users is also there. Out of the 47
poultry-based plants, 30
are of the largest size
(4.8 cubic meters). As
expected, bigger the
household size larger
the size of the plant.
The average household
size among all the plant
users is 6, which is
higher than the national
average of 4.4. Table
3.1 presents the
surveyed data on plant
size and household size.
Out of the 300 surveyed
households, 253 are
based on cow-dung and
the other 47 are based on poultry-litter.
Table 3.1: Distribution of plant user HHs by type of plants, average HH size and plant size
Plant size (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20

Cow
8
45
128
53

Number HHs
Poultry
0
1
6
10

Page 24

Average HH size
Cow
Poultry
6
5
4
6
5
7
7

4.80
Total

19
253

30
47

9
6

6
6

The regional distribution of the surveyed plants reflects the overall distribution of the total plants
installed in 2010 (Table 3.2) since the sample sizes are based on the proportions of plants across
the regions. Breaking down the household size further, it is found that the average number of
male members is a little higher than female members (Table 3.3), which is interesting given the
parity in male-female ratio in the population census 2011.
It is also notable that in two of the four regions, the presence of poultry-based biogas plants is
insignificant, one third of all poultry based plants are in Dhaka Division (Table 3.2). Household
size in the Chittagong region has been found very high (Table 3.3), which is somewhat expected
given the relatively bigger family sizes in some districts of Chittagong and Sylhet Divisions.
Table 3.2: Distribution of plants by region and feeding materials
Region
Chittagong
Dhaka
Khulna
Rajshahi
Total

Cow
Number
40
53
65
95
253

%
15.8
20.9
25.7
37.5
100.0

Poultry
Number
2
31
1
13
47

All
%
4.3
66.0
2.1
27.7
100.0

Number
42
84
66
108
300

%
14.0
28.0
22.0
36.0
100.0

Table 3.3: Average household size by sex and region

Region
Chittagong
Dhaka
Khulna
Rajshahi
All regions

Male
4.8
3.2
2.9
3.2
3.4

Female
3.7
2.8
2.3
2.9
2.9

All
8.5
6.0
5.2
6.2
6.2

3.2 Decision to install

Qualitative investigation reveals that the decision regarding the size of biogas plants installed has
depended on a number of factors like the following:

Space available in/around homestead for installation of the plant

Availability of the required livestock (cattle or poultry)
Amount of money and installments.

Page 25

It should be noted that although installments for repaying the loan given to the users are
supposed to be similar everywhere, the survey discovers different practices regarding this, which
clearly has implications on the decision of the households in installing biogas plants. This
particular aspect is further elaborated in the following chapters of this report.

3.3 Users Background

The biogas users have good level of education compared to the national averages. Only about 10
percent of the users do not have any education, and three fourths of the surveyed users have
education levels above primary (Table 3.4). This also reflects the fact that the poorest are not
usually the users of biogas plants as they need to have some resources (land and livestock) to be
able to install plants at their homesteads. This idea is further supported by the fact that
businessmen (39 percent) and farmers (23 percent) constitute the majority of the users of biogas
plants (Table 3.5). It should be noted that the occupation reported is the main one for the
household, and thus may have other secondary occupations as well. Information about average
landholding is presented and discussed in Chapter 7.
Table 3.4: Education of users by type of plants
Education

Cow

Illiterate
Literate but no institutional
education
Primary or equivalent
Secondary or equivalent
SSC passed or equivalent
HSC passed or equivalent
Graduation or equivalent
Post Graduation or equivalent
Total

Poultry

All

Number
4

%
1.6

Number
0

%
0.0

Number
4

%
1.3

23

9.1

4.3

25

8.3

41
62
44
40
27
12
253

16.2
24.5
17.4
15.8
10.7
4.7
100.0

2
14
14
5
9
1
47

4.3
29.8
29.8
10.6
19.1
2.1
100.0

43
76
58
45
36
13
300

14.3
25.3
19.3
15.0
12.0
4.3
100.0

Table 3.5: Main occupation of users by type of plants

Occupation
Service
Business
Farmer
Day laborer

Cow
Number
34
82
63
7

Poultry
%
13.4
32.4
24.9
2.8

Number
2
34
6
0

Page 26

All
%
4.3
72.3
12.8
.0

Number
36
116
69
7

%
12.0
38.7
23.0
2.3

Fisherman
House wife
Others
Total

1
25
41
253

.4
9.9
16.2
100.0

0
1
4
47

.0
2.1
8.5
100.0

1
26
45
300

.3
8.7
15.0
100.0

3.4 Daily Use of Biogas Plants by Households

Most of the biogas plant-using households use single burners (216 out of 300 plant users).
However, use of double burners is also quite substantial (88 out of 300 plant users). Some of the
households even have more than one single or double burner (Table 3.6 and 3.7).
The average hours of use correlates largely with the size of the plant as reflected in Table 3.8.
However, the average of use hours is less for double burners compared to single burners, which
is expected. It is also important to note that the average of use hours is higher in case poultry
based plants.
Table 3.6: Number of households using single burner by size of plants
Size of Plant
(m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
Total

Number of single burner

2 single
3 single
0
0
0
0
11
5
21
2
12
7
44
14

1 single
5
38
89
17
9
158

All
5
38
105
40
28
216

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

Size of Plant (m3)
1 double
3
7
24
17
21
72

1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
Total

Number of double burner

2 double
0
1
6
4
5
16

All
3
8
30
21
26
88

Table 3.8: Daily average uses (hours) of burners by type and size of plants
Plant Size
(m3)

Cow
Single
burner

Double
burner

Poultry
Single
Double
burner
burner
Page 27

All
Single
burner

Double
burner

1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

3.60
5.76
3.77
3.84
4.58
4.22

2.08
3.43
3.55
3.21
4.50
3.54

4.00
4.83
6.56
5.82

2.50
2.33
3.13
4.93
4.17

3.60
5.76
3.78
3.98
5.81
4.42

2.08
3.31
3.43
3.19
4.76
3.72

3.5 Raw Materials

As expected, the average numbers of cattle and poultry birds are found to be higher with the
larger plants. The overall average number of cattle is 6 and that of poultry birds is 1180 (Table
3.9). Similarly, the average quantities of raw materials (cow dung and poultry litter) used for the
different sizes of plants are presented in Table 3.10. The majority of the plants (242 out of 300)
operate with one-time daily loading of raw material irrespective of the size of the plants. The
loading frequency does not seem to correlate strongly with the size of the plants (Table 3.11).
Almost 80 percent of the plants use a 1:1 ratio of raw materials and water (Table 3.12).
Table 3.9: Average number of cattle and poultry birds by plant size
Size of Plant (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Average of number cattle

4
4
6
7
13
6

Average of number of poultry bird

250
912
1340
1212
1180

Table 3.10: Daily average amount (kg) of raw materials used by type and size of plants
Size of Plant
(m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Cow Dung
46
46
62
90
139
70

Raw materials used kg/day

Poultry Litter
20
84
85
104
95

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

Size of

Loading frequency per day

Page 28

All
46
46
63
89
119
74

Plant (m3)

Dung
Poultry Litter
All
Once Twice More
Once
Twice More
Once
Twice More
1.60
5
3
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
2.00
37
8
0
1
0
0
38
8
0
2.40
106
18
4
6
0
0
112
18
4
3.20
45
7
1
8
2
0
53
9
1
4.80
10
7
2
24
3
0
34
10
2
All sizes
203
43
7
39
5
0
242
48
7
Table 3.12: Number and percentage of users maintaining different ratios of raw materials
and water by type and size of plants
Size of Plant (m3)
1:1
7
37
104
52
32
232

1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Ratio of raw materials and water

1:2
1
9
30
10
14
64

Total
8
46
134
62
46
296

3.6 Bio-slurry Pits

Bio-slurry pits management is one of the important aspects of the use of biogas plants. Tables
3.13, 3.14 and 3.15 present different aspects of slurry pits associated with the biogas plants
surveyed. A number of weaknesses are observed in this regard. Out of the 300 surveyed plants,
72 do not have any slurry pit. These plants discharge the slurry directly to a water-body. This is
either due to unavailability of sufficient space for construction of slurry pits or due to simply
non-construction of the pits by the POs. This does not only contribute to the pollution of water,
but also deprive the households from taking the commercial benefits of the slurry. The majority
(58%) of the plants have one pit, 16% have two pits while few have more than two (Table 3.13).
Table 3.13: Distribution of number of slurry pits by type and size of plants
Size of
Plant
(m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80

One
4
29
84
30
8

Cow Dung
Two Three
1
0
7
1
21
0
14
1
3
2

Number of Slurry Pits

Poultry Litter
One
Two
Three
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
15
2
1

Page 29

One
4
29
84
34
23

Total
Two
1
7
22
14
5

Three
0
1
0
1
3

All sizes

155

46

19

174

49

The size of the slurry pits, as expected is positively correlated with the size of the plant: larger
the plant size the larger the size of the slurry pit (Table 3.14). Another aspect of the relatively
poor management of bio-slurry is reflected in the existence of pit boundary and pit shades. Since
the partner organization (PO) is responsible for constructing these, the existence of pit boundary
and pit shed is presented by POs in Table 3.15. Almost half of the plants do not have pit
boundary and more than half do not have pit shed. Only a few POs (3 in total) ensured pit
boundaries and pit sheds for all the plants they have constructed. But the total number of these
plants is 7 only, and thus do not have any significant effect on the overall average. In case of
some POs, none of their plants have pit boundaries and sheds.
Table 3.14: Average size of slurry pits by type and size of plants
Size of Plant
(m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Cow Dung
12.67
23.85
26.93
55.04
107.85
37.90

Size of slurry pits (m3)

Poultry Litter
7.37
29.49
39.29
32.29

All
12.67
23.33
26.05
50.99
65.88
37.02

Table 3.15: Percentage/number of plants having pit boundary and pit shed by PO
Name of NGO
ASKS
BSUS
DESHA
DOPS
Grameen Shakti
IC
Jahanara Biogas Construction Co. Ltd
Kamrul Biogas Co Ltd
Nirapad Engineering Ltd
RISDA
RRF
RSF
SETU
Shubashati

Pit boundary exists

Yes
No
2 (33.3)
4 (66.7)
13 (76.5)
4 (23.5)
21 (65.6)
11 (34.4)
20 (87.0)
3 (13.0)
68 (51.1)
65 (48.9)
4 (100.0)
-1 (100.0)
-1 (100.0)
--3 (100.0)
1 (100.0)
-1 (100.0)
-3 (42.9)
4 (57.1)
5 (71.4)
2 (28.6)
1 (100.0)
-Page 30

Pit shed exists

Yes
No
-6 (100.0)
10 (58.8)
7 (41.2)
6 (18.8)
26 (81.3)
19 (82.6)
4 (17.4)
63 (47.4)
70 (52.6)
4 (100.0)
--1 (100.0)
-1 (100.0)
-3 (100.0)
1 (100.0)
-1 (100.0)
-3 (42.9)
4 (57.1)
1 (14.3)
6 (85.7)
-1 (100.0)

Sonali Unnayan Foundation

1 (50.0)
SOUL
7 (100.0)
Srizony Bangladesh
-SUK
3 (6.8)
Total
152 (50.7)
Figures within parentheses represent percentages.

1 (50.0)
-10 (100.0)
41 (93.2)
148 (49.3)

2 (100.0)
6 (85.70)
-3 (6.8)
119 (39.7)

-1 (14.3)
10 (100.0)
41 (93.2)
181 (60.3)

3.7 Construction Related Aspects of the Plants

The surveyed biogas plants have been constructed by 18 Partner Organizations (POs) of the
NDBMP project. Table 3.16 presents a distribution of the plants by size and POs. The scales of
operation among the POs vary to a great extent. While few of the POs (e.g. Grameen Shakti,
SUK, DESHA) constructed significant numbers of the surveyed plants, some POs constructed
only one or two plants among the surveyed ones.
Different types of materials have been used for the distribution pipes. However, for the
overwhelming majority (96 percent) of the plants, plastic pipes have been used (Table 3.17).
The use of other materials like GI pipe and MS pipe has been rare indeed. Only 4 out of the 300
surveyed users adopted the underground gas transmission method while the rest (296) have gone
for overhead transmission (Table 3.18). The average distance of the biogas plants from the
source of drinking water have been found to be 17.6 meters (Table 3.19).
Table 3.16: Distribution of POs responsible for constructing biogas plants by size of plant
NGOs Name
ASKS
BSUS
DESHA
DOPS
Grameen Shakti
IC
Jahanara biogas
Kamrul Biogas Co
Nirapad Engineer
RISDA
RRF
RSF
SETU

1.60
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

2.00
2
2
0
5
22
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1

Page 31

Size of Plant
2.40
3.20
2
1
7
7
13
13
11
5
59
26
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
4
2
3
2

4.80
1
1
6
2
24
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0

Total
6
17
32
23
133
4
1
1
3
1
1
7
7

Shubashati
Sonali Unnayan F
SOUL
Srizony Banglade
SUK
Total

1
0
0
0
4
8

0
0
0
4
8
46

Page 32

0
2
7
3
16
134

0
0
0
3
3
63

0
0
0
0
13
49

1
2
7
10
44
300

Table 3.17: Percentage of users using different types of gas distribution device by plant size
Size of
Plants (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

GI Pipe
Number
%
0
0.0
2
4.3
8
6.0
1
1.6
0
0.0
11
3.7

Plastic Pipe
Number
%
8
100.0
44
95.7
126
94.0
61
96.8
49
100.0
288
96.0

MS Pipe
Number
%
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
1.6
0
0.0
1
0.3

Total
Number
8
46
134
63
49
300

%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Table 3.18: Percentage of users using different gas transmission method by plant size
Size of
Plants (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Underground
Number
%
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
2.2
0
0.0
1
2.0
4
1.3

Overhead
Number
%
8
100.0
46
100.0
131
97.8
63
100.0
48
98.0
296
98.7

Total
Number
8
46
134
63
49
300

%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Table 3.19: Average distance of plant from sources of drinking water (m)
Source of drinking water
Tube well
Well
Pond
Any source

Average distance
17.54
27.79
15.00
17.60

Only 13 out of the 300 surveyed plants have toilet attached to the plant, and all of these plants
are dung based ones (Table 3.20). Nine out of these 13 plants have been motivated by the plants
providers, i.e. the POs (Table 3.21). Different social taboos work behind not attaching toilet with
the biogas plant. The major one is the perception that the gas from the toilet attached is not
sacrosanct. Some people are just hesitant to handle bio-slurry from the plant with which toilet is
attached (Table 3.22).
Almost 85 percent of all the plant users think the biogas plants have been constructed by skilled
mason with good knowledge on biogas plant. About 11 percent of the users are not in a position
to judge the skill of the mason (Table 3.23). One very important aspect of client satisfaction
regarding construction of the plants is reflected in Table 3.24. Almost three fourths of the users

Page 33

think that the construction has not been done according to the standard as promised before the
installation of the plant. About 12 percent of the users are not in a position to make any
judgment about the standard of construction. These percentages should be considered with
caution as they reflect only perceptions of the users about the skill and standards. No attempt to
objectively measure the skill or standard is made as part of this study.
Table 3.20: Distribution of plants by toilet attached
Type of plant
Dung
Poultry Litter
Total

Number

13
0
13

100
0
100

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

Self
Service providers
Friends and relatives
Others
Total

Cow Dung
Number
%
1
7.7
9
69.2
2
15.4
1
7.7
13
100.0

Feed Material/Type
Poultry Litter
Total
Number
%
Number
%
0
0.0
1
7.7
0
0.0
9
69.2
0
0.0
2
15.4
0
0.0
1
7.7
0
0.0
13
100.0

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

District

Sylhet
Habigonj
Noakhali
Gazipur
Nganj
Mganj
Jessor
Kustia
meherpur
Gaibandha
Pabna
Rangpur

No social taboo

Social Taboos
Gas from toilet Hesitation in
attached plants handling bio-slurry
not sacred
with toilet attached
%
Number
%
Number
%
28.6
10
71.4
0
.0
7.1
13
92.9
0
.0
28.6
10
71.4
0
.0
.0
28
100.0
0
.0
7.1
25
89.3
1
3.6
53.6
13
46.4
0
.0
.0
13
59.1
9
40.9
9.1
19
86.4
1
4.5
.0
22
100.0
0
.0
100.0
0
.0
0
.0
.0
23
63.9
10
27.8
.0
26
72.2
10
27.8

Others

All
(%)

Number
4
1
4
0
2
15
0
2
0
36
0
0

Number %
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
3
8.3
0
.0

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Page 34

All dists.

64

21.3

202

67.3

31

10.3

1.0

100

Table 3.23: Opinion about the skill of plant construction worker by type of plant
Opinions
Unskilled Mason
Skilled mason without knowledge on biogas plant
Skilled Mason with good knowledge on biogas plant
Do not know
Total

Type of plant (%)

Dung
Poultry
All
1.2
2.1
1.3
2.8
6.4
3.3
85.4
80.9
84.7
10.7
10.6
10.7
100.0
100.0
100.0

Table 3.24: Was the plant constructed according to standard set in advance by the service
provider by type of plant?
Answer

Type of plant (%)

Dung
Poultry
All
16.3
.0
13.7
71.4
87.2
73.9
12.3
12.8
12.4
100.0
100.0
100.0

Yes
No
Dont know
Total

3.8 Motivation behind Installation of Plant

The factors contributing to motivating the users for installing the biogas plants can be
categorized in two types: those compelling the households to go for biogas and those pulling or
encouraging the households to install biogas plants. The former can be labeled as push factors
and the later as pull factors.
In a situation of scarcity of the traditional fuel sources resulting from gradual decline of those
sources, the households look for alternatives. Many households have been struggling to
regularly manage the traditional sources like firewood, the prices and availability of which show
frequent ups and downs. For those having poultry farms, the management of poultry litter is at
times an issue as the neighbors create pressure if the litter is not managed and disposed properly.
In such a situation of scarcity of traditional fuel sources (and neighbors pressure in case of
poultry), households are pushed to seek for alternative energy sources. Biogas gives them that
option.
The above need for shifting toward biogas is supplemented or further supported by the visible
benefits of biogas plants like economic benefits, saving of time and energy, environmental
benefits, health benefits and social benefits. In addition to all these benefits, the POs have come
Page 35

forward with offers (packages) like subsidy and loans. These benefits and offers were clearly
visible to the households from the existing plant owners. Thus, a combination of both of these
factors (push and pull) contributed to the decision of installing the biogas plants.

Figure 3-1: Motivation for Installation of Biogas Plants

Factors pushing households

toward biogas

Non-availability of other fuel sources

Neighbors pressure (in case of poultry)

34.0%
2.0%

Subsidy
Social benefits (prestige)
Health benefits
Environmental benefits
Economic benefits
Motivation from service provider
Motivation from existing plant users
Saving of time and energy

25.7%
23.3%
33.7%
37.3%
50.3%
28.7%
20.3%
45.0%

Decision to
Install Biogas
Plant

Factors pulling households

toward biogas

3.9 Operation and Maintenance

While almost three fourths of the plants surveyed have been found fully operational, the
proportion of plants not functioning partially or at all is not insignificant as well (Table 3.25).
As expected, satisfaction of the users about functioning of the plants is strongly correlated to the
status of functioning as reflected in Table 3.26. About one fifth of the users who are not fully
satisfied with the functioning of the plants stated different reasons for their lack of satisfaction.
The most important reasons include insufficiency of gas, unavailability of the technicians and
other technical problems (Table 3.27). Among the reasons for failure (non-functioning) of the
biogas plants, the major one is the poor quality of construction. The other reasons are presented
in Table 3.28.

Page 36

Table 3.25: Is the biogas plant functioning?

Answer

Type of plant (%)

Dung
Poultry
6.7
8.5
19.8
14.9
73.4
76.6
100.0
100.0

No
Yes, partly
Yes, fully
Total

All
7.0
19.1
73.9
100.0

Table 3.26: Is the user satisfied with the functioning of plant by type of plant
Answer
Dung
4.3
22.6
73.2
100.0

No
Yes, partly
Yes, fully
Total

Type of plant (%)

Poultry
4.7
11.6
83.7
100.0

All
4.3
20.9
74.4
100.0

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

Dung
Number %
Less gas for cooking/lighting
46
86.8
Difficult to operate
3
5.7
Often encounter technical problems
14
26.4
More added work
5
9.4
Food cooked in gas is not tasty
1
1.9
Technicians not available on demand
21
39.6
Others
5
9.4

Poultry
Number %
2
40.0
1
20.0
1
20.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
20.0
2
40.0

All
Number
48
4
15
5
1
22
7

%
82.8
6.9
25.9
8.6
1.7
37.9
12.1

Table 3.28: Reasons behind the failure of biogas plants as reported by the users
Reasons
Poor construction
Low quality construction materials and appliances
Poor operation (over/under-fed, more water, less water)
Poor maintenance or, no maintenance service available
Non-availability of spare parts
Natural/man-made disasters
Slurry entered into the gas pipe
Water collected in pipe clogged it
Higher water table/flooding during rainy season
Page 37

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

52.9
25.0
47.6
17.6
25.0
19.0
17.6
0.0
14.3
23.5
0.0
19.0
.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
4.8
11.8
0.0
9.5
23.5
0.0
19.0
17.6
0.0
14.3

Others

35.3

100.0

47.6

Proper
functioning
and
maintenance
of the biogas
plants also
depend on the
users
knowledge on
handling the
plants. While
about three
fourths of the
surveyed users
have reported
to have
knowledge
about the
daily amount of feeding materials into their plants, the rest (about one fourth) do not have that
knowledge (Table 3.29) which definitely has significant impact on proper maintenance of the
plants. Interestingly, the percentage of plant owners not having knowledge is significantly
higher in case of the poultry-litter based plants, the reasons for which are not clear from the data
collected.
Table 3.29: Knowledge of the users about the daily amount of feeding materials into their
plant
Answer

Yes
No
Total

Feed Material/Type of Plant

Dung
Poultry Litter
All
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
206
81.7
23
48.9
229
76.6
46
18.3
24
51.1
70
23.4
252
100.0
47
100.0
299
100.0

The lack of knowledge can be explained to some extent by the insufficiency of training on
operation and maintenance received by the plant owners. Less than one third of the surveyed
users have received any proper training on operation and maintenance of the biogas plant. More
than one third have received no training at all. The rest received either any written instructional
material or on-the-spot instructions by the mason/supervisor (Table 3.30).
Page 38

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

maintenance of biogas plants by type of plant
Answer

No training received
Training not provided but
leaflet/booklet/manual provided
One day orientation training
Short O & M training (7days or less)
Long O & M training (more than 7days)
On the spot instructions from
mason/company supervisors etc
Others
Total

Dung
Number
%
93
36.9

Type
Poultry Litter
Number
%
13
27.7

All
Number
%
106
35.5

72

28.6

4.3

74

24.7

54
25
0

21.4
9.9
.0

4
2
0

8.5
4.3
.0

58
27
0

19.4
9.0
.0

72

28.6

30

63.8

102

34.1

1
252

.4
100

1
47

2.1
100

2
299

.7
100

There are concerns regarding follow-up services as well. About one third of the surveyed users
have not received any follow-up services, some of them even after requesting for it (Table 3.31).
More than half of the service centers are located beyond 5 km from the plants (Table 3.32),
which also hinders receipt of regular follow-up services by the plant users.
Table 3.31: Number/percentage of users who received follow up services from the POs by
type of plant

No, not even when requested

No, not at all
Yes, on call
Yes, regularly
Total

Dung
Number
%
36
14.3
42
16.7
84
33.3
90
35.7
252
100.0

Type
Poultry Litter
Number
%
4
8.5
9
19.1
22
46.8
12
25.5
47
100.0

All
Number
40
51
106
102
299

%
13.4
17.1
35.5
34.1
100.0

Table 3.32: Existence of service center nearby

Answer

No service center
Very near (within 5 km reach)
Quite far (5-10 km reach)
Very far (more than 10 km)

Dung
Number
26
87
73
66

%
10.3
34.5
29.0
26.2

Page 39

Feed Material Type

Poultry Litter
All
Number
%
Number
9
19.1
35
9
19.1
96
11
23.4
84
18
38.3
84

%
11.7
32.1
28.1
28.1

Total
252
100.0
47
100.0
299
100.0
Table 3.33 and Table 3.34 present the amount of money required annually for operation and
maintenance of the plant. As expected, the amount increases with the size of the plant. Also, the
amount of money required for poultry-based plants is a bit higher than the dung-based ones.
Table 3.33: Amount of money need for operation and maintenance of your plant in a year
by size of plant
Size of
Plant (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Less than
Tk.100
No.
%
2
25.0
21
45.7
36
26.9
20
31.7
23
46.9
102 34.0

Tk.100
Tk.400
Tk. 700 More than Total
300
600
1000
Tk. 1000
No.
% No.
% No.
% No.
% No.
%
3
37.5 1
12.5 1
12.5
1
12.5 8 100.0
6
13.0 7
15.2 7
15.2
5
10.9 46 100.0
17 12.7 21 15.7 41 30.6 19 14.2 134 100.0
6
9.5 15 23.8 10 15.9 12 19.0 63 100.0
1
2.0
1
2.0
5
10.2 19 38.8 49 100.0
33 11.0 45 15.0 64 21.3 56 18.7 300 100.0

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

Less than Tk.100

Tk.100 300
Tk.400 600
Tk. 700 1000
More than Tk. 1000
Total

Dung
Number
%
80
31.6
30
11.9
39
15.4
59
23.3
45
17.8
253
100.0

Type
Poultry Litter
Number
%
22
46.8
3
6.4
6
12.8
5
10.6
11
23.4
47
100.0

All Types
Number
%
102
34.0
33
11.0
45
15.0
64
21.3
56
18.7
300
100.0

3.10 Financing for Biogas Plants

Tables 3.35 to 3.42 present the different aspects of financing for installation of biogas plants.
Almost all the surveyed users (except 5 out of 300) received grants from IDCOL or its POs. The
grant covers on an average about 22 percent of the total costs required. The rest have to be
incurred by the users. Although the grant size is officially Taka 9,000, it varied a little bit
according to the amounts reported by the users (Table 3.36), which appear to be somewhat
correlated to the plant size (the differences are of course not significant except for the smallest
plants of 1.6 cubic meters. However, loans are available from the POs and other local sources.
On an average the users covered about two thirds of their costs (beyond the grant amount) of

Page 40

installing the plant with loans. Loans are available on monthly installments, the number of
which varies between 16 and 29. The number of installments and the amounts of loan are
smaller in case of smaller plant sizes.

Table 3.35: Distribution of users who received cash as Grant from IDCOL/PO by district
District
Sylhet
Habigonj
Noakhali
Gazipur
narayangonj
Munshiganj
Jessor
Kustia
meherpur
Gaibandha
Pabna
Rangpur
Total

Yes
Number
14
13
12
25
23
19
22
22
22
33
17
30
252

%
100.0
100.0
85.7
89.3
82.1
70.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
91.7
47.2
90.9
85.4

No
Number
0
0
2
3
5
8
0
0
0
3
19
3
43

%
.0
.0
14.3
10.7
17.9
29.6
.0
.0
.0
8.3
52.8
9.1
14.6

Total
Number
14
13
14
28
28
27
22
22
22
36
36
33
295

%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Table 3.36: Average amount of grant received from IDCOL/PO according to plant size
Size of Plant (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20

Average amount of grant (Taka)

7,000
8,175
8,562
8,741

Page 41

4.80
All sizes
Table 3.37: Total expenditure for biogas plant installation by plant size
Size of Plant (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Expenditure (Taka)
28,403
29,007
32,732
38,108
68,961
39,182

Table 3.38: Expenditure by owner for biogas plant according to size of plant
Size of Plant (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Expenditure (Taka)
21265
21012
24161
27380
59897
30307

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

Size of Plant (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Amount of loan (Taka)

16,428
15,901
18,331
21,919
24,683
19,253

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

Size of Plant (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Repayment per installment (Taka)

1,471
1,587
3,021
1,154
3,725
2,394

Page 42

8,885
8,545

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

Size of Plant (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Number of Installment
16
20
23
22
29
22

Table 3.42: Sources of loan for biogas plant installation

Sources

Type
Dung

Local NGO
UP office
Upazila DPHE
Upazila LGED
Local Bank
IDCOL
Others
Total

Number
156
0
0
0
0
10
20
186

%
83.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
5.4
10.8
100.0

Poultry Litter
Number
%
30
93.8
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
2
6.3
32
100.0

Investigation reveals that the provision of loan and management of repayment by local POs have
not often been done properly. For example, in one of the villages surveyed, the plant users, after
receiving the loan with an understanding of repaying over a number of monthly installments,
were pressurized by the local NGO that provided the plants to repay within 3 months without
interest. This worked as a deterrent for expansion of biogas plants in the village although there
are still substantial scopes for expansion. The research team met a couple of non-users who are
hesitant to go for installing biogas plants due to this money pressure although they are willing to
install the plants.
This is further explained elaborately in Chapter 9, in which the summary of some data regarding
the POs are presented with a view to comparing the quality of services across the different POs
of the NDBMP.

3.11 Seasonality
As part of qualitative investigations, seasonality mapping was undertaken in selected study
villages. Substantial seasonal variations have been found in terms of availability of raw
Page 43

materials, gas availability and quantity of slurry produced. The following figures present the
seasonality analysis for the cattle-based and poultry-based plants separately.
Figure 3-2: Seasonality of Cow-dung based Biogas Plants

Availability of raw
materials

Bangla Months (Starting from Boishakh: April-May)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11

12

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

Bangla Months (Starting from Boishakh: April-May)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11

12

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

Gas availability

Quantity of slurry
produced

~~

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

Availability of raw
materials
Gas availability

Quantity of slurry
produced

~~

~~

~~

~~

~~

Notes on Figure 3-2 and 3-3:

More than normal;

Less than normal;

~~ Normal

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

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

The rainy season is the best time for the performance of the biogas plants, especially for the cowdung based ones. The cows produce more dung during the four months of rainy season as shown
in Figure 3-2. As a result gas flow increases as well. Moreover, the higher moisture content in
the dung also helps generating more gas. Since cow-dung is more available, bio-slurry is also
produced in greater quantity during rainy season. However, just opposite happens for the cowPage 44

dung based plants in winter. Availability of cow-dung reduces substantially and with that gas
flow and slurry quantity decline as well.
For poultry-based plants, its almost similar except the fact that poultry based slurry is less
available as it is difficult to store and often gets washed away by rain. The span of time during
rainy season when raw materials and gas are more available is a little bit shorter compared to
cow-dung based plants. The winter is bad for availability of both raw materials and gas just like
the cow dung based plants.
However, the rainy season is not particularly good for management of bio-slurry. The rain
washes away the bio-slurry and the quality of it is affected by rain-water. Thus, although the
rainy season is good for performance of the plants in terms of gas production, the bio-slurry
management is much more difficult.

Page 45

4. Impact on Health and Sanitation

The benefits of biogas plants in terms of improved health and sanitation status are enormous as
perceived by the surveyed respondents. The survey reveals clear improvements in the extent of
pollution and different diseases, accidents and in the status of sanitation used by the households.

Less air pollution, less infections

The main health benefits derive
from the reduction of different
diseases that links to the status of
pollution created by the smoke in
kitchen in absence of biogas. The
reduction in smoke pollution due to
use of biogas has been tremendous
as clearly reflected in the
comparison of the status of
pollution before and after
installation of biogas plants by the
users (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Level of pollution by smoke in kitchen before and after biogas plant installation
Level of pollution

Before (% of users)

After (% of users)

Severe

72.2

4.0

Moderate

13.4

8.7

Minimal

8.7

11.7

No pollution

5.7

75.6

100.0

100.0

Total

This tremendous improvement in the kitchen environment in terms of reduced air pollution
clearly led to the decline in the prevalence of some diseases or infections which can be directly
linked to air pollution by smoke. Prevalence of eye infections mainly caused by smoke in the
kitchen in absence of biogas reduced drastically once the users have started using biogas.
Previously, more than one fourth of the surveyed households had eye infections, which has now
gone down to less than 2 percent (Table 4.2). Similarly, the respiratory infections also reduced
enormously (Table 4.3). Previously, almost half of the eye surveyed households have respiratory

Page 46

infections in their members. Now, after the use of biogas, almost 9 out of 10 households do not
have any level of respiratory infection.
Table 4.2: Status of eye infection due to smoke in kitchen before and after biogas plant
installation
Status of eye infection

Before (%)

After (%)

Severe

26.4

1.7

Moderate

17.7

4.0

Minimal

21.4

8.0

No infection

34.4

86.3

100.0

100.0

Total

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

Before (%)

After (%)

Severe

17.1

0.7

Moderate

16.7

5.4

Minimal

11.4

5.4

No infection

54.8

88.6

Total

100.0

100.0

Fewer mosquitoes, fewer accidents

Use of biogas has led to reduction in mosquito induced diseases as well. It is expected that due
to improved kitchen environment, there should be fewer mosquitoes in the households, and thus
would reduce the mosquito induced disease episodes. That has really happened in case of the
surveyed respondents. Almost 6 out of 10 households do not have any mosquito induced
diseases, which was previously at a level of one-third only (Table 4.4). The frequency of
accidents from fire in the kitchen has reduced drastically since the installation of biogas plants by
the surveyed households. The rate of severe accidents has gone down from 25 percent to about 3
percent only (Table 4.5). As the biogas users no more has to use firewood for cooking, the
reduction in the frequency of fire-induced accidents has anyway been expected. The survey only
confirmed this expectation from the experience of the households using biogas. It is significant
to note that more than half of the surveyed households had experienced fire-induced accidents
before they started using biogas. However, that rate has dramatically fallen down to about 20
percent as a result of the use of biogas. This is a remarkable improvement in terms of health and

Page 47

safety of the households members of biogas users.

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

Before (%)

After (%)

Severe

11.0

5.4

Moderate

34.1

18.4

Minimal

17.7

17.7

No diseases

37.1

58.5

Total

100.0

100.0

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

Before (%)

After (%)

Severe

25.1

2.7

Moderate

13.7

6.4

Minimal

15.7

11.7

No pollution /infection/ diseases

45.5

79.3

Total

100.0

100.0

Improved sanitation, indirect health benefits

Improvement in the status of sanitation among the biogas users is expected mainly as a result of
improved living standards due to the increased income and productivity from the saved money
and time. The survey shows some improvement in that regard. The percentage of households
using sanitary latrines has gone up from 69 percent before biogas to 75 percent after biogas
plants have been installed (Table 4.6). Although marginal, this should bring about some health
benefits in the form of reduced prevalence of some diseases as indicated in Table 4.7. These
findings, however, need to be taken with caution as the reported reduction of the prevalence and
severity reflects only perceptions of the surveyed respondents, and with some of these diseases
no direct linkage can be established scientifically. Some of the reported reduction in the disease
prevalence may come from the slightly improved sanitation status, some from the overall
improvement in the living standards, and some may just come from the enthusiasm of the
surveyed respondents about the benefits of biogas that they have been enjoying. So, the findings
regarding the improvement in health status should in no way be considered as medically tested

Page 48

evidences, but only as perceptions of the surveyed respondents. Finally, the before-after
comparison does not guarantee that the improvements are due to biogas. There can be many
other factors that might have been active during this period.
Table 4.6: Status of toilet of households before and after biogas plant installation
Type of latrine

% of users before biogas

% of users after biogas

Sanitary Latrine

68.6

74.9

Ring slab

30.1

25.1

Hanging /pit

1.3

.0

No facilities/open

0.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Total

Table 4.7: Incidence of selected diseases before and after biogas plant installation
Self assessed disease prevalence
Severity of
diseases

Typhoid

Tuberculosis

Diarrhea

Gastro-intestinal

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Severe

1.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

4.3

0.3

1.0

0.3

Moderate

19.1

8.0

9.4

4.7

22.7

6.0

23.0

11.7

Minimal

17.7

11.7

9.0

5.7

15.0

21.3

13.3

16.0

No diseases

62.2

79.9

81.6

89.6

58.0

72.3

62.7

72.0

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Summary of qualitative findings on health benefits

Most of the health benefits reported above were confirmed in the FGDs conducted in the study
villages at which the users described how they have been benefitted from reduced disease
prevalence and smoke-induced accidents in particular. The main emphasis was given on the
reduction in air pollution in the kitchen and the resultant health benefits in the form of reduced
eye and respiratory problems. However, there were no conclusive evidences about the
improvement in sanitation and reduction in the disease prevalence which are not directly related
to smoke pollution.

Page 49

5. Impact on Socio-economic Conditions

You cannot label us as rural people anymore. We now have all the urban facilities that you
have in Dhaka City. We already had electricity and now we have gas as well. It has changed our
life style. We have learned to think and plan about the future that has brought about
improvement at the individual, family and community level, said one of the FGD participants.
The rest of the participants overwhelmingly supported the view. In fact, this view was more or
less common in most of the FGDs conducted by the survey teams.
The socio-economic benefits resulting from the use of biogas plants are discussed under a
number of headings.

5.1 Saving of Time and Money

Installation of biogas plants has been saving substantial time and money of the users. This has
been the greatest and the most reported benefits that the users are getting from biogas. This has
particularly benefitted the women which will be further elaborated in Chapter 6.
Table 5.1 shows reduction in daily average time for cooking since the installation of biogas
plants in the households. On an average, the use of biogas has saved almost one hour of cooking
time. A total of 262 surveyed users have reported that after installation of biogas plants, they
now enjoy saved time (Table 5.2). The saved time is being used for different purposes including
income generating activities, recreation, education, and simply for leisure (Table 5.3). Thus, the
saved time has brought about enhanced productivity and wellbeing among the biogas using
households.
Table 5.1: Daily average time for cooking before and after biogas plant installation by type
and size of plant
Plant size
(m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Daily average cooking time (hour)

Dung
Poultry
All
Before
After
Before
After
Before
5.13
4.16
--5.13
4.82
3.51
3.50
2.50
4.79
4.73
3.79
3.50
7.01
4.67
4.55
3.73
4.67
3.26
4.57
5.74
4.37
4.47
3.61
4.96
4.79
3.78
4.36
3.97
4.73

Page 50

After
4.16
3.48
3.94
3.66
3.90
3.81

Table 5.2: Number of users enjoying saved time after biogas plant installation by type and
size of plant
Plant
size
(m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All

Number of users enjoying saved time after biogas plant installation

Dung
Poultry Litter
Total
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
6
75.0
2
25.0
0
.0
0
.0
6
75.0
2
25.0
41 91.1
4
8.9
1
100.0
0
.0
42
91.3
4
8.7
115 89.8
13
10.2
6
100.0
0
.0
121 90.3
13
9.7
44 84.6
8
15.4
9
90.0
1
10.0
53
85.5
9
14.5
15 78.9
4
21.1
25
83.3
5
16.7
40
81.6
9
18.4
221 87.7
31
12.3
41
87.2
6
12.8 262 87.6
37
12.4

Table 5.3: Distribution of saved time used in different sectors by type of plant
Type of
plant
Dung
Poultry Litter
All types

Percent of time used in different sectors

Income generating sector
39.80
31.28
38.47

Recreation sector
18.40
25.96
19.58

Education sector
18.66
13.72
17.88

Not use
10.89
16.28
11.73

There is yet another dimension of time saved by use of biogas. The biogas users no more need to
spend time to collect firewood. Some of them may need to spend a little time for the collection
of fire wood needed in excess of the biogas generated from the plant. But on average, this
reduced need for firewood collection has led to a saving of about 50 minutes per day per
household (Table 5.4).
Table 5.4: Daily average time spent for fuel collection before and after biogas plant
installation according to type of plant

Type of plant

Time spent for fuel collection Time spent for fuel collection
hr/day (before)
hr/day (after)

Dung

1.09

0.21

Poultry Litter

0.61

0.15

All types

1.02

0.20

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

Page 51

firewood aggregates to a great number of hours: 23,816 workdays in one year only for the
surveyed respondents. Substantial portions of these surplus workdays due to use of biogas has
been used for income generating activities (IGAs) and education. This should imply a
significant positive impact on socio-economic status of the surveyd households.
Total time saved = ((average daily time saved in cooking + average daily time saved from
firewood collection) multiplied by 300 households multiplied by 365 days a year) divided by 8
hours a day.
((0.82 + 0.92) hours x 300 x 365)/8 = 23,816 workdays
Time diverted to IGAs = 9,162 workdays
Time diverted to education = 4,258 workdays
While time saved is usually converted into enhanced income through increased productivity (or
more efficient use of time), the reduction in the fuel costs has been much more prominent. The
average monthly fuel costs for cooking have gone down from about 1,700 taka to only about 300
taka only (Table 5.5). The costs are saved because there has been substantial saving in the
amount of fuel, mainly for cooking. The average amount of all fuels saved per month is more
than 400 kg per household (Table 5.6) and the average amount of only firewood saved is about
250 kg per household per month (Table 5.7). The saved wood benefits from being used in IGAs
and also contributes to environmental conservation by not being used for cooking (Table 5.8).
Only through savings of fuel costs, the 300 households have gained more than 50 lac (5 million)
taka in a year (about 17 thousand taka per household). This estimation can be expanded to
estimate the aggregate gain from the total number of biogas plants installed in 2011.
Table 5.5: Monthly average fuel costs before and after biogas plant installation by type and
size of plant
Fuel cost per month (Tk.)
Dung
Poultry
All
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
1.60
1280
451
--1280
451
2.00
1188
177
640
0
1176
173
2.40
1553
188
747
0
1516
180
3.20
1669
235
1041
102
1575
215
4.80
4293
208
2130
1202
2958
821
All sizes
1700
206
1695
795
1699
296
Table 5.6: Average amount of fuel saved per month after biogas plant installation by size of
Plant size
(m3)

Page 52

plant
Size of plant (m3)

Average amount of fuel (kg/month)

1.60

327

2.00

356

2.40

407

3.20

388

4.80

467

All sizes

401

Table 5.7: Average amount of firewood wood save per household per day after biogas plant
installation according to plant size
Size of plant (m3)

Average amount of firewood wood (kg/month)

1.60

186

2.00

184

2.40

224

3.20

249

4.80

394

All sizes

249

Table 5.8: Distribution of saved wood by IGA (sale) and environment conservation (no use)
sectors according to plant size
Size of plant (m3)

IGA (%)

Environment conservation (%)

1.60

53.38

32.88

2.00

42.48

37.96

2.40

45.78

41.54

3.20

39.98

47.00

4.80

42.24

33.27

All sizes

43.68

40.56

Page 53

5.2 Income Status

As the biogas users are
saving substantial money,
this has led to enhancement
of the income status of the
households as reflected from
the comparative self-assessed
income status by the users.
The proportion of surplus
households among the users
has increased substantially
and that of deficit households
has declined drastically.
Only 5 percent of the current
users are running on income
deficit, which was 23 percent
before they became biogas users (Table 5.9). It should be noted that the reported economic
status of the households do not represent any objective economic methods. Instead the status
reflects the self-assessed subjective economic condition of the surveyed households. In addition,
some users are even making money by selling the biogas they produce, particularly the ones
having bigger plants (Table 5.10).
Table 5.9: Income status of users before and after biogas plant installation by size of plant
Self assessed income status
Size of plant
(m3)

Surplus

Breakeven

Deficit

before

after

before

after

before

after

1.60

25.0

37.5

62.5

50.0

12.5

12.5

2.00

23.9

60.9

56.5

32.6

19.6

6.5

2.40

38.8

67.2

37.3

30.6

23.9

2.2

3.20

37.1

62.9

33.9

32.3

29.0

4.8

4.80

63.3

79.6

18.4

10.2

18.4

10.2

All sizes

39.8

66.6

37.1

28.4

23.1

5.0

Page 54

Table 5.10: Number of households selling gas to other households by type and size of plant
HHs selling gas
Size of plant
(m3)

Yes

No

Number

Number

1.60

0.0

100.0

2.00

0.0

46

100.0

2.40

3.7

129

96.3

3.20

7.9

58

92.1

4.80

14

28.6

35

71.4

All sizes

24

8.0

276

92.0

5.3 Education
The educational status of the household members is improving among the biogas users. More
than two thirds of the surveyed users confirmed this, while about 30 percent reports no change in
the education status implying no impact of biogas on education (Table 5.11). The percentage of
users reporting declining education is negligible.
A number of factors appear to have contributed to this enhanced educational status as revealed
from the qualitative investigation. The major factors include greater attention on childrens
education particularly by mothers due to saved time, and improved economic status of the
households.
Table 5.11: Status of education of the household members before and after biogas plant
installation
Size of
plant (m3)

Status of education of HH member

Improving

Deteriorating

No change

Total

1.60

37.5

0.0

62.5

100.0

2.00

58.1

2.3

39.5

100.0

2.40

67.2

0.8

32.0

100.0

3.20

75.5

1.9

22.6

100.0

4.80

82.4

0.0

17.6

100.0

All sizes

68.5

1.2

30.4

100.0

Page 55

Further insights on socio-economic impact: qualitative findings

The participants of all the FGDs have been very enthusiastic in describing the enormous benefits
that they are enjoying since the installation of biogas plants. They have talked about various
advantages particularly in cooking and in bringing about significant changes in their daily life.
Cooking is become easier. Before using biogas they had to spend 4 to 5 hours a day for cooking
and during the time of cooking women could not do other works which they can easily do now.
Although the amount of time saved has been stated quantitatively above, discussions at the FGDs
come up with further qualitative aspect of time saved. Thus, although in terms of number of
hours, about an hour is saved per day per household, the actual saving is much more when it is
considered that women can attend other activities while cooking with the biogas. Cooking with
firewood means that the person cooking has to be at the burner full time till the cooking is
finished as a consistent level of fire has to be maintained by continuously putting firewood into
the burner and controlling the heat. However, with biogas burners it is no more needed and
women can start cooking and come back to the burner at certain intervals depending on the
progress of cooking.
Before using bio gas their hands, faces, cloths and utensils would become dirty with ashes. For
cleaning these more soap and detergent were used but now they can use less. While these
benefits are difficult to capture though quantitative data (using questionnaire), qualitative data
clearly reveals this. Earlier they had to make ghuta (dried cow dung) with cow dung as their fuel
by using hands which took more time and caused various skin diseases. Moreover, in the rainy
season it is very difficult to make ghuta and a huge amount of cow dung was destroyed by rains.
Also, they had to spend more time and labor to collect firewood, dry leaves and make them ready
for burning. Now they do not need to spend a single minute for these purposes. Earlier they also
needed accessories/supporting materials for firing wood and ghuta like dry leaves and kerosene
that are expensive and sometime difficult to manage. Besides firing the burner again after it was
put off was required a lot of efforts. Now they are relieved from these suffering. There is no need
for extra room for keeping the firewood. Ash was not used in any purpose, but now they can use
slurry as fertilizer. Moreover, now there is no need to use separate kitchen room. There is no
fear of firing from biogas burner.

Page 56

6. Gender Implications of the Impact of

Biogas on Users
The gender implications of the impact of biogas plants on the households are notable. Generally,
women have been disproportionately more benefited than men while the latter have been making
most of the important decisions regarding construction and maintenance of the biogas plants.
Ideally, it is expected that those who benefit most from a particular intervention should decide
about it. However, given the prevailing gender relations in the rural households, it is not
surprising that the men are making most of the decisions regarding installation of the biogas
plants even though it is used mostly by women. Also, it should not be expected that only
installation of biogas plants will bring about significant changes in the prevailing gender
relations in terms of making household decisions and sharing household responsibilities. These
are so deeply entrenched in the social norms and practices in Bangladesh that no single
intervention can have any significant impact in changing the overall gender-based power
structure in the households and in the society.
Tables 6.1 to 6.6 reflect clear male domination in making decisions regarding installation, and in
managing, maintaining and monitoring the biogas plants. Even in terms of having the technical
know-how about the plants, men are way ahead. Given the prevailing gender-based power
structure in the households, these results are very much expected. However, this dominance in
decision taking does not necessarily have negative impact on the women, as is explained later in
this chapter, although in theoretical terms, women being the main users of biogas should have a
greater say in the process of making decision regarding installation of biogas plants. This, of
course, may be well beyond the scope of NDBMP that focuses on providing biogas at the
household level.
Table 6.1: Distribution of household members taking initiative to install biogas plant by
type of plant
Family member

Type
Dung

Poultry Litter

All

Male member

76.6

91.5

78.9

Female member

11.1

2.1

9.7

Both (male and female)

11.5

6.4

10.7

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

Page 57

Table 6.2: Distribution of household members taking decision to install biogas plant
Family member

Type (%)
Dung

Poultry Litter

All

Male member

81.3

89.4

82.6

Female member

6.0

0.0

5.0

Both (male and female)

12.3

10.6

12.0

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

Table 6.3: Distribution of household members responsible for operation of biogas plant
Member responsible for operation
Male member
Female member
Children (girls)
Children (boys)
Servant (male)
Servant (female)
Both (male and female)
Others
Total

Dung
54.8
17.1
0.0
0.4
15.1
0.4
11.5
0.8
100.0

Type (%)
Poultry Litter
57.4
4.3
0.0
0.0
25.5
2.1
10.6
0.0
100.0

All
55.2
15.1
0.0
0.3
16.7
0.7
11.4
0.7
100.0

Table 6.4: Distribution of household members responsible for monitoring the construction
Type (%)

Member responsible for

monitoring construction

Dung

Poultry Litter

All

Male member

82.9

83.0

82.9

Female member

8.3

2.1

7.4

Children (girls)

0.0

0.0

0.0

Children (boys)

0.4

0.0

0.3

Servant (male)

0.4

4.3

1.0

Servant (female)

0.0

0.0

0.0

Both (male and female)

7.9

10.6

8.4

Others

0.0

0.0

0.0

Page 58

Type (%)

Member responsible for

monitoring construction

Dung

Poultry Litter

All

Male member

82.9

83.0

82.9

Female member

8.3

2.1

7.4

Children (girls)

0.0

0.0

0.0

Children (boys)

0.4

0.0

0.3

Servant (male)

0.4

4.3

1.0

Servant (female)

0.0

0.0

0.0

Both (male and female)

7.9

10.6

8.4

Others

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 6.5: Distribution of household members responsible for maintenance and
management of biogas plant
Type (%)

Member responsible for

maintenance and management

Dung

Poultry Litter (%)

Total (%)

Male member

60.3

66.0

61.2

Female member

17.5

4.3

15.4

Children (girls)

0.0

0.0

0.0

Children (boys)

2.4

0.0

2.0

Servant (male)

3.6

17.0

5.7

Servant (female)

0.0

2.1

0.3

Both (male and female)

15.5

10.6

14.7

Others

0.8

0.0

0.7

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

Table 6.6: Distribution of household members having technical knowledge about the plant
Type (%)

Technically knowledgeable HH
member

Dung

Poultry Litter

All

Male member

62.7

72.3

64.2

Female member

11.5

2.1

10.0

Children (girls)

0.0

0.0

0.0

Children (boys)

0.4

0.0

0.3

Page 59

Servant (male)

1.2

4.3

1.7

Servant (female)

0.0

2.1

0.3

Both (male and female)

7.9

12.8

8.7

Others

16.3

6.4

14.7

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

However, when it comes to benefits, female members of the households clearly have the greater
share. In more than 88 percent of cases, female members had greater share of benefits than male
members of the households (Table 6.7).
Women are greatly benefited since the most significant positive change brought by biogas is the
time saved from cooking. More than 80 percent of the surveyed households have reported that
the cooking time has decreased (Table 6.8). This was discussed in Section 5.1 as well.
Table 6.7: Distribution of household members benefited mostly from biogas plant
Type (%)

Benefited HHs member

Dung

Poultry Litter

All

Male member

1.2

2.1

1.3

Female member

87.7

91.5

88.3

Children (girls)

0.8

0.0

0.7

Children (boys)

0.0

0.0

0.0

Servant (male)

0.4

2.1

0.7

Servant (female)

0.0

0.0

0.0

Both (male and female)

8.3

2.1

7.4

Others

1.6

2.1

1.7

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

Table 6.8: Status of average time involvement for cooking by type of plant

Dung

Type (%)
Poultry Litter

All

Increasing

3.6

4.4

3.7

Decreasing

80.7

84.4

81.3

No change

15.7

11.1

15.0

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

Status

From the above findings, it can be concluded with some evidences that biogas is probably a
Page 60

much more gender sensitive interventions to the rural households. If the impact of biogas plants
is gender-desegregated, it clearly shows that it benefits both men and women in the households.
More importantly, it benefits women much more than men while the latter are taking almost all
the decision regarding the installation of it. This is probably a good example of mens action
benefiting women in more than proportionate terms. A desegregated analysis of the impact of
biogas is presented in Figure 6-1.
Since entire household benefits from biogas all its members derive some kinds of benefits.
However, women are particularly benefited from many different ways as shown in Figure 6-1.
The benefits of increased income and social status mainly go to the male members, who are
usually the household heads, given the prevailing gender relations in Bangladesh. Some benefits
cannot really be desegregated as those really affect all members of the household including men,
women and children.
Figure 6-1: Gender-desegregated impact of biogas plants at household level
Male members

Benefits
of Biogas

All members

Female members

Increased income: money saved and sale of slurry

Enhanced social status
Less hassles due to reduced health problems

Better health and cleanliness

Better education
Less fire-induced accidents
Saved time, more attention to other HH activities
Greater comfort in work
Reduced eye and respiratory infections
Reduced hassles of collecting firewood
No need to handle ghuta (dried dung)
More leisure

Interestingly, as revealed by the qualitative investigation, the saving of time has a qualitative
aspect along with the quantitative one (number of hours). While biogas saves about an hour per
day on average, it does not require full time attention while cooking. This was completely
different in case of cooking with fire-wood where women had to stay at/around the burner to
continuously control the fire or heat for cooking. On the other hand, with biogas that gives a
consistent level of heat, women can attend other activities while cooking goes on. Qualitative
data reveals further benefits in terms of saving more time in associated activities. Using biogas
means saving of time in cleaning the utensils used for cooking (as those become less dirty with

Page 61

biogas) and from arranging the fuel wood which is no more required with biogas. This is
reflected in Table 6.10 that shows decline in time involvement for collection of fire-wood in
almost 93 percent of cases. Overall, the comfort in cooking cannot be measured in any
quantitative terms.
With the saved time, women can now spend more time attending their children and looking after
their education, which has already had a positive impact on the educational status as discussed in
section 5.3. Table 6.9 shows that the time involvement for childrens education has increased in
two thirds of the surveyed households. Since women play the main role in this, they get the
maximum benefit out of this in terms of ensuring better education for their children.

Table 6.9: Status of average time involvement for childrens education by type of plant

Dung (%)

Type
Poultry Litter (%)

Total (%)

Increasing

65.3

57.6

64.3

Decreasing

12.2

12.1

12.2

No change

22.5

30.3

23.5

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

Status

Table 6.10: Status of average time involvement for fuel collection by type of plant

Dung (%)

Type
Poultry Litter (%)

Total (%)

Increasing

0.9

2.6

1.1

Decreasing

94.3

84.6

92.9

No change

4.8

12.8

5.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

Status

Total

Biogas helps both men and women: qualitative findings

Almost all female participants at FGDs stated that cooking has become very easy to them, and
now they can easily make various types of delicious foods like cake, payesh, luchi, noodles etc,
which they never thought to make before with the time and hassles needed for the main meals
Page 62

only. They have also shared that now they make snacks/tea in the afternoon for their family
members and eat together which increases their family bonding. Most of the participants have
expressed that they have no sufferings with cooking. They can save more time now and they can
care their childrens study easily, can work more which contribute to generation of extra income.
Besides that they get time for taking rest which makes them healthy. They also added that
socially now they are smarter than before. One of the female FGD participants said, I cook three
dishes in the morning, I have no tiredness and it takes only thirty minutes. When children come
back from school I can give them snacks, which is a pleasure for me. One male participant of
FGD stated, After getting biogas facilities I come back to my house in the evening regularly and
take snacks with my family members which is great pleasure to me. If there is peace everything
seems good.

Page 63

7. Impact on Agriculture
The use of biogas in the rural areas is strongly related to agriculture from both demand and
supply sides. On the supply side, the availability of the required livestock is commonly found
with the farming households, and is even more related to the amount of cultivable land of the
households. Greater the amount of cultivable land greater the possibility of having larger
number of livestock. Further, if we define agriculture from a broader perspective, i.e. including
the non-crop agriculture like poultry farming, it reflects even stronger association of agriculture
with biogas from the supply side.
On the demand side, the bio-slurry derived as a product of biogas is used as a fertilizer, which is
much safer for the soil fertility than the chemical fertilizer and has significant implications on
lowering the input costs for the cultivators.
However, the above assumption is not supported by the survey data. The majority of the
households are not involved in agriculture as their main economic activity (Table 7.1). These
households do have livestock and thus in a sense can be called farming households, but are not
involved in crop agriculture as their main activity. In addition, Table 7.2 shows the average
landholding by the biogas users. So the question is: why farmers are not the major users of
biogas.
Table 7.1: Distribution of biogas users by involvement in agriculture as major occupation

Type of Plant
Dung
Poultry Litter
Total

Involvement in Agriculture as major occupation

Yes
No
All
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
89
84.8
164
84.1
253
84.3
16
15.2
31
15.9
47
15.7
105
100.0
195
100.0
300
100.0

Table 7.2: Average landholding of the biogas users

Type

Average land owned (decimal)

Total
land

Dung
Poultry
All

393.52
282.54
376.13

Agri
land

Share Mortgaged/l Shared Mortgaged Amount of land

d in
eased in
out land /leased out under
land
land
land
cultivation
307.99
9.25
19.99
80.51
39.93
216.79
204.31
2.23
9.17
65.34
19.51
130.86
291.74
8.15
18.29
78.13
36.73
203.33

Page 64

An analysis of the livestock mapping undertaken as a part of this study reveals that in almost all
the villages surveyed, the number of households having the required livestock is far more than
the households having biogas plants. In most cases, the number of biogas plants can be
increased several times than the current number if the livestock availability is considered as the
main pre-requisite for installing biogas plant. But why the households having the required
livestock are not installing biogas plants is explained in Chapter 10. Here it is mentioned to
underline the fact that in most villages, many of the farming households are being left out from
biogas provision making the share of farmers in the total users minor.
However, the
benefits of biogas
in agriculture are
numerous as
shown in Tables
7.3 to 7.12. The
proportion of
using an improved
feeding method
(stall feeding
instead of open
feeding) has
increased to some
extent after the use
of biogas. The use
of slurry as
fertilizer has been one of the greatest benefits enjoyed by the users. More than two thirds of the
survey respondents have been found to use bio-slurry as fertilizer in the crop field. The
proportions of households using slurry as fertilizer in home gardening and as fish feed are also
notable.
Table 7.3: Grazing/feeding method before and after biogas plant installation
All (%)

Method
Open
Stall feed
Total

Before
83.0
17.0
100.0

After
72.7
27.3
100.0

Page 65

Table 7.4: Different uses of bio-slurry

Use of Bio-slurry
As fertilizer in crop field
As fertilizer in home garden
As fish feed for fish culture
Patties for burning purpose
Sale to other farmer
Not use
Other
Total

Dung (%)
68.7
6.7
14.7
1.8
0.6
6.7
0.6
100.0

Type
Poultry Litter (%)
58.3
0.0
41.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0

All (%)
68.0
6.3
16.6
1.7
0.6
6.3
0.6
100.0

Significant benefits of biogas in improving cowshed management, soil fertility, animal health,
and fodder management have been reported by the surveyed users (Tables 7.5 to 7.8).
Previously, the cowshed management was not systematic among one third of the surveyed
households, whereas, now after use of biogas, almost everyone (more than 96 percent) has a
systematic cowshed management. Almost all (97 percent) of the users think that the use of bioslurry in crop-field increases soil fertility.
Almost 84 percent of the users think bio-slurry is very effective as fertilizer (Table 7.9), and
none think that it is not effective.
Table 7.5: Cowshed management before and after installation of biogas plant
Status of Management
Systematic
Non-Systematic
Total

Before (%)
68.4
31.6
100.0

After (%)
96.4
3.6
100.0

Table 7.6: Percentage of user noticing that the use of bio-slurry in agriculture increases the
fertility of soil
Does use of bio-slurry increase soil
fertility?
Yes
No
Total

Dung
96.9
3.1
100.0

Page 66

Type
Poultry Litter
70.0
30.0
100.0

Total
95.3
4.7
100.0

Table 7.7: Opinion of biogas users about current and previous health status of animal
Type
Health status of
animals

Dung

Poultry Litter

Total

Before (%)

After (%)

Before (%)

After (%)

Before (%) After (%)

Good

40.4

66.8

76.3

78.1

45.5

68.2

Moderate

58.3

32.3

23.7

21.9

53.4

31.0

Poor

1.3

.9

.0

.0

1.1

.8

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Table 7.8: Opinion of biogas users about current and previous status of fodder
management
Status of
fodder
management

Type
Dung

Poultry Litter

Total

Before (%)

After (%)

Before (%)

After (%)

Before (%)

After (%)

Good

43.0

65.2

73.0

87.5

47.2

68.0

Moderate

57.0

34.8

27.0

12.5

52.8

32.0

Poor

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Table 7.9: Opinion of biogas users about the effectiveness of bio-slurry

Level of
effectiveness

Type
Dung (%)

Poultry Litter (%)

Total (%)

Good

83.2

92.3

83.8

Moderate

16.3

7.7

15.7

Poor

0.5

0.0

0.5

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

The economic benefits of using bio-slurry as fertilizer are quite remarkable. Almost everyone
surveyed (almost 96 percent) involved in crop agriculture think that bio-slurry has contributed to
increasing crop productivity (Table 7.10). The use of bio-slurry in crop fields save about 3,000
taka per farming household annually from the cost of fertilizer. The amount of saving goes up to
about 5,500 taka for the largest of plant sizes (Table 7.11). But, do saving of money from
fertilizer and increased productivity transform into increased income? Overall, 9 out of 10 users
Page 67

notice an increase in agricultural income since they have started using biogas (Table 7.12).

Page 68

Table 7.10: Opinion of biogas users about the role of bio-slurry in increasing crop
productivity
Does bio-slurry increase crop
productivity?

Type
Dung (%)

Poultry Litter (%)

Total (%)

Yes

97.4

62.5

95.7

No

2.6

37.5

4.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

Total

Table 7.11: Amount of money saved per year from fertilizer by using bio-slurry
Size of plant
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Average amount of money (Taka)

1125
2521
2555
3068
5467
2921

Table 7.12: Percentage of biogas users noticing an increase in income from agriculture
after installation of biogas plant
Size of plant
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All

% of users noticing increase in agricultural income

50.0
95.8
89.7
90.9
82.4
88.6

Page 69

8. Energy, Emission Reduction and

Environmental Impact
The use of biogas has clear positive environmental impact through reducing use of environmentdegrading fuel sources, reducing emission from the use of those fuel sources, and through
ensuring greater energy efficiency.
As stated in Section 5.1, each of the surveyed biogas users on an average saves 250 KG of
firewood. This means that only these 300 households burned 900 metric tons of wood in one
year. Given the large number of biogas users across the country, the total saving of firewood
must add up to hundreds of thousands metric tons.
Total reduction in firewood burning by surveyed households = reduction in the amount of burned
firewood per month per household multiplied by number of households multiplied by number of
months of the year.
250 KG x 300 households x 12 months = 900000 KG = 900 metric tons of firewood
The above figures indicate that the use of biogas has tremendous potentials to contribute
significantly to improved environment of the country in the forms of reduced emissions, reduced
air pollution and reduced deforestation.
Figure 8-2: Environmental benefits of biogas

Use of
Biogas

Reduced air pollution

Reduced carbon emission

Improved environment

Page 70

Reduced deforestation

In this regard, the most significant changes have come in the forms of fuels used by the
households for cooking. While fire wood, agricultural residues and cow dung constituted the
major fuel sources, with the advent of biogas, almost all users (about 95 percent) use that as the
main fuel. Of course, a little use of fire wood, agricultural residues and cow dung is still there to
cover the occasional irregularity or insufficiency of biogas (Table 8.1). Importantly, the users
perceive the use of biogas as more environment-friendly compared to the types of fuels they used
previously (Table 8.2).
Table 8.1: Types of fuels used for cooking before and after installation of biogas plants
% of users using the fuel
Before
After
88.4
19.8
67.8
13.7
52.7
2.7
0.3
0.0
3.4
3.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
94.9

Type of fuel
Fire wood
Agriculture residues
Cow dung
Electric heater
Natural gas
Kerosene
Biogas

Table 8.2: Opinion of users: whether the fuels used before and after are environment
friendly
Are the fuels environment-friendly?
Yes

Before
6.8
Page 71

After
85.2

No
93.2
14.8
Clearly, the users are seeing significant improvement in different aspects of the environment
(Tables 8.3 to 8.6): household environment, kitchen environment, cow/poultry-shed
environment, and surrounding environment. Finally, the improvement in social environment has
been particularly noticeable (Table 8.7). To supplement this finding from the questionnaire
survey, the FGD participants explained how the social environment has improved. It has mainly
come from increased comfort in daily life and saved time from cooking contributing to enhanced
social interactions. The advent of biogas is also seen by the users as a sign of urbanization as
well. However, the social benefits remain limited mainly within the users of biogas and cannot
extend significantly to the communities at large because of limited penetration of biogas plants in
each of the villages. Had the number of users been significantly larger, it would bring about
more noticeable changes at the community level.
Table 8.3: Self assessed household environment (before and after biogas installation)
Status of household environment
Good
Moderate
Bad

Before (%)
15.1
71.1
13.7

After (%)
76.5
22.5
1.0

Table 8.4: Self-assessed kitchen environment before and after biogas plant installation
Status of kitchen environment
Good
Moderate
Bad

Before (%)
7.2
45.4
47.4

After (%)
78.2
19.8
2.0

Table 8.5: Self assessed cow/poultry-shed environment

Status of environment
Good
Moderate
Bad

Before (%)
36.3
54.9
8.8

After (%)
73.2
26.4
0.4

Table 8.6: Self assessed environment of surroundings

Status of environment

Before (%)

After (%)

Good

20.2

67.2

Moderate

67.8

31.4

Bad

12.0

1.4

Page 72

Table 8.7: Self assessed status of social environment

Status of environment

Before (%)

After (%)

Good

33.0

69.4

Moderate

61.9

30.2

Bad

5.2

0.3

Impact on natural resources and environment: summary of qualitative

findings
Before the installation of biogas plant the users had to use cow dung based fuels like
nunda/ghuta, firewood, bamboo, jute stick, straw, dry leaves etc as their fuel. They collected
these fuels from own trees, adjacent forest/jungle, roadside trees and market. But now they rarely
use these fuel materials. Only during the period of inadequate gas supply, social gathering and
large volume of rice cooking, they use these fuels.
Participants of FGD told that because of using biogas now they do not need to cut trees, and as a
result trees/jungle remains protected. Moreover, the environment is being preserved for the
harmful effects of burning wood.

Page 73

9. Service Quality and Client Satisfaction

Some of the preceding sections raised issues regarding the quality of services provided by the
POs and satisfaction of the client about the services. Some data derived from the questionnaire
survey have been presented as well, which indicate that the satisfaction of the clients have not
been very high in many cases. The clients have made negative comments as well about several
aspects of the services. This chapter tries to analyze those issues of services and client
satisfaction with references to the 18 POs that have been covered by this survey.

9.1 Management of Financial Services

The NDBMP provides different types of financial incentives to motivate households in installing
biogas plants. Those incentives include subsidy (grant) and loan. Table 9.1 shows wide
variations across POs in the practices of providing these financial packages. In few cases,
information was not available as the surveyed respondents could not provide it accurately.
The variations are important to note. In cases of some POs, significant proportions of the biogas
users reportedly are not aware of any grant that they are supposed to receive. Out of 300
surveyed respondents, 48 have not received any grant. It may well have been the case that they
received the grant, but the information was not provided to them with sufficient clarity, or they
might not have been able to distinguish the grant from the loan. Whatever the case, there are
issues of transparency that need to be looked into. The average size of grant is showing good
consistency across the POs. However, the amount is unusually low in case of at least two POs,
one of which has significant number of clients.
The proportion of loan recipients is even smaller than that of grant recipients. Out of 300
surveyed users, 72 have not received any loan from the POs. The average amounts of loan and
the average size of the installments for repaying the loan vary substantially, which is expected
given the different sizes of the biogas plants. However, the variation in the average number of
installments across the POs (ranging from 9 to 40 installments) is difficult to explain. This
perhaps reflects lack of uniformity in the practices of loan management, which is important in
terms of expanding the clientele of biogas plants (further details in the next chapter).
What Table 9.1 manifests is the fact that the practices of providing grants, loans and their
management are quite different for different organizations. Some of these differences may be
related to the overall practices and rules of particular organizations while some may simply be
related to lack of transparency and integrity.

Page 74

Table 9.1: Practices of POs in providing grant and loan for installing biogas plants
Name of PO

ASKS
BSUS
DESHA
DOPS
Grameen Shakti
IC
Jahanara Biogas Co. Ltd.
Kamrul Biogas Co Ltd
Nirapad Engineering Ltd
RISDA
RRF
RSF
SETU
Shubashati
SUF
SOUL
Srizony Bangladesh
SUK
All POs

Whether
received
any cash as
grant
No.
%
1
16.7
14 82.4
21 65.6
21 91.3
126 95.5
--1
100
1
100
3
100
1
100
1
100
7
100
6
85.7
1
100
2
100
6
100
10
100
30 69.8
252 85.4

Avg.
size
of
grant
(Tk.)
9000
9000
9000
9000
8960
-9000
9000
9167
9000
9000
8571
9000
5000
9000
9000
8900
5597
8545

Whether
received
any loan
No.
6
9
29
19
105
---2
-1
6
7
1
1
-2
30
218

%
100
52.9
90.6
82.6
79.5
---66.7
-100
85.7
100
100
50.0
-20.0
68.2
72.9

Avg.
amount
of loan
(Tk.)

Average
size of
installments
(Tk.)

Average
number of
installments
(number)

19167
16474
21041
14711
21257
---23250
-14556
21342
21468
12000
15000
-15000
16033
19552

1176
706
1139
1188
1210
---600
-1213
953
1261
1130
1250
-918
5380
1737

22
24
21
15
26
---40
-12
24
22
12
12
-18
9
21

9.2 Quality of Services

The quality aspects of the services provided by the POs also vary widely as reflected in Table
9.2. It is particularly disappointing to note that only about 11 percent of the biogas plant owners
received any training on operation and maintenance of the plants. This has resulted in
inefficiency in handling the problems of biogas plants as described in Chapter 3. It is further
disappointing to note that more than half of the plant users have not received any postconstruction services. Still a very high proportion of the users are feeling comfortable to deal
with the POs. Probably, as long as the plants function well, the clients are happy. Of course, all
the plants surveyed are still within the first year of operation and many of the users might not
have needed any post-construction service as well. More than half of the users have good
relationship with the POs. However, it needs to be reviewed why more than 10 percent of the
users have bad relationship with the POs. Parts of it can probably be explained with the date
presented in Tables 9.1 and 9.2. It may appear a little contradictory that a very high percentage
Page 75

of the plant owners feel comfortable with the POs while the percentage of them receiving
training is remarkably low, it can be explained by the strong correlation between functioning of
the plants and client satisfaction as discussed in Section 3.9 (Tables 3.25 and 3.26).
Table 9.2: Services and training provided by the POs and users opinions regarding those
Name of PO

ASKS
BSUS
DESHA
DOPS
Grameen Shakti
IC
Jahanara Biogas Co Ltd
Kamrul Biogas Co Ltd
Nirapad Engineering ltd
RISDA
RRF
RSF
SETU
Shubashati
SUF
SOUL
Srizony Bangladesh
SUK
All POs

Whether
received
any
training on
O&M
No.
2
1
5
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
3
34

%
33.3
5.9
15.6
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100
28.6
28.6
100
0.0
0.0
10.0
6.8
11.4

Whether
received any
after sales
services

No.
3
12
24
8
61
2
0
1
0
0
1
5
6
1
0
2
4
14
144

%
50
70.6
75
34.8
46.2
50
.0
100
0.0
0.0
100
71.4
85.7
100
0.0
28.6
40.0
31.8
48.2

Whether
felt
comfortable
with this PO
for BP
construction
No.
%
6
100
15
88.2
31
96.9
11
47.8
123
93.2
3
75.0
1
100
1
100
3
100
0
.0
1
100
7
100
6
85.7
1
100
0
0.0
2
28.6
7
70.0
41
93.2
259
86.6

Relationship with POs

(%)

Good Moderate Bad

66.7
16.7
16.7
91.7
0.0
8.3
58.6
31.0
10.3
47.4
31.6
21.1
51.3
41.2
7.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
71.4
14.3
14.3
85.7
14.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
20.0
50.0
55.2
37.9
6.9
54.7
34.7
10.6

9.3 Client Satisfaction

The level of client satisfaction is generally high and strongly correlated with the status of
functioning of the installed biogas plants (Table 9.3 and Table 9.4). Although about three
fourths of the clients are fully satisfied as their plants are fully functional, it is important to note
that more than a quarter of the users are either partially unsatisfied or not satisfied at all.
Moreover, a desegregated view of these data across the POs needs to be adopted. This is
important because for some POs the level of dissatisfaction is as high as half of their clients,
which is again very directly related to the proportion of fully functioning plants in their total

Page 76

plants.
Table 9.3: Status of functioning of the biogas plants

Name of PO
ASKS
BSUS
DESHA
DOPS
Grameen Shakti
IC
Jahanara Biogas Co. Ltd
Kamrul Biogas Co Ltd
Nirapad Engineering Ltd
RISDA
RRF
RSF
SETU
Shubashati
Sonali Unnayan Foundation
SOUL
Srizony Bangladesh
SUK
All POs

Status of functioning of biogas plant

Not functional
Yes, Partly
Yes, Fully
Number
% Number
%
Number
%
0
0.0
3
50.0
3
50.0
1
5.9
1
5.9
15
88.2
3
9.4
8
25.0
21
65.6
1
4.3
5
21.7
17
73.9
6
4.5
23
17.4
103
78.0
1
25.0
1
25.0
2
50.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
100.0
0
0.0
1
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
100.0
1
14.3
1
14.3
5
71.4
1
14.3
2
28.6
4
57.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
2
100.0
1
14.3
3
42.9
3
42.9
1
10.0
3
30.0
6
60.0
5
11.4
6
13.6
33
75.0
21
7.0
57
19.1
221
73.9

Quality of services: examples from qualitative data

More than two dozens of partner organizations of IDCOL are engaged in providing services to
biogas users across the country. According to qualitative findings of the selected study area,
there are differences among the POs in terms of the quality of services. For example, most of the
biogas users of Chardumuria village under Munshiganj Sadar Upazil are not happy with services
of SUK, the PO working in that area. They complain that the officials of SUK are not much
skilled and responsible. SUK agreed to provide all types of services before the plant installation,
but now they are reluctant to do that. The amounts of loan are also realized within three months
instead of two years. As a result the people of the areas are facing various problems for repaying
20,000 within three months. The research team tried to reach the SUK representatives and tried
to talk to them over phone. For reasons unknown they were not very keen to meet the
researchers. In Pabna area, various complaints including lack of services, wrong installation of
plant, ambiguities about the grant, loan and its repayment procedures have been reported.
Frequent changes of field workers of PO cause problem in Jessore area.

Page 77

Table 9.4: Level of satisfaction with the biogas plants

Name of PO
ASKS
BSUS
DESHA
DOPS
Grameen Shakti
IC
Jahanara Biogas Construction Co. Ltd
Kamrul Biogas Co Ltd
Nirapad Engineering Ltd
RISDA
RRF
RSF
SETU
Shubashati
Sonali Unnayan Foundation
SOUL
Srizony Bangladesh
SUK
All POs

Status of satisfaction with the functioning of plant

No
Yes, Partly
Yes, Fully
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
1
16.7
1
16.7
4
66.7
0
0.0
1
6.3
15
93.8
3
10.3
4
13.8
22
75.9
0
0.0
6
27.3
16
72.7
2
1.6
22
17.5
102
81.0
0
0.0
1
33.3
2
66.7
0
0.0
1
100
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
100.0
0
0.0
1
100
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
100
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
16.7
5
83.3
1
16.7
1
16.7
4
66.7
1
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
2
100.0
0
0.0
3
50.0
3
50.0
2
22.2
2
22.2
5
55.6
2
5.1
13
33.3
24
61.5
12
4.3
58
20.9
208
74.8

Neither we can run the plant, nor can we leave it

Md. Rezaul Karim of Khudramatiabari village, Pabna sadar installed a biogas plant
with the help of DESHA, a PO of NDBMP, in 2010. Immediately after
establishing the plant Karim started to get inadequate gas for cooking. He experienced
problem with passing raw materials through pipe to gas chamber. Very often he needed
to use a stick to push cow-dung to the gas chamber. He informed the problem to
DESHA officials and they reconstructed the problematic part of the plant but after
three months it stopped working again due to a crack just below the gas chamber. He
Users Name: Md. Razaul Karim
requested DESHA officials again to see the problem. DESHA official came and
Village: Khudramatiabari
agreed to work on it on the condition that the whole tank had to be cleaned properly.
Union: Maligasa,
Karim cleaned the tank but nobody came to see the plant after informing again and
Upazila: Pabna Sadar
again. Finally, he plastered the cracked part of the gas chamber on his own but the
performance remains unchanged. Now he cooks only two times a day and prepares only
two dishes somehow at a time which is really so painful for his nine-member family. It was really a dream when DESHA told
that this plant would serve even more than 10-member family for cooking three meals a day, Karim said. Few months back he
requested a group of technicians (who are not involved with DESHA) to visit his plant. After seeing the plant they told that the
plant was installed in a wrong way at the beginning. It could have been 1.2 meters deeper. Almost all villagers know about the
story of my plant and that really discourages others to set up biogas plants, Karim says. He adds, this plant is now the biggest
Page 78

problem of our family and our daily life. Neither we can run it not can we leave it.

10. Market
The market related aspects of biogas have to be viewed from two inter-related dimensions:
marketing of the biogas plants and marketing of bio-slurry. This section briefly analyzes both
the aspects in light of the survey findings.

10.1 Biogas Marketing: Potentials and Challenges

Clearly, there are great potentials of biogas in Bangladesh, much of which still remains
unexploited. This has been evident from the survey, particularly the qualitative investigation.
Livestock
mapping in
selected villages
(conducted in the
FGDs) clearly
shows that the
number of biogas
users is very low
compared to the
total number of
households who
can be considered
as potential users
of biogas.
Potential users are
those households
who have at least
4 cows or 250 poultry birds.
For example, in five selected communities a large gap between the number of current users and
potential users has been found. While only few households have biogas in each of those five
communities, the number of households having the required livestock (4 cows or 250 poultry
birds) is several times larger (as shown in the adjacent chart). Now the question is: given all the
great benefits of biogas as described in the preceding chapters, why are the potential users not
installing biogas plants? What factors are stopping them from becoming biogas users? The
following section tries to address the questions with a brief analysis of the factors limiting further
expansion of biogas in light of the data presented so far.

Page 79

10.1.1 Factors hindering fast expansion of biogas: non-users perspective

It is clear from the above data and from FGDs with non-users that there is significant demand for
biogas which has not yet been exploited. The natural question is why this is happening. A
number of factors seem to be responsible for more potential users not going for getting biogas
plants. While it is clearly evident that almost all of the non-users having the required livestock
are willing to set up biogas plants, the following are some of the factors that they think are not
encouraging them to do so.

In many cases the quality of services of the plant providers (POs) has not been up to the
mark. This is being observed by the non-users from the experience of their biogas using
neighbors.
Three times a day we have to arrange for
The amount of money required for installing
alternative fuel for cooking
a plant is not always suitable for all
households eligible to set up plants. It is
Rahim Mia
important to note that the amount varies
Vikompur, Ranipukur, Mithapukur, Rangpur
across regions and POs, which indicate that a
Rahim Mia is having bitter experience with Biogas plant.
uniform standard of the investment amount
His all complaints are against the service providing PO
is not maintained across the country and
working at their village. The name of the PO is
POs. Data presented in Chapter 9 present
SOUL.He says that the PO told about many facilities
this lack of uniformity.
before the plant was installed (e.g. it would serve to cook,
The provision of grant and loans are not
electricity supply to run lights, fans, TV), but nothing is
often done properly by the POs, which
there at present. It is too hard to cook even one menu at a
results in greater hardships for the users to
time for lack of gas flow. Three times a day we have to
purchase the plant and repaying the loans.
arrange alternative fuel for cooking, Rahim Mia says.
Substantial deviations in financial exchanges
Moreover, he adds, Very often our burner needs to be
repaired and there is no support from the NGO. Often
have been observed in some cases, as a
their cell phones are found switched off.
result of which non-users cannot access the
opportunities of installing biogas plants in
Rahim Mia says he invested about 30,000 taka to
favorable terms. Lack of transparency in
establish the biogas plant. I do not know anything about
providing loans by the POs has been
the 9000 taka he says when asked the grant by IDCOL,
reported in a number of places, which make
except burner and pipe that costs no more than 3000
taka.
the non-users uncomfortable in going for
biogas.
Problems in operation and maintenance of the biogas plants as observed by the non-users
also discourage them in setting up biogas plants. In some cases, problems of irregular
gas flow and insufficient pressure of the gas are encountered by the users, which are often
created due to faulty construction and lack of post-construction services. These problems

Page 80

encountered by the users are often observed by the non-users and that detracts them from
their plan of investing in biogas.
Frequent changes of the field workers of the POs have also resulted in lack of consistency
in marketing biogas plants. It also creates a lack of trust on the service providing
organizations as the villagers lose contacts with the field workers.
In some cases, lack of sufficient space has been identified as a hindering factor. In those
cases, the households even after having the required number of livestock are not able to
set up biogas plants. This is particularly true for semi-urban areas or villages adjacent to
urban areas (municipalities or towns).

10.2 Marketing of Bio-slurry

One of the important marketing aspects related to biogas is the bio-slurry that is extracted out of
the plant. The potential of bio-slurry as a good fertilizer has been discussed much and is well
recognized. However, it remains questionable whether much of the potentials of bio-slurry have
effectively been exploited so far or not. The survey reveals useful insights into the realities and
challenges of bio-slurry marketing. This is an extremely important aspect as this makes biogas
plant much more lucrative.

10.2.1 Forms of bio-slurry use

Bio-slurry is used in different forms by the biogas plant owners. The dominant form is dried.
However, for poultry based plants, the dominant form is liquid (Table 10.1). It is important to
note that only about 4 percent of the users use bio-slurry in the compost form, whereas this could
make bio-slurry much more marketable as good fertilizer.
The number of days the bio-slurry is stored in the pits varies significantly. However, it is not
particularly related to the size of the plant. The average number of days of storing slurry in pits
is 69 (Table 10.2). Most of the users do not dry bio-slurry (Table 10.3). Drying is more
prevalent in the dung based plants. Only about 20 percent of the poultry-litter based plant
owners dry bio-slurry.
Table 10.1: Use of bio-slurry in different forms by type of plant
Type of use (%)

Type of plant
Liquid

Semi-liquid

Dried

Compost

Total

Dung

18.9

21.9

55.6

3.6

100.0

Poultry Litter

60.0

.0

33.3

6.7

100.0

All types

22.3

20.1

53.8

3.8

100.0

Page 81

Table 10.2: Average number of days of storing bio-slurry in pits by type and size of plant
Size of plant (m3)
1.60

Average number of days

21

2.00

81

2.40

66

3.20

78

4.80

49

All sizes

69

Table 10.3: Proportion of users drying bio slurry by size of plant

Do you dry bio-slurry? (% of users)

Type of plant
Yes

No

Total

Dung

48.5

51.5

100.0

Poultry Litter

19.4

80.6

100.0

All types

44.1

55.9

100.0

10.2.2 Economics of Bio-slurry

Obviously, the quantity of bio-slurry collected is strongly correlated with the size of the plant.
On an average, 262 KG of bio-slurry is collected from a plant in a week (Table 10.4). The
average quantity ranges between 92 KG (for the smallest plants) and 564 KG (for the largest
plants). However, most users do not sell bio-slurry although it has commercial value as
fertilizer. Only about 10 percent of the users who collect bio-slurry sell it (Table 10.5). One KG
of the dung-based bio-slurry sells at 1.27 taka on average and that of poultry-based slurry at 0.55
taka on average (Table 10.6). Clients for purchasing bio-slurry are also available. On an
average, 3 clients visited a biogas plant for slurry (Table 9.7).
Table 10.4: Average quantity of slurry collected from plant in a week by size of plant
Size of plant (m3)
1.60

Average amount (KG )

92

2.00

192

2.40

215

3.20

322

Page 82

4.80

564

All sizes
262
Table 10.5: Number and percentage of users selling bio slurry
Size of plant (m3)

Number and percentage of users selling bio-slurry

Number
%

1.60

0.0

2.00

19.4

2.40

12

10.9

3.20

6.4

4.80

5.3

All sizes

23

9.9

Table 10.6: Average price of slurry (per kg) by type of plant

Type of plant

Average price of bio-slurry ( tk/kg)

Dung

1.27

Poultry Litter

0.55

All types

1.13

Table 10.7: Number of potential client visiting a biogas plant for slurry by size of plant
Size of plant (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All sizes

Number
5
4
3
3
3
3

The above figures suggest that a huge potential of commercial utilization of biogas is not being
exploited, and thus the users are not maximizing their economic benefits from the biogas. Why
is this happening? It is clearly from the qualitative data that there is a huge lack of knowledge
about the marketing of bio-slurry and making it marketable. Although many users are using the
slurry for their own crop fields, many are not farmers and in those cases, the slurry is just wasted.
The role of the biogas providers can be questioned here again. The diffusion of knowledge about
the marketing of bio-slurry should be integrated in the services and trainings provided by the

Page 83

NGOs.
Another factor that limits the marketing potentials from buyers perspective is that in most cases
there is an absence of critical mass of bio-slurry in a particular village. As a result, it is not costeffective for the buyers to visit a village with a possibility of getting only a limited quantity of
bio-slurry. The limited numbers of biogas plants in most villages thus limit the commercial
opportunities with bio-slurry. As discussed earlier, in most cases, there is ample scope for
increasing the number of biogas plants in a village given the availability of livestock. If that
could be done, more attractive masses of bio-slurry would be available in the villages and thus
buyers would be more attracted to visit and buy the slurry. Alternatively, in case of having a
critical mass in a particular village, one or a group of the villagers can take up the
entrepreneurship to market the product. But that is only affordable if there if a critical mass of
slurry is available at a time in the village, which again is only possible if there are sufficient
number of plants in the village. Thus the marketing potentials of bio-slurry is strongly correlated
with the marketing of biogas plants.

10.2.3 Making bio-slurry more marketable

Bio-slurry, like any other product, will be more marketable if value addition is done over it.
However, there is a clear lack of efforts of making bio-slurry more marketable by improving it
with addition of organic materials and adding value to the product. Only 13 of the surveyed
users (6 percent) have tried to do so (Table 10.8). Among the materials added to the slurry,
green compost manure and chemical fertilizer are the most common (Table 10.9). The lack of
marketing efforts is also reflected in the fact that more than half of the plant owners pile up the
cow-dung/poultry-litter regularly, and only a little more than one third of the plant owners
compost those regularly (Table 10.10). The quality of the slurry also depends on the regular
aeration of the decomposing materials, which is not done by more than one third of the users
(Table 10.11). One of the major reasons behind this lack of marketing efforts is the lack of
know-how about these aspects. The training provided by the POs are already very limited and
do not include any component on bio-slurry management. Thus, due to the lack of knowledge of
the users, the major portion of the bio-slurry produced every day is not utilized effectively.
Table 10.8: Users adding other organic materials with slurry by type and size of plant
Size of plant (m3)
1.60
2.00
2.40
3.20

Use of other organic materials

Number
%
0
0.0
4
12.9
7
6.9
1
2.2

Page 84

4.80
All sizes

1
13

3.0
6.0

Table 10.9: Organic materials added by the users to slurry according size of plant
Size of
plant
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
All

Chemical
fertilizer (%)
50.0
28.6
100.0
0.0
38.5

Type of materials
Green compost
Kitchen wastage
manure (%)
(%)
25.0
25.0
57.1
14.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
46.2
15.4

Others
(%)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Table 10.10: Proportions of users pilling up and composting cow dung regularly

Yes
No
All

Do you pile up cow-dung/litter

regularly?
Number
%
145
48.3
155
51.7
300
100

Do you compost cow-dung/litter

regularly?
Number
%
111
37
189
63
300
100

Table 10.11: Proportion of users turning the decomposing materials for aeration regularly

Yes
No
All

Do you regularly turn the decomposing materials for aeration?

Number
%
192
64
108
36
300
100

10.3 Supply Chain of Biogas

It is useful to see the marketing aspects of biogas through its supply chain, which is tried in
Figure 10-1.
All the inputs (e.g. cash, equipment, technical support and service) are provided by the POs of
IDCOL in the NDBMP. At the local market level, biogas has two types of economic uses: (i) the
gas itself as fuel and (ii) the slurry as fertilizer. Both are marketable, but in most cases are
Page 85

consumed by the plant owners. The ultimate use of the products depend on the end market,
where we see a number of players: farmers using slurry as fertilizer (both the plant-owning
farmers and those who are buying bio-slurry; plant owners using slurry as fish feed and, of
course, the plant owners themselves using the gas as fuel for cooking. Although most of these
end-uses do not enter into market, they represent clear value addition and are used as products
the alternative to which had to be otherwise procured from the market.

Figure 10-1: Supply Chain of Biogas

End market

Biogas
Local
Market

Plant
owner
(Farmer)

Other
Farmer

Fish feed
used by plant
owner

Use of bio-slurry as fertilizer by

farmer

Plant owner

Use of gas as fuel by plant

owner

Cow dung base biogas plants (N=253)

Poultry base bio gas plants (N=47)

Input
Level

Technologies:
installation, basic
training and post-sales
selling service

PO1

Loan

Equipments;:pip
e, burner, rod,
cement and
concrete

PO2

Subsidy/grant;
technology and
equipment

PO18

IDCOL/NDBMP

Page 86

FGD findings on bio-slurry marketing

A lot of interesting information on the use of bio-slurry is collected from various FGDs. Many
participants labeled it as a magic. They have told that it is one of the best fertilizers that can
reduce the consumption of urea, phosphate and sulphur, and thus ultimately reduces the cost of
production. They have also reported that generally they would prepare fertilizer from cow-dung,
which is less effective due to having gas in it, but in the case of bio-slurry there is no gas and it is
very effective for soil. Most of the FGD participants have told that those who have plant can
save 700-800 taka per month. Some of the users are getting benefits by using bio-slurry as fish
feed. Earlier they had to use urea, phosphate and sulphur in the pond but now they dont use any
fertilizer. As a result they get more benefit from fish culture and also helping to keep their pond
water free of chemical pollution. In some places, a number of users can earn 1000-1200 taka per
month by selling bio-slurry (e.g. Alamgir Hossain of Monirampur,Jessore). Billal of
Chardumuria village of Munshiganj Sadar told that he earns 8-10 thousand taka per year by
selling bio-slurry. But, apart from the scattered cases, most of the slurry remains unused or
misused due to the following causes:

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

Lack of appropriate size of bio-slurry pits and shade of the biogas plants (most of the
users fail to preserve/dry bio-slurry for using it as fertilizer).
The pond keeps dry during the early summer and become unsuitable for fish culture. As a
result bio-slurry is not use at that time of the year.
Hesitation to handle slurry by hand, especially in case of poultry-litter
Lack of adequate spaces around the biogas plant to manage slurry.

Most of the FGD participants do not have sufficient knowledge about the marketing of bioslurry, and they use slurry in their own field and get benefits. So they do not have interest of
selling it though there is demand. Persons who sell slurry are basically business-men and they
sell slurry to the neighbors. There is hardly any scope of marketing outside the locality.

Page 87

11. Recommendations
The findings of the Biogas Users Survey 2010 indicate a number of areas that need improvement
for biogas to be more useful and economically beneficial for its users. It is also evident that
much of the great potentials of biogas are yet to be realized. It is evident from the findings
presented in previous chapters that there is high demand for biogas in the country, much of
which cannot be fulfilled due to supply side constraints. At the same time, there are ample
scopes for enhancing the demand from the current level. Thus, interventions on both demand
and supply sides are required for a more effective use of biogas in the country.

11.1 Removing Supply Side Constraints

A number of supply side constraints have been discussed in the preceding chapters. The
following interventions are recommended for removal of supply side constraints.

There is a need for reviewing the role of the service providers in the field, i.e. the partner
organizations (POs). The review will help identify the gaps and variations in practices
that at times cause dissatisfaction among the current users and thus hinder the expansion
of bio-gas among new users. The review should be done by an independent team of
experts having very specific terms of reference.
Appropriate and sufficient supervision and monitoring system should be in place by
IDCOL to make sure that the services provided in the field comply with the standards set
at the NDBMP level. The monitoring is particularly needed to make sure that the
financial incentives planned in the Program reach the users in reality. The system can
take the form of periodic verification with a set of randomly sampled users representing
all the regions and POs. The monitoring system should not involve the POs in any part of
its process.
The current structure and nature of financial incentives given to the users need to be
reviewed to come up with more comfortable financial arrangements for the users of
biogas. In this regard, a number of aspects of the financial incentives should be reconsidered: size of grant and loan; number and size of installments. Scopes for tailoring
the financial incentives according to the need of the potential clients should be there.
Greater attention should be given to improving the training for the biogas users. The
training component can be directly handled by NDBMP instead of the current
arrangement of providing it through the POs, who are clearly not providing sufficient
trainings to the users at present. A unified format and standard of the training should be

Page 88

implemented across all the regions and POs. It is essential to make sure that all the biogas users receive training of similar standards after installation of bio-gas plants.
A centralized strategy should be devised to ensure regular quality services to the biogas
users to minimize the prevailing dissatisfaction among a significant proportion of the
current users. NDBMP needs to decide whether the service will be provided through a
central mechanism or through the POs. If the POs are responsible for providing the
services, their contractual requirements should be very clear in terms of the frequency
and quality of service provision to the users.
Greater diffusion of knowledge on marketing of bio-slurry should be initiated. While this
can be undertaken as a centralized strategy, the diffusion of knowledge should be done at
the partners level as well. Two specific suggestions are made in this regard:
o An independent study on the current capacity and potentials of marketing the biogas plants and bio-slurry should be undertaken. The study should exclusively
focus on the marketing aspects and should be conducted by a team of marketing
and bio-gas experts. The study should also assess the needs for capacity building
among the partners vis--vis marketing of bio-gas plants and bio-slurry.
o Based on the recommendations of the study on marketing, all the POs should be
brought under training on marketing of bio-gas plants and bio-slurry.
Agricultural research institutes like BARI should be involved in research for improving
the quality of bio-slurry as good and marketable fertilizer, and to devise ways for
expanding the use of it. A formal partnership with BARI could help in this regard.
Overall, the delivery mechanism through the POs should be improved substantially to
make sure that the centrally planned packages are implemented with a unified standard
across different partners and regions.

11.2 Enhancing Demand

As indicated in the previous chapters, there are sufficient scopes for enhancing the demand for
biogas in the country by making it more attractive to people. For that, a number of initiatives can
be considered.
An independent country-wide needs assessment survey should be conducted to estimate
an overall demand for biogas at present. This will help in devising future investment
plan in this important sector of renewable energy.
Integrating multiple uses of biogas instead of keeping it limited only within gas supply
will make biogas plants more lucrative for people, particularly in the areas currently
deprived of electricity. An independent strategy to reach the un-electrified areas of the
country with the technology of using biogas for electricity as well can be developed and
implemented.

Page 89

 Popularizing biogas has to be given high priority. The vibrant media of Bangladesh
should be utilized for creating mass awareness among people about the benefits of biogas
and also as a means of connecting to wider population. Particularly, the use of electronic
media can be very effective in creating mass awareness about it. A communication
strategy should be developed by NDBMP for popularizing biogas in the country. While
the communication strategy should be developed and implemented by specialized
agencies, the following are few ideas for considering as inputs to the strategy:
o A short documentary film on bio-gas can be prepared to illustrate the benefits of
bio-gas, its use and its marketing potentials. The documentary can be customized
for a number of purposes: TV telecasting and screening in the fields by POs.
o One-minute TV spots on bio-gas can be a very effective tool for creating mass
awareness about the use and benefits of bio-gas. The TV spots can focus on
different aspects of bio-gas and be telecasted in the TV channels frequently over
a specific period subject to resources available for investment for the purpose.
o TV talk shows on bio-gas can be arranged with a number of TV channels. This
can be done in two ways: (i) discussing the issues of bio-gas on popular TV talk
shows; and/or (ii) preparing special talk shows on bio-gas.
o Roundtable discussion with reputed daily newspapers involving the experts and
other stakeholders of the sector can be a very effective tool for drawing attention
of the policy makers and wider population.
A central strategy to enhance the marketing of bio-slurry should be developed. Agencies
specializing in market development issues should be involved in developing the
marketing strategy. The marketing strategy should take into consideration the findings
of the study recommended in Section 11.1 and should involve all the POs who should be
trained on marketing issues before the strategy formulation.
The common recommendation derived from the FGDs conducted at selected study
locations is that discussion and demonstration on biogas plants need to be organized in
rural areas (or at least at upazila level) to popularize the use of it. To make these
discussions more attractive and effective, visual demonstrations with videos (as
mentioned above) and pictures should be used.

Page 90

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

National Domestic Biogas and Manure Program

Biogas Users Survey 2010
Plant ID Number:
Plant Size (cu.m):
Feed Material: (1=Dung, 2= Poultry Litter)
A. General information
1. Personal information of Biogas Plant (BP) owner
1.1

Name of Plant Owner:...................................................

1.2 Age: .....................

1.3

Father's/Husband's Name: ..............................................................................................

1.4

Mothers Name: ...........................................................................................................

1.5

Para/mahalla

: ........................................................

1.6 Village: ......................

1.7

Post Office

: ........................................................

1.8 Union: .........................

1.9

Upazilla

: ........................................................

1.10 Zilla: ..........................

1.11 Divison

: ........................................................

1.12 Occupation (Code*):

1.13 Education (Code**):

1.14 Male member:

1.15 Female member:

*code: 1 - Service; 2 - Business (specify); 3 - Farmer; 4 - Day laborer; 5 - Fisherman; 6 - House wife; 7Others (Goldsmith, Potters, Carpenter, Tailor, Village Doctor, Mason, Barber, Vender, Van puller,
Rickshaw puller, Boatman etc. .............................. specify in any)
**code: 1- Illiterate; 2- Literate but no institutional education; 3- Primary or equivalent; 4- Secondary or
equivalent; 5- SSC passed or equivalent; 6- HSC passed or equivalent; 7- Graduation or equivalent; 8Post Graduation or equivalent

Page 91

2. Basic Information on biogas plant and related matters

2.1 Plant construction
St.
Month Year Duration 2.2 Is it in operation
(days) (Yes=1, No=2)
period
Date
2.3 Plant operation time

From
Month Year

To
From

Year

2.5 Use of plant for hajak ligh (Yes=1,No=2)

2.7 Total hrs. used for single burner (time
line)
2.9 Total hrs. used for double burner
2.11 Total hrs. used for hajak light

2.4 Use of plant for

cooking (Yes=1, No=2)

2.6 Total nos. of single burner

2.8 Total nos. of double burner(time
line)
2.10 Total nos. of hajak light

3. Source of raw materials for biogas plant

3.1. Number of cows

3.2. Number of buffalos

3.3 Number of calves

3.4 Number of ducks

3.5 Number of hens

3.6 a. Daily available raw materials(kg)

3.6 b. Daily loadning raw materials (kg)

3.7 Loading frequency to plant per

day*

3.8 Ratio of raw

materials : water

raw materials

water

* Code: 1 - Once; 2 - Twice; 3 - More

4. Physical features of biogas plant

4.1 Serial number in main gas pipe (Yes=1,

4.2 Write the serial number

No=2)

4.3 Number of slurry pits

4.4 What are the sizes

of the pits (m)

Length Width Depth

4.5 Pit boundary exists (Yes=1, No=2)

4.6 Pit shade exists (Yes=1, No=2)

4.7 Gas distribution device (Code: 1- GI

pipe; 2- Plastic pipe; 3- MS pipe)

Under ground; 2- Over head)

4.8 Gas transmission method (Code: 1-

4.9 Name of MPOs provided appliances for BP construction:

4.10. Is 180 degree principal follwed? (Yes=1,

4.11 How far is the water source(m)

No=2)

4.12 Is toilet attached to biogas plant? (Code: 1=No, we do not have sanitary toilet; 2=We have toilet
but not attached to biogas plant; 3=Toilet is attached to biogas plant)
4.13 If toilet attached to plant, who encouraged you to attach toilet to biogas plant?
(Code: 1=Self; 2=Service providers; 3=Friends and relatives; 4=Others (specify)

Page 92

4.14 Are there any social taboos in attaching toilets to biogas plants?
(Code: 1=No; 2=Gas from toilet attached plants are considered to be un-sacred; 3=People are hesitant to
handle the bio-slurry from toilet attached plants; 4=Others (specify)

5. Installation and Functioning of Biogas Plant

5.1 What is the motivating reason(s) behind installing a biogas plant? (answers can be more than
one)
Non-availability of other
1 Subsidy
2
3 Social benefits/Prestige
fuel sources
4

Health benefits

Environmental benefits

Economic benefits

Motivation from service

provider

Motivation from existing

plant owners

Compulsion from
neighbors (in the case of
poultry)

10

Saves time and energy

11

Other (specify): .

5.2 Who constructed your biogas plant?

5.2 .1 Mention whatever is available, Name of the PO, Mason etc etc
Code: 1= Unskilled Mason; 2=. Skilled Mason without knowledge on biogas plant; 3= Skilled Mason
with good knowledge on biogas plant; 4= Do not know

5.3 Were any standards set by the service provider as regards the quality of construction
materials and mason to construct biogas plants? (1= No; 2=Yes; 3=Do not know)
5.4 If yes, what types of quality standards were set (answers can be more than
one)?
(Code: 1=Trained masons should be used; 2=Standards on construction materials; 3=Standards on pipe
and appliances; 4=Standards on plant design; 5=Do not know)

5.5 Are you satisfied with the functioning of the plant? (1= No; 2= Yes, partly; 3=Yes,
fully)

5.6 If partly satisfied, what are the reasons for not fully satisfying? (answers can be more than one)
1
3
5
7

Less gas for cooking/lighting

Often encounter technical problems
Food cooked in gas is not tasty
Others (specify)

2
4
6

Difficult to operate
More added work
Technicians not available on demand

5.7 If fully satisfied, what are the reasons for fully satisfying? (answers can be more than one)
1
3

Enough gas for cooking/lighting

Easy cooking/lighting

2
4

Trouble free functioning of plant

Timely service by the technicians

Economic benefit

Health benefits

Page 93

7
9
11

Social benefits such as prestige

Workload reduction
Others (specify)

8
10

Environmental Benefits
Food cooked in gas is more tasty

5.8 If not satisfied, what are the reasons for not satisfying? (answers can be more than one)
Plant has failed, it does not work at
Very less gas for cooking/lighting
1
2
all
3
Very difficult to operate
4
Often encounter technical problems
5

More added work

Food cooked in gas is not tasty

Technician not available on demand

Others (specify)

5.9 If plant has failed, how long is the plant defunct? (Code: 1=Less than a month; 2=1 to 4
months; 3=4 to 12 months; 4=More than a year)

5.10 If plant has failed, what are the reasons for such failure? (answers can be more than one)
1
3
5
7

Poor workmanship during

construction
Poor operation (over fed, underfeed, more water, less water)
Non-availability of spare parts
Toilet attachment in plant was
considered to be un-sacred

Water collected in pipe clogged it

11

Others (specify)

Sub-standard quality of construction

materials and appliances
Poor maintenance/ No maintenance service
available
Natural/manmade disasters

Slurry entered into the gas pipe

10

Higher water table/flooding during rainy

season

2
4

5.11 Do you feed other feeding materials besides dung?

1

No

Kitchen and household wastes

3
5

Human excreta
Agricultural wastes

4
7

Poultry droppings
Others (specify)

5.12 Is water easily available to mix dung/poultry dropping? ( 1=Yes; 2=No )

5.13 Do you know how much dung is required to be feed into your
plant daily? (1=Yes; 2=No)

If yes, mention
quantity (Kg)

5.14 Has anyone in your family received training on operation and maintenance of biogas plants?

Page 94

1
3
5

No training receive
One day orientation training provided
by service provider
On the spot instructions from
mason/company supervisors etc

2
4
6

Training not provided but

leaflet/booklet/manual provided
Short term O & M training (7days or less)
Others (specify)

5.15 Have you received any follow up services from the service provider?
(Code: 1=No, not even when requested; 2=No, not at all; 3=Yes, on call; 4=Yes, regularly)

5.16 Is there any service center nearby?

Code: 1=No; 2=Yes, very near (within 5 km reach); 3=Yes, quite far (5-10 km reach); 4=Yes, very
far (more than 10 km reach)

5.17 How much money you need per year for operation and maintenance of your plant?
(Code: 1=Less than Tk.100; 2=Tk.100 300; 3=Tk.400 600; 4=Tk. 700 1000; 5=More than
Tk. 1000)

5.18 For those whose biogas plants are not working:

Will you like to adapt the technology again with some modifications? (1=No; 2=Yes)
(Need to dig out the real reasons for the failure. No of the plants should be failed because of the
technical issues, if that is the case then POs must repair. Gatther info for future action)

6. Institutional Information (IDCOL) and cost

6.1 Do you know about
6.2 How did you know about the biogas
IDCOL/NDBMP
(1=Yes; 2=No
plant (Code: 1=PO; 2=Relatives; 3=LCPO;
)

4=Neighbour; 5=TV; 6=Friends; 7=Local NGO;

8=Other (Please specify....)

6.3 Have you got any cash as

grant from IDCOL/PO

6.4 Amount as grant from IDCOL /PO

(Tk.)

(1=Yes; 2=No)

6.5 Total expenditure of

Biogas Plant (Tk.)
6.7 Loan taken (1=Yes; 2=No)
6.9 Taka per installment
6.11 O&M cost per month (Tk.)
6.13 Are you getting any training
on O&M of BP provided by
PO (1=Yes; 2=No )
6.15 Relation with PO
(Code: 1=Good; 2=Moderate; 3=Bad)

6.6 Expenditure by HH owner

6.8 From where (Code*)
6.10 Number of loan recovery installment
6.12 Amount of loan (Tk.)
6.14 Are you getting any After-SalesServices (ASS) of BP provided by PO
(1=Yes; 2=No )

6.16 Relationship with LCPO

(Code: 1=Good; 2=Moderate; 3=Bad)

7. Impacts on institutional aspects (PO & LCPO)

7.1 Did you feel comfortable with this
type of PO/ LCPO for construction
of BP (1=Yes; 2=No )

Page 95

7.2 If no, what type institute do

you suggest*

7.4 If no, what type institute you

suggest

7.3 Did you feel comfortable with PO/

LCPO for loan (1=Yes; 2=No )

(*Code: 1=Local NGO; 2=UP office; 3=Upazila DPHE; 4=Upazila LGED; 5=Local Bank; 6=IDCOL;
7=others specify....................)

B. Impact Analysis
8. Impacts on socio-economic condition
Before biogas plant installation
8.1 Used time for cooking per day
(hour)

After biogas plant installation

8.2 Use time for cooking per day
(hour)

8.3 Fuel cost per month (Tk.)

8.4 Fuel cost per-month (other than

biogas)
8.6 Lighting cost
(other than biogas)

8.5 Lighting cost per month (Tk.)

8.7 Do you save time? (1=Yes; 2=No )

8.8 If yes, the time used as below:
8.8a Income generating sector
8.8b Recreation sector
8.8c Education sector
8.8d. No use

(% of time)

Before biogas plant installation

8.9 How much fuel (kg) wood used
from collection (bush and tree)

After biogas plant installation

8.10 How much fuel (kg) wood use
from collection (bush and tree)

8.11 (a) Do you save fuel? (1=Yes; 2=No )

8.11(b) If yes, then how much (Kg. per month)?
8.12 If yes, please mention from which sector
8.12a Income generating sector (sale)
8.12(A)- i) Fire wood
8.12(A)- ii) Agriculture residues
8.12(A)- iii) Dung cakes
8.12(A)- iv) Rice husks
8.12(A)- vi) Kerosene
8.12(A)- vii) Electricity
8.12b Source of fuel wood (Code: 1=Forest; 2= Own farm trees; 3=Market)
8.12c How much fuel wood saving in Kg.
8.12d Income generating sector (sale)
8.12e Environmental conservation (no use)
Page 96

Kg.

Price/Kg

Before biogas plant installation

8.13 Total time (hour) spent for fuel
collection per day previously?

After biogas plant installation

8.14 Total time (hour) spent for
fuel collection per day at present
8.15 Educational facilities of HH
Member*
8.16 Self assessed poverty
8.17 Self assessed poverty
status**
status**
8.18 Do you sell the gas to other HHs (If yes, answer question under item 14)
(1=Yes; 2=No )
*Code: 1- Improving; 3- Decreasing; 3 No change

9. Impacts on health and sanitation

Before biogas plant installation
9.1 Previous status of toilet of this HH*

9.4 Previous air pollution status in

kitchen by smoke**
9.6 Previous infection due to smoke on

**code: 1- Surplus; 2 Breakeven 3- Deficit

After biogas plant installation

9.2 Present status of toilet of this HH*
9.3 Do you have attached toilet to
biogas plant? (1=Yes; 2=No )
9.5 Present air pollution status in
kitchen
by smoke**
9.7 Present infection due to smoke**

9.6a Eye infection**

9.7a Eye infection**

9.6b Respiratory infection**

9.7b Respiratory infection**

9.8 Previous incidence from diseases**

9.9 Present incidence of diseases**

9.8a Typhoid**

9.9a Typhoid**

9.8b Tuberculosis **

9.9b Tuberculosis **

9.8c Diarrhoea**

9.9c Diarrhoea**

9.8d Gastro-intestinal diseases**

9.9d Gastro-intestinal diseases**

9.10 Previous incidence of

mosquito/flies
induced diseases **
9.12 Previous Accidents due to
fire/burning**

9.11 Present incidence of mosquito/flies

induced diseases**
9.13 Present accidents due to
fire/burning**

*code: 1- Sanitary Latrine; 2- Ring slab; 3- Hanging /pit; 4- No facilities/open

**code: 1- Severe; 2- Moderate; 3 Minimal; 4 No pollution /infection/ diseases

10. Impacts on gender

10.1 Who has taken initiative to install
BP*

10.2 Who has taken decision to install

BP*
Page 97

10.3 Who is responsible for operation*

10.5 Who is responsible for
maintenance & management of BP*
10.7 Who is responsible to contact with
LCPO for servicing/repair and loan*
10.9 Who is technically knowledgeable
person about BP*
10.11 Benefits derived by the women
& girls after BP, how**

10.4 Who was monitoring the

construction work*
10.6 Who is responsible to contact with
CPO for servicing/repairing*
10.8 Who is responsible to contact with
LPO for loan*
10.10 Who is benefited mostly in this
family from this BP*
10.12 Present status and work load***
hr. per day

10.13 Previously time involvement in

Cooking (hour/day)
10.15 Previously time involvement for
children education (hour/day)
10.17 Previously time involvement for
Meals (hour/day)
10.19 Previously time involvement for
collecting of fuel wood (hour/day)

10.14 Currently time involvement in

cooking***
Currently time involvement for
children education***
10.18 Currently time involvement for
meals ***
10.20 Currently time involvement for
collecting of fuel wood***

* Code: 1- Male member; 2- Female member; 3- Children (girls); 4-Children (boys); 5- Servant (male); 6Servant (female); 7- Both (male and female); 8- Others ( specify.........................)
** Code: 1- Increase enrollment of girls in schools; 2- Involve income generating activities; 3- Involve
social works; 4 Involve educational work 5-Others (specify.....................)
***Code: 1- Increasing; 2- Decreasing 3- No change

11. Bio-slurry management, marketing and potentiality

11.2 How many days you store bio11.1 How do you use bio-slurry?
(Code: 1=Liquid; 2=Semi-liquid; 3=Dried;
slurry in pit?
4=Compost)

11.3 Do you dry bio-slurry?

11.4 How do you dry bio-slurry*

(1=Yes; 2=No )

1.5 How much (kg.) bio-slurry you

collect from plant in a week?
11.7 If yes, price of bio-slurry (kg)?
11.9 Do you add any other organic
materials with bio slurry?

11.6 Do you sale bio-slurry locally?

(1=Yes; 2=No )

11.8 How many potential customers

visited your BP for slurry?
11.10 What type of materials you
add?**

(1=Yes; 2=No )

11.11 Did you pile up cow dung

regularly? (1=Yes; 2=No )

11.12 Do you compost cow dung?

regularly (1=Yes; 2=No )

11.13 Do you regularly turn the decomposing materials for aeration? (1=Yes; 2=No )
*code: 1- Open sun shine; 2-Under shade
**code: 1- Chemical fertilizer; 2- Green compost manure; 3- Kitchen wastage; 4 -others.(specify..)

12. Impacts on Agriculture

12.1 Are you a farmer (1=Yes; 2=No )

12.2 How many decimal land you have?

Page 98

12.3(a) Amount (decimal) of own land

12.3(c) Amount (decimal) of land (shared
out)
12.3(e) Amount (decimal) of land
(mortgaged/leased out)
12.5 Previous number of livestock
population
12.7 What was the grazing/feeding
method for your cattle/poultry before BP

12.3(b) Amount (decimal) of land

(shared in)
12.3(d) Amount (decimal) of land
(mortgaged/leased in)
12.3(f) Amount (decimal) of cultivable
land?
12.6 Present number of livestock
population
12.8 What is the grazing/feeding
method for your cattle/poultry after BP

(Code: Open-1; stall feed-2)

(Code: Open-1; stall feed-2)

12.9 Previous cow shed management

12.10 Present cow shed management

(Code: Systematic-1; Non-Systematic -2)

(Code: Systematic-1; Non-Systematic -2)

12.11 Do you use the bio-slurry

12.12 If yes, where**

(1=Yes; 2=No )

12.13 In which form you used bio slurry

(Code: Liquid-1, Semi-dried-2, Dried -3)

12.14 How many times you sell this

slurry per year

12.15 How many times you use this slurry

in agricultural land/pond per year
12.17 Previous animal health status

12.16 Is the bio-slurry increasing soil

fertility (1=Yes; 2=No )
12.18 Present animal health status

(Code: 1- Good; 2- Moderate; 3 Bad)

(Code: 1- Good; 2- Moderate; 3 Bad)

12.19 Previous fodder management status

12.20 Present fodder management

status (Code: 1- Good; 2- Moderate; 3

(Code: 1- Good; 2- Moderate; 3 Bad)

Bad)

12.21 Effectiveness of this bio-slurry

(Code: 1- Good; 2- Moderate; 3 Bad)

12.22 Is the bio-slurry helping to

increase crop productivity? (1=Yes;
2=No )

12.23 By using this manure at agricultural

sector how much money has been saved
per year from fertilizer (tk.)

12.24 Do you think the income from

agricultural sector is increasing after BP
installation? (1=Yes; 2=No )

**Code:1- As fertilizer in crop field; 2- As fertilizer in home garden; 3-As fish feed for fish culture; 4Patties for burning purpose; 5 - Sale to other farmer; 6- No use; 7- Other (specify.............)

13. Impacts on environment

Before biogas plant installation
13.1 What types of fuel did
you use for cooking*
13.3 Was this fuel environment
friendly (1=Yes; 2=No )
13.5 Self assessed household
Environment
(Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

After biogas plant installation

13.2 What types of fuel do you
use for cooking*
13.4 Is this fuel environment friendly
(1=Yes; 2=No )

13.6 Self assessed household

environment
(Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

Page 99

13.8 Self assessed Kitchen environment

13.7 Self assessed kitchen

environment

(Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

(Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

13.9 Self assessed cow/poultry-shed

environment

13.10 Self assessed cow/poultry-shed

environment

(Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

(Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

13.11 Previous status of surrounding

environment

13.12 Present status of surrounding

environment

(Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

(Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

13.13 Previous status of social

environment

13.14 Present status of social

environment

(Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

(Code: 1- Good; 2 - Moderate; 3- Bad)

13.15 Source of drinking water

13.16 Distance of BP from drinking

water source (m)

(Code: 1-TW; 2- Well; 3- Pond; 4others..specify)

*Code: 1- Fire wood; 2- Agriculture residues; 3- Cow dung, 4- Heater; 5 -Natural gas; 6- Kerosene; 7 Biogas

14. Information on biogas consumers on payment

14.1 Rate: Tk. per month.........................................................................
14.2 Condition (if any):
14.3 Benefits any:
14.4 Problems any:
14.5 Suggestion any:
15. Benefits, Problems and Suggestions (General)
15.1 What are the main benefits perceived by plant owner?

15.2 What are the main problems faced by plant owner?

15.3 What are the main suggestion for solving problems?

16. Expert comment/observation:

Signature of Investigator
Date:

Page
100

Annex 2
List of Bio gas plant users surveyed
Name of plant owner
Syed Zaman
Md. Al-Beruni
Md. Abul Kalam Azad
Md. Mozaharul Islam
Shahadat Hossain
Md. Amzad Hossain
Md. Serajul Islam
Sree Badha Gobinda
Md. Kamrul Islam
Dilip Kumar
Abdul Jalil Sarkar
Md. Mahbub Khandakar
Md. Abdul Mannan Sarkar
Monsur Ali Sheikh
Nuruzzaman Prodhan
Sree Niher Ranzan Biswas
Razib Kumar Shaha
Sree Bazromohan Sarkar
Md. Abdul Rouf Miah
Sree Nipendra Nath
Md. Abdul Hasan Sarkar
Md. Anowar Hossain
Rizanur Rahman
Md. Khondakar Abu Tayub
Udai Sha
Mohammad Ali
Md. Hafizur Rahman
Md. Khordesh Alam
Mst. Parvin Begum
Mahfuza Islam
Md. Rafiqul Islam
Md. Ataur Rahman
Sree Bidyud Kumar Mondal
Md. Abul Hossain
Md. Nazrul Islam
Sree Mithu Kuma Saha
Sree Asim Kumar
Fullbanu
Monoyara Begum

Plant ID
DPSD1044
GSZS1058
GSZS1062
DPGB1006
DPSD1042
GSZS1041
GSZS1045
GSZS1047
GSZS1055
DPSD1038
DPGB1007
DPSD1041
GSZS1039
DPGB1008
DPSD1045
GSPA1040
GSZS1044
GSZS1040
GSPA1045
GSZS1052
GSZS1054
DPRP1101
GSZS1061
DPSD1003
GSZS1042
BUGB1037
FBGB1003
GSPA1043
GSZS1057
GSZS1036
DPSD1037
DPSD1040
DPGB1004
GSZS1038
GSPA1044
GSZS1043
DPRP1127
RBRP1006
DPRP1098

Plant size
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.00
4.80
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.40
2.00
3.20
2.40
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.40
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.40
2.40
3.20
Page
101

Upazila
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Sadullapur
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha

District
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Gaibandha
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur

Abdul Motaleb
Md. Mahbub Alam
Sree Bhubati Chandra Sarkar
Rezwan Ahmed
Md. Shafiqul Islam
Delowar Hossain
Md. Tachir Prodhan
Md. Shahidul Islam
Muzam Ali
Hafizur Rahman
Rafiqe
Md. Abdul Gapur
Md. Alauddin
Abdul Hakim
Md. Abdur Rahman
Md. Abdul Gapur
Md. Habibur Rahman
Golam Mostafa
Md. Rezaul Islam
Md. Rafiqul Islam
Mahbub Alam
Chandrabati Roy
Rupkumar Sarkar
Md. Hasibur Rahman
Md. Fazlul Hoque
Abdur Rahim Miah
Ashrafuzzaman
Moklesh Ali
Mahfuza Begum
Md. Salauddin
Sree Subir Chandra Dash
Mst. Saleha Begum
Md. Emdadul Hoque
Md. Ataur Raham
Md. Nikbar Ali Mondal
Md. Syab Ali
Md. Rezaul Hoque
Md. Karuzzaman
Md. Amirul Islam Khan
Md. Shahidul Islam
Md. Rezaul Karim Molla
Md. Kamrul Hasan Laltu
Md. Shahidul Islam
Md. Rupali Khatun
Md. Tofazzal Hossain
Md. Mucha Miah Mondal
Hazi Hasan Saroyar
Md. Saher Ali

DPRP1105
DPRP1106
BURG1008
BRUG1015
DPRP1112
SLRP1603
BURG1018
BURG1009
PBRP1004
PBRP1003
RBRP1005
BURG1021
DPRP1104
DPRP1099
DPRP1102
SLRP1605
BURG1007
SLRP1613
BURG1004
BURG1005
DPRP1125
GSKW1025
BURG1017
SLRP1606
RDRP1025
SLRP1011
RSFN1002
DSRP1011
SURG1001
DSNM1005
SLRP1604
SURG1002
SLRP1610
GSKT1065
DEKT1148
DKET1205
DEKT1219
DEKT1142
DEKT1249
DEKT1143
SRKT1203
STKT1016
STKT1044
DKET1140
GSKT1071
STKT1024
STKT1031
DEKT1152

2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.00
4.80
3.20
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40
4.80
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
2.40
3.20
2.40
3.20
2.40
3.20
1.60
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
1.60
Page
102

Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Pirgachha
Mithapukur
Mithapukur
Mithapukur
Mithapukur
Mithapukur
Mithapukur
Mithapukur
Mithapukur
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar

Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Rangpur
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia

Mst. Parven Sultana

Md. Amirul Islam
Md. Abdul Kuddus Mondal
Most. Josna Khatun
Md. Jamal Uddin
Md. Badsha Sheikh
Md. M. M. M. Rahmatullah
Mst. Jesmin
Md. Dinaz Uddin
Mst. Monira Parvin
Md. Rezaul Karim
Md. Hossain Ali
Md. Panna Ali
Md. Aidul Islam
Md. Shahidul Islam
Mst. Chaiti Hasan
Mst. Afroza Khatun
Md. Wazali
Md. Abdus Samad Mollah
Mst. Razia Sultana
Md. Edrish Ali
Mst. Jarina Begum
Md. Abu Bakkar Khan
Md. Monzur Rahman
Rozina
Rozi Begum
Md. Mozibur Rahman
Md. Selim
Mst. Iren Parvin
Md. Moniruzzaman
Md. Geas Ahmed
Abdul Latif
Md. Wali Ahmed
Md. Ibrahim
Md. Mojibar Rahman
Mst. Halima Khatun
md. Aftab Hossain
Rakibul Islam
Md. Noor Uddin Sardar
Md. Kaharul Islam
Md. Ziaur Rahman
Md. Jahangir Hossain
Abul Hasem Sardar
Md. Mostafa Bepari
Moyna Begum
Tofazzal Bepari
Mofazzal Bhuiyan
Taslima Begum

GSKT1068
DEKT1172
DEKT1237
DEKT1149
KBKT1133
JBKT1002
DEKT1273
DEPB1156
SBPB1119
DEPB1089
DEPB1124
DEPb1078
DEPB1124
DEPB1078
DEPB1088
DEPB1107
DEPB1089
GSPB1125
GSBP1102
DEPB1124
DEKT1190
AKPB1059
DEPB1082
GSPB1091
AKPB1082
AKPB1060
DEPB1156
DEPB1109
DEPB1079
DEPB1123
DEKT1188
AKPB1087
STPB1002
DEKT1184
DEPB1106
DEPB1126
DEPB1149
AKPB1080
AKPB1089
PEPB1008
GSPB1103
GSIA1044
SKMG1023
SKMG1022
SKMG1024
SKMG1018
SKMG1021
SKMG1019

2.40
3.20
3.20
3.20
2.40
2.00
3.20
2.40
2.00
3.20
3.20
4.80
2.40
4.80
2.40
2.40
3.20
3.20
3.20
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.00
3.20
2.40
2.40
3.20
4.80
4.80
2.40
4.80
4.80
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
4.80
4.80
4.80
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.40
Page
103

Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Kumarkhali
Kustia Sadar
Kustia Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Iswardi
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Pabna Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar

Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Kustia
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Pabna
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj

Nasir Deyan
Geas Uddin Deoyan
Md. Ibrahim Bepari
Saheb Ali
Md. Abdur Rahman
Md. Selim Bepari
Ruma Begum
Md. Sadek Bhuiyan
Md. Badsha Patan
Jalal Bepari
Rehena Parvin
Md. Abdus Sattar
Md. Solaiman
Md. Ekin Ali
Nazma Begum
Md. Shafiuddin Sheikh
Rehena Begum
Md. Kamal Mollah
Md. Sohel Sheikh
Md. Rafiq
Md. Monir Hossain Dali
Rabeya Begum
Md. Khorshed Alam
Md. Ayub Kabir
Al Haj Momin Uddin
Yeakub Ali
Mst. Nargish Akhter
Md. Ziarul Hoque
Peyara Begum
Foymal Ahmed
Hori Parshad
Md. Abul Hossain
Aminul Hoque
Md. Selim Sakhayat
Md. Aowlad Hossain
Md. Jasim Uddin Bhuiyan
Md. Tabarak Hossain
Md. Taraz Uddin Gazi
Md. Abu Taher
Motiur Rahman
Md. Shahidul Bhuiyan
Md. Belayet Hossain
Md. Amir Hossain
Md. Sikdar Ali
Kamrul Hasan Feroj
Md. Masud Rana
Noor Mohammad
Noor Mohammad

GSMS1016
GSMS1015
GSMS1012
GSMS1017
GSMS1013
SKMG1032
SKMG1010
SKMG1006
SKMG1016
SKMG1009
SKMG1014
SKMG1004
SKMG1003
SKMG1029
SKMG1017
RSMG1013
NLMU1003
NLMU1001
RSMG1011
RSMG1009
RSMG1003
NLMU1004
SKDK1017
SKDK1013
SKDK1012
SKDK1009
SKNG1001
SKNG1002
SKDK1015
SKNG1003
SKNG1004
SKNG1017
SKNG1018
SKNG1024
SKNG1016
SKDK1007
SKNG1015
SKNG1013
SKDK1010
SKDK1014
SKDK1008
SKDK1004
SKDK1003
SKDK1002
SKDK1001
GSVA1069
RBNI1030
SKNG1031

4.80
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.40
4.80
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.00
3.20
4.80
4.80
2.00
2.40
3.20
3.20
4.80
2.40
4.80
2.40
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
3.20
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.00
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
3.20
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
3.20
2.40
Page
104

Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Munshiganj Sadar
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj
Rupganj

Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
Munshiganj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj
narayangonj

Md. Mahabub Alam

Delowar Hossain
Mst. Amena Begum
Md. Babul Hossain
Md. Shanaz Miah
Md. Babul Hossain
Abdul Khalek
Md. Rasel Hoque
Al Amin shikder
M. N. Zaman
Abdul Aziz
Md. Ali Dewyan
Kamal Hossain
Md. Kazal Miah
Esmat Ara
Md. Nurul Islam
Mukta
Md. Ismail
Abdul Motaleb
Md. Masud Rana
Anowar Hossain
Mst. Esrat Jahan Mini
Md. Geas Uddin Sardar
Md. Altaf Sardar
Mst. Masuda Akhter
Mostafa Alam
Md. Masud Rana
Md. Sultan Alam
Md. Saidur Rahman
Sohel Rana
Md. Nurul Islam
Md. Mozammel Hoque
Md. Lutfar Rahman
Md. Moniruzzaman
Md. Alamgir Hossain
Md. Anowar-ul-Islam
Md. A. Rashid Mowral
Md. Ziaur Rahman
Gobindra chandra mondal
Md. Golam Hossain
Abdul Sattar
Md. Abdul Kader Biswas
Billal Hossain
Abdur Salam
Md. Quasem Ali
Md. Hadiuzzaman
Md. Epas Uddin Gazi
Chanchal Kumar Bowtachacha

SKNG1025
SKNG1029
BUJD1067
BUJD1024
GSMN1166
GSMN1136
GSMN1142
GSMN1151
GSMN1152
GSMN1160
BUJD1011
GSGZ1154
BUJD1049
BUJD1012
BUJD1050
GSMN1181
BUJD1046
GSMN1131
BUGZ1008
BUJD1044
RSMN
BUJD1018
BUJD1015
BUJD1066
BUJD1042
GSMN1169
GSMN1143
GSMN1154
GSGZ2125
GSMN1128
GSPB1090
GSKU1010
GSKU1013
GSKU1017
GSKU1020
GSKU1031
GSKU1033
GSKU1036
GSKU1041
GSNM1066
GSNM1069
GSNM1096
GSNM1096
HBJH1107
HBJS1096
RRJS1005
RSBI1071
SRJS1123

2.40
2.40
3.20
4.80
3.20
4.80
4.80
4.80
2.40
2.40
3.20
3.20
3.20
4.80
3.20
4.80
3.20
2.40
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
2.40
4.80
3.20
4.80
3.20
3.20
4.80
3.20
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40
Page
105

Rupganj
Rupganj
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Sreepur
Pabna Sadar
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur

narayangonj
narayangonj
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Gazipur
Pabna
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor

Md. Mizanur Rahman

Md. Shafiqul Islam
Kamrul Hasan
Khandakar Mahbuber Rabbani
Mst. Khuki Begum
Md. Khorshed Alam
Ashraful Hoque Babu
Md. Abul Motin
Md. Shajahan
Md. Motiur Rahman
Md. Abdul Mozid
Md. Faruq Hossain
Md. Aktaruzzaman
Md. Robiul Islam
Nazrul Islam
Md. Abdul Mozid
Md. Jalal Uddin Biswas
Md. Monirul Islam
Md. Ali Hossain
Chan Mohammad
Md. Hassan Ali
Md. Aktaruzzaman
Md. Moklesur Rahman
Md. Bakul Hossain
Md. Ruhul Amin
Jamal Hossain
Md. Tuhin
Md. Harunur Rashid
Md. Geas Uddin
Md. Kawsar Ahmad
Sha Md. Abul Khaier
Sree Sanzid
Md. Joynal Abedin
Haji Md. Abdul Ali
Haji A. K. M. Faqrul Islam
Md. Tara Miah
Quazi Shihab Chowdhuri
Dr. Mozibur Rahman
Md. Hamidul Chowdhury
Md. Syed Miah Talukder
Md. Faruq Miah
Md. Jahirul Islam
Md. Anowar Chowdhury
Md. Abdul Mabud
Md. Abur Rob
Md. Nazmul Anam Chowdhury
Biswhadith Kumar
Md. Rahim Ullah

SRJS1125
SRJS1129
SRJS1135
SRJS1145
SRJS1151
GSMH1074
DEKT1134
GSMH1076
GSMH1105
GSMH1191
GSMH1194
GSMH1099
GSMH1072
GSMH1078
GSMH1083
DEMH1002
GSKT1069
GSMH1096
GSJH1096
GSMH1103
GSMH1108
GSMH1113
GSMH1116
GSMH1120
GSMH1121
GSMH1123
GSMH1098
NLNK1012
GSVJ1035
GSGS1005
GSNQ1032
GSB11014
GSHB1016
GSNQ1030
GSZA1032
GSNQ1025
GSZA1033
GSNQ1022
GSHB1017
RSHB1007
GSNQ1026
GSCB1095
GSBJ1044
GSBJ1042
SKNO1001
GSVJ1036
GSCV1094
GSVJ1034

2.00
2.40
3.20
2.00
3.20
2.40
3.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.40
3.20
2.00
1.60
4.80
3.20
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.40
3.20
4.80
3.20
2.40
4.80
2.00
2.40
3.20
2.40
3.20
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
4.80
3.20
4.80
2.40
4.80
4.80
Page
106

Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Monirampur
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Gangni
Sonaimuri
Kobirhat
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Hobiganj Sadar
Hobiganj Sadar
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Hobiganj Sadar
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Sonaimuri
Kobirhat
Noakhali Sadar
Kobirhat
Kobirhat
Sonaimuri
Kobirhat

Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
Jessor
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
meherpur
Noakhali
Noakhali
Habigonj
Habigonj
Habigonj
Habigonj
Habigonj
Habigonj
Habigonj
Habigonj
Habigonj
Habigonj
Habigonj
Habigonj
Noakhali
Noakhali
Noakhali
Noakhali
Noakhali
Noakhali
Noakhali

Jarna Rani Dash

Md. Faruq Ahmed
Md. Monir Hossain
Md. Abdul Kayium
Md. Tota Miah
Md. Owahad Ali
Md. Samir Uddin
Md. Billal Hossain
Md. Abdul Khalik
Md. Jasim Uddin
Md. Aliur Rahman
Md. Selim Ali
Md. Alim Uddin
Md. Shamsuddin
Md. Arash Ali
Md. Foizul Islam
Md. Rashed Hossain
Md. Abdul Rakib
Md. Nazmul Miah
Md. Abdul Kaiyum Mintu
Syed Mohammad

GSCB1015
GSVT1008
GSCV1096
GSVT1044
GSVT1035
GSVT1032
GSVT1027
GSVT1021
GSVT1006
GSVT1013
GSVT1014
GSLZ1015
GSVT1043
GSVT1038
GSVT1053
GSVT1025
NLNK1019
GSNQ1033
RSNB1002
GSIL1001
GSCR1091

2.00
1.60
3.20
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.00
2.40
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.20
4.80
3.20
2.40
3.20
3.20

Page
107

Subarnachar
Biswanath
Sonaimuri
Biswanath
Biswanath
Biswanath
Biswanath
Biswanath
Biswanath
Biswanath
Biswanath
Mimakazi
Biswanath
Biswanath
Biswanath
Biswanath
Noakhali Sadar
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Nabiganj and Habiganj Sadar
Subarnachar
Sonaimuri

Noakhali
Sylhet
Noakhali
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Noakhali
Habigonj
Habigonj
Noakhali
Noakhali

Annex 3
Checklist for Qualitative Data Collection
BIOGAS USERS SURVEY 2010
Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
Three (3) FGDs will be conducted in each district. All the 3 FGDs will take place in one
village/community having sufficient number of users. All of the FGD participants will not
necessarily be covered by the questionnaire survey.
FGD 1: Users Group
This FGD will cover only a few issues as almost all the relevant issues will be covered by the
questionnaire survey. However, to have a collective view on some of those issues, the FGD will
discuss a few of the questionnaire issues as well. Following are the issues to be covered in this
FGD:
-

Expansion of the use of biogas as a source of energy. How it came in the

village/community? How flourished?
Advantages of using biogas. Is there any disadvantage? Comparison with traditional and
non-renewable energy sources.
Impact on the community as a whole (while the questionnaire survey captures impact on
individual households, this is more about impact at the community level).
Quality of services of the providers? How they help in maintenance?

A number of mapping and interactive exercises will be done as part of the FGD.
Resource Mapping. Preparing with the participants a map of the existing resources that the
community depends on. Information covered in the mapping exercise will include the following:
-

Location, scale and context of the resources (natural and social).

Identification of resources having implications from the type of energy use.
Impact of biogas on resources, particularly sustainability of natural resources.
Highlighting possible depletion of natural resources due to use of non-renewable and
traditional sources of energy.

Page
108

Livestock Mapping. Preparing in a participatory way a map of the existing livestock in the
community and the links to biogas. Information will include:
-

Types of livestock available in the community and implications on the availability of raw
materials for biogas.
Impact of biogas on the potentials of livestock in the community.
Links with other farming activities e.g. use of bio-slurry as fertilizer for cultivation.

Activity Mapping. Use of biogas is likely to bring about significant changes in the household
activities through increasing the time use efficiency of its members. A participatory exercise
will be conducted to capture this aspect of biogas use. The issues to be covered will include the
following:
-

Time use pattern of the members of the households using biogas plants. After-before
comparison.
Changes in daily activities types and nature of work of the biogas plants owning
households.
Impact on women in particular through changes in their activities related to collection
and utilization of different energy sources.

Seasonality Analysis. The seasonal variations of all the aspects of biogas use will be captured
through a participatory exercise. The following information will be gathered from the exercise:
-

Seasonal variations in availability of raw materials for biogas plants and mechanisms
adopted by the households to adjust with that.
Seasonal variations in marketing aspects (demand-supply) of slurry and the implications
of financial benefits from it.
Seasonal variations in the activities and time-use patterns emerging from the use of
biogas in the household.

Market Actor Mapping. This participatory exercise will map the market actors in the locality to
assess the market potentials of biogas plants and bio-slurry. The following issues will be address
in the exercise:
-

Identification of market actors with locations and scale of operation.

Current role of the identified market actors in marketing bio-slurry.
Links between the market actors and the community.
Ways to make the market actors more active in enhancing the market potentials of bioslurry.

FGD 2: Non-users Group

Since non-users will not be covered by the questionnaire survey, it is important to ensure that all
the information required about the non-users are captured in this FGD. Following are the issues
to be covered.
-

Why non-users? What factors are stopping them in becoming biogas users?
Page
109

Extent of interest among the non-users?

If the interest is high, what can be done to make them biogas users?
How do they view the benefits of the use of biogas instead of the energy sources they are
using now?
How do they compare the socio-economic status of the users and non-users? Do they
believe there has been significant socio-economic impact on the biogas using
households?
Do they view themselves as potential biogas users in the near future? If yes, how will
that happen?
What are they loosing from not using biogas as energy source? Are they loosing
anything at all?
If interested, what will be the purposes of using biogas?
Capacity of installing biogas in terms of availability of raw materials and ability to
undertake the required investment.
Factors determining expansion of biogas plants.
Pricing and investment realities in expanding biogas plants.
Market demand for biogas plants from economic perspectives.
Ways to effectively promote biogas plants as economically and commercially viable
option for users.

FGD 3: Special RRA on Market Linkages

This FGD will involve the market players and the users together discussing the issues of
marketing bio-slurry. The following will be discussed:
-

Market potentials of bio-slurry. Current demand and supply. Potential demand and
supply.
Current and potential buyers of bio-slurry.
Current and potential marketing channels of bio-slurry.
Types of uses of bio-slurry having implications on marketing potentials.
How to make bio-slurry more marketable? Ways of promoting bio-slurry as a more
attractive product for the market.
Challenges in bio-slurry marketing. Ways to overcome the challenges.

Case Studies and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)

A number of case studies and KIIs will be carried out in the study locations although the number
of these will depend on the actual necessity of filling the gaps of information or of verifying
particular information. Therefore, no pre-defined checklist will be used for these. The
researchers on field will use their own judgment in carrying these out and will make sure that the
information collected is indeed useful.

Page
110