of renewable energy in arresting

The effect of carbon emmissions,global warming and fragility ofecosystems, is captured in the frayededges of planet earth. The potentialof renewable energy in arrestingdepletion of natural resources andfossil fuels is expressed in akaleidoscope of colors: yellow/orange(solar), light/dark blue (hydel),light/dark green (biomass), light/darkbrown (geothermal), blue/aquamarine(tidal) and whirling white (wind).

Foreword

1 Introduction & Overview3 Technological Process5 Benefits and Advantages6 Constraints and Issues7 Product Utility and Efficacy

11 Study Design & Parameters11 Background12 Methodology

15 Survey Results & Findings20 Efficiency Dimensions

23 Conclusions

26 References & Annexures

1

2

3

4

Contents

Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund

Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund has launched a Research andDiscussion Series to commemorate completion of ten years ofoperations. The R&D series aims to foster debate and discussionon poverty and its reduction with special reference to communitydriven grassroots development. The initial theme selected for thispurpose is renewable energy.

This study, the first in the series, explores and highlights potentialof biogas technology as an economic and environmentallysustainable alternative to conventional fossil fuels. It focuses ongauging technical and output efficiencies resulting from temperaturedifferentials and seasonality given Pakistan’s agro climatic location.It assesses biogas digesters installed by a PPAF partner organizationin Southern Punjab with local corporate support. A random sampleof 50 per cent plants, installed and functional at the time of survey,was drawn. A specifically designed household based questionnairewas administered, complemented by physical inspection of plants.

This assessment exercise was designed and conducted byMuhammad Muslim Nabeel (Evaluation, Research and Developmentunit) under supervision of Ahmad Jamal (Chief Strategy Officer),in close collaboration with Community Physical Infrastructure unit.Editorial assistance was provided by Madiha Mumtaz (CSOOffice).The proactive facilitation and logistic support extended byNational Rural Support Programme is gratefully acknowledged.

Kamal HyatChief Executive/Managing Director

Foreword

1Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund

1Introduction& Overview

Rural areas of Pakistan arecharacterized by scarcity ofopportunity and therefore higherincidence of poverty compared tomore urbanized regions. They arehome to about 70 per cent of the totalpopulation of Pakistan. Currenteconomic recession in general andenergy crisis in particular has affectedthe rural economy quite substantially.

Shortage of electricity and fluctuatingoil prices have increased reliance onnatural gas, especially as automobilefuel and means for power generation.Consequently, rising demand for

This situation has led public andprivate development related agenciesto jointly devise strategies forexploring and providing means tosupplant conventional energy sourceswith relatively inexpensive, feasibleand sustainable alternatives. The civilsociety, owing to better linkages andaccess to the grassroots, caneffectively play its catalytic role insupplementing Government’s efforts.

Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund(PPAF), as an apex institution, ismandated to providing assistanceand means to address poverty relatedissues and constraints. It presents aninnovative model of public privatepartnership. Through a network of 74partner organizations (POs) acrossthe country, PPAF provides supportto disadvantaged through its fourinstruments of intervention: i) lines ofcredit to poor communities that cannotreadily access financial institutions;ii) developing and upgrading ruralareas through provision of grantbased small scale infrastructureprojects; iii) providing trainings forhuman development to existingcommunities benefiting from PPAF’s

energy in the industrial sector hasdiverted focus of policy regimetowards commercial users. As aresult, current domestic consumersare facing a shortage in supply andfurther extension of this facility to newlocations, especially to remote ruralareas, is unlikely particularly in theshort term. On the other hand,Pakistan faces dual constraint ofresource insufficiency in both fossilfuels and forest reserves1, and lackof an effective policy to meet energyrequirements of the country.Therefore, shortage of energy, morepronounced across rural areas, isevident throughout the nationalcanvas. Not surprisingly poorhouseholds tend to spend more onfuel and lighting as a percentage oftheir income, and tend to be morevulnerable to rising prices andshortages in supply (PSLM, 2008).

Given the status of energy demandand GDP growth over last 10 yearsthere is a large gap between demand(current and projected) which willhave to meet through fossil andrenewable sources of energy (PSY,2005).

2 Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund

RESEARCH & DISCUSSION SERIES

1– In Pakistan only about 5%of total land is forested andindigenous resources sufficejust 21% of fossil oil demands.

Technological ProcessBiogas is methane-rich fuel potentiallyproduced by manure, agriculturalwaste or aquatic weeds. Theproduction process is carried out byfermentation of biodegradablematerial in absence of oxygen(anaerobic process). The gas thusproduced accumulates in an airtightchamber (a biogas plant or biogasdigester) specifically designed toserve as biogas reservoir. Biogasburns with an odorless, soot less andintense flame with appreciablethermal efficiency.

The essential input required forproducing biogas is abundant in ruralareas. According to research, subjectto effective and efficient use, annualproduction of biomass globally is fourtimes greater than required to meetenergy needs over the same period(Majid 2002). This demonstrates theimmense potential and viability ofemploying this huge source of energyat both household and industrial level.

Renewable Energy: Biogas


financial and nonfinancial services;and iv) providing access to basichealth care and primary education todeprived and poor communities.PPAF has disbursed over Rs. 40billion in 120 districts of the countrysince its inception in year 2000.

By virtue of available resource baseand network of POs, PPAF is wellpositioned, especially with respect torural areas, to promote in providingviable alternative energy sources.Optimum adaption and conservationof existing domestic resources arethe single most important imperative in this regard. PPAF strives to exploreand disseminate alternative energysources for addressing powerdeficiency at micro level. For thispurpose, it has already tested anddeployed various innovativeinterventions exploiting hydel, solarand wind energy. As an initiative fordiversification in this area, this reportfocuses on findings of a pilot projectinitiated in southern region of Punjabprovince (Rahim Yar Khan)introducing biogas as fuel athousehold level. The study assessesadoption, utility and effectiveness ofthe pilot project.

ProductionThe waste spends approximatelythree weeks in the digester wheremethanization seperates it into twoparts:- A solid part (digester sludge)- A gaseous part (biogas)

Upgrading/ConsumptionBiogas is concentrated and cleanedin order to produce a gaseous fuel(biomethane) for vehicles ordomestically consumed for cooking,heating or lighting.

DistributionBiomethane may beused in natural gas grids(injection) or fillingstations.

Use in vehiclesBiomethane may beused in all forms ofvehicles with sparkignition enginesdesigned to run on acombination of dieseland methane.

Organic wasteBio-waste is waste frommarket, restaurants,manure, toilets, kitchens,gardens, farms etc.

Waste CollectionWaste may be collectedwith biogas - operatedvehicles or manually

Biogas LifecycleRange of potential applications

Figure 1.1



acute respiratory illnesses such aspneumonia or chest infections.

By-productsAn additional benefit of a biogas plantis effectiveness of its by-product(called sludge or slurry) as high-gradeorganic compost that is far moreeffective and safer than raw manureor synthetic fertilizers. Since disease-causing germs are killed due toanaerobic condition in biogas digester,slurry does not emit odor or attractflies and other carrier insects.Generally, it is diluted with irrigationwater for utilizing as fertilizer. Sludgecan be filled in pits and left to dry inthe sun for storage purposes. Ondrying, cakes are dug out and storedin piles for future use. However, dryingand storing may cause some loss inits fertilizing value.

Ancillary BenefitsOther scientifically proven benefits ofbiogas (Majid, 2002) are enumeratedbelow:

It is absolutely non-poisonous.It has no offensive odor.


Benefits & Advantages

Health and HygieneWomen in rural households generallycarry the responsibility of collectingmanure and preparing dung cakes,manually. Manure gets deposited innails and palm troughs results inspreading germs and bacteria duringother household work such as,cooking and serving, looking after thechildren. This is perceived topredispose users/handlers to infectionand diseases in rural areas; childrenare especially vulnerable.

The downside of burning raw dungor other traditional cooking fuels (i.e.firewood, straw, coal etc) is pollution(and carbon emission) caused bytheir smoke. Traditional cooking fuelsnot only pollute the air but alsodegrade the quality of food beingcooked. Women are at high risk ofdeveloping a range of diseasesincluding, chronic obstructivepulmonary diseases, respiratoryillnesses, eye diseases andtuberculosis. Children on the otherhand, particularly those under 5 yearsof age are at high risk of contracting


Technical

Where water table is high, groundwater can exert hydraulicpressure on the plant causingdamage to its variouscomponents.Corrosion due to chemical natureof gas and fermentation processleads to decay and leakage inthe gas holder.Pipes connecting the plant tostove can potentially producecatastrophic results (in case ofdamage or leakage) if nothandled or taken care of properly.Variation in weather (cold or hot)significantly affects the plant’stechnical efficiencies.Its storage and transportation isnot easy and economical whenproduced at household level.Appropriate training formaintaining the plant and usingbiogas stove carefully.Problems may arise when userseither neglect instructions forhandling or try to experiment withthe system.

It burns with clean, blue, sootless flame.Its caloric value is High (4,700 –6,000 kcal/m3)Its thermal efficiency in astandard burner is 60 per centwhich is graded as ‘high’.It is cheap and environmentfriendly.It reduces deforestation andconsequently land erosion andflooding.Unlike smoky fuels, it is notharmful to health and leavesutensils clean.It is simple and convenient touse.A well managed biogas plantdoes not have any unpleasantodor around it.

Constraints & IssuesIn spite of its numerous benefitsdescribed in the preceding section,there are constraining factors relatedto employing biogas technology. Areview of relevant literature suggeststhat these problems can broadly beclassified in three categories.



increase maintenance/runningcost hence distorting expectedoutcomes.Another problem which is citedin literature is toxicity of slurrydue to vaccination and antibioticsgiven to animals for treatmentpurposes. This could potentiallymake crops fertilized by suchslurry, poisonous.

Product Utility & Efficacy

International EvidenceInternational experience whether atsmall or large scale suggestssignificant common practice. Someevidence from developing and moredeveloped countries is cited below:

Grameen Shakti in Bangladeshhas initiated biogas programme,with a successful pilot project. Itenvisions a potential market of 4million biogas plants in five yearsthrough financial means andmechanisms based on credit,thereby making biogas plantsaffordable and sustainable.In India small scale digestion


Social

Beliefs, behavior, norms andcustoms need to change whendealing with new ways of doingthings.Rural areas where fossil fuelsource (natural gas) is available,better-off households givemanure of their cattle to poorerones. Installation of biogas plantsin better off houses in such areaswould shift them to the newsource hence poor householdswould have the disadvantage ofhaving to compete for scarce fueland energy sources.

Economic

A significant impediment toextending this technology to poorhouseholds is its high capital cost.Poor households may or may notbe able to pay the total upfrontcost.Scarcity of input material due toinsufficient number of livestockby beneficiary household maycompel them to buy dung fromexternal sources which will


of Science and Technology hasdeveloped and installed largescale biogas plants at prisons totreat sewage and provide gas forcooking.Sri Lankan Government hasrecognized usefulness of thistechnology in 1970. Since thenpeople are reaping its benefits atboth household and commerciallevels. It has significantlysupplemented the dairy sectoras herd owners are producingbiogas on industrial basis andalso getting economic benefitfrom the slurry by selling it asfertilizer.Biogas can effectively replacefuels used in combustion engines,generators and boilers atindustrial level. As evidence,compressed biogas is widelyused in Sweden, Switzerland andGermany for the same purpose.A biogas powered train has beenin service in Sweden since 2005.South Africa has recently initiateda Household Biogas Program in2008 with a vision of providingbiogas digesters to 12,000households in two provinces

facilities are catering to over 2million households. Under theDeenabandhu2 Model, Ministryof Non-conventional EnergySources of Government of Indiais providing subsidies tocommunities as well as masonsconstructing these plants.Biogas is extensively usedthroughout rural China and anestimated 18 million householdswere benefiting from this sourceby the end of year 2005.In Nepal, 150,000 biogas plantshave been installed in rural areasunder Biogas Support Programme.This programme has won theAshden Award for excellent work.Vietnam’s Biogas Programme foranimal husbandry has led toinstallation of over 20,000 plantsthroughout the country.In Colombia experiments withdiesel engine generators partiallyfuelled by biogas demonstratedthat biogas could be used forpower generation, reducingelectricity cost by 40 per centcompared with purchase fromregional utility.In Rawanda, the Kigali Institute


2– Hindi for “helpful to the poor”.


well-worn in the country with apotential of large scale adoption.However, some backstopping in theform of financial and technicalassistance by either Government orcivil society is a requisite.

In Pakistan, approximately 70 percent population subsists in rural areaswhere 62 per cent of cooking fuelneeds are currently being met bygobar (dung/animal waste) and therest by wood, kerosene and/or otherfossil fuels (Ilyas 2006). Livestock isan essential commodity possessedby nearly every rural household nomatter rich or poor. Over the yearsrapid structural transformation inagriculture has taken place which isboth inter-sectoral and intra-sectoral.Population of large ruminants hasincreased to 60 per cent over the last20 years, to stand at almost 56 million(Pakistan Livestock Census, 1986,1996, 2006). In the province of Punjabalone, where agriculture is apredominant activity, share of cropssubsector in agriculture value addedhas declined from 64.1 per cent in2000 to 59.9 per cent in 2007;correspondingly livestock subsector


(Eastern Cape and Kwa-ZuluNatal) by targeting householdsand community groups that canafford to pay 10 per cent of theirmonthly income during five yearsand a 10 per cent upfrontpayment.

National PerspectiveIIn line with international trends,introduction of Biogas technology isnot a novel phenomenon in Pakistan;rather, it has a history of over 35years. In 1974, Government ofPakistan initiated a comprehensivebiogas programme at the nationallevel and 4,550 such plants werecommissioned by 1990. The projectwas undertaken in three phases:i) One hundred demonstration plantswith grants from Government. ii)Biogas plants installed with somecommunity share. iii) Biogas plantsinstalled solely by communities’ ownefforts. Unfortunately, the third phaseflopped due to absence ofGovernment funds and, in turn, lackof interest from the communities(Khurshid 2001). However, this showsthat the idea of biogas technology is


has increased from 34.8 per cent to39.9 per cent over the same period.This phenomenal growth in thelivestock subsector indicates thepotential of exploiting products andbyproducts obtained from theseanimals. As an estimate, only 50 percent manure obtained from theselivestock can suffice the cookingneeds of 30 per cent of ruralpopulation if processed for producingbiogas. (Majid, 2002).

Adoptability ProspectsAs people in rural areas are culturallyaccustomed to handling manure/dungtherefore intensive efforts onpersuading them for adopting biogastechnology is not required.Introduction of biogas plants willchange modality not means; thereforeit is a matter of developing systematicpolicy and implementation design andprovision of some technicalassistance. Moreover, maintenanceof a biogas plant is much easier thantraditional process of making dungcakes. Therefore, acquisition ofbiogas technology is not only



envisioned to significantly saving timebut also helping women to divest ofa highly labour intensive and menialwork activity.


2Study Design

&Parameters

BackgroundNational Rural Support Programme(NRSP) is a PPAF partnerorganization operating at the nationallevel with dedicated focus on ruralareas. NRSP, in collaboration withJamal Din Wali (JDW) Sugar Millsunder Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) initiative, promoted renewableenergy sources on pilot basis in theregion of Rahim Yar Khan (Punjab).Under this project, one hundredbiogas digesters were planned to beinstalled at household level out ofwhich 40 have been installed and

efficacy and viability prospects of thetechnology. A team was formedcomprising of Evaluation, Researchand Development (ERD) andCommunity Physical Infrastructure(CPI) units. The survey teamcomprised of three members fromCPI unit tasked with examiningphysical design and assuring optimumfunctioning of the plants, and onemember from ERD unit withresponsibility to carrying out a surveyand focus group discussions withbeneficiaries and gauge social andeconomic outcomes of theintervention.

MethodologyA random sample of 50 per centplants, installed and functional till thedate of survey, was selected.According to the sample drawn, 21(out of 41) biogas plants were visited.Efficiency was examined throughphysical inspection of the plants andrecording the duration for which astove attached to the digester wouldburn continuously. This exercise wasdone for each selected plant twice aday (at dawn and dusk). Beneficiarieswere asked not to use the gas during

fully operational since February 2009.The rest are under construction andexpected to become fully functionalby June 2009. Biogas digesters arebeing installed with 80 per cent sharefrom JDW sugar mills and 20 per centfrom the household getting thefacility3. NRSP provided data andinformation as background use forcost benefit analysis and evidenceof impact.

A biogas digester has an inherentlimitation of not performing optimallyduring winter season. Althoughwinters last only for three months inRahim Yar Khan, yet theshortcomings are reflected in surveyresults as this study was carried outduring winters. In summers (rest ofthe nine months), two fold increasein production of the plants isestimated. This will also be supportedby our survey findings imparted inpreceding sections. Therefore, resultsof this study reflect the “minimumbase”.

The pilot project was taken undermeticulous consideration and a studywas commissioned to discern the


3– An eight cubic feet biogasdigester costs Rs. 40,000including all the accessorieslike valves, pipes and a stove.



other timings throughout the day.Social and economic benefits werequantified and views of beneficiariesand time variant data were collectedthrough administering a questionnairespecifically designed for this purpose.Moreover, focus group discussionswith users and beneficiaries werecarried out in order to elicit subjectiveand qualitative information regardingeffectiveness and/or inefficiency ofthe technology.

The survey provided significant insightinto different aspects of developmentof this project. Major results andfindings of the survey are impartedin the preceding sections.



3Survey

Results &Findings

Survey Results & Findings

Demographic ProfileThe surveyed households had fairlylarge average household size of 10.5with 54 per cent men and 46 per centwomen.

Social MobilizationIn development interventions atgrassroots it is very important thatthe end users have completeawareness and ownership of theproject. Therefore, sufficient timeperiod is imperative betweenidentification, introduction and


Amount saved (Rs.)/monthRs. <=1,000 1,001 - 1,500 1,501 - 2,000 2,001 - 25,00 > 2,500 Total1 month 23.8% 19.0% 4.8% - - 47.6%2 – 3 months 19.0% 4.8% - 4.8% 4.8% 33.3%> = 4 months - - - 14.3% 4.8% 19.0%Total 42.9% 23.8% 4.8% 19.0% 9.5% 100.0%

Table 3.1Financial Benefits (% households)

Figure 3.1Time lag between introduction and installation of plant

> = 4 months

19%

2 - 3 months

33%

1 months

48%

provision of facility. To that end, timeperiod between introduction oftechnology and physical installationof the plant was recorded.

Figure 3.1 shows that about 50 percent of beneficiaries were providedthe facility within one month ofintroduction. Another 33 per cent weregiven a period of two to three monthswhile 19 per cent were left for four

months or more for further appraisaland consideration of compatibility ofthe project with their domestic needsand constraints.

Monthly savings ascribed to acquisitionof biogas plants (as reported by therespondent) are compared to theperiod allowed for awareness andsocial mobilization is depicted in Table3.1.



The cross tabulation between socialmobilization and financial benefitaccrual by virtue of biogas digester,reveals an interesting phenomenon.Households getting larger period (fourmonths or more) enjoy considerablymore financial benefit from theintervention compared to thosegetting the facility sooner afterintroduction. This shows theimportance of awareness and socialmobilization in developmentinterventions.

Sources of InformationThe source(s) of information (andrelative credibility) significantlyinfluence communities’ technology

adoption decision or behavior. Figure3.2 shows that more than half (57 percent) of households surveyed namedNRSP’s social organizers as theprimary source of information aboutthe technology. Among other sources14 per cent were households alreadyusing this facility. Another 29 per centwere introduced to the bio gastechnology from other sources likefriends, relatives, books or brochures.

A high percentage of respondentsgetting knowhow of the project fromNRSP shows the active role andacceptability of the NGO in the area.On the other hand, another significantpercentage of households (43 percent) acquiring knowledge about the

Figure 3.2Sources of information

NRSP’s SocialOrganizers

57%

Others

29%

People who areusing biogas plants

14%



4– Large animals refer tobuffalos, bullocks or cowswhile small animals implycalves, goats or sheep.

87 per cent) of households was ofthe view that trainings were effectiveand have provided completeunderstanding of the technology. Theother 13 per cent reported that theywere not quite sure about the use ofthe plants however with passage oftime and subsequent monitoring visitsthe knowhow of technology increased.

Raw MaterialMost important factor in maintenanceof biogas digesters is adequateavailability of input material (manure).In this respect, household getting thetechnology must ‘possess’ sufficientnumber of animals for producingrequired amount of dung. Accordingto the survey data, households gettingthe facility on average own six largeand three small4 animals as sourceof dung for the digesters. However,this number must be interpreted inrelevance with number of householdmembers in order to estimate thesufficiency of input material.

As indicated by the data collectedduring the survey, about 80 per centof beneficiary households mentionedthat they have sufficient amount of

facility from other local sourcesindicates the social cohesion andpotential of people in the area toinfluence each other. A relativelysmaller proportion (14 per cent) ofpeople influenced by successful usersis also a good sign and this share isexpected to increase with furtherdissemination and information.

All surveyed beneficiary householdsreported that they were well informedabout the pros and cons of the projectprior to its physical installation andthat they have opted to adopt thistechnology voluntarily.

TrainingsIn innovative technology projectsextensive trainings guaranteesuccess of the intervention. All thesurveyed households informed thatafter installation they were trained onusage and maintenance at leasttwice. Apart from comprehensivetrainings, several monitoring visits byNRSP staff were also conducted onregular basis to examine and ensurethe correct use of biogas plants.

An overwhelming proportion (around



of beneficiary households classifiedthis intervention as “highly beneficial”and useful in fulfilling their needs.Other 33 per cent rated thetechnology as “beneficial” while 14per cent were not sure enough to sayanything about the project. The lattercategory of households is mostlythose who do not have enough dungto optimally benefit from this facilityand/or are not maintaining plantsproperly.

The success or failure of a projectdepends upon perceivedrequirements for which the plants areinstalled. Figure 3.4 shows that onethird of beneficiaries claimed that the

manure to produce enough gas.Other 20 per cent said that are atpresent dung produced by theirlivestock own does not suffice forproducing enough biogas. The deficitwas reported to be met by collectingmanure from neighbors or relatives.However, this is not a long termsolution and unavailability of dungfrom external sources in future maycause the plants to be abandoned.

Perceived BenefitsFeedback of the end-user regardingutility (or otherwise) of anyproject/interventions is vital.

According to Figure 3.3, 53 per cent

Figure 3.3Perceived benefit of intervention

Highly beneficial

53%

Not sure

14%

Beneficial

33%


analysis of the before and aftersituation.

According to survey data, about halfof the visited biogas plants werefunctional since last summer.Therefore, we can get an idea of theireffectiveness in both summer andwinter seasons.

Summer SeasonThe data show s 54 per centreplacement of firewood and 90 to100 per cent replacement of dung-cakes with biogas during summers.Dung-cakes account for 60 per centof cooking fuel consumed in ruralhouseholds (Illyas 2006), which is

plant is effectively catering to theircooking needs. However, another 53per cent reported the interventionmoderately meeting the requirementswhile 14 per cent rate the output asinsufficient to their needs.

Efficiency DimensionPrimary rationale for this project wasthat it would provide alternativeenergy source for cooking athousehold level. Therefore, a pilotproject must show positive trends inorder to provide a benchmark for itsfuture dissemination. Theeffectiveness and how well the projectis lending itself to achieving desiredoutcomes can be obtained through


Figure 3.4Level of satisfaction (needs fulfilment)

Enough

33%

Insufficient

14%

Average

53%



effectively being supplanted bybiogas. Therefore, an overallreplacement of approximately 80 percent of traditional cooking fuel isevident according to the survey data.

Winter SeasonReplacement of firewood with biogasfalls from 50 to 25 per cent inhouseholds having biogas plantsfunctional since summer. This declinecan be ascribed to decreasedefficiency of biogas digesters in winterand extra use of firewood during coldweather. However, in case of dungcakes, biogas is an ultimatereplacement irrespective ofseasonality. Therefore, availability ofbiogas in winters may be pronouncedas capable of catering to 65 per centof household needs.

Notwithstanding, when projects areincluded that have started functioningin winters, the results weresurprisingly better than expected.Some of the newly installed biogasdigesters had as high efficiency inwinter season as obtained from someplants in summer season. Thisimprovement may be attributed to

better design evolving over time andincreased awareness of operatingand managing digesters.


4Conclusions

Energy deficit in poor householdsresults in practical constraints suchas inadequate lighting, inadequatespace heating, inadequate cookingfuel and thus fewer hot, cooked meals,and a short supply of hot water. Thesetbacks caused by the energypoverty in turn have consequencesin the standard of living of the poorthrough illness on a more frequentbasis (with consequences on income),deprivation in well being andvulnerability to economic shocks.Access to clean and convenientenergy services are therefore vital toalleviation of poverty.


to be established. Previous nationalexperience shows thatsupport/assistance is imperative forpromoting the technology. Moreover,the experience of implementing thisproject at community level has notseen success in the past. Therefore,more emphasis should be laid upontargeting individual households.5

Availability of sufficient amount ofdung is a major concern that limitsutility of biogas to only thoseareas/households that possesssufficient livestock. According to thesurvey results, a household optimallybenefiting from the biogas digesterhas 1:1 ratio between adult householdmembers and livestock possessed.Another major impediment inproviding this facility to poorest of thepoor is its high upfront cost. Poorhouseholds may not have thecapacity to bear capital cost fully oreven partly. A plan may be workedout to bring the down upfront costwithout compromising the quality. Thiswould help extending this facility tothe poorest of the poor as well.

Biogas experience at the internationallevel reveals viability of thistechnology in urban as well as ruralareas. It is being quite extensivelyused at household, industrial andcommercial level with great success.Its economic benefits are well provenas it effectively supplements thehousehold economy throughproviding cheap and viable source ofenergy within means and resources.The use of its byproduct as valuablenatural fertilizer is also cited as oneof its economic benefits. Positiveeffects of biogas digesters on healthhave also been reported from all overthe globe and are well recognized. Itnot only helps improving individualhealth but also develops cleaner andsafer environment leading to a morepollution free atmosphere. It isexpected to significantly improvefemale health and hygiene athousehold level, which, in turn, willdefinitely improve children’s healthwhile reducing infant mortalities.

At the national level although the ideaof exploiting biogas as energy fuel isnot new, yet its sustainable publicpolicy success in the long run is still


5– The plants may be installedin clusters comprising of atleast 15 eligible households .



Extensive trainings on the use of thedigesters are essential to ensure thesuccess of the project. Current studyshows that beneficiaries should betrained and mobilized before physicalprovision of the facility as the periodgiven for social mobilization positivelycorrelates with accrual of benefits.Exposure visits in this regards canprove handy to get the beneficiariesfamiliarized with pros and cons of thetechnology.

There is sufficient evidence to suggestthat on average a biogas plant canfulfill the household requirements ofcooking fuel to up to 80 per cent insummers and 60 to 65 per cent inwinters. However, the efficiency peaksat 100 per cent in summers and 80per cent in winters in well managedbiogas plants.



Biogas for Better Life (2008) "SouthAfrica: Household Biogas FeasibilityStudy"

Government of Pakistan. (2007)“Pakistan Social and Living StandardsMeasurement Survey(National/Provincial)”

Jingming L. (2005) "Rural BiogasDevelopment in China"

Khursheed A. (2001) "Country PaperPakistan "Regional Seminar onCommercialization of BiomassTechnology"

Ministry of Petrolieum (2005)“Pakistan Energy Year Book”

Zafar Ilyas S. (2006) "Biogas SupportProgram is a Reason for its Successin Pakistan"

References&

Annexures



HHs Head HHs Village Start End Output TotalName Size Time Time Time Time

Fayyaz Ahmed 11

Kot Faqira

5:35 PM 7:30 PM 1:554:159:05 AM 11:25 AM 2:20

Niaz Ahmed 12 5:49 PM 8:00 PM 2:114:049:07 AM 11:00 AM 1:53

Saeed Ahmed 14 5:52 PM 6:40 PM 0:482:259:08 AM 10:45 AM 1:37

Amjad Raza 17

Gulshan Imam Din

5:10 PM 6:30 PM 1:203:359:10 AM 11:25 AM 2:15

Asif Mehmood 7 5:15 PM 6:45 PM 1:303:079:13 AM 10:50 AM 1:37

Shahid Iqbal 18 5:22 PM 6:30 PM 1:082:579:11 AM 11:00 AM 1:49

Shaukat Ali 9 5:25 PM 6:50 PM 1:252:289:15 AM 10:18 AM 1:03

Waqar Ahmad 8

Malik Mehram

5:36 PM 6:06 PM 0:301:058:43 AM 9:18 AM 0:35

Dr. Ayaz 17 5:46 PM 5:58 PM 0:120:309:55 AM 10:13 AM 0:18

Nawab 7Raees Allah Dad

6:13 PM 7:00 PM 0:471:179:05 AM 9:35 AM 0:30

Shamas u Din 11Sathi Khan

6:57 PM 7:04 PM 0:070:1511:00 AM 11:08 AM 0:08

Haq Nawaz 8

Kotla Hayat

4:45 PM 5:25 PM 0:401:357:45 AM 8:40 AM 0:55

Bashir Ahmad 12 4:52 PM 5:00 PM 0:080:147:53 AM 7:59 AM 0:06

Lal Bakhsh 11 5:07 PM 5:36 PM 0:291:117:38 AM 8:20 AM 0:42

M.Naseem 8 5:45 PM 6:05 PM 0:200:307:40 AM 7:50 AM 0:10

M.Iqbal 7

Basti Khambra

5:43 PM 6:39 PM 0:562:049:22 AM 10:30 AM 1:08

Sajid Ali 7 5:50 PM 7:30 PM 1:403:339:27 AM 11:20 AM 1:53

Shaukat Ali 8 7:19 PM 8:05 PM 0:461:418:51 AM 9:46 AM 0:55

M.Abbas 7Fatehwal

4:22 PM 6:13 PM 1:513:056:56 AM 8:10 AM 1:14

Shabir Ahmad 12Raees Allah Jawaya

4:53 PM 5:53 PM 1:001:507:05 AM 7:55 AM 0:50

Karim Bakhsh 11Raees Allah Jawaya

5:17 PM 6:30 PM 1:132:077:11 AM 8:05 AM 0:54

Annexure 1Output time measurement of surveyed Biogas plants (Feb 2009)



S.No Beneficiary Name Mouza Village Average Dung Kg/Time Day

1 Jam Mureed Dera Dehran Jam Shahroo 2:15 35

2 Manzoor Ahmed Dera Dehran Jam Shahroo 4:58 70

3 Niaz Ahmed Makhan Bela Malik Mehram 4:29 55

4 Muhammad Sharif Makhan Bela Malik Mehram 4:22 55

5 Muhammad Nawab Makhan Bela Rais Allah Dad 3:45 50

6 Muhammad Hashim Dera Dehran Jam Shahroo 2:23 45

7 Siraj Ahmed Dera Dehran Jam Shahroo 5:18 75

8 Ashiq Hussain Dera Dehran Jam Shahroo 1:55 55

9 Sadique Ahmed Makhan Bela Rais Allah Dad 1:51 50

10 Waqar Ahmed Makhan Bela Malik Mehram 4:43 65

11 Razi Ahmed 47/NP Jam Haleem 5:01 70

12 Muhammad Haneef 47/NP Malik Jara 4:30 65

13 Muhammad Murad Makhan Bela Sathi Khan 1:19 55

14 Shamas Din Makhan Bela Sathi Khan 3:59 60

Annexure 2Output time measurement of surveyed Biogas plants (Sep 2008)

Documents

of renewable energy in arresting