download (pdf, 938kB) - SNV

SUSTAINABLE APPROACH ON QUALITY
CONTROL OF BIOGAS PLANTS
Submitted to
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PROMOTION CENTRE
RAMSHAH PATH
KATHMANDU
NEPAL
June 1998
Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.
Meen Bhawan, Baneshwar, P. O. Box 10872, Kathmandu, Nepal
Tel: +977-1-482201 Fax: +977-1-482008
E-mail: cmsnepal@cms.wlink.com.np

TABLE OF CONTENT
PREFACE........................................................................................................................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................
Page
i
ii
viii
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 -1
1.1.1 The Need for Quality Control ............................................................. 1-1
1.1.2 BSP and its Role on Quality Control ................................................... 1-2
1.2 Objectives of the Study .................................................................................. 1-3
1.2.1 General Objectives ............................................................................. 1-3
1.2.2 Specific Objectives ............................................................................ 1-3
1.2.3 Structure of the Report ....................................................................... 1-4
2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY....................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Desk Study Phase.......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Review of literature .......................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Demonstration of Video Film ............................................................. 2-1
2.1.3 Formulation of Study Structured Questionnaire................................... 2-1
2.1.4 Overall Planning for Field Visit .......................................................... 2-2
2.2 Field Visit .........................................................................-.......................... 2-2
2.2.1 Interview with Biogas Users............................................................... 2-3
2.2.2 Interview with Biogas Companies ...................................................... 2-3
2.2.3 Interview with other Personnel and Organizations ............................... 2-3
3. FARMER RESPONDENTS...................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Capacity of Biogas Plants Possessed by the Users........................................... 3-!
3.3 Working Status of the Plants ......................................................................... 3-!
3.4 Services Provided by Biogas Companies ........................................................ 3-1
3.5 Awareness of Biogas Users on BSP's Quality Control Activities ...................... 3-4
3.6 Problems Faced by the Users .................................................................... 3-5
3.7 Suggestion of Biogas Users (o Improve Quality Control.................................. 3-6
4. BIOGAS COMPANIES ............................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 General Information on Selected Biogas Companies ....................................... 4-2
4.3 Working Status of Biogas Plants and Reasons
for Mal-functioning ...................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Follow up and Supervision by the Company.................................................. 4-2
4.5 Most Common Problems as Perceived by Biogas Companies ......................... 4-4
4.6 Technical Capability of the Biogas Companies .............................................. 4-5
4.7 Quality of Materials used in Construction....................................................... 4-6
4.8 Company's View on BSP Quality Control Standards ....................................... 4-7
4.9 Reaction of the Respondents Towards the Penalty System............................... 4-7
4.10 BSP's Support to Biogas Companies .............................................................. 4-9
4.11 Respondents' Views on Sustainability of Quality Control System.................... 4-10

5. COMMERCIAL BANKS ........................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Infrastructural Arrangement of the Banks to Oversee the Biogas
Activity.......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Description of Loan Provided by Banks and its Effectiveness.......................... 5-2
5.4 Activity of Banks about Quality Control ....................................................... 5-3
5.5 Sustainability of the Quality Control System ................................................. 5-4
5.6 Suggestion of Banks to Improve Quality Control........................................... 5-4
6. QUALITY CONTROL SUPERVISORS OF SNV/BSP ............................................. 6-1
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Existing Mechanism of Quality Control ........................................................ 6-1
6.3 Problems Encountered by Quality Control Supervisor and
their Suggestions ......................................................................................... 6-2
6.4 Most Common Problems of Biogas Plants as
Revealed by Quality Control Supervisors ...................................................... 6-2
6.5 Perception of Quality Control Supervisors About the Standards
Fixed by BSP.............................................................................................. 6-3
6.6 Perception of Quality Control Supervisors About
the Penalty System....................................................................................... 6-3
6.7 View of Quality Control Supervisors on Sustainability
of the Programme ........................................................................................ 6-4
6.8 Opinion of Quality Control Supervisors about the Role
of Different Institutions for Sustainability of Programme ............................... 6-5
7. KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSONS.......................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Respondents Knowledge on Quality Control and their
Perception on it ........................................................................................ 7-1
7.3 Penalty System and Quality Contr ol of Biogas ........................................... 7-2
7.4 Respondents' Exposure to Foreign Countries' Quality
Control System and their Expectation from the Companies
and the Bank ........................................................................................... 7-2
7.5 Role of Different Organizations as Suggested by the
Respondents for Quality Control of Biogas ................................................ 7-2
7.6 Suggested Inter -linkage Between Different Organizations
to Improve the Quality of Biogas .............................................................. 7-4
7.7 Appropriate Institution for Conducting Quality
Control of Biogas .................................................................................... 7-4
8. FUTURE STRUCTURE OF QUALITY CONTROL OF BIOGAS PLANTS........... 8-1
8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Present Structure of Quality Control of Biogas Plants ................................. 8-2
8.3 Future Structure of Quality Control............................................................ 8-3
8.3.1 Future Structure Before Expiry of BSP ......................................... 8-4
8.3.2 Future Structure Before Expiry of BSP ......................................... 8-5
9. SUGGESTIONS.................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1 Suggestions
9.1.1 Suggestion to AEPC.................................................................... 9-1
9.1.2 Suggestion to BSP...................................................................... 9-1
9.1.3 Suggestion to Biogas Companies.................................................... 9-2
9.1.4 Suggestion to Commercial Banks ................................................... 9-2
9.1.5 Suggestion on the Standards of Quality Control............................... 9-3

REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, ANNEXES AND APPENDICES
TABLES
Page
Table 2-1 Name of the Interviewer.............................................................................. 2-2
Table 2-2 List of Companies Selected for Study........................................................... 2-3
Table 3-1 Capacity of the Plants of the Selected Households ........................................ 3-2
Table 3-2 Users Response on the Status of the Biogas Plants
Table 3-3 Distribution of the Respondents in Accordance to their Need for
Technical Support and Status of Visit of Companies ..................................... 3-3
Table 3-4 Number of Respondents Possessing Awareness to
the BSP's Quality Control System and Visit of
Quality Control Supervisor.......................................................................... 3-4
Table 3-5 Most Common Problems Encountered by the
Users And Source for Solving Them............................................................ 3-5
Table 3-6 Users' View on Frequent Wear and Tear of
or Equipment/Accessories ........................................................................... 3-6
Table 4-1 General Information on Selected Biogas Companies ..................................... 4-1
Table 4-2 Respondents' View about Functioning Plants and
Possible Reasons for Mai-Functioning ......................................................... 4-2
Table 4-3 Most Common Problems Encountered by Companies ................................... 4-4
Table 4-4 Number of the Trained Staff Possessed by the
Selected Companies .................................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-5 Type of Manpower Involved in the Construction
and the Supervision of Biogas Plants............................................................ 4-6
Table 4-6 Attitude of companies Towards Penalty System
and Penalty Amount to be Paid by the Company
as per Default ............................................................................................. 4-8
Table 4-7 Frequency of Visit by Quality Control Supervisors
to the Companies and BSP's Support............................................................ 4-9
Table 5-1 Infrastructural Arrangement in the Head Office of
Selected Banks ........................................................................................... 5-2
Table 5-2 Number of Plants, Interest Rate of the Banks and
Responsible Authority for Loan Approval .................................................... 5-2
Table 6-1 Performance Factor..................................................................................... 6-4
Table 7-1 General Description of Knowledgeable Persons ............................................ 7-1
Table 7-2 Role to be Played by Different Organizations for
Quality Control According to the Respondents ............................................. 7-3
Table 7-3 Breakdown of the Respondents' Choice of
Institution for Conducting Quality Control of Biogas .................................... 7-4
Table 9-1 Respondents' Suggestions on the Standards of Quality Control...................... 9-3
ANNEXES
Annex 1-1
Annex 1-2
BSP Standards as to Quality of Biogas Plants
Most Common Defects and Penalty Categories including
the Penalty Amount
APPENDIXES
Appendix I Terms of Reference
Appendix II Model of Questionnaire
Appendix III General Description of the Farmer Respondents.

ABBREVIATIONS
ADB/N - Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal
AEPC - Alternative Energy Promotion Centre
BIS - Bishal Gobar Gas Company
BSP - Biogas Support Programme
CMS - Consolidated Management Service Nepal (P) Ltd.
FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GGC - Gobar Gas and Agricultural Equipment Development Company
GRI - Grihini Gobar Gas Company
HMG - His Majesty's Government of Nepal
JGY - Jana Bhawana Gobar Gas Company
JT - Junior Technician
JTA - Junior Technician of Assistant
KGY - Kishan Gobar Gas Company
MGG - Manaslu Gobar Gas Company
MOST - Ministry of Science and Technology
NBG - Nepal Biogas Company
NBL - Nepal Bank Limited
NBPG - Nepal Biogas Promotion Group
NBSM - Nepal Bureau of Standards and Measurement
NGO - Non-Government Organization
NRG - Nepal Rastriya Gobar Gas Company
PGG - Public Gobar Gas Company
RAP - Rapti Gobar Gas Company
RBB - Rastriya Banijya Bank
SNV/N , - Netherlands Development Organization/Nepal
UMN - United Mission to Nepal

PREFACE
First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. S. L. Vaidya, Executive Director of
Alternative Energy Promotion Centre for entrusting us with the responsibility of undertaking the
studies on "Sustainable Approach on Quality Control of Biogas Plants." I would like to express my
heartfelt thanks to Mr. Shanker Bahadur Pradhan, our colleague and Senior Consultant to AEPC, for
providing valuable suggestions to improve the quality of the study.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks to SNV/BSP especially Programme
Manager, Mr. Felix E.W. ter Heegde, managers of commercial banks and biogas companies selected
for this study, knowledgeable experts as well as biogas users for their cooperation without which this
study w.ould not have been completed in time. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to
Mr. Dilli Raman Neupane, Civil Engineer from AEPC and Mr. Dharma K.C., Senior Quality Control
Supervisor from SNV/BSP for providing valuable suggestions .
Last but not the least, I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Amrit B. Karki and Mr.
Pravin Kumar Ghimire, Project Coordinator and Deputy Project Coordinator respectively for their
professional inputs and very hard work to bring the study report in the present shape. I sincerely thank
Mr. Upendra Gupta, Civil Engineer and Mr. Sachin Upadhyaya, Resource Person, for their
contribution in the study project.
Upendra Gautam
President
Consolidated Management Service Nepal (P) Ltd.
June 22, 1998

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
In Nepal since the last decade, biogas technology is becoming more popular because of its multiple
benefits. One of the main issues concerning wider application of the biogas technology has been the
limited view held on the technology itself. The potential of technology in terms of producing valuable
organic fertilizer, treating urban waste, improving rural and urban sanitation is not yet a common
knowledge in Nepal. Analyzing these very facts, it can be concluded that the biogas technology is
serving not only as the most economical, technically viable, structurally comfortable source of
alternative energy in the context of our country, but also it helps reduce many problems that the
society is currently pressed with like deforestation and mismanagement of urban waste which has
reached to a critical level.
Establishment of Gobar Gas Company and Agricultural Equipment Development Company (GGC) in
1977 and Biogas Support Programme (BSP) of Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) in
June 1992 has been very conducive for overall development of biogas technology in Nepal. Until this
date, about 41 private biogas companies have been recognized to provide construction services to
meet the ever increasing demand for the installation of biogas plants. These companies are of varying
technical capabilities and institutional strength. Besides this, more and more organisations and
individuals are getting involved in biogas as users, technicians, extension workers, researcher,
trainers, supervisors and investors.
To make such a technology sustainable for long run and acceptable to more people, quality ensurance
of the technology is the foremost need and it is a subject of concern to all institutions involved in the
biogas sector. Until now, SNV/BSP has been solely responsible to conduct quality control of biogas
plants in Nepal. BSP's first and second phase has been completed successfully and in its third phase,
there is a programme to commission 100,000 plants from the fiscal year 1996/97 to 2001/2002. In the
context of rapidly increasing number of the biogas plants as well as biogas companies, maintenance of
the quality control of biogas plants has been a very challenging subject to all concerned.
For a long time, responsible governmental agency to oversee biogas programme was lacking in the
country. But since 1996 a full Hedged government agency called Alternative Energy Promotion
Centre (AEPC) has been established under Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). As this
organization has laid much emphasis on quality control of biogas plants, the responsibility of
conducting present study was entrusted to Consolidated Management Services (CMS).
Objectives
The study aims at investigating an appropriate, practical and sustainable approach for the quality
control of biogas plants. Specifically, the study is directed towards achieving following objectives.
• To identify the effectivity, efficiency of the existing system of quality control of biogas plants
as provided by BSP;
• To identify the extent of acceptance of the system of quality control;
• To suggest AEPC for the improvement and modification of the existing BSP system of the
quality control;
• To formulate a long-terms sustainable strategy for proper quality control of the biogas system;
and
• To find out an appropriate institutions to conduct the quality control of biogas plants.

Approach and Methodology
Desk study included review of different published and non-published literature with a view to
designing structured questionnaire needed for field study. In course of the field visit, the questionnaire
were administered to the following categories of larget groups including relevant organizations and
knowledgeable persons:
• Biogas users
• Biogas companies
• Commercial banks
• Quality control supervisors of SNV/BSP
• Knowledgeable persons
• Programme Manager and Biogas Engineer of SNV/BSP.
Principal Findings
The principal findings of this study have been presented under following sub-headings.
Viewpoints of Biogas Users
Biogas users being ultimate beneficiaries of biogas programme, the success of the programme
depends as to what extent they are satisfied from the performance of their plant. Keeping this view
into consideration, structured questionnaire wore administered to 50 biogas users selected from 10
biogas companies (at the rate of five households per company) located in Jhapa, Morang, Suhsari,
Makawanpur, Nuwakot and Kathmandu districts.
The respondents possessed higher number of 8 m 3 of plants compared to 6 m 3 and 10 m 3 . There was a
tendency among the users to install 8 in 3 and 10 m 3 plants at the household level. 70 percent of the
total selected plants were working very satisfactorily and 20 percent plants were rated as "Working
Satisfactorily", while 10 percent were "Not Working Satisfactorily".
The most common problems faced by the users are: Gas blockage, slurry in pipe line, wearing out of
accessories, incorrect pipe fittings, etc. Out of the staled problems, gas leakage has been indicated by
almost all the companies.
88 percent of the respondents were found consulting the companies for solving major and minor
difficulties being faced by them. 15 percent seemed satisfied with the visit of the companies on call.
Some of the respondents accused that although the representative of the relevant company pays a visit
on call but he lingers to resolve their problems, while 25 percent said that they did not receive any
help from the company in time of need. The routine visit by the company has been maintained only to
about 50 percent of the users.
Out of the studied households, only 36 percent seemed familiar with the quality control system
enforced by BSP, while remaining 64 percent were ignorant about it. The visit of quality control
supervisor of BSP to the users has been found to play a significant role to create awareness about the
necessity of quality control of biogas plants. 70 percent respondents said that the quality control
supervisors did not visit them, while the remaining 30 said that they had paid a visit.
Out of the total studied plants, about 60 percent have been found facing problems. The most common
problems encountered by the users were: Blockage of gas, insufficient gas, leakage of gas, slurry in
pipelines and problems related to pipeline fittings and accessories. The respondents also noted
problems associated with accessories and equipments such as frequent wearing out of the accessories
like burner, lamps, main gas valve and pipe fittings.

Out of the selected users, 56 percent seem more or less satisfied with the existing services rendered by
the biogas companies and other concerned agencies. They said that the governmental organization
namely AEPC which is established to oversee all alternate energy related activities would be the most
appropriate institution to conduct quality control in the future.
Viewpoints of Biogas Companies
Among the 41 private biogas companies established to provide construction services to meet ever
increasing demand for the installation of biogas plants, GGC is the leading biogas company in Nepal
due to its contribution in the field of extension and promotion of biogas technology for the last two
decades. However, rapidly emerging number of biogas plants carry a question mark about the
ensuranee of quality construction of biogas plants for which quality control measures need to be
enforced effectively.
The study revealed that on an average, 93 percent plants installed by the selected companies are
functional. The reasons for non-functioning of 7 percent plants are attributed to under-feeding of the
plants, lack of knowledge about O & M and poor after-sales services.
Out of the 10 studied companies, all users claim that the company had visited them whenever a
complaint is lodged. 60 percent of the respondents said the companies arc providing routine visit out
of which 50 percent are maintaining their routine visit at the interval of once in a year, while 10
percent provides the services at different time frame as per the convenience of their office. Some users
revpalcd that though company staffs visit them on call, but they often linger on to solve the problems.
The most common problems encountered by the companies are: Slurry in pipeline, gas leakage,
wearing out of the accessories, blockage of gas, leakage of gas, problems regarding pipe fitting,
digging of compost pit, misplacement of useful documents provided by the company.
The company's suggestions to overcome such problems are: Necessity of more frequent visit by the
companies to the users, formation of a well skilled maintenance team in all the field office and their
regular visit to the problematic and non-problematic plants, improvement in the after-sales services,
conduction of orientation programme and training to the users and diffusion of promotional
information to the users.
According to the company, there is a negligence on the part of users as they do not dig out two
compost pits immediately after the construction of biogas plants and also misplace the documents
provided by the company.
Out of total of 156 staffs of different biogas companies, 129 have been trained which constitutes about
81 percent of trained manpower. Recruiting of skilled manpower alone in itself is not sufficient to
meet desired quality of biogas plants. Proper mobilization of manpower and resources (e.g. in time of
construction, O & M and after sales services) is another important factor to achieve the desired quality
of the plants.
Out of selected companies, almost all responded that the present quality of materials used is
satisfactory. About 10 percent of the respondents said that different construction materials exist with
varying specifications. About 20 percent of the respondents said that in some cases, the quality of
construction deteriorates due to the use of poor quality of construction materials used by the masons.

BSP has fixed seventy three standards on quality of biogas plants based on consideration of design
and construction, quality of construction materials used, skilled masons used, shape, size and quality
of different elements of plant, quality and fittings of pipelines and accessories, provision of pipeline
for a toilet, etc. All companies and banks involved in BSP implementation, have to agree on penalty
system designed to enforce the quality standards. The company failing to meet any of the standards is
either liable to pay a penalty or is deprived of subsidy or is simply warned not to repeat such mistakes
in the future.
Asked about the opinion of the companies towards the 73 sta ndards of the BSP, out of 10 companies,
40 percent seem satisfied with these standards and think that these standards cover all the aspects of
quality control, while 10 percent of them appeared totally ignorant about these standards. Another 10
percent think that some more number should be included in the standard. Similarly, 20 percent think
that sonic of the standards arc superfluous and the remaining 20 percent of the respondents are of the
opinion that the standards require more number and some of the standards are superfluous.
The companies are suffering due to some of the superfluous standards. For example, digging of two
compost pits which is entirely the responsibility of the users seems impractical in the present system.
Because of mere reluctancy or inability of the users to avoid the construction of two compost pits, the
penalty is being imposed by BSP upon the company.
The visit of BSP's supervisors took place from I to 4 times in a year. 20 percent of the respondents
said that they eventually are getting refresher and professional training from them, whereas 80 percent
said that they (BSP's supervisor) arrive only in course of supervision of the plant. 50 percent think that
only technical support is being received from BSP, whereas the rest expres sed having technical,
financial, institutional and managerial support as well. Despite the satisfactory technical support, other
approaches regarding institutional and managerial support do not seem inadequate. Due attention
should be paid to balance the level of support so that all companies would be of equal technical
capability and institutional strength.
60 percent of respondents are of the opinion that AEPC, being a full fledged government agency,
would be appropriate agency for conduction of quality control of biogas plants. However, another 30
percent suggest that BSP should continue to be responsible for this activity, whereas remaining 20
percent are of the opinion that this responsibility should be handed over to the company like GGC
which is oldest and leading institution in the Held of biogas services.
Viewpoints of Commercial Hanks
Agricultural Development Bank (ADB/N) has been involved in administrating loan and subsidies in
biogas sector since 1975. From 1994 onwards, Nepal Bank Limited (NBL) and Rastriya Banijya Bank
(RBB) have also started financing in biogas sector. Until now, the latter two banks (NBL and RBB)
have not been found interested in the promotional activities of biogas plants except for providing loan.
On the other hand, ADB/N which is the main shareholder of GGC, has also been involved in the
promotional activities mainly in information dissemination and training in addition to channeling loan
and subsidies.
For successful implementation of a programme, it is imperative to create proper infrastructural
arrangement in the organization to carry out (he activities effectively and efficiently in the field of
biogas technology. They should build their infrastructure with regard to technical, institutional and
managerial aspects to enable them to evaluate themselves all the aspects of biogas technology and
performance of biogas companies as well. This helps them make proper strategy analyzing them to
judge positive and negative points of each concerned actor (users, biogas companies).

Commercial banks fuel comfortable as repayment of loan in biogas is high compared to other loan.
Biogas loan ranks as second good loan after tea and coffee. The lengthy and cumbersome procedure
adopted by the banks in loan approval needs to be simplified.
At present, the users are attracted more by the amount of subsidy provided by the government rather
than the utility of plant. Many farmers with high economic status also take loan with the
understanding that it is easier to get subsidy than in the case when they put their own money for a
plant construction.
Viewpoints of Quality Control Supervisors
Quality Control Supervisors of SNV/BSP are the key manpower to conduct the overall supervision of
installed plants. Their contribution in maintaining the quality of installed biogas plants is highly
commendable. There arc altogether eleven quality control supervisors assigned by SNV/BSP. Thus, to
gather necessary information for this study, out of 11 quality control supervisors, three of them were
interviewed in agreement with BSP.
Quality control of biogas plants takes place on the basis of random sampling. The size of the sample is
determined by / 8NV/BSP considering the quality of plant construction (sample size will be higher if
the quality is not satisfactory), performance of the company in the previous year, experience of the
company and the total number of plants constructed (the lower the total number of plants, higher the
sample size).
The quality control supervisors think that the existing method is very effective. They stated that the
quality control measure fixed by BSP is practical, realistic and sustainable and covers almost all the
aspects of quality control. They arc also confident that with the help of resources and equipment
provided to them, the existing number of them would be enough to conduct supervision till the next
year but they also acknowledge the fact that with the increased number of companies and plants,
number of the quality control supervisors should be increased in the future to cope with the targeted
number .of biogas plants stipulated in the third phase of BSP's activities (i.e., 100,000 plants to be
commissioned by 2002). They further added that to collect a more realistic and practical information,
sample size for survey should be increased.
Though each and every activity of quality control supervisors is performed in front of representative
of concerned company, yet the company does not realize their faults easily, thereby causing hindrance
to their works. The companies often create different pressure on the quality control supervisors so that
their faults, which can lead them to pay penalty, are not easily exposed.
The respondents said that important documents such as promotional leaflets provided by BSP are not
being used properly by the companies. Misplacement of the important documents is common in the
most of the companies. Thus, lack of managerial experience of companies is making complication in
timely accomplishment of the jobs for which they are assigned.
The most common defaults on the installed biogas plants as pointed out by the quality control
supervisors are; Reluctancy in digging compost pit, top filling on dome, water drain pit, improper
pipeline fitting, use of larger size of gravel, appliances of low standards, under feeding of the plant
and leakage in the pipelines. The main basis for fixing penalty to a biogas company is "performance
factor" which includes: Average number of defaults, Production Factor, percentage of feeding and
average penalty amount.
The respondents are of the opinion that AEPC should concentrate on policy matter. It should create
healthy environment to interlink donor agency (BSP) with HMO. AEPC should be initiated to conduct
awareness building programme to the users and companies about the need of quality control. It should
make proper policy and support BSF to conduct quality control of biogas plants. BSP or autonomous

ody should be responsible for the quality control of biogas plants. It should work under the
framework and strategy developed by AEP C. They also acknowledge the fact that only AEPC will be
able to handle the responsibility if BSP after its termination. But there is a need to strengthen AEPC to
enhance its infrastructure, technical, institutional and managerial capabilities.
All the supervisors, however, were found collectively expecting regular training, observation and
study tour and participation in workshops in order to enhance their technical know -how and to boost
up their morale.
Viewpoints of Knowledgeable Persons
All of the knowledgeable persons identified for this study were found familiar with the quality control
system enforced by BSP. But their perception regarding the quality control system was found
different. About 40 percent of them were found expressing their doubt about the sustainability of the
programme as they consider practical only in the condition when there are limited number of plants
installed by few companies. Similarly, 30 percent considered that the quality control system adopted
by BSP is pragmatic, realistic and sustainable, while remaining 30 percent said that the system should
be more practical and low cost for which there is a need to organize a forum for quality control which
should include manufactures, beneficiaries and policy makers as the members.
Regarding the respondents' view on the standards fixed by the SNV/BSP, 30 percent were found
satisfied with the norms and specifications adopted by SNV/BSP as the BSP has followed engineering
standards suited to indigenous technology. 15 percent said did not answer this question, while rest 55
percent found unsatisfied with the standards fixed by SNVY BSP. According to them, some
components of the programme being costly, the penalty amount set forth for the defaulter plants is too
high and making even the second compost pit is a unnecessary burden to the users.
43 percent of the interviewed respondents were found supporting the penalty system, while 43 percent
them did not support the system and the remaining 14 percent were of the opinion that penalty and
award is one of the tools of the improving work quality and it has helped improve the quality of plants
as there is no other effective system and responsible agency established for the quality control of
biogas plant. According to the views of the respondents who did not support the existing penalty
system, it is not logical that BSP should reimburse the penalty money to the company. Regarding the
suggestion for better alternative against the existing penalty system, it has been suggested by them
that companies having better performance should be provided more opportunity and BSP. AEPC and
NBPG as well as the companies should work jointly to impact the plant.
With regard to respondents expectation on quality of biogas plant in the context of increasing number
of biogas company, they were found of the opinion that plants quality can be assured only by
upgrading the quality of manufacturing companies. They suggested that in order to involve the
commercial banks efficiently in the quality control of biogas. minimum parameters have to be
developed for them supported by training of the manpower concerned.
Lastly, the knowledgeable people expressed that there is a need for frequent discussions and exchange
of ideas among the organizations involved in biogas in order to avoid unnecessary duplication.
Similarly, it was also suggested by the respondents that the task of quality control should be
performed by NBPG. checked and guided by BSP and 1IMG/AEPC should be formulate the required
policy. In this connection, importance has also been given on horizontal as well as vertical linkage
between the institutions involved in biogas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS
Followings are the major recommendations of the study. It is strongly recommended by the study
team that the Alternative Energy Promotion Centre in the capacity of nodal governmental agency
should assure that these recommendations should effectively be implemented by the concerned actors.
AEPC
1. AEPC should concentrate on policy matter and establish interlinkage with the donor agency
(BSP).
2. The task of quality control should be performed by NBPG, checked and guided by BSP and
HMG/AEPC should be formulate the required policy.
3. AEPC should handle the responsibility of quality control after the termination of BSP's third
phase in the future.
4. Due attention should be paid to balance the level of support so that all companies would be of
equal technical capability and institutional strength.
5. There should be frequent discussions and exchange of ideas among the organizations involved
in biogas in order to avoid unnecessary duplication.
BSP
6. In the present context,, BSP should continue to be responsible for the quality control of biogas
plants. It should work under the framework and strategy developed by AEPC.
7. It should make the users aware of the quality control system enforced by BSP.
8. Quality control system enforced currently by BSP should be more practical and low cost for
which there is a need to organize a forum for quality control by including biogas companies,
beneficiaries an d policy makers as members.
9. It should modify the superfluous standards of quality control to make them more realistic and
acceptable to the companies. Similarly, sonic undesired standards should be revised "and
some
others should be added.
10. The number of quality control supervisor should be increased to collect more realistic and
practical information,
11. Sample size for survey should also be increased.
12. BSP should control the use of poor quality of construction materials to be used for biodigester
construction.
13. All companies staffs should be trained in adequate number.
14. It should motivate the users to make aware of the importance of slurry fertilizer so as to
encourage them to dig out two compost pits.
15. BSP should initiate to conduct awareness building programme to the users and the companies
about the need of quality control.
16. Necessary steps should be taken to rectify the most common defaults on the installed biogas
plants such as, top filling on dome, water drain pit, improper pipeline fitting, use of larger size
of gravel, appliances of low standards, under feeding of the plant and leakage in the pipelines,
blockage of gas, insufficient gas, leakage of gas, slurry in pipelines, wearing out of
accessories.
17. The users should be educated not to misplace the useful documents provided by the company
as well as information leaflets provided by BSP.
18. Orientation programme and I raining should be conducted for the benefits of the users.
19. The quality control supervisors should be provided with regular training, observation and
study
lour and participation in workshops in order lo upgrade their knowledge.
20. Companies having better performance should be provided more opportunity and BSP, AEPC
and NBPG as well as the companies should work jointly to inspect the plant.

Biogas Companies
21. The company staff should maintain the routine visit to the users to solve their problem.
22. It should give due consideration has to O & M of biogas plants especially to avoid under
feeding of the plants and improve after-sales services.
23. It should avoid linging on to solve the problems faced by the farmers.
24. It is recommended to form a well skilled maintenance team by the companies in all the field
office so as to solve the problematic plants
25. The companies should cooperate with the quality control supervisors and should avoid to
create undue pressure on the quality control supervisors so that their duty is correctly
accomplished.
Commercial Banks
26. The commercial banks should create a proper infrastructural arrangement within their
organizations to carry out biogas activities effectively and efficiently. They should build their
infrastructure with regard to technical, institutional and managerial aspects.
27. The lengthy and cumbersome procedure adopted by the banks in loan approval needs to be
simplified.
28. Minimum parameters have to be developed by the bank with regard to quality control aspects.
29. Manpower dealing with biogas should be well trained.

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
It is ironic to state that Nepal being a country with largest hydropower potential has been so far using
only about I percent of its existing potential. The total energy demand of the country is estimated at
about 252 million gigajoules and more than 90 percent of this is used in domestic sector, mainly for
cooking. 80 percent of this bulk of energy demand is met by firewood. The collection of such a huge
mass of firewood is creating a serious threatening in ecological aspects. As a result of growing
population, the pressure on the remaining forest and cultivated land is increasing at an alarming rate.
To mitigate the critical energy situation, biogas as alternative source of energy, has been proved to be
a boon for the country especially the housewives who have to face the drudgery of cooking with
firewood that emits obnoxious smoke.
In Nepal since the last decade, biogas technology is becoming popular because of its multiple
benefits. One of the main issues concerning wider application of the biogas technology has been the
limited view held on the technology itself. The potential of technology in terms of producing valuable
organic fertilizer, treating urban waste, improving rural and urban sanitation is not yet a common
knowledge in Nepal. Analyzing these very facts, it can be concluded that the biogas technology is
serving not only as the most economical, technically viable, structurally comfortable source of
alternative energy in I he context of our country, but also it helps reduce many problems that the
society is currently pressed with like deforestation and mismanagement of urban waste which has
reached to a critical level.
To make such a technology sustainable for long run and acceptable to more people, quality ensurance
of the technology is the foremost need and it is a subject of concern to all institutions involved in the
biogas sector. Until now, due to lack of appropriate government agency, Biogas Support Programme
(BSP) under the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV/Nepal) has been solely responsible to
conduct quality control of biogas plants in Nepal. But as a result of establishment of a full fledged
government agency named Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) under Ministry' of Science
and Technology (MOST) in 1996, due emphasis has been given in quality control aspects of biogas to
make it more practical and sustainable in the future.
1.1.1 The Need for Quality Control
Biogas picked up momentum in the fiscal year 1974/75 as a result of celebration of the "Agriculture
Year" in Nepal. In 1977, Gobar Gas and Agriculture Development Company (P) Ltd (GGC) was
established as a first private company with the involvement of Agricultural Development Bank
(ADB/N), Timber Corporation of Nepal and United Mission to Nepal (UMN). In the absence of
appropriate government body to oversee biogas programme in Nepal, GGC played very importance
role in development and promotion of biogas technology in the country.
Nepal adopted "Single Agency, Single Model" approach for the promotion of biogas technology.
Now-a-days, the design developed by GGC and approved by BSP has been found the most effective
and efficient and as such as more than 90 percent of the installed plants have been found functional.
From 1994 onwards, several other private companies (a total of more than 40 companies) have been
established to provide construction services to meet the ever increasing demand for the installation of
biogas plants in Nepal. These companies possess varying technical capabilities and institutional
strength. The rise in number of biogas companies is, on one hand favorable for rapid realization of the
estimated potential of plants but on the other hand, installation of quality biogas plants,
simultaneously ensuring trouble-free operation, maintenance and repair of the plants, has been a
challenging job to all concerned in the promotion and diffusion of the technology.

By and large, commercial banks namely ADB/N, Nepal Bank Limited (NBL) and Rastriya Banijya
Bank (RBB), NGOs and other organizations arc being increasingly interested and involved in the
promotion and development of this technology- Thus, more and more organizations and individuals
are getting involved in biogas as users, technicians, researchers, trainers, supervisors and investors.
Thus, the aspect of quality of biogas plants has been a matter of concern particularly both to the donor
as well as the relevant government agencies.
A biogas plant docs not function properly until due attention is paid towards the quality control,
operation and maintenance (O & M) and after-sales services. Poorly installed biogas plants result in
inefficiency and improper functioning which leads to capital loss, frustration among users, promoters
and donor. On the contrary to this, a well functioning plant with satisfied users, is the only reliable
means to win peoples 7 confidence in the technology. The only way out to create a belief is to ensure
desired quality of each and every unit of biogas plant installed at the farmer's household.
1.1.2 BSF and its Role on Quality Control
Biogas Support Programme (BSP) was established in Nepal m July 1992 in collaboration with
ADB/N and GGC with grant support Netherlands Development Organization (SNV).
The general objectives of BSP are as follows:
- Reduce the rate of deforestation and environmental deterioration by providing as a substitute
for firewood.
- Increase agricultural production by promoting optimum utilization of digested dung
- Increase the number of biogas plants
- Make biogas more attractive to the small farmers
To meet the above mentioned objectives BSP has launched various activities during its phascwise
programme such as
- Providing subsidy to the plant owner
- Assisting GGC in better designing and lowering the cost
- Monitoring the construction quality of the plants
- Enforcing the guarantee provided by the GGC and other private companies
- Monitoring the after sales services of private companies
- Training of users of biogas plants
- Information dissemination to perspective users
- Monitoring of already installed plants.
BSP's first and second phases were successfully implemented with an establishment of more than
targeted number plants in Nepal. After the implementation of BSP programme a sharp rise in total
number of biogas plants has been observed. The subsidy programme launched by BSP seems to be
very effective in motivating low income farmers to install the plant. To-day, more than 40,000 units of
biogas plants have been operating in Nepal. Realizing the remarkable success of biogas technology in
Nepal, as many as 100,000 plants have been planned to be commissioned in the third phase of BSP's
programme starting from fiscal year 1996/97 to 2001/02.
In order to ensure desired quality of biogas plants, SNV/BSP has developed programme to enforce
quality control measures. Initially, 66 quality control standards were devised an d implemented by
BSP.

Presently, this number has been raised to 73 (sec Annex i-1 and Annex 1-2). Those standards are
grouped into three categories as given below :
- No subsidy is provided if a plant fails to meet the parameters in Category 1
- Company should pay penalty to BSP in addition to correcting the faults if a plant fails to meet
specifications of Category 2
- For a default of Category 3, the concerned company is warned not to repeat the mistake.
The quality control system consists of four steps:
Agreement on standards; All companies and banks involved in the BSP implementation have to agree
on the parameters, their classification and definitions as given in Annex 1-1 This is a prerequisite for a
biogas company to get involved in the construction of biogas plants under BSP. These parameters and
their classification can be revised in agreement with all agencies involved in the programme.
Agreement on Penalties: All companies and banks involved in BSP implementation have to agree on
the penalty system designed to enforce the quality standards. The penalty amount for different
categories of defaults or failure to maintain the quality is given in Annex 1-2.
Control Visits: Control of the quality lakes place on the basis of random sampling of approximately
five percent of all biogas plants installed by GGC. The sample includes both plants in operation (filled
plants) as well as plants under construction (non-filled plants). The control is structured with the help
of questionnaire.
Calculation of the Total Penalty Amount: The total penalty amount to be a borne by Biogas
Companies is calculated by multiplying the penalty amount of the sample per field office with the so
called ''performance factor". The sample results are then be representative for all biogas plants
constructed by the field office of biogas companies. .
1.2 Objectives of the Study
1.2.1 General Objectives
Due to the increase in number of private organizations in biogas programme, the quality ensurance
has become indispensable. The overall objectives of the study is to come up with an appropriate,
practical and sustainable approach for the quality control of biogas plants, By analyzing views of
different organizations and individuals, the study mission will have to suggest the future structure for
quality control biogas plants in Nepalese context.
1.2.2 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the study are as follows:
• To identify the effectivity. efficiency of the existing system of quality control of biogas plants
as provided by BSP;
• To identify the extent of acceptance of the system of quality control;
• To suggest AEPC for the improvement and modification of the existing BSP system of the
quality control;
• To formulate a long-term sustainable strategy for proper quality control of the biogas system;
and
• To suggest the appropriate institution to conduct the quality control of biogas plants.

In above backdrop, Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) of the Ministry of Science and
Technology (MOST) had entrusted Consolidated Management Services with the responsibilities of
conducting the study reported herein with above objectives. The study was conducted from 21 April
to 30 June 1998. The TOR of the Consultant that formed the basis for this study has been presented in
Appendix I.
1.3 Structure of the Report
Introduction, background and objectives of the study has been presented in Chapter One of this report.
Approach and methodology of the study is given in Chapter Two. Chapter Three to Seven are devoted
to collection and analyses of data obtained from key informants namely Farmer Respondents, Biogas
Companies, Commercial Hanks, Quality Control Supervisors and Knowledgeable Persons
respectively. Future Structure of Quality Control of Biogas Plants has been presented in Chapter
Eight. Finally, Chapter Nine concludes with suggestions.

ANNEX 1-1
BSP STANDARDS AS TO QUALITY
OF BIOGAS PALNTS

Annex 1-1
Page 1 of 3
BSP-STANDARDS FY 2054/55 AS TO THE QUALITY OF B1OGAS PLANTS
These standards are applicable to the Gobar Gas Company plant design of 04-05-2047. It the
standards are not met BSP reserves the right to impose penalties according to Appendix 2 of Annex 6.
S.N. Quality Standards Category Specification
General
1 Only one plant per household 1 A separate kitchen for every plant
2 No plants fed with night soil only 1 Separate dung inlet must be
constructed for each plant and
regularly (at least weekly) used
3 Issuing of guarantee card 2 Correctly filled out guarantee card
according to Annex 8 supplied up on
completion of the plant
4 Three years guarantee on the structure and one 1 Condition according to Annex 8.
year guarantee on appliances and pipe
Guarantee charge specified on the
invoice to the plant owner
5 Three years after sales service 1 Condition according to Annex 8.
6 Correct size selection 3 Max. 70 days HRT (6kg
dung/m3/day) in hilly areas and
5.5kg/m3/day) in the Terai based on
the actual amount of dung
availability.
7 Proper users training 3 Before commissioning of the plant,
verbal instruction on plant and
maintenance must be given to the user
as well as the main booklet
8 Availability of water 3 Water source maximum 20' minutes
walk from the plant
Skilled labour
9 Certified and registered masons 1 Trained by a recognized institution
and registered with BSP
Design and construction method
10 According to the construction manual of GGC 1 sec Annex 3 A -
2047 model biogas plant B -
Construction materials
11 Good quality bricks 3 Best locally available burnt claybricks
12 Good quality sand 2 Less than 3% impurity in bottle test
13a Good quality gravel 2 Clean size 0.5-2.5 cm (0.2-1.0 inch)
13b 3 temporary 2.5-4.0 cm
14 Good quality stones 3 Clean
15 Good quality cement 2 Portland fresh no lumps
16 Acrylic emulsion paint 2 Brand and quality pre-qualified by
BSP
17 Reinforced rods 3 Daimeter minimum 8 mm. see Annex
Construction of Digester
3
18 Accuracy depth of digester pit 3 The plant must be positioned enough
if possible
19 Accuracy radius of round-wall 2 +2/-2% on basis of plastered wall
20 Accuracy plumb of round-wall 3 -1/-1 cm
21 Accuracy height of round-wall 2 -5/-5 cm
22 Proper backfilling brick wall 3 By a properly compacted mix of
Category 1.means no subsidy; 2.penalty , 3. no penalty; 4. bonus
Biogas Support programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98

Annex 1-1
Page 2 of 3
gravel, soil and water
23 Proper brickfilling stone wall 3 Built against pit side
24 Proper finishing inside of round-wall 3 Smooth layer of plaster (mix cement-
3 sand)
25 Proper finishing floor 3 Smooth maximum 0.5% out of level
Dome
26 Proper use of template 2 Template according to A nnex 3, no
additional earth added A
27 Accuracy height of dome 2 -5-5 cm
28 Accuracy radius of dome 2 -2-2"% on basis of" plastered dome
29 Proper treatment inside the dome 2 Plastering according to Annex 3
smooth and clean
30 Gas pipe at centre point 3 -2-2% of dome radius
31 Correct top filling 3 Minimum 40 cm compacted earth
protected against estimate
Turret
32 Correct diameter 2 Round diameter min. 30 cm or square
(mm 30/30 cm)
33 Correct height 2 Minimal 50 cm
34 Gas pipe in the centre of the turner 3 Minimal 12 cm support at every side
Outlet
35 Accuracy of length 3 -3/-3%
36 Accuracy of width 3 -3/-3%
37 Accuracy of depth 3 -51-5 cm
38 Accuracy of volume 2 -10/-10%
39 Accuracy plumb of walls 3 -1/-1 cm
40 Accuracy of level 3 Top and floor maximum 0.5% out of
level
41 Proper finishing inside walls 3 Smooth layer of plaster
42 Proper back filling walls 3 Minimum 1 meter wide
43a Covered with properly reinforced slabs 2 Slabs according to Annex 3
43b Covered with properly reinforced slabs 3 Slabs properly cast and reinforced
44 Accuracy distance bottom outlet-lop manhole 2 -4/-4 cm
Compost pits
45a Minimum two compost pits 3 Total volume at least equal to the
plant volume
45b Minimum two compost pits 4 Total volume at least equal to the
plant volume
Inlet
46 Properly positioned vs manhole 2 In straight line (hart-line) with turret
and manhole
47 Properly positioned vs outlet overview 2 Bottom inlet pit minimum 5 cm above
outlet overflow above
48 Maximum minimum height 3 Top inlet pit maximum 100 cm and
minimum 5 cm areas
49 Proper finishing 3 Smooth layer of plaster (mix 1 cement
- 3 sand
50 Installation mixing device 3 Mixer installed at all plants, firm,
easy to operate, blades maximum 3
cm from bottom and side
51 Straight inlet pipe well positioned 2 Rod must be able to penetrate the
digester
Toilet attachment
52a Total attachment provision 3 Toilet connection provision installed
52b Proper position pip e in digester 2 Maximum 45 degrees on the hart-time
Category 1 .means no subsidy, 2. penalty; 3. no penalty, 4. bonus
Biogas Support programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98

Annex 1-1
Page 3 of 3
Proper position toilet path 3 Level min imal 15 cm above outlet
overtime leave
Appliances and pipes
54 Dome gas pipe 2 According to Annex 3. pre-qualified
by BSP
55 Main gas valve 2 Pre-qualified by BSP
56 Pipe and pipe fitting 2 GI-Light quality (IS-1239)
57 Water drain 2 According to Annex 3. pre-qualified
by BSP
58 Gas tap 2 According to Annex 3. pre-qualified
by BSP
59 Gas stove 2 Burner assembly according to Annex
3 frame pre-qualified by BSP
60 Rubber hose 2 No cracks when folded external
diameter mm 15 mm
61 Gas lamp 3 Pre-qualified by BSP
62 Inlet pipe (dung and toilet) 2 At least 10 cm internal diameter
63 Mixer 2 According to Annex 3. pre-qualified
by BSP
Fitting and lav-out gas pipe
64 No unnecessary fittings between reduction elbow 2
and main valve
65 No necessary fittings in the pipeline 3
66a No gas leakage in the pipeline before the main 2
valve
66b No gas leakage in the pipeline before the main 3
valve
67 Use of proper sealing agent 2
68 Pipe buried at least 30 cm. if possible 3
69 Pipe safe against damage by animals & people 3
70 Drain able to trap all water in the pipeline 2
71 Drain easily accessible 3
72 Dram easily accessible 3
73 Drain protected by a proper pit with cover 2 Drain pit constructed according to
Annex 3
Category 1.means no subsidy; 2.penalty ; 3. no penalty; 4. bonus
Biogas Support programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98

ANNEX 1-2
MOST COMMON DEFECTS AND PENALTY
CATEGORIES INCLUDING THE
PENALTY AMOUNT

Annex 1-2
Page 1 of 3
BSP PENALTY LIST FY 1997/98 FOR GGC 2047 MODEL BIOGAS PLANT DESIGN
S.N Quality Standards Category Specification
1 Second, third/fife, plant per household 1 Full subsidy amount
2 Plant fed with night-soil only, no separate inlet for each
plant
1 Full subsidy amount
3 Approved guarantee card not issued to the owner upon
completion of the plant
4 Three years guarantee on the structure and one year
guarantee on appliances and pipe not provided
5 Three years after-sales service as outlined in Annex 8. not
provided
6 HRT more than 70 days in hills or 55 days in terai
because of over-sized plant
2 50
1 Full subsidy amount
1 Full subsidy amount
3 No penalty
7 instruction booklet not included on the bill to the fanner 3 No penalty
8 Water source more than 20 minutes walk from the plant 3 No penalty
9 Mason not trained by a recognized institute not registered
with SNV/BSP
10 Other design than GGC 2047. Building method not
according to Annex 3
11 Quality of burnt clay bricks less than best locally
available
12 More than 3% impurities in the sand according to bottle
test
13a Gravel more than 4 cm in size and used in the structure
dirty gravel
13b Gravel not within the 0.5-2.5 cm range but smaller than 4
cm
1 Full subsidy amount
1 Full subsidy amount
3 No penalty
2 700
2 700
3 No penalty
14 Dirty stones 3 No penalty
15 Cement not of Portland quality, not fresh with lumps 2 700
16 Acrylic emulsion paint used not approved by
BSP
2 150
17 Reinforcement rods not according to Annex 3 3 No penalty
13 Plant not positioned deep enough in the ground when 3 No penalty
possible
19 Radius round-wall differs more than 2" from drawing 2 100
20 Round-wall more than I cm out of plumb 3 No penalty
21 Height round-wall differs more than 5 cm from drawing 2 100
22 No proper back-filling of brick made found-wall 3 No penalty
23 Masonry stone round-wall against the pit side 3 No penalty
24 Inside round-wall not properly finished rough cracked 3 No penalty
Category 1 means no subsidy; 2. penalty; 3. no penalty; 4. bonus
Biogas Support Programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98.

Annex 1-2
Page 2 of3
25 Digester floor not properly finished more than 0.5% out
of level
3 No penalty
26 Template used not according to Annex 3. Template not
properly used. Additional earth added
2 700
27 Height dome differs more than 5 cm from drawing 2 50
28 Radius dome differs more than 2% from drawing 2 50
29 Dome plaster not according to Annex 3. dirty, rough 2 700
30 Gas pipe more than 2% of dome radius out of dome
centre
3 No penalty
31 Less than 40 cm earth filling on top of dome : not 3 No penalty
protected against erosion
32 Diameter or square turret less Hum 36 cm 2 75
33 Height turret less than 50 cm 2 75
34 Less than 12 cm support of gas pipe in turret 3 No penalty
35 Length outlet differs more than 3% from drawing 3 No penalty
36 Width outlet differs more than 3% from drawing 3 No penalty
37 Depth outlet differs mote than 5 cm from drawing 3 No penalty
38 Volume outlet differs more than 10% from design 2 100
39 Walls outlet more than 1 cm out of plumb 3 No penalty
40 Bottom and/or top outlet more than (0.5% out of level) 3 No penalty
41 No proper finishing inside outlet walls rough cracks 3 No penalty
42 No minimum 1 meter wide back-filling of the outlet walls
up to the overflow level
3 No penalty
43a No outlet slabs. Outlet slabs without reinforcement 2 100
43b Quality of outlet slabs not according to Annex 3 3 No penalty
44 Top manhole-bottom outlet differs more than 4 cm from 2 100
drawing
45a No compost pits, one or more pit with a total volume less 3 No penalty
than plant volume
45b Two or more compost pits with a total volume equal or
more than plant volume
4 Bonus 50
46 Inlet not in line with turret and manhole 2 100
47 Bottom inlet pit less than 5 cm above outlet overflow 2 50
level
48 Top inlet pit more than 100 cm or less than 50 cm above
ground level
3 No penalty
49 No proper finishing inlet pit. roui;li, cracked 3 No penalty
50 No mixer installed, mixing device not firmly installed,
difficult to operate blades, more than 3 cm from pit
bottom or side
3 No penalty
51 Inlet not straight rod not able to enter 2 50
52a No provision for toilet attachment 3 No penalty
52b Toilet inlet more than 45 degrees on digester hart-line 2 50
53 Toilet pan less than 15 cm above outlet overflow level 3 No penalty
Category 1 means no subsidy; 2.penalty, 3. no penalty, 4. bonus
Biogas Support Programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98

Annex 1-2
Page 3 of 3
54 Dome gas pipe other than pre-qualified by BSP not
according to Annex 3
2 100
55 Main gas valve other than pre-qualified by BSP 2 150
56 Quality of gas pipe and fitting other than GI or less than 2 200
(IL-light IS-1239)
57 Water dram other than pre-qualified by BSP not
according to Annex 3
58 Gas tap other than pre-qualified by BSP not according to
Annex 3
59 Gas stove other than pre-qualified by BSP not according
to Annex 3
2 50
2 50
2 100
60 Cracked rubber hose, external diameter less than 15 nun 2 10
61 Gas lamp other than pre-qualified by BSP 3 No penalty
62 Inlet pipe less than 10 cm in internal diameter 2 50
63 Mixer other than pre-qualified by BSP, not according to
Annex 3
2 100
64 Unnecessary fitting between reduction elbow and main
gas valve
2 150
65 Unnecessary fitting in the pipe line 3 No penalty
66a Gas leakage in the pipe line before the main gas valve 2 150
66b Gas leakage in the pipeline after the main gas valve 3 No penalty
67 Other sealing agent than tefton tape used 2 50
68 Pipe not buried 30 cm when possible 3 No penalty
69 Pipe not safe against damage by people or animals 3 No penalty
70 Water drain not able to trap all water in the pipeline 2 50
71 Water drain not easy to accessible 3 No penalty
72 Water drain not easy to operate 3 No penalty
73 Water drain not protected by a pit with cover ac cording to
Annex 3
2 50
If more than one defaults is applicable to one item, the penalty will only be applied once
SN 1.2.4.5.9 and 10 maximum full subsidy amount
SN 12.13a. 15.20 and 29 maximum NRs 700
SN 32 and 33 maximum NRs 75
SN 55.64and66a maximum NRs 150
SN 57.70 and 73 maximum NRs 50
Category 1 means no subsidy; 2.penalty; 3, no penalty; 4. bonus
Biogas Support Programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98

CHAPTER TWO
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER TWO
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Following approach and methodology has been adopted for the execution of the study. The overall
work under study has been divided into' different phases as explained below:
2.1 Desk Study Phase
Desk study consisted of the following activities:
2.1.1 Review of literature
Different published and non-published literature were studied and reviewed to collect as much as
possible the information in-depth on quality control of biogas plants.
2.1.2 Video Film Show
Video films dealing with promotion and quality of biogas plants were shown to the principal experts
involved in the project. The basic objectives behind this was to provide them with a vivid picture
about the existing quality control measures, basic defaults on biogas plants, role of different
concerned agencies on maintaining the quality of biogas plants, etc. The films helped the study team
to gain a clear overview of the existing system of ihe quality control in order to derive a reliable
procedure to conduct the study.
2.1.3 Formulation of Structured Questionnaire
Based upon the knowledge of each individual of the study team and the secondary information
collected from different sources, structured questionnaires for different categories of relevant
organizations and knowledgeable persons were formulated. The respondents of the study were as
follows:
- Biogas users (50 nos.)
- Biogas companies (10 nos.)
- Commercial banks (3 nos.- ADB/N. RBB, NBL)
- Programme Manager and Biogas Engineer of SNV/BSP
- Quality control supervisors of SNV/BSP (3 nos.)
- Knowledgeable persons (10 individuals)
While formulating the questionnaire, the team concentrated basically on the following points:
Simplicity and comprehensive
Reflection on all the aspects of quality control of biogas plants by different level of people and
organizations.
The questionnaire were formulated in accordance with the objectives and guidelines as stipulated in
the TOR of the Consultant. To highlight the different aspects of quality control, the questionnaire
necessarily consisted of the followings principle points :
- Present status of the biogas plants
- Basic difficulties in operation and maintenance of the biogas plants and the way to overcome
them

- Views of all the above maintained organizations and individuals to make the quality control
system more practical and sustainable; their views on identification of an appropriate
institution for condition of quality control system in the future.
- Suggestions of concerning agencies for the betterment of the quality control system.
The model of different questionnaire has been presented in Appendix II.
2.1.4 Overall Planning for Field Visit
In course of the desk study phase, the study team had frequent meetings, interaction and discussions
for overall planning of the field visit. Two working team were formed, one guided by Deputy Project
Coordinator, Mr. Pravin Ghimire who was responsible for the study in the eastern region (Jhapa,
Morang and Sunsari districts) and the other led by Mr. Upendra Gupta, Civil Engineer, who was
responsible to conduct the study in three districts namely Nuwakot, Makwanpur and Kathmandu.
2.2 Field Visit
The field visit was conducted simultaneously by two teams. Moreover, as per need of the work, live
enumerators were assigned on the basis of previous experience in similar nature of works and were
trained by the principal experts to enable them to collect the required information by means of the
structured questionnaire. Basically they were assigned for interview with the users. The rest of the
interviews wer e conducted by the principal project personnel. The name of the interviewers has been
presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
Name of the Interviewer
S. No. Name of the interviewer District Assigned Remarks
1 Pravin K Ghimire Jhapa, Morang, Suusari Project Personnel
2 Upendra Gupta Nuwakot, Kathmandu, Project Personnel
Makwanpur
3 Sitaram Mishra Jhapa, Morang Enumerator
4 Shiv Narayan Shah Sunsari Enumerator
5 Hark Nath Dangol Nuwakot Enumerator
6 Upendra Rinial Makwanpur Enumerator
7 Raj Kumar T imilsina Kathmandu Enumerator
2.2.1 Interview with Biogas Users
The selected biogas companies were approached first and were requested to furnish the list of biogas
users. Five biogas users from each of the 10 companies were randomly selected by the study team.
Thus, altogether 50 biogas users were selected and interviewed. General information on these biogas
users are presented on Appendix-II.
2.2.2 Interview With Biogas Companies
To acquire reliable information, the structure questionnaire were administered to the manager of each
the selected company. The list of the companies is given in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2
List of the Companies Selected for the Study
S.N. Name of the Company Company Code No. Location of Company
1. Manaslu Gobar Gas Company MGG
Damak, Jhapa
(Pvt.) Ud.
2. Grihini Gobar Gas Company (Pvt.) GRI
Damak, Jhapa
Ltd.
3. Public Gobar Gas Company (P.) PGG
Urlabari,Morang
Ltd.
4. Bishal Gobar Gas Company (Pvt.) BIS
Biratnagar, Morang
Ltd.
5 Gobar Gas Tatha Agri Equipment
Development Company
GGC
Ithari, Sunsari
6. Nilkamal Gobar Gas Company (P) NRG
Hctaunda, Makawanpur
Ltd
7. Rapti Gobar Gas Company (P.) RAP
Hetaunda, Makawanpur
Ltd.
8, Kishan Gobar Gas Company (Pvt.) KGY
Bidur, Nuwakot
Ltd.
9. Jan Bhawana Gobar Gas Company JGY
Bidur, Nuwakot
(P.) Ltd.
10. Nepal Biogas Company (Pvt.) Ltd. NBG New Baneshwor,
Kathmandu
As per the TOR of the Consultant, a total of 10 companies were required to be interviewed. Among
the originally selected companies, three of them were found not working at the time of survey. Thus,
these three non-functioning companies namely Saptakoshi Gobar Gas Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Man
Shanti Gobar Gas Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and Nepal Gobar Gas Bisthar Tatha Bikash Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
were replaced by Public Gobar Gas Company (P.) Ltd., Rapti Gobar Gas Company (P) Ltd., and Jan
Bhawana Gobar Gas Company (P.) Ltd. respectively.
2.2.3 Interview with other Personnel and Organizations
To study the aspect of quality control in depth and to formulate appropriate strategy, views of
different categories of organizations (ADB/N, NBL, RBB, BSP) were collected through the structured
questionnaire. Beside, different categories of relevant people including Programme Manager, Biogas
Engineer and quality control supervisors of SNV/BSP were also consulted to gather necessary
information.
The viewpoints of various key informants selected for this study (i.e. biogas users, biogas companies,
commercial banks, knowledgeable persons and quality control supervisor) have been presented from
Chapter Three to Chapter Seven respectively).

CHAPTER THREE
FARMER RESPONDENTS

CHAPTER THREE
FARMER RESPONDENTS
3.1 Introduction
Biogas users comprising mainly of the farming community are the ultimate beneficiaries of biogas
programme. Successfulness of the programme depends as to what extent a user is satisfied from the
performance of his plant. To derive maximum benefit out of the plant, it is essential to ensure not only
quality of construction of plants but also due attention needs to be paid on quality of O & M and aftersale
services of the installed plants. Thus, amongst the different categories of the respondents, major
emphasis has been given to biogas users in the sense that they are associated with biogas plants in
day-to-day life, and any default that occurs in their plant can deprive them of the expected output from
the plant. Such situation can create disbelief and negative attitude towards biogas technology in
society and can affect the programme.
In above backdrop, this chapter is devoted to the response of the farmer respondents regarding their
viewpoint on quality control measures. As per the TOR of the Consultant, 50 biogas users (five from
each selected biogas company) were randomly selected from six districts of Nepal, namely Morang,
Jhapa, Sunsari, Makawanpur, Nuwakot and Kathmandu. The general description of these respondents
is given in Appendix III. The analytical results are discussed below in different sub headings.
3.2 Capacity of Biogas Plants Possessed by the Users
Table 3-1 provides information on the capacity of (he biogas plants possessed by altogether 50
selected households. As regards to the size of the plants, the respondents possessed higher number of
8 m of plants (36 %) compared to ft m 3 (30%) and 10 m 3 (32%) Thus, there is a tendency among the
users to install 8 m 3 and 10 m 3 plants at the household level.
3.3 Working Status of the Plants
Present working status of the installed plants is the basic indicator of the quality services provided by
the concerned companies. Respondents" view on the present working status of the of the plant is given
in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 shows that 70 percent of the total selected plants are working very
satisfactorily and 20 percent plants are rated as "Working Satisfactorily", while 10 percent of them are
"Not Working Satisfactorily", Most of the plants that have been working satisfactory are found
installed in the last fiscal year 1997/1948. As 10 percent of the plants are found in not working
satisfactorily , due attention needs to be paid in this matter.
3.4 Services Provided by Biogas Companies
Less than half of the sampled users said that they receive information regarding O & M and repair of
the plants by the concerned companies. According to them, the supports are generally provided in
following subjects;
- To use right amount of dung and water
- To detect leakage of gas
- To use and maintain stove
- To open and close water trap
- To illuminate and clean the lamp
- Information on advantage of biogas and its use

Table 3-1
Capacity of the Plants of the Selected Households
S. No. Company District
Jhapa Morang Sunsari Makwanpur Nuwakot Kathmandu
Plant Capacity m 3 Plant Capacity m 3 Plant Capacity m Plant Capacity m 3 Plant Capacity m 3 Plant Capacity m 3
6 8 10 15 20 6 8 10 15 20 6 8 10 15 20 6 8 10 15 20 6 8 10 15 20 6 8 10 15 20
1 MGG - 2 3 - -
2 GRI - 4 1 - -
3 PGG - 1 2 - - - 2 - - -
4 BIS 1 1 3 - -
5 GGC - - 3 - - - 1 1 - -
6 NRG 1 4 - - -
7 RAP 5 - - - -
8 KGY 4 1 - - -
9 JGY 3 2 - -
10 NBH 2 2 1 - -
Total 7 6 - - 1 3 6 - - 1 1 - - 6 4 - - - 7 1 2 - - 2 2 1 - -
MGG = Manasula Gobar Gas Company NRG = Nilkamal Gobar Gas Company
GRJ = Grihini Gobar Gas Company RAP = Rapti Gobar Gas Company
PGG = Public Gobar Gas Company KGY = Kishan Gobar Gas Company
BIS = Bishal Gobar Gas Company JGY = Jana Bhawana Gobar Gas Company
GGC = Gobar Gas &. Agri. Equip. Dev. Company NBG = Nepal Biogas Company

Table 3-2
Users Users' Response on the Status of the Biogas Plants
S. No. District Company Working Status
WVS WS WNS
1 Jhapa MGG 3 2 -
2 Jhapa GRI - 5 -
3 Morang PGG - 4 1
4 Morang BIS 3 2 -
5 Sunsari GGC 3 1 1
6 Makwanpur NRG 1 3 1
7 Makwanpur RAP - 5 -
8 Nuwakot KGY - 4 1
9 Nuwakot JGY - 4 1
10 Kathmandu NBG - 5 -
Total 10 35 5
Note : WVS = working very satisfactorily
WS = working sat isfactorily
WNS = not working satisfactorily
The respondents have been asked specific questions to provide information about the status of visit of
the concerned companies' staff whenever the users stand in need of help. Table 3-3 provides
information on current status of visit of the concerned biogas companies.
Table 3-3
Distribution of the Respondents in Accordance to their Need for Technical Support
and Status of Visit of Companies
S. No. District Company No. of the Users Calling Visit of Company on Routined
Company for Help Visited Call Not Visited Visit
1 Jhapa MGG 3 3 - 2
2 Jhapa GRI 4 3 1 I
3 Morang PGG 5 4 1 2
4 Morang BIS 5 4 1 1
5 Sunsari GGC 5 5 - 5
6 Makwanpur NRG 5 3 2 3
7 Makwanpur RAP 4 3 1 2
8 Nuwakot KGY 5 2 3 1
9 Nuwakot JGY 3 2 I 2
10 Kathmandu NBG 5 4 1 4
Total 44 33 11 23

The table also shows that 88 percent of the respondents were found approaching the companies for
solving major and minor difficulties being faced by them. 75 percent of them seemed satisfied with
the visit of the companies on call. Some of the respondents expressed that although the representative
of the relevant company pays a visit on call but he lingers to resolve their problems. The rest 25
percent of the respondents were of the view tint they did not receive any help from the company in
time of need.
It is also noticed that the routine visit by the company has been maintained only to about 50 percent of
the users. They suggest that a routine visit of 1-2 times per year along with visit on call should be
conducted compulsorily by the company to solve the problems associated with their plants. 12 percent
of the total respondents claim that company only conducts random visit to them. This indicates that
there is a lack of systematic mechanism of rendering services by the companies for O & M of the
plants.
3.5 Awareness of Biogas Users on BSP's Quality Control Activities
Though BSP has already conducted several monitoring activities in Nepal, yet many respondents have
been found unaware of its activities. Table 3-4 provides users' viewpoint on the extent of awareness of
BSP's quality control system.
Table 3-4
Number of Respondents Possessing Awareness to the BSP's Quality Control System and Stains
of Visit of Quality Control Supervisor
S. No. District Company Awareness to BSP's Visit of BSP's Quality
Quality Control System Control Supervisor
Yes No Yes No
1 Jhapa MGG 1 4 5
2 Jhapa GRI - 5 2 3
3 Morang PGG 1 4 1 4
4 Morang BIS 3 2 2 3
5 Sunsari GGC 3 2 2 3
6 Makwanpur NRG 2 3 - 5
7 Makwanpur RAP 1 4 3 2
8 Nuwakot KGY 3 2 2 3
9 Nuwakot JGY 2 3 2 3
10 Kathmandu NBG 2 3 1 4
Total 18 32 15 35
It is seen that out of the studied households, only 36 percent are familiar with the quality control
system enforced by BSP, while remaining 64 percent are ignorant about it.
The visit of quality control supervisor of BSP to the users has been found to play a significant role to
create awareness about the necessity of quality control of biogas plants. However, some of the users
are still unaware of the type of services provided by BSP in quality control of biogas. 70 percent of
the respondents said that the quality control supervisors did not visit them, while the remaining 30
said that they had paid a visit.

3.6 Problems Faced by the Users
Out of the total studied plants, about 60 percent have been found facing problems. The detail of the
most common problems encountered by the users has been presented in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5
Most Common Problems Encountered by the Users and the
Source for Solving Them
S. No. District Company Problems Encountered No. of Users Source of Solution
1 Jhapa MGG a) Blockage of gas 2 company & owner
b) Insufficient gas 1 company & owner
2 Jhapa GRI a) Insufficient gas 1 company
b) Leakage of gas 1 company
c) Blockage of gas 1 company
3 Morang PGG a) Slurry in pipe line 1 company
4 Morang BIS a) Blockage of gas 2 company
b) Insufficient j^as 3 company
c) Slurry in pipe line 1 company
5 Sunsari GGC a) Blockage of eas 2 company
b) Insufficient gas 2 company
c) Slurry in pipe line 2 company
d) Pipe line and
company
accessories
6 Makwanpur NRG a) Blockage of gas 2 company & owner
7 Makwanpur RAP b) Insufficient gas 2 company & owner
8 Nuwakot KGY a) Blockage of gas 1 com pany
b) Pipe line and
2 company
accessories
9 Nuwakot JGY n) Pipe line and
1 company
accessories
10 Kathmandu NBG a) Blockage of gas 2 company
b) Insufficient gas 2 company
The most common problems existing in O & M of biogas plants are as follows:
- Blockage of gas
- insufficient gas
- Leakage of gas
- Slurry in pipelines
- Problems related to pipeline fittings and accessories
Out of these problems, blockage of gas and insufficient gas have been observed in 80 percent of the
problematic plants, whereas the rest of the problems were also noticed in majority of the plants.
None of the respondents expressed to have encountered the problems of structural breakdown of
digester such as fire hazards, though these sort of problems have to be given considerable att ention in
the future. The respondents also noted problems associated with accessories and equipments. Frequent
wearing out of the accessories like burner, lamps, main gas valve, pipe fittings and other parts is a
matter of concern in the improvement of qua lity of biogas system. It is but natural that such problems

can create frustration among the users with the possibilities of developing negative attitude towards
the biogas technology.
Users' response on frequent wear and tear of the major equipments an d accessories has been presented
in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6
Users' View on Frequent Wear and Tear of Major Biogas Equipment/Accessories
S. No. District Company
Equipment and Accessories
Other Parts
Burner Lamps Main Gas Valve Pipe Fitting
1 Jhapa MGG 2 - 1 -
2 Jhapa GRJ - - 2 1 -
3 Morang PGG 3 3 1 1 -
4 Morang BIS 2
5 Sunsari GGC - - - - 2
6
7
Makwanpur
Makwanpur
NRG
RAP
1
-
-
-
_
-
_ 2
-
8 Nuwakot KGY 2 1 1 1
9 Nuwakot JGY 1 - - - 2
10 Kathmandu NBG - - - - 2
Total 9 4 4 3 11
It is apparent that 62 percent of the respondents are facing problems with the accessories and 29
percent state to have frequent problems with burner 10 to 13 percent reported to have problems with
lamps, main gas valve and pipe fittings and another 35 percent had problems associated with other
parts.
3.7 Suggestions of Respondents for Improving Quality Control System
Out of the selected users, 56 percent do not have any comments and they seem more or less satisfied
with the existing services rendered by the biogas companies and other concerned agencies. The
opinions of the 44 percent respondents who provided various suggestions to biogas companies,
Biogas Support Programme and the government are presented in the following paragraphs.
a) Suggestion to the Biogas Companies
Following suggestions were made by the users to the companies:
• To ensure systematic mechanism of routine and on call visit by the companies
• To make the biogas appliances easily accessible to the users
• To work with service orientated motive
• To improve maintenance facility
• To open branch office of the company in different places
b) Suggestion to Biogas Support Programme
• To evolve low-cost design of biogas plant
• To conduct effective refresher training to local masons and other staffs
• To c onduct orientation training before installation of the plant
• To determine the size of the biodigester in accordance with the availability of dung

c) Suggestions to the Government
Most of the users were found expecting a lot from the government. However, only a few of them were
aware of government policy on extension and promotion of biogas technology and establishment of
AEPC. The study team tried to explain them about AEPC and its activities. The common suggestions
made by them to AEPC are enlisted below:
• AEPC should conduct overall quality control of biogas plants
• Guarantee period of biogas plant should be increased
• Subsidy amount should be increased
• Subsidy should be provided in accordance with economical status of the farmers
• AEPC should conduct promotional activities in an effective and efficient way
• It should provide regular supervision of the plants
• It should conduct users' training
• Priority should be given to the low income group farmers
Improvement in the quality of biogas plants by the users will largely depend upon the motivation and
awareness received from the promoters of the technology. Furthermore, it is also essential to provide
adequate training to the users on O & M of biogas plant to improve the quality of the plant for better
performance, Biogas company, being commercial organization, will not be in a position to carry out
such activities. Most of the users are of the opinion that the governmental organization namely AEPC
which is established to oversee all alternate energy related activities would also be the appropriate
institution to conduct quality control in the future.

CHAPTER FOUR
BIOGAS COMPANIES

CHAPTER FOUR
BIOGAS COMPANIES
4.1 Introduction
As a result of government privatization policy, to date about 41 private biogas companies have been
established to provide construction services to meet ever increasing demand for the installation of
biogas plants. It is obvious that being commercial organizations, they have little incentive to carry out
the activities related to quality control of biogas plants. Detailed guidelines and programme have been
developed by BSP to conduct quality control on biogas plants installed by the companies. But as
appropriate governmental agency was lacking in the past, the extent of acceptance and effectivity of
this system was not studied in-depth. It is expected now that with the establishment of AEPC, this gap
will likely be fulfilled in the future.
4.2 General Information on Selected Biogas Companies
List of the 10 biogas companies that were selected for interview is presented in Chapter two (see
Table 2-2). Table 4-1 provides general information on these companies.
Table 4-1
General Information on Selected Biogas Companies
S.
No.
Company Address Years of
Establishment
No. of
Staff
Involved
Name of
Manager
1 MGG Damak, Jhapa 2052 16 Rajan Bhandari
2 GRI Damak, Jhapa 2053 15 Pawan Koirala
3 PGG Urlabari, Morang 2053 3 Saligram
Sharma
4 BIS Biratnagar,
2053 20 Raj an Wasti
Morang
5 GGC Ithari, Sunsari 2034 18* Shiv Narayran
Shah
6 NRG Hetauda,
2052 5 Bhoj Raj Dahal
Makwanpur
7 RAP Hetauda,
2054 5 Upendra Rimal
Makwanpur
8 JGY Bidur, Nuwakot 2050 2 Hark Nath
Dangol
9 KGY Bidur, Nuwakot 2047 7 Bishnu Bdr.
Karki
10 NBG New Bancshwor,
Kath.
2049 65 Neeraj Nepali
* The figure represents only the number of staffs in Ithari branch.
As said earlier, GGC established in 1977 is the leading biogas company in Nepal and its contribution
in the field of extension and promotion of biogas technology for the last two decades has been well
recognized. A rapid rise in number of biogas companies has been noticed during the last five years
(see Table 4-1). Actually this rise indicates good sign for the realization of BSP's III rd phase
programme to achieve the target of commissioning 100,000 plants in Nepal. However, rapidly

emerging number of biogas plants carry a question mark about the ensurance of quality construction
of biogas plants for which quality control measures need to be enforced effectively. Therefore, this
study is directed towards investigating a sustainable approach on quality control system.
4.3 Working Status of Biogas Plants and Reasons for Mal-functioning
Working status of installed plants is an indicator for quality services rendered by the companies.
Table 4-2 provides data on number of functional plants in relation to total number of plants
commissioned by the companies and the reasons for non-functioning status.
Table 4-2
Respondents' View about Functioning Plants and Possible Reasons for Mai-Functioning
S. Company District No. of Installed Percentage of Plants Reasons for
No. Plants Functioning* Non-functionong Mai -functioning
1 MGG Jhapa 200 85 15 1. low feeding of raw materials
2. lack of knowledge about O & M
2 GRI Jliapa 200 92 8 1. lack of motivation
2. oversized plant
3 PGG Morang 65 85 15 1. poor aftersales services
2. lack of knowledge about O & M
4 BIS Morang 250 90 10 1. low feeding of raw materials
2. lack of maintenance
5 GGC Sunsari N.A. 85 15 1. poor aftersales services
2. oversized plant
3. lack of knowledge about O & M
6 NRG Makwanpur 75 100 - -
7 RAP Makwanpur 77 100 - -
8 JGY Nuwakot 01 98 2 1. low feeding of raw materials
9 KGY Nuwakot 550 99 1 2. poor aftersales services
3. social problems
10 NBG Kathmandu 2028 97 3 1. social problems
2. low feeding of raw mater ials
* Average number of functioning plant is 93 percent
The data presented in Table 4-2 show that on an average, 93 percent plants are functional. It is also
seen that the reasons for non-functioning is attributed to low feeding of raw materials into the
biodigester. Low feeding consequently causes low rate of gas production. Hence, due to lack of
sufficient amount of gas, the owner reverts to the use of firewood. Such situation is not conducive to
the promotion and extension of biogas programme. Furthermore, lack of knowledge about O & M and
poor after-sales services are also among the major causes for decreased performance of the plant.
According to Nepal Biogas Company, a few plants failed due to the social problems associated with
distribution of land property among brothers, migration of owner, sale of animals, etc,
4.4 Follow up and Supervision by the Company
Follow up and supervision of the plants by the company can plays a significant role to acquire desired
quality of installed plants. Constructing a plant with the use of good quality materials and skilled
masons is not only the way out to obtain a sustainable plant but this should be supported by good
quality after-sale services and O & M to achieve better result. Regular follow -up by the company, on

one hand, can make these services more effective and on the other hand, it help increase the
confidence of the users about the technology.
Guarantee and After-Sales Services Provided by the Company: Upon completion of a plant, the
company provides following type of guarantee to the users:
• One year guarantee on all pipes fittings and appliances except mantle and glass of the lamp
• Three years guarantee on the structure of the biogas plant: (e.g. inlet, digester, gas storage,
outlet and drain pit). In case of faulty construction, the company bears all cost of repair.
Upon the completion of construction work, the company provides the owner with a guarantee card.
Guarantee does not apply in case the owner overlooks the instructions for O & M as stipulated by the
company and in case of natural disasters. In addition, the company provides free aftersales service for
three years after date of construction. This service consists of a yearly routine visit in the last two
years and an additional visit in case the user of the plant lodges a complaint- The procedure for this
service is described below:
(i) Yearly Routine Visit: A duly qualified staff on behalf of the company visits the plant owner and
inspects the plant. The employee repairs possible defec ts on the spot. It is worth noting that the staff
should carry the necessary tools and spare parts with him during the visit. If it is not possible to repair
the plant during this visit, he gives next date to visit the owner within a period of three weeks. Before
leaving, he fills in the form which is then signed by both parties (the owner and the company's
representative). The staff signs also on the back side of guarantee card kept by the farmer. The form
thus signed is handed over to the field office. A copy of the form is sent to SNV/BSP. At time of the
visit, the company's staff also assesses the ability of the user to operate the biogas plant and execute
on-site instructions, if necessary.
(ii) Visit in Case of Complaints: The company keeps at every field office a register for complaint
lodged in written or verbally by or on behalf of the plant owner. After receipt of a complaint, the
company sends his trained staff to the plant owner within a period of two weeks. The staff of the
company scrutinizes the problems and performs necessary repair work. If not possible at that moment,
he makes an appointment to come back within three weeks' period. Before leaving, he notes down
simple report of his work. He then signs on the back side of the guarantee paper kept by the owner.
He then hands over the field report to the field office. The office Incharge checks the report and puts it
in the owner's file after approval together with the written complaint of the owner, if lodged. If further
repairs have to be done, the field office initiates necessary action. On sample basis, SNV/BSP checks
the quality of the performed aftersales service of the company. Following considerations are
necessary for assessment of quality control measures:
• Has the company actually performed the annual aftersales service as claimed on the
maintenance report?
• Is die plant fully completed as claimed by the plant completion report?
• Is the plant technically in operational status?
Out of the 10 studied companies, all of the users claim that the company had visited them whenever a
complaint is lodged. According to the respondents, 60 percent of them are providing routine visit out
of which 50 percent are maintaining their routine visit at the interval of once in a year, while 10
percent provides the services at different time frame as per the convenience of their office. These
services are offered only within the guarantee period.
Some users told that though company staffs visit them on call, but they often linger on to solve the
problems. This sort of situation clearly reflects the attitude of company merely to be involved in more

installation of new plants with increased interest rather than to care for O & M of old plants for which
they do not get any profit.
4.5 Most Count 10n Problems as Perceived by Biogas Companies
Table 4-3 reveals the most common problems that occur frequently on a installed biogas plant.
S. No.
1
Table 4-3
Most Common Problems Encountered By Companies
Company
MGG
District
Jhapa
Most common Problems
- Slurry in pipeline
- Gas leakage
2 GRI Jhapa - Slurry in pipe line
- Leakage of gas
3 PGG Morang - Blockage of gas,
- Wearing out of accessories
- Slurry in pipe line
4 BIS Morang - Leakage of gas
- Blockage of gas
5 GGC Sunsari - Wearing-out of accessories
- Blockage of gas
- Leakage of gas
6 NRG Makwanpur - Blockage of gas
- Leakage of gas
7 RAP Makwanpur - Problems regarding pipe fittings,
- Gas leakage
- insufficient gas
8 JGY Nuwakot - Wearing out of accessories
9 KGY Nuwakot - Gas leakage
- Slurry in pipe line
10 NBG Kathmandu - Digging of compost pit immediately
- Misplacing of the useful documents
provided by company
To improve quality of the plants, it is of utmost importance to come up with a permanent solution.
Repetition of the same problem can create frustration among the users and hence, it can demotivate
them.
The most common problems faced by the users are: gas blockage, slurry in pipe line, wearing out of
accessories, incorrect pipe fittings, etc. Out of the stated problems, gas leakage has been indicated by
almost all the companies.
Some of the companies expressed following suggestions to overcome such problems.
• Necessity of more frequent visit by the companies to the users
• Formation of a well skilled maintenance team in all the field office and their regular visit to
the problematic and non-problematic plants
• Improvement in after -sales services
• Conduction of orientation programme and training amongst the users
• Diffusion of promotional information to the users

According to Nepal Biogas Company, there is a negligence on the part of users as they do not dig out
two compost pits immediately after the construction of biogas plants and also misplace the documents
provided by the company. The manager of this company suggests that the compost pit should be dug
out before outlet is ready to overflow.
4.6 Technical Capability of the Biogas Companies
It has been already stated that since 1994 the biogas construction companies have been mushrooming
in Nepal with varying degree of technical capability. Quality of biogas plant is proportional to the
quality of the services provided by such companies, which in its turn depends upon the technical
capability of the company, number of skilled and trained staff assigned by the company as well as
experience of work. However, recruiting of skilled manpower alone in itself is not sufficient to meet
desired quality of biogas plants. Proper mobilization of manpower and resources (e.g. in time of
construction, O & M and after sales services) is another important factor to achieve the desired quality
of the plants.
Table 4-4 provides information about the number of trained staff possessed by selected companies.
Table 4-4
Number of the Trained Staff Possessed By the Selected Companies
S.N. Name of the
Company
District
No. of Total
Staff
No. of Trained
Staff
Percentage of Trained
Staff
1. MGG Jhapa 16 10 62.5
2. GRJ Jhapa 15 12 80.0
3. PGG Morang 3 3 100.0
4. BIS JV4orang_ __ 20 18 90.0
5. GGC Sunsari 18* 12 66.6
6. NRG Makwanpur 5 4 80.0
7. RAP Makwanpur 5 2 40.0
S. KGY Nuwakot 2 1 50.0
o. JGY Nuwakot 7 7 100.0
10. NBG Kathmandu 65 ** 60 92.3
Total 156 129
* Staff based at Ithari only
** Overall figure
Table 4-4 reveals that out of total of 156 staffs of different biogas companies, 129 have been trained
which constitutes about 81 percent of trained manpower. Manpower training by BIS, NBG, GRI and
NRG seems quite satisfactory as the number of trained staff by these companies fall in the range of
SO to 92.3 percent. It has been observed that the some companies like PGG and KGY have 100
percent of trained manpower. On the other hand, the number of trained manpower by KGY in
Nuwakot (50%) and RAP in Makwanpur (40%) seems low compared to other companies.
The types of manpower possessed by different biogas companies in construction and the supervision
of the biogas plants are indicated in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5
Type of Manpower Involved in the Construction and the Supervision of Biogas Plants
S. N. Company Type of Manpower Involved
1. Technical supervisor MGG
2. Technical supervisor GRI
3. AH of the staff PGG
4. Supervisor BIS
5. Technical supervisor GGC
6. Technical supervisor NRS
7. Technical supervisor RAP
8. Office Manager KGY
9. Any of the seven members JGY
10. Supervisor, Master - mason NBG
Thus, in most of the companies, the supervision of the construction work is done by the trained
technical supervisor. It worth to mention here that the concerned company should always try to
increase the technical capability of such supervisors to innke them able to deal with several
challenging technical problems that may occur during construction phase or during O & M of the
biogas plants.
4.7 Quality of Materials Used in Construction
The quality of materials has direct impact on the performance of the plants. Even if the approved
design and trained masons are used, the actual construction works could still suffer due to the use of
the inferior quality construction materials namely cement, bricks, sand, water and aggregates. Some
specifications of these materials have already been recommended (see Training Manual for Extension
of Biogas Technology, 1996).
Bricks: Well baked bricks with uniform dimension should be used.
Cement: Cement containing 3 CaCO 3 Al 2 O 2 and 3 CaCO 3 SiO 2 is preferred because of its fast
hydration rate and less shrinkage. Cement containing impurities may lead to poor quality structure.
Cement should be fresh (not more than six month old), without lumps and should be stored in dry and
cool place.
Sand: Sand containing more than three percent of dirt or soils should not be used. Preferably, sand
should be washed with clean water before mixing it with cement
Gravel: The dome thickness of GGC design is not more than 7.5 cm. Therefore, gravel of 10 to 20
mm size should be used. If gravel is mixed with soils, it should be washed with clean water.
Water: To ensure the quality of construction, clean water should be used for masonry work. Water
from ponds and irrigation canals containing sediments and colloidal materials should not be used for
masonry work.
Stones: Hard, clean and good quality stones should be used. If they are dirty, they should be washed
with clean water before use
Out of selected companies, almost all answered that the present quality of materials used is
satisfactory. About 10 percent of the respondents said that different construction materials exist with
varying specifications. About 20 percent of the respondents said that in some cases, the quality of

construction deteriorates due to the use of poor quality of construction materials used by the masons.
Development of this sort of psychology of profit making motive by the companies can lead to inferior
quality or even results into failure of the plant. The study team are of the opinion that though the
quality of materials currently has been producing satisfactory results, exploration of materials based
on research will yield better result.
4.8 Company's View on BSP Quality Control Standards
BSF has devised 73 parameters for ensuring the quality of plant construction and its proper
functioning. These standards fixed by BSP include all the possible related criteria to achieve quality
of the plant. Basically, the followings criteria have been emphasized while fixing the standards.
• Design
• Size and capacity of plant
• Construction materials
• Skilled and trained masons
• Quality of construction (e.g. Dome casting, back filling, locating the central point)
All parameters have been grouped into three categories. Company have to pay a penalty if any plant
constructed by it fails to meet prescribed standards.
Specific questions about the opinion of these companies towards the 73 standards of the BSP were
asked. Out of 10 companies, 40 percent seem satisfied with these standards and think that these
standards cover all the aspects of quality control, while 10 percent of them appeared totally ignorant
about these standards. Another 10 percent think that some more number should be included in the
standard. Similarly, 20 percent think that some of the standards are superfluous and the remaining 20
percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the standards require more number and some of the
standards are superfluous. The suggested points to be included in the standard arc as follows:
• Wall of the digester should be at least 25 cm thick
• Dome should be casted as R.C.C.
According to the respondents, the superfluous points are as follows:
• Digging of at least two compost pit.
• More than one defaults and proportionate penalty in the same items.
The respondents complain that they are suffering due to the stated superfluous points mentioned
above. For example, digging of two compost pits which is entirely the responsibility of the users
seems impractical in the present system. Because of mere reluctancy or inability of the users to avoid
the construction of two compost pits, the penalty is being imposed by BSP upon the company. The
companies were of the opinion that it is well justified to omit this point or it is necessary to come up
with other suitable alternative for this problem.
4.9 Reaction of the Respondents Towards the Penalty System
BSP has divided the penalty system into 3 categories as follows:
Category - 1
Category - 2
Any plant that fails to meet parameters in Category 1 is not provided subsidy.
Failure to meet specifications of Category 2 requires the biogas company to pay a
penalty to BSP in addition to correcting the faults without any additional fee to the
users.

Category - 3
The concerned company is warned not to repeat the mistake for failure to comply
with requirements of Category 3 parameters.
AH companies and banks involved in BSP implementation, have to agree on penalty system designed
to enforce the quality standards. The penalty amount for different categories of defaults or failure to
maintain the quality are given in Annex 1 -2 (see Chapter One).
Table 4-6 shows attitude of companies towards penalty system and penalty amount to be paid by the
company as per default.
Table 4-6
Attitude of Companies Towards Penalty System and Penalty
Amount to be Paid by the Company as per Default
S. Company District Status of Satisfaction Penalty Remarks
No.
Satisfied Not- Amount Defaults
Satisfied Paid (Rs)
1. MGG Jhapa v - -
2. GRI Jhapa v - 300 • Compost pit 1997/98
• Improper pipe
fitting
• Wrong
measurement
3. PG. Morang v - -
4. BSI Morang - v 160 • Compost pit
• Feeding mixture
5. GGC Sunsari - v NA • Compost pit
• Wrong measurement
• Main gas value
6. NRG Makwanpur v - 1600 • Size of dome
measurement
7. RAP Makwanpur - v - -
8. KGY Nuwakot - v 900 • Size of water
drain
• Size of mixture
machine
9. JGY Nuwakot v - 4000 • Over size plants
• Compost pit
10. NBG Kathmandu - v NA • Under-feeding
• Compost pit
• Misplace-ment
of document by
the user
Out of the total respondents, 60 percent seem to be unsatisfied on the penalty system. Following are
the basic reasons for their disappointment.

• Most of the penalty is being fixed merely on the basis of interview with the users who may
mis- communicate the BSP's supervisor.
• Penalty categories are not mutually agreed upon.
• Generally penalty are imposed on the company due to the mistake made by users (e.g. digging
of compost pit).
• More than one def aults and proportionate penalty in the same item.
About 10 percent of the companies suggested that the first default should be forgiven with a strong
warning. 20 percent of the respondents held the view that the penalty amount should ultimately be
refunded to the companies. According to 10 percent of the respondents, a better alternative rather than
penalty system should be worked out. They expressed that various other constructive approaches can
be practised and in-depth interaction with the concerned agencies and groups is needed. According to
them, the new alternative should be based on clear and agreed principle of responsibility without
undermining the social aspects.
4.10 BSP' Support to Biogas Companies
BSP has 11 quality control supervisor who are responsible to deal with companies for supervision of
the plants constructed by them in Nepal. The quality services provided by a particular company can be
considered proportional to the visit of BSP' representative to such companies. Table 4-7 provides data
on frequency of visit of quality control supervisors to the companies and status of support provided by
BSP.
Table 4-7
Frequency of Visit by Quality Control Supervisors to the Companies and BSP's Support
S. Company District Frequency of Visit of Qualify
BSP's Support
No
Control Supervisor
Name Time Reason Technical Financial Institutional Manager Other
1. MGG Jhapa 4 • Quality Control Yes Yes Yes Yes
• Refresher Training
• Professional Training
2. GRI Jhapa 2 • Quality Control
• Refresher Training
• Professional Training
Yes Yes Yes Yes
3. PGG Morang 2 Quality Control Yes Yes Yes - -
4. BIS Morang 2 Quality Control Yes Yes Yes - -
5. GGC Sunsari 4 Quality Control Yes Yes Yes - -
6. NRG Makwanpur 1 Quality Control Yes - - - -
7. RAP Makwanpur 2 Quality Control Yes Yes - - -
8. JGY Nuwakot 2 Quality Control Yes - - - -
9. KGY Nuwakot 1 Quality Control Yes - - - -
10. NBG Kathmandu 1 Quality Control Yes - - - -
Table 4-7 indicates that the visit of BSP's supervisors took place from 1 to 4 times in a year. 20
percent of the respondents said that they eventually are getting refresher and professional training
from them, whereas 80 percent said that they (BSP's supervisor) arrive only in course of supervision
of the plant.
50 percent of the total respondents think that only technical support is being received from BSP,
whereas the rest expressed having technical, financial, institutional and managerial support as well.
Despite the satisfactory technical support, other approaches regarding institutional and managerial

support do not seem inadequate. Due attention should be paid to balance the level of support so that
all companies would be of equal technical capability and institutional strength. It could be the way out
to adopt "Multi Agency, Single Model" Approach.
4.11 Respondents' Views on Sustainability of Quality Control System
The study explored different kinds of views of the selected respondents towards the sustainability of
quality control of biogas plants. The emphasis has been given to clear and agreed demonstration of the
responsibilities of each concerned agency. The suggestion made by them to the different concerned
agencies have been described below:
Role of Biogas Companies: According to majority of the respondents, following are the basic points
to be taken on account by all the companies to improve the quality of biogas plants.
• Improvement in maintenance of facilities
• Establishment of branch offices at various places so that users can approach them easily
• Conduction of training to plant owner
• Conduction of training to (local) masons in time
• Use of only skilled and trained mason
• Make the parts of plant easily available
• Company's staff to be trained in adequate number
Role of Commercial Banks: Most of the respond ents expressed that following points should be
considered properly by the concerned financial agency to create a better working environment for a
company to carry out the quality control effectively and efficiently.
• Improvement of loan process
• Provision of loan without collateral
• Increase subsidy amount
• Interest free loan
Suggestion to BSP: The contributions made by BSP in the extension and promotion of biogas have
been acknowledged by all the respondents but full-fledged support regarding quality control system
enforced by BSP has not been received. The followings are the suggestions made by the companies:
• The penalty categories had to be mutually agreed upon initially by BSP, HMG and biogas
companies as well.
• Penalty system should be made effective by omit ting some of the superfluous standards and
adding some of the required standards.
• A better alternative rather than penalty system should be investigated on the basis of
constructive approaches and in-depth interaction with concerned actors.
• Support should be provided in equitable basis to all the companies.
• BSP should sponsor appropriate training to different levels of the company's staff.
• Fixing of penalty amount merely depending upon the interview of users should be avoided.
This should be based on actual observation of plants.
• Nominal scale of penalty should be imposed upon the users because a small mistake or
negligence made by the user causes the company to pay penalty for nothing.
• Avoid more than one defaults and proportionate penalty in the same part item.
• The quality control unit of BSP should be extended because the existing number of quality
control supervisor does not seem sufficient to deal with all the companies.
• The number of sampled plants for observation is also not sufficient. This should be sampled
not randomly but in the more or less scientific basis such that more correct information on the
plants and its manufactures could be obtained.

Company's View About Appropriate Institution for Quality Control of Biogas Plants: It is now
obvious that Alternative Energy Promotion Center has been established in Nepal as a full-fledged
Government agency with the objectives of coordinating overall programme related renewable sources
of energy. This center has been attaching much importance to quality control of biogas plants to make
it more sustainable and practical. This is why this study has been initiated and sponsored by AEPC.
60 percent of respondents are of the opinion that AKPC, being a full fledged government agency,
would be appropriate agency for conduction of quality control of biogas plants. However, another 30
percent suggest that BSP should continue to be responsible for this activity, whereas remaining 20
percent are of the opinion that this responsibility should be handed over to the company like GGC
which is oldest and leading institution in the field of biogas services and a lot has been done by it in
the extension and promotion of biogas technology in Nepal.
Majority of respondents who consider AEPC as an appropriate institution have the opinion that the
technical, institutional, managerial, financial and other challenges to promote the biogas technology
on national level can not be met by an individual or private organization. Therefore, a government
agency like AEPC can only be the means to do so.

CHAPTER FIVE
COMMERCIAL BANKS

CHAPTER FIVE
COMMERCIAL BANKS
5.1 Introduction
To make the biogas plants affordable to the rural Nepalese community, the government provides
financial support in terms of loan and subsidy. With the establishment of BSP in 1992, the
government started providing subsidy at Rs. 7,000 (in Terai) and Rs. 10,000 (in the hills) to the people
willing to install biogas plant. At present, the revised subsidies as follows:
• Nrs 7,000 in the Terai
• Nrs 10,000 in the accessible hills connected by the roads
• Nrs 12,000 in the hills not connected by the roads
Since 1975 to 1994, Agricultural Development Bank (ADB/N) has been only the bank that
administers loan in biogas sector. It has the largest network of its branches scattered throughout the
country. From 1994 onwards, Nepal Bank Limited (NBL) and Rastriya Banijya Bank (RBB) have
also started financing in biogas sector. Until now, these two banks (NBL and RBB) have not been
found interested in the promotional activities of biogas plants except for providing loan. On the other
hand, ADB/N which is the main shareholder of GGC, has also been involved in the promotional
activities mainly in information dissemination and training in addition to channeling loan and
subsidies. Out of about 46,000 installed plants in Nepal, some 36,000 have been provided loan by
ADB/N.
The study team approached the head offices of each of tliese banks located in Kathmandu. Following
staff of these banks were administered the questionnaire to gather necessary information for this
study:
Mr. Devendra Adhikari Engineer, Energy Section, ADB/N
Mr. Raju Rimal
Overseer, Energy Section, ADB/N
Mr. Srikrishna Thapa
Section Chief, Priority Sector Loan Section, NBL
Mr. Ram Chandra Subedi
Deputy Chief, Priority Sector Loan Section, RBB
5.2 Infrastructural Arrangement of the Banks to Oversee Biogas Activity
Successful implementation of a programme is not possible without having proper infrastructural
arrangement in the organization. Banks being a financial organization can play a vital role in the
extension of biogas technology by providing the loan. Therefore, the infrastructural arrangement of
such banks indicates as to how effectively and efficiently it is engaged in the field of biogas
technology.
Table 5-1 provides general infrastructural arrangement in the head office of each bank.

Table 5 -1
Infrastructural Arrangement in the Head Office of Selected Banks
Name
of bank
Year of
financing
Presence of
individual
division to
oversee biogas
No. of the staff
involved within
head office in
biogas
No. of the
trained staff
within head
office
Responsible body
for field
observation
ADB/N 1972 No 2 - Field staff
RBB 1992 No 3 - JT/JTA
NBL 1994 No 3 - JT/JTA
Biogas related activities are being handled by energy section in ADB/N and priority sector loan
division in NBL and RBB. Generally field supervision is carried out by Junior Technician (JT) and
Assistant Junior Technician (JTA). According to the respondents, the major initiation is being taken
by the branch offices of each bank in biogas activities and each bank contains several staffs involved
in biogas activities in their branch offices on the country as a whole. It was said that many staffs in the
branch offices are trained as well.
It has been observed that the concern of these banks for biogas promotion has been limited largely to
the administration of loan to the users Field staffs arc involved in evaluating applications mid
supervising the plants mainly to ensure that the farmer is eligible for loan and is satisfied with the
plant construction. However, these staffs are not necessarily trained to have good understanding of the
technology. In the present context, these banks have to rely on GGC or other private biogas
companies for all technical aspects of a plant construction and oper ation. They have no mechanism to
monitor the technical performance of these companies.
5.3 Description of Loan Provided by Banks and its Effectiveness
Commercial banks feel comfortable as repayment of loan in biogas is high compared to other loan.
Biogas loan ranks as second good loan after tea and coffee (Kunwar, 1994). Good collection of the
loan may be the result of the long official procedure adopted by the banks. However, this long
procedure has its negative impact too. As the loan approval proc ess is quite lengthy and cumbersome,
it takes long time for a potential user to collect relevant documents from different offices to submit
them to the bank. Hence, it adds the unseen cost of biogas plants such as time and resources needed to
visit the bank offices frequently thereby causing a psychological harassment to the users.
Table 5-2 provides information about the number of plants on which loan has been provided by each
bank in the last fiscal year, interest rate of each bank and responsible authority for loan approval.
Table 5 -2
Number of Plants, Interest Rate of the Bank and Responsible Authority for Loan Approval
Name of Number of plants in Interest rate Responsible Authority for
banks the last fiscal year
Loan Approval
ADB/N 4,819 17% Manager, concerned branch
office
NBL 133 12 % up to Nrs 15,000 Manager, concerned branch
RBB 81
14.5 % above Nrs 15,000
15,000 15.5%
office
Manager, concerned branch
office

Procedure of Financing : The necessary documentation to be submitted by users remain same for all
the banks. Once a farmer decides to install a biogas plant, he visit the relevant bank for the request of
loan. Along with the loan application, he has to submit name of the biogas company chosen by him,
photocopy of land ownership certificate, citizenship certificate, receipt of the tax paid on land for the
purpose of collateral and quotation from the concerned company. When all necessary documents are
submitted, the supervisor of concerned bank inspects the collateral and prepares a field report. Based
on the field report, the decision is made by the manager of the concerned bank for approval of loan.
After sanctioning of the loan, a coupon is issued to the company. The company then requests the user
to arrange a part of construction materials such as bricks, stone, sand, gravel and unskilled labour.
When the construction of plant is completed, the company claims the reimbursement from the bank,
which then credits to farmer. At the same time, subsidy amount is also deducted by the bank. The
remaining amount of loan has to be repaid on installation basis with the prescribed interest rate and
within the time frame as quoted by the bank.
It has also been pointed out that at present the users are attracted more by the amount of subsidy
provided by the government rather than the utility of plant. Many farmers with liigh economic status
also take loan with the understanding that it is easier to get subsidy than in the case when they put
their own money for a plant construction. Apparently, the commitment to provide subsidy even to
farmers making their own investment through the recognized private biogas company is not well
understood by many people.
5.4 Activity of Banks about Quality Control
Banks, in the capacity of the financing institutions, can play a vital role in maintaining quality of
biogas plants. To date, three commercial banks namely ADB/N, NBL and RBB are involved in
financing biogas.
ADB/N: Among these three banks, ADB/N has been involved not only in financing but it has also
been rendering its services in the promotional activities since the inception of biogas programme in
Nepal. Following are the activities of ADB/N regarding quality of biogas plants:
- Information dissemination carried out by ADB/N includes radio programming, production of
video films, exhibition and other similar activities in biogas technology.
- Training activities are conducted for the benefits of users on community biogas plant, O & M
and repair of biogas plants.
NBL and RBB: As said, these two banks have been involved in biogas sector from 1994 onwards. So
far, these two banks are not involved in conducting the quality control measures. However, they have
been found interested in quality control aspect of biogas plants as they acknowledge that the loan
provided by them would not be utilized well until quality of biogas plant is maintained. According to
them, frustration among the users due to a low quality of plant can adversely affect loan policy of the
banks. Contrary to this, a good quality plant will increase moral value and confidence of banks
towards biogas technology.
All the respondents are of opinion that they should build their infrastructure with regard to technical,
institutional and managerial aspects to enable them to evaluate themselves all the aspects of biogas
technology and performance of biogas companies as well. This helps them make proper strategy
analyzing them to judge positive and negative points of each concerned actor (users, biogas
companies). The respondents (NBL and RBB) said that at present, the resources and manpower
provided by them are not sufficient to conduct such activities.

Accordance to Mr. Sri krislma Thapa (NBL), an amount of Nrs. 20 Million has been allocated by
NBL in biogas sector in the forthcoming fiscal year 1998/99. To achieve the target, about 55 plants
are required to be provided loan each month, It has been also pointed out that in next fiscal year, NBL
plans to attach priority for installment of 4 and 6 m 1 plants in order to benefit poor farmer. In such
case, if loan is provided randomly, special care has to betaken to ensure quality of the plants.
5.5 Sustainability of the Quality Control System
Followings are the viewpoints of the banks about the sustainability of quality control system:
• Provision of required amount of loan to avoid the use of low quality materials
• More number of trained staff in the bank
• Development of such an infrastructure in the bank that can evaluate all the aspects of biogas
technology independently
• Frequent control visit of representative of the banks to the users
• Establishment of field offices strategically in accordance with the demand
• Frequent communication among the banks and other relevant actors
According to the banks, the facilities should be provided by HMG/N and BSP to all the banks in
equitable basis so that they could be equally motivated.
5.6 Suggestion of Banks to Improve Quality Control
Suggestion to the Government: All the respondents welcomed the policy of HMG/N to establish an
apex body i.e., AEPC to oversee the biogas related activities. The banks are of the opinion that quality
control of biogas should be conducted by AEPC However, a lot has to be done yet by AEPC to bear
this responsibility. The banks suggest that if the Biogas Support Program will be terminated in the
future, all necessary infrastructure should be created by AEPC so that it could be able to conduct the
quality control independently on self -reliance basis. The following suggestions were given to AEPC:
• It should study aspect of quality control in-depth
• It should assign and train necessary manpower to conduct the works
• It should manage required resources and fund
It should arrange continuo us flow of capital
• It should concentrate on capacity building of NGO's and other private sectors involved in
biogas
• It should create market and linkage for biogas promotion
• It should initiate research and studies in quality control aspects
After the termination of the BSP, it will somehow become a challenging job to AEPC to bear the
overall responsibilities of qua lity control Therefore, without any delay, it should concentrate to
develop its capability to overtake the responsibilities.
Suggestion to BSP: Though all the respondents were found impressed by the BSP's contribution for
promotion and extension of biogas programme in Nepal, yet they are of the opinion that it should not
be responsible for conducting quality control of biogas plants for ever. They suggested that in the
process of handing over the responsibility of quality control to AEPC, BSP should support and
strengthen AEPC, banks, companies and other relevant organizations in the initial years so that they
could continue the works that are being done by BSP. Based upon the present study and past
experience, BSP should assist AEPC in formulation and modification of quality control system to
make it more sustainable, practicable and realistic.

Suggestion to Biogas Companies: The respondents from the banks are of the opinion that all the
companies should sincerely concentrate in maintaining the quality of biogas plants by developing its
technical capability and institutional strength. They said that at present most of the companies are not
equipped with adequate facilities, resources and manpower. As more number of company will likely
to be emerged in the future, there will be unhealthy competition among them (as it is happening now).
In such situation, there will be a question mark about the quality of biogas plant. The respondents said
that proper environment should be created to make the companies more conscious about maintaining
the quality of installed plant. A fair environment of competition has to be developed amongst the
companies. They should sustain their moral value by performing better quality work in the future.

CHAPTER SIX
QUALITY CONTROL SUPERVISORS
OF SNV/BSP

CHAPTER SIX
QUALIFY CONTROL SUPERVISORS OF SNV/BSP
6.1 Introduction
Quality Control Supervisors of SNV/BSP are the key manpower to conduct the overall supervision of
installed plants. Their contribution in maintaining the quality of installed biogas plants is highly
commendable. There are altogether eleven quality control supervisors assigned by SNV/BSP- In
accordance with their observation and recommendation, many issues related to quality control are
being tackled (such as penalty to biogas companies, liquidation of a compa ny, bonus to a company
etc). Thus, their opinion plays a significant role to make quality control system more practical and
sustainable.
To gather necessary information for this study, out of 11 quality control supervisors, three of them
were interviewed in agreement with BSP. Their name, address and years of working periods with BSP
are presented below ;
Name of the Interviewer Address Working Period
Mr. Rup Singh Thapa Butwal, Rupendehi 3.5 years
Mr. Rabi Chettri Jawalnkliel, Kathmandu 3.6 years
Mr. Saroj Shrestha Pyafal, Kathmandu 3.6 years
6.2 Existing Mechanism of Quality Control
Quality control of biogas plants takes place on the basis of random sampling. The size of the sample
will be determined by SNV/BSP considering the quality of plant construction (sample size will be
higher if the quality is not satisfactory), performance of the company in the previous year, experience
of the company and the total number of plants constructed (the lower the total number of plants,
higher the sample size). The sample include both plants in use (filled plants) and plants under
construction (non filled plants)
Quality control is conducted by means of structured questionnaire consisting of following three
sections:
- interview with the owner of the plant, or if not at home, with relative of owner
- Observation of the plant
- Measurement of the plant
The concerned company assigns one of its representatives to accompany the quality control supervisor
of BSP to the sampled plant. Both parties sign the completed questionnaire w hen they agree upon the
collected data. A copy of the questionnaire is provided to the company's office. The data of the
questionnaire is compiled by SNV/BSP in a report which is later forwarded to the company for
comments to be submitted within one month.
The quality control supervisors of SNV/BSP think that the existing method is very effective. They are
also confident that with the help of resources and equipment provided to them, the existing number of
them will be enough to conduct supervision till the next year but they also acknowledge the fact that
with the increased number of companies and plants, number of the quality control supervisors should
be increased in the future to meet the targeted number of biogas plants stipulated in the third phase of
BSP's activities (i.e., 100,000 plants to be commissioned by 2002). They further added that to collect a
more realistic and practical information, sample size for survey should be increased.

6.3. Problems Encountered by Quality Control Supervisor and their Suggestions
(i)
Problems
According to the respondents, the followings are the most problematic factors that hinder them to
conduct their work efficiently
Pressure of Companies: It has been complained that though each and every activity of quality
control supervisors is performed in front of representative of concerned company, yet the company
does not realize their faults easily, thereby causing hindrance to their works. The companies often
create different pressure on the quality control supervisors so that their faults, which can lead them to
pay penalty, are not easily exposed These sorts of problems can cause frustration to the quality control
supervisors and if the process is continued further, they can be demotivated or can go through wrong
track Maintaining quality of biogas plants in such situation seems impracticable.
Misplacement of the Documents by the Company as well as by the User: The respondents claim
that important documents such as promotional leaflets provided by BSP are not being used properly
by the companies. Misplacement of the important documents is common in the most of the
companies. Thus, lack of managerial experience of companies is making complication in timely
accomplishment of the jobs for which they are assigned. Except this, users have also found misplacing
instruction books and guarantee cards.
(ii)
Solutions
The following suggestions were made to solve the above mentioned problems:
The company should realize the fact that quality control supervisors are working to assist them in
their work. To increase the quality of plants is to increase its demand by creating bigger and easier
market for biogas companies Thus, all the companies should realize their faults and try to rectify them
at once This will enable them to increase their credibility. Managerial training should be conducted
for the benefits of biogas companies and the biogas users as well. This will create easier environment
for quality control supervisor to conduct their jobs efficiently.
It is worth to mention here that the companies being profit oriented organization have always a
tendency to gain more profit within a minimum time. Therefore, they are more interested in
installation of new plants rather than maintenance and aftersales services of the old plants. As more
and more companies are likely to be established in the future, such tendency of companies needs to be
treated well to maintain the desired quality of biogas.
6.4 Most Common Problems of Biogas Plants as Revealed by Quality Control Supervisors
The most common defaults on the installed biogas plants as pointed out by the quality control
supervisors are as follows:
• Reluctancy in digging compost pit
• Top filling on dome
• Water drain pit
• Improper pipeline fitting

• Use of larger size of gravel
• Appliances of low standards
• Less feeding of raw materials into the plants
• Leakage in the pipelines
According to the respondents, the above defaults Eire the most common ones which generally result
into poor construction and aftersales services provided by the concerned companies. Such problems
can be overcome to a considerable extent if company would be more conscious about it by providing
good quality of construction and aftersales services. It has also been complained by the respondents
that most of the companies are not following routine visit and visit on call,
6.5 Perception of Quality Control Supervisors About the Standards Fixed by BSP
As explained earlier, BSP has fixed seventy three standards on quality of biogas plants based on
consideration of design and construction, quality of construction materials used, skilled masons used,
shape, size and quality of different elements of plant, quality and fittings of pipelines and accessories,
provision of pipeline for a toilet, etc The company failing to meet any of the standards is either liable
to pay a penalty or is deprived of subsidy or is simply warned not to repeat such mistakes in the
future.
According to the respondents, the quality control measures fixed by BSP is practical, realistic and
sustainable and covers almost all (he aspects of quality control. However, they have following thing to
add:
- Although Digging of at least two compost pits is very essential factor to reduce the problems
associated with waste management and to increase the agricultural production, it is not being
followed up to the expected extent. To motivate the company to do so, provision of bonus has
also been made by BSP. The respondents are of the opinion that a special strategy needs to be
worked out to make each farmer aware of the problems of the urban waste management in
society which is in its critical stage so that they would themselves be motivated to dig out two
compost pits, Moreover, the earth required to backfill the top of the dome can also be
obtained from digging of the compost pit.
- Similarly provision of at least one toilet pipe though included in the quality standard, is not
followed up properly
- Daily feeding of digester should be included as an additional standard
While making future strategy for quality control, the views expressed by the quality control
supervisor-needs to be given weightage on the basis of technical, social and institutional justification.
6.6 Perception of Quality Control Supervisors about the Penalty System
Basis of Fixing Penalty: As per the existing system, the quality control supervisor is accompanied by
a representative of biogas company in the field to examine the plant installed by the same company.
The supervisor also interviews the owner of the plant by administrating structured questionnaire and
takes technical measurement of biogas plants in presence of the company's representative. The
supervisor identifies and declares defaults, if any, in front of him in case such defaults are observed on
the spot. The company making def aults is subject to penalty as per the rules fixed by BSP.
The main basis for fixing penalty to a biogas company is "performance factor" which includes the
following:
• Average number of defaults
• Production factor

• Percentage of feeding
• Average penalty amount
The average number of defaults per plants in the sample determines a performance factor for the
company with which the sum of the penalties in the sample is multiplied. The performance factors
have been shown in Table 6-1
Table 6-1
Performance Factor
Average number of defaults per plant
Performance factor
4.00 or less 0.0
more than 4.00 up to and including 5.00 0.5
more than 4.00 up to and including 6.00 1.0
more than 4.00 up to and including 6.50 2.0
more than 4.00 up to and including 7.00 4.0
more than 7.00 6.0
Based on the data and information provided by the supervisor. BSP finally decides penalty amount to
the company. But in some case, if the company complains against the statement provided by quality
control supervisor, Biogas Engineer of SNV/BSP may also revise the case and give his final decision.
After termination of fiscal year, the total penalty and bonus amount per company is calculated.
As revealed by the supervisors, penalty system has been very effective to maintain desired quality of
biogas plants. According to them, the quality of installed biogas plants after the enforcement of
penalty system have been ameliorated. They said that it is also necessary to revise penalty amount
from time to time so that it could give a realistic output in the context of Nepal. Penalty system in the
present context has become a undesirable headache for all the biogas companies The respondents
suggested that all the companies should work with the thinking that the system has been enforced not
to discourage them hut it only tends to build capacity of the companies thereby providing them greater
business opportunity in the future.
6.7 View of Quality Control Supervisors on Sustainability of the Programme
As said, quality control supervisors employed by SNV/BSP are the key persons for implementing
quality control system regularly. The programme can not be implemented successfully without their
interest in their own job which is generally regulated by their expectation from the job and
achievement actually being acquired Thus their exception from the host institution with regard to
training, observation tour, study tour, workshops, etc has to be explored seriously. In this connection,
the respondents said that they should be provided more technical training in order to make them
capable to solve several challenging technical problems which they may arise in the field. The
interviewed supervisors were found being encouraged by the provision of in-job training to them in
China. They are also of the opinion that such training should be provided on regular basis to all the
newcomers. They were also impressed with comparative study tour of biogas in India and several
trainings in Nepal, All the supervisors, however, were found collectively expecting regular training
and observation tour in order to enhance their technical know-how and to boost up their morale.

6.8 Opinion of Quality Control Supervisors about the Role of Different Organizations for
Sustain ability of Programme
Biogas, which is a multidisciplinary subject, needs strong interlinkage and commitment from all the
relevant institutions in order to make the programme sustainable. Realizing this fact, the quality
control supervisors were asked to express their perception on different inst itutions namely BSP,
AEPC, biogas companies, banks and NGOs to improve the quality of biogas plant.
The respondents are of the opinion that AEPC should concentrate on policy matter. It should create
healthy environment to interlink donor agency {BSP) with HMG. According to them, AEPC should
be initiated to conduct awareness building programme to the users and companies about the need of
quality control. It should make proper policy and support BSP to conduct quality control of biogas
plants.
According to the respondents, BSP or autonomous body should be responsible for the quality control
of biogas plants. It should work under the framework and strategy developed by AEPC. All the
companies should be controlled by it They think that if (his responsibility is provided to other
organizations, the fair atmosphere of conducting quality control of biogas plants as created by BSP
needs to be continued. At the same time, they also acknowledge the fact that only AEPC will be able
to handle the responsibility if BSP after its termination. But there is a need to strengthen AEPC to
enhance its infrastructure, technical, institutional and managerial capabilities.
The respondents feel that biogas companies are the key organizations to make the quality control
system sustainable as they are associated with the construction of plants. Quality of installed biogas
plant basically depends on the performance of such companies. AEPC should develop such strategy
that these companies should be motivated themselves to provide good qua lity services. Moreover,
steps should be taken to eliminate the negative attitude of biogas companies in the quality control and
penalty system. They further added that companies should always concentrate on their capacity
building as more number of them are likely to be established in the future and consequently there will
be more competition.
The respondents were found dissatisfied with the lengthy and cumbersome process of loan and
accessibility to the bank. According to them, one is required spend one to two weeks to fulfill the
formalities of documents as demanded by banks. Moreover, they also pointed out the fund allocated
by the bank is limited where the potential of biogas plants is high and vice versa. Because of this
problem, the farmer is compelle d to spend several days to get touch with the banks for loan
sanctioning. Therefore, they were found suggesting that the concerned bank should be accessible
more at the grass root level.

CHAPTER SEVEN
KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSONS

CHAPTER SEVEN
KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSONS
7.1 Introduction
The existing quality control system of biogas also becoming the concern of biogas companies, biogas
engineers funding agency and other knowledgeable persons this study has attempted to acquire
information from different knowledgeable persons General descriptions of the knowledgeable persons
included in the study are given in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1 General Description of Knowledgeable Persons
S.N. Name Experience of Designation Affiliated Institutions
biogas (years)
1. Kishor Gyawali 16 Executive Chairman Public Biogas and Rural
Development Center
2. Ajoy Karki 5 Civil Engineer Butwa0
3. Suiiil M. Dahal 13 Managing Director Birat Gobar Gas
Company
4. Govind Pd. Devkota 14 Program Manager Nepal Biogas Promotion
Group
5. Laxmi B. Shrestha 3 Civil Engineer Freelancer
6. Nanda R. Vaidya 5 Chief Controller ADB/N - S&C Office
(Ex-GGC Manager)
7. Ram K. Pokhrel 12 Program Manager Local Governance
Programme UNDP (Ex-
GGC Manager)
7.2 Respondents Knowledge on Quality Control and their Perception on it
All of the knowledgeable persons identified for this study were found familiar with the quality control
system enforced by BSP, But their perception regarding the quality control system was found
different. Three of the respondents were found expressing their doubt about the sustainability of the
programme as they consider practical only in the condition when there are limited number of plants
installed by few companies. Two of the respondents have considered the quality control system
adopted by BSP is pragmatic, realistic and sustainable Besides, according to the remaining two
respondents, the system should be more practical and low cost for which there is a need to organize a
forum for quality control which should include manufactures, beneficiaries and policy makers as the
members.
Regarding the respondents view on the standards fixed by the SNV/BSP, two of the respondents were
found satisfied with the norms and specifications adopted by SNV/BSP as the BS P has followed
engineering standards suited to indigenous technology One of the respondents did not answer (his
question, while rest four were found not satisfied with the standards fixed by SNY7 BSP. According
to them, some components of the programme being costly, the penalty amount set forth for the
defaulter plants is too high and making even the second compost pit is a unnecessary burden to the
users.

7.3 Penalty System and Qualify Control of Biogas
Three out of the total interviewed respondents were found supporting the penalty system, while three
of them did not support the system and remaining one found was of the opinion that penalty and
award is one of the tools of the improving work quality and it has helped improve the quality of plants
as there is no other effective system and responsible agency established for the quality control of
biogas plant. According to the views of the respondents who did not support the existing penalty
system, it is not logical that BSP should reimburse the penalty money to the company. Besides, they
were found of the opinion that there is a need to bring psychological change, self motivation and
commitment among the companies. Regarding the suggestion for better alternative against the
existing penalty system, it has been suggested by them that companies having better performance
should be provided more opportunity and BSP. AEPC and NBPG as well as the companies should
work jointly to inspect the plant.
7.4 Respondents' Exposure To foreign Countries' Quality Control System and Their
Expectation from the Companies and Bank
Four respondents out of the seven were found familiar with the quality control system in China. Sri
Lanka, South Korea. India. The Philippines, Thailand etc According to them, farmers of these
countries were found more aware of biogas technology than those of Nepal It was also learnt from the
respondents that follow up and maintenance is poor in Nepal than other countries. In this connection,
it is interesting to note that as per the comparative experie nce on biogas technology in Nepal as well
as in abroad, very expensive plants are installed in Nepal in the name of quality assurance.
With regard to respondents expectation on quality of biogas plant in the context of increasing number
of biogas company, they were found of the opinion that plants quality can be assured only by
upgrading the quality of manufacturing companies. According to them, there should be a fair
competition among the biogas companies and basic minimum standard in plant construction should be
prescribed so that more number of plants would remain in operation with minimum problem.
Apart from these the respondents were also asked how a commercial bank be made effectively
involved in the quality control of biogas. In this connection, they suggested that a minimum parameter
has to be identified for the bank and training should be provided to manpower concerned.
7.5 Role of different Organizations as Suggested by the Respondents on the Quality Control
of Biogas
The respondents has expressed different views regarding the role to be played by different
organization for quality control of biogas. They have been tabulated in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2
Role to Played by Different Organization for Quality Control According to the Respondents
HMG(AEPC) BSP Biogas Companies Banks NGOs
• AEPC can certainly • BSP helped to enhance • Biogas companies has • Bank alone cannot • Biogas plants associated
contribute a lot in biogas use of biogas plant. It has helped to construct biogas improve the quality of with biogas technology
technology by providing promoted the socio- plant for farmers and biogas. and NGO can help to
latest technical know how in economic development of generated employment improve the number of
various countries. rural farmers. opportunity. biogas.
• AEPC should be involved • As BSP phases out the • Companies should • Provide loan and • Promotion and
in policy, issue, subsidy and responsibility should be constructed on distribute subsidy on Extension.
quality control. handed over to AEPC. constructional aspects. behalf of HMGN.
• Need to formulate policy • Facilitate government • Internalization of • To formulate • Company for quality
and guidelines on behalf of companies and research quality control system minimum parameters biogas.
the government on agencies. with in the companies. for quality control.
improving the quality.
• Monitoring and • Supervision. • Good construction. • During loan • Good co-ordination .
Evaluation
processing the client
should be made fully
aware of quality control
system.
• Should conduct aware- • A close linkage should • Companies with poor • The process of • Awareness and
ness programme through maintain with field offices performance should be providing loan should information supply to
mass media, training and of credit support agencies watched and information be made simple. users and concerned
exposure to allied agencies during field visit. be supplied to concerned agency.
regarding quality control.
agency.
• Should supervise the work • To verify whether the • To construct good • To publicize the
of companies, BSP and grant is utilized properly. quality plant. beneficial aspects of
PBG
biogas.

7.6 Suggested Interlinkage Between Different Organizations to Im prove the Quality of
Biogas
As per the information received from the respondents, there is a need for frequent discussions and
exchange of ideas among the organizations involved in biogas in order to avoid unnecessary
duplication. Similarly, it was also suggested by the respondents that the task of quality control should
be performed by NPGB, checked and guided by BSP and HMG/AEPC should be formulate the
required policy. In this connection, importance has also been given on horizontal as well as vertical
linkage between the institutions involved in biogas.
7.7 Appropriate Institution for Conducting Quality Control of Biogas
The respondents were found having distinct views in regard to their suggestion on conducting quality
control of biogas. Table 7-3 provides breakdown on respondents choice of institution for conducting
quality control of biogas.
Table 7-3
Breakdown of the Respondents' Choice: of Institution for
Conducting Quality Control of Biogas
S. No. Name of the Institution Number of Respondents
1. AEPC 1
2. BSP, AEPC&GGC 1
3. NBPG 2
4. AEPC

CHAPTER EIGHT
FUTURE STRUCTURE OF QUALITY
CONTROL OF BIOGAS PLANTS

CHAPTER EIGHT
FUTURE STRUCTURE OF QUALITY CONTROL OF BIOGAS PLANTS
8.1 Introduction
The opinion expressed in this chapter is based upon the viewpoints received from different categories
of the respondents selected for this study. Furthermore, the suggestions from SNV/BSP and AEPC
have also been incorporated to complete the study. Thus, this chapter includes view of various
relevant organizations and individuals on existing quality control system and steps to be taken for the
continuation of the system in the future.
In the present context, the quality control system enforced by BSP has been playing a vital role in
maintaining the quality of biogas plants. This can be proved by the rise of quality of plants due to the
enforcement of quality control system. However, the sustainability of the system depends largely
upon its modification and revision in function of time and situation. Therefore, quality control system
is also a subject of continuous revision so that it would be applicable in future too when more number
of private companies will be established, more numbers of biogas will be installed and more
organizations and individuals will be involved in biogas sector.
The another fact to be realized is the negative psychological feeling that has been developed amongst
the companies due to the enforcement of the quality control system. This sort of psychology, if
allowed to continue for long run, can have serious impact on the quality of biogas plants even
resulting into total failure of the programme.
Among other factors, quality of installed biogas plant is related to the construction and aftersales
services provided by the company. Good quality construction can not be achieved until the company
is motivated towards it. Undue harassment to the companies always give worse result. In such a
contrasting situation, proper strategy should be developed to improve the psychology of the
companies so that they can themselves be conscious about the quality of biogas plants. Fair
environment of competition among the companies should be worked out. In the context of Nepal, in
addition to the technical and institutional aspects, social aspects has also to be taken into account
while formulating strategy regarding quality control and the formulated strategy should be mutually
agreed upon by all the concerned actors.
As suggested by most of the respondents, in case of the termination of BSP's third phase, AEPC
should be prepared technically, institutionally, managerially, materially and financially to continue the
job that is being handled by BSP. Association of more or less established institutions like Nepal
Biogas Promotional Group (NBPG) or GGC or other bigger companies with AEPC seems favorable
for quality control.
8.2 Present Structure of Quality Control of Biogas Plants
According to SNV/BSP, the present quality control system enforced by it has been developed after a
long experiment and practice in the context of Nepal. Therefore, the system itself is a unique and
complete. The system is being revised from time to time and reviewed every year to update it. It is
quite essential to continue the discussion with the appropriate actors and professionals to seek their
opinion. Quality of biogas plants is essential to ensure life and efficiency of biogas plants while
safeguarding the benefit to the users.

In the present context, the companies arc held responsible for quality of biogas plants as construction
takes place as per their advice, instruction and support. Furthermore, as the companies have already
signed an agreement with BSP with full commitment to ensure the quality of the plants, it is quite
necessary for them to develop a positive and constructive thinking by nil towards the quality aspects.
It has been further added that the existing penalty system is one of the most effective tools to control
the companies, but it alone can not meet the entire objective of the quality control system. Therefore,
BSP has combined th is with other activities like on-site training to company's staff,
discussion/communication at various stages reporting with feedback to companies, follow
up/continuous monitoring and training especially to the poor performing companies etc. Besides, BSP
provides orientation to each new company to monitor their activities closely and supports them.
However BSP has recently decided not to recognize any new company in future (at least for next
fiscal year)
Decentralization of the whole activities and generation of domestic resources for the system is one of
the most important steps to be adopted to make the existing system more realistic and practical in
future. For the betterment of the system, the followings points were suggested:
• Realizing the importance of the quality in the present context, the companies should be more
conscious in the future
• A campaign should be launched to make the users aware of the technology and to empower
them for their rights
The organizational structure of existing quality control mechanism has been presented in Figure 8.1.
In the existing quality control system. SNV/BSP has been acting as a sole organization for enforcing
quality control activities. In the present organizational infrastructure for quality control, under the
direction of the Programme Manager of SNV/BSP, a Biogas Engineer is responsible for implementing
quality control of biogas plants by mobilizing the quality control supervisors. As said earlier, there are
1 1 quality control supervisors recruited by SNV/BSP for inspecting the installed plants selected on
the basis of random sampling. The size of the sample is determined hy BSP considering the quality of
plant construction (sample size will be higher if the quality isn't satisfactory), performance of the
company in the previous year, experience of the company and the total number of plants constructed
(the lower the total number of plants higher the sample size). The sample includes both plants in use
(filled plants) and plants under construction (non filled plants) On the basis of inspection carried out
in the presence of company's representative, the quality control supervisor forwards his inspection
report to BSP- The amount of penalty as well as bonus will be determined in accordance to the
inspection report submitted by quality control supervisors. In the existing system, companies are
responsible for construction of plants and providing aftersales services, maintenance and repair.

Figure 8. 1
Existing Organizational Structure of
Quality Control of Biogas Plants
8.3 Future Structure of Quality Control
Two models have been proposed for future structure of quality control of biogas plants: one for
execution before expiry of BSP and the other after expiry of BSP. They are described in detail as
follows:
8.3.1 Future Structure Before Expiry of BSP
As explained earlier, quality control of biogas plants is being conducted by BSP. A full fledged
Government organization. Alternative Energy Promotion Centre under the Ministry of Science and
Technology has been established in Nepal in 19% with objectives of handling overall activities
regarding renewable energy including biogas sector. If (he responsibility of quality control is
transferred to AHPC by BSP even before the end of its third phase programme, continuation of the
quality control programme during this transitional period will be a subject of concern to all those
involved in biogas. As per the findings of the study, it appears different alternatives of organizational

mechanism for conducting quality control in the transitional period, hi this connection. GGC and
some other actors (biogas companies) have recommended GGC ns an appropriate institution for
conducting the quality control as the GGC seems to be well experienced biogas company. Similarly,
some other actors including biogas companies and some knowledgeable persons expressed that Nepal
Biogas Promotion Group (NBPG) would be the most appropriate institution for this purpose
A majority of the respondents have been found referring ARPC to conduct the quality control. Some
of them (most of the knowledgeable persons) have opinion that it is favorable for AEPC to be
associated with NBPG. This seems to be most effective alternative among all because of the reason
that AEPC, being newly established government institution, can receive technical, institutional and
other supports from NBPG, which is now lacking with AEP.C On the basis these recommendations,
the organizational structure has been suggested for conducting the quality control in this transitional
period has been suggested in Figure 8.2.
Figure 8.2
Proposed Organizational Structure of
Quality Control Before Expiry of BSP

8.3.2 Future Structure of After Expiry of BSP
It has already been explained that AEPC in the coming few years will be occupied in its capability
building. By and large, it will be capable of undertaking and controlling the entire responsibilities of
quality control of biogas plants within a year or two AEPC expressed two major options that might be
possible in future after expiry of BSP's third phase programme to conduct the quality control of biogas
plants.
i) In case if AEPC will handle the whole tasks with assistance of some other organizations, the
work of quality control will totally be responsibilities of AEPC.
ii)
In case of involvement of number of organizations in the work. AEPC will monitor them and
evaluate their performance.
The Biogas Engineer of AEPC expressed that both the options seem equally valid for the future
structure of quality control and choice of one among them will depend upon situations and
practicability of the process. AEPC will undertake the responsibilities by the end of FY 1998/99 and
before expiry of third phase of BSP, it will be well capable to completely handle the responsibilities
of quality control.
As suggested. AEPC alone can not undertake the entire responsibilities without getting support from
reliable institutions. In this connection, it was suggested that it would be favorable for AEPC to work
in close collaboration with Nepal Bureau of Standards and Measurement (NBSM) and Nepal Biogas
Promotion Group (NBPG). Based on the above recommendation, a possible organizational structure
(chart) to conduct the activities after termination of BSP's third phase programme has been proposed
in Figure 8.3
Figure 8.3
Proposed Organizational Structure of Quality
Control of Biogas Plants After Expiry of BSP

CHAPTER NINE
SUGGESTIONS

CHAPTER NINE
SUGGESTIONS
9.1 SUGGESTIONS
Based upon the findings of this study, following suggestions have been put forth by the study team to
all relevant actors, namely AEPC, BSP, Biogas Companies and Commercial Banks:
9.1.1 Suggestions to AEPC
• AEPC' as a full fledged government organization to oversee the biogas technology
should be involved in policy matter, subsidies, quality control of biogas plants, elc.
• It should provide favorable atmosphere to all concerned parties so that they will be
motivated themselves to maintain the quality of biogas plants.
• It should raise necessary resources and fund to conduct the job.
• It should strengthen capacity building of private sector and NGOs involved in biogas.
• Subsidy amount should be increased.
• Subsidy should be provided to the fanners according to their economical conditio n.
• Priority should be given to small fanners.
• Guarantee period on biogas should be increased
• AEPC should initiate research and study related conducting quality control aspects of
biogas.
• It should conduct managerial training to the companies to enhance the jobs of quality
control supervisors.
9.1.2 Suggestions to BSP
• Some of the standards fixed by BSP are superfluous and need to be omitted, while
some ones should be revised. For example, instead of penalizing the company for not
digging the compost pits by the users, awareness creating programme should be
launched.
• As suggested by the quality control supervisors, daily feeding of biodigester should
be added as an additional standard.
• It has been found that more than half of the plants are tinder fed. Therefore, the size
of the plants should be fixed on the basis of amount of dung available daily rather
than the number of family members.
• BSP should pay due attention to provide equal opportunity of supports to all the
companies.
• Visit of quality control supervisors to all companies should be carried out in
routinewise manner. To enhance the capability of the quality control supervisors. BSP
should conduct training and arrange study and observation tour regularly and in
routinewise manner
• To carry out quality control more effectively and efficiently, the number of quality
control supervisors should be increased and also the number of sampled plants should
also be increased.
• A mason should not be provided with responsibility of installing too many plants at a
time. It seems reasonable for an experienced mason to construct three plants per
month.
• As only 18 percent of the users are aware of the quality control system enforced by
BSP. it is essential to make all the users aware of its activities and the quality control
system enforced by it This will enable them to deal confidently with the agencies with
regard to O & M problems of the plants.

• Orientation training programme should be provided to the users to upgrade their
knowledge in biogas technology
• Training should be provided to the local masons.
• Biogas appliances should be made easily available in the market.
• Low biogas plant should be evolved.
• As only 50 percent of the users are receiving information regarding O & M and repair
of biogas plants, policy .should be made so that all users should get information. This
will help them tackle many common problems which occur frequently in the
installed plants.
9.1.3 Suggestions to Biogas Companies
• The companies should avoid tendency of lingering on to solve major or min or
problems being faced by the users.
• They should recruit more number of trained staffs to enhance their technical
capability and should also concentrate on their proper mobilization.
• They are suggested to develop the attitude for realizing their faults. They should
acknowledge the fads that improvement in quality of biogas plant will enhance the
demand of biogas plants and hence, they will be provided with bigger market in the
future.
• They are suggested not to misplace the important document: provided by BSP and
they should properly use the promotional leaflets provided by BSP
• They should open a small branch office at strategic places (where a company has
constructed many plants) to help the users make accessible for the required services.
• The companies should cooperate with quality control supervisors and should avoid to
create unnecessary pressure on them to enable them to accomplish their work
properly. They should be aware of the fact that quality control supervisors are
working to assist them to help increase quality of the installed biogas plants thereby
increasing demand of plants and providing bigger and easier market for them.
• Altitude of making profit by using inferior construct ion materials should be avoided.
• Due attention has to be given about the use of construction materials. If new materials
are to be explored, it should be approved technically by BSP.
• Biogas users generally complain about company's negligence of the after sales
service. To attract more perspective users and maintain the quality of installed plants,
all companies should improve their after sales services.
• To increase the performance of the biogas plants, the company should use only the
well trained masons.
9.1.4 Suggestions to Commercial Banks
• Infrastructural arrangement of the concerned banks to oversee- the biogas activities
should be improved. Thus, it is suggested that a separate section with proper
resources and manpower should be established at each concerned bank to deal with
biogas.
• All field supervisors of banks should be properly trained to acquire sufficient
knowledge about biogas technology.
• The lengthy and cumbersome process of loan sanctioning by the bank should be
simplified to avoid psychological harassment to the users.
• Banks should fully strengthen their infrastructure so that they could
evaluate themselves all the aspects of biogas technology without relying much on
support of other organizations
• Field office of the banks should be established in accordance with the demand, as it
has been found that in several where the demand on biogas plant is high, no bank
service is available.
• To minimize the problem of overfeeding of the plants, the number of cattle possessed
by the farmers should be verified properly by the bank before sanctioning the loan.

• Frequent control visit should he made by (he representatives of the banks to the
biogas users.
• Frequent communication among the banks and other relevant actors is needed.
9.1.5 Suggestions on the Standards of Quality Control
The suggestions put forth by the companies, knowledgeable persons and quality control supervisors
on the standards of quality control fixed by BSP have been presented in Table 9-1.
Table 9-! Respondents' Suggestion on the Standards or Qualify Control
Respondents Standard to be omitted Standard to be revised Standard to be added
1. Companies • Avoid one and same
defaults and
proportionate
penalty on same part
item
• 2 nos of compost pit
• Backfilling of dome
• Instruction booklet
• Dome should be of
RCC
• All the brickworks or
wall should be of
minimum 10"
2. Knowledgeable
persons
3. Quality Control
Supervisors
• Size of plant in
accordance in the
availability of dung
(st. 6)
• Operation of drain
(st. 72)
• Toilet attachment • Addition of such a
standard which can
support the loss of
farmers due to bad
quality plants
• Standard regarding
dimension of outlet. Once
length, breadth and height
is considered, no need to
consider volume of the
outlet (St. .15. 36. 37. 38)
• Over sized plant should be
subjected to penalty (st. 6)
• Standard regarding
compost pits
• Standard regarding
compost pits
• Standard regarding toilet
attachment
• Standard should be
fixed to avoid the
deposition of inert
materials in digester
bed which can
decreases the capacity
of the digester in the
long rum.
• Standard should be
fixed for structural
breakdown and
cracking within the
guarantee period
• Standard should be
added to involve the
users on quality
control
• "Daily feeding" should
be added as an new
standard

Page 1 of 1
REFERENCES
1. Agriculture Development Bank (1986) Impact Study of Biogas Installation in Nepal. ADB/N,
Kathmandu, Nepal
2. Agriculture Development Hank (1988) A case study on Biogas Plants. ADB/N, Kathmandu.
Nepal
3. Gajurel, O. P., W. J. van Nes and B, Neupane (1994) Survey 1990-1991 on Biogas Plants.
GGC, Butwal, Nepal.
4. Gautam K. M. (19%) Country Paper on Biogas in Nepal. Consolidated Management Services
Nepal (P) Ltd.
5. Karki A.B., KM. Gautam and S.R. Joshi (1993) Present Structure of Biogas Sector in Nepal.
Submitted to SNV/BSP by Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.
6. Karki et al (1996) Biogas Technology: A Training Manual for Extension. Submitted to FAO
by Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.
7. Karki A.B. and KM. Gautam (1997) Biogas Promotion Manual (in Nepali). Submitted to
BSP/SNV by Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.
8. Khandelwal, K.C. and S.S Madhi (1989) Biogas Technology - A Practical Handbook,
Mcgraw -Hill Office, New Delhi India
9. Lam, J. and W.J. van Nes (1994) Enforcement of Quality" Standards upon Biogas Plants in
Nepal. Biogas Forum Vol. 2, No 57.

APPENDIX I
TERMS OF REFERENCE

Appendix-I
Page 1 of 4
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR
SUSTAINABLE APPROACH ON QUALITY CONTROL OF BIOGAS PLANTS
1. INTRODUCTION
With the concerted efforts of various actors involved in biogas development programme, by now a total of about
42.000 biogas plants have been successfully established in Nepal. The activities of Biogas Support Programme
(BSP) under the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV-Nepal) for implementing (lie Biogas Support
Programme in co-operation with Agriculture Development Bank Nepal (ADB/N). Nepal Bank Limited (NBL).
Rastriya Banijya Bank (RBB) and recognised private biogas companies have been found to be very effective.
Furthermore, in continuation of the BSP Phase I and Phase II, a total of 100,000 plants are targeted to be
commissioned in Nepal from the Fiscal Year 1996/97 to 2001/02.
Among other activities, BSP emphasises training and quality control measures as a means for promoting the
technology and building on the national capability at all levels. In fact, biogas system can not function properly
until due attention is paid not only towards desired quality of the construction works but also maintenance and
operation of the installed plants and after-sales -services. Quality control of the installed biogas plant is a major
concern of all those involved in biogas promotional activities. Thus, as a result of enforcing quality control,
conducting various (raining aimed for different target groups and earning out effective monitoring and
evaluation (M & E) of the programme, more than 90 percent of the installed biogas plants arc in good operative
conditions. This high rate of success is taken for a period when most of the plants were of GGC design
constructed by a single company (GGC). Thus. Nepal moved from a "Single-Agency, Single Model" to "Multi-
Agency. Multi-Model" approach lo biogas development in the country. This change favoured the strategy for
rapid realisation of the potential bill also created a greater concern for maintaining a high rate of successful
plants attained in the past Therefore, qualify control and quality assurance has become a subject of concern to all
institutions involved in the biogas sector.
The decision for adoption of biogas technology is made at the household level. A majority of families in Nepal
are still not aware of the technology. Only a few of them have developed interest in it and still fewer arc actually
ready to adopt it. A well functioning plant with satisfied users, which is a pre-requisite for its adoption, is the
only reliable means lo develop and maintain people's confidence in the technology.
Poorly installed biogas plants result in inefficiency and mal-functioning systems which lead to capital loss.
frustration among owners, promoters and the donors as well This will also damage the reputation of biogas
technology causing negative impact on its adoption The only precaution to take against such a possibility is to
ensure that the desired quality is maintained for each plant that is constructed.
1.1 The Need for Quality Control
In the early years of 1990s, the biogas sector of Nepal witnessed (a) sharp rise in the demand of biogas plants,
mainly augmented by new subsidy policy, (b) emergence of more than 20 new biogas companies with varying
degree of technical capability and institutional strength as a result of the government privatization policy, (c)
growing interest of NGOs. banks and other organizations to gel involved in the promotion of biogas technology,
and (d) implementation of a comprehensive biogas programme with long term vision, i.e.. BSP phases I. II and
111 (BSP. 1992; dc Castro. et al 1994: BSP. 19%).
Till now, Nepal does not have any government agency with the mandate and capability to implement
programmes for controlling the quality of plant construction and use of standard biogas appliances. It is in this
context that BSP Phase II developed programmes and procedures for quality control and started the
implementation procedure. However, with the establishment of Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC). it
is envisioned that qualify control of biogas will be taken care by this centre in the future.
1.2 Development of a System for Quality Control
BSP has devised 66 parameters for ensuring the quality of plant construction and its proper functioning (Lam
and van Nes. 1994). Presently, with the addition of 7 more parameters, the total number has reached to 73.
These parameters arc grouped into three categories. Any plant that fails to meet the stated parameters in

Appendix-I
Page 2 of 4
category 1 is not provided subsidy Failure to meet specifications of category 2 requires the biogas company to
pay a penalty to BSP in addition to correcting the faults without any additional fee to the user. The concerned
company is warned not to repeat the mistake for failure to comply with requirements of category 3 parameters.
1.3 Enforcement of Quality Control Measures
The quality control system consists of four steps; Agreement on standards, agreement on penalties, control visits
and calculation of the total penalty payment as described briefly below.
1.3.1 Agreement on Standards
All companies and banks involved in the HSP implementation have to agree on the parameters, their
classification and definitions as fixed by SNV/BSP. This is a prerequisite for a biogas company to get involved
in the construction of biogas plants un der BSP. These parameters and their classification can be revised in
agreement with all agencies involved in (lie programme.
1.3.2 Agreement on Penalties
All companies and banks involved in RSP implementation have to agree on the penalty system designed to
enforce the quality standards. The penalty amount for different categories of defaults or failure to maintain the
quality arc given in Annex II.
1.3.3 Control Visits
Control of the quality lakes place on the basis of random sampling of approximately 5 percent of all biogas
plants installed by GGC. The sample includes both plants in operation (filled plants) as well as plants under
construction (non-filled plants), The control is structured with the help of questionnaire.
1.3.4 Calculation of the Total Penalty Amount
The total penalty amount to be a home by Biogas Companies is calculated by multiplying the penalty amount of
the sample per field office with the so called "population factor" The sample results are then be
representative for all biogas plants constructed b\ the field office of biogas companies.
2. OBJECTIVES
As a result of the government policy to encourage private sector participation in biogas programme in Nepal. the
quality ensurance has become indispensable. Hence, the overall objective of the study is to formulate an
appropriate, practicable and sustainable strategy for the quality control of biogas plant, taking into consideration
the viewpoints of owners (fanners), donors (BSP) and the constructors (private biogas companies). The scope of
the study is far wider However, the specific objectives of the study are as follows;
• To identify the effectivity. efficiency of the existing system of quality control of biogas plants as
provided by BSP
• To identify the extent of acceptance of the system of quality control
• To suggest AEPC for the improvement and modification of the existing BSP system of the quality
control and
• To formulaic a long-terms sustainable strategy for proper quality control of the biogas system.
3. EXPECTED OUTPUT
The output of the study will be an appropriate, sustainable and long-term strategy of the quality control system
of biogas plants. The study will highlight the existing drawbacks regarding penalty system, management of the

Appendix-I
Page 3 of 4
private companies, level of their technicality etc. Furthermore, the study will confirm if the penalty system is
lending lo unmanageable problems with regard lo administration and cost or not and identify the extent lo which
the .system has discoursed the repetition of defaults. Besides the study will decide to which extent the
improvement on the maintenance and after-sales-services will be required to improve the quality of biogas
programme.
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Desk Study
This phase includes the following activities:
• Review of Literature: As much as possible detailed information will be collected by reviewing all the
published and non-published literature.
• Formulation of Questionnaire: Structured questionnaire and checklists will be used as the tools of the
study. The ques tionnaire and checklists will be formulated on the basis of information and data
collected during the phase of desk study.
The questionnaire will necessarily consist of following:
- Present status of biogas plants
- Basic defaults, that occur frequently and way of their maintenance
- Views of different concerning panics (biogas owners, biogas companies, banks, knowledgeable biogas
experts, etc.) towards the system of quality control, extent of their acceptance
- Suggestion of concerning parties for the betterment of the quality control system.
The questionnaire will be pretested before use. Furthermore, detailed plan for field visit will be prepared during
desk study phase. After completion of the desk study, a brief inception report will be submitted to AEPC.
4.2 Field Visit
Following procedures will be adopted lo gather relevant data from the fields.
4.2.1 Interview with Biogas Companies and Commercial Banks
Until now, a total of 40 biogas companies have been engaged in the construction of biogas plants in Nepal. Out
of 40 companies, altogether, 10 biogas companies located in different districts namely Morang, Jhapa. Sunsari.
Nuwakot, Makwanpur and Kathmandu will he selected for interview by administrating structured questionnaire.
Similarly, all the three commer cial banks involved in financing biogas plants (e.g. ADB/N. NBL. RBB) will be
contacted for getting their opinions to make the quality control measures more effective, efficient and
sustainable. Furthermore, meeting and discussions will be held with different relevant agencies and individuals
to get their opinions with regard. In the sustainability of quality control of biogas plants.
4.2.2 Interview with Biogas Users
The selected biogas companies (10) will be consulted lo provide the list of biogas users. Five biogas users from
each of the biogas companies will be randomly selected by the Consultant lo administer the questionnaire.
Altogether 50 biogas users randomly selected from amongst the aforesaid (en companies (i.e. at the rate of five
users per company) will be interviewed. Furthermore, a brief observation of the plants wilt also be made and
noted down.

Appendix-I
Page 4 of 4
4.2.3 Interview with Quality Control Supervisors
To date, 11 quality control supervisors have been employed by BSP/SNV-Nepal lo perform quality control of
the installed biogas plants. Out of the 11 supervisors, three will be selected for interview. Similarly, the
viewpoints of the Programme Manager and Biogas Engineer of SNV/BSP on quality control of biogas plants
will also be recorded for this study.
4.3 Tabulation and Analysis of Data
All information collected in the field including secondary data will be verified, analysed and compiled in the
form of draft report.
4.4 Reporting
After completion of tabulation and analysis of data, two copies of draft report will be submitted lo AEPC to
receive comments and suggestions. Comments on the draft report will be provided by AEPC within 10 days of
the submission of the report. Two copies of the final report will be submitted to AEPC after incorporating the
comments and suggestions on draft report along with loose leaf copy (original) to enable AEPC lo multiply the
report.
5. WORK SCHEDULE
According to the Work Schedule, the project is planned to be implemented from 21 April 1998 through 30 June
1998.
6. HUMAN RESOURCES
The study will be conducted with the help of experienced team who has successfully carried out similar work in
the past. Their brief resume of the work is given below:
Dr. Amrit B. Karki: Dr. Karki: has completed several assignments on biogas in Nepal and abroad. He has
produced number of manuals for BSP and FAO, has written a field book on biogas and has led International
Biogas Training Course held in Chaina. He has trained masons and has supervised the construction of more than
one hundred unit of biogas plants in ah road and Nepal. The study team will be led and guided by Dr. Amrit B.
Katki as Project Co-ordinator.
Mr. Pravin K. Ghimire: Mr. Ghimire who holds the degree of Master of Science in Engineering from Moscow
State University of Environment Engineering has worked in different aspects of civil engineering. In connection
of execution of the projects, he has performed rate analysis and detailed calculation of the material costs
required for construction of building, canals, etc. He has conducted informant survey, interview with farmers
and economic analysis. He has supervised the masonry work and prepared report. He has been working as
Quality Control Engineer in UNHCR project "installation of Community-Latrine-cum-Biodigeser at Ward No. 1
of Pathari VDC in Morang district of Nepal. Thus, considering his background and inputs. Mr. Ghimire has
been proposed as Quality Control Engineer ( Deputy Project Coordinator) in this team.
Mr. Sachin Upadhya: Mr. Upadhya holds Master Degree in Rural Sociology. He possesses more than 15 years'
work experience in the subject of Renewable Energy Resources (Biogas and Solid Waste Management. Micro
hydropower). Primary Heath Care. Environment Impact Assessment. HIV/Aids and Sexually Transmitted
Disease. Flood and Land Slides, and Women in Development. He has been proposed for the post of Research
Associate in this project.
7. BUDGET
A sum of NRs 299.750 will be incurred to complete the activities envisaged in this proposal.

APPENDIX II
MODEL OF QUESTIONAIRE

Appendix -II
Page 4 of 4
QUESTIONNAIRE A
Biogas users
Farmer's Name:
Mr./Mrs./Miss
Age:
No. of family members:
District: VDC: Ward:
1. How old is your plant (when it was installed)?
.................................................................
2. What is the capacity of your plan?
................................. m 3
3. Who constructed the plant (company's name)?
…………………………………………………
1. How long did it take to construct the plant?
………………………………………………..
1. How often problems occur in your plant?
………………………………………………….
2. What are the most common problems in your plant? ?
a) .................................................... d)................................................. .
b)..................................................... c).................................................
c).................................................... 0.................................................
3. Who solves the problems?
company/yourself/family member/ other
4. For which purpose the gas is used?
a) cooking [ ]
b) lighting [ ]
c) cooking and lighting [ ]
5. Is gas enough for cooking?
Yes No
[ ] [ ]

Appendix -II
Page 2 of 4
6. How often do you have to change:
a) Burner ...................................
b) Lamps/1 amp cover ...................................
c) Main gas valve ...................................
d) Pipe filling ...................................
e) Other parts ...................................
7. Which part of the equipment/accessories wears out first?
a) Burner [ ]
b) Lamps/lamp cover [ ]
c) Main gas valve [ ]
d) Pipe fitting [ ]
e) Other parts [ ]
8. What are the main problems faced in the maintenance of biodigester?
a) .......................................................... d) ..........................................................
b)........................................................... e)...........................................................
c)..........................................................
1 Don't you think that gas released is not sufficient with respect to the capacity of your plant?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
-If yes, give the reason ..................................................................................................
-If no, give the reason ..................................................................................................
2. Do you think that there might he defects on your plant which aren't familiar to you and you arc in
need of technical help?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
1. In case of difficulty faced in the operation of the plant, have you approached the
concerned biogas company?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
2. Has the company technician visited your plant which after the construction phase ?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
3. If so how many times? ..........................................................
4. If repairs were done in your plant, what were they ?
a)................................................................ d)........................................................
b)................................................................ e) ..........................................................
c)................................................................

Appendix -II
Page 3 of 4
5. Did the company give you operation and maintenance instructions and handout on training
after the construction of the plant ?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
6. What do you think about the status of your biogas plant?
a. Working very satisfactory [ ]
b. Working satisfactory [ ]
c. Not working satisfactory . [ ]
7. What might be the reason if the plant is not working satisfactory?
a) ........................................................... d)................. .......................................
b)........................................................... e) ..........................................................
c)...........................................................
1. Did the BSP's Quality Control supervisor visited your plant?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
- If yes how often they visited your plant ?.................................................................
- Do you think t hat they solved your problems effectively?.......................................
3. Are you aware of the BSP quality control system?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
- If no what is the reason?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
- If yes what is your reaction towards the system ?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
3. Who in your opinion should bear the responsibilities for the quality control of your plant and
why ?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
3. In your opinion what needs to be done to further improve the quality of your plant ?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
4. What is your suggestion to the
a) Biogas Companies
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Appendix -II
Page 4 of 4
b) BSP
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
c) ARPC
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5. Do you have any further comments?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Name of Interviewer: Date: ..../..../1998
Contact Address
Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.
CMS House Meen Bhawan
P.O. Box 10872, Kathmandu
Tel: 977-1 -482201, Fax 977-1-482008

Questionnaire B
Biogas Companies
Appendix-II
Page 1 of 4
Name of the company: ......................................................................................
Address: ......................................................................................
Year of establishment: ......................................................................................
Name of Manager: ......................................................................................
Number of the staffs involved. ......................................................................................
Name and post of the interviewee: ......................................................................................
1. What is the number of biogas plants installed by your company until this date?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. Do you take frequent inquiry/visit on those plants?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
3. Mow many of the installed plants are successfully functioning? (in percentage………………)
4. If there are non functioning plants, then what might be the reason for that?
a) .................................. d)..........................................
b)..........................................
e)..........................................
c)..........................................
f)..........................................
5. How seriously are you undertaking operation and maintenance of those plants ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
6. Do the users call you frequently?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
7. Do you visit them at their demand?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
8. Have you maintained routine visit to the user s?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
-If yes at what interval ? .........................
9. What kind of most common problems you have encountered in the installed biogas plant?
a) ......................................... d)..........................................
b).......................................... e) ..........................................
e) .......................................... f) .........................................
10. Do you have idea to overcome such problems?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
-If yes what are they?
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Appendix-II
Page2 of 4
11. Do you think the extent of your technicality can fulfill the desired quality of biogas plant?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
-If yes. give the reason
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
-If no, give the reason
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
12. How many of your staffs have been trained on the biogas technology ? ...................................................
13. Who supervise the construction works of the plant ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
14. What is your opinion towards the quality of materials used for the construction of biogas
plant ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
15. Do you think that the quality of materials can be increased to improve the quality of plants?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
-if yes. how it could be possible ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
16. Do you think that the design of the biogas plant should lie changed to ensure quality and performance
of biogas plants?
-If yes what would be the new concept?
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
17. Do you have any comments and suggestions on the HSP standards as regards to the quality of
biogas plants ?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
-If yes what are they ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
18. What is your opinion about the 66 standards fixed by RSP on Quality control?
-More numbers are required such as
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
- Some of them are superfluous such as
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
- They cover all aspects of quality control [ ]

Appendix-II
Page 3 of 4
19. Did BSP's quality control supervisor visit your company?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
If yes, how many times?..............................................................................................................................
for what purpose?..........................................................................................................................................
20. What kind of support did you gel from RSP for the improvement of quality of biogas plants?
Technical [ ]
Financial [ ]
Institutional [ ]
Managerial [ ]
Other (specify) [ ] .....................................................................................................
Not at all [ ]
2 I. Are you satisfied with t he penalty categories enforced by BSP?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
-If no. give the reason
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
22. Does the penalty system help to improve quality?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
- If yes. give the reason
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
- If no. give the reason
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
23. Is there a better alternative?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
- If yes, what are they?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
24. Has your company been given any penalty?
If yes, what were the common faults?
................................................................................................................................................................................
- How many times?
................................................................................................................................................................................
-What were the categories?
................................................................................................................................................................................
-What was the penalty amount paid by your company in the last two fiscal year?
................................................................................................................................................................................
25. How can the quality control system of biogas plant be made more realistic, practical and sustainable?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix-II
Page 4 of 4
26. What is your suggestion lo BSP regarding quality control of biogas plant?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
27. What should be the appropriate institution for conducting quality control of biogas plants?
a) BSP [ ]
b) AEPC [ ]
c) Other [ ] (specify )
................................................................................................................
28. Do you have any further comments?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
-If yes, what are they?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Name of Interviewer :
Date : ..../……/1998
Contact Address
Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.
CMS House Meen Bhawan
P.O. Box 10872, Kathmandu
Tel : 977-1-482201; Fax : 977-l-482008

Questionnaire C
Commercial Banks
APPENDIX-II
Page 1 of 3
Name of the Bank ...............................................................................................................................
Address
Name and post of Interviewee .....................................................................................................................................
1. Do you have any individual division in your hank to deal with biogas related activities?
If yes,
When it was formed?
What is the number of staff invoked? ...............................................................................................
2. Is any of your staffs trained on biogas technology?
If yes,
What is his post?
…………………………………………………………
3. Who is responsible for the observation and supervision in the field before the loan agreement has to be
signed? Is he trained on biogas technology?
................................................................................................................................................................................
4. Who is responsible for the final permission of the loan?
................................................................................................................................................................................
5. What is the interest rate of the loan provided for biogas related activities?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
6. When did your bank start financing biogas plants?
................................................................................................................................................................................
7. For what number of biogas plants your bank has provided loan in the last fiscal year?
................................................................................................................................................................................
8. What is the district-wise number of these biogas plants?
district
number of plants
……………
…………………
……………
…………………
……………
…………………
……………
…………………
……………
…………………
……………
…………………
9. What is the total amount of loan provided by your bank for the biogas related activities?
................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is your bank involved (directly or indirectly) in the quality control of biogas plants?
If yes,
- What is role of your bank?
................................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix-II
Page 2 of 4
If no,
- Don't you think it is necessary?
- Yes it is necessary because
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
- No it is not necessary because
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
11. How can a bank help to improve quality of biogas plants?
11. What kind of additional input you are expecting from the side of following organizations so that you
could be effectively involved in the quality control measures?
MMG (AEPC)
................................................................................................................................................................................
BSP
................................................................................................................................................................................
Biogas Companies
................................................................................................................................................................................
NGOs
................................................................................................................................................................................
13. How do you react on the quality control measures adopted by MSP?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
14. Can penalty system help lo increase the quality of biogas plants?
If yes, how?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
If no. why?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
15. What Kind of outcome regarding quality of biogas are you expecting from the increased number of
biogas companies?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
16. Do you arrange frequent meetings with
- BSP Yes [ ] No [ ]
- AEPC [ ] Yes [ ] No
- Biogas Companies [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes,
At what interval? ..................................................................................................................................................
For what purpose? ..................................................................................................................................................

Appendix-II
Page 3 of 3
17. What kind of interlinkage do you think is very essential in future between you and these organizations
to improve the quality of biogas?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
18. Do you have any idea to interlink the provided loan with the quality of biogas?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
If yes, what are they?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
19. What is the opinion of the bank in making the quality control system of biogas more practical realistic
and sustainable in the future?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
20. What should be the appropriate institution lot conducting quality control of biogas and why?
BSP [ ]
AEPC [ ]
Other (Specify ) [ ]……………………
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
21. What is your suggestion to
BSP
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
AEPC
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Biogas Companies
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Users
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
22. Do you have any further comments?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................

Questionnaire D
Knowledgeable Person
Appendix -II
Page 1 of 3
Name of the Interviewee : .......................................................................................................
Position of the Interviewee : .......................................................................................................
Address:
1. How long you've been working (have worked) on the field of extension and promotion of biogas?
................................................................................................................................................................................
2. Are you familiar with the quality control system enforced by SNV/BSP?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
3. According to your experience and review of (he quality control system enforced by BSP. how do you
like to answer on the following questions?
Is the system practical, realistic and sustainable?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Are some of the standards fixed by SNV/BSP are superfluous and as such needs to be omitted?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
If additional standards other than fixed by SNV/BSP are required, what should be these?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
4 Does the penalty system actually help to improve the quality of the biogas plants?
If yes, give reasons
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
If no, give reasons
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Is there a better alternative than the penalty system? If so, please give your opinions.
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix -II
Page 2 of 3
6. Are you familiar with quality control system in any other country? If yes, how can you compare it with
the existing system in Nepal?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
7. What kind of outcome regarding quality of biogas plants are you expecting from the increased number
of biogas companies?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
8. How can a commercial bank be made effectively involved on quality control of biogas plants?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
9. What should be the role of the following organisations to improve the quality of biogas plants?
HMG (AEPC)
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
BSP
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Biogas Companies
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Banks
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
NGOs
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
10. What kind of interlinkage between these organisations is essential in the future to improve the quality
of the installed biogas plants?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix -II
Page 3 of 3
11. What is your opinion in making the quality control system of biogas more practical, realistic and
sustainable in the future?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
11. What should be the appropriate institution for conducting quality control of biogas?
BSP [ ]
AEPC [ ]
Other (Specify) [ ] …………………………………………
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
13. What is your suggestion to
BSP
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
AEPC
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Biogas Companies
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Users
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
14. Do you have further suggestions?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Name of Interviewer: Date: ..../..../1998
Contact Person
Dr. Amrit Bd. Karki/Pravin Kumar Ghimire
Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.
CMS House Meen Bhawan
P.O. Box 10872, Kathmandu
Tel: 977-1-482201: Fax: 977-1-482008

Appendix-II
Page 1 of 5
Questionnaire E
Quality Control Supervisor (SNV/BSP)
Name of the supervisor:
Address:
1. How long you have been working in BSP as quality control supervisor?
................................................................................................................................................................................
2. Can the existing number of the quality control supervisors are enough to cover the entire installed
plants in Nepal?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
If yes, give reasons
................................................................................................................................................................................
If no, give reason
................................................................................................................................................................................
3. If it is not possible to look alter the all installed plants, what is your criteria for selection of the plants
for quality control measure?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
4. Don't you think that the quality control measures can be improved further by increasing the number of
the quality control supervisors?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Isn't it necessary to increase the sample size for observation t o achieve better results?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
6. What are the basic difficulties you arc facing during the supervision of plants?
a) ........................................... d) ............................................
b) ............................................ c) ............................................
c) ............................................
7. Do you have suggestion to overcome such difficulties?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
If yes, what are they?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
8. What is the basic qualification/experience for a person to be appointed as a quality control supervisor?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix-II
Page 2 of 5
9. Don't you think that the quality control supervisors should be trained more than what they are now to
conduct the field observation more effectively?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
10. Docs BSP conduct in-job training, workshops and study tour to other countries for the quality control
supervisors?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
If yes, give the nature of
a) Training
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
b) Workshops
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
c) Study tour
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
How often?
a) Training ................... ..................................................
b) Workshops ......................................................................
c) Study tour ......................................................................
11. What are the basis of fixing penalty to a biogas company?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
12. Biogas companies often complain that penalty is fixed only on the basis of interview with the owner
(usually illiterate fanner) who mayn't give the correct information, If it is true, please explain?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
13. Is there representative of biogas company in the field while you observe the plants installed by the same
company?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]
14. Do you identify defaults in plants in-front of the company representative?
Yes
No
[ ] [ ]

Appendix-II
Page 3 of 5
15. What kind of defaults arc most common for all the companies?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
16. What measures are taken to correct defaults if they are repeated twice?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
17. Who is responsible for final decision of the penalty amount?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
18. What do you think can penalty system help to increase the quality of biogas system?
If yes, give reason
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
If no, give reason
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
19. What is your personal opinion towards the 66 standards fixed by BSP on quality control?
a) Is the system is practical, realistic, sustainable and cover ail aspects of quality control?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
b) Some of the standards fixed by SNV/BSP are superfluous and as such needs to be omitted, such as
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
c) Additional standards other than fixed by SNV/BSP are required, such as
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
20. What kind of interlinkage between BSP, AEPC, biogas companies, banks, NGOs are essential in future
to improve the quality of biogas plants?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix-II
Page 4 of 5
21. What should be the appropriate institution for conducting quality control of biogas plants for its
sustainability?
AEPC [ ]
BSP [ ]
Other (Specify) [ ] .............................................................
22. What is your opinion in making the quality control system of biogas more practical, realistic and
sustainable in the future?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
23. What is your suggestion regarding quality control to
AEPC
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Biogas Company
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Bank
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Users
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
24. Please explain the procedure currently adopted by BSP for the quality control measures?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix-II
Page 5 of 5
25. Do you have further suggestions?
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................
Name of Interviewer:
Date: …../…../1998
Contact Person
Dr. Amrit Bd. Karki/Pravin Kumar Ghimire
Consolidated Managemene Services Nepal (P) Ltd.
CMS House Meen Bhawan
P.O.Box 10872, Kathmandu
Tel: 977-1-482201; Fax: 977-1-482008

APPENDIX III
DESCRIPTION OF FARMERS RESPONDENTS
POSSESSING BIOGAS PLANTS

Description of the Farmers Respondents Possessing Biogas Plant
Appendix-III
[Page] 1 of 2
W.V.S.
W.S.
N.W.S.
= Working Very Satisfactory
= working Satisfactory
= Not Working Satisfactory