download (pdf, 938kB) - SNV
download (pdf, 938kB) - SNV
download (pdf, 938kB) - SNV
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
SUSTAINABLE APPROACH ON QUALITY<br />
CONTROL OF BIOGAS PLANTS<br />
Submitted to<br />
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PROMOTION CENTRE<br />
RAMSHAH PATH<br />
KATHMANDU<br />
NEPAL<br />
June 1998<br />
Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
Meen Bhawan, Baneshwar, P. O. Box 10872, Kathmandu, Nepal<br />
Tel: +977-1-482201 Fax: +977-1-482008<br />
E-mail: cmsnepal@cms.wlink.com.np
TABLE OF CONTENT<br />
PREFACE........................................................................................................................<br />
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................<br />
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................<br />
Page<br />
i<br />
ii<br />
viii<br />
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................ 1-1<br />
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 -1<br />
1.1.1 The Need for Quality Control ............................................................. 1-1<br />
1.1.2 BSP and its Role on Quality Control ................................................... 1-2<br />
1.2 Objectives of the Study .................................................................................. 1-3<br />
1.2.1 General Objectives ............................................................................. 1-3<br />
1.2.2 Specific Objectives ............................................................................ 1-3<br />
1.2.3 Structure of the Report ....................................................................... 1-4<br />
2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY....................................................................... 2-1<br />
2.1 Desk Study Phase.......................................................................................... 2-1<br />
2.1.1 Review of literature .......................................................................... 2-1<br />
2.1.2 Demonstration of Video Film ............................................................. 2-1<br />
2.1.3 Formulation of Study Structured Questionnaire................................... 2-1<br />
2.1.4 Overall Planning for Field Visit .......................................................... 2-2<br />
2.2 Field Visit .........................................................................-.......................... 2-2<br />
2.2.1 Interview with Biogas Users............................................................... 2-3<br />
2.2.2 Interview with Biogas Companies ...................................................... 2-3<br />
2.2.3 Interview with other Personnel and Organizations ............................... 2-3<br />
3. FARMER RESPONDENTS...................................................................................... 3-1<br />
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 3-1<br />
3.2 Capacity of Biogas Plants Possessed by the Users........................................... 3-!<br />
3.3 Working Status of the Plants ......................................................................... 3-!<br />
3.4 Services Provided by Biogas Companies ........................................................ 3-1<br />
3.5 Awareness of Biogas Users on BSP's Quality Control Activities ...................... 3-4<br />
3.6 Problems Faced by the Users .................................................................... 3-5<br />
3.7 Suggestion of Biogas Users (o Improve Quality Control.................................. 3-6<br />
4. BIOGAS COMPANIES ............................................................................................ 4-1<br />
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4-1<br />
4.2 General Information on Selected Biogas Companies ....................................... 4-2<br />
4.3 Working Status of Biogas Plants and Reasons<br />
for Mal-functioning ...................................................................................... 4-2<br />
4.4 Follow up and Supervision by the Company.................................................. 4-2<br />
4.5 Most Common Problems as Perceived by Biogas Companies ......................... 4-4<br />
4.6 Technical Capability of the Biogas Companies .............................................. 4-5<br />
4.7 Quality of Materials used in Construction....................................................... 4-6<br />
4.8 Company's View on BSP Quality Control Standards ....................................... 4-7<br />
4.9 Reaction of the Respondents Towards the Penalty System............................... 4-7<br />
4.10 BSP's Support to Biogas Companies .............................................................. 4-9<br />
4.11 Respondents' Views on Sustainability of Quality Control System.................... 4-10
5. COMMERCIAL BANKS ........................................................................................... 5-1<br />
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 5-1<br />
5.2 Infrastructural Arrangement of the Banks to Oversee the Biogas<br />
Activity.......................................................................................................... 5-1<br />
5.3 Description of Loan Provided by Banks and its Effectiveness.......................... 5-2<br />
5.4 Activity of Banks about Quality Control ....................................................... 5-3<br />
5.5 Sustainability of the Quality Control System ................................................. 5-4<br />
5.6 Suggestion of Banks to Improve Quality Control........................................... 5-4<br />
6. QUALITY CONTROL SUPERVISORS OF <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP ............................................. 6-1<br />
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 6-1<br />
6.2 Existing Mechanism of Quality Control ........................................................ 6-1<br />
6.3 Problems Encountered by Quality Control Supervisor and<br />
their Suggestions ......................................................................................... 6-2<br />
6.4 Most Common Problems of Biogas Plants as<br />
Revealed by Quality Control Supervisors ...................................................... 6-2<br />
6.5 Perception of Quality Control Supervisors About the Standards<br />
Fixed by BSP.............................................................................................. 6-3<br />
6.6 Perception of Quality Control Supervisors About<br />
the Penalty System....................................................................................... 6-3<br />
6.7 View of Quality Control Supervisors on Sustainability<br />
of the Programme ........................................................................................ 6-4<br />
6.8 Opinion of Quality Control Supervisors about the Role<br />
of Different Institutions for Sustainability of Programme ............................... 6-5<br />
7. KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSONS.......................................................................... 7-1<br />
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 7-1<br />
7.2 Respondents Knowledge on Quality Control and their<br />
Perception on it ........................................................................................ 7-1<br />
7.3 Penalty System and Quality Contr ol of Biogas ........................................... 7-2<br />
7.4 Respondents' Exposure to Foreign Countries' Quality<br />
Control System and their Expectation from the Companies<br />
and the Bank ........................................................................................... 7-2<br />
7.5 Role of Different Organizations as Suggested by the<br />
Respondents for Quality Control of Biogas ................................................ 7-2<br />
7.6 Suggested Inter -linkage Between Different Organizations<br />
to Improve the Quality of Biogas .............................................................. 7-4<br />
7.7 Appropriate Institution for Conducting Quality<br />
Control of Biogas .................................................................................... 7-4<br />
8. FUTURE STRUCTURE OF QUALITY CONTROL OF BIOGAS PLANTS........... 8-1<br />
8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 8-1<br />
8.2 Present Structure of Quality Control of Biogas Plants ................................. 8-2<br />
8.3 Future Structure of Quality Control............................................................ 8-3<br />
8.3.1 Future Structure Before Expiry of BSP ......................................... 8-4<br />
8.3.2 Future Structure Before Expiry of BSP ......................................... 8-5<br />
9. SUGGESTIONS.................................................................................................. 9-1<br />
9.1 Suggestions<br />
9.1.1 Suggestion to AEPC.................................................................... 9-1<br />
9.1.2 Suggestion to BSP...................................................................... 9-1<br />
9.1.3 Suggestion to Biogas Companies.................................................... 9-2<br />
9.1.4 Suggestion to Commercial Banks ................................................... 9-2<br />
9.1.5 Suggestion on the Standards of Quality Control............................... 9-3
REFERENCES<br />
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, ANNEXES AND APPENDICES<br />
TABLES<br />
Page<br />
Table 2-1 Name of the Interviewer.............................................................................. 2-2<br />
Table 2-2 List of Companies Selected for Study........................................................... 2-3<br />
Table 3-1 Capacity of the Plants of the Selected Households ........................................ 3-2<br />
Table 3-2 Users Response on the Status of the Biogas Plants<br />
Table 3-3 Distribution of the Respondents in Accordance to their Need for<br />
Technical Support and Status of Visit of Companies ..................................... 3-3<br />
Table 3-4 Number of Respondents Possessing Awareness to<br />
the BSP's Quality Control System and Visit of<br />
Quality Control Supervisor.......................................................................... 3-4<br />
Table 3-5 Most Common Problems Encountered by the<br />
Users And Source for Solving Them............................................................ 3-5<br />
Table 3-6 Users' View on Frequent Wear and Tear of<br />
or Equipment/Accessories ........................................................................... 3-6<br />
Table 4-1 General Information on Selected Biogas Companies ..................................... 4-1<br />
Table 4-2 Respondents' View about Functioning Plants and<br />
Possible Reasons for Mai-Functioning ......................................................... 4-2<br />
Table 4-3 Most Common Problems Encountered by Companies ................................... 4-4<br />
Table 4-4 Number of the Trained Staff Possessed by the<br />
Selected Companies .................................................................................... 4-5<br />
Table 4-5 Type of Manpower Involved in the Construction<br />
and the Supervision of Biogas Plants............................................................ 4-6<br />
Table 4-6 Attitude of companies Towards Penalty System<br />
and Penalty Amount to be Paid by the Company<br />
as per Default ............................................................................................. 4-8<br />
Table 4-7 Frequency of Visit by Quality Control Supervisors<br />
to the Companies and BSP's Support............................................................ 4-9<br />
Table 5-1 Infrastructural Arrangement in the Head Office of<br />
Selected Banks ........................................................................................... 5-2<br />
Table 5-2 Number of Plants, Interest Rate of the Banks and<br />
Responsible Authority for Loan Approval .................................................... 5-2<br />
Table 6-1 Performance Factor..................................................................................... 6-4<br />
Table 7-1 General Description of Knowledgeable Persons ............................................ 7-1<br />
Table 7-2 Role to be Played by Different Organizations for<br />
Quality Control According to the Respondents ............................................. 7-3<br />
Table 7-3 Breakdown of the Respondents' Choice of<br />
Institution for Conducting Quality Control of Biogas .................................... 7-4<br />
Table 9-1 Respondents' Suggestions on the Standards of Quality Control...................... 9-3<br />
ANNEXES<br />
Annex 1-1<br />
Annex 1-2<br />
BSP Standards as to Quality of Biogas Plants<br />
Most Common Defects and Penalty Categories including<br />
the Penalty Amount<br />
APPENDIXES<br />
Appendix I Terms of Reference<br />
Appendix II Model of Questionnaire<br />
Appendix III General Description of the Farmer Respondents.
ABBREVIATIONS<br />
ADB/N - Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal<br />
AEPC - Alternative Energy Promotion Centre<br />
BIS - Bishal Gobar Gas Company<br />
BSP - Biogas Support Programme<br />
CMS - Consolidated Management Service Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations<br />
GGC - Gobar Gas and Agricultural Equipment Development Company<br />
GRI - Grihini Gobar Gas Company<br />
HMG - His Majesty's Government of Nepal<br />
JGY - Jana Bhawana Gobar Gas Company<br />
JT - Junior Technician<br />
JTA - Junior Technician of Assistant<br />
KGY - Kishan Gobar Gas Company<br />
MGG - Manaslu Gobar Gas Company<br />
MOST - Ministry of Science and Technology<br />
NBG - Nepal Biogas Company<br />
NBL - Nepal Bank Limited<br />
NBPG - Nepal Biogas Promotion Group<br />
NBSM - Nepal Bureau of Standards and Measurement<br />
NGO - Non-Government Organization<br />
NRG - Nepal Rastriya Gobar Gas Company<br />
PGG - Public Gobar Gas Company<br />
RAP - Rapti Gobar Gas Company<br />
RBB - Rastriya Banijya Bank<br />
<strong>SNV</strong>/N , - Netherlands Development Organization/Nepal<br />
UMN - United Mission to Nepal
PREFACE<br />
First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. S. L. Vaidya, Executive Director of<br />
Alternative Energy Promotion Centre for entrusting us with the responsibility of undertaking the<br />
studies on "Sustainable Approach on Quality Control of Biogas Plants." I would like to express my<br />
heartfelt thanks to Mr. Shanker Bahadur Pradhan, our colleague and Senior Consultant to AEPC, for<br />
providing valuable suggestions to improve the quality of the study.<br />
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks to <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP especially Programme<br />
Manager, Mr. Felix E.W. ter Heegde, managers of commercial banks and biogas companies selected<br />
for this study, knowledgeable experts as well as biogas users for their cooperation without which this<br />
study w.ould not have been completed in time. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to<br />
Mr. Dilli Raman Neupane, Civil Engineer from AEPC and Mr. Dharma K.C., Senior Quality Control<br />
Supervisor from <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP for providing valuable suggestions .<br />
Last but not the least, I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Amrit B. Karki and Mr.<br />
Pravin Kumar Ghimire, Project Coordinator and Deputy Project Coordinator respectively for their<br />
professional inputs and very hard work to bring the study report in the present shape. I sincerely thank<br />
Mr. Upendra Gupta, Civil Engineer and Mr. Sachin Upadhyaya, Resource Person, for their<br />
contribution in the study project.<br />
Upendra Gautam<br />
President<br />
Consolidated Management Service Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
June 22, 1998
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
Introduction<br />
In Nepal since the last decade, biogas technology is becoming more popular because of its multiple<br />
benefits. One of the main issues concerning wider application of the biogas technology has been the<br />
limited view held on the technology itself. The potential of technology in terms of producing valuable<br />
organic fertilizer, treating urban waste, improving rural and urban sanitation is not yet a common<br />
knowledge in Nepal. Analyzing these very facts, it can be concluded that the biogas technology is<br />
serving not only as the most economical, technically viable, structurally comfortable source of<br />
alternative energy in the context of our country, but also it helps reduce many problems that the<br />
society is currently pressed with like deforestation and mismanagement of urban waste which has<br />
reached to a critical level.<br />
Establishment of Gobar Gas Company and Agricultural Equipment Development Company (GGC) in<br />
1977 and Biogas Support Programme (BSP) of Netherlands Development Organization (<strong>SNV</strong>) in<br />
June 1992 has been very conducive for overall development of biogas technology in Nepal. Until this<br />
date, about 41 private biogas companies have been recognized to provide construction services to<br />
meet the ever increasing demand for the installation of biogas plants. These companies are of varying<br />
technical capabilities and institutional strength. Besides this, more and more organisations and<br />
individuals are getting involved in biogas as users, technicians, extension workers, researcher,<br />
trainers, supervisors and investors.<br />
To make such a technology sustainable for long run and acceptable to more people, quality ensurance<br />
of the technology is the foremost need and it is a subject of concern to all institutions involved in the<br />
biogas sector. Until now, <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP has been solely responsible to conduct quality control of biogas<br />
plants in Nepal. BSP's first and second phase has been completed successfully and in its third phase,<br />
there is a programme to commission 100,000 plants from the fiscal year 1996/97 to 2001/2002. In the<br />
context of rapidly increasing number of the biogas plants as well as biogas companies, maintenance of<br />
the quality control of biogas plants has been a very challenging subject to all concerned.<br />
For a long time, responsible governmental agency to oversee biogas programme was lacking in the<br />
country. But since 1996 a full Hedged government agency called Alternative Energy Promotion<br />
Centre (AEPC) has been established under Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). As this<br />
organization has laid much emphasis on quality control of biogas plants, the responsibility of<br />
conducting present study was entrusted to Consolidated Management Services (CMS).<br />
Objectives<br />
The study aims at investigating an appropriate, practical and sustainable approach for the quality<br />
control of biogas plants. Specifically, the study is directed towards achieving following objectives.<br />
• To identify the effectivity, efficiency of the existing system of quality control of biogas plants<br />
as provided by BSP;<br />
• To identify the extent of acceptance of the system of quality control;<br />
• To suggest AEPC for the improvement and modification of the existing BSP system of the<br />
quality control;<br />
• To formulate a long-terms sustainable strategy for proper quality control of the biogas system;<br />
and<br />
• To find out an appropriate institutions to conduct the quality control of biogas plants.
Approach and Methodology<br />
Desk study included review of different published and non-published literature with a view to<br />
designing structured questionnaire needed for field study. In course of the field visit, the questionnaire<br />
were administered to the following categories of larget groups including relevant organizations and<br />
knowledgeable persons:<br />
• Biogas users<br />
• Biogas companies<br />
• Commercial banks<br />
• Quality control supervisors of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP<br />
• Knowledgeable persons<br />
• Programme Manager and Biogas Engineer of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP.<br />
Principal Findings<br />
The principal findings of this study have been presented under following sub-headings.<br />
Viewpoints of Biogas Users<br />
Biogas users being ultimate beneficiaries of biogas programme, the success of the programme<br />
depends as to what extent they are satisfied from the performance of their plant. Keeping this view<br />
into consideration, structured questionnaire wore administered to 50 biogas users selected from 10<br />
biogas companies (at the rate of five households per company) located in Jhapa, Morang, Suhsari,<br />
Makawanpur, Nuwakot and Kathmandu districts.<br />
The respondents possessed higher number of 8 m 3 of plants compared to 6 m 3 and 10 m 3 . There was a<br />
tendency among the users to install 8 in 3 and 10 m 3 plants at the household level. 70 percent of the<br />
total selected plants were working very satisfactorily and 20 percent plants were rated as "Working<br />
Satisfactorily", while 10 percent were "Not Working Satisfactorily".<br />
The most common problems faced by the users are: Gas blockage, slurry in pipe line, wearing out of<br />
accessories, incorrect pipe fittings, etc. Out of the staled problems, gas leakage has been indicated by<br />
almost all the companies.<br />
88 percent of the respondents were found consulting the companies for solving major and minor<br />
difficulties being faced by them. 15 percent seemed satisfied with the visit of the companies on call.<br />
Some of the respondents accused that although the representative of the relevant company pays a visit<br />
on call but he lingers to resolve their problems, while 25 percent said that they did not receive any<br />
help from the company in time of need. The routine visit by the company has been maintained only to<br />
about 50 percent of the users.<br />
Out of the studied households, only 36 percent seemed familiar with the quality control system<br />
enforced by BSP, while remaining 64 percent were ignorant about it. The visit of quality control<br />
supervisor of BSP to the users has been found to play a significant role to create awareness about the<br />
necessity of quality control of biogas plants. 70 percent respondents said that the quality control<br />
supervisors did not visit them, while the remaining 30 said that they had paid a visit.<br />
Out of the total studied plants, about 60 percent have been found facing problems. The most common<br />
problems encountered by the users were: Blockage of gas, insufficient gas, leakage of gas, slurry in<br />
pipelines and problems related to pipeline fittings and accessories. The respondents also noted<br />
problems associated with accessories and equipments such as frequent wearing out of the accessories<br />
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<br />
the biogas companies and other concerned agencies. They said that the governmental organization<br />
namely AEPC which is established to oversee all alternate energy related activities would be the most<br />
appropriate institution to conduct quality control in the future.<br />
Viewpoints of Biogas Companies<br />
Among the 41 private biogas companies established to provide construction services to meet ever<br />
increasing demand for the installation of biogas plants, GGC is the leading biogas company in Nepal<br />
due to its contribution in the field of extension and promotion of biogas technology for the last two<br />
decades. However, rapidly emerging number of biogas plants carry a question mark about the<br />
ensuranee of quality construction of biogas plants for which quality control measures need to be<br />
enforced effectively.<br />
The study revealed that on an average, 93 percent plants installed by the selected companies are<br />
functional. The reasons for non-functioning of 7 percent plants are attributed to under-feeding of the<br />
plants, lack of knowledge about O & M and poor after-sales services.<br />
Out of the 10 studied companies, all users claim that the company had visited them whenever a<br />
complaint is lodged. 60 percent of the respondents said the companies arc providing routine visit out<br />
of which 50 percent are maintaining their routine visit at the interval of once in a year, while 10<br />
percent provides the services at different time frame as per the convenience of their office. Some users<br />
revpalcd that though company staffs visit them on call, but they often linger on to solve the problems.<br />
The most common problems encountered by the companies are: Slurry in pipeline, gas leakage,<br />
wearing out of the accessories, blockage of gas, leakage of gas, problems regarding pipe fitting,<br />
digging of compost pit, misplacement of useful documents provided by the company.<br />
The company's suggestions to overcome such problems are: Necessity of more frequent visit by the<br />
companies to the users, formation of a well skilled maintenance team in all the field office and their<br />
regular visit to the problematic and non-problematic plants, improvement in the after-sales services,<br />
conduction of orientation programme and training to the users and diffusion of promotional<br />
information to the users.<br />
According to the company, there is a negligence on the part of users as they do not dig out two<br />
compost pits immediately after the construction of biogas plants and also misplace the documents<br />
provided by the company.<br />
Out of total of 156 staffs of different biogas companies, 129 have been trained which constitutes about<br />
81 percent of trained manpower. Recruiting of skilled manpower alone in itself is not sufficient to<br />
meet desired quality of biogas plants. Proper mobilization of manpower and resources (e.g. in time of<br />
construction, O & M and after sales services) is another important factor to achieve the desired quality<br />
of the plants.<br />
Out of selected companies, almost all responded that the present quality of materials used is<br />
satisfactory. About 10 percent of the respondents said that different construction materials exist with<br />
varying specifications. About 20 percent of the respondents said that in some cases, the quality of<br />
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<br />
and construction, quality of construction materials used, skilled masons used, shape, size and quality<br />
of different elements of plant, quality and fittings of pipelines and accessories, provision of pipeline<br />
for a toilet, etc. All companies and banks involved in BSP implementation, have to agree on penalty<br />
system designed to enforce the quality standards. The company failing to meet any of the standards is<br />
either liable to pay a penalty or is deprived of subsidy or is simply warned not to repeat such mistakes<br />
in the future.<br />
Asked about the opinion of the companies towards the 73 sta ndards of the BSP, out of 10 companies,<br />
40 percent seem satisfied with these standards and think that these standards cover all the aspects of<br />
quality control, while 10 percent of them appeared totally ignorant about these standards. Another 10<br />
percent think that some more number should be included in the standard. Similarly, 20 percent think<br />
that sonic of the standards arc superfluous and the remaining 20 percent of the respondents are of the<br />
opinion that the standards require more number and some of the standards are superfluous.<br />
The companies are suffering due to some of the superfluous standards. For example, digging of two<br />
compost pits which is entirely the responsibility of the users seems impractical in the present system.<br />
Because of mere reluctancy or inability of the users to avoid the construction of two compost pits, the<br />
penalty is being imposed by BSP upon the company.<br />
The visit of BSP's supervisors took place from I to 4 times in a year. 20 percent of the respondents<br />
said that they eventually are getting refresher and professional training from them, whereas 80 percent<br />
said that they (BSP's supervisor) arrive only in course of supervision of the plant. 50 percent think that<br />
only technical support is being received from BSP, whereas the rest expres sed having technical,<br />
financial, institutional and managerial support as well. Despite the satisfactory technical support, other<br />
approaches regarding institutional and managerial support do not seem inadequate. Due attention<br />
should be paid to balance the level of support so that all companies would be of equal technical<br />
capability and institutional strength.<br />
60 percent of respondents are of the opinion that AEPC, being a full fledged government agency,<br />
would be appropriate agency for conduction of quality control of biogas plants. However, another 30<br />
percent suggest that BSP should continue to be responsible for this activity, whereas remaining 20<br />
percent are of the opinion that this responsibility should be handed over to the company like GGC<br />
which is oldest and leading institution in the Held of biogas services.<br />
Viewpoints of Commercial Hanks<br />
Agricultural Development Bank (ADB/N) has been involved in administrating loan and subsidies in<br />
biogas sector since 1975. From 1994 onwards, Nepal Bank Limited (NBL) and Rastriya Banijya Bank<br />
(RBB) have also started financing in biogas sector. Until now, the latter two banks (NBL and RBB)<br />
have not been found interested in the promotional activities of biogas plants except for providing loan.<br />
On the other hand, ADB/N which is the main shareholder of GGC, has also been involved in the<br />
promotional activities mainly in information dissemination and training in addition to channeling loan<br />
and subsidies.<br />
For successful implementation of a programme, it is imperative to create proper infrastructural<br />
arrangement in the organization to carry out (he activities effectively and efficiently in the field of<br />
biogas technology. They should build their infrastructure with regard to technical, institutional and<br />
managerial aspects to enable them to evaluate themselves all the aspects of biogas technology and<br />
performance of biogas companies as well. This helps them make proper strategy analyzing them to<br />
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.<br />
Biogas loan ranks as second good loan after tea and coffee. The lengthy and cumbersome procedure<br />
adopted by the banks in loan approval needs to be simplified.<br />
At present, the users are attracted more by the amount of subsidy provided by the government rather<br />
than the utility of plant. Many farmers with high economic status also take loan with the<br />
understanding that it is easier to get subsidy than in the case when they put their own money for a<br />
plant construction.<br />
Viewpoints of Quality Control Supervisors<br />
Quality Control Supervisors of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP are the key manpower to conduct the overall supervision of<br />
installed plants. Their contribution in maintaining the quality of installed biogas plants is highly<br />
commendable. There arc altogether eleven quality control supervisors assigned by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP. Thus, to<br />
gather necessary information for this study, out of 11 quality control supervisors, three of them were<br />
interviewed in agreement with BSP.<br />
Quality control of biogas plants takes place on the basis of random sampling. The size of the sample is<br />
determined by / 8NV/BSP considering the quality of plant construction (sample size will be higher if<br />
the quality is not satisfactory), performance of the company in the previous year, experience of the<br />
company and the total number of plants constructed (the lower the total number of plants, higher the<br />
sample size).<br />
The quality control supervisors think that the existing method is very effective. They stated that the<br />
quality control measure fixed by BSP is practical, realistic and sustainable and covers almost all the<br />
aspects of quality control. They arc also confident that with the help of resources and equipment<br />
provided to them, the existing number of them would be enough to conduct supervision till the next<br />
year but they also acknowledge the fact that with the increased number of companies and plants,<br />
number of the quality control supervisors should be increased in the future to cope with the targeted<br />
number .of biogas plants stipulated in the third phase of BSP's activities (i.e., 100,000 plants to be<br />
commissioned by 2002). They further added that to collect a more realistic and practical information,<br />
sample size for survey should be increased.<br />
Though each and every activity of quality control supervisors is performed in front of representative<br />
of concerned company, yet the company does not realize their faults easily, thereby causing hindrance<br />
to their works. The companies often create different pressure on the quality control supervisors so that<br />
their faults, which can lead them to pay penalty, are not easily exposed.<br />
The respondents said that important documents such as promotional leaflets provided by BSP are not<br />
being used properly by the companies. Misplacement of the important documents is common in the<br />
most of the companies. Thus, lack of managerial experience of companies is making complication in<br />
timely accomplishment of the jobs for which they are assigned.<br />
The most common defaults on the installed biogas plants as pointed out by the quality control<br />
supervisors are; Reluctancy in digging compost pit, top filling on dome, water drain pit, improper<br />
pipeline fitting, use of larger size of gravel, appliances of low standards, under feeding of the plant<br />
and leakage in the pipelines. The main basis for fixing penalty to a biogas company is "performance<br />
factor" which includes: Average number of defaults, Production Factor, percentage of feeding and<br />
average penalty amount.<br />
The respondents are of the opinion that AEPC should concentrate on policy matter. It should create<br />
healthy environment to interlink donor agency (BSP) with HMO. AEPC should be initiated to conduct<br />
awareness building programme to the users and companies about the need of quality control. It should<br />
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<br />
framework and strategy developed by AEP C. They also acknowledge the fact that only AEPC will be<br />
able to handle the responsibility if BSP after its termination. But there is a need to strengthen AEPC to<br />
enhance its infrastructure, technical, institutional and managerial capabilities.<br />
All the supervisors, however, were found collectively expecting regular training, observation and<br />
study tour and participation in workshops in order to enhance their technical know -how and to boost<br />
up their morale.<br />
Viewpoints of Knowledgeable Persons<br />
All of the knowledgeable persons identified for this study were found familiar with the quality control<br />
system enforced by BSP. But their perception regarding the quality control system was found<br />
different. About 40 percent of them were found expressing their doubt about the sustainability of the<br />
programme as they consider practical only in the condition when there are limited number of plants<br />
installed by few companies. Similarly, 30 percent considered that the quality control system adopted<br />
by BSP is pragmatic, realistic and sustainable, while remaining 30 percent said that the system should<br />
be more practical and low cost for which there is a need to organize a forum for quality control which<br />
should include manufactures, beneficiaries and policy makers as the members.<br />
Regarding the respondents' view on the standards fixed by the <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP, 30 percent were found<br />
satisfied with the norms and specifications adopted by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP as the BSP has followed engineering<br />
standards suited to indigenous technology. 15 percent said did not answer this question, while rest 55<br />
percent found unsatisfied with the standards fixed by <strong>SNV</strong>Y BSP. According to them, some<br />
components of the programme being costly, the penalty amount set forth for the defaulter plants is too<br />
high and making even the second compost pit is a unnecessary burden to the users.<br />
43 percent of the interviewed respondents were found supporting the penalty system, while 43 percent<br />
them did not support the system and the remaining 14 percent were of the opinion that penalty and<br />
award is one of the tools of the improving work quality and it has helped improve the quality of plants<br />
as there is no other effective system and responsible agency established for the quality control of<br />
biogas plant. According to the views of the respondents who did not support the existing penalty<br />
system, it is not logical that BSP should reimburse the penalty money to the company. Regarding the<br />
suggestion for better alternative against the existing penalty system, it has been suggested by them<br />
that companies having better performance should be provided more opportunity and BSP. AEPC and<br />
NBPG as well as the companies should work jointly to impact the plant.<br />
With regard to respondents expectation on quality of biogas plant in the context of increasing number<br />
of biogas company, they were found of the opinion that plants quality can be assured only by<br />
upgrading the quality of manufacturing companies. They suggested that in order to involve the<br />
commercial banks efficiently in the quality control of biogas. minimum parameters have to be<br />
developed for them supported by training of the manpower concerned.<br />
Lastly, the knowledgeable people expressed that there is a need for frequent discussions and exchange<br />
of ideas among the organizations involved in biogas in order to avoid unnecessary duplication.<br />
Similarly, it was also suggested by the respondents that the task of quality control should be<br />
performed by NBPG. checked and guided by BSP and 1IMG/AEPC should be formulate the required<br />
policy. In this connection, importance has also been given on horizontal as well as vertical linkage<br />
between the institutions involved in biogas.
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS<br />
Followings are the major recommendations of the study. It is strongly recommended by the study<br />
team that the Alternative Energy Promotion Centre in the capacity of nodal governmental agency<br />
should assure that these recommendations should effectively be implemented by the concerned actors.<br />
AEPC<br />
1. AEPC should concentrate on policy matter and establish interlinkage with the donor agency<br />
(BSP).<br />
2. The task of quality control should be performed by NBPG, checked and guided by BSP and<br />
HMG/AEPC should be formulate the required policy.<br />
3. AEPC should handle the responsibility of quality control after the termination of BSP's third<br />
phase in the future.<br />
4. Due attention should be paid to balance the level of support so that all companies would be of<br />
equal technical capability and institutional strength.<br />
5. There should be frequent discussions and exchange of ideas among the organizations involved<br />
in biogas in order to avoid unnecessary duplication.<br />
BSP<br />
6. In the present context,, BSP should continue to be responsible for the quality control of biogas<br />
plants. It should work under the framework and strategy developed by AEPC.<br />
7. It should make the users aware of the quality control system enforced by BSP.<br />
8. Quality control system enforced currently by BSP should be more practical and low cost for<br />
which there is a need to organize a forum for quality control by including biogas companies,<br />
beneficiaries an d policy makers as members.<br />
9. It should modify the superfluous standards of quality control to make them more realistic and<br />
acceptable to the companies. Similarly, sonic undesired standards should be revised "and<br />
some<br />
others should be added.<br />
10. The number of quality control supervisor should be increased to collect more realistic and<br />
practical information,<br />
11. Sample size for survey should also be increased.<br />
12. BSP should control the use of poor quality of construction materials to be used for biodigester<br />
construction.<br />
13. All companies staffs should be trained in adequate number.<br />
14. It should motivate the users to make aware of the importance of slurry fertilizer so as to<br />
encourage them to dig out two compost pits.<br />
15. BSP should initiate to conduct awareness building programme to the users and the companies<br />
about the need of quality control.<br />
16. Necessary steps should be taken to rectify the most common defaults on the installed biogas<br />
plants such as, top filling on dome, water drain pit, improper pipeline fitting, use of larger size<br />
of gravel, appliances of low standards, under feeding of the plant and leakage in the pipelines,<br />
blockage of gas, insufficient gas, leakage of gas, slurry in pipelines, wearing out of<br />
accessories.<br />
17. The users should be educated not to misplace the useful documents provided by the company<br />
as well as information leaflets provided by BSP.<br />
18. Orientation programme and I raining should be conducted for the benefits of the users.<br />
19. The quality control supervisors should be provided with regular training, observation and<br />
study<br />
lour and participation in workshops in order lo upgrade their knowledge.<br />
20. Companies having better performance should be provided more opportunity and BSP, AEPC<br />
and NBPG as well as the companies should work jointly to inspect the plant.
Biogas Companies<br />
21. The company staff should maintain the routine visit to the users to solve their problem.<br />
22. It should give due consideration has to O & M of biogas plants especially to avoid under<br />
feeding of the plants and improve after-sales services.<br />
23. It should avoid linging on to solve the problems faced by the farmers.<br />
24. It is recommended to form a well skilled maintenance team by the companies in all the field<br />
office so as to solve the problematic plants<br />
25. The companies should cooperate with the quality control supervisors and should avoid to<br />
create undue pressure on the quality control supervisors so that their duty is correctly<br />
accomplished.<br />
Commercial Banks<br />
26. The commercial banks should create a proper infrastructural arrangement within their<br />
organizations to carry out biogas activities effectively and efficiently. They should build their<br />
infrastructure with regard to technical, institutional and managerial aspects.<br />
27. The lengthy and cumbersome procedure adopted by the banks in loan approval needs to be<br />
simplified.<br />
28. Minimum parameters have to be developed by the bank with regard to quality control aspects.<br />
29. Manpower dealing with biogas should be well trained.
CHAPTER ONE<br />
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
CHAPTER ONE<br />
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND<br />
1.1 Introduction<br />
It is ironic to state that Nepal being a country with largest hydropower potential has been so far using<br />
only about I percent of its existing potential. The total energy demand of the country is estimated at<br />
about 252 million gigajoules and more than 90 percent of this is used in domestic sector, mainly for<br />
cooking. 80 percent of this bulk of energy demand is met by firewood. The collection of such a huge<br />
mass of firewood is creating a serious threatening in ecological aspects. As a result of growing<br />
population, the pressure on the remaining forest and cultivated land is increasing at an alarming rate.<br />
To mitigate the critical energy situation, biogas as alternative source of energy, has been proved to be<br />
a boon for the country especially the housewives who have to face the drudgery of cooking with<br />
firewood that emits obnoxious smoke.<br />
In Nepal since the last decade, biogas technology is becoming popular because of its multiple<br />
benefits. One of the main issues concerning wider application of the biogas technology has been the<br />
limited view held on the technology itself. The potential of technology in terms of producing valuable<br />
organic fertilizer, treating urban waste, improving rural and urban sanitation is not yet a common<br />
knowledge in Nepal. Analyzing these very facts, it can be concluded that the biogas technology is<br />
serving not only as the most economical, technically viable, structurally comfortable source of<br />
alternative energy in I he context of our country, but also it helps reduce many problems that the<br />
society is currently pressed with like deforestation and mismanagement of urban waste which has<br />
reached to a critical level.<br />
To make such a technology sustainable for long run and acceptable to more people, quality ensurance<br />
of the technology is the foremost need and it is a subject of concern to all institutions involved in the<br />
biogas sector. Until now, due to lack of appropriate government agency, Biogas Support Programme<br />
(BSP) under the Netherlands Development Organization (<strong>SNV</strong>/Nepal) has been solely responsible to<br />
conduct quality control of biogas plants in Nepal. But as a result of establishment of a full fledged<br />
government agency named Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) under Ministry' of Science<br />
and Technology (MOST) in 1996, due emphasis has been given in quality control aspects of biogas to<br />
make it more practical and sustainable in the future.<br />
1.1.1 The Need for Quality Control<br />
Biogas picked up momentum in the fiscal year 1974/75 as a result of celebration of the "Agriculture<br />
Year" in Nepal. In 1977, Gobar Gas and Agriculture Development Company (P) Ltd (GGC) was<br />
established as a first private company with the involvement of Agricultural Development Bank<br />
(ADB/N), Timber Corporation of Nepal and United Mission to Nepal (UMN). In the absence of<br />
appropriate government body to oversee biogas programme in Nepal, GGC played very importance<br />
role in development and promotion of biogas technology in the country.<br />
Nepal adopted "Single Agency, Single Model" approach for the promotion of biogas technology.<br />
Now-a-days, the design developed by GGC and approved by BSP has been found the most effective<br />
and efficient and as such as more than 90 percent of the installed plants have been found functional.<br />
From 1994 onwards, several other private companies (a total of more than 40 companies) have been<br />
established to provide construction services to meet the ever increasing demand for the installation of<br />
biogas plants in Nepal. These companies possess varying technical capabilities and institutional<br />
strength. The rise in number of biogas companies is, on one hand favorable for rapid realization of the<br />
estimated potential of plants but on the other hand, installation of quality biogas plants,<br />
simultaneously ensuring trouble-free operation, maintenance and repair of the plants, has been a<br />
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<br />
Bank (RBB), NGOs and other organizations arc being increasingly interested and involved in the<br />
promotion and development of this technology- Thus, more and more organizations and individuals<br />
are getting involved in biogas as users, technicians, researchers, trainers, supervisors and investors.<br />
Thus, the aspect of quality of biogas plants has been a matter of concern particularly both to the donor<br />
as well as the relevant government agencies.<br />
A biogas plant docs not function properly until due attention is paid towards the quality control,<br />
operation and maintenance (O & M) and after-sales services. Poorly installed biogas plants result in<br />
inefficiency and improper functioning which leads to capital loss, frustration among users, promoters<br />
and donor. On the contrary to this, a well functioning plant with satisfied users, is the only reliable<br />
means to win peoples 7 confidence in the technology. The only way out to create a belief is to ensure<br />
desired quality of each and every unit of biogas plant installed at the farmer's household.<br />
1.1.2 BSF and its Role on Quality Control<br />
Biogas Support Programme (BSP) was established in Nepal m July 1992 in collaboration with<br />
ADB/N and GGC with grant support Netherlands Development Organization (<strong>SNV</strong>).<br />
The general objectives of BSP are as follows:<br />
- Reduce the rate of deforestation and environmental deterioration by providing as a substitute<br />
for firewood.<br />
- Increase agricultural production by promoting optimum utilization of digested dung<br />
- Increase the number of biogas plants<br />
- Make biogas more attractive to the small farmers<br />
To meet the above mentioned objectives BSP has launched various activities during its phascwise<br />
programme such as<br />
- Providing subsidy to the plant owner<br />
- Assisting GGC in better designing and lowering the cost<br />
- Monitoring the construction quality of the plants<br />
- Enforcing the guarantee provided by the GGC and other private companies<br />
- Monitoring the after sales services of private companies<br />
- Training of users of biogas plants<br />
- Information dissemination to perspective users<br />
- Monitoring of already installed plants.<br />
BSP's first and second phases were successfully implemented with an establishment of more than<br />
targeted number plants in Nepal. After the implementation of BSP programme a sharp rise in total<br />
number of biogas plants has been observed. The subsidy programme launched by BSP seems to be<br />
very effective in motivating low income farmers to install the plant. To-day, more than 40,000 units of<br />
biogas plants have been operating in Nepal. Realizing the remarkable success of biogas technology in<br />
Nepal, as many as 100,000 plants have been planned to be commissioned in the third phase of BSP's<br />
programme starting from fiscal year 1996/97 to 2001/02.<br />
In order to ensure desired quality of biogas plants, <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP has developed programme to enforce<br />
quality control measures. Initially, 66 quality control standards were devised an d implemented by<br />
BSP.
Presently, this number has been raised to 73 (sec Annex i-1 and Annex 1-2). Those standards are<br />
grouped into three categories as given below :<br />
- No subsidy is provided if a plant fails to meet the parameters in Category 1<br />
- Company should pay penalty to BSP in addition to correcting the faults if a plant fails to meet<br />
specifications of Category 2<br />
- For a default of Category 3, the concerned company is warned not to repeat the mistake.<br />
The quality control system consists of four steps:<br />
Agreement on standards; All companies and banks involved in the BSP implementation have to agree<br />
on the parameters, their classification and definitions as given in Annex 1-1 This is a prerequisite for a<br />
biogas company to get involved in the construction of biogas plants under BSP. These parameters and<br />
their classification can be revised in agreement with all agencies involved in the programme.<br />
Agreement on Penalties: All companies and banks involved in BSP implementation have to agree on<br />
the penalty system designed to enforce the quality standards. The penalty amount for different<br />
categories of defaults or failure to maintain the quality is given in Annex 1-2.<br />
Control Visits: Control of the quality lakes place on the basis of random sampling of approximately<br />
five percent of all biogas plants installed by GGC. The sample includes both plants in operation (filled<br />
plants) as well as plants under construction (non-filled plants). The control is structured with the help<br />
of questionnaire.<br />
Calculation of the Total Penalty Amount: The total penalty amount to be a borne by Biogas<br />
Companies is calculated by multiplying the penalty amount of the sample per field office with the so<br />
called ''performance factor". The sample results are then be representative for all biogas plants<br />
constructed by the field office of biogas companies. .<br />
1.2 Objectives of the Study<br />
1.2.1 General Objectives<br />
Due to the increase in number of private organizations in biogas programme, the quality ensurance<br />
has become indispensable. The overall objectives of the study is to come up with an appropriate,<br />
practical and sustainable approach for the quality control of biogas plants, By analyzing views of<br />
different organizations and individuals, the study mission will have to suggest the future structure for<br />
quality control biogas plants in Nepalese context.<br />
1.2.2 Specific Objectives<br />
The specific objectives of the study are as follows:<br />
• To identify the effectivity. efficiency of the existing system of quality control of biogas plants<br />
as provided by BSP;<br />
• To identify the extent of acceptance of the system of quality control;<br />
• To suggest AEPC for the improvement and modification of the existing BSP system of the<br />
quality control;<br />
• To formulate a long-term sustainable strategy for proper quality control of the biogas system;<br />
and<br />
• 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<br />
Technology (MOST) had entrusted Consolidated Management Services with the responsibilities of<br />
conducting the study reported herein with above objectives. The study was conducted from 21 April<br />
to 30 June 1998. The TOR of the Consultant that formed the basis for this study has been presented in<br />
Appendix I.<br />
1.3 Structure of the Report<br />
Introduction, background and objectives of the study has been presented in Chapter One of this report.<br />
Approach and methodology of the study is given in Chapter Two. Chapter Three to Seven are devoted<br />
to collection and analyses of data obtained from key informants namely Farmer Respondents, Biogas<br />
Companies, Commercial Hanks, Quality Control Supervisors and Knowledgeable Persons<br />
respectively. Future Structure of Quality Control of Biogas Plants has been presented in Chapter<br />
Eight. Finally, Chapter Nine concludes with suggestions.
ANNEX 1-1<br />
BSP STANDARDS AS TO QUALITY<br />
OF BIOGAS PALNTS
Annex 1-1<br />
Page 1 of 3<br />
BSP-STANDARDS FY 2054/55 AS TO THE QUALITY OF B1OGAS PLANTS<br />
These standards are applicable to the Gobar Gas Company plant design of 04-05-2047. It the<br />
standards are not met BSP reserves the right to impose penalties according to Appendix 2 of Annex 6.<br />
S.N. Quality Standards Category Specification<br />
General<br />
1 Only one plant per household 1 A separate kitchen for every plant<br />
2 No plants fed with night soil only 1 Separate dung inlet must be<br />
constructed for each plant and<br />
regularly (at least weekly) used<br />
3 Issuing of guarantee card 2 Correctly filled out guarantee card<br />
according to Annex 8 supplied up on<br />
completion of the plant<br />
4 Three years guarantee on the structure and one 1 Condition according to Annex 8.<br />
year guarantee on appliances and pipe<br />
Guarantee charge specified on the<br />
invoice to the plant owner<br />
5 Three years after sales service 1 Condition according to Annex 8.<br />
6 Correct size selection 3 Max. 70 days HRT (6kg<br />
dung/m3/day) in hilly areas and<br />
5.5kg/m3/day) in the Terai based on<br />
the actual amount of dung<br />
availability.<br />
7 Proper users training 3 Before commissioning of the plant,<br />
verbal instruction on plant and<br />
maintenance must be given to the user<br />
as well as the main booklet<br />
8 Availability of water 3 Water source maximum 20' minutes<br />
walk from the plant<br />
Skilled labour<br />
9 Certified and registered masons 1 Trained by a recognized institution<br />
and registered with BSP<br />
Design and construction method<br />
10 According to the construction manual of GGC 1 sec Annex 3 A -<br />
2047 model biogas plant B -<br />
Construction materials<br />
11 Good quality bricks 3 Best locally available burnt claybricks<br />
12 Good quality sand 2 Less than 3% impurity in bottle test<br />
13a Good quality gravel 2 Clean size 0.5-2.5 cm (0.2-1.0 inch)<br />
13b 3 temporary 2.5-4.0 cm<br />
14 Good quality stones 3 Clean<br />
15 Good quality cement 2 Portland fresh no lumps<br />
16 Acrylic emulsion paint 2 Brand and quality pre-qualified by<br />
BSP<br />
17 Reinforced rods 3 Daimeter minimum 8 mm. see Annex<br />
Construction of Digester<br />
3<br />
18 Accuracy depth of digester pit 3 The plant must be positioned enough<br />
if possible<br />
19 Accuracy radius of round-wall 2 +2/-2% on basis of plastered wall<br />
20 Accuracy plumb of round-wall 3 -1/-1 cm<br />
21 Accuracy height of round-wall 2 -5/-5 cm<br />
22 Proper backfilling brick wall 3 By a properly compacted mix of<br />
Category 1.means no subsidy; 2.penalty , 3. no penalty; 4. bonus<br />
Biogas Support programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98
Annex 1-1<br />
Page 2 of 3<br />
gravel, soil and water<br />
23 Proper brickfilling stone wall 3 Built against pit side<br />
24 Proper finishing inside of round-wall 3 Smooth layer of plaster (mix cement-<br />
3 sand)<br />
25 Proper finishing floor 3 Smooth maximum 0.5% out of level<br />
Dome<br />
26 Proper use of template 2 Template according to A nnex 3, no<br />
additional earth added A<br />
27 Accuracy height of dome 2 -5-5 cm<br />
28 Accuracy radius of dome 2 -2-2"% on basis of" plastered dome<br />
29 Proper treatment inside the dome 2 Plastering according to Annex 3<br />
smooth and clean<br />
30 Gas pipe at centre point 3 -2-2% of dome radius<br />
31 Correct top filling 3 Minimum 40 cm compacted earth<br />
protected against estimate<br />
Turret<br />
32 Correct diameter 2 Round diameter min. 30 cm or square<br />
(mm 30/30 cm)<br />
33 Correct height 2 Minimal 50 cm<br />
34 Gas pipe in the centre of the turner 3 Minimal 12 cm support at every side<br />
Outlet<br />
35 Accuracy of length 3 -3/-3%<br />
36 Accuracy of width 3 -3/-3%<br />
37 Accuracy of depth 3 -51-5 cm<br />
38 Accuracy of volume 2 -10/-10%<br />
39 Accuracy plumb of walls 3 -1/-1 cm<br />
40 Accuracy of level 3 Top and floor maximum 0.5% out of<br />
level<br />
41 Proper finishing inside walls 3 Smooth layer of plaster<br />
42 Proper back filling walls 3 Minimum 1 meter wide<br />
43a Covered with properly reinforced slabs 2 Slabs according to Annex 3<br />
43b Covered with properly reinforced slabs 3 Slabs properly cast and reinforced<br />
44 Accuracy distance bottom outlet-lop manhole 2 -4/-4 cm<br />
Compost pits<br />
45a Minimum two compost pits 3 Total volume at least equal to the<br />
plant volume<br />
45b Minimum two compost pits 4 Total volume at least equal to the<br />
plant volume<br />
Inlet<br />
46 Properly positioned vs manhole 2 In straight line (hart-line) with turret<br />
and manhole<br />
47 Properly positioned vs outlet overview 2 Bottom inlet pit minimum 5 cm above<br />
outlet overflow above<br />
48 Maximum minimum height 3 Top inlet pit maximum 100 cm and<br />
minimum 5 cm areas<br />
49 Proper finishing 3 Smooth layer of plaster (mix 1 cement<br />
- 3 sand<br />
50 Installation mixing device 3 Mixer installed at all plants, firm,<br />
easy to operate, blades maximum 3<br />
cm from bottom and side<br />
51 Straight inlet pipe well positioned 2 Rod must be able to penetrate the<br />
digester<br />
Toilet attachment<br />
52a Total attachment provision 3 Toilet connection provision installed<br />
52b Proper position pip e in digester 2 Maximum 45 degrees on the hart-time<br />
Category 1 .means no subsidy, 2. penalty; 3. no penalty, 4. bonus<br />
Biogas Support programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98
Annex 1-1<br />
Page 3 of 3<br />
Proper position toilet path 3 Level min imal 15 cm above outlet<br />
overtime leave<br />
Appliances and pipes<br />
54 Dome gas pipe 2 According to Annex 3. pre-qualified<br />
by BSP<br />
55 Main gas valve 2 Pre-qualified by BSP<br />
56 Pipe and pipe fitting 2 GI-Light quality (IS-1239)<br />
57 Water drain 2 According to Annex 3. pre-qualified<br />
by BSP<br />
58 Gas tap 2 According to Annex 3. pre-qualified<br />
by BSP<br />
59 Gas stove 2 Burner assembly according to Annex<br />
3 frame pre-qualified by BSP<br />
60 Rubber hose 2 No cracks when folded external<br />
diameter mm 15 mm<br />
61 Gas lamp 3 Pre-qualified by BSP<br />
62 Inlet pipe (dung and toilet) 2 At least 10 cm internal diameter<br />
63 Mixer 2 According to Annex 3. pre-qualified<br />
by BSP<br />
Fitting and lav-out gas pipe<br />
64 No unnecessary fittings between reduction elbow 2<br />
and main valve<br />
65 No necessary fittings in the pipeline 3<br />
66a No gas leakage in the pipeline before the main 2<br />
valve<br />
66b No gas leakage in the pipeline before the main 3<br />
valve<br />
67 Use of proper sealing agent 2<br />
68 Pipe buried at least 30 cm. if possible 3<br />
69 Pipe safe against damage by animals & people 3<br />
70 Drain able to trap all water in the pipeline 2<br />
71 Drain easily accessible 3<br />
72 Dram easily accessible 3<br />
73 Drain protected by a proper pit with cover 2 Drain pit constructed according to<br />
Annex 3<br />
Category 1.means no subsidy; 2.penalty ; 3. no penalty; 4. bonus<br />
Biogas Support programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98
ANNEX 1-2<br />
MOST COMMON DEFECTS AND PENALTY<br />
CATEGORIES INCLUDING THE<br />
PENALTY AMOUNT
Annex 1-2<br />
Page 1 of 3<br />
BSP PENALTY LIST FY 1997/98 FOR GGC 2047 MODEL BIOGAS PLANT DESIGN<br />
S.N Quality Standards Category Specification<br />
1 Second, third/fife, plant per household 1 Full subsidy amount<br />
2 Plant fed with night-soil only, no separate inlet for each<br />
plant<br />
1 Full subsidy amount<br />
3 Approved guarantee card not issued to the owner upon<br />
completion of the plant<br />
4 Three years guarantee on the structure and one year<br />
guarantee on appliances and pipe not provided<br />
5 Three years after-sales service as outlined in Annex 8. not<br />
provided<br />
6 HRT more than 70 days in hills or 55 days in terai<br />
because of over-sized plant<br />
2 50<br />
1 Full subsidy amount<br />
1 Full subsidy amount<br />
3 No penalty<br />
7 instruction booklet not included on the bill to the fanner 3 No penalty<br />
8 Water source more than 20 minutes walk from the plant 3 No penalty<br />
9 Mason not trained by a recognized institute not registered<br />
with <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP<br />
10 Other design than GGC 2047. Building method not<br />
according to Annex 3<br />
11 Quality of burnt clay bricks less than best locally<br />
available<br />
12 More than 3% impurities in the sand according to bottle<br />
test<br />
13a Gravel more than 4 cm in size and used in the structure<br />
dirty gravel<br />
13b Gravel not within the 0.5-2.5 cm range but smaller than 4<br />
cm<br />
1 Full subsidy amount<br />
1 Full subsidy amount<br />
3 No penalty<br />
2 700<br />
2 700<br />
3 No penalty<br />
14 Dirty stones 3 No penalty<br />
15 Cement not of Portland quality, not fresh with lumps 2 700<br />
16 Acrylic emulsion paint used not approved by<br />
BSP<br />
2 150<br />
17 Reinforcement rods not according to Annex 3 3 No penalty<br />
13 Plant not positioned deep enough in the ground when 3 No penalty<br />
possible<br />
19 Radius round-wall differs more than 2" from drawing 2 100<br />
20 Round-wall more than I cm out of plumb 3 No penalty<br />
21 Height round-wall differs more than 5 cm from drawing 2 100<br />
22 No proper back-filling of brick made found-wall 3 No penalty<br />
23 Masonry stone round-wall against the pit side 3 No penalty<br />
24 Inside round-wall not properly finished rough cracked 3 No penalty<br />
Category 1 means no subsidy; 2. penalty; 3. no penalty; 4. bonus<br />
Biogas Support Programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98.
Annex 1-2<br />
Page 2 of3<br />
25 Digester floor not properly finished more than 0.5% out<br />
of level<br />
3 No penalty<br />
26 Template used not according to Annex 3. Template not<br />
properly used. Additional earth added<br />
2 700<br />
27 Height dome differs more than 5 cm from drawing 2 50<br />
28 Radius dome differs more than 2% from drawing 2 50<br />
29 Dome plaster not according to Annex 3. dirty, rough 2 700<br />
30 Gas pipe more than 2% of dome radius out of dome<br />
centre<br />
3 No penalty<br />
31 Less than 40 cm earth filling on top of dome : not 3 No penalty<br />
protected against erosion<br />
32 Diameter or square turret less Hum 36 cm 2 75<br />
33 Height turret less than 50 cm 2 75<br />
34 Less than 12 cm support of gas pipe in turret 3 No penalty<br />
35 Length outlet differs more than 3% from drawing 3 No penalty<br />
36 Width outlet differs more than 3% from drawing 3 No penalty<br />
37 Depth outlet differs mote than 5 cm from drawing 3 No penalty<br />
38 Volume outlet differs more than 10% from design 2 100<br />
39 Walls outlet more than 1 cm out of plumb 3 No penalty<br />
40 Bottom and/or top outlet more than (0.5% out of level) 3 No penalty<br />
41 No proper finishing inside outlet walls rough cracks 3 No penalty<br />
42 No minimum 1 meter wide back-filling of the outlet walls<br />
up to the overflow level<br />
3 No penalty<br />
43a No outlet slabs. Outlet slabs without reinforcement 2 100<br />
43b Quality of outlet slabs not according to Annex 3 3 No penalty<br />
44 Top manhole-bottom outlet differs more than 4 cm from 2 100<br />
drawing<br />
45a No compost pits, one or more pit with a total volume less 3 No penalty<br />
than plant volume<br />
45b Two or more compost pits with a total volume equal or<br />
more than plant volume<br />
4 Bonus 50<br />
46 Inlet not in line with turret and manhole 2 100<br />
47 Bottom inlet pit less than 5 cm above outlet overflow 2 50<br />
level<br />
48 Top inlet pit more than 100 cm or less than 50 cm above<br />
ground level<br />
3 No penalty<br />
49 No proper finishing inlet pit. roui;li, cracked 3 No penalty<br />
50 No mixer installed, mixing device not firmly installed,<br />
difficult to operate blades, more than 3 cm from pit<br />
bottom or side<br />
3 No penalty<br />
51 Inlet not straight rod not able to enter 2 50<br />
52a No provision for toilet attachment 3 No penalty<br />
52b Toilet inlet more than 45 degrees on digester hart-line 2 50<br />
53 Toilet pan less than 15 cm above outlet overflow level 3 No penalty<br />
Category 1 means no subsidy; 2.penalty, 3. no penalty, 4. bonus<br />
Biogas Support Programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98
Annex 1-2<br />
Page 3 of 3<br />
54 Dome gas pipe other than pre-qualified by BSP not<br />
according to Annex 3<br />
2 100<br />
55 Main gas valve other than pre-qualified by BSP 2 150<br />
56 Quality of gas pipe and fitting other than GI or less than 2 200<br />
(IL-light IS-1239)<br />
57 Water dram other than pre-qualified by BSP not<br />
according to Annex 3<br />
58 Gas tap other than pre-qualified by BSP not according to<br />
Annex 3<br />
59 Gas stove other than pre-qualified by BSP not according<br />
to Annex 3<br />
2 50<br />
2 50<br />
2 100<br />
60 Cracked rubber hose, external diameter less than 15 nun 2 10<br />
61 Gas lamp other than pre-qualified by BSP 3 No penalty<br />
62 Inlet pipe less than 10 cm in internal diameter 2 50<br />
63 Mixer other than pre-qualified by BSP, not according to<br />
Annex 3<br />
2 100<br />
64 Unnecessary fitting between reduction elbow and main<br />
gas valve<br />
2 150<br />
65 Unnecessary fitting in the pipe line 3 No penalty<br />
66a Gas leakage in the pipe line before the main gas valve 2 150<br />
66b Gas leakage in the pipeline after the main gas valve 3 No penalty<br />
67 Other sealing agent than tefton tape used 2 50<br />
68 Pipe not buried 30 cm when possible 3 No penalty<br />
69 Pipe not safe against damage by people or animals 3 No penalty<br />
70 Water drain not able to trap all water in the pipeline 2 50<br />
71 Water drain not easy to accessible 3 No penalty<br />
72 Water drain not easy to operate 3 No penalty<br />
73 Water drain not protected by a pit with cover ac cording to<br />
Annex 3<br />
2 50<br />
If more than one defaults is applicable to one item, the penalty will only be applied once<br />
SN 1.2.4.5.9 and 10 maximum full subsidy amount<br />
SN 12.13a. 15.20 and 29 maximum NRs 700<br />
SN 32 and 33 maximum NRs 75<br />
SN 55.64and66a maximum NRs 150<br />
SN 57.70 and 73 maximum NRs 50<br />
Category 1 means no subsidy; 2.penalty; 3, no penalty; 4. bonus<br />
Biogas Support Programme agreement with recognized companies, 1997-98
CHAPTER TWO<br />
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER TWO<br />
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY<br />
Following approach and methodology has been adopted for the execution of the study. The overall<br />
work under study has been divided into' different phases as explained below:<br />
2.1 Desk Study Phase<br />
Desk study consisted of the following activities:<br />
2.1.1 Review of literature<br />
Different published and non-published literature were studied and reviewed to collect as much as<br />
possible the information in-depth on quality control of biogas plants.<br />
2.1.2 Video Film Show<br />
Video films dealing with promotion and quality of biogas plants were shown to the principal experts<br />
involved in the project. The basic objectives behind this was to provide them with a vivid picture<br />
about the existing quality control measures, basic defaults on biogas plants, role of different<br />
concerned agencies on maintaining the quality of biogas plants, etc. The films helped the study team<br />
to gain a clear overview of the existing system of ihe quality control in order to derive a reliable<br />
procedure to conduct the study.<br />
2.1.3 Formulation of Structured Questionnaire<br />
Based upon the knowledge of each individual of the study team and the secondary information<br />
collected from different sources, structured questionnaires for different categories of relevant<br />
organizations and knowledgeable persons were formulated. The respondents of the study were as<br />
follows:<br />
- Biogas users (50 nos.)<br />
- Biogas companies (10 nos.)<br />
- Commercial banks (3 nos.- ADB/N. RBB, NBL)<br />
- Programme Manager and Biogas Engineer of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP<br />
- Quality control supervisors of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP (3 nos.)<br />
- Knowledgeable persons (10 individuals)<br />
While formulating the questionnaire, the team concentrated basically on the following points:<br />
Simplicity and comprehensive<br />
Reflection on all the aspects of quality control of biogas plants by different level of people and<br />
organizations.<br />
The questionnaire were formulated in accordance with the objectives and guidelines as stipulated in<br />
the TOR of the Consultant. To highlight the different aspects of quality control, the questionnaire<br />
necessarily consisted of the followings principle points :<br />
- Present status of the biogas plants<br />
- Basic difficulties in operation and maintenance of the biogas plants and the way to overcome<br />
them
- Views of all the above maintained organizations and individuals to make the quality control<br />
system more practical and sustainable; their views on identification of an appropriate<br />
institution for condition of quality control system in the future.<br />
- Suggestions of concerning agencies for the betterment of the quality control system.<br />
The model of different questionnaire has been presented in Appendix II.<br />
2.1.4 Overall Planning for Field Visit<br />
In course of the desk study phase, the study team had frequent meetings, interaction and discussions<br />
for overall planning of the field visit. Two working team were formed, one guided by Deputy Project<br />
Coordinator, Mr. Pravin Ghimire who was responsible for the study in the eastern region (Jhapa,<br />
Morang and Sunsari districts) and the other led by Mr. Upendra Gupta, Civil Engineer, who was<br />
responsible to conduct the study in three districts namely Nuwakot, Makwanpur and Kathmandu.<br />
2.2 Field Visit<br />
The field visit was conducted simultaneously by two teams. Moreover, as per need of the work, live<br />
enumerators were assigned on the basis of previous experience in similar nature of works and were<br />
trained by the principal experts to enable them to collect the required information by means of the<br />
structured questionnaire. Basically they were assigned for interview with the users. The rest of the<br />
interviews wer e conducted by the principal project personnel. The name of the interviewers has been<br />
presented in Table 2-1.<br />
Table 2-1<br />
Name of the Interviewer<br />
S. No. Name of the interviewer District Assigned Remarks<br />
1 Pravin K Ghimire Jhapa, Morang, Suusari Project Personnel<br />
2 Upendra Gupta Nuwakot, Kathmandu, Project Personnel<br />
Makwanpur<br />
3 Sitaram Mishra Jhapa, Morang Enumerator<br />
4 Shiv Narayan Shah Sunsari Enumerator<br />
5 Hark Nath Dangol Nuwakot Enumerator<br />
6 Upendra Rinial Makwanpur Enumerator<br />
7 Raj Kumar T imilsina Kathmandu Enumerator<br />
2.2.1 Interview with Biogas Users<br />
The selected biogas companies were approached first and were requested to furnish the list of biogas<br />
users. Five biogas users from each of the 10 companies were randomly selected by the study team.<br />
Thus, altogether 50 biogas users were selected and interviewed. General information on these biogas<br />
users are presented on Appendix-II.<br />
2.2.2 Interview With Biogas Companies<br />
To acquire reliable information, the structure questionnaire were administered to the manager of each<br />
the selected company. The list of the companies is given in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2<br />
List of the Companies Selected for the Study<br />
S.N. Name of the Company Company Code No. Location of Company<br />
1. Manaslu Gobar Gas Company MGG<br />
Damak, Jhapa<br />
(Pvt.) Ud.<br />
2. Grihini Gobar Gas Company (Pvt.) GRI<br />
Damak, Jhapa<br />
Ltd.<br />
3. Public Gobar Gas Company (P.) PGG<br />
Urlabari,Morang<br />
Ltd.<br />
4. Bishal Gobar Gas Company (Pvt.) BIS<br />
Biratnagar, Morang<br />
Ltd.<br />
5 Gobar Gas Tatha Agri Equipment<br />
Development Company<br />
GGC<br />
Ithari, Sunsari<br />
6. Nilkamal Gobar Gas Company (P) NRG<br />
Hctaunda, Makawanpur<br />
Ltd<br />
7. Rapti Gobar Gas Company (P.) RAP<br />
Hetaunda, Makawanpur<br />
Ltd.<br />
8, Kishan Gobar Gas Company (Pvt.) KGY<br />
Bidur, Nuwakot<br />
Ltd.<br />
9. Jan Bhawana Gobar Gas Company JGY<br />
Bidur, Nuwakot<br />
(P.) Ltd.<br />
10. Nepal Biogas Company (Pvt.) Ltd. NBG New Baneshwor,<br />
Kathmandu<br />
As per the TOR of the Consultant, a total of 10 companies were required to be interviewed. Among<br />
the originally selected companies, three of them were found not working at the time of survey. Thus,<br />
these three non-functioning companies namely Saptakoshi Gobar Gas Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Man<br />
Shanti Gobar Gas Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and Nepal Gobar Gas Bisthar Tatha Bikash Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.<br />
were replaced by Public Gobar Gas Company (P.) Ltd., Rapti Gobar Gas Company (P) Ltd., and Jan<br />
Bhawana Gobar Gas Company (P.) Ltd. respectively.<br />
2.2.3 Interview with other Personnel and Organizations<br />
To study the aspect of quality control in depth and to formulate appropriate strategy, views of<br />
different categories of organizations (ADB/N, NBL, RBB, BSP) were collected through the structured<br />
questionnaire. Beside, different categories of relevant people including Programme Manager, Biogas<br />
Engineer and quality control supervisors of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP were also consulted to gather necessary<br />
information.<br />
The viewpoints of various key informants selected for this study (i.e. biogas users, biogas companies,<br />
commercial banks, knowledgeable persons and quality control supervisor) have been presented from<br />
Chapter Three to Chapter Seven respectively).
CHAPTER THREE<br />
FARMER RESPONDENTS
CHAPTER THREE<br />
FARMER RESPONDENTS<br />
3.1 Introduction<br />
Biogas users comprising mainly of the farming community are the ultimate beneficiaries of biogas<br />
programme. Successfulness of the programme depends as to what extent a user is satisfied from the<br />
performance of his plant. To derive maximum benefit out of the plant, it is essential to ensure not only<br />
quality of construction of plants but also due attention needs to be paid on quality of O & M and aftersale<br />
services of the installed plants. Thus, amongst the different categories of the respondents, major<br />
emphasis has been given to biogas users in the sense that they are associated with biogas plants in<br />
day-to-day life, and any default that occurs in their plant can deprive them of the expected output from<br />
the plant. Such situation can create disbelief and negative attitude towards biogas technology in<br />
society and can affect the programme.<br />
In above backdrop, this chapter is devoted to the response of the farmer respondents regarding their<br />
viewpoint on quality control measures. As per the TOR of the Consultant, 50 biogas users (five from<br />
each selected biogas company) were randomly selected from six districts of Nepal, namely Morang,<br />
Jhapa, Sunsari, Makawanpur, Nuwakot and Kathmandu. The general description of these respondents<br />
is given in Appendix III. The analytical results are discussed below in different sub headings.<br />
3.2 Capacity of Biogas Plants Possessed by the Users<br />
Table 3-1 provides information on the capacity of (he biogas plants possessed by altogether 50<br />
selected households. As regards to the size of the plants, the respondents possessed higher number of<br />
8 m of plants (36 %) compared to ft m 3 (30%) and 10 m 3 (32%) Thus, there is a tendency among the<br />
users to install 8 m 3 and 10 m 3 plants at the household level.<br />
3.3 Working Status of the Plants<br />
Present working status of the installed plants is the basic indicator of the quality services provided by<br />
the concerned companies. Respondents" view on the present working status of the of the plant is given<br />
in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 shows that 70 percent of the total selected plants are working very<br />
satisfactorily and 20 percent plants are rated as "Working Satisfactorily", while 10 percent of them are<br />
"Not Working Satisfactorily", Most of the plants that have been working satisfactory are found<br />
installed in the last fiscal year 1997/1948. As 10 percent of the plants are found in not working<br />
satisfactorily , due attention needs to be paid in this matter.<br />
3.4 Services Provided by Biogas Companies<br />
Less than half of the sampled users said that they receive information regarding O & M and repair of<br />
the plants by the concerned companies. According to them, the supports are generally provided in<br />
following subjects;<br />
- To use right amount of dung and water<br />
- To detect leakage of gas<br />
- To use and maintain stove<br />
- To open and close water trap<br />
- To illuminate and clean the lamp<br />
- Information on advantage of biogas and its use
Table 3-1<br />
Capacity of the Plants of the Selected Households<br />
S. No. Company District<br />
Jhapa Morang Sunsari Makwanpur Nuwakot Kathmandu<br />
Plant Capacity m 3 Plant Capacity m 3 Plant Capacity m Plant Capacity m 3 Plant Capacity m 3 Plant Capacity m 3<br />
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<br />
1 MGG - 2 3 - -<br />
2 GRI - 4 1 - -<br />
3 PGG - 1 2 - - - 2 - - -<br />
4 BIS 1 1 3 - -<br />
5 GGC - - 3 - - - 1 1 - -<br />
6 NRG 1 4 - - -<br />
7 RAP 5 - - - -<br />
8 KGY 4 1 - - -<br />
9 JGY 3 2 - -<br />
10 NBH 2 2 1 - -<br />
Total 7 6 - - 1 3 6 - - 1 1 - - 6 4 - - - 7 1 2 - - 2 2 1 - -<br />
MGG = Manasula Gobar Gas Company NRG = Nilkamal Gobar Gas Company<br />
GRJ = Grihini Gobar Gas Company RAP = Rapti Gobar Gas Company<br />
PGG = Public Gobar Gas Company KGY = Kishan Gobar Gas Company<br />
BIS = Bishal Gobar Gas Company JGY = Jana Bhawana Gobar Gas Company<br />
GGC = Gobar Gas &. Agri. Equip. Dev. Company NBG = Nepal Biogas Company
Table 3-2<br />
Users Users' Response on the Status of the Biogas Plants<br />
S. No. District Company Working Status<br />
WVS WS WNS<br />
1 Jhapa MGG 3 2 -<br />
2 Jhapa GRI - 5 -<br />
3 Morang PGG - 4 1<br />
4 Morang BIS 3 2 -<br />
5 Sunsari GGC 3 1 1<br />
6 Makwanpur NRG 1 3 1<br />
7 Makwanpur RAP - 5 -<br />
8 Nuwakot KGY - 4 1<br />
9 Nuwakot JGY - 4 1<br />
10 Kathmandu NBG - 5 -<br />
Total 10 35 5<br />
Note : WVS = working very satisfactorily<br />
WS = working sat isfactorily<br />
WNS = not working satisfactorily<br />
The respondents have been asked specific questions to provide information about the status of visit of<br />
the concerned companies' staff whenever the users stand in need of help. Table 3-3 provides<br />
information on current status of visit of the concerned biogas companies.<br />
Table 3-3<br />
Distribution of the Respondents in Accordance to their Need for Technical Support<br />
and Status of Visit of Companies<br />
S. No. District Company No. of the Users Calling Visit of Company on Routined<br />
Company for Help Visited Call Not Visited Visit<br />
1 Jhapa MGG 3 3 - 2<br />
2 Jhapa GRI 4 3 1 I<br />
3 Morang PGG 5 4 1 2<br />
4 Morang BIS 5 4 1 1<br />
5 Sunsari GGC 5 5 - 5<br />
6 Makwanpur NRG 5 3 2 3<br />
7 Makwanpur RAP 4 3 1 2<br />
8 Nuwakot KGY 5 2 3 1<br />
9 Nuwakot JGY 3 2 I 2<br />
10 Kathmandu NBG 5 4 1 4<br />
Total 44 33 11 23
The table also shows that 88 percent of the respondents were found approaching the companies for<br />
solving major and minor difficulties being faced by them. 75 percent of them seemed satisfied with<br />
the visit of the companies on call. Some of the respondents expressed that although the representative<br />
of the relevant company pays a visit on call but he lingers to resolve their problems. The rest 25<br />
percent of the respondents were of the view tint they did not receive any help from the company in<br />
time of need.<br />
It is also noticed that the routine visit by the company has been maintained only to about 50 percent of<br />
the users. They suggest that a routine visit of 1-2 times per year along with visit on call should be<br />
conducted compulsorily by the company to solve the problems associated with their plants. 12 percent<br />
of the total respondents claim that company only conducts random visit to them. This indicates that<br />
there is a lack of systematic mechanism of rendering services by the companies for O & M of the<br />
plants.<br />
3.5 Awareness of Biogas Users on BSP's Quality Control Activities<br />
Though BSP has already conducted several monitoring activities in Nepal, yet many respondents have<br />
been found unaware of its activities. Table 3-4 provides users' viewpoint on the extent of awareness of<br />
BSP's quality control system.<br />
Table 3-4<br />
Number of Respondents Possessing Awareness to the BSP's Quality Control System and Stains<br />
of Visit of Quality Control Supervisor<br />
S. No. District Company Awareness to BSP's Visit of BSP's Quality<br />
Quality Control System Control Supervisor<br />
Yes No Yes No<br />
1 Jhapa MGG 1 4 5<br />
2 Jhapa GRI - 5 2 3<br />
3 Morang PGG 1 4 1 4<br />
4 Morang BIS 3 2 2 3<br />
5 Sunsari GGC 3 2 2 3<br />
6 Makwanpur NRG 2 3 - 5<br />
7 Makwanpur RAP 1 4 3 2<br />
8 Nuwakot KGY 3 2 2 3<br />
9 Nuwakot JGY 2 3 2 3<br />
10 Kathmandu NBG 2 3 1 4<br />
Total 18 32 15 35<br />
It is seen that out of the studied households, only 36 percent are familiar with the quality control<br />
system enforced by BSP, while remaining 64 percent are ignorant about it.<br />
The visit of quality control supervisor of BSP to the users has been found to play a significant role to<br />
create awareness about the necessity of quality control of biogas plants. However, some of the users<br />
are still unaware of the type of services provided by BSP in quality control of biogas. 70 percent of<br />
the respondents said that the quality control supervisors did not visit them, while the remaining 30<br />
said that they had paid a visit.
3.6 Problems Faced by the Users<br />
Out of the total studied plants, about 60 percent have been found facing problems. The detail of the<br />
most common problems encountered by the users has been presented in Table 3-5.<br />
Table 3-5<br />
Most Common Problems Encountered by the Users and the<br />
Source for Solving Them<br />
S. No. District Company Problems Encountered No. of Users Source of Solution<br />
1 Jhapa MGG a) Blockage of gas 2 company & owner<br />
b) Insufficient gas 1 company & owner<br />
2 Jhapa GRI a) Insufficient gas 1 company<br />
b) Leakage of gas 1 company<br />
c) Blockage of gas 1 company<br />
3 Morang PGG a) Slurry in pipe line 1 company<br />
4 Morang BIS a) Blockage of gas 2 company<br />
b) Insufficient j^as 3 company<br />
c) Slurry in pipe line 1 company<br />
5 Sunsari GGC a) Blockage of eas 2 company<br />
b) Insufficient gas 2 company<br />
c) Slurry in pipe line 2 company<br />
d) Pipe line and<br />
company<br />
accessories<br />
6 Makwanpur NRG a) Blockage of gas 2 company & owner<br />
7 Makwanpur RAP b) Insufficient gas 2 company & owner<br />
8 Nuwakot KGY a) Blockage of gas 1 com pany<br />
b) Pipe line and<br />
2 company<br />
accessories<br />
9 Nuwakot JGY n) Pipe line and<br />
1 company<br />
accessories<br />
10 Kathmandu NBG a) Blockage of gas 2 company<br />
b) Insufficient gas 2 company<br />
The most common problems existing in O & M of biogas plants are as follows:<br />
- Blockage of gas<br />
- insufficient gas<br />
- Leakage of gas<br />
- Slurry in pipelines<br />
- Problems related to pipeline fittings and accessories<br />
Out of these problems, blockage of gas and insufficient gas have been observed in 80 percent of the<br />
problematic plants, whereas the rest of the problems were also noticed in majority of the plants.<br />
None of the respondents expressed to have encountered the problems of structural breakdown of<br />
digester such as fire hazards, though these sort of problems have to be given considerable att ention in<br />
the future. The respondents also noted problems associated with accessories and equipments. Frequent<br />
wearing out of the accessories like burner, lamps, main gas valve, pipe fittings and other parts is a<br />
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<br />
the biogas technology.<br />
Users' response on frequent wear and tear of the major equipments an d accessories has been presented<br />
in Table 3-6.<br />
Table 3-6<br />
Users' View on Frequent Wear and Tear of Major Biogas Equipment/Accessories<br />
S. No. District Company<br />
Equipment and Accessories<br />
Other Parts<br />
Burner Lamps Main Gas Valve Pipe Fitting<br />
1 Jhapa MGG 2 - 1 -<br />
2 Jhapa GRJ - - 2 1 -<br />
3 Morang PGG 3 3 1 1 -<br />
4 Morang BIS 2<br />
5 Sunsari GGC - - - - 2<br />
6<br />
7<br />
Makwanpur<br />
Makwanpur<br />
NRG<br />
RAP<br />
1<br />
-<br />
-<br />
-<br />
_<br />
-<br />
_ 2<br />
-<br />
8 Nuwakot KGY 2 1 1 1<br />
9 Nuwakot JGY 1 - - - 2<br />
10 Kathmandu NBG - - - - 2<br />
Total 9 4 4 3 11<br />
It is apparent that 62 percent of the respondents are facing problems with the accessories and 29<br />
percent state to have frequent problems with burner 10 to 13 percent reported to have problems with<br />
lamps, main gas valve and pipe fittings and another 35 percent had problems associated with other<br />
parts.<br />
3.7 Suggestions of Respondents for Improving Quality Control System<br />
Out of the selected users, 56 percent do not have any comments and they seem more or less satisfied<br />
with the existing services rendered by the biogas companies and other concerned agencies. The<br />
opinions of the 44 percent respondents who provided various suggestions to biogas companies,<br />
Biogas Support Programme and the government are presented in the following paragraphs.<br />
a) Suggestion to the Biogas Companies<br />
Following suggestions were made by the users to the companies:<br />
• To ensure systematic mechanism of routine and on call visit by the companies<br />
• To make the biogas appliances easily accessible to the users<br />
• To work with service orientated motive<br />
• To improve maintenance facility<br />
• To open branch office of the company in different places<br />
b) Suggestion to Biogas Support Programme<br />
• To evolve low-cost design of biogas plant<br />
• To conduct effective refresher training to local masons and other staffs<br />
• To c onduct orientation training before installation of the plant<br />
• To determine the size of the biodigester in accordance with the availability of dung
c) Suggestions to the Government<br />
Most of the users were found expecting a lot from the government. However, only a few of them were<br />
aware of government policy on extension and promotion of biogas technology and establishment of<br />
AEPC. The study team tried to explain them about AEPC and its activities. The common suggestions<br />
made by them to AEPC are enlisted below:<br />
• AEPC should conduct overall quality control of biogas plants<br />
• Guarantee period of biogas plant should be increased<br />
• Subsidy amount should be increased<br />
• Subsidy should be provided in accordance with economical status of the farmers<br />
• AEPC should conduct promotional activities in an effective and efficient way<br />
• It should provide regular supervision of the plants<br />
• It should conduct users' training<br />
• Priority should be given to the low income group farmers<br />
Improvement in the quality of biogas plants by the users will largely depend upon the motivation and<br />
awareness received from the promoters of the technology. Furthermore, it is also essential to provide<br />
adequate training to the users on O & M of biogas plant to improve the quality of the plant for better<br />
performance, Biogas company, being commercial organization, will not be in a position to carry out<br />
such activities. Most of the users are of the opinion that the governmental organization namely AEPC<br />
which is established to oversee all alternate energy related activities would also be the appropriate<br />
institution to conduct quality control in the future.
CHAPTER FOUR<br />
BIOGAS COMPANIES
CHAPTER FOUR<br />
BIOGAS COMPANIES<br />
4.1 Introduction<br />
As a result of government privatization policy, to date about 41 private biogas companies have been<br />
established to provide construction services to meet ever increasing demand for the installation of<br />
biogas plants. It is obvious that being commercial organizations, they have little incentive to carry out<br />
the activities related to quality control of biogas plants. Detailed guidelines and programme have been<br />
developed by BSP to conduct quality control on biogas plants installed by the companies. But as<br />
appropriate governmental agency was lacking in the past, the extent of acceptance and effectivity of<br />
this system was not studied in-depth. It is expected now that with the establishment of AEPC, this gap<br />
will likely be fulfilled in the future.<br />
4.2 General Information on Selected Biogas Companies<br />
List of the 10 biogas companies that were selected for interview is presented in Chapter two (see<br />
Table 2-2). Table 4-1 provides general information on these companies.<br />
Table 4-1<br />
General Information on Selected Biogas Companies<br />
S.<br />
No.<br />
Company Address Years of<br />
Establishment<br />
No. of<br />
Staff<br />
Involved<br />
Name of<br />
Manager<br />
1 MGG Damak, Jhapa 2052 16 Rajan Bhandari<br />
2 GRI Damak, Jhapa 2053 15 Pawan Koirala<br />
3 PGG Urlabari, Morang 2053 3 Saligram<br />
Sharma<br />
4 BIS Biratnagar,<br />
2053 20 Raj an Wasti<br />
Morang<br />
5 GGC Ithari, Sunsari 2034 18* Shiv Narayran<br />
Shah<br />
6 NRG Hetauda,<br />
2052 5 Bhoj Raj Dahal<br />
Makwanpur<br />
7 RAP Hetauda,<br />
2054 5 Upendra Rimal<br />
Makwanpur<br />
8 JGY Bidur, Nuwakot 2050 2 Hark Nath<br />
Dangol<br />
9 KGY Bidur, Nuwakot 2047 7 Bishnu Bdr.<br />
Karki<br />
10 NBG New Bancshwor,<br />
Kath.<br />
2049 65 Neeraj Nepali<br />
* The figure represents only the number of staffs in Ithari branch.<br />
As said earlier, GGC established in 1977 is the leading biogas company in Nepal and its contribution<br />
in the field of extension and promotion of biogas technology for the last two decades has been well<br />
recognized. A rapid rise in number of biogas companies has been noticed during the last five years<br />
(see Table 4-1). Actually this rise indicates good sign for the realization of BSP's III rd phase<br />
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<br />
of biogas plants for which quality control measures need to be enforced effectively. Therefore, this<br />
study is directed towards investigating a sustainable approach on quality control system.<br />
4.3 Working Status of Biogas Plants and Reasons for Mal-functioning<br />
Working status of installed plants is an indicator for quality services rendered by the companies.<br />
Table 4-2 provides data on number of functional plants in relation to total number of plants<br />
commissioned by the companies and the reasons for non-functioning status.<br />
Table 4-2<br />
Respondents' View about Functioning Plants and Possible Reasons for Mai-Functioning<br />
S. Company District No. of Installed Percentage of Plants Reasons for<br />
No. Plants Functioning* Non-functionong Mai -functioning<br />
1 MGG Jhapa 200 85 15 1. low feeding of raw materials<br />
2. lack of knowledge about O & M<br />
2 GRI Jliapa 200 92 8 1. lack of motivation<br />
2. oversized plant<br />
3 PGG Morang 65 85 15 1. poor aftersales services<br />
2. lack of knowledge about O & M<br />
4 BIS Morang 250 90 10 1. low feeding of raw materials<br />
2. lack of maintenance<br />
5 GGC Sunsari N.A. 85 15 1. poor aftersales services<br />
2. oversized plant<br />
3. lack of knowledge about O & M<br />
6 NRG Makwanpur 75 100 - -<br />
7 RAP Makwanpur 77 100 - -<br />
8 JGY Nuwakot 01 98 2 1. low feeding of raw materials<br />
9 KGY Nuwakot 550 99 1 2. poor aftersales services<br />
3. social problems<br />
10 NBG Kathmandu 2028 97 3 1. social problems<br />
2. low feeding of raw mater ials<br />
* Average number of functioning plant is 93 percent<br />
The data presented in Table 4-2 show that on an average, 93 percent plants are functional. It is also<br />
seen that the reasons for non-functioning is attributed to low feeding of raw materials into the<br />
biodigester. Low feeding consequently causes low rate of gas production. Hence, due to lack of<br />
sufficient amount of gas, the owner reverts to the use of firewood. Such situation is not conducive to<br />
the promotion and extension of biogas programme. Furthermore, lack of knowledge about O & M and<br />
poor after-sales services are also among the major causes for decreased performance of the plant.<br />
According to Nepal Biogas Company, a few plants failed due to the social problems associated with<br />
distribution of land property among brothers, migration of owner, sale of animals, etc,<br />
4.4 Follow up and Supervision by the Company<br />
Follow up and supervision of the plants by the company can plays a significant role to acquire desired<br />
quality of installed plants. Constructing a plant with the use of good quality materials and skilled<br />
masons is not only the way out to obtain a sustainable plant but this should be supported by good<br />
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<br />
confidence of the users about the technology.<br />
Guarantee and After-Sales Services Provided by the Company: Upon completion of a plant, the<br />
company provides following type of guarantee to the users:<br />
• One year guarantee on all pipes fittings and appliances except mantle and glass of the lamp<br />
• Three years guarantee on the structure of the biogas plant: (e.g. inlet, digester, gas storage,<br />
outlet and drain pit). In case of faulty construction, the company bears all cost of repair.<br />
Upon the completion of construction work, the company provides the owner with a guarantee card.<br />
Guarantee does not apply in case the owner overlooks the instructions for O & M as stipulated by the<br />
company and in case of natural disasters. In addition, the company provides free aftersales service for<br />
three years after date of construction. This service consists of a yearly routine visit in the last two<br />
years and an additional visit in case the user of the plant lodges a complaint- The procedure for this<br />
service is described below:<br />
(i) Yearly Routine Visit: A duly qualified staff on behalf of the company visits the plant owner and<br />
inspects the plant. The employee repairs possible defec ts on the spot. It is worth noting that the staff<br />
should carry the necessary tools and spare parts with him during the visit. If it is not possible to repair<br />
the plant during this visit, he gives next date to visit the owner within a period of three weeks. Before<br />
leaving, he fills in the form which is then signed by both parties (the owner and the company's<br />
representative). The staff signs also on the back side of guarantee card kept by the farmer. The form<br />
thus signed is handed over to the field office. A copy of the form is sent to <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP. At time of the<br />
visit, the company's staff also assesses the ability of the user to operate the biogas plant and execute<br />
on-site instructions, if necessary.<br />
(ii) Visit in Case of Complaints: The company keeps at every field office a register for complaint<br />
lodged in written or verbally by or on behalf of the plant owner. After receipt of a complaint, the<br />
company sends his trained staff to the plant owner within a period of two weeks. The staff of the<br />
company scrutinizes the problems and performs necessary repair work. If not possible at that moment,<br />
he makes an appointment to come back within three weeks' period. Before leaving, he notes down<br />
simple report of his work. He then signs on the back side of the guarantee paper kept by the owner.<br />
He then hands over the field report to the field office. The office Incharge checks the report and puts it<br />
in the owner's file after approval together with the written complaint of the owner, if lodged. If further<br />
repairs have to be done, the field office initiates necessary action. On sample basis, <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP checks<br />
the quality of the performed aftersales service of the company. Following considerations are<br />
necessary for assessment of quality control measures:<br />
• Has the company actually performed the annual aftersales service as claimed on the<br />
maintenance report?<br />
• Is die plant fully completed as claimed by the plant completion report?<br />
• Is the plant technically in operational status?<br />
Out of the 10 studied companies, all of the users claim that the company had visited them whenever a<br />
complaint is lodged. According to the respondents, 60 percent of them are providing routine visit out<br />
of which 50 percent are maintaining their routine visit at the interval of once in a year, while 10<br />
percent provides the services at different time frame as per the convenience of their office. These<br />
services are offered only within the guarantee period.<br />
Some users told that though company staffs visit them on call, but they often linger on to solve the<br />
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<br />
they do not get any profit.<br />
4.5 Most Count 10n Problems as Perceived by Biogas Companies<br />
Table 4-3 reveals the most common problems that occur frequently on a installed biogas plant.<br />
S. No.<br />
1<br />
Table 4-3<br />
Most Common Problems Encountered By Companies<br />
Company<br />
MGG<br />
District<br />
Jhapa<br />
Most common Problems<br />
- Slurry in pipeline<br />
- Gas leakage<br />
2 GRI Jhapa - Slurry in pipe line<br />
- Leakage of gas<br />
3 PGG Morang - Blockage of gas,<br />
- Wearing out of accessories<br />
- Slurry in pipe line<br />
4 BIS Morang - Leakage of gas<br />
- Blockage of gas<br />
5 GGC Sunsari - Wearing-out of accessories<br />
- Blockage of gas<br />
- Leakage of gas<br />
6 NRG Makwanpur - Blockage of gas<br />
- Leakage of gas<br />
7 RAP Makwanpur - Problems regarding pipe fittings,<br />
- Gas leakage<br />
- insufficient gas<br />
8 JGY Nuwakot - Wearing out of accessories<br />
9 KGY Nuwakot - Gas leakage<br />
- Slurry in pipe line<br />
10 NBG Kathmandu - Digging of compost pit immediately<br />
- Misplacing of the useful documents<br />
provided by company<br />
To improve quality of the plants, it is of utmost importance to come up with a permanent solution.<br />
Repetition of the same problem can create frustration among the users and hence, it can demotivate<br />
them.<br />
The most common problems faced by the users are: gas blockage, slurry in pipe line, wearing out of<br />
accessories, incorrect pipe fittings, etc. Out of the stated problems, gas leakage has been indicated by<br />
almost all the companies.<br />
Some of the companies expressed following suggestions to overcome such problems.<br />
• Necessity of more frequent visit by the companies to the users<br />
• Formation of a well skilled maintenance team in all the field office and their regular visit to<br />
the problematic and non-problematic plants<br />
• Improvement in after -sales services<br />
• Conduction of orientation programme and training amongst the users<br />
• 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<br />
two compost pits immediately after the construction of biogas plants and also misplace the documents<br />
provided by the company. The manager of this company suggests that the compost pit should be dug<br />
out before outlet is ready to overflow.<br />
4.6 Technical Capability of the Biogas Companies<br />
It has been already stated that since 1994 the biogas construction companies have been mushrooming<br />
in Nepal with varying degree of technical capability. Quality of biogas plant is proportional to the<br />
quality of the services provided by such companies, which in its turn depends upon the technical<br />
capability of the company, number of skilled and trained staff assigned by the company as well as<br />
experience of work. However, recruiting of skilled manpower alone in itself is not sufficient to meet<br />
desired quality of biogas plants. Proper mobilization of manpower and resources (e.g. in time of<br />
construction, O & M and after sales services) is another important factor to achieve the desired quality<br />
of the plants.<br />
Table 4-4 provides information about the number of trained staff possessed by selected companies.<br />
Table 4-4<br />
Number of the Trained Staff Possessed By the Selected Companies<br />
S.N. Name of the<br />
Company<br />
District<br />
No. of Total<br />
Staff<br />
No. of Trained<br />
Staff<br />
Percentage of Trained<br />
Staff<br />
1. MGG Jhapa 16 10 62.5<br />
2. GRJ Jhapa 15 12 80.0<br />
3. PGG Morang 3 3 100.0<br />
4. BIS JV4orang_ __ 20 18 90.0<br />
5. GGC Sunsari 18* 12 66.6<br />
6. NRG Makwanpur 5 4 80.0<br />
7. RAP Makwanpur 5 2 40.0<br />
S. KGY Nuwakot 2 1 50.0<br />
o. JGY Nuwakot 7 7 100.0<br />
10. NBG Kathmandu 65 ** 60 92.3<br />
Total 156 129<br />
* Staff based at Ithari only<br />
** Overall figure<br />
Table 4-4 reveals that out of total of 156 staffs of different biogas companies, 129 have been trained<br />
which constitutes about 81 percent of trained manpower. Manpower training by BIS, NBG, GRI and<br />
NRG seems quite satisfactory as the number of trained staff by these companies fall in the range of<br />
SO to 92.3 percent. It has been observed that the some companies like PGG and KGY have 100<br />
percent of trained manpower. On the other hand, the number of trained manpower by KGY in<br />
Nuwakot (50%) and RAP in Makwanpur (40%) seems low compared to other companies.<br />
The types of manpower possessed by different biogas companies in construction and the supervision<br />
of the biogas plants are indicated in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5<br />
Type of Manpower Involved in the Construction and the Supervision of Biogas Plants<br />
S. N. Company Type of Manpower Involved<br />
1. Technical supervisor MGG<br />
2. Technical supervisor GRI<br />
3. AH of the staff PGG<br />
4. Supervisor BIS<br />
5. Technical supervisor GGC<br />
6. Technical supervisor NRS<br />
7. Technical supervisor RAP<br />
8. Office Manager KGY<br />
9. Any of the seven members JGY<br />
10. Supervisor, Master - mason NBG<br />
Thus, in most of the companies, the supervision of the construction work is done by the trained<br />
technical supervisor. It worth to mention here that the concerned company should always try to<br />
increase the technical capability of such supervisors to innke them able to deal with several<br />
challenging technical problems that may occur during construction phase or during O & M of the<br />
biogas plants.<br />
4.7 Quality of Materials Used in Construction<br />
The quality of materials has direct impact on the performance of the plants. Even if the approved<br />
design and trained masons are used, the actual construction works could still suffer due to the use of<br />
the inferior quality construction materials namely cement, bricks, sand, water and aggregates. Some<br />
specifications of these materials have already been recommended (see Training Manual for Extension<br />
of Biogas Technology, 1996).<br />
Bricks: Well baked bricks with uniform dimension should be used.<br />
Cement: Cement containing 3 CaCO 3 Al 2 O 2 and 3 CaCO 3 SiO 2 is preferred because of its fast<br />
hydration rate and less shrinkage. Cement containing impurities may lead to poor quality structure.<br />
Cement should be fresh (not more than six month old), without lumps and should be stored in dry and<br />
cool place.<br />
Sand: Sand containing more than three percent of dirt or soils should not be used. Preferably, sand<br />
should be washed with clean water before mixing it with cement<br />
Gravel: The dome thickness of GGC design is not more than 7.5 cm. Therefore, gravel of 10 to 20<br />
mm size should be used. If gravel is mixed with soils, it should be washed with clean water.<br />
Water: To ensure the quality of construction, clean water should be used for masonry work. Water<br />
from ponds and irrigation canals containing sediments and colloidal materials should not be used for<br />
masonry work.<br />
Stones: Hard, clean and good quality stones should be used. If they are dirty, they should be washed<br />
with clean water before use<br />
Out of selected companies, almost all answered that the present quality of materials used is<br />
satisfactory. About 10 percent of the respondents said that different construction materials exist with<br />
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.<br />
Development of this sort of psychology of profit making motive by the companies can lead to inferior<br />
quality or even results into failure of the plant. The study team are of the opinion that though the<br />
quality of materials currently has been producing satisfactory results, exploration of materials based<br />
on research will yield better result.<br />
4.8 Company's View on BSP Quality Control Standards<br />
BSF has devised 73 parameters for ensuring the quality of plant construction and its proper<br />
functioning. These standards fixed by BSP include all the possible related criteria to achieve quality<br />
of the plant. Basically, the followings criteria have been emphasized while fixing the standards.<br />
• Design<br />
• Size and capacity of plant<br />
• Construction materials<br />
• Skilled and trained masons<br />
• Quality of construction (e.g. Dome casting, back filling, locating the central point)<br />
All parameters have been grouped into three categories. Company have to pay a penalty if any plant<br />
constructed by it fails to meet prescribed standards.<br />
Specific questions about the opinion of these companies towards the 73 standards of the BSP were<br />
asked. Out of 10 companies, 40 percent seem satisfied with these standards and think that these<br />
standards cover all the aspects of quality control, while 10 percent of them appeared totally ignorant<br />
about these standards. Another 10 percent think that some more number should be included in the<br />
standard. Similarly, 20 percent think that some of the standards are superfluous and the remaining 20<br />
percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the standards require more number and some of the<br />
standards are superfluous. The suggested points to be included in the standard arc as follows:<br />
• Wall of the digester should be at least 25 cm thick<br />
• Dome should be casted as R.C.C.<br />
According to the respondents, the superfluous points are as follows:<br />
• Digging of at least two compost pit.<br />
• More than one defaults and proportionate penalty in the same items.<br />
The respondents complain that they are suffering due to the stated superfluous points mentioned<br />
above. For example, digging of two compost pits which is entirely the responsibility of the users<br />
seems impractical in the present system. Because of mere reluctancy or inability of the users to avoid<br />
the construction of two compost pits, the penalty is being imposed by BSP upon the company. The<br />
companies were of the opinion that it is well justified to omit this point or it is necessary to come up<br />
with other suitable alternative for this problem.<br />
4.9 Reaction of the Respondents Towards the Penalty System<br />
BSP has divided the penalty system into 3 categories as follows:<br />
Category - 1<br />
Category - 2<br />
Any plant that fails to meet parameters in Category 1 is not provided subsidy.<br />
Failure to meet specifications of Category 2 requires the biogas company to pay a<br />
penalty to BSP in addition to correcting the faults without any additional fee to the<br />
users.
Category - 3<br />
The concerned company is warned not to repeat the mistake for failure to comply<br />
with requirements of Category 3 parameters.<br />
AH companies and banks involved in BSP implementation, have to agree on penalty system designed<br />
to enforce the quality standards. The penalty amount for different categories of defaults or failure to<br />
maintain the quality are given in Annex 1 -2 (see Chapter One).<br />
Table 4-6 shows attitude of companies towards penalty system and penalty amount to be paid by the<br />
company as per default.<br />
Table 4-6<br />
Attitude of Companies Towards Penalty System and Penalty<br />
Amount to be Paid by the Company as per Default<br />
S. Company District Status of Satisfaction Penalty Remarks<br />
No.<br />
Satisfied Not- Amount Defaults<br />
Satisfied Paid (Rs)<br />
1. MGG Jhapa v - -<br />
2. GRI Jhapa v - 300 • Compost pit 1997/98<br />
• Improper pipe<br />
fitting<br />
• Wrong<br />
measurement<br />
3. PG. Morang v - -<br />
4. BSI Morang - v 160 • Compost pit<br />
• Feeding mixture<br />
5. GGC Sunsari - v NA • Compost pit<br />
• Wrong measurement<br />
• Main gas value<br />
6. NRG Makwanpur v - 1600 • Size of dome<br />
measurement<br />
7. RAP Makwanpur - v - -<br />
8. KGY Nuwakot - v 900 • Size of water<br />
drain<br />
• Size of mixture<br />
machine<br />
9. JGY Nuwakot v - 4000 • Over size plants<br />
• Compost pit<br />
10. NBG Kathmandu - v NA • Under-feeding<br />
• Compost pit<br />
• Misplace-ment<br />
of document by<br />
the user<br />
Out of the total respondents, 60 percent seem to be unsatisfied on the penalty system. Following are<br />
the basic reasons for their disappointment.
• Most of the penalty is being fixed merely on the basis of interview with the users who may<br />
mis- communicate the BSP's supervisor.<br />
• Penalty categories are not mutually agreed upon.<br />
• Generally penalty are imposed on the company due to the mistake made by users (e.g. digging<br />
of compost pit).<br />
• More than one def aults and proportionate penalty in the same item.<br />
About 10 percent of the companies suggested that the first default should be forgiven with a strong<br />
warning. 20 percent of the respondents held the view that the penalty amount should ultimately be<br />
refunded to the companies. According to 10 percent of the respondents, a better alternative rather than<br />
penalty system should be worked out. They expressed that various other constructive approaches can<br />
be practised and in-depth interaction with the concerned agencies and groups is needed. According to<br />
them, the new alternative should be based on clear and agreed principle of responsibility without<br />
undermining the social aspects.<br />
4.10 BSP' Support to Biogas Companies<br />
BSP has 11 quality control supervisor who are responsible to deal with companies for supervision of<br />
the plants constructed by them in Nepal. The quality services provided by a particular company can be<br />
considered proportional to the visit of BSP' representative to such companies. Table 4-7 provides data<br />
on frequency of visit of quality control supervisors to the companies and status of support provided by<br />
BSP.<br />
Table 4-7<br />
Frequency of Visit by Quality Control Supervisors to the Companies and BSP's Support<br />
S. Company District Frequency of Visit of Qualify<br />
BSP's Support<br />
No<br />
Control Supervisor<br />
Name Time Reason Technical Financial Institutional Manager Other<br />
1. MGG Jhapa 4 • Quality Control Yes Yes Yes Yes<br />
• Refresher Training<br />
• Professional Training<br />
2. GRI Jhapa 2 • Quality Control<br />
• Refresher Training<br />
• Professional Training<br />
Yes Yes Yes Yes<br />
3. PGG Morang 2 Quality Control Yes Yes Yes - -<br />
4. BIS Morang 2 Quality Control Yes Yes Yes - -<br />
5. GGC Sunsari 4 Quality Control Yes Yes Yes - -<br />
6. NRG Makwanpur 1 Quality Control Yes - - - -<br />
7. RAP Makwanpur 2 Quality Control Yes Yes - - -<br />
8. JGY Nuwakot 2 Quality Control Yes - - - -<br />
9. KGY Nuwakot 1 Quality Control Yes - - - -<br />
10. NBG Kathmandu 1 Quality Control Yes - - - -<br />
Table 4-7 indicates that the visit of BSP's supervisors took place from 1 to 4 times in a year. 20<br />
percent of the respondents said that they eventually are getting refresher and professional training<br />
from them, whereas 80 percent said that they (BSP's supervisor) arrive only in course of supervision<br />
of the plant.<br />
50 percent of the total respondents think that only technical support is being received from BSP,<br />
whereas the rest expressed having technical, financial, institutional and managerial support as well.<br />
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<br />
all companies would be of equal technical capability and institutional strength. It could be the way out<br />
to adopt "Multi Agency, Single Model" Approach.<br />
4.11 Respondents' Views on Sustainability of Quality Control System<br />
The study explored different kinds of views of the selected respondents towards the sustainability of<br />
quality control of biogas plants. The emphasis has been given to clear and agreed demonstration of the<br />
responsibilities of each concerned agency. The suggestion made by them to the different concerned<br />
agencies have been described below:<br />
Role of Biogas Companies: According to majority of the respondents, following are the basic points<br />
to be taken on account by all the companies to improve the quality of biogas plants.<br />
• Improvement in maintenance of facilities<br />
• Establishment of branch offices at various places so that users can approach them easily<br />
• Conduction of training to plant owner<br />
• Conduction of training to (local) masons in time<br />
• Use of only skilled and trained mason<br />
• Make the parts of plant easily available<br />
• Company's staff to be trained in adequate number<br />
Role of Commercial Banks: Most of the respond ents expressed that following points should be<br />
considered properly by the concerned financial agency to create a better working environment for a<br />
company to carry out the quality control effectively and efficiently.<br />
• Improvement of loan process<br />
• Provision of loan without collateral<br />
• Increase subsidy amount<br />
• Interest free loan<br />
Suggestion to BSP: The contributions made by BSP in the extension and promotion of biogas have<br />
been acknowledged by all the respondents but full-fledged support regarding quality control system<br />
enforced by BSP has not been received. The followings are the suggestions made by the companies:<br />
• The penalty categories had to be mutually agreed upon initially by BSP, HMG and biogas<br />
companies as well.<br />
• Penalty system should be made effective by omit ting some of the superfluous standards and<br />
adding some of the required standards.<br />
• A better alternative rather than penalty system should be investigated on the basis of<br />
constructive approaches and in-depth interaction with concerned actors.<br />
• Support should be provided in equitable basis to all the companies.<br />
• BSP should sponsor appropriate training to different levels of the company's staff.<br />
• Fixing of penalty amount merely depending upon the interview of users should be avoided.<br />
This should be based on actual observation of plants.<br />
• Nominal scale of penalty should be imposed upon the users because a small mistake or<br />
negligence made by the user causes the company to pay penalty for nothing.<br />
• Avoid more than one defaults and proportionate penalty in the same part item.<br />
• The quality control unit of BSP should be extended because the existing number of quality<br />
control supervisor does not seem sufficient to deal with all the companies.<br />
• The number of sampled plants for observation is also not sufficient. This should be sampled<br />
not randomly but in the more or less scientific basis such that more correct information on the<br />
plants and its manufactures could be obtained.
Company's View About Appropriate Institution for Quality Control of Biogas Plants: It is now<br />
obvious that Alternative Energy Promotion Center has been established in Nepal as a full-fledged<br />
Government agency with the objectives of coordinating overall programme related renewable sources<br />
of energy. This center has been attaching much importance to quality control of biogas plants to make<br />
it more sustainable and practical. This is why this study has been initiated and sponsored by AEPC.<br />
60 percent of respondents are of the opinion that AKPC, being a full fledged government agency,<br />
would be appropriate agency for conduction of quality control of biogas plants. However, another 30<br />
percent suggest that BSP should continue to be responsible for this activity, whereas remaining 20<br />
percent are of the opinion that this responsibility should be handed over to the company like GGC<br />
which is oldest and leading institution in the field of biogas services and a lot has been done by it in<br />
the extension and promotion of biogas technology in Nepal.<br />
Majority of respondents who consider AEPC as an appropriate institution have the opinion that the<br />
technical, institutional, managerial, financial and other challenges to promote the biogas technology<br />
on national level can not be met by an individual or private organization. Therefore, a government<br />
agency like AEPC can only be the means to do so.
CHAPTER FIVE<br />
COMMERCIAL BANKS
CHAPTER FIVE<br />
COMMERCIAL BANKS<br />
5.1 Introduction<br />
To make the biogas plants affordable to the rural Nepalese community, the government provides<br />
financial support in terms of loan and subsidy. With the establishment of BSP in 1992, the<br />
government started providing subsidy at Rs. 7,000 (in Terai) and Rs. 10,000 (in the hills) to the people<br />
willing to install biogas plant. At present, the revised subsidies as follows:<br />
• Nrs 7,000 in the Terai<br />
• Nrs 10,000 in the accessible hills connected by the roads<br />
• Nrs 12,000 in the hills not connected by the roads<br />
Since 1975 to 1994, Agricultural Development Bank (ADB/N) has been only the bank that<br />
administers loan in biogas sector. It has the largest network of its branches scattered throughout the<br />
country. From 1994 onwards, Nepal Bank Limited (NBL) and Rastriya Banijya Bank (RBB) have<br />
also started financing in biogas sector. Until now, these two banks (NBL and RBB) have not been<br />
found interested in the promotional activities of biogas plants except for providing loan. On the other<br />
hand, ADB/N which is the main shareholder of GGC, has also been involved in the promotional<br />
activities mainly in information dissemination and training in addition to channeling loan and<br />
subsidies. Out of about 46,000 installed plants in Nepal, some 36,000 have been provided loan by<br />
ADB/N.<br />
The study team approached the head offices of each of tliese banks located in Kathmandu. Following<br />
staff of these banks were administered the questionnaire to gather necessary information for this<br />
study:<br />
Mr. Devendra Adhikari Engineer, Energy Section, ADB/N<br />
Mr. Raju Rimal<br />
Overseer, Energy Section, ADB/N<br />
Mr. Srikrishna Thapa<br />
Section Chief, Priority Sector Loan Section, NBL<br />
Mr. Ram Chandra Subedi<br />
Deputy Chief, Priority Sector Loan Section, RBB<br />
5.2 Infrastructural Arrangement of the Banks to Oversee Biogas Activity<br />
Successful implementation of a programme is not possible without having proper infrastructural<br />
arrangement in the organization. Banks being a financial organization can play a vital role in the<br />
extension of biogas technology by providing the loan. Therefore, the infrastructural arrangement of<br />
such banks indicates as to how effectively and efficiently it is engaged in the field of biogas<br />
technology.<br />
Table 5-1 provides general infrastructural arrangement in the head office of each bank.
Table 5 -1<br />
Infrastructural Arrangement in the Head Office of Selected Banks<br />
Name<br />
of bank<br />
Year of<br />
financing<br />
Presence of<br />
individual<br />
division to<br />
oversee biogas<br />
No. of the staff<br />
involved within<br />
head office in<br />
biogas<br />
No. of the<br />
trained staff<br />
within head<br />
office<br />
Responsible body<br />
for field<br />
observation<br />
ADB/N 1972 No 2 - Field staff<br />
RBB 1992 No 3 - JT/JTA<br />
NBL 1994 No 3 - JT/JTA<br />
Biogas related activities are being handled by energy section in ADB/N and priority sector loan<br />
division in NBL and RBB. Generally field supervision is carried out by Junior Technician (JT) and<br />
Assistant Junior Technician (JTA). According to the respondents, the major initiation is being taken<br />
by the branch offices of each bank in biogas activities and each bank contains several staffs involved<br />
in biogas activities in their branch offices on the country as a whole. It was said that many staffs in the<br />
branch offices are trained as well.<br />
It has been observed that the concern of these banks for biogas promotion has been limited largely to<br />
the administration of loan to the users Field staffs arc involved in evaluating applications mid<br />
supervising the plants mainly to ensure that the farmer is eligible for loan and is satisfied with the<br />
plant construction. However, these staffs are not necessarily trained to have good understanding of the<br />
technology. In the present context, these banks have to rely on GGC or other private biogas<br />
companies for all technical aspects of a plant construction and oper ation. They have no mechanism to<br />
monitor the technical performance of these companies.<br />
5.3 Description of Loan Provided by Banks and its Effectiveness<br />
Commercial banks feel comfortable as repayment of loan in biogas is high compared to other loan.<br />
Biogas loan ranks as second good loan after tea and coffee (Kunwar, 1994). Good collection of the<br />
loan may be the result of the long official procedure adopted by the banks. However, this long<br />
procedure has its negative impact too. As the loan approval proc ess is quite lengthy and cumbersome,<br />
it takes long time for a potential user to collect relevant documents from different offices to submit<br />
them to the bank. Hence, it adds the unseen cost of biogas plants such as time and resources needed to<br />
visit the bank offices frequently thereby causing a psychological harassment to the users.<br />
Table 5-2 provides information about the number of plants on which loan has been provided by each<br />
bank in the last fiscal year, interest rate of each bank and responsible authority for loan approval.<br />
Table 5 -2<br />
Number of Plants, Interest Rate of the Bank and Responsible Authority for Loan Approval<br />
Name of Number of plants in Interest rate Responsible Authority for<br />
banks the last fiscal year<br />
Loan Approval<br />
ADB/N 4,819 17% Manager, concerned branch<br />
office<br />
NBL 133 12 % up to Nrs 15,000 Manager, concerned branch<br />
RBB 81<br />
14.5 % above Nrs 15,000<br />
15,000 15.5%<br />
office<br />
Manager, concerned branch<br />
office
Procedure of Financing : The necessary documentation to be submitted by users remain same for all<br />
the banks. Once a farmer decides to install a biogas plant, he visit the relevant bank for the request of<br />
loan. Along with the loan application, he has to submit name of the biogas company chosen by him,<br />
photocopy of land ownership certificate, citizenship certificate, receipt of the tax paid on land for the<br />
purpose of collateral and quotation from the concerned company. When all necessary documents are<br />
submitted, the supervisor of concerned bank inspects the collateral and prepares a field report. Based<br />
on the field report, the decision is made by the manager of the concerned bank for approval of loan.<br />
After sanctioning of the loan, a coupon is issued to the company. The company then requests the user<br />
to arrange a part of construction materials such as bricks, stone, sand, gravel and unskilled labour.<br />
When the construction of plant is completed, the company claims the reimbursement from the bank,<br />
which then credits to farmer. At the same time, subsidy amount is also deducted by the bank. The<br />
remaining amount of loan has to be repaid on installation basis with the prescribed interest rate and<br />
within the time frame as quoted by the bank.<br />
It has also been pointed out that at present the users are attracted more by the amount of subsidy<br />
provided by the government rather than the utility of plant. Many farmers with liigh economic status<br />
also take loan with the understanding that it is easier to get subsidy than in the case when they put<br />
their own money for a plant construction. Apparently, the commitment to provide subsidy even to<br />
farmers making their own investment through the recognized private biogas company is not well<br />
understood by many people.<br />
5.4 Activity of Banks about Quality Control<br />
Banks, in the capacity of the financing institutions, can play a vital role in maintaining quality of<br />
biogas plants. To date, three commercial banks namely ADB/N, NBL and RBB are involved in<br />
financing biogas.<br />
ADB/N: Among these three banks, ADB/N has been involved not only in financing but it has also<br />
been rendering its services in the promotional activities since the inception of biogas programme in<br />
Nepal. Following are the activities of ADB/N regarding quality of biogas plants:<br />
- Information dissemination carried out by ADB/N includes radio programming, production of<br />
video films, exhibition and other similar activities in biogas technology.<br />
- Training activities are conducted for the benefits of users on community biogas plant, O & M<br />
and repair of biogas plants.<br />
NBL and RBB: As said, these two banks have been involved in biogas sector from 1994 onwards. So<br />
far, these two banks are not involved in conducting the quality control measures. However, they have<br />
been found interested in quality control aspect of biogas plants as they acknowledge that the loan<br />
provided by them would not be utilized well until quality of biogas plant is maintained. According to<br />
them, frustration among the users due to a low quality of plant can adversely affect loan policy of the<br />
banks. Contrary to this, a good quality plant will increase moral value and confidence of banks<br />
towards biogas technology.<br />
All the respondents are of opinion that they should build their infrastructure with regard to technical,<br />
institutional and managerial aspects to enable them to evaluate themselves all the aspects of biogas<br />
technology and performance of biogas companies as well. This helps them make proper strategy<br />
analyzing them to judge positive and negative points of each concerned actor (users, biogas<br />
companies). The respondents (NBL and RBB) said that at present, the resources and manpower<br />
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<br />
NBL in biogas sector in the forthcoming fiscal year 1998/99. To achieve the target, about 55 plants<br />
are required to be provided loan each month, It has been also pointed out that in next fiscal year, NBL<br />
plans to attach priority for installment of 4 and 6 m 1 plants in order to benefit poor farmer. In such<br />
case, if loan is provided randomly, special care has to betaken to ensure quality of the plants.<br />
5.5 Sustainability of the Quality Control System<br />
Followings are the viewpoints of the banks about the sustainability of quality control system:<br />
• Provision of required amount of loan to avoid the use of low quality materials<br />
• More number of trained staff in the bank<br />
• Development of such an infrastructure in the bank that can evaluate all the aspects of biogas<br />
technology independently<br />
• Frequent control visit of representative of the banks to the users<br />
• Establishment of field offices strategically in accordance with the demand<br />
• Frequent communication among the banks and other relevant actors<br />
According to the banks, the facilities should be provided by HMG/N and BSP to all the banks in<br />
equitable basis so that they could be equally motivated.<br />
5.6 Suggestion of Banks to Improve Quality Control<br />
Suggestion to the Government: All the respondents welcomed the policy of HMG/N to establish an<br />
apex body i.e., AEPC to oversee the biogas related activities. The banks are of the opinion that quality<br />
control of biogas should be conducted by AEPC However, a lot has to be done yet by AEPC to bear<br />
this responsibility. The banks suggest that if the Biogas Support Program will be terminated in the<br />
future, all necessary infrastructure should be created by AEPC so that it could be able to conduct the<br />
quality control independently on self -reliance basis. The following suggestions were given to AEPC:<br />
• It should study aspect of quality control in-depth<br />
• It should assign and train necessary manpower to conduct the works<br />
• It should manage required resources and fund<br />
It should arrange continuo us flow of capital<br />
• It should concentrate on capacity building of NGO's and other private sectors involved in<br />
biogas<br />
• It should create market and linkage for biogas promotion<br />
• It should initiate research and studies in quality control aspects<br />
After the termination of the BSP, it will somehow become a challenging job to AEPC to bear the<br />
overall responsibilities of qua lity control Therefore, without any delay, it should concentrate to<br />
develop its capability to overtake the responsibilities.<br />
Suggestion to BSP: Though all the respondents were found impressed by the BSP's contribution for<br />
promotion and extension of biogas programme in Nepal, yet they are of the opinion that it should not<br />
be responsible for conducting quality control of biogas plants for ever. They suggested that in the<br />
process of handing over the responsibility of quality control to AEPC, BSP should support and<br />
strengthen AEPC, banks, companies and other relevant organizations in the initial years so that they<br />
could continue the works that are being done by BSP. Based upon the present study and past<br />
experience, BSP should assist AEPC in formulation and modification of quality control system to<br />
make it more sustainable, practicable and realistic.
Suggestion to Biogas Companies: The respondents from the banks are of the opinion that all the<br />
companies should sincerely concentrate in maintaining the quality of biogas plants by developing its<br />
technical capability and institutional strength. They said that at present most of the companies are not<br />
equipped with adequate facilities, resources and manpower. As more number of company will likely<br />
to be emerged in the future, there will be unhealthy competition among them (as it is happening now).<br />
In such situation, there will be a question mark about the quality of biogas plant. The respondents said<br />
that proper environment should be created to make the companies more conscious about maintaining<br />
the quality of installed plant. A fair environment of competition has to be developed amongst the<br />
companies. They should sustain their moral value by performing better quality work in the future.
CHAPTER SIX<br />
QUALITY CONTROL SUPERVISORS<br />
OF <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP
CHAPTER SIX<br />
QUALIFY CONTROL SUPERVISORS OF <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP<br />
6.1 Introduction<br />
Quality Control Supervisors of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP are the key manpower to conduct the overall supervision of<br />
installed plants. Their contribution in maintaining the quality of installed biogas plants is highly<br />
commendable. There are altogether eleven quality control supervisors assigned by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP- In<br />
accordance with their observation and recommendation, many issues related to quality control are<br />
being tackled (such as penalty to biogas companies, liquidation of a compa ny, bonus to a company<br />
etc). Thus, their opinion plays a significant role to make quality control system more practical and<br />
sustainable.<br />
To gather necessary information for this study, out of 11 quality control supervisors, three of them<br />
were interviewed in agreement with BSP. Their name, address and years of working periods with BSP<br />
are presented below ;<br />
Name of the Interviewer Address Working Period<br />
Mr. Rup Singh Thapa Butwal, Rupendehi 3.5 years<br />
Mr. Rabi Chettri Jawalnkliel, Kathmandu 3.6 years<br />
Mr. Saroj Shrestha Pyafal, Kathmandu 3.6 years<br />
6.2 Existing Mechanism of Quality Control<br />
Quality control of biogas plants takes place on the basis of random sampling. The size of the sample<br />
will be determined by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP considering the quality of plant construction (sample size will be<br />
higher if the quality is not satisfactory), performance of the company in the previous year, experience<br />
of the company and the total number of plants constructed (the lower the total number of plants,<br />
higher the sample size). The sample include both plants in use (filled plants) and plants under<br />
construction (non filled plants)<br />
Quality control is conducted by means of structured questionnaire consisting of following three<br />
sections:<br />
- interview with the owner of the plant, or if not at home, with relative of owner<br />
- Observation of the plant<br />
- Measurement of the plant<br />
The concerned company assigns one of its representatives to accompany the quality control supervisor<br />
of BSP to the sampled plant. Both parties sign the completed questionnaire w hen they agree upon the<br />
collected data. A copy of the questionnaire is provided to the company's office. The data of the<br />
questionnaire is compiled by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP in a report which is later forwarded to the company for<br />
comments to be submitted within one month.<br />
The quality control supervisors of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP think that the existing method is very effective. They are<br />
also confident that with the help of resources and equipment provided to them, the existing number of<br />
them will be enough to conduct supervision till the next year but they also acknowledge the fact that<br />
with the increased number of companies and plants, number of the quality control supervisors should<br />
be increased in the future to meet the targeted number of biogas plants stipulated in the third phase of<br />
BSP's activities (i.e., 100,000 plants to be commissioned by 2002). They further added that to collect a<br />
more realistic and practical information, sample size for survey should be increased.
6.3. Problems Encountered by Quality Control Supervisor and their Suggestions<br />
(i)<br />
Problems<br />
According to the respondents, the followings are the most problematic factors that hinder them to<br />
conduct their work efficiently<br />
Pressure of Companies: It has been complained that though each and every activity of quality<br />
control supervisors is performed in front of representative of concerned company, yet the company<br />
does not realize their faults easily, thereby causing hindrance to their works. The companies often<br />
create different pressure on the quality control supervisors so that their faults, which can lead them to<br />
pay penalty, are not easily exposed These sorts of problems can cause frustration to the quality control<br />
supervisors and if the process is continued further, they can be demotivated or can go through wrong<br />
track Maintaining quality of biogas plants in such situation seems impracticable.<br />
Misplacement of the Documents by the Company as well as by the User: The respondents claim<br />
that important documents such as promotional leaflets provided by BSP are not being used properly<br />
by the companies. Misplacement of the important documents is common in the most of the<br />
companies. Thus, lack of managerial experience of companies is making complication in timely<br />
accomplishment of the jobs for which they are assigned. Except this, users have also found misplacing<br />
instruction books and guarantee cards.<br />
(ii)<br />
Solutions<br />
The following suggestions were made to solve the above mentioned problems:<br />
The company should realize the fact that quality control supervisors are working to assist them in<br />
their work. To increase the quality of plants is to increase its demand by creating bigger and easier<br />
market for biogas companies Thus, all the companies should realize their faults and try to rectify them<br />
at once This will enable them to increase their credibility. Managerial training should be conducted<br />
for the benefits of biogas companies and the biogas users as well. This will create easier environment<br />
for quality control supervisor to conduct their jobs efficiently.<br />
It is worth to mention here that the companies being profit oriented organization have always a<br />
tendency to gain more profit within a minimum time. Therefore, they are more interested in<br />
installation of new plants rather than maintenance and aftersales services of the old plants. As more<br />
and more companies are likely to be established in the future, such tendency of companies needs to be<br />
treated well to maintain the desired quality of biogas.<br />
6.4 Most Common Problems of Biogas Plants as Revealed by Quality Control Supervisors<br />
The most common defaults on the installed biogas plants as pointed out by the quality control<br />
supervisors are as follows:<br />
• Reluctancy in digging compost pit<br />
• Top filling on dome<br />
• Water drain pit<br />
• Improper pipeline fitting
• Use of larger size of gravel<br />
• Appliances of low standards<br />
• Less feeding of raw materials into the plants<br />
• Leakage in the pipelines<br />
According to the respondents, the above defaults Eire the most common ones which generally result<br />
into poor construction and aftersales services provided by the concerned companies. Such problems<br />
can be overcome to a considerable extent if company would be more conscious about it by providing<br />
good quality of construction and aftersales services. It has also been complained by the respondents<br />
that most of the companies are not following routine visit and visit on call,<br />
6.5 Perception of Quality Control Supervisors About the Standards Fixed by BSP<br />
As explained earlier, BSP has fixed seventy three standards on quality of biogas plants based on<br />
consideration of design and construction, quality of construction materials used, skilled masons used,<br />
shape, size and quality of different elements of plant, quality and fittings of pipelines and accessories,<br />
provision of pipeline for a toilet, etc The company failing to meet any of the standards is either liable<br />
to pay a penalty or is deprived of subsidy or is simply warned not to repeat such mistakes in the<br />
future.<br />
According to the respondents, the quality control measures fixed by BSP is practical, realistic and<br />
sustainable and covers almost all (he aspects of quality control. However, they have following thing to<br />
add:<br />
- Although Digging of at least two compost pits is very essential factor to reduce the problems<br />
associated with waste management and to increase the agricultural production, it is not being<br />
followed up to the expected extent. To motivate the company to do so, provision of bonus has<br />
also been made by BSP. The respondents are of the opinion that a special strategy needs to be<br />
worked out to make each farmer aware of the problems of the urban waste management in<br />
society which is in its critical stage so that they would themselves be motivated to dig out two<br />
compost pits, Moreover, the earth required to backfill the top of the dome can also be<br />
obtained from digging of the compost pit.<br />
- Similarly provision of at least one toilet pipe though included in the quality standard, is not<br />
followed up properly<br />
- Daily feeding of digester should be included as an additional standard<br />
While making future strategy for quality control, the views expressed by the quality control<br />
supervisor-needs to be given weightage on the basis of technical, social and institutional justification.<br />
6.6 Perception of Quality Control Supervisors about the Penalty System<br />
Basis of Fixing Penalty: As per the existing system, the quality control supervisor is accompanied by<br />
a representative of biogas company in the field to examine the plant installed by the same company.<br />
The supervisor also interviews the owner of the plant by administrating structured questionnaire and<br />
takes technical measurement of biogas plants in presence of the company's representative. The<br />
supervisor identifies and declares defaults, if any, in front of him in case such defaults are observed on<br />
the spot. The company making def aults is subject to penalty as per the rules fixed by BSP.<br />
The main basis for fixing penalty to a biogas company is "performance factor" which includes the<br />
following:<br />
• Average number of defaults<br />
• Production factor
• Percentage of feeding<br />
• Average penalty amount<br />
The average number of defaults per plants in the sample determines a performance factor for the<br />
company with which the sum of the penalties in the sample is multiplied. The performance factors<br />
have been shown in Table 6-1<br />
Table 6-1<br />
Performance Factor<br />
Average number of defaults per plant<br />
Performance factor<br />
4.00 or less 0.0<br />
more than 4.00 up to and including 5.00 0.5<br />
more than 4.00 up to and including 6.00 1.0<br />
more than 4.00 up to and including 6.50 2.0<br />
more than 4.00 up to and including 7.00 4.0<br />
more than 7.00 6.0<br />
Based on the data and information provided by the supervisor. BSP finally decides penalty amount to<br />
the company. But in some case, if the company complains against the statement provided by quality<br />
control supervisor, Biogas Engineer of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP may also revise the case and give his final decision.<br />
After termination of fiscal year, the total penalty and bonus amount per company is calculated.<br />
As revealed by the supervisors, penalty system has been very effective to maintain desired quality of<br />
biogas plants. According to them, the quality of installed biogas plants after the enforcement of<br />
penalty system have been ameliorated. They said that it is also necessary to revise penalty amount<br />
from time to time so that it could give a realistic output in the context of Nepal. Penalty system in the<br />
present context has become a undesirable headache for all the biogas companies The respondents<br />
suggested that all the companies should work with the thinking that the system has been enforced not<br />
to discourage them hut it only tends to build capacity of the companies thereby providing them greater<br />
business opportunity in the future.<br />
6.7 View of Quality Control Supervisors on Sustainability of the Programme<br />
As said, quality control supervisors employed by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP are the key persons for implementing<br />
quality control system regularly. The programme can not be implemented successfully without their<br />
interest in their own job which is generally regulated by their expectation from the job and<br />
achievement actually being acquired Thus their exception from the host institution with regard to<br />
training, observation tour, study tour, workshops, etc has to be explored seriously. In this connection,<br />
the respondents said that they should be provided more technical training in order to make them<br />
capable to solve several challenging technical problems which they may arise in the field. The<br />
interviewed supervisors were found being encouraged by the provision of in-job training to them in<br />
China. They are also of the opinion that such training should be provided on regular basis to all the<br />
newcomers. They were also impressed with comparative study tour of biogas in India and several<br />
trainings in Nepal, All the supervisors, however, were found collectively expecting regular training<br />
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<br />
Sustain ability of Programme<br />
Biogas, which is a multidisciplinary subject, needs strong interlinkage and commitment from all the<br />
relevant institutions in order to make the programme sustainable. Realizing this fact, the quality<br />
control supervisors were asked to express their perception on different inst itutions namely BSP,<br />
AEPC, biogas companies, banks and NGOs to improve the quality of biogas plant.<br />
The respondents are of the opinion that AEPC should concentrate on policy matter. It should create<br />
healthy environment to interlink donor agency {BSP) with HMG. According to them, AEPC should<br />
be initiated to conduct awareness building programme to the users and companies about the need of<br />
quality control. It should make proper policy and support BSP to conduct quality control of biogas<br />
plants.<br />
According to the respondents, BSP or autonomous body should be responsible for the quality control<br />
of biogas plants. It should work under the framework and strategy developed by AEPC. All the<br />
companies should be controlled by it They think that if (his responsibility is provided to other<br />
organizations, the fair atmosphere of conducting quality control of biogas plants as created by BSP<br />
needs to be continued. At the same time, they also acknowledge the fact that only AEPC will be able<br />
to handle the responsibility if BSP after its termination. But there is a need to strengthen AEPC to<br />
enhance its infrastructure, technical, institutional and managerial capabilities.<br />
The respondents feel that biogas companies are the key organizations to make the quality control<br />
system sustainable as they are associated with the construction of plants. Quality of installed biogas<br />
plant basically depends on the performance of such companies. AEPC should develop such strategy<br />
that these companies should be motivated themselves to provide good qua lity services. Moreover,<br />
steps should be taken to eliminate the negative attitude of biogas companies in the quality control and<br />
penalty system. They further added that companies should always concentrate on their capacity<br />
building as more number of them are likely to be established in the future and consequently there will<br />
be more competition.<br />
The respondents were found dissatisfied with the lengthy and cumbersome process of loan and<br />
accessibility to the bank. According to them, one is required spend one to two weeks to fulfill the<br />
formalities of documents as demanded by banks. Moreover, they also pointed out the fund allocated<br />
by the bank is limited where the potential of biogas plants is high and vice versa. Because of this<br />
problem, the farmer is compelle d to spend several days to get touch with the banks for loan<br />
sanctioning. Therefore, they were found suggesting that the concerned bank should be accessible<br />
more at the grass root level.
CHAPTER SEVEN<br />
KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSONS
CHAPTER SEVEN<br />
KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSONS<br />
7.1 Introduction<br />
The existing quality control system of biogas also becoming the concern of biogas companies, biogas<br />
engineers funding agency and other knowledgeable persons this study has attempted to acquire<br />
information from different knowledgeable persons General descriptions of the knowledgeable persons<br />
included in the study are given in Table 7-1.<br />
Table 7-1 General Description of Knowledgeable Persons<br />
S.N. Name Experience of Designation Affiliated Institutions<br />
biogas (years)<br />
1. Kishor Gyawali 16 Executive Chairman Public Biogas and Rural<br />
Development Center<br />
2. Ajoy Karki 5 Civil Engineer Butwa0<br />
3. Suiiil M. Dahal 13 Managing Director Birat Gobar Gas<br />
Company<br />
4. Govind Pd. Devkota 14 Program Manager Nepal Biogas Promotion<br />
Group<br />
5. Laxmi B. Shrestha 3 Civil Engineer Freelancer<br />
6. Nanda R. Vaidya 5 Chief Controller ADB/N - S&C Office<br />
(Ex-GGC Manager)<br />
7. Ram K. Pokhrel 12 Program Manager Local Governance<br />
Programme UNDP (Ex-<br />
GGC Manager)<br />
7.2 Respondents Knowledge on Quality Control and their Perception on it<br />
All of the knowledgeable persons identified for this study were found familiar with the quality control<br />
system enforced by BSP, But their perception regarding the quality control system was found<br />
different. Three of the respondents were found expressing their doubt about the sustainability of the<br />
programme as they consider practical only in the condition when there are limited number of plants<br />
installed by few companies. Two of the respondents have considered the quality control system<br />
adopted by BSP is pragmatic, realistic and sustainable Besides, according to the remaining two<br />
respondents, the system should be more practical and low cost for which there is a need to organize a<br />
forum for quality control which should include manufactures, beneficiaries and policy makers as the<br />
members.<br />
Regarding the respondents view on the standards fixed by the <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP, two of the respondents were<br />
found satisfied with the norms and specifications adopted by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP as the BS P has followed<br />
engineering standards suited to indigenous technology One of the respondents did not answer (his<br />
question, while rest four were found not satisfied with the standards fixed by SNY7 BSP. According<br />
to them, some components of the programme being costly, the penalty amount set forth for the<br />
defaulter plants is too high and making even the second compost pit is a unnecessary burden to the<br />
users.
7.3 Penalty System and Qualify Control of Biogas<br />
Three out of the total interviewed respondents were found supporting the penalty system, while three<br />
of them did not support the system and remaining one found was of the opinion that penalty and<br />
award is one of the tools of the improving work quality and it has helped improve the quality of plants<br />
as there is no other effective system and responsible agency established for the quality control of<br />
biogas plant. According to the views of the respondents who did not support the existing penalty<br />
system, it is not logical that BSP should reimburse the penalty money to the company. Besides, they<br />
were found of the opinion that there is a need to bring psychological change, self motivation and<br />
commitment among the companies. Regarding the suggestion for better alternative against the<br />
existing penalty system, it has been suggested by them that companies having better performance<br />
should be provided more opportunity and BSP. AEPC and NBPG as well as the companies should<br />
work jointly to inspect the plant.<br />
7.4 Respondents' Exposure To foreign Countries' Quality Control System and Their<br />
Expectation from the Companies and Bank<br />
Four respondents out of the seven were found familiar with the quality control system in China. Sri<br />
Lanka, South Korea. India. The Philippines, Thailand etc According to them, farmers of these<br />
countries were found more aware of biogas technology than those of Nepal It was also learnt from the<br />
respondents that follow up and maintenance is poor in Nepal than other countries. In this connection,<br />
it is interesting to note that as per the comparative experie nce on biogas technology in Nepal as well<br />
as in abroad, very expensive plants are installed in Nepal in the name of quality assurance.<br />
With regard to respondents expectation on quality of biogas plant in the context of increasing number<br />
of biogas company, they were found of the opinion that plants quality can be assured only by<br />
upgrading the quality of manufacturing companies. According to them, there should be a fair<br />
competition among the biogas companies and basic minimum standard in plant construction should be<br />
prescribed so that more number of plants would remain in operation with minimum problem.<br />
Apart from these the respondents were also asked how a commercial bank be made effectively<br />
involved in the quality control of biogas. In this connection, they suggested that a minimum parameter<br />
has to be identified for the bank and training should be provided to manpower concerned.<br />
7.5 Role of different Organizations as Suggested by the Respondents on the Quality Control<br />
of Biogas<br />
The respondents has expressed different views regarding the role to be played by different<br />
organization for quality control of biogas. They have been tabulated in Table 7-2.
Table 7-2<br />
Role to Played by Different Organization for Quality Control According to the Respondents<br />
HMG(AEPC) BSP Biogas Companies Banks NGOs<br />
• AEPC can certainly • BSP helped to enhance • Biogas companies has • Bank alone cannot • Biogas plants associated<br />
contribute a lot in biogas use of biogas plant. It has helped to construct biogas improve the quality of with biogas technology<br />
technology by providing promoted the socio- plant for farmers and biogas. and NGO can help to<br />
latest technical know how in economic development of generated employment improve the number of<br />
various countries. rural farmers. opportunity. biogas.<br />
• AEPC should be involved • As BSP phases out the • Companies should • Provide loan and • Promotion and<br />
in policy, issue, subsidy and responsibility should be constructed on distribute subsidy on Extension.<br />
quality control. handed over to AEPC. constructional aspects. behalf of HMGN.<br />
• Need to formulate policy • Facilitate government • Internalization of • To formulate • Company for quality<br />
and guidelines on behalf of companies and research quality control system minimum parameters biogas.<br />
the government on agencies. with in the companies. for quality control.<br />
improving the quality.<br />
• Monitoring and • Supervision. • Good construction. • During loan • Good co-ordination .<br />
Evaluation<br />
processing the client<br />
should be made fully<br />
aware of quality control<br />
system.<br />
• Should conduct aware- • A close linkage should • Companies with poor • The process of • Awareness and<br />
ness programme through maintain with field offices performance should be providing loan should information supply to<br />
mass media, training and of credit support agencies watched and information be made simple. users and concerned<br />
exposure to allied agencies during field visit. be supplied to concerned agency.<br />
regarding quality control.<br />
agency.<br />
• Should supervise the work • To verify whether the • To construct good • To publicize the<br />
of companies, BSP and grant is utilized properly. quality plant. beneficial aspects of<br />
PBG<br />
biogas.
7.6 Suggested Interlinkage Between Different Organizations to Im prove the Quality of<br />
Biogas<br />
As per the information received from the respondents, there is a need for frequent discussions and<br />
exchange of ideas among the organizations involved in biogas in order to avoid unnecessary<br />
duplication. Similarly, it was also suggested by the respondents that the task of quality control should<br />
be performed by NPGB, checked and guided by BSP and HMG/AEPC should be formulate the<br />
required policy. In this connection, importance has also been given on horizontal as well as vertical<br />
linkage between the institutions involved in biogas.<br />
7.7 Appropriate Institution for Conducting Quality Control of Biogas<br />
The respondents were found having distinct views in regard to their suggestion on conducting quality<br />
control of biogas. Table 7-3 provides breakdown on respondents choice of institution for conducting<br />
quality control of biogas.<br />
Table 7-3<br />
Breakdown of the Respondents' Choice: of Institution for<br />
Conducting Quality Control of Biogas<br />
S. No. Name of the Institution Number of Respondents<br />
1. AEPC 1<br />
2. BSP, AEPC&GGC 1<br />
3. NBPG 2<br />
4. AEPC
CHAPTER EIGHT<br />
FUTURE STRUCTURE OF QUALITY<br />
CONTROL OF BIOGAS PLANTS
CHAPTER EIGHT<br />
FUTURE STRUCTURE OF QUALITY CONTROL OF BIOGAS PLANTS<br />
8.1 Introduction<br />
The opinion expressed in this chapter is based upon the viewpoints received from different categories<br />
of the respondents selected for this study. Furthermore, the suggestions from <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP and AEPC<br />
have also been incorporated to complete the study. Thus, this chapter includes view of various<br />
relevant organizations and individuals on existing quality control system and steps to be taken for the<br />
continuation of the system in the future.<br />
In the present context, the quality control system enforced by BSP has been playing a vital role in<br />
maintaining the quality of biogas plants. This can be proved by the rise of quality of plants due to the<br />
enforcement of quality control system. However, the sustainability of the system depends largely<br />
upon its modification and revision in function of time and situation. Therefore, quality control system<br />
is also a subject of continuous revision so that it would be applicable in future too when more number<br />
of private companies will be established, more numbers of biogas will be installed and more<br />
organizations and individuals will be involved in biogas sector.<br />
The another fact to be realized is the negative psychological feeling that has been developed amongst<br />
the companies due to the enforcement of the quality control system. This sort of psychology, if<br />
allowed to continue for long run, can have serious impact on the quality of biogas plants even<br />
resulting into total failure of the programme.<br />
Among other factors, quality of installed biogas plant is related to the construction and aftersales<br />
services provided by the company. Good quality construction can not be achieved until the company<br />
is motivated towards it. Undue harassment to the companies always give worse result. In such a<br />
contrasting situation, proper strategy should be developed to improve the psychology of the<br />
companies so that they can themselves be conscious about the quality of biogas plants. Fair<br />
environment of competition among the companies should be worked out. In the context of Nepal, in<br />
addition to the technical and institutional aspects, social aspects has also to be taken into account<br />
while formulating strategy regarding quality control and the formulated strategy should be mutually<br />
agreed upon by all the concerned actors.<br />
As suggested by most of the respondents, in case of the termination of BSP's third phase, AEPC<br />
should be prepared technically, institutionally, managerially, materially and financially to continue the<br />
job that is being handled by BSP. Association of more or less established institutions like Nepal<br />
Biogas Promotional Group (NBPG) or GGC or other bigger companies with AEPC seems favorable<br />
for quality control.<br />
8.2 Present Structure of Quality Control of Biogas Plants<br />
According to <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP, the present quality control system enforced by it has been developed after a<br />
long experiment and practice in the context of Nepal. Therefore, the system itself is a unique and<br />
complete. The system is being revised from time to time and reviewed every year to update it. It is<br />
quite essential to continue the discussion with the appropriate actors and professionals to seek their<br />
opinion. Quality of biogas plants is essential to ensure life and efficiency of biogas plants while<br />
safeguarding the benefit to the users.
In the present context, the companies arc held responsible for quality of biogas plants as construction<br />
takes place as per their advice, instruction and support. Furthermore, as the companies have already<br />
signed an agreement with BSP with full commitment to ensure the quality of the plants, it is quite<br />
necessary for them to develop a positive and constructive thinking by nil towards the quality aspects.<br />
It has been further added that the existing penalty system is one of the most effective tools to control<br />
the companies, but it alone can not meet the entire objective of the quality control system. Therefore,<br />
BSP has combined th is with other activities like on-site training to company's staff,<br />
discussion/communication at various stages reporting with feedback to companies, follow<br />
up/continuous monitoring and training especially to the poor performing companies etc. Besides, BSP<br />
provides orientation to each new company to monitor their activities closely and supports them.<br />
However BSP has recently decided not to recognize any new company in future (at least for next<br />
fiscal year)<br />
Decentralization of the whole activities and generation of domestic resources for the system is one of<br />
the most important steps to be adopted to make the existing system more realistic and practical in<br />
future. For the betterment of the system, the followings points were suggested:<br />
• Realizing the importance of the quality in the present context, the companies should be more<br />
conscious in the future<br />
• A campaign should be launched to make the users aware of the technology and to empower<br />
them for their rights<br />
The organizational structure of existing quality control mechanism has been presented in Figure 8.1.<br />
In the existing quality control system. <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP has been acting as a sole organization for enforcing<br />
quality control activities. In the present organizational infrastructure for quality control, under the<br />
direction of the Programme Manager of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP, a Biogas Engineer is responsible for implementing<br />
quality control of biogas plants by mobilizing the quality control supervisors. As said earlier, there are<br />
1 1 quality control supervisors recruited by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP for inspecting the installed plants selected on<br />
the basis of random sampling. The size of the sample is determined hy BSP considering the quality of<br />
plant construction (sample size will be higher if the quality isn't satisfactory), performance of the<br />
company in the previous year, experience of the company and the total number of plants constructed<br />
(the lower the total number of plants higher the sample size). The sample includes both plants in use<br />
(filled plants) and plants under construction (non filled plants) On the basis of inspection carried out<br />
in the presence of company's representative, the quality control supervisor forwards his inspection<br />
report to BSP- The amount of penalty as well as bonus will be determined in accordance to the<br />
inspection report submitted by quality control supervisors. In the existing system, companies are<br />
responsible for construction of plants and providing aftersales services, maintenance and repair.
Figure 8. 1<br />
Existing Organizational Structure of<br />
Quality Control of Biogas Plants<br />
8.3 Future Structure of Quality Control<br />
Two models have been proposed for future structure of quality control of biogas plants: one for<br />
execution before expiry of BSP and the other after expiry of BSP. They are described in detail as<br />
follows:<br />
8.3.1 Future Structure Before Expiry of BSP<br />
As explained earlier, quality control of biogas plants is being conducted by BSP. A full fledged<br />
Government organization. Alternative Energy Promotion Centre under the Ministry of Science and<br />
Technology has been established in Nepal in 19% with objectives of handling overall activities<br />
regarding renewable energy including biogas sector. If (he responsibility of quality control is<br />
transferred to AHPC by BSP even before the end of its third phase programme, continuation of the<br />
quality control programme during this transitional period will be a subject of concern to all those<br />
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<br />
some other actors (biogas companies) have recommended GGC ns an appropriate institution for<br />
conducting the quality control as the GGC seems to be well experienced biogas company. Similarly,<br />
some other actors including biogas companies and some knowledgeable persons expressed that Nepal<br />
Biogas Promotion Group (NBPG) would be the most appropriate institution for this purpose<br />
A majority of the respondents have been found referring ARPC to conduct the quality control. Some<br />
of them (most of the knowledgeable persons) have opinion that it is favorable for AEPC to be<br />
associated with NBPG. This seems to be most effective alternative among all because of the reason<br />
that AEPC, being newly established government institution, can receive technical, institutional and<br />
other supports from NBPG, which is now lacking with AEP.C On the basis these recommendations,<br />
the organizational structure has been suggested for conducting the quality control in this transitional<br />
period has been suggested in Figure 8.2.<br />
Figure 8.2<br />
Proposed Organizational Structure of<br />
Quality Control Before Expiry of BSP
8.3.2 Future Structure of After Expiry of BSP<br />
It has already been explained that AEPC in the coming few years will be occupied in its capability<br />
building. By and large, it will be capable of undertaking and controlling the entire responsibilities of<br />
quality control of biogas plants within a year or two AEPC expressed two major options that might be<br />
possible in future after expiry of BSP's third phase programme to conduct the quality control of biogas<br />
plants.<br />
i) In case if AEPC will handle the whole tasks with assistance of some other organizations, the<br />
work of quality control will totally be responsibilities of AEPC.<br />
ii)<br />
In case of involvement of number of organizations in the work. AEPC will monitor them and<br />
evaluate their performance.<br />
The Biogas Engineer of AEPC expressed that both the options seem equally valid for the future<br />
structure of quality control and choice of one among them will depend upon situations and<br />
practicability of the process. AEPC will undertake the responsibilities by the end of FY 1998/99 and<br />
before expiry of third phase of BSP, it will be well capable to completely handle the responsibilities<br />
of quality control.<br />
As suggested. AEPC alone can not undertake the entire responsibilities without getting support from<br />
reliable institutions. In this connection, it was suggested that it would be favorable for AEPC to work<br />
in close collaboration with Nepal Bureau of Standards and Measurement (NBSM) and Nepal Biogas<br />
Promotion Group (NBPG). Based on the above recommendation, a possible organizational structure<br />
(chart) to conduct the activities after termination of BSP's third phase programme has been proposed<br />
in Figure 8.3<br />
Figure 8.3<br />
Proposed Organizational Structure of Quality<br />
Control of Biogas Plants After Expiry of BSP
CHAPTER NINE<br />
SUGGESTIONS
CHAPTER NINE<br />
SUGGESTIONS<br />
9.1 SUGGESTIONS<br />
Based upon the findings of this study, following suggestions have been put forth by the study team to<br />
all relevant actors, namely AEPC, BSP, Biogas Companies and Commercial Banks:<br />
9.1.1 Suggestions to AEPC<br />
• AEPC' as a full fledged government organization to oversee the biogas technology<br />
should be involved in policy matter, subsidies, quality control of biogas plants, elc.<br />
• It should provide favorable atmosphere to all concerned parties so that they will be<br />
motivated themselves to maintain the quality of biogas plants.<br />
• It should raise necessary resources and fund to conduct the job.<br />
• It should strengthen capacity building of private sector and NGOs involved in biogas.<br />
• Subsidy amount should be increased.<br />
• Subsidy should be provided to the fanners according to their economical conditio n.<br />
• Priority should be given to small fanners.<br />
• Guarantee period on biogas should be increased<br />
• AEPC should initiate research and study related conducting quality control aspects of<br />
biogas.<br />
• It should conduct managerial training to the companies to enhance the jobs of quality<br />
control supervisors.<br />
9.1.2 Suggestions to BSP<br />
• Some of the standards fixed by BSP are superfluous and need to be omitted, while<br />
some ones should be revised. For example, instead of penalizing the company for not<br />
digging the compost pits by the users, awareness creating programme should be<br />
launched.<br />
• As suggested by the quality control supervisors, daily feeding of biodigester should<br />
be added as an additional standard.<br />
• It has been found that more than half of the plants are tinder fed. Therefore, the size<br />
of the plants should be fixed on the basis of amount of dung available daily rather<br />
than the number of family members.<br />
• BSP should pay due attention to provide equal opportunity of supports to all the<br />
companies.<br />
• Visit of quality control supervisors to all companies should be carried out in<br />
routinewise manner. To enhance the capability of the quality control supervisors. BSP<br />
should conduct training and arrange study and observation tour regularly and in<br />
routinewise manner<br />
• To carry out quality control more effectively and efficiently, the number of quality<br />
control supervisors should be increased and also the number of sampled plants should<br />
also be increased.<br />
• A mason should not be provided with responsibility of installing too many plants at a<br />
time. It seems reasonable for an experienced mason to construct three plants per<br />
month.<br />
• As only 18 percent of the users are aware of the quality control system enforced by<br />
BSP. it is essential to make all the users aware of its activities and the quality control<br />
system enforced by it This will enable them to deal confidently with the agencies with<br />
regard to O & M problems of the plants.
• Orientation training programme should be provided to the users to upgrade their<br />
knowledge in biogas technology<br />
• Training should be provided to the local masons.<br />
• Biogas appliances should be made easily available in the market.<br />
• Low biogas plant should be evolved.<br />
• As only 50 percent of the users are receiving information regarding O & M and repair<br />
of biogas plants, policy .should be made so that all users should get information. This<br />
will help them tackle many common problems which occur frequently in the<br />
installed plants.<br />
9.1.3 Suggestions to Biogas Companies<br />
• The companies should avoid tendency of lingering on to solve major or min or<br />
problems being faced by the users.<br />
• They should recruit more number of trained staffs to enhance their technical<br />
capability and should also concentrate on their proper mobilization.<br />
• They are suggested to develop the attitude for realizing their faults. They should<br />
acknowledge the fads that improvement in quality of biogas plant will enhance the<br />
demand of biogas plants and hence, they will be provided with bigger market in the<br />
future.<br />
• They are suggested not to misplace the important document: provided by BSP and<br />
they should properly use the promotional leaflets provided by BSP<br />
• They should open a small branch office at strategic places (where a company has<br />
constructed many plants) to help the users make accessible for the required services.<br />
• The companies should cooperate with quality control supervisors and should avoid to<br />
create unnecessary pressure on them to enable them to accomplish their work<br />
properly. They should be aware of the fact that quality control supervisors are<br />
working to assist them to help increase quality of the installed biogas plants thereby<br />
increasing demand of plants and providing bigger and easier market for them.<br />
• Altitude of making profit by using inferior construct ion materials should be avoided.<br />
• Due attention has to be given about the use of construction materials. If new materials<br />
are to be explored, it should be approved technically by BSP.<br />
• Biogas users generally complain about company's negligence of the after sales<br />
service. To attract more perspective users and maintain the quality of installed plants,<br />
all companies should improve their after sales services.<br />
• To increase the performance of the biogas plants, the company should use only the<br />
well trained masons.<br />
9.1.4 Suggestions to Commercial Banks<br />
• Infrastructural arrangement of the concerned banks to oversee- the biogas activities<br />
should be improved. Thus, it is suggested that a separate section with proper<br />
resources and manpower should be established at each concerned bank to deal with<br />
biogas.<br />
• All field supervisors of banks should be properly trained to acquire sufficient<br />
knowledge about biogas technology.<br />
• The lengthy and cumbersome process of loan sanctioning by the bank should be<br />
simplified to avoid psychological harassment to the users.<br />
• Banks should fully strengthen their infrastructure so that they could<br />
evaluate themselves all the aspects of biogas technology without relying much on<br />
support of other organizations<br />
• Field office of the banks should be established in accordance with the demand, as it<br />
has been found that in several where the demand on biogas plant is high, no bank<br />
service is available.<br />
• To minimize the problem of overfeeding of the plants, the number of cattle possessed<br />
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<br />
biogas users.<br />
• Frequent communication among the banks and other relevant actors is needed.<br />
9.1.5 Suggestions on the Standards of Quality Control<br />
The suggestions put forth by the companies, knowledgeable persons and quality control supervisors<br />
on the standards of quality control fixed by BSP have been presented in Table 9-1.<br />
Table 9-! Respondents' Suggestion on the Standards or Qualify Control<br />
Respondents Standard to be omitted Standard to be revised Standard to be added<br />
1. Companies • Avoid one and same<br />
defaults and<br />
proportionate<br />
penalty on same part<br />
item<br />
• 2 nos of compost pit<br />
• Backfilling of dome<br />
• Instruction booklet<br />
• Dome should be of<br />
RCC<br />
• All the brickworks or<br />
wall should be of<br />
minimum 10"<br />
2. Knowledgeable<br />
persons<br />
3. Quality Control<br />
Supervisors<br />
• Size of plant in<br />
accordance in the<br />
availability of dung<br />
(st. 6)<br />
• Operation of drain<br />
(st. 72)<br />
• Toilet attachment • Addition of such a<br />
standard which can<br />
support the loss of<br />
farmers due to bad<br />
quality plants<br />
• Standard regarding<br />
dimension of outlet. Once<br />
length, breadth and height<br />
is considered, no need to<br />
consider volume of the<br />
outlet (St. .15. 36. 37. 38)<br />
• Over sized plant should be<br />
subjected to penalty (st. 6)<br />
• Standard regarding<br />
compost pits<br />
• Standard regarding<br />
compost pits<br />
• Standard regarding toilet<br />
attachment<br />
• Standard should be<br />
fixed to avoid the<br />
deposition of inert<br />
materials in digester<br />
bed which can<br />
decreases the capacity<br />
of the digester in the<br />
long rum.<br />
• Standard should be<br />
fixed for structural<br />
breakdown and<br />
cracking within the<br />
guarantee period<br />
• Standard should be<br />
added to involve the<br />
users on quality<br />
control<br />
• "Daily feeding" should<br />
be added as an new<br />
standard
Page 1 of 1<br />
REFERENCES<br />
1. Agriculture Development Bank (1986) Impact Study of Biogas Installation in Nepal. ADB/N,<br />
Kathmandu, Nepal<br />
2. Agriculture Development Hank (1988) A case study on Biogas Plants. ADB/N, Kathmandu.<br />
Nepal<br />
3. Gajurel, O. P., W. J. van Nes and B, Neupane (1994) Survey 1990-1991 on Biogas Plants.<br />
GGC, Butwal, Nepal.<br />
4. Gautam K. M. (19%) Country Paper on Biogas in Nepal. Consolidated Management Services<br />
Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
5. Karki A.B., KM. Gautam and S.R. Joshi (1993) Present Structure of Biogas Sector in Nepal.<br />
Submitted to <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP by Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
6. Karki et al (1996) Biogas Technology: A Training Manual for Extension. Submitted to FAO<br />
by Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
7. Karki A.B. and KM. Gautam (1997) Biogas Promotion Manual (in Nepali). Submitted to<br />
BSP/<strong>SNV</strong> by Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
8. Khandelwal, K.C. and S.S Madhi (1989) Biogas Technology - A Practical Handbook,<br />
Mcgraw -Hill Office, New Delhi India<br />
9. Lam, J. and W.J. van Nes (1994) Enforcement of Quality" Standards upon Biogas Plants in<br />
Nepal. Biogas Forum Vol. 2, No 57.
APPENDIX I<br />
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Appendix-I<br />
Page 1 of 4<br />
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR<br />
SUSTAINABLE APPROACH ON QUALITY CONTROL OF BIOGAS PLANTS<br />
1. INTRODUCTION<br />
With the concerted efforts of various actors involved in biogas development programme, by now a total of about<br />
42.000 biogas plants have been successfully established in Nepal. The activities of Biogas Support Programme<br />
(BSP) under the Netherlands Development Organization (<strong>SNV</strong>-Nepal) for implementing (lie Biogas Support<br />
Programme in co-operation with Agriculture Development Bank Nepal (ADB/N). Nepal Bank Limited (NBL).<br />
Rastriya Banijya Bank (RBB) and recognised private biogas companies have been found to be very effective.<br />
Furthermore, in continuation of the BSP Phase I and Phase II, a total of 100,000 plants are targeted to be<br />
commissioned in Nepal from the Fiscal Year 1996/97 to 2001/02.<br />
Among other activities, BSP emphasises training and quality control measures as a means for promoting the<br />
technology and building on the national capability at all levels. In fact, biogas system can not function properly<br />
until due attention is paid not only towards desired quality of the construction works but also maintenance and<br />
operation of the installed plants and after-sales -services. Quality control of the installed biogas plant is a major<br />
concern of all those involved in biogas promotional activities. Thus, as a result of enforcing quality control,<br />
conducting various (raining aimed for different target groups and earning out effective monitoring and<br />
evaluation (M & E) of the programme, more than 90 percent of the installed biogas plants arc in good operative<br />
conditions. This high rate of success is taken for a period when most of the plants were of GGC design<br />
constructed by a single company (GGC). Thus. Nepal moved from a "Single-Agency, Single Model" to "Multi-<br />
Agency. Multi-Model" approach lo biogas development in the country. This change favoured the strategy for<br />
rapid realisation of the potential bill also created a greater concern for maintaining a high rate of successful<br />
plants attained in the past Therefore, qualify control and quality assurance has become a subject of concern to all<br />
institutions involved in the biogas sector.<br />
The decision for adoption of biogas technology is made at the household level. A majority of families in Nepal<br />
are still not aware of the technology. Only a few of them have developed interest in it and still fewer arc actually<br />
ready to adopt it. A well functioning plant with satisfied users, which is a pre-requisite for its adoption, is the<br />
only reliable means lo develop and maintain people's confidence in the technology.<br />
Poorly installed biogas plants result in inefficiency and mal-functioning systems which lead to capital loss.<br />
frustration among owners, promoters and the donors as well This will also damage the reputation of biogas<br />
technology causing negative impact on its adoption The only precaution to take against such a possibility is to<br />
ensure that the desired quality is maintained for each plant that is constructed.<br />
1.1 The Need for Quality Control<br />
In the early years of 1990s, the biogas sector of Nepal witnessed (a) sharp rise in the demand of biogas plants,<br />
mainly augmented by new subsidy policy, (b) emergence of more than 20 new biogas companies with varying<br />
degree of technical capability and institutional strength as a result of the government privatization policy, (c)<br />
growing interest of NGOs. banks and other organizations to gel involved in the promotion of biogas technology,<br />
and (d) implementation of a comprehensive biogas programme with long term vision, i.e.. BSP phases I. II and<br />
111 (BSP. 1992; dc Castro. et al 1994: BSP. 19%).<br />
Till now, Nepal does not have any government agency with the mandate and capability to implement<br />
programmes for controlling the quality of plant construction and use of standard biogas appliances. It is in this<br />
context that BSP Phase II developed programmes and procedures for quality control and started the<br />
implementation procedure. However, with the establishment of Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC). it<br />
is envisioned that qualify control of biogas will be taken care by this centre in the future.<br />
1.2 Development of a System for Quality Control<br />
BSP has devised 66 parameters for ensuring the quality of plant construction and its proper functioning (Lam<br />
and van Nes. 1994). Presently, with the addition of 7 more parameters, the total number has reached to 73.<br />
These parameters arc grouped into three categories. Any plant that fails to meet the stated parameters in
Appendix-I<br />
Page 2 of 4<br />
category 1 is not provided subsidy Failure to meet specifications of category 2 requires the biogas company to<br />
pay a penalty to BSP in addition to correcting the faults without any additional fee to the user. The concerned<br />
company is warned not to repeat the mistake for failure to comply with requirements of category 3 parameters.<br />
1.3 Enforcement of Quality Control Measures<br />
The quality control system consists of four steps; Agreement on standards, agreement on penalties, control visits<br />
and calculation of the total penalty payment as described briefly below.<br />
1.3.1 Agreement on Standards<br />
All companies and banks involved in the HSP implementation have to agree on the parameters, their<br />
classification and definitions as fixed by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP. This is a prerequisite for a biogas company to get involved<br />
in the construction of biogas plants un der BSP. These parameters and their classification can be revised in<br />
agreement with all agencies involved in (lie programme.<br />
1.3.2 Agreement on Penalties<br />
All companies and banks involved in RSP implementation have to agree on the penalty system designed to<br />
enforce the quality standards. The penalty amount for different categories of defaults or failure to maintain the<br />
quality arc given in Annex II.<br />
1.3.3 Control Visits<br />
Control of the quality lakes place on the basis of random sampling of approximately 5 percent of all biogas<br />
plants installed by GGC. The sample includes both plants in operation (filled plants) as well as plants under<br />
construction (non-filled plants), The control is structured with the help of questionnaire.<br />
1.3.4 Calculation of the Total Penalty Amount<br />
The total penalty amount to be a home by Biogas Companies is calculated by multiplying the penalty amount of<br />
the sample per field office with the so called "population factor" The sample results are then be<br />
representative for all biogas plants constructed b\ the field office of biogas companies.<br />
2. OBJECTIVES<br />
As a result of the government policy to encourage private sector participation in biogas programme in Nepal. the<br />
quality ensurance has become indispensable. Hence, the overall objective of the study is to formulate an<br />
appropriate, practicable and sustainable strategy for the quality control of biogas plant, taking into consideration<br />
the viewpoints of owners (fanners), donors (BSP) and the constructors (private biogas companies). The scope of<br />
the study is far wider However, the specific objectives of the study are as follows;<br />
• To identify the effectivity. efficiency of the existing system of quality control of biogas plants as<br />
provided by BSP<br />
• To identify the extent of acceptance of the system of quality control<br />
• To suggest AEPC for the improvement and modification of the existing BSP system of the quality<br />
control and<br />
• To formulaic a long-terms sustainable strategy for proper quality control of the biogas system.<br />
3. EXPECTED OUTPUT<br />
The output of the study will be an appropriate, sustainable and long-term strategy of the quality control system<br />
of biogas plants. The study will highlight the existing drawbacks regarding penalty system, management of the
Appendix-I<br />
Page 3 of 4<br />
private companies, level of their technicality etc. Furthermore, the study will confirm if the penalty system is<br />
lending lo unmanageable problems with regard lo administration and cost or not and identify the extent lo which<br />
the .system has discoursed the repetition of defaults. Besides the study will decide to which extent the<br />
improvement on the maintenance and after-sales-services will be required to improve the quality of biogas<br />
programme.<br />
4. METHODOLOGY<br />
4.1 Desk Study<br />
This phase includes the following activities:<br />
• Review of Literature: As much as possible detailed information will be collected by reviewing all the<br />
published and non-published literature.<br />
• Formulation of Questionnaire: Structured questionnaire and checklists will be used as the tools of the<br />
study. The ques tionnaire and checklists will be formulated on the basis of information and data<br />
collected during the phase of desk study.<br />
The questionnaire will necessarily consist of following:<br />
- Present status of biogas plants<br />
- Basic defaults, that occur frequently and way of their maintenance<br />
- Views of different concerning panics (biogas owners, biogas companies, banks, knowledgeable biogas<br />
experts, etc.) towards the system of quality control, extent of their acceptance<br />
- Suggestion of concerning parties for the betterment of the quality control system.<br />
The questionnaire will be pretested before use. Furthermore, detailed plan for field visit will be prepared during<br />
desk study phase. After completion of the desk study, a brief inception report will be submitted to AEPC.<br />
4.2 Field Visit<br />
Following procedures will be adopted lo gather relevant data from the fields.<br />
4.2.1 Interview with Biogas Companies and Commercial Banks<br />
Until now, a total of 40 biogas companies have been engaged in the construction of biogas plants in Nepal. Out<br />
of 40 companies, altogether, 10 biogas companies located in different districts namely Morang, Jhapa. Sunsari.<br />
Nuwakot, Makwanpur and Kathmandu will he selected for interview by administrating structured questionnaire.<br />
Similarly, all the three commer cial banks involved in financing biogas plants (e.g. ADB/N. NBL. RBB) will be<br />
contacted for getting their opinions to make the quality control measures more effective, efficient and<br />
sustainable. Furthermore, meeting and discussions will be held with different relevant agencies and individuals<br />
to get their opinions with regard. In the sustainability of quality control of biogas plants.<br />
4.2.2 Interview with Biogas Users<br />
The selected biogas companies (10) will be consulted lo provide the list of biogas users. Five biogas users from<br />
each of the biogas companies will be randomly selected by the Consultant lo administer the questionnaire.<br />
Altogether 50 biogas users randomly selected from amongst the aforesaid (en companies (i.e. at the rate of five<br />
users per company) will be interviewed. Furthermore, a brief observation of the plants wilt also be made and<br />
noted down.
Appendix-I<br />
Page 4 of 4<br />
4.2.3 Interview with Quality Control Supervisors<br />
To date, 11 quality control supervisors have been employed by BSP/<strong>SNV</strong>-Nepal lo perform quality control of<br />
the installed biogas plants. Out of the 11 supervisors, three will be selected for interview. Similarly, the<br />
viewpoints of the Programme Manager and Biogas Engineer of <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP on quality control of biogas plants<br />
will also be recorded for this study.<br />
4.3 Tabulation and Analysis of Data<br />
All information collected in the field including secondary data will be verified, analysed and compiled in the<br />
form of draft report.<br />
4.4 Reporting<br />
After completion of tabulation and analysis of data, two copies of draft report will be submitted lo AEPC to<br />
receive comments and suggestions. Comments on the draft report will be provided by AEPC within 10 days of<br />
the submission of the report. Two copies of the final report will be submitted to AEPC after incorporating the<br />
comments and suggestions on draft report along with loose leaf copy (original) to enable AEPC lo multiply the<br />
report.<br />
5. WORK SCHEDULE<br />
According to the Work Schedule, the project is planned to be implemented from 21 April 1998 through 30 June<br />
1998.<br />
6. HUMAN RESOURCES<br />
The study will be conducted with the help of experienced team who has successfully carried out similar work in<br />
the past. Their brief resume of the work is given below:<br />
Dr. Amrit B. Karki: Dr. Karki: has completed several assignments on biogas in Nepal and abroad. He has<br />
produced number of manuals for BSP and FAO, has written a field book on biogas and has led International<br />
Biogas Training Course held in Chaina. He has trained masons and has supervised the construction of more than<br />
one hundred unit of biogas plants in ah road and Nepal. The study team will be led and guided by Dr. Amrit B.<br />
Katki as Project Co-ordinator.<br />
Mr. Pravin K. Ghimire: Mr. Ghimire who holds the degree of Master of Science in Engineering from Moscow<br />
State University of Environment Engineering has worked in different aspects of civil engineering. In connection<br />
of execution of the projects, he has performed rate analysis and detailed calculation of the material costs<br />
required for construction of building, canals, etc. He has conducted informant survey, interview with farmers<br />
and economic analysis. He has supervised the masonry work and prepared report. He has been working as<br />
Quality Control Engineer in UNHCR project "installation of Community-Latrine-cum-Biodigeser at Ward No. 1<br />
of Pathari VDC in Morang district of Nepal. Thus, considering his background and inputs. Mr. Ghimire has<br />
been proposed as Quality Control Engineer ( Deputy Project Coordinator) in this team.<br />
Mr. Sachin Upadhya: Mr. Upadhya holds Master Degree in Rural Sociology. He possesses more than 15 years'<br />
work experience in the subject of Renewable Energy Resources (Biogas and Solid Waste Management. Micro<br />
hydropower). Primary Heath Care. Environment Impact Assessment. HIV/Aids and Sexually Transmitted<br />
Disease. Flood and Land Slides, and Women in Development. He has been proposed for the post of Research<br />
Associate in this project.<br />
7. BUDGET<br />
A sum of NRs 299.750 will be incurred to complete the activities envisaged in this proposal.
APPENDIX II<br />
MODEL OF QUESTIONAIRE
Appendix -II<br />
Page 4 of 4<br />
QUESTIONNAIRE A<br />
Biogas users<br />
Farmer's Name:<br />
Mr./Mrs./Miss<br />
Age:<br />
No. of family members:<br />
District: VDC: Ward:<br />
1. How old is your plant (when it was installed)?<br />
.................................................................<br />
2. What is the capacity of your plan?<br />
................................. m 3<br />
3. Who constructed the plant (company's name)?<br />
…………………………………………………<br />
1. How long did it take to construct the plant?<br />
………………………………………………..<br />
1. How often problems occur in your plant?<br />
………………………………………………….<br />
2. What are the most common problems in your plant? ?<br />
a) .................................................... d)................................................. .<br />
b)..................................................... c).................................................<br />
c).................................................... 0.................................................<br />
3. Who solves the problems?<br />
company/yourself/family member/ other<br />
4. For which purpose the gas is used?<br />
a) cooking [ ]<br />
b) lighting [ ]<br />
c) cooking and lighting [ ]<br />
5. Is gas enough for cooking?<br />
Yes No<br />
[ ] [ ]
Appendix -II<br />
Page 2 of 4<br />
6. How often do you have to change:<br />
a) Burner ...................................<br />
b) Lamps/1 amp cover ...................................<br />
c) Main gas valve ...................................<br />
d) Pipe filling ...................................<br />
e) Other parts ...................................<br />
7. Which part of the equipment/accessories wears out first?<br />
a) Burner [ ]<br />
b) Lamps/lamp cover [ ]<br />
c) Main gas valve [ ]<br />
d) Pipe fitting [ ]<br />
e) Other parts [ ]<br />
8. What are the main problems faced in the maintenance of biodigester?<br />
a) .......................................................... d) ..........................................................<br />
b)........................................................... e)...........................................................<br />
c)..........................................................<br />
1 Don't you think that gas released is not sufficient with respect to the capacity of your plant?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
-If yes, give the reason ..................................................................................................<br />
-If no, give the reason ..................................................................................................<br />
2. Do you think that there might he defects on your plant which aren't familiar to you and you arc in<br />
need of technical help?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
1. In case of difficulty faced in the operation of the plant, have you approached the<br />
concerned biogas company?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
2. Has the company technician visited your plant which after the construction phase ?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
3. If so how many times? ..........................................................<br />
4. If repairs were done in your plant, what were they ?<br />
a)................................................................ d)........................................................<br />
b)................................................................ e) ..........................................................<br />
c)................................................................
Appendix -II<br />
Page 3 of 4<br />
5. Did the company give you operation and maintenance instructions and handout on training<br />
after the construction of the plant ?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
6. What do you think about the status of your biogas plant?<br />
a. Working very satisfactory [ ]<br />
b. Working satisfactory [ ]<br />
c. Not working satisfactory . [ ]<br />
7. What might be the reason if the plant is not working satisfactory?<br />
a) ........................................................... d)................. .......................................<br />
b)........................................................... e) ..........................................................<br />
c)...........................................................<br />
1. Did the BSP's Quality Control supervisor visited your plant?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
- If yes how often they visited your plant ?.................................................................<br />
- Do you think t hat they solved your problems effectively?.......................................<br />
3. Are you aware of the BSP quality control system?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
- If no what is the reason?<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
- If yes what is your reaction towards the system ?<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
3. Who in your opinion should bear the responsibilities for the quality control of your plant and<br />
why ?<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
3. In your opinion what needs to be done to further improve the quality of your plant ?<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
4. What is your suggestion to the<br />
a) Biogas Companies<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Appendix -II<br />
Page 4 of 4<br />
b) BSP<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
c) ARPC<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
5. Do you have any further comments?<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
Name of Interviewer: Date: ..../..../1998<br />
Contact Address<br />
Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
CMS House Meen Bhawan<br />
P.O. Box 10872, Kathmandu<br />
Tel: 977-1 -482201, Fax 977-1-482008
Questionnaire B<br />
Biogas Companies<br />
Appendix-II<br />
Page 1 of 4<br />
Name of the company: ......................................................................................<br />
Address: ......................................................................................<br />
Year of establishment: ......................................................................................<br />
Name of Manager: ......................................................................................<br />
Number of the staffs involved. ......................................................................................<br />
Name and post of the interviewee: ......................................................................................<br />
1. What is the number of biogas plants installed by your company until this date?<br />
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….<br />
2. Do you take frequent inquiry/visit on those plants?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
3. Mow many of the installed plants are successfully functioning? (in percentage………………)<br />
4. If there are non functioning plants, then what might be the reason for that?<br />
a) .................................. d)..........................................<br />
b)..........................................<br />
e)..........................................<br />
c)..........................................<br />
f)..........................................<br />
5. How seriously are you undertaking operation and maintenance of those plants ?<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
6. Do the users call you frequently?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
7. Do you visit them at their demand?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
8. Have you maintained routine visit to the user s?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
-If yes at what interval ? .........................<br />
9. What kind of most common problems you have encountered in the installed biogas plant?<br />
a) ......................................... d)..........................................<br />
b).......................................... e) ..........................................<br />
e) .......................................... f) .........................................<br />
10. Do you have idea to overcome such problems?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
-If yes what are they?<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Appendix-II<br />
Page2 of 4<br />
11. Do you think the extent of your technicality can fulfill the desired quality of biogas plant?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
-If yes. give the reason<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
-If no, give the reason<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
12. How many of your staffs have been trained on the biogas technology ? ...................................................<br />
13. Who supervise the construction works of the plant ?<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
14. What is your opinion towards the quality of materials used for the construction of biogas<br />
plant ?<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
15. Do you think that the quality of materials can be increased to improve the quality of plants?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
-if yes. how it could be possible ?<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
16. Do you think that the design of the biogas plant should lie changed to ensure quality and performance<br />
of biogas plants?<br />
-If yes what would be the new concept?<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
17. Do you have any comments and suggestions on the HSP standards as regards to the quality of<br />
biogas plants ?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
-If yes what are they ?<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
18. What is your opinion about the 66 standards fixed by RSP on Quality control?<br />
-More numbers are required such as<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
- Some of them are superfluous such as<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
………………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
- They cover all aspects of quality control [ ]
Appendix-II<br />
Page 3 of 4<br />
19. Did BSP's quality control supervisor visit your company?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
If yes, how many times?..............................................................................................................................<br />
for what purpose?..........................................................................................................................................<br />
20. What kind of support did you gel from RSP for the improvement of quality of biogas plants?<br />
Technical [ ]<br />
Financial [ ]<br />
Institutional [ ]<br />
Managerial [ ]<br />
Other (specify) [ ] .....................................................................................................<br />
Not at all [ ]<br />
2 I. Are you satisfied with t he penalty categories enforced by BSP?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
-If no. give the reason<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
22. Does the penalty system help to improve quality?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
- If yes. give the reason<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
- If no. give the reason<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
23. Is there a better alternative?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
- If yes, what are they?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
24. Has your company been given any penalty?<br />
If yes, what were the common faults?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
- How many times?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
-What were the categories?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
-What was the penalty amount paid by your company in the last two fiscal year?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
25. How can the quality control system of biogas plant be made more realistic, practical and sustainable?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................
Appendix-II<br />
Page 4 of 4<br />
26. What is your suggestion lo BSP regarding quality control of biogas plant?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
27. What should be the appropriate institution for conducting quality control of biogas plants?<br />
a) BSP [ ]<br />
b) AEPC [ ]<br />
c) Other [ ] (specify )<br />
................................................................................................................<br />
28. Do you have any further comments?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
-If yes, what are they?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Name of Interviewer :<br />
Date : ..../……/1998<br />
Contact Address<br />
Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
CMS House Meen Bhawan<br />
P.O. Box 10872, Kathmandu<br />
Tel : 977-1-482201; Fax : 977-l-482008
Questionnaire C<br />
Commercial Banks<br />
APPENDIX-II<br />
Page 1 of 3<br />
Name of the Bank ...............................................................................................................................<br />
Address<br />
Name and post of Interviewee .....................................................................................................................................<br />
1. Do you have any individual division in your hank to deal with biogas related activities?<br />
If yes,<br />
When it was formed?<br />
What is the number of staff invoked? ...............................................................................................<br />
2. Is any of your staffs trained on biogas technology?<br />
If yes,<br />
What is his post?<br />
…………………………………………………………<br />
3. Who is responsible for the observation and supervision in the field before the loan agreement has to be<br />
signed? Is he trained on biogas technology?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
4. Who is responsible for the final permission of the loan?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
5. What is the interest rate of the loan provided for biogas related activities?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
6. When did your bank start financing biogas plants?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
7. For what number of biogas plants your bank has provided loan in the last fiscal year?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
8. What is the district-wise number of these biogas plants?<br />
district<br />
number of plants<br />
……………<br />
…………………<br />
……………<br />
…………………<br />
……………<br />
…………………<br />
……………<br />
…………………<br />
……………<br />
…………………<br />
……………<br />
…………………<br />
9. What is the total amount of loan provided by your bank for the biogas related activities?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
10. Is your bank involved (directly or indirectly) in the quality control of biogas plants?<br />
If yes,<br />
- What is role of your bank?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................
Appendix-II<br />
Page 2 of 4<br />
If no,<br />
- Don't you think it is necessary?<br />
- Yes it is necessary because<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
- No it is not necessary because<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
11. How can a bank help to improve quality of biogas plants?<br />
11. What kind of additional input you are expecting from the side of following organizations so that you<br />
could be effectively involved in the quality control measures?<br />
MMG (AEPC)<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
BSP<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Biogas Companies<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
NGOs<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
13. How do you react on the quality control measures adopted by MSP?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
14. Can penalty system help lo increase the quality of biogas plants?<br />
If yes, how?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
If no. why?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
15. What Kind of outcome regarding quality of biogas are you expecting from the increased number of<br />
biogas companies?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
16. Do you arrange frequent meetings with<br />
- BSP Yes [ ] No [ ]<br />
- AEPC [ ] Yes [ ] No<br />
- Biogas Companies [ ] Yes [ ] No<br />
If yes,<br />
At what interval? ..................................................................................................................................................<br />
For what purpose? ..................................................................................................................................................
Appendix-II<br />
Page 3 of 3<br />
17. What kind of interlinkage do you think is very essential in future between you and these organizations<br />
to improve the quality of biogas?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
18. Do you have any idea to interlink the provided loan with the quality of biogas?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
If yes, what are they?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
19. What is the opinion of the bank in making the quality control system of biogas more practical realistic<br />
and sustainable in the future?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
20. What should be the appropriate institution lot conducting quality control of biogas and why?<br />
BSP [ ]<br />
AEPC [ ]<br />
Other (Specify ) [ ]……………………<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
21. What is your suggestion to<br />
BSP<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
AEPC<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Biogas Companies<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Users<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
22. Do you have any further comments?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................
Questionnaire D<br />
Knowledgeable Person<br />
Appendix -II<br />
Page 1 of 3<br />
Name of the Interviewee : .......................................................................................................<br />
Position of the Interviewee : .......................................................................................................<br />
Address:<br />
1. How long you've been working (have worked) on the field of extension and promotion of biogas?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
2. Are you familiar with the quality control system enforced by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP?<br />
Yes [ ]<br />
No [ ]<br />
3. According to your experience and review of (he quality control system enforced by BSP. how do you<br />
like to answer on the following questions?<br />
Is the system practical, realistic and sustainable?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Are some of the standards fixed by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP are superfluous and as such needs to be omitted?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
If additional standards other than fixed by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP are required, what should be these?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
4 Does the penalty system actually help to improve the quality of the biogas plants?<br />
If yes, give reasons<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
If no, give reasons<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
5. Is there a better alternative than the penalty system? If so, please give your opinions.<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................
Appendix -II<br />
Page 2 of 3<br />
6. Are you familiar with quality control system in any other country? If yes, how can you compare it with<br />
the existing system in Nepal?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
7. What kind of outcome regarding quality of biogas plants are you expecting from the increased number<br />
of biogas companies?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
8. How can a commercial bank be made effectively involved on quality control of biogas plants?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
9. What should be the role of the following organisations to improve the quality of biogas plants?<br />
HMG (AEPC)<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
BSP<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Biogas Companies<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Banks<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
NGOs<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
10. What kind of interlinkage between these organisations is essential in the future to improve the quality<br />
of the installed biogas plants?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................
Appendix -II<br />
Page 3 of 3<br />
11. What is your opinion in making the quality control system of biogas more practical, realistic and<br />
sustainable in the future?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
11. What should be the appropriate institution for conducting quality control of biogas?<br />
BSP [ ]<br />
AEPC [ ]<br />
Other (Specify) [ ] …………………………………………<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
13. What is your suggestion to<br />
BSP<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
AEPC<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Biogas Companies<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Users<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
14. Do you have further suggestions?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Name of Interviewer: Date: ..../..../1998<br />
Contact Person<br />
Dr. Amrit Bd. Karki/Pravin Kumar Ghimire<br />
Consolidated Management Services Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
CMS House Meen Bhawan<br />
P.O. Box 10872, Kathmandu<br />
Tel: 977-1-482201: Fax: 977-1-482008
Appendix-II<br />
Page 1 of 5<br />
Questionnaire E<br />
Quality Control Supervisor (<strong>SNV</strong>/BSP)<br />
Name of the supervisor:<br />
Address:<br />
1. How long you have been working in BSP as quality control supervisor?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
2. Can the existing number of the quality control supervisors are enough to cover the entire installed<br />
plants in Nepal?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
If yes, give reasons<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
If no, give reason<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
3. If it is not possible to look alter the all installed plants, what is your criteria for selection of the plants<br />
for quality control measure?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
4. Don't you think that the quality control measures can be improved further by increasing the number of<br />
the quality control supervisors?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
5. Isn't it necessary to increase the sample size for observation t o achieve better results?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
6. What are the basic difficulties you arc facing during the supervision of plants?<br />
a) ........................................... d) ............................................<br />
b) ............................................ c) ............................................<br />
c) ............................................<br />
7. Do you have suggestion to overcome such difficulties?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
If yes, what are they?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
8. What is the basic qualification/experience for a person to be appointed as a quality control supervisor?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................
Appendix-II<br />
Page 2 of 5<br />
9. Don't you think that the quality control supervisors should be trained more than what they are now to<br />
conduct the field observation more effectively?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
10. Docs BSP conduct in-job training, workshops and study tour to other countries for the quality control<br />
supervisors?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
If yes, give the nature of<br />
a) Training<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
b) Workshops<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
c) Study tour<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
How often?<br />
a) Training ................... ..................................................<br />
b) Workshops ......................................................................<br />
c) Study tour ......................................................................<br />
11. What are the basis of fixing penalty to a biogas company?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
12. Biogas companies often complain that penalty is fixed only on the basis of interview with the owner<br />
(usually illiterate fanner) who mayn't give the correct information, If it is true, please explain?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
13. Is there representative of biogas company in the field while you observe the plants installed by the same<br />
company?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]<br />
14. Do you identify defaults in plants in-front of the company representative?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
[ ] [ ]
Appendix-II<br />
Page 3 of 5<br />
15. What kind of defaults arc most common for all the companies?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
16. What measures are taken to correct defaults if they are repeated twice?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
17. Who is responsible for final decision of the penalty amount?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
18. What do you think can penalty system help to increase the quality of biogas system?<br />
If yes, give reason<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
If no, give reason<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
19. What is your personal opinion towards the 66 standards fixed by BSP on quality control?<br />
a) Is the system is practical, realistic, sustainable and cover ail aspects of quality control?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
b) Some of the standards fixed by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP are superfluous and as such needs to be omitted, such as<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
c) Additional standards other than fixed by <strong>SNV</strong>/BSP are required, such as<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
20. What kind of interlinkage between BSP, AEPC, biogas companies, banks, NGOs are essential in future<br />
to improve the quality of biogas plants?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................
Appendix-II<br />
Page 4 of 5<br />
21. What should be the appropriate institution for conducting quality control of biogas plants for its<br />
sustainability?<br />
AEPC [ ]<br />
BSP [ ]<br />
Other (Specify) [ ] .............................................................<br />
22. What is your opinion in making the quality control system of biogas more practical, realistic and<br />
sustainable in the future?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
23. What is your suggestion regarding quality control to<br />
AEPC<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Biogas Company<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Bank<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Users<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
24. Please explain the procedure currently adopted by BSP for the quality control measures?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................
Appendix-II<br />
Page 5 of 5<br />
25. Do you have further suggestions?<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
................................................................................................................................................................................<br />
Name of Interviewer:<br />
Date: …../…../1998<br />
Contact Person<br />
Dr. Amrit Bd. Karki/Pravin Kumar Ghimire<br />
Consolidated Managemene Services Nepal (P) Ltd.<br />
CMS House Meen Bhawan<br />
P.O.Box 10872, Kathmandu<br />
Tel: 977-1-482201; Fax: 977-1-482008
APPENDIX III<br />
DESCRIPTION OF FARMERS RESPONDENTS<br />
POSSESSING BIOGAS PLANTS
Description of the Farmers Respondents Possessing Biogas Plant<br />
Appendix-III<br />
[Page] 1 of 2<br />
W.V.S.<br />
W.S.<br />
N.W.S.<br />
= Working Very Satisfactory<br />
= working Satisfactory<br />
= Not Working Satisfactory