Impact and effectiveness of Rwanda’s National Domestic Biogas programme

Abstract

The Rwandan Government's National Domestic Biogas programme (NDBP), seeks to deliver renewable energy services to households across the country by promoting family-sized anaerobic (biogas) digesters on a large scale. The NDBP policy is implemented at different levels, from government and private contractors to households. We analysed the scheme, focusing on how policy was implemented across two districts, namely Kirehe and Kamonyi, and we interviewed rural households and biogas service providers. The NDBP delivers improved energy service outcomes to a majority of households. Training and education of householders, particularly women, is needed in relation to the maintenance of digesters, feedstock suitability and the environmental as well as the potential livelihood benefits of digestate. There is a need for appropriate implementation strategies, financial support and coordination of biogas programmes. Financial institutions and cooperatives should be involved for policy implementation.

Seasonal variability of resources: The unexplored adversary of biogas use in rural Ethiopia

“…Increasing household labour does not encourage uptake of new technologies ( Tucho et al, 2016 ), ( Bansal et al, 2017 ) and may render use of biogas digesters throughout the dry season more unlikely, even for those households in close proximity to water. Such was the case in Rwanda, where it was found women and children preferred to collect firewood than additional water in the dry season ( Kabera et al, 2016 ). Studies from different countries have found that the reduction in the quantity of firewood used by households that use AD is typically 45–60% ( Kelebe and Olorunnisola, 2016 ).…”

“…Feedstock left in the digester without movement since the last wet season could dry out or separate into liquid and solid components, changing the physical, chemical and biological characteristics required for biogas production. In an environment where lack of technical help is widely reported ( Rupf et al, 2015 ; Lwiza et al, 2017 ; Kabera et al, 2016 ), full abandonment of digesters may be an unintended consequence of seasonal dis-adoption as users tend to return to former practices if the technology is not working ( Sime, 2020 ; Barry et al, 2011 ).…”

“…Failure of project plans to include monitoring of sustained use was previously due to absence of suitable metrics for doing so, but this is no longer the case ( Ruiz-Mercado et al, 2011 ). Although monitoring and technical support were features which were theoretically built into the NBPE, the few studies published report their absence ( Kamp and Bermúdez Forn, 2016 ; Sime, 2020 ); a situation shared with other biogas projects in SSA ( Rupf et al, 2015 ; Kabera et al, 2016 ). Interestingly, Ruiz-Mercado et al (2011) argue that there is a dis-incentive for monitoring technologies that promise to increase household efficiencies due to technology promotions being based on unrealistic efficiencies of up to 100%, meaning some degree of failure is almost inevitable.…”

Technological, Economic, Social and Environmental Barriers to Adoption of Small-Scale Biogas Plants: Case of Indonesia

“…Several success stories using cattle dung as feedstock in biogas plants indicate a certain level of technological maturity at the household scale [4,37,41]. Key findings about technical barriers will be found at Table 1 Study of Bhat [43] discovered the lack of storage tanks and pipelines in communal digesters may result in insufficient biogas production, also inadequate design for biogas construction [42] and insufficient feedstock [44]. Studies carried out by Bößner and Silaen et al [20,45] found that biogas output may be insufficient if cow and poultry manure are not always available.…”

Towards Sustainable Development Goal 7 “Universal Access to Clean Modern Energy”: National Strategy in Rwanda to Scale Clean Cooking with Bottled Gas

“…While it is assumed that all institutions will adopt LPG within this time frame, it should be noted that is unlikely that all institutions will use LPG exclusively within this time horizon. In addition, LPG target projections in boarding schools and prisons took into account the existing level of adoption of biogas, which has been promoted in institutions since 2000 [48] as well as for rural household uptake since 2007 [49,50]. It is estimated that only about 40% of the total institutional cooking needs are met through biogas [5], and the remaining 60% was projected to be LPG from 2024 onwards.…”