Date post: | 21-Feb-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | fred-marree |
View: | 105 times |
Download: | 1 times |
0 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Final Report
of the
Impact Assessment of the Indonesia Domestic
Biogas Programme (BIRU) on the Development of a
Market-based Biogas Sector
Prepared for:
Prepared by: Fred Marree Consultancy in cooperation
with YRE and Hivos
Date: 21 August 2016
1 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Table of contents
Executive summary ........................................................................................ 3
1. Introduction, objectives and methodology ................................................. 4
1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 5
2. Survey results from biodigester construction organisations and individual
masons and supervisors ................................................................................. 7
2.1 Type of organisation and relation to BIRU ............................................................................ 7
2.2 Number of BIRU model digesters constructed outside of BIRU programme support .............. 8
2.3 Planned number of BIRU model biodigesters ..................................................................... 10
2.4 Clients and underlying reasons for installing a biodigester.................................................. 11
2.5 Independent promotion of biogas ..................................................................................... 13
2.6 Biogas sector services ........................................................................................................ 13
2.7 Skills development of biogas constructors ......................................................................... 14
2.8 Appliance manufacturers .................................................................................................. 15
3. Quality inspections of BIRU model biodigesters constructed without BIRU
programme involvement ............................................................................... 16
3.1 General quality of the inspected biodigesters .................................................................... 16
3.2 Quality of the construction materials ................................................................................. 17
3.3 Quality of the biodigester inlet, dome and outlet ............................................................... 17
3.4 Reasons and benefits of having a biodigester ..................................................................... 18
3.5 Financing of the biodigester .............................................................................................. 18
3.6 Other information provided by users ................................................................................. 18
4. Government adoption of household biogas ............................................... 20
4.1 Identified government institutions active on biogas ........................................................... 20
2 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
4.2 Government policies and programmes on biogas and inclusion of BIRU standards .............. 21
4.3 Number of biodigesters constructed and size of the investment ......................................... 22
4.4 Future government investments in household biogas ........................................................ 23
5. Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................... 24
References .................................................................................................... 25
Annexes ........................................................................................................ 26
3 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Executive summary
Strong signs of market forces and the development of an independent sector have been identified. Current and former CPOs and masons seem to find business opportunities in building household biodigesters outside of the BIRU programme. A few hundred current and former partners, masons and supervisors have been interviewed as well as government officials. 82 BIRU model digesters have been inspected to determine their quality. The impact assessment concluded that indeed a biogas sector is developing outside BIRU’s scope. This would not have been happened without BIRU kick-starting the market, by promoting biogas, training masons, grooming partners and advocacy to the government.
Mainly constructed since 2012, a minimum estimation of 6,060 BIRU model digesters have been reported, all constructed without the programme being involved in the financing, installation and post-construction phases. This means that for each BIRU digester 35% extra are constructed. The concentration of this market is on Java (75%). The respondents also reported to have constructed BIRU model biodigesters in provinces in Sumatra, and in Kalimantan, Jambi, North Sulawesi. These provinces were earlier identified as new potential areas for programme expansion.
It became clear from the assessment that the Government of Indonesia (GoI) has a huge impact on the development of a biogas sector. The GoI uses the National State Budget and the Special Allocation Funds (DAK), both administered by MEMR, to provide funding for biodigesters. While BIRU works closely with the government in applying DAK funds for biogas, 5,912 household digesters were constructed through these funds outside of BIRU’s scope. Since 2014, 10%-15% of the DAK funds must be used for biogas and specifically the BIRU model and standards (technical specifications guidelines) must be used. 3,051 household digesters were constructed through DAK outside of BIRU. The planned DAK 2017 funds is IDR 23 billion (EUR 1.57 million) for digester sizes from 4m3-6m3. The focus areas are Jambi, Kalimantan and Sulawesi.
The BIRU quality standards are not always used in digesters funded with the national APBN fund and the local APBD fund. However, MEMR applies the BIRU technical standards as a bidding requirement. For at least 2,861 biodigesters constructed during 2011-2015 the BIRU standard has been applied, without further involvement of the BIRU programme, but through BIRU certified masons.
The interviewed (ex-)CPOs and (ex-)masons confirmed that in over 50% of the cases, the government was the initiator of biogas construction. 97% of the constructors responded that they perform independent promotional activities, mainly networking and door-to-door advertising. Services they provided are mainly user and bioslurry trainings, but records were low. 5% indicated to have provided after sales services. Providing access to credit was also nearly absent and this did not relate to heavily subsidised digesters. This means almost 3 out 4 owners were able to finance their investment. Over 68% of the (ex-)CPOs perform independent skills development and training for staff, but contrasts exist between provinces. Out of the 50 individuals who have constructed biodigesters outside of BIRU, as much as 13 masons have trained 76 other individuals in BIRU model digester construction.
The overall quality of the 82 inspected BIRU model digesters in general is good and little technical problems were reported (5 digesters). Guarantees and after sales services were only given in a few cases to the owners. User and bioslurry trainings were provided to almost half of the biodigester owners. The strong role of the government becomes visible again as owners reported that the government convinced them in almost all cases to invest in a digester. Subsidies of 80%-90% were common in East Nusa Tenggara (NTT), West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) and Lampung. BIRU will have to work with the government in order to not have the market over-flooded with over-subsidised biodigesters. Overall, the need for energy was their main underlying reasoning to have a biodigester. This is in contrast with BIRU programme end users, who mention the reduction in household expenditures as main reason to invest. The user satisfaction rate was reported 80%.
BIRU needs to work even closer with the government in order to avoid distortion of market forces due to highly subsidised digesters as well as improve sector services to maintain and improve the quality.
4 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
1. Introduction, objectives and methodology
Since May 2009 Hivos is running the Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme aimed at development of
the domestic biogas sector in Indonesia. Based on experience and as shown by the feasibility study
undertaken by SNV in 2008 the construction and use of biodigesters in Indonesia knows many failures
which are quite common worldwide. These failures relate to technical problems (low quality design
and/or construction), maintenance issues (absence of training, ignorance, lack of ownership), lack of
monitoring and after-sales services at the site, and no institutionalized market sector. Biogas
programmes addressing these issues have been developed worldwide since the early nineties,
addressing these matters. Projects undertaken by SNV, Hivos and other actors in many countries in
Asia, Africa and South America have shown that by developing a sustainable biogas sector with specific
characteristics and with clear technical and managerial guidelines, users can have substantial benefit
from their digesters.
Indonesia is one of the countries which started a domestic biogas programme using the approach
already undertaken in the other countries, addressing the challenges encountered. The BIRU
programme which took off in 2009, quickly gained acceptance by the Indonesian Ministry of Energy
and Mineral Resources (MEMR) and it managed to reach 17,000 users by early 2016. The BIRU
programme works with local entities (NGOs, cooperatives, companies and groups) which are groomed
to become biogas digester constructors and service providers, selling their services to the biogas
market in Indonesia. The BIRU programme has to address both the supply side (constructors and
manufacturers) as well as the demand side (users). The BIRU programme has groomed over 100
partner organizations, called CPOs (Construction Partner Organizations), of which 64 are still working
in a relation with the BIRU programme. Some of the groomed organizations did not make it, retreated
or their relation was terminated for other reasons. Some of these are actually still building digesters
on their own, using the technology they got from the BIRU programme.
The BIRU programme is highly structured and organized with clear management regulations laid out
in the so-called SOG, the Standard Operating Guidelines. BIRU partner organizations have to abide by
certain obligations and are given guidance and supervision by the BIRU programme, the management
of which is gradually devolved to a local institution called Yayasan Rumah Energi (YRE). An investment
subsidy is provided by BIRU to maintain leverage towards the construction partners: a digester is co-
financed by the BIRU programme, so part of the income of the partners comes from BIRU, which will
ensure high quality and after-sales services. The relation will also ensure regular training as needed,
exchange of information and technological innovation and it also provides opportunities to get
involved in government tenders and other possibilities to extend the market. On the other hand, the
partners will have sanctions if they do not abide by the rules as agreed in a special agreement with
YRE.
It is not an obligation of the partners to have all their biogas construction work registered under the
BIRU programme. In fact, it is a good sign if the partners develop their own biogas activities, as it shows
that an independent biogas sector is developing, even beyond the scope of BIRU. The investment
subsidy is meanly meant to trigger sector development in the hope it will eventually lead to market
forces which will take over, which is still not the case in most of the target areas.
Even though the BIRU programme has not yet been able to develop a full-fledged independent biogas
sector with many strong actors, there are developments which indicate that a lot of biogas activities
are proliferated as a result of the BIRU programme. Some of the current BIRU partners build digesters
outside the BIRU programme in various sizes, and also a number of the previous partners have
5 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
undertaken or are currently undertaking biogas activities, which definitely would not be the case if
BIRU had not groomed these partners. Also, of the more than 1,000 masons and 300 supervisors
trained since 2009, only around 350 of these are active building under the BIRU programme, while at
least some of the masons which are not registered as active BIRU masons are still building digesters.
Looking into the demand side, it is obvious that biogas has gained a lot of publicity and knowledge
about this technology is becoming widespread, but not immediately leading to an independent high
demand. In terms of demand, it should be noted that the government is also a factor to take into
account. Indonesia is used to have government subsidies for rural development and under the current
wave of Renewable Energy activities, the government tends to subsidize investments in biogas. The
BIRU programme has to work with the government to ensure that the quality of the digesters is
maintained. If not, many low quality digesters will be made and the biogas sector will get destroyed.
This situation asks for an assessment of the impact that the BIRU programme has had on the Indonesia
biogas sector as a whole. Within the BIRU programme there is a good overview of the number of
digesters built, and the quality thereof. Apart from the actual construction of 17,000 digesters,
manufacture of biogas appliances has been developed, over 1,000 masons have been trained,
networks have been set up, biogas has become a common phenomenon in selected rural areas with
government and public more aware of the benefits of biogas. It is, however, not clear to which extent
the biogas sector has development beyond the BIRU programme and to which extent this development
can be attributed to the existence of BIRU. This assessment aims to give the answers to a range of
questions which are presented in the scope of work below.
1.1 Objectives
The main objective of this impact assessment is: “To which extent has the biogas sector developed
beyond the BIRU programme and to which extent can this development be attributed to the existence
of BIRU?”
The specific research questions are:
• Which (new) sector players are active in the biogas sector who have constructed BIRU-model
digesters outside the monitoring of the BIRU programme? And how many have they constructed?
• What is the quality of these digesters compared to the quality of the BIRU monitored units?
• What are the key differences for households with BIRU programme installed digesters and BIRU-
model digesters constructed by other sector players (e.g. size, investment costs, credit obtained,
bio-slurry training and After Sales Service received)?
• How sustainable are these sector players in terms of their financial position, skills development,
institutional development?
• Which other signs of sector developments can be identified outside BIRU’s scope (e.g.
promotion)?
1.2 Methodology
The BIRU programme is active in ten provinces of Indonesia and has offices in eight cities. Since 2009,
the programme has partnered with 117 CPOs of which 67 are still active as partner today. Information
has to be obtained from at least 75% of all (ex-)partner organisations. The BIRU programme trained
and certified over 1,000 masons and 300 supervisors so far. The programme has 648 valid phone
6 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
numbers available for this target group. For this assessment at least 30% (ex-)masons and (ex-
)supervisors need to be interviewed. Manufacturers of biogas appliances need to be interviewed as
well as government officials at district, provincial and national level. Furthermore, biodigester owners
are visited to perform a quality inspection of their non-BIRU digester. Due to time limitations, a
minimum of six and a maximum of ten digesters need to be inspected per province. The lending partner
organisations have been left out of this assessment, although credit provision is an important part of
the sector. The focus of this assessment is on the constructors (organisations and masons) and the
government initiatives in biogas, and the verification of quality of BIRU model fixed-dome digesters
constructed outside the programme. Both time and resources were too limited to include the LPOs.
Table 1: Overview of the number of interviews per target group and number of digester inspected
Province Current CPOs Former CPOs Current masons & supervisors
Former masons & supervisors
Government officials
Digesters inspected
Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Actual Actual
Bali 3 2 7 6 9 5 14 7 3 10
West Java 4 2 9 3 10 4 15 8 2 10
Central Java 12 11 11 11 20 20 10 10 7 15
East Java 14 15 9 4 25 35 25 18 0 10
Lampung 5 5 4 4 15 12 9 4 1 11
NTB* 7 6 5 1 20 20 5 5 2 10
NTT* 4 4 4 3 15 10 12 8 3 6 South Sulawesi 13 10 6 1 15 11 15 10 1 10
Totals 62 55 55 33 129 117 105 70 19 82 * NTB = West Nusa Tenggara (incl. Sumba) and NTT = East Nusa Tenggara (including Lombok)
187 individual current and former masons and supervisor have been interviewed. In three cases,
organisations which never partnered with BIRU were identified due to the interview results. This makes
the total of interviewed construction organisations (non-government) 91.
The assessment has been undertaken by a lead consultant (international) in cooperation with the
national programme implementer Yayasan Rumah Energi (YRE) teams in the target areas. Hivos has
provided constant support as well, especially with the desk study. The methodology tools used are
(semi-) structured questionnaires, phone interviews, face-to-face meetings and desk study. The
assessment team developed four main questionnaires:
• Form A for (ex-)partner organisations (see Annex 1);
• Form B for (ex-)masons/supervisors (see Annex 2);
• Form C for government officials (see Annex 3);
• Form D for a digester quality inspection (see Annex 4).
The assessment team had about four weeks (part-time) available to inform the provincial teams about
this assessment, prepare all questionnaires, conduct all interviews, perform a desk study and write the
final report. The limitations for this assessment were:
• Double counting: interviewed masons could have worked for interviewed construction
organisations resulting in double counting of non-BIRU digesters;
• The possible lack of openness of respondents on business-sensitive information;
• The lack of information provided due to low quality of digesters;
• The challenge to get clarity what is happening in provinces not targeted by BIRU (‘blind spots’).
7 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
2. Survey results from biodigester construction organisations and individual masons and supervisors
CPOs and masons are the main constructors of high quality BIRU fixed-dome model biodigesters. CPOs
and mason groups are not obliged to work exclusively with BIRU. In fact, BIRU is stimulating a market
whereby constructors promote, install and service biodigesters for farming households on a profitable
basis. The goal of the surveys (form A and B) is to determine the volume of the biogas business of CPOs
and masons, who their clients are and which sector services they provide; all outside of the BIRU
programme’s context.
2.1 Type of organisation and relation to BIRU
Almost 39% of the interviewed constructors are NGOs, followed by private enterprises (23%) (table 2).
Over half of the constructors are based in Java: Central Java (24%), East Java (22%) and West Java (5%).
The interviews managed to reach 82% of all current CPOs on the short timeframe of the assessment.
Of the ex-CPOs 60% has been interviewed. In three cases, organisations which never partnered with
BIRU were identified due to the interview results. This makes the total of interviewed construction
organisations (non-government) 91. 65% of the (ex-)CPOs had starting partnering with BIRU since 2012
only.
Table 2: Type of CPO interviewed
Province Cooperative Mason Group
NGO Private
Enterprise Others Total
Bali 6 2 8
Central Java 2 4 8 7 21
East Java 12 2 4 2 20
Lampung 2 5 1 1 9
NTB 3 3 1 7
NTT 1 6 7
South Sulawesi 1 3 2 6 2 14
West Java 1 1 1 2 5
Total 17 15 35 21 3 91
The business core of organisations which have never partnered with BIRU varies. They are not only
actively engaged in biogas business as their core business, but are also focusing on agriculture,
construction, cattle farming, cooperatives, community empowerment and environmental issues. They
became mainly aware of the BIRU programme or the BIRU model digester through Hivos, YRE of (ex-
)CPOs. Either from HIVOS/YRE staff or from (ex)CPO. They also claimed knowing the programme from
the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR). Two out of three respondents indicated that
they received the knowledge and skill to construct BIRU model digester from training of which was
conducted by Hivos and YRE in the context of BIRU. The other stated that they did not receive the
training from BIRU, but from a mason whom previously received a training from BIRU.
Table 3 presents the number of type of masons and supervisors interviewed. A total of 187 individuals
have been reached, over half of them are current masons. As expecting, half of the respondent are
8 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
based on Java. Two thirds of the respondents are still active in constructing biodigesters, whereas one
third stated they had completely stopped. No specific reasoning was provided for this. NTT and South
Sulawesi show the highest number in this regard.
Table 3: Business relation of masons and supervisors interview and active status
Province Current Former
Other Total Active Mason Supervisor Mason Supervisor
Bali 5 5 2 12 7
Central Java 19 9 1 29 22
East Java 27 8 15 3 53 35
Lampung 10 2 3 1 16 11
NTB 20 5 25 21
NTT 4 4 6 2 1 17 7
South Sulawesi 11 9 1 2 23 12
West Java 5 1 2 4 12 7
Total 101 15 54 14 3 187 122
The peak of the number of masons and supervisor stopping their biogas activities was in 2014 (12
persons), after which the number declined to the average of currently 7.
More than 9 out of ten individual constructors are part of an organisation (figure 1). They are part of
current or former CPOs interviewed or work independently. Still, the independent masons (including
one supervisor) mentioned to work with two to three assistants, though not formally in a registered
organisation.
Figure 1: Share of interviewed (ex-)masons and (ex-)supervisors working independently or in a group
2.2 Number of BIRU model digesters constructed outside of BIRU programme support
All respondents have been asked how many BIRU model digesters they have constructed outside of the programme’s scope (figure 2). This counts uses the following set of accumulative criteria:
• The digester is constructed according to the technical specifications of the BIRU fixed-dome model biodigester;
• The digester is not registered in the database of BIRU, but the digester is registered at the responsible individual or organisation which constructed the digester.
7.65%
53.53%
38.82%
Independent
Part of a mason group
Part of another organisation
9 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Figure 2: Number of BIRU model digester built outside of BIRU programme’s scope per province
A total of 6,060 BIRU model digesters have been counted based on the interviews with current and former CPOs, masons and supervisors (SVs) (table 4). Almost 74% of the recorded digesters constructed without involved of BIRU have been installed in Java. One former CPO, Energi Persada, based in West Java was responsible for 1,200 units outside of the programme. 50 out of 187 individual respondents (masons and supervisors) (27%) have reported to construct biodigester outside of the BIRU programme. 45 out of 91 organisations (49%) participating in the survey have reported to construct biodigester outside of the BIRU programme.
Table 4: Number of digester built outside of BIRU programme’s scope per province
Based in Province Current Former
Others Total CPO Mason / SV CPO Mason / SV
Bali 60 50 59 8 - 177
Central Java 624 272 97 - - 993
East Java 557 316 459 19 - 1,351
Lampung 171 1 12 0 - 184
NTB 327 - 71 641 - 1,039
NTT - - 35 10 - 45
South Sulawesi 92 - - 11 38 141
West Java 30 350 1,200 550 - 2,130
Total 1,861 989 1,933 1,239 38 6,060
Theoretically current and former masons and supervisors can have worked for current and former CPOs. The risk of double counting the constructed BIRU model digesters therefore exists. To avoid double counting, all recorded digesters from masons and supervisor who have worked for (ex-)CPOs have not been included in this assessment. Where relatively high numbers of digester are counted at CPO and individual level, further investigation has been done to avoid double counting. For example, West Java and NTB present a high number of digesters constructed by former masons and supervisor. It has been checked that these digesters have not been constructed as part of a CPO, which also has
177
993
1351
184
1039
45141
2130
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
Bali CentralJava
East Java Lampung NTB NTT SouthSulawesi
West Java
BIR
U m
od
el b
iod
iges
ters
Respondent based in province
10 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
been interviewed. Similarly, for individual masons interviewed as part of a mason group it has been checked that the numbers provided are not the work of the same mason. Additionally, those organisations and individuals who provided an estimation of constructed digesters presented an additional 352 to 570 biodigesters to the total of 6,060 in the table above. Since these are estimations, the numbers have been left out of the further analysis. Nine current and former biogas constructors, all based in Java, have been active in eight other provinces as well: North Sumatra, West Sumatra, South Sumatra, Kalimantan Tengah, Jambi, Riau Islands, North Sulawesi and West Papua. These organisations represent private enterprises, cooperatives and NGOs. Two of them have constructed over 400 digesters outside of the programme and one 1,200 units (Energi Persada). These three organisations have built digesters in six of the eight other provinces. However, it’s unclear how many they have constructed per province. A dozen masons and supervisor have also constructed BIRU model biodigester in these provinces. However, these are left out of the analysis to avoid double counting as it was not possible to determine if they were part of the nine organisations based in Java.
Table 5: Number of digester built outside of BIRU programme’s scope per year and per size
Year Size (m3)
Total Share per
year* Share of BIRU
digesters 4 6 8 10 12 20 Unknown
2010 1 1 nihil 9%
2011 7 7 nihil 17%
2012 14 19 1 4 1 52 91 3% 19%
2013 129 36 360 525 19% 18%
2014 401 195 11 488 1,095 40% 17%
2015 359 287 8 362 1,016 37% 13%
2016 12 6 1 1 13 33 1% 7%
Unknown 3,296 3,296 n/a 9%
Total 915 543 1 21 1 4,579 6,060 100% 100%
* Share of the total digesters known per year (is 2,768)
Of 46% of the digesters built outside BIRU it’s unknown in which year they are built and of 80% it is unknown what the digester size is. The last column in table 5 presents the share of BIRU digesters constructed per year, registered in the official BIRU database (2009 is left out of the calculations). After 2012 the share is declining, while for BIRU digesters constructed outside the programme the peak years are 2014 and 2015. Data for 2016 is very limited, also due to the fact that most digesters will be built in the second half of the year (after harvesting season). The most reported sizes are 4m3 and 6m3, mainly due to the government regulations for government supported digesters (elaborated in section 2.4). The official BIRU programme digesters shows 30% more 6m3 sizes than 4m3.
2.3 Planned number of BIRU model biodigesters
The number of planned BIRU model biodigesters in 2016 and 2017 mostly are stable or increasing as informed by 52% of interviewed (ex-)CPOs and (ex-)masons or supervisors (table 6). However, the former group reported a decreasing biogas business in 54 of the cases (55%).
11 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Table 6: Business prognoses of number of BIRU model digester outside the programme
Respondent Increasing Decreasing Staying the same Total
(Ex-)CPO 24 25 17 66
(Ex-)Mason/supervisor 23 54 21 98
Total number 47 79 38 164
Total share 29% 48% 23% 100%
10% of all respondents have planned 2,903 BIRU model digesters to be constructed during 2016 and 2017 (table 7). Especially one current CPO, named Yayasan Trukajaya is working in an Exxon Mobile-funded Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) project to construct over 2,000 BIRU model digester. Another 10% mentioned not to have planned any new digesters and the rest did not know yet. The underlying reasoning of these planning numbers has not been assessed.
Table 7: Planned number of digester outside of the programme for 2016 and 2017
Province
Interview (ex-) CPOs Interview (ex-)masons/supervisors
Respondents planning?
Target Respondents planning?
Target
2016 2017 2016 2017
Bali 2 20 30 - - -
Central Java 2 2,414 - - -
East Java 3 131 100 - - -
Lampung - - - 2 7
NTB - - - 2 - -
NTT 4 143 5 49
South Sulawesi - - - 1 2 -
West Java 2 - - 3 7
Totals 13 2,838 13 65
2.4 Clients and underlying reasons for installing a biodigester
73 organisations have reported to have constructed BIRU model digester without programme involvement. In more than 50% of the case, mainly the government has requested to construct these digesters. In 15% of the cases it was mainly the household which directly requested the (ex-)CPO to construct a digester at their home.
Table 7: Clients of current and former CPOs
Province Government Private
enterprise Household NGO Others Total
Bali 4 1 4 9
Central Java 6 3 1 4 14
East Java 7 5 3 4 19
Lampung 2 1 3
NTB 8 2 10
NTT 3 2 1 6
South Sulawesi 5 1 6
West Java 2 1 1 1 1 6
Total 37 13 11 5 7 73
12 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
With BIRU programme digesters, the government initiated the construction for 35% of all the digesters (table 8). Households are in more than 63% of the cases the initiator of having a biodigester. This data cannot directly be compared to the government as main actor initiating digesters in table 7 above, since it not taking the number of digesters into consideration nor the end decision at household level. Still, it shows the high commitment of the Indonesian government to construct BIRU model digesters. Chapter 4 will elaborate on that.
Table 8: Clients under BIRU programme
Government Private enterprise Household Others Total
Digesters 6,238 210 11,280 96 17,824
Share 35% 1,2% 63,3% 0.5% 100%
In cases whereby individual masons and supervisors were requested to construct biodigesters, the
government was in over 50% of cases the main initiator, similar as with organisational data presented
in table 9 below. A slightly higher difference can be found in the share of private enterprises (20%)
requesting to the masons to construct digesters in comparison with requests to organisations (table
7). The difference is caused by the fact that individual masons can be asked to work on contract base
for various organisations.
Table 9: Clients of current and former masons and supervisors
Province Government Private
enterprise Household NGO Others Total
Bali 4 4
Central Java 7 1 1 9
East Java 15 5 13 5 38
Lampung 1 3 1 5
NTB 18 13 3 34
NTT 3 3
South Sulawesi 2 2 1 5
West Java 6 1 4 1 12
Total 56 22 24 1 7 110
Based on the main initiator to construct a biodigester (see tables 7 and 9), the main reasoning behind this has been asked to the biodigester owner to invest in a biodigester. The data just provides an indication of the main reasoning, as it concerns the judgement of the respondent and not directly that of the biodigester user. The table 10 below presents the data compiled on organisational level. Data from individual masons have been left out of this analysis due to unreliability of the answers provided and different interpretation of the question.
13 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Table 10: Main underlying reason noted by (ex-)CPOs for biodigester investment
Environmental reasons include having healthy smokeless kitchen environment as well as less firewood
consumption. Other reasons the respondents reported for having a biodigester were saving of fuel
costs, reduction of pollution and odours, a received grant made it possible and one respondent saw
business opportunities in having a biodigester. Section 3.5 will present the results of the main initiator
and underlying reasoning behind digester installation from the perspective of the 82 owners
interviewed.
2.5 Independent promotion of biogas
As much as 97% of interviewed CPOs, masons and supervisors are currently doing independent biogas
promotion (table 11). They mostly practise door-to-door and networking with key stakeholders
including government and cooperatives. Digester construction might be much higher in the future if
the active respondents practise online advertisement which can reach a large target group and is cost-
efficient.
Table 11: Independent promotion by active respondents
Independent biogas promotion (Ex-)CPO (Ex)-mason/SV Total Share
Not promoting 2 2 4 3%
Printed advertisement 9 9 18 12%
Online advertisement 2 4 6 4%
Door-to-door 16 45 61 40%
Other (mostly networking) 19 54 73 48%
2.6 Biogas sector services
The BIRU programme is providing services to their partners (CPOs, LPOs, users) such as operation and
maintenance and bioslurry trainings, after-sales services, bioslurry extension services and prepare
credit linkages to finance biodigesters. Table 12 presents following services by respondents while
constructing biodigesters outside of the programme’s scope.
Province CSR Demand
for energy Government
policy Demand for
fertiliser Environmental
reason Others Total
Bali 1 4 2 7
Central Java 2 8 1 11
East Java 3 4 7 2 7 4 27
Lampung 2 1 3
NTB 9 1 10
NTT 1 1 1 3
South Sulawesi 2 2 1 2 7
West Java 1 2 2 2 2 9
Total 7 22 24 7 11 6 77
14 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Table 12: Sector services provided by active respondents
Sector services Current Former
Others Total CPOs Masons / SVs CPOs Masons / SVs
Bioslurry training 10 6 6 5 2 29
After sales services 3 6 5 1 - 15
Bioslurry service 1 3 2 1 - 7
User training 10 15 8 11 1 45
Credit linkage 1 - 1 2 - 4
Especially user trainings are provided, but numbers are pretty low. Three users got some sort of
guarantee from current and ex-masons as well as information on maintenance and advantages of
bioslurry. A sustainable biogas sector should be performing a wide variety of biogas services to
maintain a high quality of products and services to the end users.
2.7 Skills development of biogas constructors
According to the questionnaire, the organisation which constructed BIRU model digester employed
two up to twenty staff members in the process. Nine respondent claimed that they employed more
than ten full-time staff members, located in three provinces, East Java, Lampung, and NTB, while 50 of
claimed that they employed under 10 staff. In the BIRU programme, partners will be accompanied with
skill development to ensure the sustainability of the programme. In Central Java, Lampung, and NTB,
the data indicate that 100% of the (ex-)CPOs were conducting skill development to their staff. On stark
contrast, in East Java 100% of the respondent stated that they never conducted such activities to their
staff. In the rest of provinces, the variation ranging from 30-70% in which training was given to their
staff from the organization. In total of nine provinces, over two thirds of respondents were claiming
that they conducting biogas skills development to their staff (figure 3).
Figure 3: Share of (ex-)CPOs performing skills development to their staff
BIRU has trained since 2009 over 1,000 masons and 300 supervisors in the construction of the BIRU
model fixed-dome biodigester. Only around 350 of them are still actively involved as BIRU mason.
When asking to the individual masons if they have trained others on the construction techniques of
the BIRU model, out of the total number of respondents 14% of them mentioned to have trained
others outside of the BIRU programme. Out of the 50 individuals who have constructed biodigesters
outside of BIRU, as much as 13 masons or supervisor have trained others in BIRU model digester
construction, which is 26%. In these numbers, masons who are/were part of a (ex-)CPO have not
included. These 13 individuals claim to have trained 76 new masons, especially in the provinces West
Java and Bali. 15% of the interviewed masons and supervisors also said to have seen construction
assistants becoming constructors themselves.
68.63%
31.37% Yes
No
15 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
2.8 Appliance manufacturers
Appliance manufacturers form an important group of partners in the BIRU programme. There are three
appliance manufacturers active: Butterfly Stove Company, Atayzer and Energi Persada. These
organisations have been interviewed to determine the growth of a biogas sector in Indonesia outside
of the BIRU programme.
According to Mr Gunawan, Head of the Production Department at Butterfly, based in Surabaya, East
Java, they have been a supplier to BIRU since the start of the programme. They assemble mainly biogas
stoves and biogas lamps, but also rice cookers. Other clients then BIRU are PT Swen (a fibreglass
biodigesters producer), PINBUK (a NGO constructing BIRU model digesters mainly in government
projects), the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, some municipal governments and individuals
promoting biogas in North Sumatra.
The volume of the business for biogas appliances is approximately 10-15% of the overall Butterfly
production. They have no competitors for selling biogas lamps, but there are at least three competitors
for the biogas stove including a metal company called Metalindo. Metalindo has been accepted as
BIRU supplier again after two years of absence due to quality issues. Currently, they are able to reach
the stove efficiency level as needed for the Gold Standard project criteria. Metalindo is able to produce
over 2,000 stoves a year.
Butterfly also answers to the demand for spare parts, for stoves or other appliances. On average 3,000-
4,000 stoves are produced and sold every year. In 2015, they produced almost 9,000 stoves (also for
overseas sales). Biogas lamp production has also increased from over 1,000 items in 2011 to 4,500 by
the end of 2015. They supply these the provinces in Sumatra, Irian Jaya (Papua), Kalimantan, Sulawesi,
NTT, NTB, Central and East Java but not to West Java. The areas of Sumatra, Papua, Kalimantan are
non-BIRU regions, but they have also been mentioned by the respondents constructing BIRU models
in these regions.
According to Mr Royani, Director of the NGO Atayzer, they have a supplier to BIRU partners since 2015.
They have been receiving BIRU technical capacity development support since then. Atayzer produces
and delivers gas taps, water drains, brass pipe fittings and manometers. Their workshop has the
capacity of producing 100-200 appliance items per day. Their business sales are still relatively small,
about 300-400 items per month, which provide an income of around IDR 9 million (EUR 600). Atayzer
is in the process of developing a biogas stove. BIRU has been inspecting this stoves and provides
technical advice. Their main competitor for stoves, water drains and gas taps is BCL (Barudak Cicalung
Lembang), another company supported by BIRU in West Java and which previously dominated the
market. BCL is selling on average 200 to 250 BIRU certified stoves annually. Atayzer has requested BIRU
to support them in finding buyers and their business strategy, as they are still new to the sector.
According to Mr Yono, Manager Program Biogas at from Energi Persada, based in West Java, they
construct household biodigesters and produce appliances such as biogas stoves, water drains, gas taps
and manometers. They were a biogas constructing partner of BIRU between 2010 and 2014, but were
terminated from the programme due to lack of quality management. However, they were regarded as
one of the most promising partners of BIRU in the inception phase. Since 2011, they have served
government projects mainly through DGNREEC. Furthermore, they work with other organisations on
biogas development, such as IBEKA, Yayasan Bina Lingkungan (EEP-funded), SNV (EEP-funded), WWF,
Yayasan Dana Bhakti Astra, Yayasan Solusi Bandung, Yayasan Bina Sehat and the Institution for
Technology Development (ADB-funded).
16 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
3. Quality inspections of BIRU model biodigesters constructed without BIRU programme involvement
To obtain proof of the BIRU model biodigesters constructed by the respondents, the assessment team
inspected a total number of 82 biodigesters. Seven units were still under construction. Besides the
comprehensive technical inspections conducted, the users have also been briefly interviewed (Form
D, see annex 4). The inspections are based on the official BIRU quality inspection form. 48% of the
inspected digesters had a size of 4m3. 32% was a 6m3 and the remaining 20% has a size of 3m3, 10m3,
12m3 and 15m3.
3.1 General quality of the inspected biodigesters
Table 13 presents an overview of the general quality of construction and training provided. Only Bali
and Central Java inspectors did not approve the digesters as full BIRU design. In West Java in a few
cases some form of guarantees was provided to the users. Certified and registered masons were used
in almost 2 out of 3 cases. And nearly half of the users have been equipped with user as well as bioslurry
trainings. Remarkably no trainings have been provided in Central Java and South Sulawesi for the
interview users. The digesters under construction not included in the weighted average for trainings
provided
Table 13: General digester quality and guarantees and training provided
Province Approved
BIRU design
3 yrs guarantee provided
3 yrs after sales guarantee provided
Certified and registered
mason used
User training
provided
Bioslurry training
provided
Bali 25% 0% 0% 0% 30% 33%
Central Java 67% 0% 0% 33% 0% 67%
East Java 100% 0% 0% 0% 80% 80%
Lampung 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 36%
NTB 100% 0% 0% 100% 30% 30%
NTT 100% 0% 0% 67% 100% 83%
South Sulawesi 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 10%
West Java 100% 30% 20% 0% 70% 50%
Weighted average 81% 4% 2% 63% 53% 43%
During the inspections it became clear that nine of the completed digesters and appliances had issues.
Three stoves were broken and two technical issues were reported with the digester dome, clogging
and a cracked dome. Four non-technical issues were reported such as lack of water available and lack
of manure available (table 14). Only NTT and Bali reported non-functioning biodigesters.
Table 14: Share of issues with BIRU model digesters
Issue Inspected digesters
during survey BIRU programme
digesters
Non-technical issues 4.9% 4.5%
Technical issues 6.1% 1.6%
No issues at all 89% 93.9%
Total 100% 100%
17 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
In comparison to officially registered BIRU programme digesters, more issues are reported. However,
the overall quality of the inspected digesters constructed outside of BIRU is still good.
3.2 Quality of the construction materials
Table 15 presents the overview of the quality of the construction materials. For Lampung is was not
possible to check all the constructions materials and some questions have been misinterpreted.
Therefore, the results are left out. The inspectors found all construction materials is good shape for
the other provinces.
Table 15: Quality of construction materials
Province Good quality of:
Bricks Sand Aggregates Cement
Bali 100% 100% 100% 100%
Central Java 100% 100% 100% 100%
East Java 100% 100% 100% 100%
Lampung - - - 100%
NTB 100% 100% 100% 100%
NTT 100% 100% 100% 100%
South Sulawesi 100% 100% 100% 100%
West Java 100% 100% 100% 100%
Weighted average 100% 100% 100% 100%
3.3 Quality of the biodigester inlet, dome and outlet
As most of the digesters were completed, the assessment focused on the exterior quality aspects of
the biodigesters’ inlet, dome and outlet (tabe16). Overall, the quality can definitely be improved, but
there were also high scores reported. Based on other observations and the interviews with users, it
appears that the inlet pipes were of a good quality brand and well positioned according to the positon
of the overflow point. The depth of the outlet scored relatively low, and properly sized compost pits
were not always constructed.
Table 16: General quality of inlet, dome and outlet of completed digesters
Province
Inlet Dome Outlet Maximum / minimum
height maintained
Proper installation of mixing
device
Centre pipe at centre point
Correct top
filling
Correct turret height
and size
Accuracy lengths
and width
Accuracy of depth
2 proper sized
compost pits
Bali 50% 50% 100% 80% 40% - - -
Central Java 100% 100% 100% 100% 67% 93% 67% 100%
East Java 90% 80% 90% 40% 80% 90% 40% 20%
Lampung 100% 100% 91% 100% 60% 64% - 91%
NTB 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50%
NTT 100% 100% 100% 100% 17% 100% 100% 0%
South Sulawesi 90% 60% 100% 90% 70% 100% 100% 60%
West Java 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 40%
Weighted average 91% 85% 98% 89% 70% 90% 65% 56%
Note: shares based on construction being completed
18 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Lower scores were reported with finishing of the turret for example, but this has far less impact than
if the inlet would be not well positioned. The main pipe and pipe fittings all used have the BIRU
standard, just as the stove and lamps used. In some cases, unnecessary fittings in the pipeline were
discovered, which could result in serious gas leakages. More importantly, the application of water
drains could be improved as well.
3.4 Reasons and benefits of having a biodigester
In section 2.4 is has been discussed that the government the main client was for the constructors and
that the underlying reasons for investing in a digester by the users the demand for energy was.
When asking the users these same questions, it became clear that in 98% of the cases it was the
government who convinced them to have a biodigester installed. In only a few cases, a role was played
by a private enterprise, mason or NGO helping with this decision. The BIRU programme will have to
work closely with local governments to understand the process the government is using and liaise with
the agencies which perform the promotional activities for biogas.
The top reasons by users to invest or have a biodigesters installed are the need for modern energy,
the need for fertiliser (bioslurry) and environmental reasons, such as having a smokeless healthy
kitchen. These main reasons were also mentioned in that order by the users in the annual biogas user
survey of 2015.
When asking for the main benefits, the users indicated the reduction of household expenditures as
man benefit, followed by feeling more safety and faster cooking on biogas. This is similar to the result
of the annual user survey 2015. This reasoning and the benefits will help the main initiators (local
governments) and constructors of biogas to understand how to promote the technology.
3.5 Financing of the biodigester
Almost 40% of the digesters (38 units) inspected were (heavily) subsidised by the governments. Eleven
digesters were fully subsidised, mainly in NTB and NTT. From 17 other subsidised digesters it was
recorded that the average investment cost was IDR 1,176,470 per user (EUR 80). This amount is far
less than a user would normally have to invest through regular CPOs and masons partnering for the
BIRU programme.
93% of the interviewed households reported not to have made use of other credit facilities to finance
their digester. Of the 7% who did find microcredit financing an average amount of IDR 7,700,000 (EUR
516) was lent per user, mainly for 6-8m3 units. In comparison to the BIRU programme end users, 46%
of them obtain microcredit to have a digester.
3.6 Other information provided by users
Other information discussed with the users are the information provided after construction was
completed. Table 17 present diverse results for information on after sales services, where to obtain
spare parts and who to contact in case of technical issues. As reported by the constructors, almost no
after sales services were offered. In case issues arise with biodigesters it is often not known where to
get spare parts or who to contact.
19 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Table 17: Share of information provided to users after construction
Province
Information provided to the user on:
After sales services? Where to get spare parts?
Who to contact for technical issues?
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Bali 0% 100% 30% 70% 50% 50%
Central Java 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100%
East Java 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Lampung 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0%
NTB 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100%
NTT 17% 83% 0% 100% 0% 100%
South Sulawesi 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
West Java 30% 70% 50% 50% 11% 89%
Weighted average 5% 95% 36% 64% 42% 58%
Partners in the BIRU programme are obliged to provide excellent information and guarantee after sales
services. The ultimate risk of not providing this in a proper way is the non-functioning of digesters,
users reverting back to traditional cooking fuels and leaving biogas with a bad image. So far, giving the
good quality of inspected this is not the case.
Even, of the functioning biodigesters the user satisfaction rate is 80% (51 answers provided). If the
non-functioning digesters are taken into consideration the satisfaction rate is 72%. Data from the
annual user survey shows a satisfaction rate of 88%.
Finally, the users have been asked who in the household is benefitting most from the digester (table
18). Except for NTB, all province report that the women in the household benefit most. Still, over half
of the respondent see benefits for males and females altogether.
Table 18: Main beneficiary of the biodigester in the household
Province Males Females Both
Bali 0% 33% 67%
Central Java 0% 100% 0%
East Java 0% 30% 70%
Lampung 0% 0% 100%
NTB 60% 0% 40%
NTT 0% 83% 17%
South Sulawesi 0% 10% 90%
West Java 0% 0% 100%
Weighted average 8% 34% 58%
20 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
4. Government adoption of household biogas
The BIRU programme has been working with local and national government agencies to get their
commitment to promote, fund and institutionalise biodigester standards and activities. BIRU envisions
a role for the government as standards enforcer, promoter and financier. In practical terms, the MEMR
chairs the six-monthly BIRU programme advisory committee. The programme biogas offices have
regular provincial consultation meetings with local government offices and stakeholders, such as
synchronising and liaising with energy agencies and development planning branches. In the previous
chapters it became clear that the government is an important initiator to construct biodigesters. This
chapter identifies does government institutions and the programme and projects they support. It
presents the policies to promote tangible biogas activities and what the positon of BIRU is herein.
Finally, the size of the investments is discussed as well as the future outlook.
4.1 Identified government institutions active on biogas
The key national government institution which is actively involved in biogas dissemination in Indonesia
is the Directorate Bio-Energy, under the Directorate General of New Renewable Energy and Energy
Conservation (DGNREEC) of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR). Under the
Ministerial Regulation, PERMEN ESDM no. 3/2016, DGNREEC cooperates with provincial government
in biogas dissemination, through the Regional Working Units. The authority is delegated to the
Department of Mineral and Energy on provincial and or district levels. Table 19 shows the overview of
BIRU government organisations interviewed for this assessment.
Table 19: Interviewed government agencies
Province Government agency and/or department Level Active in biogas
Bali
Department of Agriculture and Horticulture Provincial 2013-2016
Department of Mineral and Energy, Department of Public Works Provincial 2014-2016
Department of Urban Planning District 2015
Central Java Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Provincial
& district 2012-2014
Department of Mineral and Energy District 2012
Lampung Department of Mineral and Energy District 2010
NTB Department of Mineral and Energy Provincial 2010
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources District 2011
NTT
Department of Livestock, Environmental Agency District 2012
Department of Mineral and Energy District 2013
Department of Mineral and Energy, Department of Public Works District 2015
Environmental Agency District 2016
South Sulawesi Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Provincial 2014
West Java Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Provincial 2011
Department of Livestock District 2015
- Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources National 2010-2016
More than half (57%) of the government officials interviewed claimed that the BIRU programme is very
important to their institution (57%). The remaining 43 stated that BIRU is important to them. The
21 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
reason of the importance of the BIRU programme relates to environmental and energy aspects, as well
as development issues. They stated that through the BIRU programme, the communities could reduce
the utilisation of traditional firewood biomass as well as fossil fuels and promote a sustainable
environment by using biogas as the main source of cooking energy. Some of them stated that the
programme could foster important economic activities through biodigesters. Additionally, they stated
that BIRU’s standardisation of after sales services and maintenance activities maintain the quality of
biodigesters. Other important government agencies active on biogas are the Departments of Livestock,
Agricultural, Environment, Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprise, and Finance.
4.2 Government policies and programmes on biogas and inclusion of BIRU standards
Since 2009, the BIRU programme has established partnerships with governmental institutions through
DGNREEC. The BIRU fixed-dome digester model (4-12m3) is registered with the Indonesian National
Standard (SNI) product with reference number 7826. The government is using the BIRU standard when
funding construction activities on household level through the Special Allocation Fund or Dana Alokasi
Khusus (DAK) and through the National State Budget (APBN).
The DAK is a large government programme and administered through the MEMR. Since 2013, under
the Ministerial Regulation PERMEN ESDM no. 3/2013, the BIRU standard and technical guideline
(through SNI 7826) has been yearly applied in DAK policies focusing on digester sizes 4m3 and 6m3.
Besides small scale energy solutions, the DAK is also applied in other sectors, such as agriculture,
healthcare and education. The national government assesses which sector will be given DAK in each
province. DAK is allocated to each provincial government and they select the particular districts which
have the highest potential for biogas use. According to government regulation PERMEN ESDM no.
3/2016, at least 15% of the DAK funds have to be allocated in the small scale biogas sector on district
level. Non-BIRU provinces which are targeted by DAK are: Aceh, North Sumatra, South Sumatra, West
Sumatra, Jambi, Bengkulu, Gorontalo, Southeast Sulawesi, Central Sulawesi, North Sulawesi, West
Kalimantan, East Kalimantan and Central Kalimantan. This indicates that the BIRU programme has
influenced a large area coverage outside BIRU current target areas.
Through the ABPN the government is funding biodigesters, but does not apply the BIRU standard in
the ABPN policies. The scheme covers various sizes of biogas plants ranging from 4m3 to (over) 136 m3.
However, DGNREEC, one of the directorates under MEMR which is administering the ABPN funds does
apply the BIRU standard in its bidding procedures. The bidding documents received by the assessment
team are confidential and cannot be shared further, but in an interview with Mr Agus, Head of the Bio-
energy Business Service and Monitoring section, confirmed that DGNREEC is applying the BIRU
standard. When ABPN funds are dispersed through local governments, it titled ‘APBD’.
Example of provincial government programmes including a strong biogas component were reported
in Bali, the Integrated Agriculture System programme or Simantri Programme (2009-2013) and the
Renewable Energy programme or Energi Baru Terbarukan. The BIRU model was not standardised in
these programme and fibreglass plants were mainly used. These installations were mainly fully
subsidised.
In South Sulawesi, the government-led Energy Independent Village Programme or Program Desa
Mandiri Energi (2011-2013) had a budget of IDR 200 billion (EUR 13 million), but did not apply the BIRU
standard. Since 2014, the standard is however applied in the government-led Bioenergy Development
Programme or Program Pengembangan Bioenergi budgeted IDR 800 billion (EUR 53.5 million) up till
22 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
2016. In the first half of 2015, the BIRU programme in this province is working with the government to
access DAK funds. So far, EUR 500,000 has been co-financed.
In NTB, the BIRU programme (trough Hivos) signed a cooperation with the provincial government and
the district government of Lombok Utara in 2012. The cooperation laid a solid foundation for a co-
sharing financial scheme of EUR 100,000 between the programme and the local government. This
cooperation model reduces the actual percentage of farmer input considerably, but they ensure high
quality digesters which are properly maintained and monitored.
Government officials interviewed based in Central Java, Lampung and NTT all declared that biogas
construction activities are organised through open bidding procedures and or direct appointments.
The conditions mentioned were that biodigesters must work properly and certified construction
experts must be used. Lampung has allocated funds to construct forty BIRU model digesters in 2015.
4.3 Number of biodigesters constructed and size of the investment
Provincial and district governments have been interviewed to determine the scope of the government investments: table 20 presents an overview for the BIRU targeted provinces only.
Table 20: Number of BIRU model digesters and investments through local government funds
Province Number of BIRU model digesters constructed
Investments through:
DAK APBD
Bali 117 No data No data
Central Java 608 (2012-2015) EUR 150,000 No data
East Java No interview was possible
Lampung 245 (2010-2015) No data EUR 34,000
NTB 514 (2013-2015) EUR 268,000 EUR 64,000
NTT 401 (2012-2016) EUR 367,000 EUR 94,000
West Java >1,000 (2011-2015) EUR 46,000 EUR 4,000
South Sulawesi 703 (2014-2016) EUR 500,000 No data
Minimum totals 3,588 EUR 13,300,000 EUR 196,000
* Note: APBD supports larger digesters sizes up to 136m3; DAK includes 4m3-6m3
The table above presents actual construction numbers. During brief talks during a national meeting in South Sulawesi in July 2016 with provincial government on biogas, it became clear that representatives of East Kalimantan, South Kalimantan and North Sulawesi (all non-BIRU areas) estimated a total number of 385 to 555 BIRU model digesters constructed through DAK or APBD. Since the DAK and APBD funds are derived from national level funds, administered through DGNREEC, interviews have been conducted to determine the nationwide scope of BIRU model biodigesters outside of the programme’s involvement. Table 21 presents the planned numbers only.
Table 21: Number of planned BIRU model digesters per year funded through APBN and DAK
Funded through 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
APBN - - 232 361 1,715 433 520 No data 3,261
DAK - - - - 1,859 3,034 1,003 No data 5,896
Total - - 232 361 3,574 3,467 1,523 - 9,157
BIRU programme 62 1,586 2,995 3,339 3,268 2,973 2,377 1,223 17,823 Note: Total DAK-funded units is 3,051 when the BIRU programme units are excluded
23 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
The numbers obtained on APBN and DAK only cover 4-12m3 sized digesters, following the BIRU mandatory sizes. Important to mention is that in the total DAK-funded digesters, a total of 2,845 units are labelled BIRU programme digesters and in the total of APBN-funded digesters a total of 400 labelled BIRU programme digesters making the total planned since 2011 of BIRU model digesters through APBN and DAK 5,912. There’s a possibility that the DAK numbers of 2015 are not fully updated yet and therefore may increase. Construction numbers for 2016 were not available yet. Digesters are usually built after the harvesting season in the second half of a year. To compare the number of BIRU programme digesters, the last row has been added in table 21.
In 2016, the Government of Indonesia allocated IDR 677,562,580,000 (EUR 46.7 million) to support 14 provinces to scale up renewable energy, with a minimum of 10% for household scale biodigesters. The government has formalised this through the MEMR Decree no 3, 2016.
4.4 Future government investments in household biogas
According to interviews with MEMR, the proposed national budget for household biogas dissemination
is IDR 23 billion (EUR 1.5 million) for 2017. The inquiry has been proposed to the Ministry of Finance
for approval. The DAK and APBN will continue to fund digesters in the future. Further national level
data is not yet available. Other potential funding for biogas includes the:
• General Allocation Fund or Dana Alokasi Umum (DAU);
• Credit for Food and Energy Security or Kredit Ketahanan Pangan dan Energi (KKP-E);
• Centre of Government Investment or Pusat Investasi Pemerintah (PIP);
• People’s Business Credit Programme or Kredit Usaha Rakyat (KUR).
These funding programmes come from various institutions and all have purposed various waste-to-
energy installation throughout Indonesia. They are not yet mandated to use the BIRU technical
standards. Advocacy on the BIRU technical guidelines will be needed to endorse compliance with BIRU
standard.
On provincial level, the current BIRU targeted provinces planned a total of 2,780 BIRU model digesters.
The programme could include part of this total if the investments are channelled through BIRU. The
government of South Sulawesi presents the highest commitment with 1,500 units in 2017 for an
investment of IDR 1.2 billion (EUR 80,000) through the earlier mentioned Bio-energy Development
Programme. Even for the years 2018-2020 7,000 units are planned for a total investment of IDR 5.6
billion (EUR 375,000) through the Energy Sovereignty Programme.
The government of NTB has planned at least 720 units through a DAK investment of IDR 9 billion (EUR
600,000); likely the digesters will be subsidised for 80-100%. Bali confirmed 10% of the DAK funds to
be spend on household biodigesters in 2017. So far, 100 units are planned for 2017 and another 100
for 2018. Central Java expects 300 units funded through APBD, while NTT reported 75 units through
both the Environment Agency and the Mining and Energy Agency. West Java planned 85 biodigesters
in 2017 for an APBD investment of IDR 700 million (EUR 47,000).
24 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
5. Conclusions and recommendations
It can be concluded that the impact of the BIRU programme on independently initiated biogas sector
activities is huge. The national government as well as provincial governments are the main initiators
of biogas construction activities outside of the scope and the geographical areas of the BIRU
programme. The BIRU technical specifications and guidelines are the common household biogas
standard since several years and more provinces are adopted them. Nearly 6,000 biodigesters have
been installed since 2010 through two government funds: The National State Budget (APBN) and the
Special Allocation Fund (DAK), of which the latter institutionalises the BIRU model biodigester standard
by obliging 15% of its funds to be used for BIRU models as well as often making use of certified
construction experts. In BIRU areas, an amount of over EUR 13 million for biogas has been allocated
since 2010. In addition, the DAK is focusing on provinces on Kalimantan, Sulawesi and Sumatra. A
variety of other government agencies the MEMR is adopting the BIRU standard as well.
The current and former construction partners and mason groups of BIRU seem to find additional work
due to these government initiatives. Over 6,000 biodigesters, a similar number presented by
government data, have been constructed, mainly on Java, by these (ex-)partners without further
involvement of the BIRU programme. Likely, this construction number is 10%-20% higher, since more
provinces are covered by the government and estimations of an additional few hundred BIRU model
biodigesters are left out of the counting process. The peak years of production are 2014 and 2015.
The (ex-)partners tend to follow mainly the government investments, besides partnering with larger
companies on CSR programmes and promoting biogas independently through networking and door-
to-door advertisement for individual households. They do not plan ahead much, as the governments
do not either, and still half of them mentioned that the business apart from BIRU is staying the same
or increasing. Independent investments in construction skills development are reported and 75 new
mason have been trained. Where the BIRU programme focuses on specific sector services, such as user
and bioslurry trainings, after sales services and credit provision, the (ex-)partners tend do much less in
this regard, which causes a risk of quality loss and feeding to a bad image for biogas in general.
However, the quality of BIRU model digesters have been assessed and they are overall in many cases
in good or very good condition. Still, 11% reported technical or non-technical failures (mainly in Bali
and Lampung) and different minor quality issues vary per inspected province. The user satisfaction rate
however reached 80%. Again, not much extra provided services or guarantees have been reported by
users, which are normally part of the deal through BIRU. Even, the government subsidies for biogas
are higher than BIRU’s incentives, and (nearly) a 100% in NTB, NTT and Lampung. Females are the main
beneficiaries of having a biodigester.
The government of Indonesia has a history in subsidising innovative household energy solutions. It is
recommended that BIRU works even closer with the government in order not to distort market forces
by (nearly) fully subsidised digesters. BIRU has clearly kick started the market and now it is time to find
the best sustainable solutions with the government agencies and the construction partners. BIRU
needs to better understand the reasoning of the private sector to bring biogas to scale. This
comprehensive and political sensitive task needs to be initiated from top down. It is recommended to
review BIRU offerings to the government and private sector and make BIRU more appealing to follow
their biogas sector strategy. BIRU could start with a national workshop to be held with the goal to liaise
and structure government efforts (policy and practical-wise) even further based on experiences in
building national biogas programmes by Hivos and its partners.
25 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
References
• Qibtiyyah, R.M., Sidik, M. and Masrizal. Ministry of Finance. Pengelolaan DAK: Kondisi dan
Strategi ke Depan. Jakarta, 2013, page 82-85;
• Republic of Indonesia. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. Ministry Regulation
Number 3 Year 2013: Technical Guidelines of Special Allocation Fund for Rural Energy
Financial Year 2013 Annex 1, page 18-29;
• Republic of Indonesia. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. Ministry Regulation
Number 3 Year 2014: Technical Guidelines of Special Allocation Fund for Rural Energy
Financial Year Annex 1, page 18-29;
• Republic of Indonesia. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. Ministry Regulation
Number 10 Year 2015: Technical Guidelines of Special Allocation Fund for Rural Energy
Financial Year 2015 Annex 1, page 18-29;
• Republic of Indonesia. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. Ministry Regulation
Number 3 Year 2016: Technical Guidelines of Special Allocation Fund for Rural Energy
Financial Year 2016 Annex 1, page 37-57;
• Republic of Indonesia. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. “Monitoring dan Evaluasi
DAK Bidang Energi Skala Kecil TA 2016 Triwulan II”. Presented in Quarterly National
Coordination and Evaluation Meeting of Special Allocation Fund for Small Scale Energy Sector
Year 2016 II in Makassar, 28 July 2016;
• Republic of Indonesia. Ministry of Finance. Pembiayaan Energi Terbarukan: Solusi Atas
Membengkaknya Subsidi Energi, http://www.kemenkeu.go.id/Artikel/pembiayaan-energi-
terbarukan-solusi-atas-membengkaknya-subsidi-energi (8 August 2016);
• Republic of Indonesia. Ministry of Finance. Analisis Biaya dan Manfaat Pembiayaan Investasi
Limbah Menjadi Energi Melalui Kredit Program. Jakarta, 2014. page 42-45;
• Yayasan Rumah Energi. Laporan Provinsi Semester Kedua 2015 Program Biogas Rumah
(BIRU), page 76.
26 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Annexes
• Questionnaire Form A for (ex-)partner organisations
• Questionnaire Form B for (ex-)masons/supervisors
• Questionnaire Form C for government officials
• Questionnaire Form D for a digester quality inspection
27 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Annex 1 - Form A: Interview form for current CPOs, ex-CPOs and other
organisations that construct BIRU model digesters outside the programme’s scope
Important: please explain briefly to the respondent the goal of this BIRU survey. The survey results on
organisational level will remain confidential and no (business) sensitive information will be passed on
to third parties. The results will be compiled a research report, which they can get access to if needed.
NUMBER:
1. Full name of the respondent?
Nama lengkap
2. Name of the organisation?
Nama organisasi
3. Function of the respondent?
Jabatan
4. What is your email address and phone number?
Alamat email dan nomor telephone
a. Email:
b. Phone:
5.
What type is the organisation?
Jenis organisasi
☐ Private enterprise ☐ Mason group ☐ Cooperative ☐ NGO ☐ Other:
6.
What is the organisation’s relation to BIRU?
Hubungan organisasi dengan BIRU
☐ Current CPO (go to Q10.) ☐ Ex-CPO (go to Q10.) ☐ Organisation never partnered with BIRU
7. What is the core business of the organisation?
Bisnis utama dari organisasi
8. How did your organisation become aware of BIRU?
Darimana organisasi anda tahu tentang BIRU
9.
Who (person or organisation) trained the organisation in building BIRU digesters? Siapa (orang atau organisasi) yang melatih organisasi anda dalam membangun reaktor biogas BIRU Please go to question 11.
10.
Please tick the years of cooperation with BIRU:
Di tahun berapa anda berpartner dengan BIRU
☐ 2010 ☐ 2011 ☐ 2012 ☐ 2013 ☐ 2014 ☐ 2015 ☐ 2016
11.
How many BIRU model digesters have you constructed outside of BIRU
support?
Berapa banyak reaktor biogas yang dibangun di luar support BIRU
In case zero (0), please go to question 24.
28 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
12.
Could you provide us with the following numbers of BIRU model digesters per year and size, which have
been constructed outside of the programme’s scope?
Mohon diisi jumlah reaktor model BIRU yang dibangun di luar program BIRU
2m3 4m3 6m3 8m3 10m3 12m3 …m3
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
In case a clear answer has been provided, please move to question 15.
13.
In case unclear at question 12., please estimate the total number:
Bila nomor 12 sulit untuk dijawab, mohon diperkirakan jumlahnya
☐ 1-10 ☐ 10-25 ☐ 25-50 ☐ 50-75 ☐ 75-100 ☐ 100-150 ☐ 150-200 ☐ Over 200
14.
Is the number of BIRU model digesters your organisation constructs outside of BIRU support…?
Apakah jumlah reaktor biogas model BIRU yang dibangun di luar dukungan BIRU?
☐ Increasing ☐ Decreasing ☐ Staying the same
15.
Is your organisation planning to continue BIRU model construction without programme support?
Apakah organisasi anda berencana untuk melanjutkan membangun reaktor biogas model BIRU di luar
dukungan program?
☐ Yes (please request the total number of planned units for 2016 and 2017) ☐ No ☐ Don’t know yet
2016: 2017:
16.
By whom was the organisation mainly requested to construct BIRU digesters outside of the programme?
Oleh siapakah organisasi diminta (terutama) untuk membangun reaktor biogas model BIRU di luar program?
☐ Government ☐ Private enterprise ☐ Households ☐ NGO ☐ Other:
More answers are possible, please tick the boxes
17.
Based on the answer at 16, what was the main underlying reason for the client to have biodigesters build?
Berdasarkan jawaban no 16, mohon sebutkan alasan utama klien membangun reaktor biogas?
☐ Corporate Social Responsibility ☐ Government policy ☐ Demand for fertiliser
☐ Demand for energy ☐ Environmental reason ☐ Other:
18. In which province(s) have you constructed these digesters?
Di propinsi mana saja anda sudah membangun reaktor biogas model BIRU?
29 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Questions 19-21 are only meant for ex-CPOs and other organisations
19.
How does your organisation promote biogas?
Bagaimana organisasi anda mempromosikan biogas?
☐ Not ☐ Printed advertisement ☐ Online advertisement ☐ Door-to-door ☐ Other:
20.
Has your organisation supported the biogas households, outside of the BIRU programme, with…?
Apakah organisasi anda mendukung rumah tangga biogas rumah di luar program BIRU dengan?
☐ User training ☐ Bioslurry services ☐ Bioslurry training ☐ Link to credit facilities
☐ After Sales Services ☐ Other:
More answers are possible, please tick the boxes
21.
Does your organisation work on individual skills development for your staff for biogas activities?
Apakah organisasi anda melakukan peningkatan keahlian staff terkait kegiatan biogas?
☐ Yes, example(s): ☐ No
22. How many staff do you currently employ for building BIRU model digesters?
Berapa orang staff yang dipekerjakan untuk membangun reaktor biogas model BIRU
23.
Are your masons working for other organisations as well?
Apakah mason bekerja untuk organisasi lain juga?
☐ Yes (please request their name and phone number) ☐ No ☐ Not aware
24.
Do you know of any other organisations building BIRU model digesters outside of the programme’s
scope?
Apakah anda mengetahui organisasi yang membangun reaktor biogas model BIRU di luar jangkauan
program?
☐ Yes (please request their name and phone number) ☐ No
25.
Could we please visit some of the biogas households for a brief quality examination?
Apakah kami diijinkan untuk mengunjungi beberapa biogas rumah untuk melakukan pengecekan singkat?
☐ Yes (please note down the location and household’s name) ☐ Not
Please mention the full anonymity of the examination results
Mohon disampaikan tentang anonym untuk hasil pengecekan
26. Any other important remarks by the respondent:
Ada catatan penting lainnya dari respondent:
Please use the reporting spreadsheet provided to feedback all the answers.
30 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Annex 1 - Form B: Questionnaire to interview masons, ex-masons, supervisors, ex-
supervisors and other individuals that construct BIRU model digesters outside the
programme
Important: please explain briefly to the respondent the goal of this BIRU survey. The survey results on
organisational level will remain confidential and no (business) sensitive information will be passed on
to third parties. The results will be compiled a research report, which they can get access to if needed.
NUMBER:
1. Full name of the respondent?
Nama lengkap
2.
What is your email address and phone
number?
Nomor telepon dan alamat email
a. Email:
b. Phone:
3.
In which year did you start working on biogas construction?
Di tahun berapakah anda mulai membangun reaktor biogas
☐ 2009 ☐ 2010 ☐ 2011 ☐ 2012 ☐ 2013 ☐ 2014 ☐ 2015 ☐ 2016
4.
Are you still actively constructing biodigesters?
Apakah anda masih bekerja membangun reaktor biogas
☐ Yes ☐ No, stopped in year:
5.
What is your business relation to BIRU?
Apa hubungan bisnis anda dengan BIRU?
☐ Current mason ☐ Current supervisor ☐ CPO employee/manager (please ask name and use form A)
☐ Ex-mason ☐ Ex-supervisor ☐ Never had a relation with BIRU ☐ Other:
6.
In case still active in biogas construction, are you working independently or in a group?
Kalau-kalau masih aktif membangun reaktor biogas, apakah anda bekerja sendiri atau bergabung dalam
kelompok tertentu?
☐ Part of a mason group ☐ Part of another organisation (please note down name)
7.
How many digesters have you constructed outside of BIRU support?
Berapa jumlah reaktor biogas yang sudah anda bangun di luar dukungan BIRU?
In case zero (0), please go to question 18
8.
Could you provide us with the following numbers of BIRU model digesters per year and size, which have
been constructed outside of the programme’s scope?
Mohon menyebutkan jumlah reaktor model BIRU tiap tahunnya berdasarkan ukuran reaktor, yang dibangun
di luar dukungan program BIRU.
2m3 4m3 6m3 8m3 10m3 12m3 …m3
2009
31 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
In case a clear answer has been provided, please move to question 10.
8.
In case unclear at question 7., please estimate the total number:
Kalau sulit menyebutkan angka yang pasti dari pertanyaan no 7, mohon berikan angka perkiraan
☐ 1-10 ☐ 10-25 ☐ 25-50 ☐ 50-75 ☐ 75-100 ☐ 100-150 ☐ 150-200 ☐ Over 200
In case zero (0), please go to question 18.
9.
Is the number of BIRU model digesters you are constructing outside of BIRU support…?
Apakah jumlah reaktor model BIRU yang dibangun di luar program BIRU?
☐ Increasing ☐ Decreasing ☐ Staying the same
10.
Who trained you in constructing BIRU model digesters?
Siapa yang melatih anda dalam membangun reactor model BIRU?
☐ BIRU ☐ NGO ☐ Private enterprise ☐ Independent mason ☐ Government ☐ Other:
11. Have you trained others on BIRU model construction?
Apakah anda pernah melatih orang lain untuk membangun reaktor model BIRU?
☐ Yes, how many: (please ask for direct contact details or the employee) ☐ No
12.
Are you planning to continue BIRU model construction without programme support?
Apakah anda berencana untuk melanjutkan pembangunan reaktor model BIRU tanpa dukungan program?
☐ Yes (please request the total number of planned units for 2016 and 2017) ☐ No ☐ Don’t know yet
2016: 2017:
13.
By whom are you mainly requested to construct BIRU digesters outside of the programme’s support?
Oleh siapakah (terutama) anda diminta untuk membangun reaktor model BIRU di luar dukungan program?
☐ Government ☐ Private enterprise ☐ Households ☐ Other:
More answers are possible, please tick the boxes
14.
Based on the answer at 13, what was the main underlying reason for the client to have biodigesters build?
Berdasarkan pertanyaan no 13, apa alasan utama klien membangun reaktor biogas?
☐ Corporate Social Responsibility ☐ Government policy ☐ Demand for fertiliser
☐ Demand for energy ☐ Environmental reason ☐ Other:
15. In which province(s) have you constructed these digesters?
Di provinsi-provinsi mana saja anda membangun reaktor-reaktor tersebut?
32 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
16.
How does your organisation promote biogas?
Bagaimana organisasi anda mempromosikan biogas?
☐ Not ☐ Printed advertisement ☐ Online advertisement ☐ Door-to-door ☐ Other:
17.
Has your organisation supported the biogas households, outside of the BIRU programme, with…?
Apakah organisasi anda mendukung rumah tangga biogas rumah di luar program BIRU dengan?
☐ User training ☐ Bioslurry services ☐ Bioslurry training ☐ Link to credit facilities
☐ After Sales Services ☐ Other:
More answers are possible, please tick the boxes
18.
Do you know of any other organisations or person building BIRU model digesters outside of the
programme’s scope?
Apakah anda mengetahui organisasi lain yang membangun reaktor model BIRU di luar jangkauan program?
☐ Yes, how many: (please ask for name and phone number) ☐ No
19. In case working with BIRU, did you see construction assistants becoming constructors themselves?
Dalam bekerja dengan BIRU apakah anda melihat asisten tukang yang menjadi tukang ?
☐ Yes, how many: (please ask for name and phone number) ☐ No
20.
Could we please visit some of the biodigesters constructed outside of BIRU’s scope for a brief quality
examination?
Apakah anda akan mengijinkan kami mengecek biogas rumah tangga untuk pengecekan singkat?
☐ Yes (please note down the location and household’s name) ☐ No
Please mention the full anonymity of the examination results
21. Any other important remarks by the respondent:
Ada catatan penting lainnya dari responden?
Please use the reporting spreadsheet provided to feedback all the answers.
33 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Annex 3 - Form C: Interview protocol for current government institutions
supporting the construction of BIRU model digesters outside the programme’s
scope
Important: please explain briefly to the respondent the goal of this BIRU survey. The survey results on
organisational level will remain confidential and no (business) sensitive information will be passed on
to third parties. The results will be compiled a research report, which they can get access to if needed.
NUMBER:
1. Full name of the respondent?
2. Name of the government organisation and department?
3. Function of the respondent?
4. What is your email address and phone number? a. Email:
b. Phone:
5. On which level does this government organisation operate?
☐ National ☐ Provincial ☐ District ☐ Other:
6. In which years has the government organisation actively promoted BIRU model digesters:
☐ 2010 ☐ 2011 ☐ 2012 ☐ 2013 ☐ 2014 ☐ 2015 ☐ 2016
7. How important is the BIRU programme to your government organisation?
☐ Not at all ☐ Somewhat important ☐ Important ☐ Very important
8.
Please elaborate on the answer selected in previous question 7.:
9. Could you provide an overview of the biogas programmes and projects your organisation was and is
involvement in, including investment?
# Name of program/project Duration
(years) Investor name
Investment
in Rp.
Applied BIRU
model?
1 ☐ Yes ☐ No
2 ☐ Yes ☐ No
3 ☐ Yes ☐ No
4 ☐ Yes ☐ No
5 ☐ Yes ☐ No
n ☐ Yes ☐ No
Please ask the respondent to provide us with documented information on these programmes/project
10. How many BIRU digesters have you supported outside of the BIRU programme?
34 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
In case zero (0), please go to question 14.
11. Could you provide us with the following numbers of BIRU model digesters per year and size, which have
been constructed on the initiative of the government organisation (outside of the programme’s scope)?
2m3 4m3 6m3 8m3 10m3 12m3 …m3
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Or information per programme/project described at question 9.
Program Nr of BIRU digesters Implemented by
(name and contact)
Investment cost for
farmer Share of subsidy
1
2
3
4
5
n
12. Could you please elaborate on the implementation method of your programmes/project:
13.
In case unclear at question 11., please estimate the total number:
☐ 1-10 ☐ 10-25 ☐ 25-50 ☐ 50-75 ☐ 75-100 ☐ 100-150 ☐ 150-200 ☐ 200-300
☐ 300-500 ☐ 500-750 ☐ 750-1,000 ☐ 1,000-2,000 ☐ Over 2,000
14.
Is your organisation planning to continue BIRU model construction without programme support?
☐ Yes (please request the information in the table below) ☐ No ☐ Don’t know yet
Year Planned nr of digesters Planned total investment in Rp. Planned programme/project
2017
2018
35 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
2019
2020
Please ask the respondent to provide us with documented information on the planned programmes/project
15. Which public policy documents include information on BIRU model digesters?
Policy Year Web link or received hardcopy?
16. Do you know of any other organisations building BIRU model digesters outside of the programme’s scope?
☐ Yes (please request their name and phone number) ☐ No
17. Any other important remarks by the respondent:
Please use the reporting spreadsheet provided to feedback all the answers.
36 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
Sudah ada kotoran (filled plant)
Belum diisi (Non-Filled Plant)
Nama pemilik (Name of the plant owner) __________________________________________
Alamat (Address) ;_______________________Kabupaten (District) ____________________
No Digester (Plant ID number)________________ Ukuran (Plant Size)__________________
Nama CPO (Name of CPO or organisation)________________________________________
Nama Tukang (Name of (ex-)mason)______________________Reg. no.________________
Kontrol oleh (Plant controlled by)________________________________________________
Wakil CPO (CPO or organisation representative) ____________________________________
Tanggal kontrol (Plant control date)______________________________________________
QS no Standar Kualitas
Quality standards
Temuan-temuan Findings
Keterangan
Remarks
UMUM (GENERAL)
1 Hanya satu reaktor per rumah tangga
Only one plant per household
Ya (Yes) ______
Tidak (No) ______
3 Reaktor sesuai dengan rancangan yang
disetujui Construction as per approved design Yes_____ No_____
4 Reaktor sudah lengkap
Plant fully completed
Yes_____ No_____
6 Kartu garansi 3 tahun telah diberikan
3 years guarantee card given
Yes_____ No_____
7 3 tahun garansi layanan purna jual diberikan
3 years after sales services guarantee given
Yes_____ No_____
8 Pelatihan pengoperasian untuk pengguna
User’s operation training given
Yes_____ No_____
9 User’s bioslurry training given? Yes_____ No_____
Annex 4 - Form D: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme
Adjusted Quality Control Form for BIRU Assessment
Only for claimed BIRU model digesters build outside BIRU’s scope;
please inspect digesters under construction as well
37 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
10 Menggunakan tukang bersertifikat dan terdaftar Registered and certified mason used
Yes_____ No_____
MATERIAL KONSTRUKSI
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
11 Batu bata berkualitas baik
Good quality bricks
Yes_____ No_____
12 Pasir berkualitas baik
Good quality sand
Yes_____ No_____
13 Batu cor berkualitas baik
Good quality aggregates
Yes_____ No_____
14 Semen dengan kualitas baik
Good quality cement
Yes_____ No_____
15 Penggunaan semen dengan kuantitas yang benar
Bags of cement used (50 Kg)
________Bags
16 Cat akrilik dengan kualitas dan kuantitas baik
Good quality and quantity of acrylic paint used
Yes_____ No_____ Company_____
Ltr_______
17 Menggunakan batang penguat
Reinforcement rods used
_________ Kg
DIGESTER
18 Lubang digester dengan kedalaman yang
akurat Accuracy depth of digester pit Yes_____ No_____ _______ cm
19 Dinding bulat dengan radius yang akurat
Accuracy radius of round wall
Yes_____ No_____ _______ cm
20 Dinding bulat dengan pemipaan yang akurat Accuracy plumb of round wall
Yes_____ No_____ Differ _____cm
21 Dinding bulat dengan ketinggian yang akurat Accuracy height of round wall
Yes_____ No_____ _____cm
22 Pengisian dinding belakang dengan benar
Proper back filling on wall
Yes_____ No_____
23 Penyelesaian dinding bagian dalam dengan
benar Proper finishing inside round wall Yes_____ No_____
24 Penyelesaian lantai digester dengan benar
Proper casting and finishing of digester floor
Yes_____ No_____
KUBAH
DOME
38 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
25 Kubah dengan ketinggian yang akurat
Accuracy height of dome
Yes_____ No_____ ______ cm
26 Kubah dalam radius yang akurat
Accuracy of radius of dome
Yes_____ No_____ ______ cm
27 Perlakuan yang tepat sisi dalam kubah
Proper treatment inside the dome
Yes_____ No_____
28 Pipa gas utama terletak pada bagian tengah
Center pipe at centre point of dome
Yes_____ No_____
29 Pengurukan yang tepat keliling puncak kubah
Correct top filling over dome
Yes_____ No_____
30 Turret dengan ukuran yang benar
Correct size of turret
Yes_______ No_____ -------cm X ------cm
31 Turret dengan ketinggian yang benar
Correct turret height
Yes_____ No_____ --------cm
HYDROLIC CHAMBER
32 Panjang dan lebar yang akurat
Accuracy of lengths and width
Yes_____ No_____ ______cm
33 Kedalaman yang akurat
Accuracy of depth
Yes_____ No_____ ______cm
34 Volume (isi) yang akurat
Accuracy of volume
Yes_____ No_____ ______m3
35 Posisi yang benar lubang keluar terhadap manhole dan turret
Correct position overflow vs manhole and dome
Yes_____ No_____ ______degrees
36 Penyelesaian dinding dalam yang benar
Proper back fillings of walls
Yes_____ No_____
37 Outlet ditutupi penutup yang tepat dan perkuat dengan pelat
Outlet covered with properly cast and reinforced slabs
Yes_____ No_____
38 Akurasi jarak antara dasar outlet - top manhole
Accuracy distance bottom HC- top manhole
Yes_____ No_____ ______cm
39 Minimal 2 buah lubang kompos
Minimum two proper size compost pits
Yes_____ No_____ ___cm X____cm
INLET
39 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
40 Diposisikan dengan benar atas manhole
Properly positioned vs manhole
Yes_____ No_____
41 Lantai inlet diposisikan dengan benar terhadap lubang outlet
Inlet floor properly positioned vs outlet overflow
Yes_____ No_____ ______cm high
42 Ketinggian maksimal/minimal inlet terjaga Maximum/minimum height maintained
Yes_____ No_____ ______cm
43 Penyelesaian lubang inlet yang benar
Proper finishing of inlet pit
Yes_____ No_____ ______cm
44 Instalasi peralatan Mixer
Installation of mixing device
Yes_____ No_____
45 Instalasi mixer (pencampur) yang benar
Proper installation of mixing device
Yes_____ No_____ ______cm
PERPIPAAN AND PERALATAN
APPLIANCES AND PIPES
46 Merek pipa utama yang digunakan
Applied Main pipe as BIRU standard?
Yes_____ No_____ Brand_________
47 Merek Katup utama yang digunakan
Applied main gas valve as BIRU standard?
Yes_____ No_____ Brand_________
48 Pipa dan peralatannya yang dipergunakan
Applied pipe and pipe fittings as BIRU standard?
Yes_____ No_____ Brand_________
49 Kran pembuangan air yang dipakai
Applied water drain as BIRU standard?
Yes_____ No_____ Brand_________
50 Kompor gas disetujui oleh IDBP
Applied gas stove as BIRU standard?
Yes_____ No_____ Brand_________
51 Gas lamp approved by IDBP Yes_____ No_____ Brand
52 Pipa fleksibel yang dipakai
Applied flexible pipe as BIRU standard?
Yes_____ No_____ Brand_________
53 Pipa Inlet yang dipakai
Applied Inlet pipe as BIRU standard?
Yes_____ No_____ Brand_________
54 Peralatan Mixer disetujui oleh IDBP
Applied mixer as BIRU standard?
Yes_____ No_____ Brand_________
FITTINGS AND GAS PIPES
55 Tidak ada perangkat yang tidak perlu di jalur
pipa Unnecessary fittings in the pipeline Yes_____ No_____
40 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
56 Tidak ada kebocoran gas di jalur pipa dan katup
Gas leakage in the pipeline/valves
Yes_____ No_____
57 Menggunakan penyegelan yang tepat
Use of proper sealing agent
Yes_____ No_____
58 Pipa ditanam setidaknya pada kedalam 15 cm
Pipe buried at least 15 cm deep
Yes_____ No_____ ______cm
59 Mampu mengalirkan air dari jalur pipa
Able to drain all water from the pipeline
Yes_____ No_____
USERS
60 What type of organisation convinced the household to get a digester?
- Government Yes_____ No_____ Level?
- Private enterprise Yes_____ No_____
- NGO Yes_____ No_____
- Mason or mason group Yes_____ No_____
- Other
61 Why did the household decide to invest in a digester?
- Need for modern energy Yes_____ No_____
- Need for fertiliser Yes_____ No_____
- Environmental reason Yes_____ No_____
- Other: Please explain
62 What is the main benefit of biodigester currently?
- Reduction in household expenditures Yes_____ No_____
- More safety Yes_____ No_____
- Faster cooking Yes_____ No_____
- Reduction in firewood collection Yes_____ No_____
- Less effort to have energy Yes_____ No_____
- Other Please explain
63 If applicable, what is the reason on non-functioning of the digesters?
Please explain
64 If applicable, is the owner using the gas for cooking, lighting or both?
☐ Cooking ☐ Lighting
☐ Both
41 Impact assessment of the BIRU programme - August 2016
65 What was the investment cost for the owner? Rp.
66 Has a subsidy been provided? Yes_____ No_____ If yes, Rp.
67 Did the owner use a credit facility to pay for the digester?
Yes_____ No_____ If yes, name or org. and amount
68 Which information has been provided by the mason other than training?
- Explanation of ASS if applicable? Yes_____ No_____
- Where to get spare parts? Yes_____ No_____
- Who to contact in case of tech. issues? Yes_____ No_____
- Other?
69 What is the overall user satisfaction? %
70 Who’s benefitting most from the digester in the household?
☐ Male ☐ Female ☐ Both
* Kontrak, laporan penyelesaian, tanda terima subsidi, kartu garansi
Contract, completion report, subsidy receipt, warrantee card provided ------- Yes ----No
Catatan lain
Other remarks, if any:
Tanda tangan wakil CPO Tanda tangan staf IDBP Tanda tangan pemilik
Signature of representative Signature of IDBP staff Signature of User