Docstoc

Country background Tanzania

Document Sample
Country background Tanzania Powered By Docstoc
					Feasibility Study for a National Domestic
Biogas Programme in Tanzania
Published by:
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH
Postfach 5180
65726 Eschborn
T +49 61 96 79-0
F +49 61 96 79-11 15
E info@gtz.de

Internet:
www.gtz.de

Name of sector project:
Partnerschaften und Netzwerke zur Förderung erneuerbarer und nachhaltiger Energie


Author/Responsible/Editor etc.:

Coordinated by:
Thomas D. Schmitz, GTZ

Contributed by:
Peter Bos, SNV
Christopher Kellner, SNV
Ian Monroe, Winrock International
Prem Sagar Subedi, Winrock International
Marloes Nijboer, University of Utrecht
Fred Marree, University of Utrecht
Sandra Haskamp, INTEGRATION
Anna Ingwe, REECON
Kerstin Dietrich, CDM Advisor

Layout:
Thomas D. Schmitz, GTZ

Eschborn, June 2007
Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Index




                                  - ii -
                 Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Index



Index
Index........................................................................................................................................ iii
Acknowledgment ...................................................................................................................... v
List of tables ............................................................................................................................ vi
List of figures ........................................................................................................................... vi
Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................1
Methodology.............................................................................................................................3
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3
2 Background .......................................................................................................................4
  2.1       General.....................................................................................................................4
  2.2       Geography ................................................................................................................4
  2.3       Tanzanian society in figures .....................................................................................4
     2.3.1         General .............................................................................................................4
     2.3.2         Economic situation ............................................................................................4
     2.3.3         Distribution and analysis of poverty in rural areas ............................................5
  2.4       Water availability ......................................................................................................5
  2.5       Energy background ..................................................................................................5
  2.6       Energy demand and supply in the household sector................................................6
     2.6.1         General .............................................................................................................6
     2.6.2         Expenditure for energy......................................................................................7
  2.7       Energy and Environment and Health........................................................................7
  2.8       Deforestation ............................................................................................................8
  2.9       Livestock farming practices ......................................................................................8
     2.9.1         Figures and facts...............................................................................................8
     2.9.2         Geographical Distribution..................................................................................9
  2.10 Fertilizer demand ......................................................................................................9
  2.11 Health and sanitation needs in regard to biogas ......................................................9
     2.11.1         Health ...............................................................................................................9
     2.11.2         Sanitation........................................................................................................10
  2.12 Policy and plans in regard to biogas.......................................................................10
     2.12.1         National Energy Policy....................................................................................10
     2.12.2         National Livestock Policy ................................................................................10
     2.12.3         Rural Development Strategy...........................................................................11
  2.13 Existing institutional set-up relevant for a national biogas programme...................12
     2.13.1         CAMARTEC....................................................................................................12
     2.13.2         Katani Ltd. and Tanzania Sisal Board ............................................................13
     2.13.3         MIGESADO ....................................................................................................13
     2.13.4         SURUDE.........................................................................................................14
     2.13.5         KAKUTE Ltd. ..................................................................................................15
     2.13.6         ELCT...............................................................................................................15
     2.13.7         SUDERETA ....................................................................................................15
     2.13.8         SIDO ...............................................................................................................15
     2.13.9         Private Sector .................................................................................................16
     2.13.10 FIDE................................................................................................................16
     2.13.11 HEIFER...........................................................................................................16
     2.13.12 ESAMI.............................................................................................................17
     2.13.13 ZALWEDA ......................................................................................................17
     2.13.14 CEEST............................................................................................................17
     2.13.15 SACCOs .........................................................................................................18
     2.13.16 Micro finance institutions ................................................................................19
3 Biogas in Tanzania..........................................................................................................20
  3.1       History ....................................................................................................................20
  3.2       Existing technologies in Tanzania ..........................................................................21
     3.2.1         Overview .........................................................................................................21

                                                                  - iii -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Acknowledgment


    3.2.2      CAMARTEC Type ...........................................................................................21
  3.3     Existing biogas digesters and market development in Tanzania............................23
  3.4     Effects on deforestation..........................................................................................24
  3.5     Lessons learned .....................................................................................................25
    3.5.1      GTZ (SEP) ......................................................................................................25
    3.5.2      SURUDE (GEF, UNDP) ..................................................................................25
    3.5.3      MIGESADO (BFTW) .......................................................................................26
    3.5.4      Tanga Dairy Development Programme...........................................................26
4 Feasibility assessment ....................................................................................................27
  4.1     Technical feasibility ................................................................................................27
    4.1.1      Determining average daily biogas demand.....................................................27
    4.1.2      Technical description of the appropriate biogas plant.....................................27
    4.1.3      Required components and materials ..............................................................28
    4.1.4      Quality parameters for biogas plant components............................................29
    4.1.5      Biogas household appliances .........................................................................30
    4.1.6      Operation and maintenance requirements......................................................31
    4.1.7      Technical, construction and operation risks ....................................................32
  4.2     Financial and economic feasibility ..........................................................................32
    4.2.1      Production costs..............................................................................................32
    4.2.2      Capital requirements of biogas plant producers..............................................33
    4.2.3      Business development requirements ..............................................................33
    4.2.4      Service costs...................................................................................................34
    4.2.5      Clean development mechanism......................................................................34
    4.2.6      Internal rate of return.......................................................................................36
    4.2.7      Critical risk factors...........................................................................................38
  4.3     Social, environmental and political feasibility..........................................................38
    4.3.1      Knowledge on and experiences with biogas ...................................................38
    4.3.2      Acceptance of biogas......................................................................................39
    4.3.3      Acceptance of the attachment of toilettes .......................................................39
    4.3.4      Relevant government regulations which have to be complied ........................39
    4.3.5      Environmental risks.........................................................................................39
    4.3.6      Social risks ......................................................................................................40
  4.4     Market viability ........................................................................................................40
    4.4.1      Target customer ..............................................................................................40
    4.4.2      Estimated market size.....................................................................................43
    4.4.3      Targeted geographic area...............................................................................43
    4.4.4      Expected sales levels for ................................................................................44
    4.4.5      Competing products ........................................................................................46
    4.4.6      Advantage of biogas in comparison to competing products............................47
    4.4.7      Critical market risk factors...............................................................................47
5 Implementation Strategy .................................................................................................48
  5.1     Identified problems and expectations of stakeholders............................................48
  5.2     Technical issues .....................................................................................................48
  5.3     Organisational structure .........................................................................................50
  5.4     Extension related issues.........................................................................................50
  5.5     Strategy to address poverty reduction ....................................................................51
  5.6     Existing governmental framework relevant for a biogas programme......................51
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................53
References .............................................................................................................................54
People interviewed during the study ......................................................................................57
Appendix 1 – Information on biogas digesters in Tanzania....................................................60
Appendix 2 – Additional thematic maps of Tanzania .............................................................64
Appendix 3 – Photos of stables in Mwanza............................................................................67
Appendix 4 – Input data for financial and economic assessment ..........................................68



                                                               - iv -
     Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Acknowledgment


Acknowledgment
First of all, I would like to acknowledge the great cooperation of SNV and GTZ within this
study. Christopher Kellner and Peter Bos had been of great support to this study providing
expertise and efforts to promote Dutch German cooperation. Marloes Nijboer and Fred
Marree, currently conducting their Master dissertation at Utrecht University together with
SNV Tanzania, have been of incredible support in organising the two stakeholder meetings,
with sharing information and with interesting discussions on Tanzanian biogas issues.
I also would like to thank Agnes Mpangala of GTZ office in Dar es Salaam and Hidde Bekaan
of PRET/INTEGRATION/GTZ for providing great support in organising the field trip to
Tanzania. In addition to that, Hidde Bekaan was always very creative and supportive in
providing contacts and to open up new ways in receiving information.
Winrock International has been very helpful in providing mainly voluntary support to this
study in sending over Ian Monroe to Tanzania and with contributing particularly by
calculations for the financial analysis to the study.
Sandra Haskamp and Anna Ingwe have been done great efforts and delivered good results
with the household survey carried out in Mwanza, Tanzania.
Last but not least, I would like to thank all stakeholders and contacted persons in Tanzania
providing so much information, support, and ideas making this study to a great personal
experience.




                                            -v-
          Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - List of tables



List of tables
Table 1: Distribution of poor, middle and rich HHs in Arusha and Mwanza, 2005 ...................4
Table 2: Primary energy consumption by source, 1999 ...........................................................6
Table 3: Energy Consumption by Sector, 1999........................................................................7
Table 4: Institutional Providers of Microfinance Services in Tanzania ...................................19
Table 5: Reported biogas projects in Tanzania......................................................................23
Table 6: Material costs of a latrine in Tanzania......................................................................29
Table 7: Market prices of biogas digesters in Tanzania .........................................................33
Table 8: Estimated costs related to an approval of a CDM project ........................................35
Table 9: FIRR at Different Level of benefits ...........................................................................36
Table 10: sensitivity FIRR of HH using purchased firewood regarding to firewood price.......37
Table 11: Sensitivity assessment of FIRR with different levels of subsidies ..........................37
Table 12: EIRR at different levels of benefit...........................................................................38
Table 13: Distribution of herd size in smallholder ownership in Tanzania..............................41
Table 14: Market size of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania ......................43
Table 15: Distribution of likely customers of smallholders keeping improved dairy cattle in
            zero grazing environment ....................................................................................44
Table 16: Estimated biogas market development for Tanzania within a national domestic
            biogas programme, based on market development during 1982 and 1990 ........46
List of figures
Cover page,
Left:   Biogas digester at CAMARTEC, Arusha [1]
Right: Flame of a biogas stove, CAMARTEC, Arusha [1]
Figure 1: Share of households within 1 km of drinking water...................................................5
Figure 2: Mean distance to collect firewood .............................................................................6
Figure 3: Forest cover, Tanzania .............................................................................................8
Figure 4: Existing institutional set-up relevant for a national biogas programme ...................12
Figure 5: Current Office of CAMARTEC.................................................................................12
Figure 6: Biogas plant construction site of MIGESADO .........................................................14
Figure 7: Sketch of fixed dome design by CAMARTEC .........................................................22
Figure 8: Previous market development of biogas digesters in Tanzania between
            1975 and 2006.....................................................................................................24
Figure 9: Inlet and mixing pot with MIGESADO design..........................................................28
Figure 10: Inlet and mixing pot with CAMARTEC design.......................................................28
Figure 11: Stove (ABC Ltd.), gas lamp (CAMARTEC), gas lamps (MIGESADO) ..................31
Figure 12: Estimated biogas market development for Tanzania within a national
            domestic biogas programme ...............................................................................45




                                                          - vi -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Abbreviations



Abbreviations
ABC            Arusha Biogas Contractors
ADF            African Development Foundation
BES            Biogas Extension Service
BFTW           Bread for the World (Brot für die Welt)
CAMARTEC Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation and Rural Technology
CDM            Clean Development Mechanism
CEEST          Centre For Energy, Environment, Science And Technology
CEIF           Clean Energy Investment Framework
DANIDA         Danish International Development Agency
DGIS           Directorate General for International Cooperation
EIRR           Economic Internal Rate of Return
ELCT           Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania
ESAMI          Eastern and Southern African Management Institute
FIDE           Friends in Development Trust Fund
FIRR           Financial Internal Rate of Return
GDP            Gross Domestic Product
GEF            Global Environment Facility
GTZ            Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH
HH             Household
LPG            Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MEM            Ministry of Energy and Minerals
MEM            Ministry of Energy and Mines, Tanzania
MIGESADO       NGO in Dodoma disseminating biogas
NGO            Non-Governmental Organisation
PRET           Promotion of Renewable Energy Technologies
SACCO          Savings and Credit Cooperative Societies
SEP            Special Energy Programme
SIDA           Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SIDO           Small Industries Development Organisation
SUDERETA       Sustainable Development and Renewable Energies in Tanzania
SURUDE         Foundation for Sustainable Rural Development
TZS            Tanzanian Shilling
UNDP           United Nations Development Programme
UNFCCC         Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNICEF         United Nations Children's Fund
UNIDO          United Nations Industrial Development Organization
WHO            World Health Organization
ZALWEDA        Zanzibar Livestock Welfare and Development Association


                                              - vii -
    Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Executive Summary



Executive Summary
This study has been prepared with regard to the initiative “Biogas for Better Life – an African
Initiative”.
The majority of Tanzanian domestic energy need is met by firewood. An average Tanzanian
household consumes about 7 kg of firewood per day. Cooking services are carried out
mainly on traditional three-stone fires leading to severe health consequences, mainly due to
indoor air pollution. Uncontrolled firewood cuttings result in a decrease of forest cover of
about 1.1% per year. As a consequence, distances to collect firewood are constantly
increasing, which leads to fuel poverty and further economic, social and environmental
problems. In conclusion, Tanzania suffers a severe energy crisis on all levels. In response to
this, current governmental policies promote, amongst others, biogas as an alternative source
of energy. Organic fertilizer has not yet been commercialised and is mainly based on cow
manure. It is not common to purchase industrial fertilizer for small-scale farming.
Temperature conditions are suitable for biogas utilisation. Regional water shortages,
particularly in central Tanzania and the lake region, may require additional water harvesting
systems. Having the third largest cattle herd in Africa, about 29% of Tanzanian rural
households have livestock available, leading to large resources of cow manure. However,
pastoralism is very common. In addition to that, zero-grazing practices are followed by few
households and over-night stabling is only practised to a limited extent.
Tanzania has a long history of biogas utilization since 1975. Several stakeholders are
involved; from government, parastatal, research and religious organisations, to organisations
in the private and financing sector, and NGOs. As a result, nearly 3,000 biogas plants have
reportedly been constructed; most of them were using subsidies. The majority of these plants
have been of fixed dome design.
Lessons learned from previous biogas projects carried out in Tanzania are that biogas
technology can be seen as relatively mature. Furthermore, it fits well with some existing
livestock farming practices. It has been proven that biogas dissemination reduces
deforestation and improves the lives of users. The main barrier is high cost. Even wealthy
people have been reluctant to invest in biogas. However, contribution in kind was widely
accepted. Profit is seen as the main driving force for them, whereas socio-ecological motives
were only of minor importance. The majority of previous customers have been well-educated
households having a medium to large farm. Financing is also considered to be imminent for
providing small farm households with access to biogas, a factor that has been often lacking
in the past.
A turn-key 8 m³ biogas system (fixed dome design, including piping and appliances) in
Tanzania cost about 1,200,000 TZS (US$1,000). The economic assessment indicates that a
biogas plant is economically advantageous to people who currently use charcoal or purchase
expensive firewood. This encompasses mainly urban population and wealthy people in rural
areas. In general, for all other groups of society subsidies are required in order for the
investment to be feasible.
Knowledge of biogas is limited in the general public. However, where it is known, biogas is
widely accepted, even if a latrine is attached to the digester. In this study, a target group of at
least 276,000 households have been identified. According to Tanzanian experiences, out of
this target group, about 102,000 customers have been identified who are likely to invest in
biogas within a national domestic biogas programme. They consist mainly of people who
have improved cattle in a zero-grazing environment or follow overnight-stabling practices
with indigenous cattle. These figures can be increased further by promoting water harvesting
systems and by addressing households that have other biomass feedstock available, such
as sisal waste or Jatropha oil cake. However, estimates on Tanzanian market possibilities to
construct biogas digesters conclude that about 50,000 units may be built within ten years.



                                             -1-
    Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Executive Summary


The implementation strategy of a national domestic biogas programme should address
technical and extension-related issues, consider certain organisational structures and also
incorporate a strategy for poverty reduction. Several ministries offered contribution to a
national domestic biogas programme mainly with regional, district and village offices. Ideally,
the Ministry of Energy and Minerals which is well connected with other ministries should be
strongly involved in the organisation of the programme.




                                            -2-
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Methodology



Methodology
Within the feasibility study, data out of various sources were complied and evaluated before
performing a concrete feasibility assessment. The latter is complemented by
recommendations concerning an implementation strategy.
Data and information resulting out of a detailed desk study on biogas issues in Tanzania, a
target area for a household (HH) baseline survey addressing biogas issues was identified in
the Mwanza region. This survey was carried out in April 2007 and provided specific insights
into Tanzanian society with regards to biogas. With this instrument, additional and new
information have been available for this assessment.
In Arusha, Tanzania, on 20.03.2007 and 20.04.2007, two stakeholder meetings were
arranged. During these sessions, stakeholders were brought together and on site details
were collected.
During the field trip in April 2007, stakeholders and users were visited and interviewed, also
previously built plants and those plants currently under construction were assessed.
Additionally, research organisations and private sector companies were visited and
consulted, as well as development and donor organisations. Six ministries of the government
of Tanzania were also included in this process.

1 Introduction
The Directorate General for International Cooperation (DGIS) of the Netherlands is currently
preparing an international initiative to promote biogas for rural households in Africa, called
„Biogas for Better Life“. The objective of the initiative is to provide 2 million households with
biogas plants within the next ten years. The dissemination of biogas shall contribute to
improve energy supply in a sustainable way, the sanitary situation and the agricultural
production in rural areas. The initiative is complementary to the Dutch-German Partnership
“Energising Development” and the current discussion on the Clean Energy Investment
Framework (CEIF).
To evaluate the potential of biogas on HH level and to be able to provide professional advice
on implementation strategies to partner countries, it is necessary to study the technical,
economic, and socio-political feasibility of a biogas programme in detail. This includes
studying the frame conditions for biogas, the analysis of the potential benefit and the
compliance of such a programme with the development strategies of the correspondent
countries. For this purpose, the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and
Development commissioned the project “Promotion of renewable energies in developing
countries“, to carry out two feasibility studies for a national domestic biogas programme. One
is considering Burkina Faso and this one is addressing Tanzania.




                                             -3-
         Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background



2 Background
2.1     General
Land area:      881,289 km² [2]
Population: 34.6 Mill. (2002) [2]
Population growth: 2.9 % [3]
Languages: Kiswahili, English
Currency:       Tanzanian Shilling (TZS).
The exchange rate of the TZS was:
                21.02.2007 1,000 TZS =        0.5963 EUR
                31.12.2000 1,000 TZS =        1.3274 EUR

2.2     Geography
Climate:        Tropical on the coast, semi-temperate inland
Perception: In the eastern rift zones and on the south-eastern slopes of the volcanoes
            precipitation of 1,500 to 2,000 mm occurs due to orographic rain with more
            than 10 wet months. Along the coast, the monsoon brings moderate rainfall
            (500 to 1,000 mm) with 5 to 6 wet months. The highland in the interior is
            relatively dry with 3 to 4 wet months and annual precipitation of below 500
            mm.

2.3     Tanzanian society in figures

2.3.1    General
Average household (HH) size in mainland Tanzania in 2000 was 4.9 and in rural areas 5.1
members [4]. 23% of the population live in urban, 77% in rural areas [5].

2.3.2    Economic situation
In 2000/01, monthly mean expenditure of a rural household was 52,649 TZS. The average
monthly per capita income in rural areas was 14,134 TZS resulting in a mean rural HH
income of 72,084 TZS [4]. Differences between expenditures and income result from the fact
that owned produced agricultural commodities do not count as expenditure, but was included
in the income survey. The richest quintile of rural society had 5.9 times more expenditures
than the poorest quintile. Mean share for food expenditure of rural HHs was 64%. [4]
A HH baseline survey in the Arusha region (2005) and Mwanza region carried out by
INTEGRATION resolve (The figures from Arusha, 2005 have been adjusted with national
inflation rate to 2007 level [53]): [7] [8]
                           Average monthly income [TZS]            Share within population
                             Arusha          Mwanza             Arusha Mwanza average
      poor HHs:              24,780           19,212            34.8%     26.0%      30.4%
      middle HHs:            73,752           43,427            57.7%     64.0%      60.9%
      rich HHs:             256,627          287,083             7.5%     10.0%       8.8%
      average of all HH:             65,961
Table 1: Distribution of poor, middle and rich HHs in Arusha and Mwanza, 2005 [7] [8]
Please note: The classification into poor/middle/rich has been done according to local
issues. As a consequence, some poor HHs can be found in relatively wealthy income
groups. Additionally, a rich HH owning several cows may have no cash income.

                                              -4-
         Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


2.3.3    Distribution and analysis of poverty in rural areas
National figures:
      Estimated per capita income                           US$ 340           (2005)     [9]
      Below basic needs poverty line                         35.7%         (2000/01)   [10]
      Below food poverty line                                18.7%         (2000/01)   [10]
      Agriculture provide livelihood (% of population)         82%         (2000/01)   [10]
      Unemployment rate (urban is higher than rural!)        12.9%         (2000/01)   [10]
Poverty remains overwhelmingly in rural areas where about 87% of the poor population live.
However, there is also a great disparity within rural areas. It is highest among HHs who
depend on agriculture. The proportion of rural HHs who derive incomes from more than three
sources (farm and off-farm activities) is 65%. In rural areas, labour participation rates vary
considerably from 77% in April-June to 88% in January-March. [9] [10]
As poverty has increasingly become an environmental phenomenon, the poor themselves
have become a major cause of ecological decline. The principle instruments in this respect
are increasingly the rural poor, who have no
land at all. They have no option but to
overexploit the natural resources in order to
survive. [11]

2.4     Water availability
In regard to water availability, national figures
are only limited available. Due to the relatively
long dry season, water shortages are likely to
occur, especially in inland Tanzania. Figure (1)
shows the share of HHs having drinking water
available within 1 km during dry season.
Fetching water is partly offered as a service in
Tanzania. Additionally, water pumps are
operated by diesel and, consequently, water is
not always free of charge. Prices for 20 l water
are up to 50 TZS and above. [7]
                                                    Figure 1: Share of households within
2.5     Energy background                           1 km of drinking water (dry season) [12]

In 1999, around 94% of Tanzania’s energy needs were met by biomass, particularly wood
fuel. Fossil fuel and hydropower account for 6% to primary energy supply. Tanzanian prime
energy consumption can be seen in table (2). The low use of commercial energy sources
indicates that many economic activities are carried out using traditional, low-energy
technologies. This is particularly the case in rural areas, where transport difficulties and
inefficient agricultural methods are prevailing. [2] [13]




                                              -5-
           Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background



         Energy Consumption, by Source                             [TJ]        [%]
         Total energy consumption, 1999                           629402      100.00%
         Total fossil fuels                                         31903         5.1%
         Coal and coal products                                       126       0.00%
         Crude oil and natural gas liquids                          26293       4.20%
         Other (n.a.)                                                5485       0.90%
         Hydroelectric                                               7829       1.20%
         Total renewables, excluding hydroelectric                589460        93.7%
         Primary solid biomass (includes fuel wood)               589446       93.70%
         Biogas and liquid biomass (R&D)                                14     0.002%
          (Calorific value of biogas 6 kWh/m³ [14]  14 TJ ~ 650,000 m³/a ~ 1775 m³/d)
                  Table 2: Primary energy consumption by source (1999) [13]
Estimated annual per capita
firewood consumption adds up to
1 m³ per year [11], which results in
7 kg per rural HH per day 1.
The collection and use of fuel wood
are linked to heavy and often low-
productive, time-consuming work
and carried out predominantly by
children and women [15]. A
nationwide survey presents figures
of mean distances to collect
firewood shown in figure (2) [4].
However, current sources give
evidence that these distances
increased in recent years [7].
The use of other energy sources
such as solar, biogas and liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) is limited
despite various promotional efforts
[16].                                       Figure 2: Mean distance to collect firewood (rural
The installed electricity generation        households only) [4]
is a mix of hydropower, natural gas
and fuel oil making the collective capacity in 2005 around 950 MW. Nationwide electrification
is about 10% (urban 39% and rural 2%). The electricity consumption per capita in 2002 was
84 kWh. Electricity supply is unreliable and prone to frequent blackouts. [17]

2.6     Energy demand and supply in the household sector

2.6.1     General
Domestic energy accounts to 78.8 % of total nation-wide energy consumption [13].
More than 80% of the total energy is consumed in rural areas. The rural end user demands
energy primarily due to fundamental, basic needs, and rarely for development purpose. [15]




1
    1 kg firewood ~ 4.2 – 4.5 kWh   30 kWh/d/HH + lighting

                                                -6-
         Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background




              Energy Consumption by Sector                     [TJ]          [%]
              Industry                                        66,193       11.60%
              Transportation                                  12,142        2.10%
              Agriculture                                    18,254         3.20%
              Commercial & public services                    1,675         0.30%
              Residential / domestic                         447,862       78.70%
              "Other" consumption                             22,734        4.00%
              Total final energy consumption                 568,944       100.00%
                     Table 3: Energy Consumption by Sector, 1999 [13]
In rural areas, in 2000/01 by far the most energy source for lighting was kerosene with a
share of 90.4%. Firewood accounts to 7.1%. Electricity is of minor importance. [4]
For cooking, firewood is the predominant source of energy (93.4%). Charcoal is more used
within HHs having larger incomes. In 2000/01 the share of biogas in rural cooking fuel was
0.1%. Other sources report the use and collection of cow dung (around Lake Victoria) for
cooking purposes. Cow dung has not been commercialised yet. [4]
Results from the 2005 Arusha survey give evidence that about 70% of the population
consider their situation in regard to energy as inadequate. The lack of electricity and the high
expenditures for Kerosene have been major concerns. [7]
Consequently, in order to reduce poverty, the World Bank recommends strongly to provide
reliable, affordable and efficient energy and alternative rural energy schemes for Tanzania.
[10]

2.6.2    Expenditure for energy
In the Arusha region, the monthly average expenditure for energy in 2005, including
kerosene, charcoal and batteries etc., was 33,000 TZS. Poor HHs spend 15,000 TZS, middle
income HHs 27,000 TZS and rich HHs spend 55,000 TZS on energy each month. However,
more than half of the HHs suspected that they may not be able to pay for future renewable
energy installation in their houses (57%). Separated by HH type 77% of poor HHs, 57% of
middle HH and 25% of the rich HHs doubt they will be able to pay for such kind of systems.
[7]
In Mwanza (2007), poor HHs spend approximately 12,171 TZS on energy, medium HHs
15,011 TZS and better off HHs 63,159 TZS. This means on average 19,683 TZS per month.
[8]

2.7     Energy and Environment and Health
Tanzania is facing a series of very serious environmental problems. The central problem for
the population is in general an insufficient supply of water and in particular a supply of clean
water for drinking and domestic uses. Erosion is leading to diminished fertility of the land.
This is assumed to result in a 0.5 to 1.5% reduction annually in the gross national product.
Smoke emissions in the HHs stemming from the use of firewood, dung and straw as energy
for cooking are already showing adverse effects on women and children. Indoor air pollution
is taken far more seriously than the increasing air pollution in cities. [18]




                                              -7-
           Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


2.8       Deforestation
Tanzania’s forest resources cover about 35.257
million ha (2007), most of which are miombo type
woodland. [19]
Deforestation in Tanzania has spread rapidly,
affecting first of all semi-arid area where forest and
especially bush regeneration is slow. Cattle raising
lands and tobacco growing areas are affected in
particular. Present figures presented by FAO on
deforestation are 412,000 ha per year.
Consequently,        between      2000   and     2005,
deforestation was on the high level of about 1.1%
of the existing forest cover. [11] [19]
Main reasons for deforestation are: [11]
      -    clearing for agriculture
      -    overgrazing
      -    charcoal burning
      -    wood fuel harvesting
      -    bush fires
      -    harvesting for industrial wood.
2.9       Livestock farming practices                       Figure 3: Forest cover, Tanzania [20]

2.9.1      Figures and facts
Livestock production is one of the major agricultural activities in Tanzania. The sub sector
contributes to national food supply, converts rangelands resources into products suitable for
human consumption and is a source of cash incomes and an inflation-free store of value. It
provides about 30% of the Agricultural gross domestic product (GDP). Out of the subsector’s
contribution to GDP, about 40% originates from beef production, 30% from milk production
and another 30% from poultry and small stock production. [21]
The livestock sector census from 2002/2003 reports 17.1 million cattle existing in Tanzania.
These cattle are by far owned by smallholders and only to 0.65% owned by large farms
resulting in 1,272,375 HHs owning 16,837,150 any kind of cattle. On average, 13 head of
cattle were kept per HH. The average increase of cattle population between 1990 and 2000
per annum was 2.5%. [6] [22]
63.2% of poor HH own any kind of livestock (2005) [22], 29% of rural HHs own cattle
(2000/01) [4].
The large majority of cattle in Tanzania are of indigenous type. The share of improved cattle
is only about 2.4%. 95% of all improved cattle are dairy cattle and 85% of the improved cattle
are in smallholder ownership. Consequently, 336,600 improved dairy cattle are in
smallholder ownership. It can be assumed that these cattle are kept in zero grazing
environments, not only because these animals are very costly. The survey in Mwanza also
underlines this assumption, as all improved cattle of the interviewed HHs have been kept in
stable husbandry. [8]
Pastoralism is common in Tanzania. Out of all HHs in the country, 3% are pastoralists and
7% are agro-pastoralists. It can be argued that pastoralism is prevailing in rural areas.
Consequently, 13% of rural HH rearing cattle are pastoralists and 31% are agro pastoralists.
However, this also means that at least 12% of Tanzanian rural HHs own cattle within no
pastoral condition. As informed by the Ministry of Livestock, these cattle are mainly at least
kept over night in a small fenced area close to the house in order to prevent theft of cattle.
During the day, free grazing practices are dominant, though, also overnight stabling is
standard practice. In Mwanza, about 95% of the HH owning indigenous cows follow

                                                -8-
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


overnight stabling. Please also see chapter (4.4.1) and Appendix 3 and 4 for more
information. [8]
In 2002, 27.6% of all cattle have been used for dairy production. Within the same year,
120,000 t maize, 16,700 t barley, 6,000 t millet, 213,800 t brans and 21,000 t roots and tuber
(dry equivalent) have been fed to livestock in Tanzania. [6] [22]
In 2005, the number of registered cooperative societies was 5,730 having 704,160 members.
The number of audited cooperatives was 3,040. [23]

2.9.2   Geographical Distribution
Cattle husbandry in stables is common in the north (Arusha, Kilimanjaro), in the west
(Kagera), in the south (Mbeya) and in the urban area of Dar es Salaam.
Pastoralism is concentrated in the northern plains grazing areas where climatic and soil
conditions do not favour crop production. Agro-pastoralism is found in low rainfall areas of
Western (Shinyanga and Tabora) and Central zones (Dodoma and Singida), where shifting
cultivation of sorghum is practised. Smallholders’ dairy production systems include cattle
under coconut systems in coastal regions, stall fed cross-bred dairy cattle, and peri-urban
farming on a part time basis. Commercial ranching accounts for about 7% of the milk market,
and it is practised mainly by the National Ranching Company, NARCO, currently in the
process of being privatised. [22]
Dairy production is concentrated in the area around Lake Victoria and Shinyanga, Mbeya,
Arusha and Kilimanjaro. Larger amounts are also produced in Tabora, Singida, Dodoma and
Tanga. [6] [22]

2.10 Fertilizer demand
Tanzania consumed 21,000 metric tons of industrial fertilizer in 1999, resulting in an intensity
of 5 kg per hectare cropland [24]. Other sources describe the fertilizer demand for Tanzania
as 1.79 kg/ha. Fertilizer demand decreased on average and annually by 4.18% per year
between 1970 and 2002. This occurred even with at least regional subsidies for fertilizers
[25]. As a result, average yields decreased accordingly. Currently, the use of artificial
fertilizer by smallholders in Tanzania can be described as “virtual absence” [6].
The number of HHs in Tanzania using organic fertilizer was 1,270,272, 26% of all crop
growing HHs. The total area of organic fertilizer application was 2,334,188 ha, 33% of total
planted area. Of all organic fertilizer, 88% is farm yard manure and 12% compost. [6]
The above mentioned facts imply that organic fertilizer is used by the producer and has not
been commercialised yet. In some regions of Tanzania, organic fertilizer is valued more than
in others, such as is in Kilimanjaro and Mbeya. In other regions, organic fertilizer is not used
extensively. [6]

2.11 Health and sanitation needs in regard to biogas

2.11.1 Health
Inefficient open (three-stone) fireplaces are very common in Tanzania. As a consequence,
indoor air pollution from smoke releases causes severe health risks. Already in 1995,
reducing this health risk was considered to be potentially a greater contribution to national
economy than value of the saved firewood. [26]
The Environmental Protection department, Ministry of Health, has an Indoor Air Pollution
Control Program. The project is just getting started, and the Ministry is working on a plan for
indoor air monitoring, technical support and the setting of air-quality of standards. Currently,
ambient air pollution standards are based on WHO recommendations, but there is no
separate standard for indoor air.


                                             -9-
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


2.11.2 Sanitation
Depending on the region, the percentage of HHs which do not use toilet facilities in Tanzania
are between 1% and 16% [4]. The survey carried out in Mwanza also reported high figures of
toilet use. In regard to improved sanitation, described by WHO and UNICEF, the distribution
is far lower. According to these sources about 42 to 47% of the rural population has access
to improved sanitation. [27]
The survey in Mwanza (2007) resulted that all better off and 91.7% of the medium HH do
have a separate bathroom while only 62.1% of the poor have one. Most bathrooms are
located outside the house (95.2%). The distance to from the bathroom to the house varies
from 2 to 30 metre. [8]
The Ministry of Health is involved in an “EcoSan” latrine project that is composting human
waste, in partnership with the Environmental Engineering Pollution Control Organization. An
education campaign is underway with about 1000-2000 HHs initially targeted. Lessons
learned from this programme can help advising the acceptability of attaching biogas
digesters to latrines/toilets.
In addition, the Ministry of Health also has a separate Latrine Promotion Programme linked
to its Health of Villages Development Program. There is also a Sanitation and Hygiene
Programme that operates country-wide, with a semi-separate arm that focuses on schools.

2.12 Policy and plans in regard to biogas

2.12.1 National Energy Policy
There is no policy statement from the Ministry of Energy and Minerals clearly addressing
biogas. Following, there are some relevant quotes of Energy Policy Statements:
“Promote energy efficient buildings and facilitate wider application of alternative sources of
energy for cooking, heating, cooling, lighting and other applications.” [16]
Other governmental strategies also include the promotion of alternatives for rural energy
access, such as the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty:
“Access of the Rural Population to Modern Energy Services
   •   Institutional arrangement for rural energy development established and strengthened
   •   At least 10% of the population using alternative power to wood fuels for cooking by
       2010” [10]
In conclusion, Tanzanian energy policies do not specifically promote biogas, as only
“alternative” energy sources are broadly promoted in policy. However, the consultation of the
Ministry of Energy resulted that this ministry considers biogas to be one option to address the
current, so called, “energy crisis” in Tanzania.

2.12.2 National Livestock Policy
Within this policy, it is the objective to promote the utilization of manure and production of
biogas in order to improve the livelihood of livestock farmers while conserving the
environment. Consequently, it is the clearest statement of Tanzanian government in regard
to the promotion of biogas.




                                            - 10 -
           Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


Policy statements:
  i.       “Efforts will be undertaken to promote the use of manure in crop and pasture farms.
  ii.      Efforts will be undertaken to promote management of manure and slurry
 iii.      The Government will strengthen technical support services and on manure and
           biogas production and utilization.
 iv.       In collaboration with other stakeholders, the government will promote
           investments in production of biogas equipment“ [28]
This part of the National Livestock Policy has already begun implementation. For example,
the construction of large dairy plant in Tanga (50,000 litre/day) of the company Tanga Fresh
has the condition that biogas from cow manure has to be used to meet all energy needs of
the future plant.

2.12.3 Rural Development Strategy
The rural development strategy (2001) considers biogas as an alternative to firewood in
order to foster rural development. “Emphasis needs be put to promoting technologies like
solar power, windmills, biogas, and power from spillways currently used for irrigation and
drinking water services in rural areas.” [29]. The strategy considers the “limited use of other
energy sources such as solar, biogas and LPG” [29] as a problem.
The strategy follows the objective, “to encourage the rural community to substitute use of
hydropower with other sources of energy e.g. biomass in the form of firewood, charcoal and
bio-waste as well as renewable energy sources such as micro-hydro, geothermal, wind and
solar.” [29] Among others, the following actions are included in the strategy:
       •   “Promote the use of complementary sources of energy.
       •   Establish appropriate fiscal and financial incentives for renewable energy
           development to complement a “Rural Energy Fund” whose objectives include
           renewable energy programme and projects.
       •   Support R & D in renewable energy technologies.
       •   Promote application of alternative energy sources other than fuel-wood and charcoal,
           in order to reduce deforestation, land degradation, indoor health hazards and time
           spent by rural women in search of firewood as well as minimising climatic change
           threats.
       •   Promote entrepreneurship and private initiatives in the production and marketing of
           products and services for rural renewable energy.
       •   Support research and development on rural energy” [29]




                                               - 11 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


2.13 Existing institutional set-up relevant for a national biogas programme




Figure 4: Existing institutional set-up relevant for a national biogas programme

2.13.1 CAMARTEC
CAMARTEC (Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation and Rural Technology) is a parastatal
institution located in Arusha and headed by the Ministry of Industry and Trade & Marketing.
Beside engagements in biogas issues, CAMARTEC researches and carries out training with
respect to other energy and agricultural technology as well.
Since the 1980’s, CAMARTEC was able to build up huge expertise in biogas technology and
related issues leading the organisation to become one of the technological and research
centres of Africa concerning biogas, if it was not the focal point within Africa, as CAMARTEC
was known all over the
world. Tens of classes of
people have been trained in
biogas     construction    by
CAMARTEC, mainly from
Tanzania, but also from all
over Africa. During 1984 to
1992, CAMARTEC was
partnered with of GTZ in
particular     within     the
development and promotion
of biogas.
After GTZ dropping out of
promoting      biogas    in
Tanzania, and the change of
the political system in
Tanzania, a slow process of
decline began during the Figure 5: Current Office of CAMARTEC (before shifting) [1]
1990’s.    Funding     was
reduced by the ministry and employees started building up their own biogas construction
companies, to work as independent biogas consultants or just finding jobs elsewhere.
Current CAMARTEC involvement is to build biogas plants somehow as a general contractor.

                                            - 12 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


Staff with expertise in biogas is now limited, however, corresponding to limited biogas
training and construction activity. CAMARTEC has received continuously decreasing
financial support from Dar es Salaam in recent years and is currently in the process of
moving to new offices in Arusha town. As a consequence, CAMARTEC is loosing much of
the remaining capacity to do technical research. However, even though when CAMARTEC’s
capacity in biogas has been reduced, its reputation within Tanzania and the world is still on a
very high level.
According to the Ministry of Industry and Trade & Marketing, CAMARTEC is currently being
assessed, if this organisation is able to survive also in a free market economy. A decision of
relocating, closing, or continuation or expansion of CAMARTEC has not yet been taken.

2.13.2 Katani Ltd. and Tanzania Sisal Board
Tanzania used to be the largest sisal fibre producing country. Sisal is an agave that yields a
stiff fibre used in making ropes and other products. Katani Ltd. core business is processing
sisal and would like to expand its business but faces problems in sisal availability. Therefore,
within other approaches, Katani Ltd. wants to promote small farmers to plant sisal resulting in
outsourcing the sisal production to them. A similar and awarded approach has been taken
successfully by SAPPI (South African Pulp and Paper Industry), which outsourced their
entire forestry section to about 40,000 small scale farmers.
In addition to sisal fibre production, Katani Ltd. is trying to follow a holistic approach in sisal
production. About 96% of the sisal plant remains as waste from fibre production. Katani Ltd.
is trying to use the remaining biomass for other purposes, such as energy, pulp production
etc. Katani Ltd. is very optimistic in producing biogas from this waste and is currently
constructing with support of UNIDO a large scale biogas plant for producing 150kW of
electricity.
Katani Ltd is working closely with Tanzania Sisal Board, a Government regulatory body, and
the sisal industry as a whole in the development of HH biogas plants in areas far from sisal
estates especially in the Lake Victoria Regions of Shinyanga, Mwanza and Mara and in
Tabora, Singida and Dodoma Regions. Engineers from Katani Ltd have assisted Tanzania
Sisal Board to build one HH demonstration biogas plant at Manala Village in Magu District
Mwanza Region which uses both cow dung and sisal waste (for cooking and lighting
purposes). Tanzania Sisal Board plans to establish more demonstration plants to accelerate
technology transfer to the rural communities. However, technical problems exist with the use
of sisal waste in biogas digesters, such as undesirable scum formation. Katani Ltd. is
working on solving them. [30]

2.13.3 MIGESADO
MIGESADO is the Swahili acronym for ‘Gas from Cow Dung in Dodoma Region’. It is an
NGO for developing alternative energy sources in Dodoma and was started in 1994 and
registered in 1999. The head office is based in Dodoma Municipality. The objective of
MIGESADO is to conserve the environment by the use of biogas as an alternative source of
energy in rural areas. The context under which the organisation initiated was serious
deforestation in Dodoma Region caused by demands on firewood, both, in rural and urban
areas, heavy workload for rural women in fetching firewood and water, and high prices for
urban charcoal users. [15]
MIGESADO promotes Biogas dissemination in Dodoma and recently also in Morogoro
region. The projects last for about 8 years. Current output averages 110 biogas digesters per
year (2001 – 2004) leading to the amount of 846 units. Consequently, MIGESADO is the
organisation with the highest number of installed digesters in Tanzania. MIGESADO is
currently shifting to a new office with larger training facilities and with new infrastructure in
place, it estimates a potential yearly output of at least 200 plants per year.
The projects follow, but not exclusively, the HEIFER-project promoting stable husbandry.
Only the biogas plant itself is subsidised; subsidies are rated in four categories relating to the

                                            - 13 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


income level of the beneficiary HH of 15%, 25%, 45% or 58% of total plant construction
costs. Plant sizes vary from 5 m³ onwards with minimum requirement of dung from one cow
only, however, most common size is 8 m³ for
two or more cows.
MIGESADO is within Tanzania the
organisation which built the largest amount of
plants with about 840 plants so far. Every
biogas plant is subsidized according to the
possibilities of the owner. If biogas plants
meet shortages of water, MIGESADO also
disseminates water storage tanks for grey
water harvesting during the dry season.
About 30% of all biogas digesters have been
installed together with a water storage tank.
MIGESADO is constructing, marketing and
providing subsidies. In addition to that,
MIGESADO is also involved in training of
masons and fundis (female and male), up to
five per year receive training. However, only
50% to the maximum of the trained people
continue in working in the biogas industry,
the remaining individuals lost interest or are
not capable enough. This high failure rate
was even with a demanding recruitment
process requiring previous knowledge and
vocational training of the candidate.
MIGESADO receives funding from Bread for
the World (BFTW), Germany, Government of Figure 6: Biogas plant construction site of
Navarra, Spain, MISERIOR, Germany.       MIGESADO [1]

2.13.4 SURUDE
The Foundation for Sustainable Rural Development (SURUDE), established in 1992, but
registered in December, 1994,.is based in Morogoro. SURUDE is closely associated with
Sokoine University of Agriculture and has implemented projects together with other
international organizations, such as FAO, DANIDA and SIDA.
SURUDE’s biogas expertise is mainly focussed on tubular plastic digesters, however, it also
has some experiences with fixed dome ones. In collaboration with Superflex (Denmark), a
new plastic biogas system was, for example, tested in Tanzania. SURUDE undertook
projects in Morogoro, Pwani, Tanga, Kilimanjaro, Arusha, Mbeya, Mwanza (Kwimba) and
also internationally in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Cameroon and Nigeria.
SURUDE not only focussed testing, design and building biogas plants, SURUDE also trained
people in constructing biogas plants following the principle: train the trainers.
According to Simon Rwegayura, after implementing several tubular plastic biogas digesters,
SURUDE came to the conclusion that these systems are not sustainable in the Tanzanian
context. Consequently, SURUDE switched over to follow fixed dome digesters and
continually faded out of biogas issues and has not been significantly involved in biogas
projects in the past few years. SURUDE considers compressing biogas in order to store and
commercialise it. However, SURUDE claims still having expertise in biogas within 4
employees available.




                                            - 14 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


2.13.5 KAKUTE Ltd.
KAKUTE Ltd. (Kampuni ya Kusambaza Teknolojia) is a Tanzanian-based company which
was established and registered in 1995 with a social justice agenda to reduce poverty
through real business opportunities.
For the past ten years, KAKUTE Ltd. has designed, developed and manufactured various
technologies for marketing and sales to different beneficiaries in the country and abroad this
including the establishment of Jatropha value chains, tree nursery promotion, biogas plants,
water pumps, rural housing, ram presses and fuel-efficient stoves. [31]
KAKUTE Ltd. started with biogas activities in 1996 in cooperation with FAIDA SEP and is still
involved in the dissemination of biogas technology. The type they used is the tubular biogas
plant. KAKUTE Ltd. promoted biogas through workshops, but this has been phased out until
1999. These workshops created awareness in villages and showed the functioning of a plant
and its appliances. They identified that there was a relatively high level of demand in the
villages were they conducted these workshops. KAKUTE Ltd. does not provide any financial
assistance to biogas users, but left this to institutions.
The tubular biogas plants of KAKUTE Ltd. were constructed mainly in the districts of
Arumeru and Monduli (about 55 plants) all for HHs. The main requirement KAKUTE Ltd. was
looking at, was the issue of responsibility; the way people deal with the plant. KAKUTE Ltd.
did monitor the functioning of these biogas plants.
Currently, research is undertaken to see if cow dung can be replaced for the residues of
Jatropha tree. KAKUTE Ltd. is very active in activities concerning products of the Jatropha
tree. For example, they deliver full-package trainings of 5 days, in which people learn about
the use of compost, oil production from the seeds and biogas. Within this research, users of
biogas explained that the fire from biogas made out of Jatropha oil cake seems to be hotter
than if it is made out of cow manure.
KAKUTE Ltd. has no precise activities planned in regard to biogas, but they do have general
plans for renewable energy.

2.13.6 ELCT
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT) seems to be a very powerful
organisation and has a long history in undertaking development projects within Tanzania, in
particular with energy projects. As a consequence, ELCT claims to have built 200 biogas
digesters themselves and 300 units with masons trained by ELCT. However, during the
research for the feasibility study, only limited data was made available and the organisation
did not seem to be interested in collaboration.

2.13.7 SUDERETA
SUDERETA (Sustainable Development and Renewable Energies in Tanzania was founded
out of ELCT in 2001. Currently, GTZ has a project in Tanzania together with SUDERETA
called PRET (Promotion of Renewable Energy Technologies) focussing the dissemination of
solar home systems and improved stoves. SUDERETA’s staff consists primarily of one
person, however, who seems to have access to ELCT staff. Main activities of the NGO are
aimed at solar, wind, mini-hydro, biomass, and biogas energy.

2.13.8 SIDO
The Small Industries Development Organisation (SIDO) is a parastatal organisation founded
under the Ministry of Industry and Trade & Marketing in 1975. Their main activities are
providing technical services, assistance in business development services, and credit
facilitation. The target group for whom they provide these three services are small and
medium enterprises/businesses and starting entrepreneurs.



                                            - 15 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


In the early days of SIDO they did employ biogas activities but no one working for SIDO
during that time period is working for SIDO anymore. After a few years, the remains of biogas
activities were taken over by the newly formed parastatal organisation CAMARTEC in 1983.
Since that time they are not active in the field of biogas, however, CAMARTEC remains as
partner to SIDO.
SIDO has experience with different kinds of training (quality control, maintenance,
management) and are credit facilitators. For now, their target group is still small and medium
enterprises.

2.13.9 Private Sector
The private sector in biogas construction in Tanzania is limited, but available. For example,
Arusha Biocontractors Company (ABC) Ltd. built several biogas plants commercially.
However, the majority of the private sector’s customers are institutions of which at least
some are supported by donors.
In addition to these larger companies, many masons, fundis and artisans have been trained
from several organisations within diverse projects. These trained people are spread all over
the country and also in neighbouring ones, however, they are likely not involved in biogas
construction currently. It will be difficult to estimate their exact figure, but it definitely is a
resource of existing biogas expertise “sleeping” in the country.
Experiences from the Tanzanian private sector indicate that it is possible to build up to 10 –
12 plants per year per mason. Maximum output of one larger company, such as ABC Ltd., is
currently about 50 units per year.
It is difficult to estimate the number of plants built by the private sector. More than 100 units
in the last 20 years have been reported – real figures may be substantially higher.

2.13.10 FIDE
Friends in Development Trust Fund (FIDE) is an organisation based in Babaiti, Manyara and
receives funding mainly from Belgium and Austria. FIDE used to be active in promotion of
biogas in 1992. In 2006, FIDE returned to foster biogas in Manyara region and has current
projects undertaken. This organisation is also involved in training fundis to construct biogas
plants and HH members to operate them correctly. As a consequence, FIDE built altogether
about 70 plants, 20 each in 2005 and 2006 and already 10 units this year and are planning to
build about 20 digesters annually in the future. [32]
FIDE follows the approach in financing biogas digesters with a revolving fund. According to
FIDE, a 16 m³ digester cost about 800,000 TZS. 300,000 TZS are financed by a loan from
SACCOs with a payback period of 3 years, and the remaining 500,000 TZS are subsidies
provided by FIDE.

2.13.11 HEIFER
HEIFER International is a non-profit organization whose goal is to help end world hunger and
poverty through self-reliance & sustainability.
HEIFER was involved with the coordination of biogas activities in Tanzania since the early
1990s. In general there are three main aspects in which HEIFER is involved:
   •   Helping people to get a good level of nutrition
   •   Improving the incomes of people
   •   Care for the environment (from this perspective the promotion of biogas found its
       origin)
HEIFER has no concrete plans for the future concerning biogas, but they are still very
supportive of the biogas principle, certainly from an environmental perspective.


                                            - 16 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


2.13.12 ESAMI
The Eastern and Southern African Management Institute (ESAMI) based in Arusha has
developed training courses already within the initiative “biogas for a better life” aimed at
building capacity for the development and management of the market approach to
disseminate domestic biogas plants. [33]
This course focussing biogas market promotion is aimed at building capacity for a market
approach to the dissemination of domestic biogas systems. The market approach is
envisaged to be an effective vehicle for developing a vibrant biogas sector for the wide scale
market-driven promotion and dissemination of domestic biogas plants in Africa. At the end of
the programme, participants will be knowledgeable about how to design, implement and
market an effective biogas programme. [33]
At the end of the course financial assessment of household credits, participants will be able
to design a credit scheme for biogas that provides small credits to households, taking into
account required collaterals, subsidies and client contribution. [33]
The objective of the course training of trainers (TOT) in biogas technology, is to provide
knowledge to participants on the following subjects: [33]
   •   Explain the basics of biogas plant design, operation, and management;
   •   Apply different instructional media and methods;
   •   Demonstrate basic platform skills;
   •   Manage common discipline problems;
   •   Manage conflict;
   •   Manage learners’ attitude.

2.13.13 ZALWEDA
Zanzibar Livestock Welfare and Development Association (ZALWEDA) is working together
with the Danish company Superflex. Currently, eight pilot plants in Zanzibar are planned and
will be implemented in the near future.

2.13.14 CEEST
According to their company profile, the specific objectives of the Centre For Energy,
Environment, Science And Technology (CEEST) are:
   •   To undertake studies in fields related to energy, water and sanitation, the
       environment, science and technology and development.
   •   To undertake studies, research and offer expertise in the management of natural
       resources including agriculture, and food production.
   •   To provide training in energy, water and sanitation, the environment, science and
       technology to researchers and students from within and outside the country through
       short-term attachments.
   •   To publish and disseminate information on energy, water and sanitation, the
       environment, science and technology through seminars, symposia, workshops and
       the media.
   •   To offer expertise and provide services to government, non-governmental
       organisations, bilateral agencies and the private sector on matters related to energy,
       water and sanitation, the environment, science and technology and development. [34]
The Centre is managed through a Board of Directors, a core of full-time professional and
administrative staff, and Centre Associates. In order to implement its objectives the Centre
has 5 core programmes. These include the Environment Assessment and Management

                                            - 17 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


Programme; the Energy Development and Management Programme; Water and Health and
Sanitation Development and Management Programme; Science and Technology
Development and Management; and Women Development and Training Programme. [34]
CEEST has no specific biogas expertise, however, since 1993 the Centre has been working
on climate change studies on behalf of the Division of Environment of the Vice President’s
Office. These studies will enable Tanzania to fulfil part of its obligations under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Among other studies in this
field, CEEST did research in unbundling of small scale energy clean development
mechanism (CDM) projects to aid in poverty alleviation in collaboration with the University of
Surry of UK. In conclusion, CEEST could have an important role in contributing to achieve
financing from the CDM. [34]

2.13.15 SACCOs
The Cooperative Societies Act of 1991 provided the basis for the development of Savings
and Credit Cooperative Societies (SACCOs) as privately-owned and –organized equity-
based institutions. [35]
Normally, payback periods are 3, 6, 12 or 24 months depending on borrowed amount and its
purpose. Amounts lent by SACCOs and Super-SACCOs are up to 2,000,000 TZS (average
with Super-SACCOs is about 500,000 TZS); the loan must not be more than three times of
the balance of the borrower’s savings account and depend on his possibility to repay the
loan. Within the consulted Super-SACCO in Monduli region, 75% of requested loans could
be fulfilled. Application cost is about 1,000 TZS and 22% interest rate for a credit of 500,000
TZS. SACCOs are mainly organised within communities, where people know each other,
which force borrowers informally to repay the money. If a debtor fails in repaying, actions are
undertaken including trials.
From the above mentioned institution, no loan for constructing a biogas plant has been
applied yet; loans for renewable energy installations are rare. However, as biogas plants
show economic benefits only in the long run, repayment may be possible also in three to four
years.
In 2001, 646 societies were registered. The share was about 60% (~ 47,000 members) in
urban and about 40% (~ 83,000 members) based in rural areas. It can be estimated that
these numbers increase dramatically in recent years. Total members’ funds amounted to the
equivalent of US$17 million, consisting of US$6.5 million in members’ shares and
US$10.5 million in members’ deposits. The bulk of members’ shares came from the urban
SACCOs (US$4.7 million), as did members’ deposits (US$9.4 million). To place these
savings and share capital amounts in perspective, rural SACCOs had an average of
27,500 TZS (US$34) in shares and deposits per member; average deposits per member
came to US$14. The profile for urban SACCOs presents a stark contrast – average shares
and deposits per member were almost 10 times larger at 240,000 TZS or US$300, of which
average deposits per member amounted to 160,000 TZS or US$200. This result is not
surprising since the membership base of urban SACCOs generally consists of wage- and
salary-earners, while rural SACCOs are more likely to have self-employed farmers and
smallholder agriculture producers as their membership base. The total of members’ loans
outstanding was equivalent to about 75% of members’ deposits, which underscores the
principle of self-reliance that characterizes the financial cooperative movement worldwide.
[35]
The national government is very active in establishing SACCOs throughout the country. It
has been agreed on TZS 1,000,000,000 for each region in the country to be used for
SACCOS. This money will be distributed through the National Microfinance Bank and the
CRD Bank.




                                            - 18 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Background


2.13.16 Micro finance institutions
The principal providers of financial services to the poor and low income HHs in the rural and
urban areas of Tanzania consist of licensed commercial banks, regional and rural unit banks;
savings and credit cooperative societies; and several NGOs whose micro-credit delivery
operations are funded and supported with technical assistance by international donors. [35]




       Table 4: Institutional Providers of Microfinance Services in Tanzania [35]




                                            - 19 -
      Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Biogas in Tanzania



3 Biogas in Tanzania
3.1    History
Tanzania has been among a few African countries that have been disseminating use of
biogas at the HH level. CAMARTEC has done pioneering work in the design of appropriate
digesters as well as promoting the use of bio-latrines. The Ministry of Energy and Minerals
(MEM) has also been involved on a pilot project with UNDP/GEF and DANIDA on treatment
of HH and market wastes in Dar es Salaam City. Utilisation of biogas for generating
electricity is discussed and a pilot plant of 150 kW is currently built in Hale.
The history of biogas dissemination in Tanzania dates back to 1975 when SIDO built 120
floating-drum plants up to 1984. In the Arusha region the Arusha Appropriate Technology
Project constructed traditional Chinese fixed-dome plants and "floating-seven-drum
digesters", their own development consisting of a gas holder made of seven oil drums
connected together. The objective of this project was to build biogas plants at the lowest
investment costs possible. In 1982 the newly founded parastatal organisation CAMARTEC
continued the dissemination of this technology in the Arusha area. About one year later,
Technical Cooperation between Tanzania and Federal Republic of Germany led to the
introduction of the Biogas Extension Service (BES). CAMARTEC and GTZ were in charge of
implementing this project in Tanzania. Only some of more than 100 biogas plants built
previously were still in operation at this time.
In the initial years the BES disseminated biogas plants mainly in the so-called "Coffee and
Banana Belt" area, the region around Arusha where particularly positive conditions promised
a high dissemination density for biogas plants. [18]
Dissemination strategy and project structures underwent decisive changes around 1990.
These were chiefly a result of financial and personnel withdrawal of GTZ from the BES and
the subsequent extensive transfer of the project to the counterpart organisation. In the
course of this transfer phase from 1990 to 1992, and with a further extension from 1992 to
1994, the project receives financial support within the scope of the Special Energy
Programme (SEP) which apart from the biogas component also includes firewood-saving
stoves. [18]
Apart from the CAMARTEC dissemination programme there were two other relatively
extensive dissemination programmes: one was carried out by ELCT in Arusha and the other
by MEM in Dar es Salaam. ELCT has been active in dissemination since 2003.
The reason may be the almost contrary dissemination concept of the ELCT in comparison to
the SEP. In ten decentral church centres there are contacts trained in biogas technology that
coordinate advice, training of biogas craftsmen and construction etc. The target group is
made up of farmers with at least two head of cattle. Chinese fixed-dome plants with conical
fundaments are disseminated. The farmers receive 50% of the investment costs as a credit
on conditions depending on their socio-economic situation. To keep the investment costs low
the farmer families are included in the construction of plants. Biogas accessories (lamps,
stoves) were imported from India and China and are around half the price of those from
CAMARTEC. CAMARTEC’s commercially oriented, strictly standardised dissemination
programme was considered by ELCT as not adapted to Tanzanian conditions as it only
serves the rich farmers. [18]
Among others, a Danish supported program, Sustainable Energy Programme in Karatu,
Arusha, are testing biogas plants using cheaper plastic technologies. Experiences with these
relatively cheap digesters have not been good as mainly lifetime was limited and gas
pressure too low for operating lamps.
Biogas digesters have been commercialised within institutions already. Resulting from the
many dissemination programs, several experts founded companies installing units mainly in
larger institutions, such as hospitals, monasteries, etc. Please also see chapter (2.13.9).

                                              - 20 -
          Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Biogas in Tanzania


3.2        Existing technologies in Tanzania

3.2.1       Overview
The existing types of biogas digesters can be divided in five design groups:
      •     CAMARTEC design, fixed and concrete dome design (originally based on Chinese
            technology, modified to the Tanzanian context by CAMARTEC). This type has been
            built over 1000 times in Tanzania and experiences show long lifetimes and relatively
            high costs. This type has not only been adopted by Tanzanian private sector, also
            other African countries installed this design successfully. Therefore, this design
            demonstrated technical suitability for African context, but costs remains a barrier to
            wide-spread dissemination.
      •     MIGESADO design, fixed dome design (originally based on Indian technology,
            modified to the Tanzanian context by MIGESADO using also to a limited extent
            experiences from CAMARTEC). This type has been built about 850 times in central
            Tanzania and experiences show also long lifetimes and relatively high costs.
      •     Tubular plastic digesters, relatively mainly built by SURUDE and Kakute Ltd. to up
            to 300 to 500 units within TZ so far. Prices per digester are about $US 150. The
            advantage of cheap costs is confronted with limited lifetime of maximum of five to
            seven years; however, the average lifetime is far below. Additionally, the low gas
            pressure does not allow the use of gas lamps; consequently, biogas can only be used
            with this technology for cooking. Due to the limited lifetime, trust of customers in
            tubular plastic digesters is limited. As a consequence, SURUDE, which built about
            200 plants of this kind, does not consider this technology as sustainable and,
            therefore, does not follow this technology any more.
      •     Very few digesters installations following the Superflex design have been reported in
            Tanzania. This design also uses plastic as main material with modified plastic water
            tanks accommodating biogas digestion and gas storage. According to SURUDE,
            costs range about US$600 with the latest design. However, SURUDE expects limited
            lifetime due to the use of plastic and this type cannot be produced within Tanzania,
            although, Superflex claims that several plastic water tank manufacturers in Dar es
            Salaam could easily modify their designs to be convertible to biogas. ZALWEDA
            follows this type of digesters currently building several demonstration digesters in
            Zanzibar that utilize an automated mixing technique to maximise biogas production
            with minimised digester volume. For more detailed information, the author would like
            to refer to the website of the producer: [26]
      •     In early days of biogas dissemination in Tanzania, floating drum designs have been
            installed. Due to the limited lifetime of the metal drum and relatively high costs,
            organisations followed this design changed all to fixed dome design or other fixed
            dome designs. Consequently, this technology cannot be considered as appropriate or
            suitable for the Tanzanian context.

3.2.2       CAMARTEC Type
As the CAMARTEC type can be considered as the most known and widespread technology
within Tanzania, it shall be described briefly:
Technical development
A variety of technical development work was necessary to guarantee long-term performance
of the plant. The fixed-dome plant initially disseminated by the BES proved to be non-reliable
in practice. After 3 years of operation, cracks allowing gas to leak out appeared on many
plants with a digester volume of over 8 m³. The cause of this was supposed in that the dome
construction was not statically determined and cracking from the digester region up to the
gas storage area could not be prevented. The solution to this problem was a pre-determined

                                                  - 21 -
     Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Biogas in Tanzania


breaking point, the so-called "weak ring". Later a reinforcing ring, the "strong ring" made of
concrete was added over this. This guaranteed that the gas storage area remained free of
cracks. Another technical innovation which proved to be beneficial was the use of an additive
in the cement for the gas-proof plaster. In the meantime the experience gained by
CAMARTEC in the 1980’s has been used successfully in many biogas dissemination
programmes.
Gas burners were developed which were reliable, easy to service and which corresponded to
the cooking habits of the region. Supply problems and inferior performance of imported gas
lamps led to a local model being developed and to the modification of petroleum pressure
lamps for operation by gas.
The development work towards sustainable reliability and user friendliness resulted in
extensive integration of biogas plants into the work routines of farmers. As a "biogas unit", a
system of coordinated components was developed to include not only the plant but also
integration into the farm system. This included livestock housing with a concrete floor and
direct connection of the urine channel to the digester, slurry tank, distribution channels for the
slurry or a slurry cart, advice on the utilisation of slurry, gas pipeline systems, burners and
lamps. Women were specifically instructed during initial years in Tanzania.
Technical description
The type, followed by CAMARTEC has a simplified structure of a hemispherical dome shell
based on a rigid foundation ring only and a calculated joint of fraction, the so-called weak /
strong ring. [36]




                Figure 7: Sketch of fixed dome design by CAMARTEC [36]
Fixed-dome plants must be covered with earth up to the top of the gas-filled space to
counteract the internal pressure (up to 0.15 bars). The earth cover insulation and the option
for internal heating make them suitable for colder climates. Due to economic parameters, the
recommended minimum size of a fixed-dome plant is 5 m³. Digester volumes up to 200 m³
are known and possible. [36]
Advantages: Low initial costs and long useful life-span; no moving or rusting parts involved;
basic design is compact, saves space and is well insulated; construction creates local
employment. [36]
Disadvantages: Masonry gas-holders require special sealants and high technical skills for
gas-tight construction; gas leaks occur quite frequently; fluctuating gas pressure complicates
gas utilization; amount of gas produced is not immediately visible, plant operation not readily
understandable; fixed dome plants need exact planning of levels; excavation can be difficult
and expensive in bedrock. [36]
Fixed dome plants can be recommended only where construction can be supervised by
experienced biogas technicians. [36]
                                             - 22 -
       Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Biogas in Tanzania


3.3     Existing biogas digesters and market development in Tanzania
Built biogas digesters in Tanzania and the related organisations are shown in table (5).
Design        Region                             Technical         Supporting /              Benefic.        Plant    Period
                                                                   Finance                                  Numbers
Floating      Tanzania                           KVIC-SIDO         n.a. through              Institutes       120     1975 -
                                                                   government                                          1984
Fixed/        Arusha                             AATP              n.a.                      n.a.             n.a.     70s -
7 drum                                                                                                                  80s
Fixed         Arusha, Dar es Salaam,             CAMARTEC CAMARTEC, TZ                       Institutes       720     1982 -
              etc.                               GTZ      GTZ, Germany                       Domestic                  2005
Fixed         Kagera (Bukoba)                    KALIDEP  DGIS                               domestic         77      <1993

Fixed,        Tanzania                           ELCT and          ELCT                      Institutes     ca. 500    n.a.
Tubular                                          trained                                     Domestic
plastic                                          masons
n.a.          Mbeya-Mbozi/Tukuyu                 MS                MS Denmark                Domestic         56      1987 -
                                                                   (DALDO TZ)                                          1997
n.a.          Tanga, Muheza, West                n.a.              ADF                       Domestic         46      1994 -
              and East Usambara                                                                                        1996
Fixed         Arusha, Kilimanjaro,               Private           Self financed by          Domestic        > 100    1991 -
              Tanga, Mbeya                       sector            customer, NGO’s           Institutes                2007
                                                 companies         etc.
Tubular       Arusha, Monduli                    TAF-Kakute        GEF-TAF                   domestic         55      1994 -
plastic                                                                                                                1995
Fixed         Dodoma                             MIGESADO Government of                      Domestic         786     1994 -
                                                          Navarra, BFTW,                                               2007
                                                          MISERIOR
              Outside Dodoma                                                                                   60
Tubular       Tanga, Kagera, Musoma, SURUDE /                      TSDDP, ELCT,              Domestic         199     1993 -
plastic,      Mara, Mwanza,            SUA                         Anglican Church,                                    2002
Super-        Morogoro, Arusha/Karatu,                             SUA, UNEP,
flex          Kilimanjaro (Himo)                                   FAO, SIDA,
                                                                   DANIDA
Fixed         Morogoro                           SURUDE            n.a.                      n.a.             12      1999 -
                                                                                                                       2001
Fixed         Arusha, Monduli                    Kakute            n.a.                      Domestic          2       2002
                                                 FIDE                                                                 1996,
Fixed         Arusha, Manyara                                      n.a.                      Domestic         70      2005 -
                                                                                                                       2007
Fixed         Tanzania                           n.a.              GEF/UNDP/FAO,             Institutes       >5        n.a.
                                                                   by MEM
Fixed         Mwanza                             Katani            Katani Ltd.               Domestic          1      2006

Cumulative (reported) number of constructed bio digesters in Tanzania:                                       > 2873   1975-
                                                                                                                      2007
Note: Only reported digesters have been included in the table! However, it is unlikely that very far more
then the presented number were built.
More than 430 tubular plastic digesters have been built in Tanzania. These can be considered as not in
operation any more. Several reported digesters were only for research purposes. Additionally, several
digesters are more than 20 years old and can be partly considered as not in operation any more.
Estimated number of operational biogas digesters in Tanzania:                                                > 1900

Table 5: Reported biogas projects in Tanzania [based on information of the concerning
organisations] [13], [37], [38], [39]
Tanzanian biogas market development per units built is shown in figure (8).Fixed dome
digesters peaked in 1990 with an amount of 154 units and tubular plastic digesters in 1998
with 138 plants. Altogether, about 2444 buildings of fixed dome digesters had been reported

                                                          - 23 -
                        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Biogas in Tanzania


and 429 of tubular plastic and Superflex design, leading to a total reported amount of 2821
plants till 2007. It can be assumed that the figure from 2006 is not complete and built plants
in 2007 have not been fully reported yet. Consequently, the amount of fixed dome digesters
can be estimated between 2,500 and 3,000 units and the ones of tubular plastic ones above
500 units leading to a total estimated amount of built biogas digesters in Tanzania of 3,000 to
3,700 biogas plants. However, due to limited lifetimes with tubular plastic digesters and
plants already built in the 1980’s, the amount of plants in operation can be estimated to
above 1,900 units.
The market of domestic biogas digesters in Tanzania was mainly related to subsidies. Only
in the early 1990’s, just after fading out of GTZ, construction of domestic biogas plants have
been reported without or little subsidies.
                        300                                                                                    3000



                        250                tubular + superflex                                                 2500

                                           fixed dome (and floating drum)
 units (newbuildings)




                                                                                                                      units (accumulated)
                        200                                                                                    2000
                                           plants accumulated


                        150                                                                                    1500



                        100                                                                                    1000


                         50                                                                                    500



                          0                                                                                    0
                              1975
                              1976
                              1977
                              1978
                              1979
                              1980
                              1981
                              1982
                              1983
                              1984
                              1985
                              1986
                              1987
                              1988
                              1989
                              1990
                              1991
                              1992
                              1993
                              1994
                              1995
                              1996
                              1997
                              1998
                              1999
                              2000
                              2001
                              2002
                              2003
                              2004
                              2005
                              2006
Figure 8: Previous market development of biogas digesters in Tanzania between 1975
and 2006 [based on information of the concerning organisations] [13], [37], [38], [39]
Biogas plant construction for institutions is already commercialised in Tanzania. Private
companies, such as ABC Ltd. in Arusha, do construct biogas digesters in larger scales on a
commercial basis with no direct subsidies involved.
Katani Ltd., in cooperation with UNIDO, also follows also the approach in generating
electricity from biogas in larger plants. Currently, a 150 kW plant in Hale, near Tanga, is
being constructed. For this plant, biogas is generated from sisal waste. This has not been
considered in the above table and graph.

3.4                       Effects on deforestation
Reports of GEF and UNDP describe the impact of biogas plants as follows:
“Using biogas for cooking reduces the need for fuel wood and charcoal. Each biogas unit is
estimated to reduce deforestation by 37 hectares per year. Since it also uses cow dung that
would otherwise have degraded, further greenhouse gas emissions are avoided.” [40]
(The concerning biogas plant produces about 1 m³ biogas per day, requiring the faeces of 1
to 2 cows or 4 to 8 pigs on a daily basis). [40]
However, experiences from previous GTZ projects have been proven effects versus
deforestation, but not in this huge dimension. Nevertheless, the impact of one domestic
biogas plant reduces firewood requirement of at least up to 2.56 tons per year, which is the
average yearly consumption of firewood per rural HH (7 kg/day/HH). According to chapter


                                                                    - 24 -
          Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Biogas in Tanzania


(3.5.4) at least 50% of these savings can be expected. If charcoal will be replaced by biogas,
this amount will be even far higher.

3.5        Lessons learned

3.5.1       GTZ (SEP)
Past GTZ-projects, BES and SEP, already targeted farmers with medium range income
owning about two livestock units. Experiences with those projects were:
      •     Relatively expensive biogas technology has to incorporate labour and further
            engagement. With interested farmers, this engagement was available. [26]
      •     Rural people did not see the advantage of improved technology and fuel supply in
            combination with taking up such a high risk of financing. Readiness to assume the
            risk of financing has not been seen previously, in particular with poor classes of
            society. Richer people, who may more easily afford biogas plants have been reluctant
            to invest in biogas technology. [41]
      •     Social-ecological drivers, reduction of poverty, health promotion, gender equity, and
            ecological impacts have been shown of minor importance, as profit concerns have
            been paramount. With increasing success of achieving technology dissemination with
            an economic approach, socio-ecologic objectives were more difficult to achieve. [41]
      •     Due to the required livestock of the target group and the large financial investment
            into the biogas plant, the original targeted group of small farmers was not able to be
            addressed. As a consequence, the project reached farmers with medium to big farms.
      •     The majority of users who decided to invest in biogas are educated above-average.

3.5.2       SURUDE (GEF, UNDP)
The following lessons learned of SURUDE’s project together with GEF and UNDP has been
published and informed by SURUDE (the concerning project promoted Tubular Plastic
digesters): [40]
      •     Since biogas production requires a steady supply of biodegradable material, it can be
            combined successfully with livestock farming. In addition, the slurry produced as a by-
            product can be used as an effective fertilizer to improve crop yields.
      •     Biogas use is sometimes hindered by lack of sufficient water. Designs that use less
            water, or that are incorporated with rainwater harvesting, need to be developed to
            ensure greater adoption of this technology.
      •     Even with plant costs of about $US 150 having a relatively short payback time,
            financing is crucial for biogas plants. Good experiences have been made with
            revolving funds.
      •     Biogas implementation has to be combined with capacity building in regard to biogas
            technology.
      •     To disseminate information about best practices, cooperation with a combination of
            universities on the one hand and the government’s agricultural extension service on
            the other, has been shown as very effective. Universities conducted research and
            establishing record-keeping; government’s agricultural extension service helped to
            promote the introduction of biogas and livestock into farming systems.
      •     Transparency within research and monitoring is extremely important. Farmers will
            keep records of information necessary for analysis – such as the calves’ birth dates,
            and the amount of milk produced and sold – but they are more likely to do so when
            they see how this information is used to benefit them.


                                                  - 25 -
       Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Biogas in Tanzania


   •     Experiences with the tubular plastic digesters show only limited lifetimes with this
         technology of maximum 5 to 7 years, as plastic is not durable when it is exposed to
         sunlight and vulnerability of the this plastic. As a consequence, this technology is
         considered as not sustainable and the reputation of biogas in Tanzania in general as
         an alternative energy source has been seen decreasing.
   •     Gas pressure with Tubular Plastic digester technology is too low for operating gas
         lamps. Consequently, the important issue of providing also light cannot be fulfilled
         with this technology.

3.5.3    MIGESADO (BFTW)
According to Ulrike Binder de Soza (BFTW), MIGESADO has had the following experiences:
   •     Animal dung is widely accepted by the population for producing biogas. Regarding
         human faeces, the users have been partly reluctant in combining toilets to the biogas
         plant, due to the reason that the fertilizer shall not be made out of human faeces.
   •     The project is described as working well and a request for an alternative to firewood
         on HH level can be seen. However, due to the high initial costs of a biogas digester,
         the project concludes that a dissemination of biogas is very likely not working without
         any subsidies to the initial costs. A major reason to this is also the lack of available
         MFI in rural areas of Dodoma.
   •     Biogas technology can be seen as mature and widely available in Tanzania.
   •     Major impacts of the programme are on the one hand conservation of firewood; on
         the other hand great positive social impacts to users and local society have been
         observed.

3.5.4    Tanga Dairy Development Programme
The African Development Foundation (ADF) carried out a programme for low-cost bio-
digesters for zero grazing smallholder dairy farmers in Tanga, Muheza, West and East
Usambara parts of Tanzania between the months of August 1994 and January 1996. [42]
46 biogas digesters were installed in selected villages. The gas produced was of low
pressure, of right composition and safe to use. It was also observed that differences in
attitude and animal feeds did not significantly affect gas production and composition. The
biogas digesters are to a certain extent fragile and there is a need for protection against
perforation and sunlight to increase durability. [42]
   •     The gas produced, if well used, could save more than 50% of cooking energy needs.
   •     It was observed that, on average, five hours of HH labour were saved per day
         because of the introduction of biogas. The use of biogas alleviates the work load of
         women and makes it possible for men to participate in providing for energy needs at
         homestead level; a role which is otherwise traditionally women's. It was estimated
         that the cost of investment could be recovered in a period in the range of nine to 18
         months, according to the relative prices of materials and of charcoal.
   •     The use of low-cost biogas reduces the cutting of highly valuable hardwood and
         hence protects the environment.




                                               - 26 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment



4 Feasibility assessment
4.1       Technical feasibility
Domestic biogas utilisation using fixed dome digesters require average yearly temperatures
above 15°C. In Tanzania, average yearly temperatures are mainly about 20°C and above
throughout the country. From this perspective, beside the hilly regions, biogas can be used
all over Tanzania.

4.1.1      Determining average daily biogas demand
As described in chapter (2.3.1), the average HH size in rural areas is 5.1 people.
Resulting from chapter (2.5), the average demand for firewood is about 7 kg/d/HH. The need
of 1 kg of firewood corresponds to about 200 l of biogas [14]. This results in an average
biogas demand of 1.4 m³/d/HH. According to chapter (4.1.6), this would require 35 – 40 kg of
cow manure, which is manure of about two improved cattle daily (assuming 15 - 20 kg
dung/cattle/day) [36]. With some additional faeces from humans, or pigs, or other animals, in
optional combination with suitable agricultural waste, the gas yield may be slightly higher in
order to ensure additional gas for lighting purposes.

4.1.2      Technical description of the appropriate biogas plant
Generally, suitable biogas plant designs in Tanzania must address local site conditions,
which are either of humid or semi arid climate.
Introduction of biogas to Nepal has been without doubt very successful. However, just taking
over the Nepalese design GGC 2047 to the Tanzanian context will bear also risks. These
are, but not limited to:
      •    As Tanzania is in large parts a semi-arid country, collection of urine is imminent in the
           context of this country in order to reduce demand for water. GGC 2047 is not
           designed for being connected directly to a stable floor. An additional positive side
           effect with the use of urine is an increase in quality of fertilizer and, therefore, missing
           with GGC 2047.
      •    Plant operation (mixing and feeding the plant) is more labour intensive compared to
           the CAMARTEC design leading to inconvenient operation. However, MIGESADO
           design has the same disadvantage.
      •    CAMARTEC and MIGESADO designs are more reliable in regard to gas tightness, as
           GGC 2047 uses emulsion paint lining. Consequently, gas losses and scum formation
           are more likely to be avoided with Tanzanian designs.
      •    GGC 2047 has less gas storage capacity limited to about 33% of expected daily gas
           production, leading to gas losses when well fed. With this design, gas storage cannot
           be increased fundamentally. Consequently, Tanzanian designs provide more
           flexibility for the users.
      •    GGC 2047 does not encourage fresh slurry utilization due to an outlet tank closed
           with heavy concrete slabs and this also leads to scum formation in the outlet tank.
           Additionally, the Nepalese design has compost pits as the only way of dealing with
           the overflow. As a consequence, GGC 2047 does not address the land use pattern of
           Tanzania directly.
      •    The levelling of the digester with GGC 2047 leads to frequent blockages of the gas
           pipe which makes the digester unsuited for gravity feeding. Gravity feeding is
           required for Tanzanian customers.
Resulting from above explanations and chapter (3.2) the most appropriate technologies for
the Tanzanian context are of fixed dome design used by CAMARTEC and MIGESADO.

                                                - 27 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


Therefore, these technologies shall be described and assessed within this study. In
conclusion, the above mentioned technologies have the following, but not limited to,
advantages:
   •    already existing expertise within CAMARTEC, MIGESADO, NGOs and the private
        sector
   •    more than 2300 units already built in Tanzania and additionally copied and modified
        in other countries, including Uganda, Malawi, Kenya, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Rwanda,
        South Africa, Thailand, and Indonesia. Variations of CAMARTEC design are
        operating in Burundi as well as in India (Dheenbandu Design).
   •    robust and reliable technology leading to long lifetimes of up to 20 years and above
   •    sufficient gas pressure for using gas lights
CAMARTEC and MIGESADO follow the same technical
principle of the fixed dome design. As a consequence, it will
be advised, for mass dissemination of biogas digesters in
Tanzania to follow a technology resulting of a development of
a combination of these two designs and also to incorporate
recent technological achievements of other countries. The
above mentioned designs may be the most appropriate for
Tanzania, however, there are still lessons to learn and
continuous development will, therefore, be advised.
Main differences are in the gas outlet system, which is
considered as problematic with the CAMARTEC design and
is, therefore, subject for redesign following the similar
approach of MIGESADO.
MIGESADO uses self made bricks made from sand and
cement directly on site of construction leading. CAMARTEC Figure 9: Inlet and mixing
uses high quality burned bricks instead. These may not be pot with MIGESADO design
available nearby leading to possible quality problems and [1]
higher transportation costs. The disadvantage
of higher transportation costs and the
availability of high quality bricks with
CAMARTEC design on the one hand, is a
higher      consumption   of   cement      with
MIGESADO. However, both approaches result
mainly on the same material cost level.
Difference in quality was not able to be
assessed within the study. However, exchange
of technical issues and experiences resulted
out of this study.
The design followed by MIGESADO has
similar disadvantages as the GGC 2047 in the Figure 10: Inlet and mixing pot with
feeding system. With this design, feeding from CAMARTEC design [1]
the stable floor is not possible, which is clear
the advantage of the CAMARTEC design. Please see figure (9) and figure (10).
Consequently, operation of the plant is more convenient and collection of urine is possible
with CAMARTEC design.

4.1.3   Required components and materials
Biogas plant
Material requirements for CAMARTEC design can be seen in the price sheets indicating
material demand in detail in Appendix 1.

                                             - 28 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


Improved Stables
Stables have to be improved in order to make manure and urine collectable, as well as to
prevent contamination (dust, sand etc.) entering the biogas plant.
For these reasons, cement will be required for concreting the floor. Additionally, the stable
should be covered with a roof and, if necessary, also equipped with solid or soft walls.
During the field visit no general stable design has been observed. All seen stables have been
constructed individually. As these materials correspond to the size of the stable and specific
site conditions, general estimates are difficult.
The above mentioned requirements are similar also for over night stabling.
Improved Sanitation
MIGESADO includes costs for a basic latrine in their general cost calculations. According to
them, the minimum material requirements for an attached latrine to a biogas plant are as
follows (values in Tanzanian Shillings, 2007 prices are estimated to be 20% higher than the
given 2005 prices):
                             in [TZS]   unit cost      units   costs 2005        costs 2007
   latrine inlet pipe 4'' (2m)           12,000         1        12,000            14,400
   latrine slab PVC 6''                   5,000         1         5,000             6,000
   latrine PVC 4'' elbow                  5,000         1         5,000             6,000
   latrine cement                        12,500         3        37,500            45,000
   Total                                                         59,500            71,400
           Table 6: Material costs of a latrine in Tanzania [source: MIGESADO]
Material costs for a latrine are about 71,400 TZS, which are with current rates about 44 € or
$US 60.
Water harvesting
Water availability is highly subject to site conditions. In order to install biogas digesters more
flexible, MIGESADO follows the approach to disseminate also underground grey-water
harvesting. Prices for underground water tanks vary from 815,000 TZS for 10 m³ to
1200,000 TZS for 19 m³

4.1.4   Quality parameters for biogas plant components
Digester
The digester must meet the following requirements: [36]
   •    Water/gas tightness - water tightness in order to prevent seepage and the resultant
        threat to soil and groundwater quality; gas tightness in order to ensure proper
        containment of the entire biogas yield and to prevent air entering into the digester
        (which could result in the formation of an explosive mixture).
   •    Insulation - if and to which extent depends on the required process temperature, the
        local climate and the financial means; heat loss should be minimized if outside
        temperatures are low, warming up of the digester should be facilitated when outside
        temperatures are high.
   •    Minimum surface area - keeps cost of construction to a minimum and reduces heat
        losses through the vessel walls. A spherical structure has the best ratio of volume
        and surface area. For practical construction, a hemispherical construction with a
        conical floor is close to the optimum.
   •    Structural stability - sufficient to withstand all static and dynamic loads, durable and
        resistant to corrosion.
   •    Sizing – inlet and outlet has to be sized large enough that no blockage will arise

                                              - 29 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


Fixed-dome gasholders
The following aspects must be considered with regard to design and operation: [36]
   •    An overflow into and out of the compensation tank must be provided to avoid
        overfilling of the plant.
   •    The gas outlet must be located about 10 cm higher than the overflow level to avoid
        plugging up of the gas pipe.
   •    A gas pressure of 1 m WC or more can develop inside the gas space. Consequently,
        the plant must be covered sufficiently with soil to provide an adequate counter
        pressure.
   •    Special care must be taken to properly close the man hole, which may require
        weighing down the lid with 100 kg or more. The safest method is to secure the lid with
        clamps.
The following structural measures are recommended to avoid cracks in the gas-holder: [36]
   •    The foot of the dome (gas-holder) should be stabilized by letting the foundation slab
        project out enough to allow for an outer ring of mortar.
   •    A rated break/pivot ring should be provided at a point located between 1/2 and 2/3 of
        the minimum slurry level. This in order to limit the occurrence or propagation of
        cracks in the vicinity of the dome foot and to displace forces through its
        stiffening/articulating effect such that tensile forces are reduced around the gas
        space. Alternatively, the lowest point of the gas-holder should be reinforced by a steel
        ring or the whole gas-holder be reinforced with chicken mesh wire.
Piping:
   •    Water trap may be required, if water condensate cannot draw back into the digester.

4.1.5   Biogas household appliances
For the utilisation of biogas, the following consumption rates in litres per hour (l/h) can be
assumed: [36]
   •    HH burners: 200-450 l/h
   •    industrial burners: 1000-3000 l/h
   •    refrigerator (100 l) depending on outside temperature: 30-75 l/h
   •    gas lamp, equiv. to 60 W bulb: 120-150 l/h
   •    biogas / diesel engine per hp: 420 l/h
   •    generation of 1 kW of electricity with biogas/diesel mixture: 700 l/h
In Tanzania, appliances have been delivered with all reported new buildings. For domestic
biogas use in Tanzania, customers require at least one stove and one lamp. It has also been
seen that users do purchase regular gas ovens for attaching to the biogas system.
Prices in Tanzania (from offers of MIGESADO, CAMARTEC and ABC Ltd.):
   •    Cost per stove:      40,000 – 50,000 TZS
   •    Cost per gas lamp: 42,000 – 50,000 TZS
Biogas refrigerators and electricity generation devices have not been promoted, and thus do
not have established market prices, though they could become more widely demanded and
used if biogas production becomes more widespread.




                                             - 30 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


As appliances, in particular gas lamps, are not prevalent in Tanzania, repair, maintenance
and purchasing of wear and spare parts is a problem. It has been observed several times
that an entire biogas unit was not in operation any more, only because the appliances failed.




   Figure 31: Stove (ABC Ltd.), gas lamp (CAMARTEC), gas lamps (MIGESADO) [1]

4.1.6   Operation and maintenance requirements
The day-to-day operation of a biogas unit requires a high level of discipline and routine to
maintain a high gas production and to ensure a long life-span of the biogas unit. Many
problems in the performance of biogas plants occur due to user mistakes or operational
neglect. Often, these problems can be reduced,
   •    by less complicated designs that are adapted to the substrate, the climatic conditions
        and the technical competence of the user,
   •    by high-quality and user-friendly appliances,
   •    by design and lay-out of the biogas for convenient work routine,
   •    by proper training and easy access to advice on operation problems.
During design selection, planning, construction, handing over and follow-up, the biogas
extension programme should emphasize further on a reduction of the users’ workload for
operating the biogas unit and using the gas and the slurry. In particular during work peaks for
farm work, it is important that the biogas unit relieves the user from work rather than adding
to the workload. As a general rule, the farming family should have less work with a biogas
unit than without it, while enjoying the additional benefits in terms of a clean fuel and high
quality fertilizer. [36]
C/N ratio
The micro organism there are working in a biogas plant needs both N nitrogen and C carbon
to survive, reproduce, and metabolize organic material into biogas. Research has shown that
the methanogenic bacteria work best with a C/N ratio from 8 - 20. Cow dung has a C/N ratio
about 18, which is securing a good level of activity in a biogas plant. Agricultural waste like
maize stalks and straw have C/N ratios from 50 – 100, these waste products can therefore
only be mixed into the feed of a biogas plant in limited amounts. Human excrements and
urine from latrines have a C/N ratio around 8. A latrine connected to a biogas plant can
therefore help in keeping the C/N ratio on an acceptable level. [43]
Retention time in the biogas plant
The time it takes for organic materials to be broken down in a biogas plant varies according
to the kind of materials used.
For cow dung mixed with plant residues the time taken to be broken down and methane
formed will normally be between 50 – 80 days. If the retention time is shorter than this the
bacteria formed in the biogas plant will be carried out with the slurry faster than they can
reproduce themselves. If that appears, the biogas production will stop. If the retention time
becomes too long the production will be too small.

                                             - 31 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


As a consequence, sizing of the digester according to the kind and volume of faeces/organic
waste etc. is crucial! [43]

4.1.7    Technical, construction and operation risks
Human faeces may not stay long enough in the digester leading to pathogens be not
deadened. Consequently, the risk of an outbreak of epidemics, such as cholera, diarrhoea
etc. exists, especially, if the fermented slurry is used in horticulture. [44]
The gas chamber storage normally does not contain oxygen. Nevertheless, in generally, with
inappropriate operation and technical failure, the risk of explosion exists. However, no such
accident related to biogas utilisation has been reported in Tanzania.
The gas chamber stays under pressure, when gas is stored. If slurry outlet is blocked, this
pressure may increase and may cause the digester to fail. This leads to high related costs of
repair and to a long time where the plant cannot be used.
While feeding the plant, dust and stones may enter the plant. This happens in particular
when the attached stable is not protected with walls and a roof. These sediments will stay
and accumulate at the floor of the digester leading to a decrease of the operating volume
and, therefore, a decrease in retention time and yield. Additionally, the risk of blockage of the
outlet pipe exists leading to further problems described above.
Even small leakages reduce possible gas pressure. This results in reduced yield and also in
a complete standstill of the plant. Repairing leakages may require to emptying the tank
resulting in further costs. Gas leakages in general contribute to climate change.
The list of small failures can be described long. However, it has been observed that even
small failures lead to a complete standstill of the plant. For example, it has been seen that
the stove was not working properly and the owner did not know how to fix it. The
consequence was, the owner did not operate the plant any more. In conclusion, a guarantee
period for ensuring good construction and an available and affordable after sales service,
also for minor problems is required in Tanzania.

4.2     Financial and economic feasibility

4.2.1    Production costs
In 1991, the price of one biogas plant of 16 m³ (Arumeru region) was about 170,000 TZS.
(Price relations for 1991: 1 adult milking cow 75,000 TZS, 1 daily wage of unskilled labourer
is 200-300 TZS, 1 bag of cement costs 1,150 TZS, 1 kg of maize (producer price) gains
15 TZS, 1 l of kerosene costs 51 TZS). Consequently, one biogas plant costs about 2-3 in-
calf cows. [45]
Current prices have been kindly made available by CAMARTEC, MIGESADO and ABC Ltd.
Table (7) indicates current construction prices of biogas digesters of the respective
companies including one stove, lamp and one toilet each. As the offers differ in scope of
supply, main differences of the offers and price calculations are named. CAMARTEC offered
more devices than the others and the offer has been reduced accordingly. CAMARTEC was
the only offer including all costs and the highest overheads in the offer. However, by
including estimates of costs to the other offers, all companies, parastatal, NGO and private
sector will be within the same level. As a consequence, the prices presented by CAMARTEC
are the basis for the assessment in chapter (4.2.6).
Experiences from MIGESADO are that local contribution in-kind can be estimated to about
15 to 20% of the given prices in table (7).




                                             - 32 -
    Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment




                                            prices of biogas digesters in TZS - offer received from

                                              MIGESADO 2          CAMARTEC              ABC Ltd.
plant size
5 m³                                            938.700
6 m³                                            985.320
8 m³                                           1.062.180            1.219.575
10 m³                                          1.127.700
12 m³                                          1.208.970            1.584.700
16 m³                                          1.382.850            2.001.575           1.393.455
Included issues to the offer,
conditions
Overhead/contingencies                             5%                  15%                5%
cost of attached latrine included               included             excluded           excluded
supervision of construction                        no                   yes               yes
gas piping system included                         yes                  yes                no
transport of materials to the site                 no             at least partly          no
transport for supervision work/logistics           no             at least partly          no
accommodation for the artisans                     yes                  yes                no
Table 7: Market prices of biogas digesters in Tanzania [Source: MIGESADO,
CAMARTEC, ABC Ltd.]
Currently, in Mwanza an indigenous cow costs between 100,000 and 150,000 TZS and an
improved cow between 350,000 and 500,000 TZS. In comparing prices from 1991 and today,
in terms of cows, biogas digesters increased in price dramatically.

4.2.2   Capital requirements of biogas plant producers
All stakeholders at the second stakeholder meeting have been consulted about capital
requirements for biogas plant producers. According to this survey, the main requirement is
working capital in order to pay expenses (material, wages etc.) in advance. Depending on
the orders of the firm, this might be a barrier for expanding business and even for market
entry.
In addition to the working capital, other assets are also required:
    •   Office space and office equipment (computer, cell phone etc.)
    •   machinery, tools and other equipment
    •   means of transportation for material, workers and supervisors
These required assets of a biogas construction company are difficult to summarise with cost
figures, as prices depend on the organisation layout, business plan, location etc.
In conclusion, the necessary assets will prevent ordinary masons founding companies.

4.2.3   Business development requirements
A private company involved in biogas in Tanzania, needs to have also soft skills in order to
operate a construction firm. Tanzanian education, including vocational training, normally not
includes management training. Consequently, trained biogas masons need to receive
training in management skills in order to enable them founding and running companies.
ESAMI is carrying out special biogas training courses including training of management
skills. These courses have been described in chapter (2.13.12).

2
  based on 2005 prices. As estimated by MIGESADO, a price increase of 20% has been added to
receive prices for 2007

                                              - 33 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


Biogas technology is not widespread known in Tanzania. Consequently, in order to foster
business development, marketing and advertisement of this technology is necessary.
MIGESADO follows the approach of using only advertisement by word of mouth and
received high penetration rates. Consequently, good performance and reliability of built
plants are good advertisements for biogas in Tanzania. However, this could also cause
negative impacts, when customers are dissatisfied with their plants. Consequently, customer
satisfaction is imminent in this context. Therefore, reliability of the installed plants and
available and affordable service are crucial for any large scale business development in
Tanzania.
In addition to word of mouth recommendations, public awareness needs to be focussed on
biogas. This is necessary for convincing new customers on the one hand and also to
encourage new entrepreneurs and employees for this sector on the other. Involved
organisations, such as ELCT, already promote renewable energy technologies by radio.

4.2.4   Service costs
Wear parts are not directly installed with fixed dome biogas digesters. Wear parts are mainly
related to the appliances. The incandescent mantle of the gas lamp has to be replaced
relatively often. However, prices seem not to be a big problem to users; availability seems to
be of much greater concern to the customers. In consequence of a failed incandescent
mantle, the glass of the lamp may also fail leading to larger replacement costs. Additionally,
stoves tend to oxidise and, therefore, the burner ring needs to be replaced after a couple of
years.
In case of failures, such as leakages or blockages within the biogas digester, the digester
has to be emptied in order to be repaired. This may also be necessary after several years of
operation when sediments cumulated in the digester leading to blockages or to decreased
operating volume of the digester. Costs of emptying a 16 m³ digester are about 30,000 TZS.
In case of minor problems with the digester, spare parts or material costs for replacements
are compared to the required costs of skilled fundis relatively low.
In conclusion, consulted biogas users in Tanzania consider service costs of minor
importance compared to overall service availability.

4.2.5   Clean development mechanism
The United Republic of Tanzania ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 26 August 2002 and has
established their Designated National Authority (DNA) and is as such eligible as host country
for CDM projects. The DNA must issue the statements that the project participants
participate voluntarily in the project and must confirm that the project activity assists the host
country in achieving sustainable development.
The contact of the DNA is : Division of Environment, Vice-President's Office, P.O.Box 5380,
IPS Building, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
The development of a CDM project documentation and the involvement of different
institutions throughout the project cycle generate substantial costs; estimates are given in
table (8):
Although detailed information of the scale and characteristics of the biogas programme in
Tanzania is not yet available, it is anticipated that in the frame of this programme only a
small-scale CDM project will be realistic. However, the small-scale project methodology,
Type I – Renewable Energy Projects, I.C., Thermal energy for the user, under which three
projects (two in Nepal, one in India) have been registered can currently not be applied.
This category comprises renewable energy technologies that supply individual households or
users with thermal energy that displaces fossil fuel or non-renewable sources of biomass.
Examples include solar thermal water heaters and dryers, solar cookers, energy derived from
biomass for water heating, space heating, or drying, and other technologies that provide


                                             - 34 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


thermal energy that displaces fossil fuel. Biomass-based co-generating systems that reduce
heat and electricity for the use on-site are included in this category.

        Cost Component            To be paid to                       Estimate

        Project preparation       Consultant for PDD writing,         30 – 40 man days,
        cost                      communication with                  plus travel costs
                                  government, etc.

        Validation                DOE                                 10,000 – 14,000 €

        Registration              EB
                                  • USD 0.10/CER for the first
                                     15.000 tCO2
                                  • USD 0.20/CER for any
                                     amount exceeding 15,000
                                     tCO2 (max. USD 350.000)
                                  • no fee for projects below
                                     15,000 tCO2 annually
        Monitoring                -                                   10,000 €

        Verification and          DOE                                 10,000 – 14,000
        certification

        Issuance of CERs          EB
                                  2% of the CERs issued must
                                  be paid as adaptation fee.
                                  Least developed countries are
                                  exempted
        Legal works               Consultant                          5,000 – 10,000
                                  To work out agreements of
                                  CER distribution among
                                  project participants
        Transfer costs            Broker                              to be negotiated
                                  To market CERs
            Table 8: Estimated costs related to an approval of a CDM project
At this stage it is difficult to predict whether or not a biogas programme in Tanzania can be
developed as a CDM project. One reason is the problem is that an approved methodology for
calculating the project baseline is currently not available. In addition, it will be a challenge to
determine the baseline emissions taking into account potential methane emissions and come
up with reasonable amounts that justify a CDM project activity with all costs involved.
Another issue is the timing and the public funding of the bio digester programme; there are
examples where public funds where used to finance the underlying project of the CDM
project activity, like in Nepal. Furthermore, Nepal is an interesting example where a CDM
project activity was developed as a sub-project under an umbrella biogas programme and a
potential CDM activity in Tanzania could benefit of the experience of this project.
Besides the Kyoto market, other actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are
being verified and traded. Voluntary markets for emissions reductions that are exempt from
the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol are developing rapidly. Companies are more and more
concerned about their environmental impact and tend to neutralise activities they cannot
avoid, e.g. flying. They see voluntary offsetting as part of their corporate responsibility and/or
as part of their image strategy. Emission offsets in this category are usually verified by
independent agents and are commonly referred to as Verified Emission Reductions (VERs).
VERs are not a standardized commodity like the CERs and there is a lack of quantitative
data publicly available for the voluntary carbon market.

                                             - 35 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


Transaction costs are particularly problematic when the volume of CERs being offered is
relatively low. As a thump rule it can be said that a project activity should generate at least
10,000 CERs to safely cover the costs for CDM preparation. If the emission reduction of a
project activity is below that threshold projects can be implemented as VER projects.
Although VER projects have not to go through the project cycle, they should be developed
and documented according to CDM rules and procedures, e.g. to use the PDD format to
develop the project. In order to become reliable it is recommended to validate the project.
The current market price for CERs is 5 to 6 EUR for medium-risk forwards, 7-8 EUR for low-
risk forwards, 8-11 EUR for registered projects and 10-12 EUR for issued CERs. The price
for VERs is considerable lower and is 3 to 6 EUR. Demand for both types of credits exists.
Experiences from the Biogas Support Program, Nepal, reached an average emission
reduction of about 7 tCO2 per annum. Using this value, it can be estimated to achieve yearly
earnings from CDM between 14 and 84 EUR per plant in the first seven years, depending of
the type of gained certificate.

4.2.6    Internal rate of return
This chapter is based on calculations from Winrock International. The methodology of this
calculation has been published and approved by DGIS. [46]
Two levels of analysis have been done: financial attractiveness of the biogas digester is
analysed from the perspective of the user; and economic analysis has been carried out from
the perspective of the overall biogas programme. The latter takes into account benefits of the
programme which may not be available to the HH as monetary benefits but are available to
the society at large. Financial analysis of costs and benefits provides insight into consumer
willingness to invest in biogas by capturing potential net returns to the HH. Economic
analysis of cost and benefits at the programmatic level provides donors, policy makers, and
sector experts with the information needed to compare alternative development investments.
The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is that discount rate which gives the net present value of
zero. When using the internal rate of return, the selection criterion is to accept the project
with an IRR greater than the Cut-Off rate, which is generally the opportunity cost of capital.
The IRR calculated using the financial costs and benefits is financial internal rate of return
(FIRR) and that calculated using the economic costs and benefits is economic internal rate of
return (EIRR).
The assumed parameters for this calculation are given in Appendix 4.
FIRR with a subsidy level of $US 300 presented in table (9) shows clearly that with the met
assumptions, HH purchasing firewood for cooking purposes, a biogas digester can be
attractive to them (>20%). With HH using charcoal, the FIRR indicates a clear benefit for
them. This is caused in the relatively high price of charcoal and the relatively low price of
firewood appearing in Tanzania. FIRR also gives evidence that with the set level of subsidy,
a biogas digester may be no option to those who are currently collecting firewood. To include
additional benefits in FIRR, such as health, fertilizer and sanitation related ones, does not
have great influence to the decision of the different groups.
                                                                  HHs using      HHs using
                                                      HHs using
        Level benefits                                            purchased      collected
                                                       charcoal
                                                                   firewood       firewood
        Energy related Benefits only                   92.61%        20.4%          4.05%
        + Health Related Benefits                      92.97%        20.5%          4.23%
        + Fertilizer Benefits                          92.97%        20.5%          4.23%
        + Global and Environmental Benefits            92.97%        20.5%          4.23%
        + Sanitation Benefits                          83.61%        20.5%          5.48%
            Table 9: FIRR at Different Level of benefits (subsidy level $US 300)


                                             - 36 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


The general assumption for the price of firewood in average is        Firewood [TZS/kg] FIRR
48 TZS per kg. As the price of firewood is a decisive issue and              36         15,47%
differs greatly throughout the country, a sensitivity assessment
with this input had been carried out. If the price of firewood is            48         20,50%
on the level of 36 TZS, FIRR is decreasing to 15.47%,                        60         25,70%
however, if the firewood is increasing to 60 TZS, it seems that it
is likely these HHs will decide in favour of a biogas plant as the    Table 10: sensitivity FIRR
rate is above interest rates of SACCOs of about 22%. Please           of HH using purchased
note that firewood prices in Tanzania between 5 TZS to 100            firewood regarding to
TZS are common.                                                       firewood price
In conclusion, as charcoal is a widely used fuel in Tanzania, it can be assumed that with this
level of subsidy, at least these HHs will decide for a biogas plant. In addition it has been
shown that HHs purchasing firewood at a relatively high cost, are also likely to decide on a
biogas digester. However, with this level of subsidy, the majority of HH collecting fuel only
have limited financial benefits with a biogas digester. In general it can be said, for urban
population and for the rural rich, biogas digesters may be an option, for the remaining part of
society mainly not.
The level of subsidy is a very decisive input for the outcome of a national dissemination
programme. In table (11) a sensitivity assessment for FIRR is shown with no subsidy,
subsidy at $US250, $US 300 and $US 350 per plant. It indicates clearly, that the level of
subsidy for HH collecting firewood will not cause them great benefits, as FIRR is by far lower
than common interest rates. For HH purchasing firewood the subsidy level is an important
issue and may affect the decision of this group. For HHs purchasing charcoal should always
see clear benefits with purchasing a biogas plant, which is not dependant on the level of
subsidy.
                                                              HH Using      HH using
                                                 HH using
                                                              purchased     collected
                                                 Charcoal
                                                               firewood     firewood
                               Programme
                                                  43.74%       11.40%         0.56%
                               with Latrine
              No Subsidy
                               Programme
                                                  45.26%       10.96%        -0.73%
                              without latrine
                               Programme
                                                  72.65%       18.38%         4.41%
              Subsidy at       with Latrine
            $250 per plant     Programme
                                                  79.09%       18.24%         3.14%
                              without latrine
                               Programme
                                                  83.61%       20.50%         5.48%
              Subsidy at       with Latrine
            $300 per plant     Programme
                                                  92.97%       20.52%         4.23%
                              without latrine
                               Programme
                                                  98.44%       23.05%         6.71%
              Subsidy at       with Latrine
            $350 per plant     Programme
                                                 112.75%       23.30%         5.48%
                              without latrine
       Table 11: Sensitivity assessment of FIRR with different levels of subsidies
In order to address rural HH using collecting firewood, the level of subsidy must be above
$US350 per plant in making them to decide for biogas. For HHs purchasing firewood, the
necessary level of subsidy depends on the fuel price and HHs use charcoal for cooking
actually do not need subsidies. Therefore, it will be recommended to set the level of subsidy
flexible in regard to the owner’s possibility to contribute in cash in order to reach the highest


                                             - 37 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


level of dissemination. With such a subsidy policy, MIGESADO had good experiences in
Tanzania already.
Table (12) indicates the EIRR. Considering the different categories of potential clients, the
economic analysis is also done for 3 different client categories i.e. HHs using charcoal, HHs
using purchased firewood, HHs using collected firewood and for an average Tanzanian HH.
From the economic perspective the biogas programme is very much attractive if all the
benefits of a biogas plant are considered, although the intervention may not seem to be
attractive if we consider only the energy related benefits. EIRR ranges from 160% to 265%
for various types of HH. The analysis clearly shows it will be worth implementing biogas
programme due to various natures of economic benefits that biogas programme can provide
to Tanzanian HH.
                                                                   HH using      HH using
                                                      HH using
        Level benefits                                            purchased      collected
                                                      charcoal
                                                                   firewood      firewood
        Energy related Benefits only                    14%           -10%          -10%
        + Health Related Benefits                       52%            28%           28%
        + Fertilizer Benefits                          115%            72%           72%
        + Global and Environmental Benefits            139%            87%           86%
        + Sanitation Benefits                          265%          160%          160%
                         Table 12: EIRR at different levels of benefit

4.2.7    Critical risk factors
Firewood is often free and normally women and children collecting it. The mainly male
decision maker of the HH might not see the advantage of less time consumption of firewood
collection and might be reluctant in deciding for biogas.
Biogas should already be financially attractive to HHs purchasing charcoal or more
expensive firewood for satisfying their energy needs. The reason why these HHs have not
decided for biogas so can be seen in lack of information. HHs collecting firewood, the far
majority of Tanzanian HHs, only see little financial benefits and may require large subsidies.
Consequently, this technology will only be affordable for rich HHs and may increase the gap
within society.
Some HHs in Tanzania already use cow manure as fertilizer. When a biogas plant is
implemented, this cow manure will not be available till the digester is filled up. Consequently,
the farmer cannot fertilize his fields for up to three months leading to decreased yields in a
time, where he has to repay his loans.
Please also see the section about lessens learned of previous projects in chapter (3.5).

4.3     Social, environmental and political feasibility

4.3.1    Knowledge on and experiences with biogas
In the survey in the Arusha region carried out by INTEGRATION, 65% of the consulted HHs
responded that they have heard about biogas before; 20.9% of all HHs knew more about
biogas in detail. [7]
The survey in Mwanza resulted that 19 of 100 HH heard about biogas, 3 HHs had seen a
biogas plant already (in Buhongwa, Sahwa and at CAMARTEC) and even one HH used
biogas before. [8]
In both surveys, biogas was mainly limited to the link of energy for cooking produced from
cow manure. For example, knowledge about the possibility to operate gas lamps, processing
of improved organic fertilizer and the use of other biomass as feedstock can be seen as
generally not existing. [7] [8]

                                             - 38 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


Experiences expressed by biogas customers generally are positive. It also can result into a
virtuous circle in creating new income possibilities for the HH due to more available time and
cheap energy sources. The gas is used as it is convenient, cheap and carries the perception
of being modern.
However, the majority of the users will face difficulties in repairing the plant or the attached
appliances in case of problems occurring. Even operating manuals, written in Swahili with
good demonstrating images, which have been delivered with the plants, do only help to a
certain extend. Generally spoken, if even minor failures occur, such as breakage of a stove,
lamp, or a small leakage etc, the plant may not be operated any more.

4.3.2   Acceptance of biogas
Except of the Massai, previous GTZ projects did not report any reluctance in regard to biogas
caused by social or traditional issues [26]. The conclusion from the stakeholder meetings
was that in general, the major issue against biogas are high investment costs.
From the HH survey in Mwanza (2007), a very minor percentage somehow show to be afraid
of biogas as some where that, for example, cows might die from the use of that technology.
These responses can be related to limited available information and not to a general
resistance of parts of society. Therefore, marketing and publicity of biogas within society
needs to be addressed by a potential programme in Tanzania. [8].
Decisions in Tanzanian HHs are often taken by the male head of HH. It is the interest of the
man to receive light; he is not interested in cooking issues. As collecting firewood is mainly
done by women and children and light is not an issue, for example, the HH is attached to the
grid, it might be difficult to make the male decision-maker deciding in favour of biogas.

4.3.3   Acceptance of the attachment of toilets
As explained in the previous chapter (4.3.1), biogas is known in combination with cow dung
and not with human manure. However, it is quite likely that the usage of human excrement is
at the same time not conceivable as this might be classified as repellent. Consequently, only
animal dung might be accepted.
The survey carried out in Mwanza results that only 4 out of 100 HHs are reluctant to cook
with biogas out of human excreta. These HHs consider it as dangerous. Consequently, the
result of this survey is that if, there is only limited reluctance in attaching a toilet to the biogas
plant. The same conclusion has been seen from the stakeholder meeting and individual
consultation of users and other stakeholders.
On the other hand, MIGESADO had the experiences that an attached toilet does cause
reluctance, sometimes even relatively strong. As a consequence, MIGESADO only offers to
attach a toilet if the customer requests it. However, in the standard scope of supply of a
biogas plant delivered by MIGESADO includes a toilet. Unfortunately, detailed figures of how
many toilets have been attached with MIGESADO biogas plants are not available.
Please also see (4.2.7).

4.3.4   Relevant government regulations which have to be complied
During the field trip and in particular with consultations with stakeholders and ministries, no
specific governmental regulations in regard to biogas have been observed.

4.3.5   Environmental risks
Methane (CH4) contributes to climate change by far more than carbon dioxide (CO2). Venting
biogas (releasing biogas directly into the air without burning it) is an occurrence which has
been reported from Tanzania. Consequently, if the gas demand is lower than the capacity of
the plant, the release of CH4 is prevailing. It also has been observed that the plant was not in
use any more (due to minor problems e.g.), but the attached latrine was still in use, which

                                              - 39 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


results in the release of CH4 in the atmosphere. In conclusion, a risk exist that a national
biogas programme may be counter productive for fighting the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions if the users are not sensitised in this regard.

4.3.6    Social risks
In Tanzanian society, fetching of water and firewood is offered as a service from the very
poor part of society. As better off and more educated HHs are more likely to benefit in a
biogas programme, possibilities for income generating activities for the very poor may be
reduced. Consequently, the very poor might even see a decrease in possibilities for income
generating activities while not benefiting from the programme as well.
It has been reported that with the provision of light to a HH, the workload of the woman can
also increase. However, as time savings in particular for women and children can be
expected with the use of biogas, this risk can be seen as relatively minor.
People in Tanzania may be reluctant in changing habits. Cooking food is a very intimate
matter in Tanzanian society and thus sensitive. In addition, the operation of a biogas digester
requires strict discipline. Consequently, the switch to biogas will definitely change daily life of
recipient individuals, particularly women, and will be resisted if it interferes with traditions.

4.4     Market viability

4.4.1    Target customer
Target customers in Tanzania can be divided in five groups:
Farmers owning improved dairy cattle
As described in chapter (2.9.1), 336,600 improved dairy cattle are in smallholder ownership.
By selling milk, these HHs do have monetary income, which is a prerequisite for purchasing
biogas plants.
MIGESADO concentrated on this customers group in particular and was able to built 786
plants in Dodoma region until market penetration started being recognized. In the
surrounding region, 4,645 improved cattle have been reported, leading to about 3,950
improved dairy cattle in smallholder ownership. This ratio can also be described that on
about every five improved dairy cattle in smallholder ownership, one biogas plant is installed.
[6]
The amount of target costumers in this group in all of Tanzania can be assumed by using the
experiences of MIGESADO in Dodoma region. By addressing this ratio of improved dairy
cattle in smallholder ownership to built biogas plants until market penetration has been
started being recognized, 67,000 costumers can be seen.
This figure indicates potential customers in rural as well as in urban areas and customers
which already received a biogas plant. Having in mind that experiences from MIGESADO are
within both, rural and urban areas, and also include all other influences to decision making
process of customers for biogas, such as existing grid access etc., for a nationwide
programme, this approach can be seen as giving realistic results. Assuming all up to now
who have built biogas plants (fixed dome and plastic) are within this target group, likely
customers in this target group can be estimated to 64,000 HHs.
About 70% of all MIGESADO customers received a biogas digester without a water storage
tank; so water can be considered as sufficiently available with these digesters.
Consequently, the nationwide number of likely customers, with no water harvesting system
required, is 44,800 and 19,200 requiring additional water storage tanks.
The above mentioned numbers can be seen as likely customers and not as only potential
ones. Furthermore, this figure can be considered as the lowest level in this target group, due
to the following reasons:


                                             - 40 -
    Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


    •   Environmental conditions for biogas operation in Dodoma region are relatively
        complicated due to water shortage compared to states with large improved dairy
        cattle population, such as Arusha, Mbeya, Kilimanjaro, Tanga etc.
    •   Market penetration only has been started to be visible in Dodoma region and
        MIGESADO did not market biogas very much; MIGESADO only follows the approach
        of finding new customers by word of mouth advertising.
    •   MIGESADO design does not support the collection of urine and, therefore, the
        number of plants requiring additional water storage tanks may be less.
The size of target group is up to 110,000 – 165,000 customers 3.
Detailed figures of nationwide distribution of this target group can be seen in chapter (4.4.3).
Farmers having indigenous cattle
Detailed figures for Tanzania are available of HHs owning cattle by herd size and can be
seen in table (13). [6]
The manure of a herd of less than
                                          Herd size      Cattle rearing HHs           Comment
four indigenous cattle is not
                                                                               not suitable for biogas
sufficient to operate a HH level
                                          1-5                 630121          with feedstock only from
biogas plant, if this feedstock will                                                  this herd
not be supplemented by other
                                                                              suitable for biogas in zero
biomass, such as oil cake from            6-11                265219
                                                                                grazing environment
Jatropha, sisal, human faeces
                                          11 and
(toilette) etc.                           more
                                                              126055
The manure of a herd of up to             16-20                78477
seven     indigenous   cattle    is       21-30                71801
considered to be sufficient for           31-40                31010           suitable for biogas with
feeding a HH level biogas plant.                                               overnight stabling (and
                                          41-50                18381
                                                                                    zero grazing)
However, indigenous cattle are            51-60                11725
unlikely to be kept within zero           61-100               23703
grazing     condition.  Therefore,        101-150               6405
feedstock has to be substituted by        151+                 9430
other biomass as well.                    Total              1,272,327        Total cattle rearing HHs
Herds existing of eight and more Table 13: Distribution of herd size in smallholder
cattle deliver sufficient cow manure ownership in Tanzania [6]
in over night stabling for operating a
biogas plant with no additional biomass requirement. According to table (13), only figures for
HHs with herd sizes of more than 10 cattle are available, which are 377,000 HHs.
According to the Ministry of Livestock, many of the concerning cattle are fenced in during the
night close to the owner’s house. However, resulting from the Mwanza survey, at least
limited stables may also be already in use. Photos of several stables of interviewed HHs
during this survey can be seen in Appendix 3. Potential customers within this target group
may also require new installations of or improvement of their stables. [8]
However, it also has to be taken into account that pastoralism is prevalent in Tanzania. As
3% of all Tanzanian HHs are pastoralist, it will be assumed these pastoralists only grow
cattle and have all herds more than 10 animals. This corresponds to about 212,000 HH.
Consequently, the target group of HHs with indigenous cattle remain of 165,000 HH. This
figure can be seen as minimum, due to the following reasons:




3
  with the assumption of average ownership of 3 respectively 2 of improved dairy cows within HH in
this target group, which results from the Mwanza survey [8].

                                                - 41 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


   •   herd sizes of 8 to 10 indigenous cattle per HH have not been able to be considered
       within this study (however, additional cows may also be required for purchasing the
       plant)
   •   pastoralism also is followed with other animals than cattle
   •   the HH survey in Mwanza resulted in very high percentages of overnight stabling
       practices. 83% of the interviewed HHs follow overnight stabling, which was about
       95% of all owners of indigenous cattle [8].
Nevertheless, the size of likely customers of this target group will be lower than 165,000, as
not all customers will decide for a biogas plant. In using the same ratio of customers to target
group size from Dodoma region with improved cattle, the number of likely customers can be
estimated to 56,300 having sufficient water available and 24,100 requiring additional water
harvesting system.
Farmers planting and processing sisal
It will be advised to seek involvement of Tanzania Sisal Board and also with Katani Ltd. while
approaching this target group. Please see also chapter (2.13.2).
A five ha farm, which grows sisal, is considered to be sufficient to deliver enough biomass in
terms of sisal waste from fibre production to feed one HH biogas plant [47]. Sisal does not
require very fertile soil and is considered to grow within large areas of Tanzania.
This target group does not require any ownership of cattle as mandatory. Therefore, by
promoting this target group in combination with the promotion of sisal, the rural poor can also
be addressed. The financing of the biogas plant will be assured by earnings of the owner
received from selling sisal fibres, for example, to Katani Ltd.
Currently, a project is being prepared by Tanzania Sisal Board for implementing 300 biogas
plants around the lake region. Financial support for this pilot project is currently sought. The
same project is planning to support about 800 HHs for sisal production. Consequently, a
potential programme could promote biogas among the remaining participants of the project
not served with biogas, leading to 500 defined customers, if not project partner has been
found, defined customers may increase to 800. [47]
According to Katani Ltd., demand of sisal is huge and sisal demand on the world market far
away from being satisfied. Consequently, growing sisal on a small scale and processing the
fibres may be an option for far more farmers than considered in the above mentioned pilot
project. World sisal demand will assure income possibilities for at least several tens of
thousands of farmers, if not even more.
Currently a feasibility study has been carried out, financed by Arab Bank for Economic
Development in Africa (BADEA), about possibilities of a pilot project in the Lake Region to
promote sisal production within small farms. One of the results of that study was, to promote
800 farmers with sisal harvesting and 300 of them additionally with biogas plants. As a
consequence, Tanzanian Sisal Board recommended to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food
security to seek financing for this project.
Farmers planting and processing Jatropha
If this target group should be addressed, it will be advised to contact Kakute Ltd.
From processing the fruits of the Jatropha tree to oil, biomass oil cake is remaining. This oil
cake can be used well in biogas digesters. Experiences of Kakute Ltd. even show that this
feedstock is preferred over cow manure from local population, which also considers the
flame of biogas made from Jatropha oil cake being hotter.
Problems have to be solved as oil cakes have to be available for the biogas user all year
round on a regular basis. Kakute Ltd. is currently carrying research on that topic. Jatropha oil
cake would also be a perfect supplement to cow manure, for example, if less animal manure


                                             - 42 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


(cows, pigs, goats, etc) is available to run a biogas plant only from that feedstock or only a
toilet is available.
Jatropha is being promoted in Tanzania and increasing areas are planted with it. This study
was not able to estimate neither a likely number of customers nor a size of the target group
as too many assumptions have to be taken without further data. Currently Jatropha is not
widely cultivated for oil in Tanzania, though, there is significant interest corresponding to the
global growth in biofuel production.
HH having a septic tank
Also in Tanzania, septic tanks are relatively common, in particular in urban and peri-urban
areas. As a consequence, these people could also be a target group following a similar
approach used in Lesotho, where biogas digesters are used instead of septic tanks.
However, within the time of this study, precise figures of HH having a septic tank installed
were not made available. Therefore, further research on this target group needs to be carried
out, if a national biogas programme is launched in Tanzania.

4.4.2    Estimated market size
As described in chapter (4.4.1) the estimated market size is as follows:
                                                      likely customers for a
                                                         national domestic
                                                                                  size of
                                                        biogas programme
                                                                                 potential
    Target group                                        having       requiring
                                                                                 customer
                                                      sufficient    additional
                                                                               target group
                                                        water          water
                                                      available     harvesting
    HH following zero grazing practices with                                     110,000 -
                                                        44,800        19,200
    improved dairy cattle                                                         165,000
    HH following overnight stabling with
                                                      > 56,300          > 24,100   > 165,000
    indigenous cows
    HH planting and processing sisal
                                                           > 500 - 800               > 800
    (minimum 5 ha)
    HH planting and processing Jatropha in
                                                                 n.a.                 n.a.
    addition to cattle harvesting
    HH using modified septic tanks                               n.a.                 n.a.
                                                      > 101,600    > 43,300
    Total HH                                                                       >> 276,000
                                                            > 144,900
        Table 14: Market size of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania
Please not:    Already existing plants (about 3,000) have been already considered for these
               figures.

4.4.3    Targeted geographic area
The target group of HH which are following zero grazing practices within zero grazing
practices can be broken down to the nationwide distribution shown in table (15).
As a consequence, about 60% of all the likely customers within the concerning target group
are located in the states of Kilimanjaro, Tanga, Manyara and Arusha, 19% in Mbeya, Iringa
and Ruvuma, slightly more than 11% in the region around Lake Victoria and about 5% in Dar
es Salaam and Pwani. The remaining 5% are spread over the country.
The distribution of HHs following overnight stabling will mainly be focussed in the Lake
Victoria region, as milk production is dominating of which this kind of stabling may be
assumed to be most existing or could be successfully promoted.

                                             - 43 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


The target group following sisal planting and processing can be seen more or less in entire
Tanzania. However, Tanzania Sisal Board is following a project in the Lake Victoria region.
Consequently, the concerning up to 800 plants will be in that region.
From the existing knowledge available to this feasibility study, no estimate can be made on
the distribution of the remaining target group following Jatropha cultivation and processing or
using modified septic tanks.
In conclusion, a national domestic biogas programme should address mainly Arusha,
Kilimanjaro, Manyara, Tanga region, the Lake region and the southern states around Mbeya,
Iringa and Ruvuma.
                     improved dairy cattle        likely customers
                                                having       requiring
                       total       within      sufficient   additional    Size of     share
                      number    smallholder      water         water      target      within
    State            reported    ownership     available    harvesting    group      Tanzania
    Arusha            57,744      49,082         6,840         2,931      24,541      14.6%
    Dar es
    Salaam            8,233        6,998          975         418         3,499        2.1%
    Dodoma            4,645        3,948          550         236         1,974        1.2%
    Iringa           17,522       14,894         2,075        889         7,447        4.4%
    Kagera           17,050       14,493         2,020        866         7,246        4.3%
    Kigoma             748          636            89          38          318         0.2%
    Kilimanjaro      137,910      117,224        16,335      7,001       58,612        34.8%
    Lindi              998          848           118          51          424         0.3%
    Manyara          13,761       11,697         1,630        699         5,848        3.5%
    Mara              8,797        7,477         1,042        447         3,739        2.2%
    Mbeya            40,982       34,835         4,854       2,080       17,417        10.3%
    Morogoro          5,052        4,294          598         256         2,147        1.3%
    Mtwara             775          659            92          39          329         0.2%
    Mwanza            7,882        6,700          934         400         3,350        2.0%
    Pwani            10,809        9,188         1,280        549         4,594        2.7%
    Rukwa             1,107         941           131          56          470         0.3%
    Ruvuma           15,111       12,844         1,790        767         6,422        3.8%
    Shinyanga        11,198        9,518         1,326        568         4,759        2.8%
    Singida           1,115         948           132          57          474         0.3%
    Tabora            1,851        1,573          219          94          787         0.5%
    Tanga            27,683       23,531         3,279       1,405       11,765        7.0%
    Zanzibar          5,000        4,250          592         254         2,125        1.3%
    Total            395,973      336,577        46,903      20,101      168,289      100.0%

    Existing biogas plants                             ~ 3,000           ~ 3,000

    Total                                        44,800      19,200      165,300
Table 15: Distribution of likely customers of smallholders keeping improved dairy
cattle in zero-grazing environment

4.4.4   Expected sales levels for
The Tanzanian government estimated the dissemination of biogas digesters for rural HHs in
2003 of 4,000 units existing in 2010 and 10,000 units in 2030 [48]. However, the mentioned
figures are not including a large dissemination programme of domestic biogas in Tanzania.
For this assessment, the current potential of new biogas constructions within Tanzania will
be assumed to two times of the maximum output per year of each organisation in the past.
This factor has been estimated from consultations of stakeholders currently involved in

                                              - 44 -
                         Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


biogas construction. This approach also considers the potential of people previously trained
within one of the numerous past and present projects as well as an increased workload as
these organisations are only concentrating on construction as other issues, such as
marketing etc., are done by the programme. As a consequence, the potential maximum
output of all organisations in Tanzania can be estimated to about 740 fixed dome plants and
330 tubular plastic ones, the latter can be neglected as it will be considered only fixed dome
digesters will be promoted only.



                         25.000                                                                                      120.000
                                       plants built per year with real growth rates (1982 - 1990)

                                       plants built per year with real growth rates (1982 - 1990,
                                       smoothed)
                                                                                                                     100.000
                                       reqzired built units for reaching 100,000 units within ten
                         20.000
                                       years
                                       cumulated plants with real growth rates

                                       cumulated plants with real growth rates (smoothed)                            80.000
  units built per year




                         15.000




                                                                                                                               cumulated units
                                       cumulated plants required for reaching 100,000 units
                                       within ten years
                                                                                                                     60.000


                         10.000

                                                                                                                     40.000



                          5.000
                                                                                                                     20.000




                             0                                                                                       0
                                   1           2           3           4            5           6   7   8   9   10
                                                                                        year


Figure 12: Estimated biogas market development for Tanzania within a national
domestic biogas programme, based on real market development during 1982 and 1990
(third scenario is an assumption of required growth rates, which are 45% above real ones)
The average construction of digesters supported by other donors between 2002 and 2006
was 105 fixed dome units per year. As it can be assumed that other donors will be still
involved in promoting biogas digesters in Tanzania, a national domestic biogas programme
will only be able to built up to 635 fixed dome biogas digesters in the first year.
The growth rates of the Tanzanian biogas market showed a large increase during the years
1982 and 1990, mainly due to donor involvement, including GTZ. During these years, the
biogas market grew in average about of 38% per annum. Please see figure (8) in chapter
(3.3).
It can be argued that using these previous Tanzanian biogas growth rates for estimating a
future market development will give a realistic result. The projected market development can
be seen in figure (12). In this figure, also the required growth rate is shown, which is needed
in order to disseminate 100,000 digesters in Tanzania within 10 years.
During the years 1982 and 1990 market development was on project level and mass
dissemination and effects of economy of scale was not used. However, from current
perspective, no exact market development can be foreseen. In conclusion, the Tanzanian
market will be able to produce 50,000 units within ten years, with an efficiently designed
dissemination programme, figures above that level may be assumed. This will require about
750 trained masons in the final year using the current average construction rate of about one
plant per month per mason.


                                                                                    - 45 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


        projected market development in Tanzania with a national domestic biogas programme
                                             in place
                                                                         Required growth rates to
        With real growth rates 1982 With real Growth rates 1982           build 100,000 digesters
                   – 1990               – 1990 (smoothed)               within 10 years (45% more
                                                                         then previous real ones)
           units per       growth         units per         growth         units per        growth
year        annum           rate           annum             rate           annum            rate
  1           635                           635                               635
  2          1.270         100,0%          1.291           103,4%            1.587         149,9%
  3          2.223         75,0%           2.141            65,8%            3.100          95,4%
  4          3.281         47,6%           3.149            47,1%            5.217          68,3%
  5          3.493          6,5%           4.255            35,1%            7.874          50,9%
  6          6.033         72,7%           5.383            26,5%           10.902          38,5%
  7          6.879         14,0%           6.455            19,9%           14.047          28,9%
  8          7.303          6,2%           7.395            14,6%           17.015          21,1%
  9          8.149         11,6%           8.145            10,1%           19.518          14,7%
 10         8.669*          6,4%*          8.665             6,4%           21.325          9,3%
                                    cumulated plants built in 5 years
            10.901                        11.471                            18.413
                                    cumulated plants built in 10 years
            47.934                        47.514                           101.219
Table 16: Estimated biogas market development for Tanzania within a national
domestic biogas programme, based on market development during 1982 and 1990
(third scenario is an assumption of required growth rates, which are 45% above real ones,
*assumed)

4.4.5   Competing products
The main competing product for biogas in regard to cooking may be improved firewood
stove. These systems are available from 15,000 to 50,000 TZS and reduce firewood
consumption at least by half, which leads to savings of firewood and reduced indoor air
pollution. Other competing products may be stoves fired by LPG, however, this also depends
on the availability of LPG in rural areas.
For lighting, solar PV can be considered as the competing product. The current GTZ project
PRET found out that growth rates in this sector are up to 400% per annum. Common sizes
are 14 Watt systems powering up to 3 lamps (one 5.5 W strip-light and about 2 to 3 1.5 W
LEDs). Costs are about 330,000 TZS of a readily installed system. Amortisation periods of
these systems are relatively high, with an assumed expenditure of a rural rich HH of 5,000 to
10,000 TZS per year, amortisation times are at least 3 to 5 years. Currently it will be
considered also to promote smaller units in Tanzania addressing HHs with smaller income.
Such systems with about 5 to 6 W solar panel and 2 to 3 1.5 W LEDs are about 200,000
TZS. However, in regard to brightness, a (bio)gas lamp will always shine brighter with longer
daily operating times.
Alternatives to fertilizer from a biogas plant are organic fertilizer made from compost or just
cow manure. However, biogas fertilizer will be of better quality, a quality even better than
industrial fertilizer. Nevertheless, organic fertilizer has not been commercialised yet, neither
fertilizer from composting nor biogas slurry, which somehow excludes industrial fertilizer as a
competing product.
Another competing technology to biogas in Tanzania is sustainable wood harvesting. For
example, more than 500 Tanzanian communities have been empowered to control and
manage woodlands and have proven they have the will and ability to return them to healthy

                                             - 46 -
   Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Feasibility assessment


condition and to prohibit unsustainable forms of exploitation that had previously been
defended as essential to their livelihoods. [49]

4.4.6   Advantage of biogas in comparison to competing products
The advantage of a biogas system is the comfort of having a “fireplace” readily available,
when cooking is required. There is no procedure of lighting a fire from wood or charcoal.
Besides using biogas with a regular stove, biogas can also be used with ovens, which has
been seen in Tanzania. Therefore, biogas is also seen by Tanzanian customers as a modern
source of fuel.
On the cost of operating the biogas plant requiring strict discipline, the HH may get quite
independent from buying fuel for cooking and lighting. This will lead to a financial benefit, if
the fuel would have been purchased and on dramatic time savings, if the HH would have
been collected firewood.
Biogas offers also light more or less as a side product. Gas lamps offer far brighter light than
compared to kerosene wicks or lanterns and also to solar home systems. Biogas lamps may
also be operated longer than lamps powered by solar PV.

4.4.7   Critical market risk factors
Estimates on market development and its assessment have been carried using a
conservative approach being on the safe side. The market potential in particular has been
discussed with several major Tanzanian stakeholders involved in biogas construction and is
considered as realistic.
As already mentioned, the most critical market risk factor is quality and reliability of installed
digesters. Word of mouth propaganda can also work counterproductive for a national
dissemination programme in case of bad performance or if the installed technology does not
keep its promises. Consequently, quality control and capacity development on all levels is
imminent for such a programme.
As to other markets, the risk of cartelising and monopolies of certain players exist, as only
limited construction companies may be involved. Therefore, and also to keep the price low,
competition should be promoted. Additionally, this competition must be fair. To realise this,
all subsidies must be transparent.




                                             - 47 -
  Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Implementation Strategy



5 Implementation Strategy
It is a characteristic of biogas technology that it is complex and multi-dimensional. Only when
all dimensions are receiving the correct level of attention and are addressed with sustainable
methods, a positive long term performance of the biogas extension sector can be achieved.
A strategy for dissemination must deal with these issues in an economical manner. The
Tanzanian example shows, that in some areas, both, the technology and extension approach
as initiated in the 1980’s point in the right direction. The success stories include the fact that
many plants which are older than 20 years are still in operation and reliably gas tight. In
addition, it can be observed that demand from institutional customers is still existing, leading
to a small number of biogas plants being constructed on a non-subsidised market. In some
parts of Tanzania, larger numbers of biogas plants are constructed, and these, on HH level,
as the MIGESADO example demonstrates.

5.1       Identified problems and expectations of stakeholders
On the first and second biogas stakeholder meeting, taken place on 20.03.2004 and
20.04.2007 in Arusha, the following ten key problems have been identified, which should be
addressed with any biogas dissemination programme in Tanzania in order to commercialise
this technology:
      •    high costs
      •    financing
      •    awareness
      •    coordination of stakeholders
      •    training
      •    marketing
      •    operation and maintenance
      •    technology
      •    social factors
      •    conflicting interests
Additionally, stakeholders expressed the following expectations:
      •    regular stakeholder meeting (with partly government involvement),
      •    better collaboration between different stakeholders
      •    provision of subsidies for biogas plant construction
      •    public awareness programme and increased general marketing
      •    further development of technology

5.2       Technical issues
Convenient and reliable technology is crucial for all stakeholders involved. This addresses
in the first place the daily operation but also the construction and material purchase and
transport context. Also the supervision should be made easy as this alone is a large cost
factor. In reality small problems can arise at any corner and lead to a stand still of the
technology. In cases where such corners are predictable, the design needs revision. Finally,
the design has to realise all benefits as much as possible, however, at least those, which
have been promised to the end-user.
Realise all benefits as much as possible. Only if biogas plants fulfil what they promised,
they can be really an economic investment for the owner. Failures in operation of a biogas

                                               - 48 -
  Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Implementation Strategy


plant are often blamed on the owner. It should be, however, the entire extension programme
responsible for minimising end-user problems. Only biogas plants which provide convincing
and visible benefits will encourage further individuals to adopt this technology. Non working
biogas plants not fulfilling the promises will become non sellers in a free economic context.
Standardisation is an element which makes quality achievable. It is a precondition of an
extension programme. But the standards available must reflect the need of the market.
Standardisation must not mean: few products only. Instead, it means that customers can
get the plant appropriate for their needs and affordability without any necessity of
experimenting or change in design. The standards may provide different levels of
sophistication, reflected in the price and must take into account individual wishes and
conditions. The latter relates for instance the piping system and gas utilisation equipment but
to a lesser extend to the design of the digester itself. Here the price levels are addressed by
different sizes. Standardisation also promotes additional financing of CDM.
Biogas technology showed success in Tanzania, however, mainly on project level. Therefore,
in order to provide a foundation for a national dissemination programme, continuous
development of the technology is imminent. There must be a loop of feedback from the
user and builder side to the research and development institution responsible for
standardisation. This may be carried out with regular random surveys of end-users or other
monitoring instruments and the direct or indirect involvement of the private sector in
research issues.
Integration into the agricultural system is decisive for the success of biogas technology.
This requires the involvement of agriculturalists in the programme and also site planning as a
conscious element in decision making. An isolated installation of a mixer, digester and outlet
chamber is not applicable in the Tanzanian context.
Quality control has to be independent from the construction and project implementation
body, at least in the first years of the programme. By the time a critical mass has been
reached and competition created, the institutionalised quality control may be replaced by a
company conciseness that provides quality as an internal company policy to maintain its
competitiveness on the market.
Users have to be trained according to their individual needs. Education of the user is a
crucial factor in keeping the plant working. Therefore, end-user education needs to address
the already existing level of understanding. The training should not only focus the operation
and maintenance of the plant, it also has to address slurry use and other related issues. In
addition to education of new users, refreshment courses should be offered, which can also
be used to give feedback to the programme.
Guarantee service has to be included in the concept with mandatory periodical visits of the
builder to the plant recorded in an owner’s manual. With this step, the owner will also be
advised in best practice of the plant. In case of failures, the builder has to take care of
owner’s problems within a to-be-defined certain timeframe. Consequently, this measure
gives a certain pressure on the builder delivering high quality.
After sales service must be provided by the builder after guarantee period has expired.
Pricing should be transparent and costs of service to be paid by the customer.
Owners manual should be mandatory for each promoted digester within the programme. It
should contain a guarantee document, completion report receipts, complain card and
contacts. It should address the issue of illiteracy of the end-user. The manual should be an
interactive book for the owner with notes of repairs, failures, visits and advises. This will also
support after sales service, making it easier and faster.
A digester overhauling programme and a long term care system on performance and
slurry use should also be included in the programme. This will keep the value of the
investment as long as possible. It could be possible to combine this issue with after sales
services of the builder.


                                            - 49 -
  Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Implementation Strategy


Current biogas digester designs in Tanzania offer a storage capacity of only 60% of daily gas
production. Consequently, venting has often been observed in Tanzania once gas production
is higher than consumption, which is even more likely when the digester concept includes
convenient feeding. Consequently, the installation of a pressure gauge must be
mandatory. Also commercial use of the surplus gas must be addressed.

5.3   Organisational structure
The steering committee should include representative of all major stakeholder groups.
However, “small is beautiful” also counts in this context, as a small steering committee
supports coordination of meetings, decision making and management.
Programme adaptation is imminent and must, therefore, be possible. The promotion of
biogas addresses many issues. Consequently, a successful programme needs flexibility.
The organisation of the programme should be transparent with several planning meetings
during the year and an annual bigger one to review the overall planning. Only with regular
stakeholder involvement and their coordination from the beginning, can a programme be
successful, which has partly been lacking in previous biogas promotion in Tanzania.
Monitoring and information transfer between the different stakeholders is considered as very
important. In order to get best data quality and amount, the collection and processing of
data may be centralised.
The coordination of research and development of the technology has to be designed
efficiently and sustainable and possibly centralised. This will mean on the one hand that
research questions are answered seriously, quickly and address the given context. On the
other hand, the flow of information, feedback and experiences from builder and user side has
to be secured as well.
In order to promote financing through the method of CDM, this issue has to be addressed
right from the beginning. Certifying large amounts of biogas digesters retroactive might be
difficult or not possible. Therefore, it is imminent to clarify CDM approval right from the
beginning and to design the programme accordingly.
An exit strategy has to be formulated right from the start and seen as the target of the
programme. A mass dissemination of biogas digesters with continuous development and
performance promotion within the sector will result in reduction in price, which has to be
compensated in fading out subsidies. However, realistically seen, if subsidies are fading out,
the risk exists, if anybody, maybe only richer people will be remaining as potential costumers
for biogas plants. Research and continuous development may be funded more and more by
commercialisation of the involved institutions by charging fees for development, for example
for updated drawings.

5.4   Extension related issues
Training has to be carried out on all levels. This means, masons, the management of
builders and all other stakeholders within the construction industry need to be trained
individually. As this is a base for future income, the training shall not be free of charge in
order to encourage commitment. The trainers need a vocational training in order to promote
professionalism in the sector right from the beginning. Refreshment and upgrading
courses shall be offered in order to keep the building industry vital and updated leading to
new designs and technologies implemented quickly and production costs can be decreased
continuously. Therefore, these courses should also promote private sector performance.
Regular random user surveys should be carried out to deliver feedback for research and
development, for improving and ensuring best possible training and for possible necessary
adaptation of the entire programme.




                                            - 50 -
  Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Implementation Strategy


Involve the private sector to the programme as much as possible, which is making the
programme efficient and flexible. Avoid fixed structures. Tackle down decision making
processes to the beneficiaries. Let the final customer decide what he wants.
It has been observed that biogas technology is not overwhelmingly known in Tanzania.
Therefore, a programme must address awareness creation and the general marketing of
the technology and the programme. All possibilities should be used in order to let potential
users know of this technology and its multiple benefits. Only this can make her or him decide
to invest in biogas. In conclusion, marketing should be one of the main pillars of a
programme.
Users have to be addressed individually, in particular in regard to subsidies. It came clear
that in Tanzania flexible subsidies have to compensate differences in society. Only with a
flexible subsidy policy the programme will contribute to sustainable development.
The programme should promote formation of interest groups/associations in order to
provide possibilities to stakeholders dealing with the same issues to share experiences
leading to increased performance. In this regard institutional strengthening and
development of all participating organisations should be fostered.
Promotion of new stakeholder involvement will ensure larger growth rates of the
programme. Therefore, the programme should continuously foster involvement of new and
fresh stakeholders and this on all levels. However, these new stakeholders should have
expertise, and should be trained in order to lower the risk of loosing reputation of the
programme or the sector.
Promote financing schemes for biogas investment. This is imminent as customers will face
problems in purchasing a biogas plant in cash.
Address dissemination not only from the energy perspective. Promote a holistic approach.

5.5       Strategy to address poverty reduction
As biogas dissemination will very likely address mostly richer parts of Tanzanian society. As
already described previously, in order to support sustainable development, the programme
should also address the poor.
The following actions will be advised:
      •    Design the subsidy policy flexible in order to address also the poor. For example,
           MIGESADO followed the approach in classifying beneficiaries in four groups
           receiving 15%, 25%, 45% or 58% subsidies of total construction costs.
      •    Promotion of income generating activities together with biogas in order to provide
           possibilities paying back loans
      •    Encourage particularly poor people to work in the biogas sector and to receive
           training
      •    Encourage richer people to employ people to take care for their biogas digester

5.6       Existing governmental framework relevant for a biogas programme
In general, the consulted ministries have been very interested in this feasibility study and
showed great interest in promoting an initiative by offering possible fields of collaboration. It
is the wish from all consulted people to have a “local flavour” right from the beginning of a
potential programme.
The Ministry of Energy and Minerals described a variety of options to collaborate. The
Ministry is head of two working groups with participants from a variety of fields and
institutions.



                                             - 51 -
  Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Implementation Strategy


In the “Rural Energy Working Group”, the Ministries of Energy and Minerals, Health,
Education, Agriculture, local governments, TANESCO, TaTEDO and TPDC are meeting
every one to three months.
Within the “Global Village Energy Programme”, a meeting takes place every three months
including the MEM, Ministry of Community Development, Gender and Children, Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism, Ministry of Industry and Trade & Marketing, Ministry of
Planning, Economy and Empowerment, Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and
Cooperatives, Ministry of Water, the Vice President’s Office, UNDP, ADB, TANESCO, TPDC,
CRDB Bank Ltd., the Confederation of Tanzanian Industries, YES Tanzania, CEEST,
TaTEDO and the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group.
Rural Energy Agencies are currently created by the MEM to promote access to energy also
for rural population.
The Ministry of Livestock was very interested in supporting a program. Collaboration was
offered to provide the extension service on district, ward and village level for promotion
reasons. This service is currently training farmers. Biogas training may also be included.
The Ministry of Health is offering cooperation in supporting with education and awareness
of health issues linked to indoor air pollution, hygiene, and sanitation. According to the
Ministry, there is significant potential to link the programme with existing ones. The Ministry
does not have significant amounts of its own budget it can dedicate specifically to biogas.
Participation of the Ministry of Agriculture may be decided after an assessment of this
feasibility study. However, potential collaboration was indicated with extension officers down
to village level. Their task is capacity development with farmers.
CAMARTEC would like to see itself in being the focal point for biogas in Tanzania.
According to CAMARTEC, thoughts are existing on tax reduction of materials used in biogas
digesters. However, the Ministry for Industry and Trade & Marketing, considers this as
complicated to implement as it is also a matter for the tax task force.




                                            - 52 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Conclusion



Conclusion
The technical assessment of biogas in Tanzania shows that some minor technical
improvements are still required, but, in general, locally available technology can be seen as
approved and mature. This is the case for fixed dome designs followed by CAMARTEC and
MIGESADO. Tubular plastic design did not convince users in terms of its sustainability. Major
cost savings will not arise from material savings due to design improvement. Labour and
organisational costs are currently expected to have larger potential in reduction due to
economy of scale.
Costs of about US$1,000 per plant installed constitute the main barrier to biogas
dissemination in Tanzania. However, biogas should already be attractive to households
satisfying their energy needs with charcoal or more expensive firewood. For these
households, only marketing and additional support may be sufficient for successful biogas
dissemination. The large majority of households collecting firewood may need large
subsidies for making biogas attractive to them. Biogas will not be the technology for the
poorest of the poor mainly facing energy poverty; it will instead address households owning
at least two improved or four indigenous cattle. Nevertheless, by taking into account health,
sanitation, fertilizer, global, and environmental benefits into the perspective, large
dissemination of biogas in Tanzania will be very beneficial to society in total.
Socially, biogas technology is widely accepted, but, due to limited knowledge on this
technology, marketing and increasing public awareness of it is imminent for any
dissemination programme. By promoting also sanitation to be connected to the biogas plant
and due to less indoor air pollution, health situation will be improved dramatically.
Positive environmental impacts are immense. Each biogas plant will decrease deforestation
of at least 1.3 to 2.56 tons of firewood per annum. With regard to climate change, a reduction
of CO2 emissions of about 7 tons per plant per year can be expected. Slurry out of a
domestic biogas plant will not replace industrial fertilizer; however, due to better quality
compared to other organic fertilizers, farm yields are likely to increase.
The number of potential customers, who participate in a national domestic biogas
programme, has been estimated to include 102,000 interested households. However, market
potential of the construction industry is estimated within Tanzanian to only about 50,000
plants for the next ten years, considering a strong promotion of biogas during this period.
This figure may also be increased, but it highly depends on the personalities involved and
their engagement in leading and fostering the programme.
Tanzanian experiences show clearly that beneficiary households will receive a sustainable
access to modern energy and will also benefit from further incentives related to biogas. If the
exit strategy turns out successfully, a mature market will be established at the end of
programme, which will lead to further installations. Main target areas within Tanzania are the
North (Arusha, Kilimanjaro, Tanga, Manyara), Lake Victoria region and the South (Mbeya).
Concerning the implementation strategy, biogas must be promoted as a commercial product
and quality control, standardisation, capacity development and marketing issues clearly
implemented as central elements in the programme. Only if the user knows about the option
of biogas, the user can decide for it. Only if the user will be content with his plant, regarding
performance, costs and reliability, important word of mouth advertising will be beneficial and
not counter productive to the programme. As the Ministry of Energy and Minerals has good
interlinks to all other involved ministries providing the basis for a multi-disciplinary approach,
it is suggested to relate the programme to this ministry.
In conclusion, with a national domestic biogas programme, the lives of about 250,000
individuals may be improved. At the same time, there is a risk of increasing the social gap
within society. Therefore, it is imminent to strongly address poverty reduction within this
programme and to follow a profound exit strategy in order to support sustainable
development and to be beneficial to Tanzania’s future.

                                            - 53 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - References



References
[1]   Schmitz, Thomas (2007) [Foto] Thomas Schmitz, Tanzania
[2]   The Economist Intelligence Unit (2007) Country Profile 2006 – Tanzania [publication]
[3]   Government of the United Republic of Tanzania (2007) Tanzania Population and
      Development Website [online] Government of the United Republic of Tanzania,
      Available at: www.tanzania.go.tz/ppu/demografic_situation.html
[4]   Government of the United Republic of Tanzania (2000/2001) HouseholdBudgetSurvey
      [online] Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, Available at:
      http://www.tanzania.go.tz/hbs/HomePage_HBS.html
[5]   (2007) Total Population by Age in Single Years, Five Year Age Groups and Sex
      [online] Available at: http://www.tanzania.go.tz/census/
[6]   National Bureau of Statistics (2006) Livestock Sector – National Report [publication]
      National Sample Census of Agriculture 2002/2003, Small Holder Agriculture, Volume
      III, First Reprint, Government of the United Republic of Tanzania
[7]   Haskamp, Sandra et. al.(2005) Promotion of Renewable Energy in Tanzania -
      Household-Baseline-Survey [publication] INTEGRATION
[8]   Haskamp Sandra et. Al. (2007) Household-Baseline-Survey Mwanza / Tanzania
      [publication] INTEGRATION
[9]   GTZ (2007) Program information document (PID) Appraisal Stage, Report No.: AB2771
[10] IMF (2006) National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP)
     [publication] IMF Country Report No. 06/142, Washington, D.C.
[11] Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (2000) Forestry Outlook Studies in Africa -
     United Republic of Tanzania [online] Government of the United Republic of Tanzania,
     Dar Es Salaam, Available at:
     http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/AB575E/AB575E00.htm#TOC
[12] Government of the United Republic of Tanzania (2000/2001) Largest ever household
     survey in Tanzania – Highlights [online] Government of the United Republic of
     Tanzania, Available at:
     www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/integration/departme/national/prsp/download/tanzani
     a/hbsurvey.pdf
[13] Kuijpers, Harry (2004) Potential of Biogas Technology in Developing Countries -
     Evaluation and recommendations from Tanzanian and Indian experience [online] Open
     Universiteit Nederland, Open Module N.98.2.1.1, Available at:
     http://www.xs4all.nl/~mgbk/h/skriptie.html#_Toc87350699
[14] Kossmann et. Al. () Biogas digest Volume I – Biogas Basics [publication] GATE, GTZ
[15] TaTEDO (2007) TaTEDO [online] TaTEDO, Available at: http://www.tatedo.org/
[16] Ministry of Energy and Minerals (2003) The National Energy Policy [publication]
     Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, Dar Es Salaam
[17] Bartholomew Makiya Lyimo (2005/2006) Energy and Sustainable Development in
     Tanzania [online] HELIO International, Tanzania, Sustainable Energy Watch, Available
     at: www.helio-international.org/uploads/Tanzania-EN.pdf [Cited 16.02.2007]
[18] Kossmann, Werner et. Al. () Biogas Digest, Volume IV, Biogas – Country Reports -
     Information and Advisory Service on Appropriate Technology [publication] GTZ
[19] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2007) State of the World's
     Forests 2007 [online] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
     Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0773e/a0773e00.htm

                                            - 54 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - References


[20] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2007) United Republic of
     Tanzania - Agriculture sector [online] FAO, Country Profile and Mapping Information
     System, Available at:
     http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index.asp?lang=en&iso3=TZA&subj=4
[21] Government of the United Republic of Tanzania (2007) Livestock [online] Government
     of the United Republic of Tanzania, Available at:
     http://www.tanzania.go.tz/livestock.html
[22] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2005) Livestock Sector Brief
     [publication] FAO
[23] National Bureau of Statistics (2007) Tanzania in figures 2004 [online] Government of
     the United Republic of Tanzania, Available at:
     http://www.nbs.go.tz/publications/index.htm
[24] Earth Trends Environmental Information (2007) Agriculture and Food—Tanzania
     [online] EarthTrends Country Profiles, Available at: http://earthtrends.wri.org
[25] Oumou Camara et. Al. (2006) Overview of the fertilizer situation in Africa [online]
     Background paper prepared for the African fertilizer summit, Available at:
     http://www.africafertilizersummit.org/Background_Papers/04%20Camara--
     Overview%20of%20the%20Fert%20Situation%20in%20Africa.pdf
[26] Superflex (2007) Superflex [online] Superflex, Available at: http://www.superflex.net/
[27] WHO and UNICEF (2007) Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and
     Sanitation [online] WHO and UNICEF, Available at: www.wssinfo.org, [Cited
     21.02.2007]
[28] Ministry of Livestock Development (2006) Livestock Policy [publication] Government of
     the United Republic of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam
[29] Prime Ministers office (2001) Rural Development Strategy - Main report, final
     [publication] Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam
[30] Katani Limited (2007) Katani Limited – Company Profile [made available by] Francis
     Nkuba, Katani Limited
[31] Kakute Ltd. (2007) Company profile [publication] Kakute Ltd., Tanzania
[32] Austrian Development Agency (2007) Panorama: Tansania - Aus wenig mach viel
     [online] Austrian Development Agency, Available at:
     http://www.ada.gv.at/view.php3?f_id=9390&LNG=de&version=
[33] The Eastern and Southern African Management Institute (2007) Proposed Training
     Programmes [publication] The Eastern and Southern African Management Institute,
     prepared for the Ministry for Development Cooperation, The Netherlands
[34] The Centre For Energy, Environment, Science And Technology (2007) Company
     profile [publication] The Centre For Energy, Environment, Science And Technology,
     Dar es Salaam
[35] Bikki Randhawa; Joselito Gallardo (2003) Microfinance Regulation in Tanzania:
     Implications for Development and Performance of the Industry [publication] World
     Bank, Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 51
[36] Kossmann et. Al. () Biogas Digest - Volume II [publication] GTZ, Biogas - Application
     and Product Development, Information and Advisory Service on Appropriate
     Technology
[37] Innocent Rutamu (1999) Low cost biodigesters for zero grazing smallholder dairy
     farmers in Tanzania [publication] Livestock Research for Rural Development
     Volume 11, Number 2


                                            - 55 -
        Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - References


[38] Centre for Agricultural Mechanization and Rural Development (2006) Biogas
     Technology Development in Tanzania - Design, Construction, Management and
     Utilization of Biogas [publication] Centre for Agricultural Mechanization and Rural
     Development, Arusha, Tanzania
[39] The planning commission et. Al () Mbeya region – socio economic profile [online]
     Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Available at:
     http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/Mbeyareg.pdf
[40] GEF, UNDP () Biogas Technology in Agricultural Regions, Tanzania - SGP, The GEF
     Small Grands Programme [online] GEF, UNDP, Available at:
     sgp.undp.org/download/SGP_Tanzania2.pdf
[41] GTZ (1995) Sonderenergieprpgramm Tansania, Schlußbericht vom 15.02.1995,
     Projektnummern: 80.2246.9, 92.2040.1, 87.2223.3 [publication] GTZ
[42] Innocent Rutamu (1999) Low cost biodigesters for zero grazing smallholder dairy
     farmers in Tanzania [online] Livestock Research for Rural Development (11) 2 1999,
     Available at : http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd11/2/inno112.htm
[43] Karatu Development Association (2007) Karatu Development Association [online]
     Karatu Development Association, Karatu, Available at: http://www.sepk.org
[44] Engelhardt et. Al. (2003) Special Energy Programme, CAMARTEC, Tanzania
     [publication] GTZ, Report of Project Process Review
[45] Ludwig Sasse, Christopher Kellner & Ainea Kimaro (1991) Improved Biogas Unit for
     Developing Countries [publication] Deutsches Zentrum für Entwicklungstechnologien -
     GATE in: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH
[46] Renwick, Mary (2007) A Cost-Benefit Analysis of National and Regional Integrated
     Biogas and Sanitation Programs in Sub-Sahara Africa [publication] prepared for Dutch
     Ministry of Foreign Affairs by Winrock International
[47] Maher (2006) Feasibility study for the Development of production and processing of
     Sisal in the Lake Victoria Regions [publication] FINTECS consultant, Cairo, Egypt
[48] Vice President’s Office (2003) Initial National Communication under the United Nations
     Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [publication] Government of the
     United Republic of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam
[49] Guy Dekelver, Silas Ruzigana, Jan Lam (2005) Report on the Feasibility Study for a
     Biogas Support Programme in the Republic of Rwanda [online] SNV, Available at:
     http://www.devpartners.gov.rw/docs/documents/EDPRS/Key%20Analytical%20Studies/
     index.php?dir=Sectoral+Studies%2F&download=Energy+-
     +Biogas+feasibility+report+2005+_SNV_.pdf
[49] Sivan Kartha et. al. (2005) Advancing Bioenergy for Sustainable Development,
     Guideline for Policymakers and Investors [publication] Stockholm Environment
     Institute; Energy Sector Management Assistance Program
[50] Zanzibar Livestock Welfare and Development Association (2006) Introduction of
     Biogas technology in Zanzibar [publication] Zanzibar Livestock Welfare and
     Development, Zanzibar
[51] Stephen Karekezi et. Al. () Traditional Biomass Energy: Improving Its Use and Moving
     to Modern Energy Use [publication]
[52] E.S. Swai, F.N. Minja and L. Zylstra (2007) Dairy development programme in Tanga,
     Tanzania [online] International Livestock Research Institute, Available at:
     http://www.ilri.org/InfoServ/Webpub/Fulldocs/X5485e/x5485e0p.htm#cattle%20industry
     %20in%20tanzania



                                            - 56 -
Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - People interviewed during the
                                                  study

[53] (2007) Tanzania in figures [online] National Bureau of Statistics, Government of the
     United Republic of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Available at:
     http://www.nbs.go.tz/publications/index.htm



People interviewed during the study
Organisation/Company, Surname, First name, Position (in alphabetical order)
AEC(T)CO LTD, Kalamba, Mashaka
Aktionskreis Ostafrika e.V., Böhme, Klaus
Arusha Biocontractors Company Ltd. (ABC), Kombe, Sanford Josiah, Managing Director
Arusha Community Initiatives Support Trust (ACIST), Shekulamba, Hamisi
Biogas and Solar Company, Kimaro, Ainea, Director
Bread of the World, Binder de Soza, Ulrike
Brick manufacturer, Omala, Petro
CAMARTEC, Athumani, Msafiri M., biogas expert
CAMARTEC, Busanti, Joseph
CAMARTEC, Ng’wandu, Evarist, Director of Rural Technology
CAMARTEC, Ngowi Harold Z., Head of Energy Department
Consultant and independent Biogas constructor, Michael Mollel, Biogas Expert
CULTURE, Mushi, Albert Philemon, Presenter
Diligent, van Eijck, Janske, Managing Director
Eastern and Southern African Management Institute(ESAMI), Mumba, Prof. Joseph PhD,
     Coordinator, SADC Energy & Environmental Training Programme
ELCT, Mollol, Noel-R.
FIDE / Manyara, Shoo, Rehema B.
GTZ, Hoffmann, Reimund, formerly involved in GTZ biogas projects in Tanzania
GTZ, Messinger, Christoph Dr., ProBEC, Project Coordinater
GTZ-PRET-INTEGRATION, Hidde Bekaan, Project Coordinater
HEIFER Tanzania, Lyimo, Mr.
Kakute Ltd., Manyanga, Livinus, Director
Katani Ltd., Kissaka, Gilead, technical manager
Katani Ltd., Shamte, Juma S., Development Manager
Materu, J., National Microfinance Bank
MIGESADO, Kitange, Herbert, director
Mlinami/Ngarash Super SACCOS Monduli, Maria, Mrs, Vice Chairman, board member
Mlinami/Ngarash Super SACCOS Monduli, Mashakusi, Mr., board member,
Mlinami/Ngarash Super SACCOS Monduli, Mlaki, Elitaja, board member
Mlinami/Ngarash Super SACCOS Monduli, Mwenda, Naishie , board member
Mlinami/Ngarash Super SACCOS Monduli, Saidi, Ummy, manager, board member
Mlinami/Ngarash Super SACCOS Monduli, Saluni, Mesarieki, board member

                                             - 57 -
Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - People interviewed during the
                                                  study

Mountain Green, Nnkoh Ephatha NS
National Microfinance Bank, Materu John R.
National Microfinance Bank, Olomi, E., Brach Manager
P.H.C.A., Mwashu, Stella E.
PHC Ambassadors, Mwasha, Dr. Emmanuel
PRIDE Tanzania, Bundala, Jumanne
Private, Kupaza, Ramadhani
Private, van der Vijver, Paul, Agronomist
REECON-Renewable Energy Engineering contractor (Nairobi), Ingwe, Anna
Rotian Seed, Vollebregt, Andre
SIDO, Kiluvio, Mr., General Director
SIDO, Leyan, Stephano
SNV – Nepal, Kellner, Christopher, biogas expert
SNV – PTN, Ndanshau, Nsanya
SNV, Bos Peter, Advisor Market Access,
SNV, van Hoof, Paul, Director Tanzania
Sokoine University of Agriculture / SURUDE, Rwegayura, Simon, Principal Machine
     Operator, Biogas Technologist, Dept. of Animal Science and Production
Sokoine University of Agriculture, Makungu, Patrick J. PhD, Associate Professor, Agrigultural
     Engineering (also: Managing Director, Bethel Holdings Ltd.)
SUDERETA, Shila, Lehada Cyprian, Director
Tanzania Sisal Board, Mduruma, Omari S., Project Coordinator
Tanzania Traditional Energy Development and Environment Organization (TaTEDO) Sawe,
     Estimith N., Executive Director
Technologies for Economic Development (TED), Lebofa, Mantopi M.
The Centre For Environment Science and Technology (CEEST) Foundation, Meena, Hubert
     E., Director
The Centre For Environment Science and Technology (CEEST) Foundation, Mwakifwamba,
     Stephen M., Executive Director
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives, Munissi, Mathew
     J., Principal Economist, Policy and Planning Department
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Community Development Gender & Children,
     Nchimbu, Jeremiah .v., Assistant Director, Appropriate Technology
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Community Development, Women Affairs &
     Children, Msimbe, Eng. Leoni G., Director of Community Development
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Energy and Minerals, Kiwele, Paul M., Biomass
     and Environment Expert
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Energy and Minerals, Kwele, Paul M., Biomass &
     Environment Specialist
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Energy and Minerals, Mwihava, Eng. N. C. X.,
     Assistant Commissioner, Renewable Energy


                                             - 58 -
Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - People interviewed during the
                                                  study

United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Health, Malelemba, W.K., Associate Director of
     Occupational Health
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Health, Msambazi, Marco J., Head of
     Environmental Health
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Health, Swai, Mary, Head of Water, Sanitation &
     Hygiene
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Industry and Trade & Marketing, Nyiti, Adiel A.,
     Director of Industry Development
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Industry and Trade & Marketing, M’Kasi, George,
     Engineer
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Industry and Trade & Marketing, Romani, Fredrille,
     Economist
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Industry and Trade & Marketing, Kilonga, Adelitha,
     Economist
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Industry and Trade & Marketing, Marwa, Patrick,
     Principal Engineer
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Livestock Development, Melewas, Dr. Jonas N.,
     Deputy Permanent Secretary
United Republic of Tanzania - Ministry of Livestock Development, Mtuambu, Nathanial,
     Principal Livestock Officer
University of Utrecht / SNV, Marree, Fred, Student
University of Utrecht / SNV, Nijboer, Marloes, Student
University of Utrecht, Huisman, Henk, supervisor
Winrock International, Monroe, Ian
Zanzibar Livestock Welfare and Development Association (ZALWEDA), Kirknæs, Jesper




                                             - 59 -
Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 1 – Information on
                                     biogas digesters in Tanzania


Appendix 1 – Information on biogas digesters in Tanzania
4.1. MATERIAL                                      UNIT       TOTAL
     ITEM                       UNIT QTY           COST       COST       REMARKS
Bricks (Burnt) 23x11c7cm         PCS          950         100      95000
Cement                          BAGS           13       10000     130000
Lime                               “            4       3.000      12000
Sand                            TONS            7                  60000
Chippings                       TONS            2        3000       6000
Stones                          TONS            2        6000      12000
PVC pipes 4 D Inch                  -                                  0
PVC pipes 6 D Inch              MTRS            6                  20000
Chicken wire                       “           15         500       7500
Plain wire (round bar)              -                                  0
10mm/Wiremesh
G Pipe 0.75 Inch D               PCS            4       10000      40000
Plastic Pipe 0.75 inches D.                                            0
Water proofer cement              KG            4        1000       4000
Household stove                   PC            1       40000      40000
Iron Sheets                         -                                  0
Lamp S                           PCS            1       45000      45000
Neck set                         SET            1       25000      25000
Weld mesh                        PCS            2        7000      14000
Doors +timber 2x4
Small items and fittings
4.2. TRANSPORT
Supervision                                                        10000
Materials                                                          40000
4.3. LABOUR
Digging                                                            40000
Masonry work                                                      300000
Bio-digester                                                      100000
Plumbing work
4.4. SUPERVISION
Engineering hours                                                  60000
4.5 DEPRECIATION OF TOOLS
5% of Labour cost
4.6. MODIFICATION OF
      COOKERS/ENGINE
4.7. OVERHEADS
                            15%                                   159075
DUE FOR
CAMARTEC/CONTRATOR
CUSTOMER TOTAL                                                   1219575
TOTAL PROJECT COST= Customer costs and Contractor costs


Price sheet, CAMARTEC, 8 m³ digester (Original offer received has been modified in
numbre of appliences and including the mentioned overhead of 15% in total amount.)



                                            - 60 -
Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 1 – Information on
                                     biogas digesters in Tanzania



4.1. MATERIAL                                       UNIT       TOTAL
     ITEM                            UNIT QTY       COST       COST       REMARKS
Bricks (Burnt) 23x11c7cm              PCS    1400          100     140000
Cement                               BAGS      25       10000      250000
Lime                                   “         5       3.000      15000
Sand                                 TONS        7                  60000
Chippings                            TONS        3        3000       9000
Stones                               TONS        3        6000      18000
PVC pipes 4 D Inch                     -                                0
PVC pipes 6 D Inch                   MTRS        6                  20000
Chicken wire                           “       20          500      10000
Plain wire (round bar) 10mm/Wiremesh   -                                0
G Pipe 0.75 Inch D                    PCS        4      10000       40000
Plastic Pipe 0.75 inches D.                                             0
Water proofer cement                  KG         5        1000       5000
Household stove                       PCS        1      40000       40000
Iron Sheets                            -                                0
Lamp S                                PCS        1      45000       45000
Neck set                              SET        1      25000       25000
Weld mesh                             PCS        3        7000      21000
Doors +timber 2x4                                                       0
Small items and fittings                                                0
4.2. TRANSPORT
Supervision                                                         10000
Materials                                                           40000
4.3. LABOUR
Digging                                                             70000
Masonry work                                                       400000
Bio-digester                                                       100000
Plumbing work
4.4. SUPERVISION
Engineering hours                                                   60000
4.5 DEPRECIATION OF TOOLS
5% of Labour cost
4.6. MODIFICATION OF
      COOKERS/ENGINE
4.7. OVERHEADS
                                 15%                               206700
DUE FOR
CAMARTEC/CONTRATOR
CUSTOMER TOTAL                                                    1584700
TOTAL PROJECT COST= Customer costs and Contractor costs


Price sheet, CAMARTEC, 12 m³ digester (Original offer received has been modified in
numbre of appliences and including the mentioned overhead of 15% in total amount.)




                                            - 61 -
Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 1 – Information on
                                     biogas digesters in Tanzania



Estimated costs for a family size biogas plant, 16m3 fixed dome by ABC Ltd..
(All transport cost excluded).

The costs below does not cover :
-     stable/cowshed modification or stable connection
-     gas piping system
-     transport of materials to the site
-     transport for supervision work/logistics
-     accommodation for the artisans.


16 M3 BIOGAS PLANT:

 ITEM                         QUANTITY                     PRICE        AMOUNT.
 Water proofing cement
 additive                        7kgs                   2,300/=                16,100/=
 Burnt bricks                  1700 pcs                   180/=               306,000/=
 Cement                       25 bags of               11,500/=               287,500/=
                                50kg.
 Lime                       7 bags of 25kg.             4,000/=                 28,000/=
 Sand                            3 m3                  13,500/=                 40,500/=
 Aggregates/chippings            3m3                   15,500/=                 46,500/=
 PVC pipe 4”                      1 (6m)               12,500/=                 12,500/=
 Neck set                          1                   18,000/=                 18,000/=
 Biogas burner,                    1                   40,000/=                 40,000/=
 household
 Biogas lamp                        1                  42,000/=                 42,000/=
 Gas piping from
 dia.20mm galvanized        Per running                            Depending on site
 steel pipes per meter      meter: material                        requirements/realities
 including fittings         + labour cost              4,500/=
                                                  Sub-total =
                             TZS.
 Excavation work for the pit                                                   50,000/=
 Labour charge i.e. masons and helpers                                        120,000/=
 Supervision charges                                                          320,000/=
 Overhead costs 5%                                                             66,355/=
                                                   Total    =               1,393,455/=
 TZS.

Price sheet, ABC Ltd., 16 m³ digester




                                              - 62 -
Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 1 – Information on
                                     biogas digesters in Tanzania




MIGESADO, Biogas Plant Construction Flowchart (5 - 16m3)




                                            - 63 -
 Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 2 – Additional
                                    thematic maps of Tanzania


Appendix 2 – Additional thematic maps of Tanzania



                                                                          0-2
                                                                          3 - 10
                                                                          11 - 20
                                                                          21 - 50
                                                                          51 - 100
                                                                          101 - 200
                                                                          201 - 500
                                                                          501 - 1000
                                                                          >1000


                             Population (people per km²) [20]



                                                              15.5 to 20.0
                                                              20.5 to 30.0
                                                              30.5 to 35.0
                                                              No Data




                          Temperature (Average annual ºC) [20]



                                                              475 - 724

                                                              725 - 974
                                                              975 - 1474
                                                              1475 - 2474
                                                              No Data




                             Precipitation Ave (mm/year) [20]




                                           - 64 -
Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 2 – Additional
                                   thematic maps of Tanzania




                 Percentage of population below food poverty line [4]




            Percentage of population below basic needs poverty line [4]




     Percentage of households whose members do not use toilet facilities [4]




                                          - 65 -
Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 2 – Additional
                                   thematic maps of Tanzania




          Cattle population by region (improved and indigenous, 2002) [6]




                    Improved cattle population by region (2002) [6]




           Milk production per day during wet season by region (2002) [6]



                                          - 66 -
  Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 3 – Photos of
                                          stables in Mwanza


Appendix 3 – Photos of stables in Mwanza



                                      Roofed shelter made of
                                     wood for goats and sheep




                                       Closed building, grass
                                       roofed and mud floor




                                     Tied animals in compound




                                      Typical stables for High
                                           breed cattle




                                                 Corral
                                     (left picture shows a corral
                                        after a heavy rainfall)




Photos of stables in Mwanza, 2007 [8]




                                             - 67 -
 Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 4 – Input data for
                                   financial and economic assessment


Appendix 4 – Input data for financial and economic assessment
                                                               Estimated cost of a 8 m³ digester in
Cost of a 8 m³ biogas plant                  $1.000            Tanzania (according to offers)
Subsidy                                        $300
Local material and labor                     $150.0            15% of the total cost
Time required for collecting water
(hr/day)                                          2            Collected from the field
Time required for mixing water and
dung (hr/day)                                  0.25            Assumption based on Nepal's Survey
Time saved in cooking and cleaning
(hr/day)                                       2.25            Assumption based on Nepal's Survey
Average wage rate for women and
children ($/hr)                               0.124            Half of the unskilled wage rate

                                                               1 - Program with Latrine Connection
Program with latrine                              1            and 0 - Program without Latrine
Total latrine cost                              $71
In kind contribution                             $7            10% of the latrine cost
Total financial cost                          $63.6

Financial cost of a biogas plant
C1: Biogas plant cost
    Plant capital cost                       $550.0
    Annual maintenance cost                  $15.00            1.5% of the total cost
C2: Latrine cost                              $63.6
C3: Hygiene cost
Private cost per household (materials)           $8

Ecomnomic cost of biogas plant
C1: Biogas plant cost
Biogas capital cost                            $550
Subsidy                                        $300
Local materials                                $150
                                                               Economic value of collecting water
Annual operational cost                        $203            and mixing with dung
Annual maintenance cost                         $15
Program cost and technical assistance          $202            As per the estimated budget

C2: Latrine cost
Latrine program cost                             $2
Latrine capital cost                            $64
Local materials                                  $7
Total economic cost of latrine                  $73

C3: Hygine cost
Hygiene program cost (cost per HH)               $3
Private cost per household (materials)           $8
Hygiene reccurent time cost                     $14
Total hygine cost                               $25




                                             - 68 -
  Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 4 – Input data for
                                    financial and economic assessment


Economic and Financial Benefits
                                                                                    Households     Households
                                                                                    purchasing     collecting
                                                                                    firewood for   firewood for
                                                                   Households       cooking and    cooking and
                                                                   purchasing       kerosene for   kerosene for
B1:Fuel cost savings                                               charcoal         lighting       lighting
Financial Benefits
                                           Electricity,
                                           LPG,
% households purchasing fuel               Kerosene        6.2%
                                           Charcoal       14.2%
                                           Firewood        9.0%
                                           Total          29.4%
Weight used per day (kg)
                                           Charcoal          1.9
                                           Firewood            7
Unit cost to households (kg)
                                           Charcoal         0.45 $US
                                           Firewood         0.04 $US
% reduction in fuel purchase
                                           Charcoal         90% Assumption
                                           Firewood         75% Assumption
Annual financial benefits due to cooking
fuel savings                                                46.6        279.45            76.65               0

Annual financial value of time gained
from reduced fuel wood collection
% households collecting fuel                                71%
Average time spent collecting fuel/day
(hrs)                                                        3.0 From the field survey
% reduction in fuel collected                               75%
% time savings used for income-
earning                                                     20% Assumption
Value of time                                               0.12
Annual financial benefits due to time
gains                                                       14.3                0          0.00           20.3

Economic Benefits
Annual economic benefits due to
cooking fuel savings                                        46.6        279.45            76.65            0.0
Economic value of saved fuel collection
time
% households collecting fuel                                71%
Average time spent collecting fuel/day
(hrs)                                                        3.0
% reduction in fuel collected                               75%
Value of time                                               0.12
Annual economic benefits due to saved
fuel collection time                                        71.7                0         25.41          101.6

Economic value of saved time in
cooking and cleaning
% households using biogas
                                                                 In an average a household saves 96
                                                                 minutes in cooking and 39 minutes in
                                                                 cleaning after having biogas plant
Average time savings per year (hours)                      821.3 (based on Nepal's Experiences)
Value of time                                               0.12
Annual economic benefots due to
saved cooking and cleaning time                           101.63        101.63          101.63         101.63


                                                 - 69 -
  Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 4 – Input data for
                                    financial and economic assessment

B2: Latrine access savings
Financial Benefits
% of HH installing toilet connecting with
biogas plant                                             75.0%
Annual financial benefits from Latrine
Access Savings                                         10.71844         14.29       14.29        14.29
Economic Benefits
Annual economic benefits from Latrine
access savings                                         44.66063         59.55       59.55        59.55

B3: Fertilizer use benefits
Economic Benefits
% households using slurry as fertilizer                 80.00%
Annual value of slurry per plant per
year                                                     294.00
Nutrients saving                                         235.20       235.20       235.20       235.20

B4: Health expenditure savings
Financial Benefits
(1) HEALTH RISK REDUCTION FROM
IMPROVED LATRINE                                           8.24
(2) HEALTH RISK REDUCTION FROM
REDUCTION IN INDOOR AIR
POLLUTION                                                  0.35
Total health expenditure savings                       6.524063          8.58         8.58        8.58

Economic Benefits
Health risk reduction from improved
latrine                                                   19.90
Health risk reduction from improved
indoor air quality                                         8.05
Total Economic Benefits                                22.97094         27.95       27.95        27.95

B5: Health-related productivity
Financial Benefits
(1) HEALTH RISK REDUCTION FROM
IMPROVED LATRINE                                           0.18

Economic Benefits
Health Risk reduction from Improved
latrine                                                    0.85
Health Risk reduction from reduction in
IAP                                                         1.20
Total Economic benefits                                1.835313          2.05

B6: Value of saved lives
Financial Benefits
(1) HEALTH RISK REDUCTION FROM
IMPROVED LATRINE                                           0.14
(2) HEALTH RISK REDUCTION FROM
REDUCTION IN INDOOR AIR
POLLUTION                                                  0.19
Total financial savings                                 0.28875          0.32         0.32        0.32

Economic Benefits
(1) HEALTH RISK REDUCTION FROM
IMPROVED LATRINE                                         170.71
(2) HEALTH RISK REDUCTION FROM
REDUCTION IN INDOOR AIR
POLLUTION                                                236.80
Total Economic benefits                                364.8328       407.51       407.51       407.51

                                              - 70 -
  Feasibility study of a national domestic biogas programme in Tanzania - Appendix 4 – Input data for
                                    financial and economic assessment


B7: Lighting benefits
Financial Benefits
% households using biogas for lighting                    50% Assumption
% reduction in fuel for lighting                          75% Assumption
Annual cost for kerosene for lighting
(TZS)                                                       45 From the field survey

Annual financial benefit on lighting fuel
savings                                                    16.9           0.0          33.8       33.8

Economic Benefits
Education Gain                                              2.2                         2.2
Economic savings from lighting fuel
savings                                                    16.9                        33.8
Total economic savings                                     19.1             0          36.0       36.0

B8: GHG emission reductions
Economic Benefits
Performance rate of Biogas Plants                         95%
                                            tCO2/plant
GHG emission reduction                      /year             5
ER price                                    $/ton           10
Annual GHG benefits                                        47.5          47.5          47.5       47.5

B9: Local environmental benefits
Economic Benefits
Value of wood saved                                        7.61          7.61          7.61       7.61




                                                 - 71 -
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5
65760 Eschborn/Germany
T +49 61 96 79-0
F +49 61 96 79-11 15
E info@gtz.de
I www.gtz.de

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:77
posted:8/13/2011
language:German
pages:80