210 Mariana Silaen et al.
These findings illustrate the possible barriers that policy actors and development planners need to be aware of and sensitive to when designing biogas programmes. To be acceptable to stakeholders with a plurality of perspectives, plans
need to include different ways of providing benefits and incentives that motivate
participants, while mitigating the perceived drawbacks.
Implementation risks of biogas development in Indonesia
Different motivations as a result of different ‘worldviews’ of biogas development
were fundamental causes of further incoherence in the monitoring processes,
there being no overall consensus on biogas monitoring procedures. We revealed
that most of the rural biogas digesters had been abandoned due to the lack of
investment in monitoring and evaluation (Devisscher et al., 2017). Monitoring
practices are required to assess the current situation of the programmes in order
to ensure their sustainability and to help identify technical issues, one of which
includes proper infrastructure maintenance. However, appropriate maintenance
is lacking in the government- led programmes, which is identified as another
risk. When farmers faced constraints in operating biogas or suffered faults in the
technology, they gave up using it, especially in the cases where they had no warranty and were not technically trained (Devisscher et al., 2017). Moreover,
highly subsidised digesters with little investment in maintenance and monitoring were less successful due to a lower sense of ownership of the biogas digester
and a trade- off with the maintenance cost. The representative of ESDM stated
that the adequacy and reliability of the overall technological infrastructure
should be able to reduce the risks where maintenance is lacking.
In addition, the government- run programmes also presented a barrier in
terms of the biogas technology distribution to beneficiaries. The farmers as the
targeted beneficiaries stated that the process of obtaining a biogas digester was
overly bureaucratic and time consuming (Devisscher et al., 2017). In other
words, there are various stages farmers need to undergo to obtain the digesters
and, even when offered with no costs, this acts to prevent the farmers from
adopting and fully utilising the technology.
Furthermore, accessibility to feedstock was also considered to be a barrier by
both users and policymakers (Devisscher et al., 2017). This risk is worth being
discussed because, as repeatedly emphasised, the abundance of feedstock is often
given as a main justification for biogas development. Yet the farmers reported
feedstock shortages, besides considering the collection process as time consuming. The barrier concerning the feedstock availability is also noticed by the
ESDM representatives with a similar reason; thus they recommended a system
to ensure the feedstock sustainability.
Some risks specifically relate to communal biogas installations. In the
SIMANTRI programme, barriers arising include management issues of the
digesters (Devisscher et al., 2017). Unsuitable and ineffective management will
create risks in biogas deployment since in many cases the farmers did not seem
to be committed to managing the biogas as a team. This appears to be correlated
These findings illustrate the possible barriers that policy actors and development planners need to be aware of and sensitive to when designing biogas programmes. To be acceptable to stakeholders with a plurality of perspectives, plans
need to include different ways of providing benefits and incentives that motivate
participants, while mitigating the perceived drawbacks.
Implementation risks of biogas development in Indonesia
Different motivations as a result of different ‘worldviews’ of biogas development
were fundamental causes of further incoherence in the monitoring processes,
there being no overall consensus on biogas monitoring procedures. We revealed
that most of the rural biogas digesters had been abandoned due to the lack of
investment in monitoring and evaluation (Devisscher et al., 2017). Monitoring
practices are required to assess the current situation of the programmes in order
to ensure their sustainability and to help identify technical issues, one of which
includes proper infrastructure maintenance. However, appropriate maintenance
is lacking in the government- led programmes, which is identified as another
risk. When farmers faced constraints in operating biogas or suffered faults in the
technology, they gave up using it, especially in the cases where they had no warranty and were not technically trained (Devisscher et al., 2017). Moreover,
highly subsidised digesters with little investment in maintenance and monitoring were less successful due to a lower sense of ownership of the biogas digester
and a trade- off with the maintenance cost. The representative of ESDM stated
that the adequacy and reliability of the overall technological infrastructure
should be able to reduce the risks where maintenance is lacking.
In addition, the government- run programmes also presented a barrier in
terms of the biogas technology distribution to beneficiaries. The farmers as the
targeted beneficiaries stated that the process of obtaining a biogas digester was
overly bureaucratic and time consuming (Devisscher et al., 2017). In other
words, there are various stages farmers need to undergo to obtain the digesters
and, even when offered with no costs, this acts to prevent the farmers from
adopting and fully utilising the technology.
Furthermore, accessibility to feedstock was also considered to be a barrier by
both users and policymakers (Devisscher et al., 2017). This risk is worth being
discussed because, as repeatedly emphasised, the abundance of feedstock is often
given as a main justification for biogas development. Yet the farmers reported
feedstock shortages, besides considering the collection process as time consuming. The barrier concerning the feedstock availability is also noticed by the
ESDM representatives with a similar reason; thus they recommended a system
to ensure the feedstock sustainability.
Some risks specifically relate to communal biogas installations. In the
SIMANTRI programme, barriers arising include management issues of the
digesters (Devisscher et al., 2017). Unsuitable and ineffective management will
create risks in biogas deployment since in many cases the farmers did not seem
to be committed to managing the biogas as a team. This appears to be correlated