1.2 ຂໍ້ມູນ ການຕິດຕໍ່ພົວພັນ ຂອງບຸກຄົນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ ແລະ ສະຖາບັນ ທີ່ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນການປະເມີນເອກກະສານ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຊື່ໂຄງການ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ/ປະເມີນ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)

ຊື່ສະຖາບັນ (ຫຼາຍສະຖາບັນ) ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ / ປະເມີນ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

University of Botswana (University of Botswana) - ບອດວານາ

1.3 ເງື່ອນໄຂ ກ່ຽວກັບ ການນໍາໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນເອກະສານ ທີ່ສ້າງຂື້ນ ໂດຍຜ່ານ ອົງການພາບລວມຂອງໂລກ ທາງດ້ານແນວທາງ ແລະ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຂອງການອານຸລັກ ທໍາມະຊາດ (WOCAT)

ຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ແລະ ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ ທີ່ໃຫ້ຂໍ້ມູນ (ຫຼາຍ) ຍິນຍອມ ຕາມເງື່ອນໄຂ ໃນການນຳໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນ ເພື່ອສ້າງເປັນເອກກະສານຂອງ WOCAT:

ແມ່ນ

2.1 ຄໍາອະທິບາຍສັ້ນຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ການກຳໜົດຄວາມໝາຍ ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ:

Production of methane gas from cow-dung for use in house-hold cooking, heating and lighting in order to reduce fire wood demand

2.2 ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ການພັນລະນາ:

Biogas plant: The biogas plant can be constructed in several ways as long as it can provide a medium for the biological material be digested. Biogas is the name given to the gas that is produced during the decomposition of some organic waste specifically to produce methane gas. The gas is then captured in a storage tank (on site) to be used for household energy needs. In many parts of the world where this technology is used (including Botswana) the most common form of input material is cow dung making it more appropriate for rural environments.

Purpose of the Technology: Advantages: the technology offers two major advantages; first, at every level of use i.e. individual or institutional, savings in terms of energy is realized. The only costs that are borne are at installation, otherwise input of cow dung has a minimal cost of collection (if any at all). The second advantage is that there is reduced usage of fuel wood which translates into less cutting down of trees leading to reduced deforestation and degradation of land. A disadvantage is the initial investment which is significant for poor farmers.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Construction of the biogas plant: construction of the plant consists of three main chambers: namely, the Digester pit where all the microbiological reactions or decomposition of the material takes place. The digester has to be built to be air-tight with the released gas only escaping into the gas holder. The gas holder is connected to the digester by way of a pipe. Its main purpose is to collect all the gas that has been fermented. The mixing pit is the input chamber where the dung is mixed with water and fed into the digester. The amount and quality of water required for this is no constraint, even in this water stressed area. Construction the biogas plant has to be done according to specifications. A technical drawing of the plant is shown on page 3. The purpose of the technology is to use it for house-hold energy (for cooking, lighting and running appliances).

Natural / human environment: In Botswana the technology was introduced by the Rural Industries Innovation Center which is a government funded research institution. Despite the existence of this company for many years, the uptake has been very low due to poor marketing and extension services and lack of financial assistance to poor farmers.
Biogas is suitable either for a farm, cattle post or rural setting where the inputs (cow dung) are easily available. But there are possibilities of experimenting with other bio-degradable materials in major centres where cow dung is not readily available.

2.3 ຮູບພາບຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

2.5 ປະເທດ / ເຂດ / ສະຖານທີ່ບ່ອນທີ່ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໄດ້ຮັບການນໍາໃຊ້ ແລະ ທີ່ຖືກປົກຄຸມດ້ວຍການປະເມີນຜົນ

2.6 ວັນທີໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ

ຖ້າຫາກວ່າ ບໍ່ຮູ້ຈັກ ປີທີ່ຊັດເຈນ ແມ່ນໃຫ້ປະມານ ວັນທີເອົາ:

• 10-50 ປີ ຜ່ານມາ

2.7 ການນໍາສະເໜີ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໄດ້ຖືກຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດຄືແນວໃດ?

• ໂດຍຜ່ານໂຄງການ / ການຊ່ວຍເຫຼືອຈາກພາຍນອກ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ (ປະເພດ ໂຄງການ ແລະ ອື່ນໆ):

The technology is promoted by a government funded NGO, but has its origins outside the country

3.1 ຈຸດປະສົງຫຼັກ (ຫຼາຍ) ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

• ຫຼຸດຜ່ອນ, ປ້ອງກັນ, ຟື້ນຟູ ການເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ
• ການອະນຸລັກ ລະບົບນິເວດ
• ສ້າງຜົນກະທົບ ທາງເສດຖະກິດ ທີ່ເປັນປະໂຫຍດ

3.2 ປະເພດການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃນປະຈຸບັນ() ທີ່ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໄດ້ຖືກນໍາໃຊ້

ການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ປະສົມພາຍໃນພື້ນທີ່ດຽວກັນ:

ແມ່ນ

ລະບຸການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນແບບປະສົມ (ຜົນລະປູກ / ທົ່ງຫຍ້າລ້ຽງສັດ / ຕົ້ນໄມ້):

• ປ່າໄມ້-ທົ່ງຫຍ້າ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Overgrazing of the commons, droughts, saline water and over-harvesting of fuelwood for cooking, heating leading to deforestation and land degradation

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Overgrazing of the commons, droughts, saline water and over-harvesting of fuelwood for cooking, heating leading to deforestation and land degradation.

Grazingland comments: Biogass technology is not applied in the Boteti area at the moment, only at DESIRE test site.

Selective felling of (semi-) natural forests: specific tree species are felled for fuelwood even though people are supposed to take only fallen-dead wood

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: Mixed cropping is the traditional practice but government extension advice promotes monocropping which the majority find expensive and risky.

Type of grazing system comments: Biogass technology is not applied in the Boteti area at the moment, only at DESIRE test site.

Constraints of settlement / urban

Livestock density: 1-10 LU /km2

3.4 ການສະໜອງນ້ຳ

ການສະໜອງນໍ້າ ໃນພື້ນທີ່ ທີ່ໄດ້ນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ:

• ນໍ້າຝົນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Water supply: Also post-flooding

3.5 ການນໍາໃຊ້ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ທີ່ຢູ່ໃນກຸ່ມການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

• ປະສິດທິພາບ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ການນຳໃຊ້ພະລັງງານ

3.6 ມາດຕະການ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ ປະກອບດ້ວຍ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Main measures: management measures

3.7 ປະເພດດິນເຊື່ອມໂຊມ ຫຼັກທີ່ໄດ້ນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Main type of degradation addressed: Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (harvesting of fuelwood for cooking, sometimes live trees are harvested.), land tenure (Area is communal grazing land)

Secondary causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use (Trees are cut for bush fences), droughts (The study area is prone to droughts), poverty / wealth ((lack of alternative livelihood sources))

3.8 ການປ້ອງກັນ, ການຫຼຸດຜ່ອນ, ຫຼືການຟື້ນຟູຂອງການເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ເປົ້າໝາຍ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ທີ່ພົວພັນ ກັບຄວາມເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ:

• ການຟື້ນຟູ / ຟື້ນຟູດິນທີ່ຊຸດໂຊມ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation, mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4.1 ເຕັກນິກ ໃນການແຕ້ມແຜນວາດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

4.2 ຂໍ້ມູນທົ່ວໄປກ່ຽວກັບການຄິດໄລ່ປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າໃນການຜະລິດ ແລະ ມູນຄ່າອື່ນໆ

ສະກຸນເງິນອື່ນໆ / ປະເທດອື່ນໆ (ລະບຸ):

Pula

ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ, ໃຫ້ລະບຸອັດຕາແລກປ່ຽນຈາກ USD ເປັນສະກຸນເງິນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ (ເຊັ່ນ: 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

6.5

4.3 ການສ້າງຕັ້ງກິດຈະກໍາ

	ກິດຈະກໍາ	Timing (season)
1.	Construction	N/A

4.4 ຕົ້ນທຶນ ແລະ ປັດໄຈຂາເຂົ້າທີ່ຈໍາເປັນໃນຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ

	ລະບຸ ປັດໃຈ ນໍາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລີດ	ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ປະລິມານ	ຕົ້ນທຶນ ຕໍ່ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ຂອງປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລິດ	% ຂອງຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ທີ່ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃຊ້ຈ່າຍເອງ
ແຮງງານ	Labour	Tank	1.0	198.0	198.0	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Tank	Tank	1.0	615.0	615.0	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Bricks	Tank	1.0	77.0	77.0	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Cement	Tank	1.0	123.0	123.0	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Plumbing material	Tank	1.0	154.0	154.0	100.0
ວັດສະດຸກໍ່ສ້າງ	Earth	Tank	1.0	31.0	31.0	100.0
ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ					1198.0
ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍທັງໝົດ ສຳລັບການສ້າງຕັ້ງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ເປັນສະກຸນເງີນໂດລາ					184.31

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Duration of establishment phase: 0.5 month(s)

4.5 ບໍາລຸງຮັກສາ / ແຜນຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ກິດຈະກໍາ

	ກິດຈະກໍາ	ໄລຍະເວລາ / ຄວາມຖີ່
1.	Filling up with cow dung and water	1 Day

4.6 ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ ແລະ ປັດໄຈນໍາເຂົ້າທີ່ຈໍາເປັນສໍາລັບການບໍາລຸງຮັກສາກິດຈະກໍາ / ແຜນປະຕິບັດ (ຕໍ່ປີ)

	ລະບຸ ປັດໃຈ ນໍາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລີດ	ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ປະລິມານ	ຕົ້ນທຶນ ຕໍ່ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ຂອງປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລິດ	% ຂອງຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ທີ່ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃຊ້ຈ່າຍເອງ
ອຸປະກອນ	Cow dung	Tank	1.0	33.0	33.0	100.0
ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ທີ່ໃຊ້ໃນການບໍາລຸງຮັກສາ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ					33.0
ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍທັງໝົດ ສຳລັບການບົວລະບັດຮກສາເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ເປັນສະກຸນເງີນໂດລາ					5.08

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Costs were calculated for labour and material based on the real cost of construction at the Mopipi Site.

4.7 ປັດໄຈ ທີ່ສໍາຄັນ ທີ່ສົ່ງຜົນກະທົບ ຕໍ່ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ

ໃຫ້ອະທິບາຍ ປັດໃຈ ທີ່ສົ່ງຜົນກະທົບ ຕໍ່ຕົ້ນທຶນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ:

Material, labour and equipment used in construction are the most determining factors affecting the costs (installation cost is US$ 1198).

5.1 ອາກາດ

5.2 ພູມິປະເທດ

ຄຳເຫັນ ແລະ ຂໍ້ມູນສະເພາະ ເພີ່ມເຕີມ ກ່ຽວກັບ ພູມີປະເທດ:

Altitudinal zone: 501-1000 m a.s.l. (Part of the Makgadikgadi basin)
Slopes on average: Flat (ranked 1, mainly low lying land of lucrustrine (pans) formation) and gentle (ranked 2, gently sloping (plains))

5.3 ດິນ

ຖ້າເປັນໄປໄດ້ ແມ່ນໃຫ້ຕິດຄັດ ການພັນລະນາດິນ ຫຼື ຂໍ້ມູນສະເພາະຂອງດິນ, ຕົວຢ່າງ, ຄຸນລັກສະນະ ປະເພດຂອງດິນ, ຄ່າຄວາມເປັນກົດ / ເປັນດ່າງຂອງດິນ, ສານອາຫານ,​ ດິນເຄັມ ແລະ ອື່ນໆ.

Soil depth on average: Shallow (ranked 1, generally soils are 40cm deep, underneath is a calcrete layer at about 40cm deep) and deep (ranked 2, some sandy area away from pans e.g. the Gidikwe Ridge )
Soil texture: Coarse/light (ranked 1, away from pans/river/flood plain = main soil type) and fine/heavy (ranked 2, sticky when wet in the depression)
Soil fertility: Low (ranked 1, sandy areas (Arenosols)) and medium (ranked 2, in flood plains of the Boteti river)
Topsoil organic matter: Low (ranked 1, low on sandy areas/soils) and topsoil organic matter (ranked 2, on the flood plains for molapo farming)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good (ranked 1, very good on sandy soils) and medium (ranked 2, flood plains are medium)
Soil water storage capacity: Very low (ranked 1, on sandy soils) and medium (ranked 2, on flood plains)

5.4 ມີນໍ້າ ແລະ ຄຸນນະພາບ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ ແລະ ຂໍ້ກໍານົດ ເພີ່ມເຕີມ ກ່ຽວກັບ ຄຸນນະພາບ ແລະ ປະລິມານ ຂອງນ້ຳ:

Ground water table: >50m (ranked 1, for Boreholes) and 5-50 m (ranked 2, wells in the Boteti River bed)
Availability of surface water: poor/none (dry season-unreliable river flow/rainfall)
Water quality (untreated): Poor drinking water (treatement required, salty water in most areas, ranked 1) and unusable (sometimes too salty even for livestock consumption, ranked 2)

5.5 ຊີວະນາໆພັນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ ແລະ ລັກສະນະສະເພາະ ເພີ່ມເຕີມກ່ຽວກັບ ຊີວະນາໆພັນ:

Biodiversity: High (several game reserves (protected areas) nearby, ranked 1) and low (grazing areas with arable agriculture, ranked 2)

5.6 ຄຸນລັກສະນະ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ທີ່ໄດ້ນໍາໃຊ້ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ຄຸນລັກສະນະ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly Leaders / privileged
Difference in the involvement of women and men: There is no difference, as this is mainly a family thing or institutioanal like in schools and community halls
Population density: < 10 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 2% - 3%
10% of the land users are very rich and own 50% of the land (Cattle farmers).
60% of the land users are average wealthy and own 30% of the land (Most inhabitants).
30% of the land users are poor and own 20% of the land (Subsistance farm).
Off-farm income specification: Saves money for buying commercial gas and electric power. Helps conserve the forests. Limited off-farm income opportunities for everyone including non-adopters of the technology.
Level of mechanization: Animal traction (mostly donkeys for draught power)
Market orientation of annual cropping production system: Mixed (subsistence/commercial) Could be used/produced for domestic and commercial purposes.
Market orientation of grazing land production system: Subsistence and commercial/market
Market orientation of forest production system: Mixed (subsistence/commercial) in both cases use of biogas is approppriate

5.7 ເນື້ອທີ່ສະເລ່ຍຂອງດິນ ທີ່ຜູ້ນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃຊ້ເຮັດເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

5.8 ເຈົ້າຂອງທີ່ດິນ, ສິດໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ, ແລະ ສິດທິການນໍາໃຊ້ນໍ້າ

ເຈົ້າຂອງດິນ:

• ຊຸມຊົນ / ບ້ານ
• ບຸກຄົນ, ບໍ່ມີຕໍາແໜ່ງ

ສິດທິ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ:

• ເປີດກວ້າງ (ບໍ່ມີການຈັດຕັ້ງ)
• ບຸກຄົນ

ສິດທິ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ນໍ້າ:

• ຊຸມຊົນ (ທີ່ມີການຈັດຕັ້ງ)
• ບຸກຄົນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

The SLM can be used by anybody - not specified to any group. Dual grazing rights is a problem (private ranchers can also use the commons).

5.9 ການເຂົ້າເຖິງການບໍລິການ ແລະ ພື້ນຖານໂຄງລ່າງ

6.1 ການສະແດງຜົນກະທົບ ພາຍໃນພື້ນທີ່ ທີ່ໄດ້ຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຜົນກະທົບທາງເສດຖະກິດສັງຄົມ

ການຜະລິດ

ລາຍໄດ້ ແລະ ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ

ຜົນກະທົບດ້ານວັດທະນາທໍາສັງຄົມ

ຜົນກະທົບຕໍ່ລະບົບນິເວດ

ວົງຈອນນໍ້າ / ນໍ້າ

ດິນ

ຊີວະນານາພັນ: ສັດ, ພືດ

ການຫຼຸດຜ່ອນ ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ຈາກໄພພິບັດ ແລະ ອາກາດປ່ຽນແປງ

ຜົນກະທົບຕໍ່ລະບົບນິເວດອື່ນໆ

6.2 ຜົນກະທົບທາງອ້ອມ ຈາກການນໍາໃຊ້ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

6.3 ການປ້ອງກັນ ແລະ ຄວາມບອບບາງ ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢິ ໃນການປ່ຽນແປງສະພາບດິນຟ້າອາກາດ ແລະ ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງກັບອາກາດທີ່ມີການປ່ຽນແປງທີ່ຮຸນແຮງ / ໄພພິບັດທາງທໍາມະຊາດ (ຮັບຮູ້ໄດ້ໂດຍຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ)

ການປ່ຽນແປງດິນຟ້າອາກາດ ເທື່ອລະກ້າວ

ການປ່ຽນແປງດິນຟ້າອາກາດ ເທື່ອລະກ້າວ

	ລະດູການ	ເພີ່ມຂື້ນ ຫຼື ຫຼຸດລົງ	ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ສາມາດ ຮັບມື ໄດ້ຄືແນວໃດ?
ອຸນຫະພູມປະຈໍາປີ		ເພີ່ມຂື້ນ	ດີ

ອາກາດ ທີ່ກ່ຽວພັນກັບຄວາມຮຸນແຮງ (ໄພພິບັດທາງທໍາມະຊາດ)

ໄພພິບັດທາງອຸຕຸນິຍົມ

	ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ສາມາດ ຮັບມື ໄດ້ຄືແນວໃດ?
ພະຍຸຝົນ	ດີ
ພາຍຸລົມທ້ອງຖິ່ນ	ດີ

ໄພພິບັດທາງພູມອາກາດ

	ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ສາມາດ ຮັບມື ໄດ້ຄືແນວໃດ?
ແຫ້ງແລ້ງ	ດີ

ໄພພິບັດທາງອຸທົກກະສາກ

	ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ສາມາດ ຮັບມື ໄດ້ຄືແນວໃດ?
ໂດຍທົ່ວໄປ (ແມ່ນໍ້າ) ນໍ້າຖ້ວມ	ດີ

ຜົນສະທ້ອນສະພາບອາກາດອື່ນໆທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ

ຜົນສະທ້ອນສະພາບອາກາດອື່ນໆທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ

	ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ສາມາດ ຮັບມື ໄດ້ຄືແນວໃດ?
ໄລຍະເວລາການຂະຫຍາຍຕົວຫຼຸດລົງ	ດີ
temperature decrease	ບໍ່​ດີ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Biogas technology may be limited under extreme cold conditions whereby fermentation may be limited by cold temperatures.

6.4 ການວິເຄາະຕົ້ນທຶນ ແລະ ຜົນປະໂຫຍດ

ຈະເຮັດປະໂຫຍດເພື່ອປຽບທຽບກັບຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍກັບສິ່ງກໍ່ສ້າງ (ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ) ໄດ້ແນວໃດ?

ຈະໄດ້ຮັບຜົນປະໂຫຍດເມື່ອປຽບທຽບກັບ / ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍໃນການບຳລຸງຮັກສາທີເ່ກີດຂື້ນອິກ (ຈາກທັດສະນະຄະຕິຂອງຜູ້ນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ) ໄດ້ແນວໃດ?

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Very costly to set up, if no government aid. It is however very good for long term water provision.

6.5 ການປັບຕົວຮັບເອົາເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຖ້າຫາກວ່າມີ, ປະລິມານ (ຈໍານວນຂອງຄົວເຮືອນ / ເນື້ອທີ່ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ):

10

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

1% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

10 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: A very insignificant number of individual farmers have used this technology

Comments on spontaneous adoption: The technology has mostly been used where the Research institution has installed in farmers' properties. Only in very few instances around the country have individuals installed it for themselves.

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: There seems to be very little marketing of biogas in the country

6.7 ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
Problems of diminishing firewood species are reduced. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Because it is not every or all species that is used for firewood, the targeted species are quickly diminished
Cost of getting firewood is reduced How can they be sustained / enhanced? Distance to wood collection places are ever increasing hence users have to buy from truck or donkey cart owners
More time is freed How can they be sustained / enhanced? This especially applies to children (of school going age) in that they would have more time for their home works.

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຈຸດດີ / ໂອກາດ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ
Low maintenance and inputs are required for this technology How can they be sustained / enhanced? There is need for promotion of the technology
The structures to be put in place are very basic How can they be sustained / enhanced? There is need for the government to subsidize farmers in installing biogas plants, especially in the rual areas.
Good for rural households where firewood is used extensively. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Improve income of rural families so that they could afford the technology

6.8 ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ແລະ ວິທີການແກ້ໄຂບັນຫາ

ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງໃນມຸມມອງຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
Too expensive for poor farmers to adopt without assistance	Donor/government subsidies

7.1 ວິທີການ / ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ

7.2 ເອກກະສານອ້າງອີງທີ່ເປັນບົດລາຍງານ

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

Brown, V. J., 2006. BIOGAS: A Bright Idea for Africa. Environ Health Perspectives. 114(5), pp. A300–A303.

ມີຢູ່ໃສ?ມູນຄ່າເທົ່າໃດ?

internet

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

Dayal, M., Vimal, O.P., Singh, K.K., 1989. Biomass gasification in India — DNES activities. Biomass, Volume 18, issues 3-4,pp. 197-204

ມີຢູ່ໃສ?ມູນຄ່າເທົ່າໃດ?

http://www.ganesha.co.uk/Articles/Biogas%20Technology%20in%20India.htm