From Biogas Plants to Climate-Resilient Farms
Biogas can link waste management, clean energy and soil restoration, but India must stop measuring success merely by the number of plants installed.
By Sayanta Ghosh, Associate Fellow, Land Resources Division, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi.
16 July 2026, New Delhi: India’s biogas story is gathering scale. As reported by States and Union Territories, 979 community and cluster-based biogas projects were functional under the Swachh Bharat Mission (Grameen) as of January 27, 2026. This is encouraging, but it is not yet a measure of success. The more important question is whether India can turn biogas infrastructure into a durable farming system that delivers clean energy, restores nutrients to the soil and reduces the risks faced by smallholders.
For farmers, rising fertiliser costs, declining soil fertility, livestock-waste management, household energy needs and climate variability are not separate problems. They are parts of the same production system. Addressing them through isolated schemes may create assets, but not necessarily resilience.
Circular bioenergy offers a more integrated pathway. Cattle dung and suitable organic residues can be fed into household- or community-scale digesters. The gas can substitute conventional cooking and thermal fuels, while the digested material, or bioslurry, can be returned to fields as an organic nutrient source. When combined with composting, mulching, crop diversification and efficient irrigation, this closes part of the loop between livestock, energy and agriculture.
The model has clear potential. Where manure would otherwise be poorly managed, controlled digestion can reduce methane emissions. Biogas can reduce dependence on firewood and purchased fuels. Where it replaces firewood, it can also reduce household smoke and the time spent collecting fuel.
Bioslurry can return organic matter and nutrients to the soil while supplementing chemical fertilisers. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy’s programme recognises digested slurry as an enriched bio-manure that can help farmers reduce their dependence on chemical inputs.
But a digester is not a self-sustaining solution. It needs a dependable supply of dung or other feedstock, regular water, daily operation and access to repairs. A plant that is too large for the available cattle population, too far from a water source or unsupported after installation can quickly become a stranded asset.
The real unit of planning must therefore be the farm household or village cluster, not the annual installation target.
Ownership also matters. Household plants may work where families have adequate livestock, space and labour. Community plants may be more appropriate where feedstock is concentrated and trusted institutions can manage its collection, distribute the gas, allocate the slurry and maintain the plant. In both models, the social arrangement is as important as the technology.
Bioslurry deserves the same realism. Its nutrient value varies according to the feedstock, digestion efficiency, storage and handling. It should not be promoted as a universal replacement for synthetic fertiliser.
Its stronger role may be to improve nutrient-use efficiency when applied according to soil tests and crop requirements, alongside balanced fertilisation, composting and mulching. Such integration can help rebuild soil organic matter and improve moisture retention, both of which are important for sustaining crops during dry spells.
Carbon finance could support well-designed projects, but it should not lead them. A project may generate emission reductions through improved manure management and the substitution of conventional fuels. Changes in fertiliser use or soil carbon may create additional benefits. Yet carbon credits are issued against measured and verified outcomes, not broad claims.
Project developers must establish how livestock waste was managed before the intervention, which fuels were actually displaced, whether plants remained operational and whether the claimed changes in farming practices occurred.
Methane avoidance, fuel substitution and soil-carbon gains must also be clearly separated to prevent double counting. In many cases, it may be more practical to quantify biogas-related emission reductions first, while treating improved soil health, lower input costs and resilience as development benefits until credible agricultural monitoring systems are established.
Scale presents another challenge. A few scattered plants may benefit individual households but may not support the costs of maintenance, monitoring and carbon verification. Aggregation through dairy cooperatives, farmer-producer organisations, self-help groups or panchayats can reduce transaction costs and create shared services.
Digital tools can help record plant operation, feedstock use and slurry production. But no mobile application can repair a digester or resolve disputes over the distribution of gas and bioslurry. Technology must complement, rather than substitute, accountable local institutions.
India should therefore build demonstration clusters before pursuing rapid replication. These clusters should test plant performance across seasons, document savings in fuel and fertiliser expenditure, assess bioslurry quality and track farmer acceptance.
Public support should combine capital assistance with local repair networks, user training, soil-health advisory services and transparent benefit-sharing arrangements. A portion of project funding or carbon revenue could be placed in a maintenance reserve so that minor technical failures do not permanently shut down plants.
Circular bioenergy also demands coordination. Renewable energy, sanitation, livestock, agriculture and rural development are administered through different departments, although they converge at the farm. GOBARdhan has created a policy foundation for converting organic waste into biogas and bioslurry. The next step is to connect this foundation with agricultural extension systems, dairy institutions and local governments.
India does not lack organic resources. It lacks systems capable of converting them into sustained local value. The success of circular bioenergy should not be judged by the number of plants installed or the volume of carbon credits claimed. It should be judged by whether plants continue to operate, farmers save on inputs, soils improve and rural households gain reliable clean energy.
Closing the loop on India’s farms requires more than digesters. It requires institutions that can keep the loop working.
Also Read: Crystal Crop Protection Launches Six New Products for Kharif 2026
Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com
