Climate change is increasingly being viewed through the lens of carbon dioxide emissions, solar energy, and electric mobility. Yet, one of the most potent greenhouse gases, methane, remains comparatively underrepresented in mainstream climate conversations despite its outsized impact on near term global warming. For India, where agriculture supports millions of livelihoods and livestock forms a critical part of the rural economy, tackling methane emissions presents an opportunity to simultaneously address climate action, clean energy access, sustainable agriculture, and rural development.
As India advances towards its net zero ambitions, decentralised climate solutions are emerging as an essential part of the transition. In this conversation, Mr. Piyush Sohani, Chief Growth Officer and India Managing Director at Sistema.bio, discusses why methane mitigation deserves greater policy and financial attention, the role of biogas in transforming smallholder farming communities, the evolving promise of carbon markets, and how data driven climate interventions can create lasting environmental, economic, and social impact. He also highlights the critical role rural communities and smallholder farmers will play in shaping India’s long term climate resilience and sustainability journey.
Scroll down to read the full interview:
Q. Why does methane mitigation still receive relatively limited attention in mainstream climate discourse despite its significant climate impact?
A. When global climate accounting frameworks were originally designed, greenhouse gases were evaluated over a 100-year horizon, a reasonable starting point at the time, but one that inadvertently diluted methane's true potency. Methane breaks down in about 12 years, so measuring it over a century mathematically understates its near-term impact. Over a 20-year horizon, it is over 80 times more potent than CO2 which is a very different picture.
The other factor is tractability. CO2 emissions come largely from centralised industrial sources or quantifyable sources that are relatively straightforward to measure and regulate. Agricultural methane is the opposite dispersed across millions of smallholder farms, which historically made it difficult to track, aggregate, and verify. Less than 2% of global climate finance targets methane abatement today, and that number reflects how the system has valued it.
What gives me optimism is that the data gap is finally closing. At Sistema.bio, we've spent years demonstrating that methane emission reduction through biogas from agricultural sources like livestock waste can be measured and verified at scale. The conversations happening globally and in India among governments, corporates, and climate investors are fundamentally different from even three years ago. Methane is increasingly being treated with the urgency it deserves and that's a meaningful shift.
Q. What have been some of the biggest challenges in scaling biogas adoption among smallholder farmers in India?
A. The biggest challenge we faced early on wasn't technology or logistics, it was perception. India has had biogas plants for decades, and many farmers have watched those traditional plants crack or simply stop working. That history sits in the back of a farmer's mind when you come to them with what is essentially the same proposition. Overcoming that skepticism requires more than a better product, it requires demonstration, patience, and being available to troubleshoot and address issues as they arise. Every project we start begins with community awareness sessions, and when we install a system we train the entire family on how to use and maintain it. We also back that with round the clock customer support.
The second challenge is affordability. For a smallholder farmer, any upfront investment is a calculated risk. We've worked to address this through corporate partnerships, CSR projects, and government collaborations. Our technology is also MNRE accredited and eligible for Central Financial Assistance under the National Bioenergy Programme, which has expanded access for farmers who need that support.
And then there's the physical reality of rural India. Farmers are spread across remote and geographically diverse regions, making delivery, installation, and servicing genuinely difficult and cost intensive. To address this, we've built a strong network of field offices and warehouses across the country, because you cannot serve a farmer in a remote village from a central office.
Q. How do you see carbon markets evolving in terms of benefiting rural communities and smallholder farmers more directly?
A. Carbon markets have historically been structured around large scale industrial projects where the economics of verification and certification make sense. For rural communities and smallholder farmers to benefit more directly, the model needs to change at a fundamental level and that change begins with how carbon finance is deployed at the farm level.
The first challenge is affordability. When the upfront cost of a technology is out of reach, adoption does not happen regardless of the environmental or economic case for it. Making biogas solutions financially accessible is therefore not just a commercial decision. It is what determines whether carbon finance reaches the farm level at all.
The second challenge is adoption. Affordability gets a farmer to the door but it does not guarantee long term usage. A farmer who uses a biodigester for six months generates a fraction of the value, economically and environmentally, compared to one who uses it for five years. Carbon finance needs to be structured to support not just the initial installation but the conditions that make sustained usage viable, through service infrastructure, training and ongoing support.
When both of these are addressed, something more significant begins to happen. Sustained usage drives genuine habit change. When a farmer integrates biogas into their daily operations, their relationship with energy, waste and their land shifts. That behavioural change is what separates a project from a movement.
Habit change in turn builds environmental awareness. Farmers who use biogas develop that awareness organically through the experience of using clean energy and organic fertilizers. They see the difference it makes without needing external education or campaigns. They become advocates in their own communities in a way that no awareness campaign can replicate.
And that awareness is what ultimately drives the switch to clean energy at scale. Not mandates, not subsidies, but farmers who have seen the difference and chosen it. Carbon markets that are designed to fund this chain, from affordable access to lasting behavioural change, are the ones that will deliver genuine and inclusive impact.
Q. Sistema.bio's work goes beyond clean energy into regenerative agriculture and rural livelihoods. How do you ensure that climate solutions also remain economically viable for farmers?
A. Economic viability is central to how we design our solutions. Our biodigester doesn't just provide clean energy it delivers measurable savings across two critical cost heads for a smallholder farmer. First, it eliminates LPG dependence, saving a family approximately Rs. 1,000 per month on cooking fuel. Second, the bioslurry produced daily has the potential to replace 70-75% of chemical fertilizer inputs, saving farmers an additional Rs. 800 to 1,000 per acre. Cumulatively, a farmer can save anywhere between Rs. 15,000 to 20,000 annually.
Our products are designed specifically for smallholder dairy farmers. For example our most popular model Sistema 6, works with 3 to 4 cattle farm, providing 3 to 4 hours of cooking gas daily and over 100 litres of bioslurry. The system typically pays for itself within 18 months. Our technology is also MNRE approved under the National Bioenergy Programme, making it eligible for Central Financial Assistance starting from ₹14,350 per unit, which brings that payback period down further.
Q. What kind of behavioural or social changes have you observed within farming communities after the adoption of biodigesters?
A. The changes we observe go well beyond what you'd expect from an energy intervention. The most immediate and visible shift is in how farmers relate to their livestock waste. What was previously considered a nuisance, something to be disposed of, becomes a valued input. Farmers become more attentive to their cattle, more structured in their daily routines around feeding the digester, and more conscious of their farm as an integrated system rather than isolated activities.
The second change is in household dynamics. When cooking no longer means collecting firewood or managing LPG cylinders, the daily rhythm of the household changes. Women in particular reclaim significant time that goes into farming, livestock care, or other productive activities.
We also see a strong demonstration effect within communities. When a farmer's fields are visibly healthier from bioslurry use and their neighbours can see a cleaner kitchen and lower expenses, the conversation spreads organically. In many of our projects, peer adoption has been a stronger driver of uptake than any formal awareness programme we run.
Q. Women often play a central role in livestock management and household energy use in rural India. How has access to biogas influenced women's participation in local economies and decision-making?
A. The impact on women is one of the most significant and immediate changes we observe after a biodigester is installed. In most households we work with, it is the woman who manages the biogas plant on a day to day basis. She understands the technology, she operates it, she troubleshoots it. That knowledge translates directly into confidence and agency within the household and community.
The time dimension is equally important. Women in rural India spend an enormous amount of their day collecting firewood and cooking over traditional stoves. A biodigester eliminates that burden almost entirely, freeing up three to four hours every day. What strikes me most, having spoken with many of these women over the years, is that there is no single answer to what they do with that time. Some direct it toward their farms, some toward their families, some toward income generating activities. That choice itself is significant. For women who have historically had very little discretionary time, the ability to decide how to use it is a meaningful shift in autonomy.
In many of our adoption stories, it is the woman in the household who is the decision maker. Because she is the one who will use the biogas plant daily, she is often the one who evaluates it, advocates for it within the family and ultimately drives the decision to invest in it. That is a fundamental shift in how clean energy decisions are made at the household level.
When you multiply that across thousands of households, the cumulative economic and social impact is substantial. And when a woman who runs her own biogas plant, saves her family money and directs her own time starts talking to her neighbours about it, the influence she carries in that conversation is very different from what it might have been before.
Q. India's renewable energy discourse is still largely centred around solar and electric mobility. Do you think decentralized biogas solutions require stronger policy and corporate backing today?
A. India's renewable energy story is genuinely impressive. Solar capacity has grown over the last decade, and the country now ranks third globally in renewable energy installed capacity. That is a remarkable achievement. But the energy transition for rural India, particularly for its 80 million smallholder farming households, cannot be built on solar and electric mobility alone.
Biogas sits at a unique intersection that no other renewable energy source occupies. It addresses clean cooking, waste management, agricultural productivity and methane mitigation simultaneously. India's bovine population exceeds 536 million, representing a distributed energy feedstock of extraordinary scale. The raw material is already there, on every farm, every day.
The policy intent is clearly present. The National Biogas and Manure Management Programme has provided central subsidies for family and community level biogas plants. The Gobardhan Scheme targets village-level conversion of cattle dung and organic waste into biogas and compost. The National Bioenergy Programme consolidates this support under MNRE, and several states like Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka have introduced their own aligned subsidy schemes. But these programmes have struggled with low uptake, weak last-mile delivery and limited technical support at the farm level. Subsidies alone have not been enough to make decentralised biogas viable for the individual smallholder.
What stronger policy needs to deliver is dedicated financing and mandatory adoption targets specifically for small-scale biogas plants rather than industrial ones.
Corporate partnerships are what bridge that gap, bringing capital, technical expertise and distribution networks to the farm level. That is precisely where we see the largest opportunity and where we believe stronger corporate backing can make a decisive difference.
Q. How important is data transparency and digital monitoring in building trust around ESG commitments and carbon credit systems?
A. Extremely important, and I would say it is the single biggest factor determining whether carbon markets earn long term credibility or continue to face the scrutiny they are currently under. The fundamental problem with many carbon credit systems today is that they are built on assumptions and models rather than real measurements. When a corporate buyer purchases credits, they are often trusting a methodology, not a measurement. That gap between claimed and actual impact is where credibility breaks down.
Digital monitoring changes this fundamentally. At Sistema.bio, our biodigesters are equipped with IoT based monitoring that tracks plant performance in real time. This means we can demonstrate, with actual data, that a biodigester in rural Maharashtra is operating, that a specific volume of biogas has been produced, and that methane has been prevented from entering the atmosphere. That is not a modelled outcome, it is a verified one.
For ESG commitments, the same principle applies. Corporates are under increasing pressure from regulators, investors and consumers to show that their sustainability claims are backed by evidence. Digital monitoring provides that evidence trail. It makes greenwashing significantly harder and genuine impact significantly more visible.
As the carbon market matures and regulatory frameworks like India's Carbon Credit Trading Scheme develop further, we believe data transparency will move from a differentiator to a baseline requirement. We are building for that future today.
Q. Many climate and sustainability projects struggle to move beyond pilot stages. In your view, what separates scalable impact models from short-term interventions?
A. The graveyard of well intentioned climate pilots is large, and the pattern of failure is remarkably consistent. A grant funds a demonstration project, it produces promising results, the funding ends, and the project quietly disappears. The communities it served are left with nothing, and the learnings rarely translate into anything lasting.
In my view, three things separate models that genuinely scale from those that don't.
The first is whether the end beneficiary sees enough value to continue without external push. If a farmer needs to be continuously nudged to use a technology, the value proposition is broken. At Sistema.bio, we focus on farm level economics precisely because that is the only foundation that holds at scale.
The second is service infrastructure. Most pilots underinvest in what happens after installation. A biodigester that breaks down and cannot be repaired becomes evidence against the technology, not for it. We have built field offices, service networks and dedicated customer support across India because you cannot scale from a head office.
The third is financial sustainability of the implementing organisation itself. Impact without institutional durability remains a case study, not a model. Blended finance models that combine government support, corporate partnerships and carbon finance are what allow organisations like ours to operate at scale without being entirely dependent on philanthropic cycles.
Q. Sistema.bio works with corporates, dairy cooperatives, governments, and development organisations. What makes a climate partnership truly effective on the ground?
A. Most partnerships fail not because of bad intentions but because each partner is optimising for a different outcome. A corporation wants verified emissions reductions for their ESG reporting. Governments want installation numbers. A development organisation wants beneficiary stories. And the farmer wants a reliable system that saves them money. When these aren't explicitly aligned at the outset, they create friction at every stage of implementation.
The partnerships that work share a few consistent characteristics. First, a long term commitment. Biogas adoption at the community level takes time and partners who come in with one year project cycles rarely see meaningful outcomes. Second, a willingness to invest in the last mile, not just the technology. Awareness, training, after sales service and financing support for farmers are where impact is actually delivered or lost.
Dairy cooperatives represent a particularly natural fit because the alignment is built in. They already have farmer relationships, distribution infrastructure and a direct stake in the health and productivity of their member farmers. When a cooperative sees biogas as both a sustainability commitment and a farmer retention tool, the incentives across the partnership are already pointing in the same direction.
Ultimately what makes a climate partnership effective on the ground is shared accountability for what happens at the farm level. Not at the reporting level, but at the farm level.
Q. There is increasing scrutiny around the credibility of carbon credits globally. What steps are necessary to make carbon financing more transparent and inclusive? What steps are you taking?
A. The scrutiny is warranted and in my view it is a healthy correction. Carbon markets grew rapidly on the back of methodologies that were often more theoretical than empirical, and the gap between claimed and actual impact has rightfully drawn criticism. The market needed this moment of reckoning to mature.
The steps needed are fairly clear. First, a fundamental shift from modelled to measured outcomes. The technology exists today to monitor and verify emissions reductions at the source in real time. There is no longer a strong justification for relying on default emission factors and desktop calculations when actual measurement is increasingly accessible and affordable.
Second, benefit sharing needs to become a standard requirement rather than a voluntary commitment. The communities generating emissions reductions have historically received a fraction of the value created. That is both inequitable and counterproductive, because it removes the farmer's incentive to maintain and advocate for the intervention.
At Sistema.bio, we are building toward both of these standards. Our biodigesters are equipped with IoT based monitoring that tracks plant performance in real time, allowing us to move from modelled estimates to verified measurements of methane abatement. On benefit sharing, our model is designed so that the farmer is the primary beneficiary through energy and fertilizer savings. Transparency and farmer benefits are not aspirations for us. They are the foundation on which our carbon programme is built.
Q. What role do you believe rural communities and smallholder farmers will play in shaping India's long-term climate transition and net-zero journey?
A. A central one, and I say that not as an aspiration but as a structural reality. India's net-zero pathway runs directly through its rural heartland. Agriculture accounts for roughly 14% of India's greenhouse gas emissions, and the land, water, livestock and biomass resources that farming communities manage are essential to any credible national mitigation or sequestration strategy.
But beyond the numbers, there is a question of agency. Rural communities are already living the consequences of climate change, erratic monsoons, soil degradation, heat stress on crops and livestock. They understand climate risk intimately, even if they don't use that language. What they need is to be brought into the solution as active participants, not passive beneficiaries of urban designed interventions.
India has over 536 million bovine animals and 80 million smallholder farmers. It has an agricultural workforce that is deeply connected to the land and has managed natural resources across generations. That is not a liability in the climate transition. That is an asset of extraordinary scale if the right enabling conditions, financing mechanisms and policy frameworks are put in place.
At Sistema.bio, our belief is simple. When a smallholder farmer in rural India can earn income from methane mitigation, produce organic fertilizer that rebuilds her soil, and access clean cooking fuel, that is not just a climate outcome. That is the foundation of a just and resilient India. And that is the transition worth building.
x
.jpg)
