Blended Finance Can Drive Early-stage Bioenergy Projects: Gaurav Kedia, Organiser, BBB, Summit & Chairman, IBA

In an exclusive interview with ResponsibleUs, Gaurav Kedia, Organiser of the BBB (Bioenergy, Biofuels, Biomaterials) Summit and Chairman of IBA, spoke about the multifaceted benefits of bioenergy. During the summit, in his address, he explained how bioenergy doesn’t just provide energy. When it’s solid, you get carbon; when it’s liquid, like biodiesel, you get glycerin; and with biogas, you get fertilizer. So, you get biomaterials along with energy.

Interview exerpts:

As India accelerates its bioethanol blending and biomass substitution initiatives, what targeted policy incentives can strengthen the biofuel supply chain, making it more accessible, efficient, and cost-effective?
When we talk about policy, it's essentially a form of push. You can have multiple types of push—policy, financial incentives or even technology. The more, the better. That goes without saying.

For example, the central government provides a subsidy for bio-CNG plants. If you go to Uttar Pradesh, the state offers an additional subsidy. Normally, you expect just one subsidy, but here you get two. So, if the central government gives Rs 4 crore for a 5-tonne-per-day CBG plant, the state gives an additional Rs 3.75 crore—taking the total to Rs 7.75 crore.

This model of providing extra state-level incentives can be replicated elsewhere. But we shouldn’t only focus on push—there also needs to be pull from the market.

That said, financial incentives are important, but what’s even more critical is a single-window clearance system. We need a streamlined process for implementing such policies.

Today, setting up a CBG plant requires multiple clearances—from pollution control boards, the explosives department, central and state authorities, and sometimes even NOCs from the gram panchayat (if the location is rural). The number of approvals is overwhelming. What’s truly needed is a single-window clearance system. Without it, mid-sized investors often get stuck or discouraged

Given the high initial investment costs, which hinder the adoption of bioenergy plants and advanced equipment, what financial mechanisms—such as subsidies focused on technical aspects rather than discipline, tax relief, or innovative financial models—can help lower the entry barriers for bioenergy?
More funding means better plant payback. Easier or lower-interest finance improves profitability and can push the sector forward. But what I feel is missing right now is blended finance—a concept the whole world is talking about.

Blended finance combines public and private capital into a single fund. In simple terms, imagine five people: one wants strong financial returns, another is a philanthropist who’s fine with just getting their money back, and another wants to fund projects that deliver environmental or social impact. By pooling these different motivations into a single fund, we can finance early-stage projects more effectively.

This approach could be a game-changer. The government could also play a role—through CSR funding, subsidies, or soft loans. If we could blend these into a structured fund, especially for the first 100 pilot projects or clusters, we could demonstrate clear, measurable impact.

Right now, efforts are scattered—some projects in the South, some in the North—with little coordination. Bioenergy is deeply local, and social context matters. The mindset in Delhi is different from that in Punjab or the southern states, especially when it comes to feedstock access.

Beyond traditional supports like subsidies and bank loans, in my view, blended finance is the crucial missing piece. If the government supports it, this could be a win-win for all stakeholders—environmentally, socially, and economically. From Net Zero goals to Viksit Bharat, this could be a key enabler.

An opinion piece from last month claimed that many European companies are dumping waste tyres in India. What is India doing about this? Why are we accepting these waste tyres?
When we do a SWOT analysis—Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats—we might initially put this in the “threat” bucket. But if we think about it from a layman’s perspective, I will consider this as an opportunity.

Let me explain why. Crude oil is converted into many products, including plastic. When we look at waste plastic, we can either view it as pollution or as crude in another form that can be reused.

Take tyres, for example. Pyrolysing tyres is quite simple. It produces pyrolysis gas, which can be used as fuel, along with light diesel oil (LDO), steel wires, and carbon, which can be further processed into activated carbon for uses like RO filters.

I prefer to treat waste tyres as raw materials rather than trash. It's not a dump; it's an opportunity, especially when viewed from a technical perspective. Historically, many conflicts, including the Iraq war, were about access to crude oil.

When I look at tyres or similar waste, I see raw material that, with proper environmental and social safeguards, can be converted into valuable products. Meanwhile, India continues to import large quantities of crude and LNG without much debate.

If we can valorise such waste as a local, cheaper alternative to crude and process it efficiently, why not?

How do social factors influence the success of projects aimed at agricultural waste management, and what role do intermediaries play in bridging the gap between farmers?
Almost every time we evaluate a project, we focus on its techno-commercial viability but overlook its techno-commercial-social viability. Many projects fail not because of technical or financial issues, but due to social disconnect.

As you said, farming is an interaction between humans and nature. Farmers think in terms of nature, tradition, and practices passed down through generations, not just economics.

India is a relationship-driven society and a cost-sensitive market. From a farmer’s point of view, they prefer hard cash, ideally daily. If asked to wait, they may agree temporarily, but the model will fail eventually.

That’s why we need village-level entrepreneurs or intermediaries—people who can communicate with farmers in a relatable way. If someone like me goes to a village in a suit and tie, speaking English, nothing will happen—no matter how good my intentions.

We need a symbiotic model—a structure where the relationship is mutual and respectful. The Hindi term for this is more powerful than the English one. It’s about coexisting, like how Amul succeeded through the cooperative model. The farmer may not earn a huge share, but they know they are part of the system, not exploited. That emotional assurance matters.

It’s easy today to confuse someone into thinking they're being cheated. The model must center on the farmer—creating a true win-win, not win-lose or lose-lose.

That’s my view: social modeling must be built in from the beginning, not as an afterthought.

Regarding your next point—yes, some companies are working on removing residue after harvesting. There are now companies that work like Uber for agricultural equipment. Farmers can hire machines for a specific time, and these companies collect and utilize the residue.

But it’s not easy. These services need to deploy a lot of machinery quickly, which is a logistical challenge. Still, some startups are emerging, and the government is trying to support them in various ways.

Let’s be honest: most farmers won’t buy these expensive machines. It’s easier and cheaper for them to burn the residue. Again, it comes down to understanding the farmer's mindset—not judging it. He will do what he knows best, what he trusts, and what fits his routine.

This is where the government’s role is crucial. They must look at the bigger picture—not just the immediate cost of machinery, but the long-term consequences. If they don’t act, burning residue leads to massive pollution, PM2.5 and PM10 particles, respiratory issues, and public health costs.

If the government does a proper cost-benefit analysis, comparing apples to apples, the price of machinery is negligible in the larger scheme. They should create structured support systems to absorb that cost—for everyone’s benefit.

[email protected]