28-29 march 2018 bees for development monmouth...let’s talk about bee health instead. dr. nicola...

Symposium on Research in Beekeeping and Sustainable

Development

Bees for Development Monmouth

28-29 March 2018

Global Development DivisionUniversity of Reading

Symposium on Research in Beekeeping and Sustainable Development

PROGRAMME

Day 1 Wednesday 28 March 2018

Session Time Format Main topic / topics Main speaker or session leader

10.00 Welcome

1 10.15 Keynote

presentations

Beekeeping and the sustainable development goals Dr. Nicola Bradbear, Bees for Development

Dr. Eleanor Fisher, University of Reading

11.15 Coffee

2 11.30 Short talks Beyond projects – building a national beekeeping industry in Uganda Mr. Dickson Biryomumaisho, The Uganda National

Apiculture Development Organisation

Adoption and impacts of beekeeping: A case study of three smallholder farming

communities in Baringo County, Kenya

Mr. Renaud Heckle, University of Aberdeen

Sticky business - why do beekeepers keep bees and what determines their

success in sub-Saharan Africa?

Ms. Kata Wagner, Bangor University

Obstacles and successes in beekeeping extension – 30 years’ experience Mr. Ole Hertz, Danish Beekeepers Federation

Question and answer Dr. Eleanor Fisher, University of Reading

12.50 Lunch

3 13.50 Best practice in maximising impact of beekeeping development Mr. Richard Ridler, Bees Abroad

Beekeeping enterprise and poverty alleviation in Tanzania Mr. George Williams, Traidcraft

How local environmental knowledge of beekeepers informs environmental

sustainability

Ms. Siobhan Maderson, Aberystwyth University

A New Hope: Training beekeepers to improve honey production in Angola Ms. Marisa Rodrigues, São Paulo State University

Question and answer Dr. Eleanor Fisher, University of Reading

15.40 Tea-break

4 16.00 Keynote

presentation

Healthy bees and vital colonies by natural beekeeping Dr. Wolfgang Ritter

World Organisation for Animal Health

16.30 Workshop –

discussion

Let’s not talk about hive types! Let’s talk about bee health instead. Dr. Nicola Bradbear, Bees for Development

Day 2 Thursday 29 March 2018 Session Time Format Main topic Main speaker or session leader

5 9.30 Keynote

presentation

Action research in the honey forests of SW Ethiopia. Professor Adrian Wood, University of

Huddersfield

Keynote

presentation

How honey trade supports forest conservation in Zambia and Ethiopia Ms. Janet Lowore, Bees for Development

10.30 Coffee break

6 10.45 Keynote

presentation

25 years of marketing African honey in the UK Mr. David Wainwright, Tropical Forest Products

Short talks Beekeeping and forest conservation in DRC Ms. Sarah Belalia, ULB-Cooperation

Beekeeping supports poverty reduction and livelihoods in India Dhara Patel and Debika Chatterjee, Under The

Mango Tree

Socio-economic impact of organic honey production in Mwingi, Kenya Mr. Peter Muzinguzi, University of Copenhagen

12.15 Workshop –

discuss key

question

Supporting honey and beeswax trade: a job for development workers or leave

it to the private sector?

Ms. Janet Lowore, Bees for Development

12.50 Lunch

7 13.50 Keynote

presentation

The pollination benefits of integrating beekeeping into cashew farms in Benin,

Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire

Dr. Kwame Aidoo, Bees for Development Ghana

Short talks Pollinators, poverty alleviation and international development Mr. Tom Timberlake, University of Bristol

Conservation, livelihoods and stingless bees in Costa Rica Ms. Jenna Griffiths, Imperial College London.

15.00

8 15.15 Workshop –

discuss key

questions

How can beekeepers support and benefit from investments in agro-ecology? Dr. Monica Barlow, Bees for Development

9 15.45 Discussion

and workshop

conclusion

Research priorities and actions for Beekeeping and Sustainable Development Panel

Keynote presentations will have 30 minutes, to include at least 5 minutes for questions. For those selected to give a Short talk, you will have 20 minutes, to include at least 5 minutes for questions.

2Bees for Development

Adoption and impacts of beekeeping: A case study of three smallholder farming communities in Baringo County, Kenya Renaud Hecklé, Centre for Global Development, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK [email protected] Kenya, beekeeping offers various benefits which could make it attractive to smallholder farmers as a possible strategy for making their livelihoods more sustainable. However, beekeeping’s potential remains largely unexploited and the lack of new entrants is thought to be one key reason for a decline in beekeeping. This study examines the pathways to the adoption of beekeeping and the livelihoods impacts on smallholder farming households in Baringo County, Kenya with a focus on three smallholder farming communities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 90 informants in these communities, including 41 new beekeepers, 21 non-adopters, 13 group leaders, 10 village elders and 5 teenagers. In addition, 28 key stakeholders at national and local levels were approached. The findings show that in high traditional beekeeping areas apprenticeship pathway is predominant, while in low traditional beekeeping areas most of the beekeepers follow the traineeship pathway. Beekeeping adoption has various positive impacts on the livelihoods of small-holder farming households. In all regions, beekeeping adoption helped smallholder farmers to increase their household cash flows from honey selling. It also helped producers to meet their basic needs, develop their social networks and self-esteem and, reduce destructive coping strategies (e.g. school drop-out and selling livestock under unfavourable market conditions). The highest benefits were observed among women, beekeepers coming from the apprenticeship pathway and smallholder farming households in agro-pastoral zone. However, adoption of movable comb and frame hives increased financial risks in the short term for resource poor households and their dependence on outsiders (e.g. development organisations and honey packers). The findings suggest that to increase the uptake and the benefits of beekeeping for smallholder farmers the following should be considered: a) increasing awareness and knowledge in all locations but particularly in the low traditional beekeeping areas; b) improving access to low cost harvesting tools (e.g. smokers and protective clothing) and to movable comb or frame hives, especially for young people and women; and c) supporting local social networks, particularly community-based organisations. Keywords: Kenya, beekeeping adoption, livelihood impacts, qualitative methods, sustainable livelihoods framework


Sticky business - why do beekeepers keep bees and what determines their success in sub-Saharan Africa?Kata Wagnerab*, Henrik Meilbyb, Paul Crossa

a School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, LL57 2UW, Gwynedd, UK.b University of Copenhagen, Department of Food Resource Economics, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, DK*Contact details of corresponding author: [email protected] is considered a sustainable development activity as its capacity to generate income is thought to incentivise natural habitat conservation. However, the estimated potential for the apiculture sector in Africa is unmet, partly due to a lack of training in appropriate beekeeping techniques. Most beekeeping interventions in sub-Saharan Africa comprise some form of training. However, attrition of participants following project implementation is substantial. There is little evidence to suggest that beekeeping interventions target the most suitable beneficiaries, or that training length and content are adequate to sustainably promote beekeeping. For the first time to our knowledge, this study identified key drivers influencing beekeeping uptake, household dependence on beekeeping for subsistence and cash, and success as a beekeeper in rural East Africa. All these criteria may be critical to the design of future beekeeping development programmes. We applied a mixed methods approach to characterise beekeeping adopters and non-adopters in four case-study communities in central Tanzania to identify groups more likely to incorporate beekeeping into their livelihood activities. We also assessed whether the type and quantity of external assistance appeared to influence beekeeping success. Our results identified income and food provision as the main drivers for beekeeping adoption, but the effects of these were moderated by the respondents’ cultural background and the perceived human health risks posed by African bees. We also found that land ownership, technical knowledge, initial capital inputs and hive theft were important constraints to adopting or continuing beekeeping. We recommend that planners of beekeeping projects consider respondents’ land access and tenure as an integral component of participant recruitment. We argue that if organisations continue to ignore the issue of theft, they risk undermining their own project outcomes and failing to augment recruits to their programmes. We also propose that beekeeping training as currently provided by most of the development agencies is inadequate to address the technical capacity requirements of local beekeepers, particularly in the context of the challenges presented by changing weather patterns. We lastly suggest that the requirement to form associations to access project benefits creates divisions in communities and recommend handling this issue with more care. Keywords: Honey, alternative livelihood projects, rural development, capacity building, beneficiary selection, producer organisations


Experiences from 30 years of Danish beekeeping projects in the tropicsOle Hertz, Danish Beekeepers Federation and Trustee of Bees for [email protected] beekeepers have worked with beekeeping extension in several countries.Most projects have been NGO projects where Danish Beekeepers Association have cooperated with local beekeepers’ associations, supported by the Danish Government.In three projects Bees for Development has cooperated.The main purpose has been to help poorest people in the countryside to create new independent income generating jobs from beekeeping by means of local equipment and local instructors.In Africa, traditional beekeeping and honey hunting most often result in killing the bees.Because the population is fast growing, the need for pollination of many crops is growing and that makes sustainable beekeeping very important.The lecture paper deals with the obstacles and problems in beekeeping extension, but it also deals with some succesfull stories.One lesson learned is that the need for beekeeping education and greater awareness of the pollination value of bees are probably the most secure and cheapest way of improving the livelihood of the African smalholders.Beekeeping in the Gambia will be used as a case study.


Best practice in maximising impact of beekeeping development Richard Ridler, Bees [email protected] Abroad is a UK charity whose sole purpose is the relief of poverty through beekeeping. With our local trainers we have delivered over 50 projects in 15 countries establishing sustainable social enterprises based on the production and sale of hive products. We have 20 expert volunteer beekeepers working as project managers. We choose beekeeping because we understand it and have proven its impact on poverty. Most of our projects are modest, involving single community groups. We do have some bigger groups of communities and our largest, £350k, project for DIFID was awarded an A+ for its management.

We work in a narrow field. We learn from each other but observe too many failures elsewhere. We are practitioners willing to learn from researchers.

Our current view of best practice is based on learning from our own projects, Lessons from the Field by Carroll et al and the book African Friends and Money Matters by David Maranz.Our view of best practice in maximising our impact is to:

1. Only use skilled and experienced project managers.2. Carry out face to face pre-project assessments.3. Plan and work co-operatively with our beneficiaries taking into account cultural differences

in attitude.4. Build personal relationships based on cultural understanding.5. Use and develop existing local delivery capacity.6. Set targets and measure outputs and outcomes.7. Prioritise training and support. 8. Allocate responsibility to individuals rather than groups.9. Ensure sustainability.10. Avoid loans.11. Actively dissuade from the use of framed hives (in Africa).12. Only do beekeeping and derivative projects.

For the future we:

• Believe all non-beekeeping specific charities who choose to involve themselves in bee-keeping should take specialist advice or help. We specialists should together address the issue.

• Would advocate that detailed case studies and a guidance manual for those responsible for delivering projects be produced. This must include a section on understanding culture and attitudes to money.

• Believe that the economic case for beekeeping versus other forms of subsistence farming needs to be researched and documented.


Beekeeping enterprise and poverty alleviation in Tanzania George Williams, Traidecraft [email protected] 2013 Traidcraft Exchange (the sister NGO of Traidcraft plc the Fair Trade company) initiated a three year programme of work with beekeepers in Tanzania. We worked with over 3,000 beekeepers in the Tabora and Rufiji regions of the country. The programme supported beekeepers to organise into groups and linked these groups to associations to enable collective working and to strengthen bargaining power. Improved apiculture practices were imparted via trained service providers from within the groups. Beekeepers reported impressive improvements in production volumes and incomes earned through marketing honey. In addition, collective working enabled beekeepers to obtain higher prices. Beekeepers were able to store a proportion of their honey immediately after harvest when the market was flooded and prices were lowest – waiting for prices to rise before approaching buyers. It was expected that collective working would enable beekeepers to bulk their honey and engage collectively with larger buyers, thereby strengthening market access and improving incomes. However, this was not achieved during the programme: our understanding is that this is largely due to a continued trust deficit, despite the success of groups and associations in other areas. As in all Traidcraft Exchange’s programmes, women’s economic empowerment was a key component of the work. Some encouraging results were achieved in relation to women’s improved status within communities as they took on leadership roles within groups and became recognised locally as beekeeping experts. Despite increases in women’s incomes as a result of their participation in the programme, average increases were not as large as those experienced by men. In part this appears to be due to social norms around certain key beekeeping tasks and mobility, which mean women incur higher production costs as they are expected to pay others to perform key services. Despite these challenges, the positive impact of the programme has been encouraging, during the independent evaluation of the work one beekeeper noted: “Income generated from beekeeping has helped me to buy school uniform and pay school fees for my children. My children and those of my fellow beekeepers no longer walk bare footed.”


Engaging with Beekeepers’ Local Environmental Knowledge to Enhance Environmental SustainabilityitySiobhan Maderson, Aberystwyth [email protected] and other pollinators play a key role in food security, and biodiversity conservation. In recent years, scientific and media attention have increasingly addressed global pollinator decline. Multiple national policy responses have specifically noted the importance of engaging with beekeepers to monitor and ensure the health and wellbeing of bees. My current PhD research has used interviews and archival analysis to investigate the environmental knowledge of long-term UK beekeepers, and their experience and perspective on scientific research and policy responses to pollinator decline. These long-term beekeepers have high levels of environmental knowledge, particularly in relation to phenological patterns and changes, as well as agricultural and land use patterns, and how these impact bees. Many beekeepers hold high levels of observational data on the local environment and microclimates in which they keep their bees. This information is central to managing their beekeeping practice. The qualities associated with successful beekeeping are also associated with strong ecological awareness. Beekeepers’ tacit Local Environmental Knowledge (LEK) holds the potential to supplement scientific research, and contribute to Multiple Evidence Bases (MEB). At times, beekeepers’ knowledge may contradict or precede formal scientific recognition of various environmental factors. Evidence Based Policy Making often precludes knowledge and evidence that does not conform to standard scientific protocol. Fully engaging with diverse forms of knowledge holds the potential for more effective and sustainable environmental management.


A New Hope: Training traditional beekeepers to improve honey production in AngolaMarisa Clemente Rodrigues, São Paulo State University, BrazilSupported by Jardins da Yoba [email protected] 1975 to 2002, Angola endured a bloody civil war that depleted many of its natural resources. In this period, the implementation of new technology and practices stopped, which majorly impacted agriculture, leading to a scarcity of food in an already vulnerable population. Since then, Angola has been in dire need of programs that promote the improvement of quality and quantity of basic food items, such as honey. Although its production is widespread in Angola, the vast majority of beekeepers use traditional bark hives and rudimentary methods and equipment, which prevent them from attaining good-quality products and consequently high economic yields. By promoting these farming systems, the whole community can benefit from more and better food and from the additional circulation of resources and money. That is what our project aims to do. One of the main issues is that, in Angola, people burn trees with bee colonies if they are near houses and traditional beekeepers cut down trees to make traditional beehives or burn them to make charcoal. To solve this, we started a training program for all the local people who had interest in beekeeping. Then we started capturing swarms around villages (which would otherwise be burned) and putting them into Langstroth hives (which have a longer lifespan). The population started to see an increase in total honey harvested in this kind of hive compared to traditional bark beehives. This resulted in: (i) an increase in honey quality by using modern beehives, people can now harvest pure honey and use it as food instead of making alcoholic drinks (that happened because they were not collecting matured honey); (ii) a greater value of the kilogram of honey compared to a kg of charcoal - this promoted beekeeping while stopping burning/cutting down trees; (iii) other by-products can be easily collected, i.e. propolis and wax - which can be an additional source of income or be used for their health benefits.Keywords: Angola, development, honey harvest, wild swarms, bark hives, traditional beekeeping.


Healthy Bees and Vital Colonies by Natural BeekeepingDr. Wolfgang Ritter, BEES for the World, Freiburg, Germany, [email protected]. comBees are getting more and more distressed. New pathogens, the environment with its impoverished landscape and the increasing application of pesticides could already be identified as reasons. But the beekeeper as well should reflect if his own method of beekeeping is still natural or if it has been developing already towards intensive or even industrialized beekeeping. Though nobody is willing or is in a position to turn back the hands of time, we have to critically review the one or other management method. By comparing the life of a wild bee colony with one’s own way of beekeeping, it is obvious in which respect the bees’ requirements are not met at all or even can’t be met.Bees build their nest in tree holes. Apart from its location and micro-climate, a swarm pays special attention to the size. It should not be too small and not too big as well. A beekeeper mainly focusses on simple handling and best honey yield prospects. With this in mind, exaggerations occur, mainly massaging his ego than being in favour of the bees. The wild bees’ choice of a nesting hole also meets their desire of swarming. Swarming means to multiply. This is indispensable for their survival. A beekeeper is not at all keen on bee swarming, because the implicated loss of bees in the mother colony automatically means a decrease in honey yield. Swarms, however, are healthier and more vital, because the bees had got rid of brood and combs and are therefore ready for a new beginning. In the mother colony left, the new queen also provokes a new impetus. In the end, the forced interruption of breeding results in a considerably reduced development of Varroa. In natural beekeeping, you have to find a compromise favourable for both parties: the bees and the beekeeper.


Action Research in the Honey Forests of South-west EthiopiaProfessor Adrian Wood, University of [email protected] This presentation reviews experience with action research in the high altitude, “honey” forests of South-west Ethiopia. It starts with a review of how action research is understood in different ways and then explains how the activities in a project on NTFPs and forest management came to be described as action research. This relates to academic expectations and the need to respond to community expressed needs, as well as balancing the requirements of an NGO style development project with university management expectations.

The main body of the presentation focuses on the different aspects of production, trade and forest management relating to non-timber forest products, especially honey, which were of concern to this project and how the “action research” developed, as well as some of the results achieved.

The concluding discussion explores the importance of taking an action research approach and the recognition of this as a valid approach for project design and management. Some strengths and weaknesses of this approach in general are presented for wider consideration.


Understanding the livelihood implications of reliable honey trade in Miombo woodlands in ZambiaJanet Lowore, Bees for Development, 1 Agincourt Street, Monmouth, NP25 5RT, [email protected] some of Africa’s forests a natural endowment of floral resources and honey bee populations, have given rise to significant beekeeping activity. One such area is Mwinilunga, in the North-West Province of Zambia. The scale of this economic activity is influenced by the strength of beekeepers’ links to market. In recent decades, the demand for organic-certified bee products has created export potential and a private honey buying company started buying honey from Mwinilunga in 1996. By 2004 Forest Fruits Ltd had obtained organic certification and by 2016 the company was buying close to 1000 tonnes of honey a year, from 3000 registered beekeeper-suppliers. The importance of this growing honey trade for the local population has been acknowledged, but not explored in depth. A field study was carried out in two three-week periods in 2015 and 2016. The work involved informal interviews and focus group discussions with beekeepers. A questionnaire survey was conducted with 138 beekeepers, and 68 non-beekeepers in four sites. The purpose was two-fold: to understand the livelihood implications of income from honey and to explore how the honey economy influences the relationship between beekeepers and forest. The results show that the reliability of the market and rising honey prices have increased the attractiveness of forest beekeeping. Income earned is invested in education, in farming and as capital for other enterprises. Honey is often considered ‘the mother’ of other activities because no financial capital is required to generate this income. Although the forest is a common-property resource, beekeepers negotiate de facto rights to hive sites, and protect these sites from fire. The low productivity of Miombo woodland and soils do not offer a clear pathway out of poverty for the many millions of poor people who live in the Miombo zone. This study demonstrates that where honey and beeswax trade is developed and dependable, forest beekeeping is becoming more attractive as an economic activity. Beekeepers are able to use the natural resources available, bees and tree nectar, to finance their varied and pressing livelihood needs in multiple ways.Keywords: Miombo, honey, trade, livelihoods, forest


Beekeeping projects under the SYNAPIC network, ULB-Cooperation (DGD co-financing)Sarah Belalia, ULB-Cooperation [email protected]@ulb-cooperation.orgThe SYNAPIC network encompasses projects that revolve around the development of apicultural initiatives as income-generating activities – complementary to agriculture and agroforestry, or as an alternative to the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, and particularly forests.Beekeeping and the conservation of forest resources :In addition to being a worldwide biodiversity hotspot and possessing exceptional ecological value (with 415 species of mammals and 11,000 species of plants), DRC’s forests also play a crucial role in the regulation of our planet’s climate. They constitute the fourth largest forest carbon reservoir in the world, and thus store more than 8% of global carbon. The conservation of these forest resources is a complex subject, as the protected status of these areas may be considered by neighbouring populations as a loss of profit. The objective, for ULB-Cooperation NGO and its partners, is to encourage communities living around the reserves to adopt sustainable and eco-friendly income-generating practices - which can fit the conservation policies of the region.Around the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve of Luki, more than 200 beekeepers have been trained, reinforced and accompanied in the professionalisation of their activity. 1250 hives were set up in individual or community apiaries and school-apiaries. Reforestation actions and maintenance of the “melliferous potential” of the surrounding vegetation is essential for a good production of honey, thus naturally contributing to the preservation of natural resources.Some of the beehives have also been installed in the buffer zone of the reserve, where their educational value is welcomed by the management committee of the reserve.Reforestation, carbon sinks and agroforestryThrough its support to partners in Kisantu and on the Bateke plateau, ULB-cooperation NGO also aims to develop apiculture as a complementary activity for farmers, in highly pressured environments.In these severely degraded lands, “slash-and-burn” cultivation is widespread. Unsurprisingly, this practice, coupled with increasing anthropic pressure on land, contributes significantly to deforestation and the loss of arable land.Agroforestry and beekeeping can help to reverse this vicious circle and diversify the incomes of the communities, while managing their land sustainably: diversified yields thanks to the plantation of high added-value trees (fruit trees, fodder, melliferous and fertilizing trees), increased crop pollination thanks to the bees, soil preservation through agroforestry, etc.The “melliferous forests” that are planted in the region are also playing a role of “carbon sink”, with high sequestration capacity for atmospheric CO2. The fruit trees and acacia planted around Ibi, in the Bateke plateau, will allow to fix up to nearly 1400 T of CO2 eq.!Keywords: Beekeeping; community development; forest conservation; agroforestry; income-generating activities; melliferous forest; carbon sink


The Role of the Beekeeping Ecosystem in poverty reduction and increasing livelihoodsDhara Patel and Debika Chatterjee, Under the Mango [email protected]@underthemangotree.orgFounded in 2009, Under The Mango Tree (UTMT) Society, promotes beekeeping with the indigenous bee Apis cerana indica to increase agricultural productivity, enhance incomes and improve livelihoods of marginal farmers in India. UTMT trains subsistence farmers in beekeeping and provides them with bee boxes which can be placed on/near their farms, hence directly impacting their crop yield by increasing pollination. While smallholders are the main beneficiaries of this programme, the entire village cluster gains something from the Bees for Poverty Reduction programme. By promoting beekeeping, UTMT actually builds a “beekeeping ecosystem” of micro enterprises aimed at supporting the activity. For a cluster of 50 villages with approximately 500 farmers, and 1000 bee boxes, another 100-150 individuals benefit by getting additional livelihood opportunities. 1. Master Trainers, Senior Master Trainers, and Technical Assistants - They are local farmers who with advanced training are responsible for sustaining the activity in the long term by looking after the farmer’s bee boxes. 2. Pollination Service Providers - Some farmers rent out their active bee boxes to bigger farmers for few months, and in return they get paid in cash or through crop-produce. 3. Natural colony spotters / Traditional honey hunters, who spot bee-colonies in the wild, which are then transferred to bee boxes. 4. Bee colony transfer experts, who transfer bees from the wild into bee boxes through Natural Colony Transfers. 5. Colony-rearers, those who multiply bee colonies during bees’ growth season. 6. Carpenters who make bee boxes. 7. Women’s Self Help Groups, who tailor beekeeping inputs like swarm bags and bee veils. 8. Honey and wax supply chain operators, who collect wax and honey from farmers and dispatch them to the buyer elsewhere. 9. Self Help Groups, to propagate local bee friendly flora like drumstick and lemon through nurseries.

Our presentation will provide an overview of the beekeeping ecosystem and how UTMT is striving to build a self-sustaining economy revolving around beekeeping, in village clusters. Through videos, photographs and slides we will discuss the livelihood opportunities created by beekeeping, nature of the activities involved, income generated from them and why this can be such a useful way to reduce poverty for smallholders. Keywords: Beekeeping ecosystem, self-sustaining, livelihood, smallholders, indigenous bees, pollination


Livelihoods-conservation initiatives. Evidence of socio-economic impacts from organic honey production in Mwingi, Eastern Kenya. Peter Musinguzi 1,2*, Aske Skovmand Bosselmann 2, Mariève Pouliot 2 1 Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 2 University of Copenhagen, Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frb. C, Denmark *Contact details of corresponding author: [email protected] initiatives with a double objective of improving rural livelihoods and conserving forest resources face the challenge of balancing the two objectives without creating trade-offs. This study investigates the socio-economic performance of a community-based initiative that uses cooperative-driven organic certification of honey producers in Mwingi, Eastern Kenya, to improve livelihoods and acacia woodland management. Data were collected through a household survey of 303 beekeepers from 38 were organic certified and 16 non-certified beekeeper groups. Data were collected using key informant interviews, informal conversations, participant observation, participatory rural appraisal, internal document reviews and secondary data. The survey included questions regarding their livelihood activities, organisation involvement, quantity of honey produced and sold, net honey income and welfare perceptions after certification (2015) and before certification (2008), retrospectively. The results showed minimal to no significant impacts of certification on household incomes, honey quantity or sales prices, as the general development, though positive, followed that of the non-certified households. The lack of impact stemmed from failure to monitor and provide technical backstopping of certified beekeepers, a poor cooperative management and mistrust among the members and the cooperative board. The board mainly bought honey from a non-certified middleman thereby undermining the organic cooperative’s values as well as their own potential niche market. On a positive note, the cooperative’s honey market place, receiving customers from afar, has the potential to support the development of a niche organic market outlet. However, this require reconnection of the cooperative to its members, trust rebuilding and transparent management of the cooperative. The study exemplified a case of community-based livelihoods-conservation initiative which did not take local community capacity development and more general long-term project sustainability into consideration. Keywords: Community based livelihood-conservation initiatives, farmer cooperatives, organic certification, organic honey, rural livelihoods.


The economic benefits of integrating beekeeping into cashew farms in Benin, Ghana and Cote d’ivoire AIDOO Kwame Sarkwah1; WEIDINGER Rita2; ADZANYO Mary2; TERAH De Jong3 & OUATTARA, Mariam Gnire4,1 Bees for development Ghana2 ComCashew, Accra Ghana3 DPDDA II, USAID, Cote d’Ivoire, (terah.dejong2pradd2.org)4 Conseil Coton Anacarde, Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire [email protected]@[email protected]@conseilcotonanacarde.ciPollination is critical in cashew production and many scientific studies have shown that low yields of cashew farms are as a result of under pollination of flowers. The study investigated the benefits of increased pollination on cashew nut yields in Benin and Ghana (2012-2013) and in Cote d’Ivoire (2016-2017). In Benin and Ghana two cashew farms with similar characteristics and spaced over 3 km apart were selected. A 1-ha plot with 70 cashew trees were marked with 2 established Apis mellifera adansonii colonies. Seventy (70) trees were also marked on a control plot without honey bees. Four replicates were set up at different locations in each of the two countries. Weekly records of colony weight and total nut yield per experimental plots were taken. Honey, beeswax and propolis were harvested, weighed and recorded per colony. In Cote d’Ivoire, 15 treatment farms were paired with farms of similar characteristics in 3 locations. The 30 farms were marked, and sizes recorded. Six (6) bee colonies were installed on each of the 15 farms, and 3 hives were put under weighing scales in June/July 2016. Raw cashew nut (RCN) yields on all 30 farms were recorded at 2-week intervals. Honey, beeswax and propolis were harvested in March, 2017 and yields/hive recorded. Improved pollination on plots increased nut yields by 116.7 % in Ghana and 212.5 % in Benin. A mean value of 20.7 kg of honey, 1.4 kg beeswax and 0.37 kg propolis valued at US$ 208.53 was produced per colony in Ghana. In Benin 27.48 kg honey, 1.84 kg beeswax and 0.5 kg propolis were valued at US$ 134.44. Total annual income of cashew farms with honey bees was US$ 591.74/ha/yr in Ghana and US$ 575.96 in Benin. In Cote d’Ivoire, a mean of 11.32 % production increase occurred on farms with bees. A mean 15.7 kg of honey, 0.30 kg beeswax and 32 g propolis valued at US$ 112.5 was obtained per colony on cashew farms. Total annual income of a cashew farm integrated with bee colonies in Cote d’Ivoire was US$ 481.55/ha/yr.Keywords: Cashew, pollination, honey bees, integration


Pollination and International DevelopmentWhat do we know, what are the challenges and what more can we do?Thomas Timberlake 1, 2 and Vicky Morgan 31 School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol Life Sciences Building, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK2 UK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS), c/o Wellcome Trust, Gibbs Building, 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE3 JNCC, Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough, PE1 [email protected] While pollinator declines and their impacts on agriculture and natural ecosystems have received a great deal of attention in developed parts of the world such as Europe and North America, these issues are much less studied in developing countries, particularly across Africa. However, there is reason to believe the consequences of pollinator decline could be at least as detrimental to economies, ecosystems and communities in these regions.Pollinator declines have the potential to negatively affect communities in developing countries in a variety of ways, from reducing crop yields and value of crop products, to increasing the volatility of food prices, reducing access to micronutrient supplies and threatening income from honey production. Existing research into these issues have the potential to inform international development work. However, for optimum impact, different academic disciplines and institutes should work together to identify research needs and opportunities for collaboration and capacity building. It is also important that this information should reach the relevant stakeholders – farmers, extension workers, beekeepers and policy-makers - in an accessible format. The UK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS) is a group of 14 UK government departments and research funders working in international development. By stimulating collaboration, UKCDS ensures the best science is funded and used to benefit international development. In line with these aims, we highlight what is known and what is yet to be discovered and implemented in the field of pollination science, with relevance to international development. We identify research that can contribute to optimal development outcomes, including progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals. As a collaborative of UK government departments and research funders, we focus particularly on opportunities for the UK research and funding community to contribute to these efforts.Keywords: Pollination, development, collaboration, agriculture, human health, crop yields

17

Bees for Development

1 Agincourt Street, Monmouth, NP25 3DZ, UKTel: +44 (0)1600 [email protected]

UK Charity 1078803

28-29 march 2018 bees for development monmouth...let’s talk about bee health instead. dr. nicola...

Documents