Alleviating poverty through beekeeping: lessons from Zambia

Transcription

1 Alleviating poverty through beekeeping: lessons from Zambia Madeleen Husselman Fiona Paumgarten APIMONDIA, September 2009

2 Project background Introduction Research objectives Study sites Study methods Results Lessons and recommendations

3 Project background Center for International Forestry Research Funded by Sida July June 30 th 2009 Main implementing partner: Forestry Dept. Key research topics: incomes producers, value chains, collective action, forest management, production technologies Outputs: scientific papers, policy briefs, extension manual, local research & demonstration apiaries

4 Introduction: beekeeping in Zambia Conducive forest vegetation in most areas (Julbernardia and Brachystegia spp) Extensive support since colonial era (training and introduction of alternative technologies) Many beekeepers are members of groups and associations > beekeepers in the country High existing production: 700 metric tons exported Organic certification (NWP) Zambian Government has acknowledged the importance of the sector and initiated the development of a National Beekeeping Policy.

5 Research objectives To describe the prevalence and importance of beekeeping in different parts of Zambia To assess the influence of technology, value chains and processing on incomes for producers To come up with recommendations for beekeepers and support agencies

6 Study areas Salujinga Mwinilunga district Lunchu Kapiri Mposhi district Chinyunyu Chongwe district

7 Research methods Household and producer surveys 2007 Value chain analysis (producers, traders, processors, retailers, consumers, service providers) Hive trials 3 districts 15 beekeepers 5 hive types; 3 replications per beekeeper 12 months (June May 2009) Scenarios (labour cost, market prices, processing)

8 Results: BK in different areas Mwinilunga Kapiri Chongwe 48% of hh Traditional >13 years 29% of hh Traditional/ introduced 6-10 years <20% of hh Introduced 3-5 years 100% bark hives 71% log 33 mud (KTB) 59% bark 41% wood (KTB) Hives poor quality Scarcity of trees Bulk, export organic (and Fairtrade) Volume: 179kg Price:$0.45/kg liq. Income: $170/yr Termites/ red ants Lack of inputs Bulk, domestic and export ESA Volume: 37kg Price:$0.81/kg liq. Income: $93/yr Termites/ red ants Low yields Local retail (urban and rural) Volume: 16kg Price:$2.90/kg liq. Income: $47/yr

9 Results: Production technologies 1 120% 100% Occupation rates hive trails, early May % 60% 40% Kapiri Mwinilunga Chongwe 20% 0% Standard Adjusted Mud Bark Log TOTAL Area x occupied on 01/06/2009 Hive type x occupied on 01/06/2009 Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) a a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) a a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is

10 Results: Production technologies 2 Individual beekeeper x hives occupied on 01/06/2009 Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) a a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is Kapiri Chongwe Mwinilunga

11 Results: scenarios To determine the producer s profit margin when selling 200kg grade 1 comb honey, bulk in the village, depending on: Market prices (e.g. increased competition buyers) Labour costs (e.g. alternative income sources) Processed vs. non-processed Profit = (market price breakeven price) x total volume sold Breakeven price = (equipment costs + labor costs) / volume Labour costs = total time invested x local wage

12 Results: scenarios (average annual costs) Traditional bark hive system Adapted mud hive system Modern wooden hive system Occupation rate 33% 80% 80% Average Y/hive % grade 1 honey 7.40kg 80% 20kg 95% 20kg 95% Average lifespan 4 years 10 years 10 years Total hives needed Equipment (# x cost per unit)/ mean lifespan Veil, Knife Top bars, Swarm boxes Queen cage, Knife, Veil Hives, Swarm boxes Queen cage, Knife, Veil $2.17 $14.77 $58.77 Labour (annual) Making hives Making hives Baiting/ placing hives Baiting/ placing hives Inspections/ maintenance Harvesting Baiting/ placing hives Inspections/ maintenance (shelter) Transferring swarms Harvesting Inspections Transferring swarms Harvesting Time: 180 days/yr Time: 28 days/yr Time: 19 days/yr

13 Results: scenario 1 (market price) Pure profit (200kg comb honey) June 2009, Kapiri: 100% domestic June 2009, Kapiri: 100% domestic bark mud wood Oct. 2006, Mwin.: 60% export organic, 40% export Fairtrade Price per kg Oct. 2008, Mwin.: 70% export organic, 30% domestic Assuming a fixed daily wage of $1.00 for 8 hours work

14 Results: scenario 2 (labor cost) Weeding, Kapiri: $1.20/day Brick layer, Mwin.: $2.20/day Pure profit (200kg comb) Clearing land for agriculture, Mwin: $1.00/day Daily wage (USD) Domestic worker, Lusaka $3.00/day bark mud wood Assuming a fixed market price of $0.70/kg comb honey (i.e. the 2008/2009 price in Mwinilunga)

15 Results: scenario 3 (processing) 120 Pure profit (200kg comb or equivalent in liquid) bark mud wood Comb ($0.70/kg) Liquid ($0.70/kg) Liquid ($0.80/kg) Liquid ($0.90/kg) Liquid ($1.00/kg) Liquid ($1.10/kg) -60 Beekeeping system Assuming a fixed daily wage of $0.50 for 8 hours work; processing from comb to liquid is done traditionally using a sieve and buckets

16 Lessons & recommendations 1. Main determining factor for occupation rates of hives is management Adequate training and skills development is essential, especially when introducing technologies 2. Mud hives are the most preferred option (scenarios, beekeepers) Traditional systems are too labour intensive; modern systems are too cash intensive need to invest in developing appropriate technologies Encourage experimentation and innovation instead of simply handing out equipment and ideas (appropriate technologies will develop locally) 3. Problems with red ants persist Research and extension in pest control Invest in increasing occupation rates rather than increasing number of hives

17 Lessons & recommendations 4. Incomes for producers related to high volumes sold (comb > liquid) Increase volumes of comb honey produced rather than encourage processing 5. Certification (organic and fair trade) does not increase the producer price, but does offer them a market where otherwise there would not be one Promote diversification of markets, including local and regional (e.g. support processors and traders) 6. An increase in the number of buyers ( ) has resulted in a drastic increase in the price paid to producers (30-80%) Improve market access and business environment (e.g. build roads, develop market info systems)

18 Concluding remarks The role of beekeeping in rural livelihood systems varies between the three study areas. Due to the scale of production and the availability of large bulk buyers, incomes are highest in the remote Mwinilunga. Here, honey sales are the main source of cash income for approximately 50% of the households. Although the traditional bark hive system, which dominates in many parts of the country, plays an important role in preventing rural households from becoming poorer, the study shows that due to the high labor requirements, this system will not allow beekeepers to lift themselves out of poverty. In areas where livelihoods are more diversified and beekeeping is considered a business instead of a tradition, e.g. Kapiri, beekeepers prefer to adopt affordable modern technologies such as the mud hive system. Effective support strategies include trainings (i.e. to improve management and increase occupation rates) and market development.