Professional Documents
Culture Documents
many cylindrical bark hives and hanging them in trees. The hives are dispersed throughout a large area of forest to ensure that they are readily occupied by swarms, migrating or absconding honey bee colonies. The wide distribution ensures good access to forage resources, and risks from fire or pests are spread, and thereby minimised.
Socio-economic analysis
The data used for this article is from work published by Wainwright in 1989. Although some of the factors will have changed since that time, the method of analysis remains instructive. In this article we use the 1988 figures and 1988 value in US$ used in the original paper (1.000 Zambian Kwacha (K) = US$0.125). See Table 5 fora benchmark against current figures.
'*
? ..
Table 1. Costs and labour requirements of bark hives4 Cost and labour requirements Fixed labour Inspections Swarm catching 5 days labour 0 Notes
Table 2. Daily wage outcomes for different combinations of average yield and percentage of hives cropped Average yield per hive per cropping Percentage cropped (out of 100) 5kg
K3.90 K7.18 K9.96 K12.36
8kg
K5.93 K10.47 K14.05 K16.95
10kg
K7.18 K12.36 K16.28 K19.35
15kg
K9.96 K16.28 K20.64 K23.84
The system relies on hives being occupied by bees -this does not involve further work by the beekeeper
5% [five hives]
The colonies are never opened, managed or manipulated until cropping Introducing swarms Odays The system relies to hives on self-colonisation Cropping honey 1 day/40 kg of Central to this honey analysis is an understanding Transporting honey 2 days/40 kg of that some labour honey investment is Processing honey 1 day/40 kg of directly proportional honey to the volumes harvested *Assuming that the beekeeper places 100 bark hives in the forest
Below the average daily wage ie below K1 2 Above the average daily wage ie above K1 2
Discussion
This calculation (Table 2) did not take into account the labour invested in making the hives in the first place. However, Wainwright did work out what this would entail - see Table 3. Table 3. Initial cost for a bark hive Cash investment Labour investment Cost of 0.6 days of labour per hive Calculation of labour requirements Cutting one hive from bark Making pegs Making doors Gathering grass and fibre Hanging the hive Total labour days
0
To include the cost of making the hives, it would be necessary to know how many hives are renewed each year to maintain a stock of 100. If two days a year were spent making hives it would be necessary to increase the fixed labour costs associated with maintaining 100 hives from 26 to 28. This would have to be reflected in calculating the daily wage, and would slightly alter the results in Table 2. This analysis assumes that variable costs associated with cropping, transporting and processing honey are related to total yield, regardless of whether the honey is harvested from many hives or few. In fact it is likely that there are increased labour implications from harvesting honey from many low yielding hives because it takes time to climb each tree to lower down the hive. Beekeepers will not waste time lowering down a hive which they can see to be empty, and a very small yield would be a wasted effort. This is why beekeepers design their system to mitigate against this scenario.
hives, including newly occupied ones, is not very productive. Table 4 shows some information about cropping ratios. This data - collected by different people in different years - reveals that around half of all occupied hives are cropped. Table 4. Data concerning numbers of occupied hives and percentage cropped Silberrad (1976) Hive occupation (average %) Percentage of all hives which are cropped (average) 35.0 18.0
16.6
References
CAMPBELL.B.M.; ANGELSENA; CUNNINGHAMA; KATERERE.Y; SITOEA; WUNDER.S. (2007) Miombo woodlands - opportunities and barriers to sustainable forest management. A Report for World Bank-administered Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development. CLAUSS,B. (1991) Bees and beekeeping in the North Western Province of Zambia. Beekeeping Survey for Forestry Department. IRDR Lusaka, Zambia. HUSSELMAN,M; PAUMGARTEN,F. (2009) Alleviating poverty through beekeeping: lessons from Zambia. Presentation given at Apimondia, 2009. CIFOR and SIDA. JOURNAL DU NET (2013) <http://www.journaldunet.com/ economie/salaire/pays/zambie.shtml>, accessed 10 May 2013] KANCHEYA, K. (2010) Sweet treasures from the forest: the case ofLua Lua Beekeeping Cooperative and Mungwi beekeepers. SNV Case Study, Lusaka, Zambia. SILBERRAD,R.E.M. (1976) Beekeeping in Zambia. Apimondia Publishing House, Bucharest, Romania. SNV (2012) Bee products factsheet. Agriculture in Zambia. WAINWRIGHT,D. (1989) Appropriate beekeeping technology in Central Africa. Newsletter for beekeepers in tropical and sub-tropical countries 14. WAINWRIGHT.D. (1989) Socio-economic comparison of beekeeping technologies in Zambia. In Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Apiculture in Tropical Climates, Cairo, 1988: 360366. IBRA, Cardiff, UK. WHITE, F. (1983) The vegetation of Africa. UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa: 20:1-356. Natural Resources Research, Paris, France.
Clauss (1991)
40.6
Table 5. Costs and exchange rates in Zambia 1988, benchmarked against later figures Costs 1988 (Wainwright 1989)
K12.00 (US$1.50) (NWP) K4.45 (US$0.56) (NWP)
Latest figures
US$0.45 {Husselman 2009) (North Western Province) US$90.00 (Kancheya 2010) (Northern Province) US$1.00(SNV2012) (no region given) *This rate is the legal minimum wage in Zambia, set in 2012, and may not represent the predominant average wage
Average casual labour wage for one day in Zambia Revenue per kg of honey harvested
Conclusion
This analysis is not new. Miombo woodland beekeeping is widely practised in Zambia and in other miombo forest countries such as Angola, Mozambique and Tanzania. Many development projects have proposed to introduce alternative hive types, however bark, log and local-style hives remain prevalent. The miombo woodland beekeeping systems of NWP are productive, yielding 4,000 tonnes of honey in 2010 (SNV 2012). The analysis presented here suggests a method to work out profitability based on understanding of the system as a whole. Central to this is appreciation of the fact that cropping a portion of a large number of hives is by design, and not a sign that the system is unproductive - as some analysts suggest. It is also important to note that there are variable labour costs associated with the yield. This is in contrast to box hive systems where variable labour costs are related to number of colonies managed. When using box hives it is possible to spend labour collecting swarms, hiving swarms, managing and manipulating colonies and, for reasons outside of the control of the beekeepers, the yield from some colonies may be still be low - or in tropical Africa, the colony may abscond or migrate. And yet the labour has already been invested. Finally it is clear from the analysis presented here that in most miombo woodland beekeeping scenarios it is possible to earn at least the average daily wage for each day spent beekeeping, and the actual wage earned is likely to be above this figure.
Definitions
Beekeeping system: This refers to the bees, the technology, the management approach and the wider environment which beekeepers manage, use or interact with as they work to secure a harvest of bee products Hive occupation percentage: Percentage of sited hives that are occupied by honey bees Cropping: The harvesting of honey comb from a honey bee colony Cropping ratio: The ratio between number of hives harvested and the number of hives occupied/or the number of hives in total. Different people use the term cropping ratio differently, and this must be taken into consideration when comparing data.