Bees /or Development Journal 107

BEEKEEPINGECONOMICS-WOODLANDBEEKEEPING INZAMBIAJanet Lowore and Nicola Bradbear, Bees for Development,1 Agincourt Street, Monmouth NP25 3DZ, UK

Keywords: Angola, bark hive, cropping ratio, DR Congo, local-stylehive, log hive, miombo, Mozambique, Tanzania, ZimbabweIn this article we consider the economics of miombo woodlandbeekeeping in Zambia. Miombo woodlands are the largest foresttype in Africa and stretch East-West from Mozambique to Angolaand North-South from the southern part of DR Congo to Zimbabwe(White 1983). These woodlands are semi-deciduous, tend to bedominated by low financial value timber species, and are typicallyon nutrient poor soils. However, their value for beekeeping isacknowledged: "The dominance of Brachystegia, isoberlinia andJulbernardia provides the basis for beekeeping as a highly significant(culturally, economically and socially) form of land use in miombowoodland" (Campbell etal 2007).The miombo woodland beekeeping system practised in the NorthWestern Province (NWP) of Zambia involves beekeepers making

Miombo woodland in Malawi

many cylindrical bark hives and hanging them in trees. The hivesare dispersed throughout a large area of forest to ensure that theyare readily occupied by swarms, migrating or absconding honeybee colonies. The wide distribution ensures good access to forageresources, and risks from fire or pests are spread, and therebyminimised.

Socio-economic analysisThe data used for this article is from work published by Wainwrightin 1989. Although some of the factors will have changed since thattime, the method of analysis remains instructive. In this article weuse the 1988 figures and 1988 value in US$ used in the originalpaper (1.000 Zambian Kwacha (K) = US$0.125). See Table 5 forabenchmark against current figures.

Profitability of miombo woodland beekeepingWainwright developed a model based on his experiences observingand measuring bark hive beekeeping systems in NWP duringthe 1980s. To understand profitability it is necessary to calculatereturn on investment. The main investment in bark hive beekeepingis the labour of the beekeeper. The other factors for production- bees, nectar, bee trees and materials for making hives - are allfreely available. It is instructive therefore to calculate the return oninvestment as the return on each day of labour invested, rather thanthe return on a financial investment. To work out the net incomesfrom bark hives, the labour requirements were considered. It is alsoimportant to consider the sensitivity of net income to variations inhive occupation rates and production per hive.Table 1 shows data collected by Wainwright and used to work outthe profitability of bark hives. Purchased equipment such as smokersand veils are not considered because these were optional and manybeekeepers did not use them.

• ' -*

• • •? ..

•

Bees for Development Journal 107

Table 1. Costs and labour requirements of bark hives4

Cost and labourrequirements

Notes

Fixed labourInspectionsSwarm catching

Hive hanging

5 days labour0

21 days labour

The system relieson hives beingoccupied by bees-this does notinvolve further workby the beekeeper

Variable labour

Management of thecolony

Introducing swarmsto hivesCropping honey

Transporting honey

Processing honey

Odays

Odays

1 day/40 kg ofhoney

2 days/40 kg ofhoney1 day/40 kg ofhoney

The colonies arenever opened,managed ormanipulated untilcroppingThe system relieson self-colonisation

Central to thisanalysis is anunderstandingthat some labourinvestment isdirectly proportionalto the volumesharvested

Table 2. Daily wage outcomes for different combinations ofaverage yield and percentage of hives cropped

*Assuming that the beekeeper places 100 bark hives in the forest

Calculation of net daily incomeThe labour effort which beekeepers invest in their system consistsof fixed and variable labour. With bark hive beekeeping, the variablelabour effort is taken up by cropping, transporting and processinghoney: this is directly related to production ie the greater the harvest,the more labour is required. In Table 1 it is shown that a total of fourdays are spent cropping, transporting and processing each40 kilograms of honey harvested. This allows us to use the figureof one day labour for every 10 kg of honey. In other beekeepingsystems, where beekeepers manage their colonies more intensively,their labour investment will increase in proportion to the number ofhives with bees. This does not apply to forest beekeeping.

Formula for returns on labour for bark hive beekeepingAt the time the study was done (1988), the average rate for oneday of labour was K12.00 (US$1.50) and the revenue from onekilogram of honey was K4.45 (US$0.56). The data in Table 1 makesit possible to work out the return on each day of labour - where adifferent number of hives are cropped, and their average yield varies.The scenario always involves 100 hives which demand 26 days offixed labour.

Daily wage = total income/total number of days spent beekeeping

Total income = price x total yieldTotal number of days = 26 (fixed labour for 100 hives) +(total yield/10)

Total yield = number of hives cropped x average yield per hive

Percentage cropped(out of 100)5% [five hives]

10% [ten hives]15% [fifteen hives]

20% [twenty hives]

Average yield per hive per cropping

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

Below the average daily wage ie below K1 2

Above the average daily wage ie above K1 2

DiscussionThis calculation (Table 2) did not take into account the labourinvested in making the hives in the first place. However, Wainwrightdid work out what this would entail - see Table 3.Table 3. Initial cost for a bark hive

Cash investmentLabour investmentCost of 0.6 days of labour perhiveCalculation of labourrequirementsCutting one hive from barkMaking pegsMaking doorsGathering grass and fibreHanging the hiveTotal labour days

0

0.6 days' labour per hive0.6 x US$1 .5* = US$0.9

Time (days)

0.160.100.100.08

0.16

0.60

*1 labour day- US$1.5 (US$1.00 - €0.77 in May 2013)

To include the cost of making the hives, it would be necessaryto know how many hives are renewed each year to maintain astock of 100. If two days a year were spent making hives it wouldbe necessary to increase the fixed labour costs associated withmaintaining 100 hives from 26 to 28. This would have to be reflectedin calculating the daily wage, and would slightly alter the results inTable 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 orfew. In fact it is likely that there are increased labour implicationsfrom harvesting honey from many low yielding hives because ittakes time to climb each tree to lower down the hive. Beekeeperswill not waste time lowering down a hive which they can see to beempty, and a very small yield would be a wasted effort. This is whybeekeepers design their system to mitigate against this scenario.

More about cropping ratiosA beekeeper with many hives is not able to crop all the occupiedhives. This means that a hive might stay for two to five yearswithout cropping. During this time large reserves of honey can beaccumulated and many swarms are produced to occupy any emptyhives. Cropping fewer hives, infrequently, is the most productiveapproach. The opposite situation - where a beekeeper crops all the

Bees for Development Journal 107

hives, including newly occupied ones, is not very productive. Table 4shows some information about cropping ratios. This data - collectedby different people in different years - reveals that around half of alloccupied hives are cropped.Table 4. Data concerning numbers of occupied hives andpercentage cropped

Hive occupation(average %)

Percentage of allhives which arecropped (average)

Silberrad(1976)

35.0

18.0

Clauss(1991)

40.6

16.6

Husselman(2009)

33.0

No figuregiven

Table 5. Costs and exchange rates in Zambia 1988, benchmarkedagainst later figures

Costs

Average casuallabour wagefor one day inZambiaRevenue perkg of honeyharvested

1988(Wainwright1989)K12.00(US$1.50)(NWP)

K4.45(US$0.56)(NWP)

Latest figures

US$3.80 (Journal du Net2013)*

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, andmay not represent the predominant average wage

ConclusionThis analysis is not new. Miombo woodland beekeeping is widelypractised in Zambia and in other miombo forest countries such asAngola, Mozambique and Tanzania. Many development projectshave proposed to introduce alternative hive types, however bark,log and local-style hives remain prevalent. The miombo woodlandbeekeeping systems of NWP are productive, yielding 4,000 tonnesof honey in 2010 (SNV 2012). The analysis presented here suggestsa method to work out profitability based on understanding of thesystem as a whole. Central to this is appreciation of the fact thatcropping a portion of a large number of hives is by design, and nota sign that the system is unproductive - as some analysts suggest.It is also important to note that there are variable labour costsassociated with the yield. This is in contrast to box hive systemswhere variable labour costs are related to number of coloniesmanaged. When using box hives it is possible to spend labourcollecting swarms, hiving swarms, managing and manipulatingcolonies and, for reasons outside of the control of the beekeepers,the yield from some colonies may be still be low - or in tropicalAfrica, the colony may abscond or migrate. And yet the labour hasalready been invested.Finally it is clear from the analysis presented here that in mostmiombo woodland beekeeping scenarios it is possible to earn atleast the average daily wage for each day spent beekeeping, and theactual wage earned is likely to be above this figure.

Miombo woodland characterised by branched trees and open canopy

ReferencesCAMPBELL.B.M.; ANGELSENA; CUNNINGHAMA; KATERERE.Y;SITOEA; WUNDER.S. (2007) Miombo woodlands - opportunitiesand barriers to sustainable forest management. A Report for WorldBank-administered Trust Fund for Environmentally and SociallySustainable Development.CLAUSS,B. (1991) Bees and beekeeping in the North WesternProvince of Zambia. Beekeeping Survey for Forestry Department.IRDR Lusaka, Zambia.HUSSELMAN,M; PAUMGARTEN,F. (2009) Alleviating povertythrough beekeeping: lessons from Zambia. Presentation given atApimondia, 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 caseofLua Lua Beekeeping Cooperative and Mungwi beekeepers. SNVCase Study, Lusaka, Zambia.SILBERRAD,R.E.M. (1976) Beekeeping in Zambia. ApimondiaPublishing House, Bucharest, Romania.

SNV (2012) Bee products factsheet. Agriculture in Zambia.WAINWRIGHT,D. (1989) Appropriate beekeeping technology inCentral Africa. Newsletter for beekeepers in tropical and sub-tropicalcountries 14.WAINWRIGHT.D. (1989) Socio-economic comparison of beekeepingtechnologies in Zambia. In Proceedings of 4th InternationalConference on Apiculture in Tropical Climates, Cairo, 1988: 360-366. IBRA, Cardiff, UK.

WHITE, F. (1983) The vegetation of Africa. UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSOvegetation map of Africa: 20:1-356. Natural Resources Research,Paris, France.

•DefinitionsBeekeeping system: This refers to the bees, the technology,the management approach and the wider environment whichbeekeepers manage, use or interact with as they work to secure aharvest of bee productsHive occupation percentage: Percentage of sited hives that areoccupied by honey beesCropping: The harvesting of honey comb from a honey bee colony

Cropping ratio: The ratio between number of hives harvestedand the number of hives occupied/or the number of hives in total.Different people use the term cropping ratio differently, and thismust be taken into consideration when comparing data.