Date post: | 20-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | verina-ingram |
View: | 723 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Verina Ingram, Madeleen Husselman
African forest
apiculture market
chains:
Win-wins for
livelihoods &
conservation?
Bush/wild mango Irvingia spp.
THINKING beyond the canopy
Aims
Wax processing
o Assess & compare howenvironmental, economic andsocial aspects of apiculturevalue chains in 2 countriesaffects sustainable livelihoodsof actors, the use,conservation & managementof forests.
o Does apiculture alleviatepoverty ? And if so, what roledoes it play in preventinghouseholds from sinkingdeeper into poverty?
o How do arrangements withinapiculture market chainsinfluence livelihoods positivelyand negatively?
Me
tho
do
log
yBackground
• Literature review
• Production area selection
Interviews
• Interviews service providers & support actors
VCAs
2007-2009
• Semi & structured interviews actors all stages chains = 190 Zambia & 702 Cameroon
Action data
• Participatory action research: SWOT, Stakeholder analysis, working sessions
• Market price tracking; Cameroon
• Monitoring, training & capacity building events
Analysis
• Data analysis SPSS and Excel
• Preliminary findings verified in meetings & peer cross-checked
Outputs
• Value chain maps; representations & visualizations
• Reports
• Policy briefs & product sheets
Results: Cameroon
• History : Traditional (NW 88%, Ad 97%), project ‘push’ 80s, market focus >5 years
• Production technologies: Basic & traditional, large volume, low quality, new
technologies now emerging for wax processing & propolis collection
• Economic: Ad 68% household beekeepers, 55% primary activity
• Llivelihoods: Contributes to 48% incomes Ad, 30-60% in NW
• Ecological conditions: rapid deforestation of montane forest, slower degrading
savanna forest, forest protection/controls in NW, competing forest uses
• Institutional context: High level collective organization (NW n=284) Ad n=98), bio &
ethical schemes at enterprise level, Geographical Indication scheme emerging
• Regulatory context: Unregulated national production & market, no standards, exports
to Europe regulated since 2009, no interaction forestry & livestock authorities,
customary rules exist but often overridden and degrading concerning forest use in
NW, but good in Adamaoua
• Governance: high corruption levels re transport, business set up, taxes and exports,
poor ‘doing business’ and ‘corruption perception’ indexes
• Regions: Adamaoua 41% & NW 30% est. national production,
high & increasing population density 70-99 inhabitants km² NW
and 8/km² Adamaoua
• Regions: Mwinilunga 82%, Kapiri 5% est. national production,
low population density 6 to 11.2 inhabitants km2
• History: Traditional, 150 years of trade, colonial support,
government post –independence, donor push since 1970s &
community owned, organic 1990s & fair trade since 2003,
change to private enterprises
Results: Zambia
• Production technologies: 90% traditional bark hives, low level hive
management, low volume 2nd processing except for beer
• Economic: Mw 48% & K 29% households are beekeepers, 20-25% income
• Livelihood: Mw 50% households beekeepers, av.73 hives, av. yield 7.4 – 20
kg, male dominated
• Ecological conditions: Miombo woodlands, secondary clearings preferred for
diversity, Kapiri degraded forest more regulated,
• Institutional context: Source foreign exchange, beekeeping Division ‘65-‘91,
high level NGO/development involvement, numerous SMEs vertically active in
chain, support marketing
• Regulatory context: Govt support, national beekeeping policy developed 2008.
good customary regulation for forest use
Beekeepers
7 village
beekeeper groupsNgaoundal
>15 Beer
brewers (local)Tabeken, Ndu
15 Processing
companies
EU, USA, SA.
Urban consumers (>100km from source)
Bamenda, Bafoussam,
Buea, Ngoundere
Urban consumers (<450km from source)
Yaounde, Douala
Local
consumers (within village)
‘> 20
Buy’am sell’ams’
Middlemen Bamenda, Belo, Oku,
Douala
>10
Supermarkets &
grocery shops Bamenda, Yaounde,
Douala ,Bafoussam,
Buea
5x 10Market
stalls (urban)Bamenda, Yaounde,
Douala ,Bafoussam,
Buea
>75 Roadside and
rail side tradersNgoundal, Ngoundere,
Bamenda, Dschang,
Bafoussam
3 Producer
Co-opsBamenda, Belo,
Oku
North West
Adamoua
Cameroon apiculture value chains
4
Producer
shops
CraftspeopleBamenda,
Foumban
>200 Trad.Medicine
practionnersOku, Bamenda,
Fundong, Belo,
Yaounde, Douala
12 Processer/tradersMeiganga, Ngoundal
>20 Traders/exporters Ctrl African Rep, Nigeria, Middle
East
honey
wax propolis
Others
Consumers(International)
5 Importers/processors Europe, South Africa
8 Pharmaceutical/
Cosmetic companiesEU, USA
Products
6 intermediary
processer/trader &
capacity builderNgoundal, Bamenda,
Yaounde,
Adamaoua
>12300
North West
>4500
B
E
E
K
E
E
P
E
R
S
♀
Importing
companies in
Eastern and
Southern Africa
Urban consumers
(>150km from
source)
Urban consumers
(<150km from
source)
Local consumers
(within village)
Supermarkets and grocery shops
Roadside traders
Medium-small
registered companies
Pc=K3555/kg
BK=70%
Q=65%
Lunchu Kapiri/Kabwe Lusaka
Pl=K18,213
Pl=K18,250
Pl=K4000
BK=5%
Q=1%Pl=K11,800
Pl=K4100
BK=25%
Q=21%
Pl=K4700
BK=10%
Q=13%
Pl=
K18,213
Pc= price per kg comb honey
Pl= price per kg liquid honey
BK= beekeepers selling to market
Q= fraction of total volume produced, sold to market
Zambia apiculture value chains: Lunchu honey (2007)
Large registered
companies
Beer brewers (local)
Importing companies
in EU, USA
Importing companies in
Eastern and Southern
Africa
Urban consumers (>500
km from source)
Urban consumersLocal consumers
(within village)
Middlemen
(only trading)
Market stalls (urban)
Beer brewers
(urban)
Supermarkets and grocery shops
Pc=K1988
BK=86%
Q=83%
Pc=K2333
BK=11%
Q=10%
Medium-small
registered
companies
Pc=K1800
BK=7%
Q=7%
B
e
e
k
e
e
p
er
s
Pl=K3500
Pc=K3400
Pl=K15000/kgPl=K16525
Pl=K18992
Pl=K11750
Pl=K4487
Pl=K2637
Pl=K4487
Salujinga Lusaka
Pc= price per kg comb honey
Pl= price per kg liquid honey
BK= beekeepers selling to market
Q= fraction of total volume produced, sold to market
International
Zambia apiculture value chains: Salujinga honey (2007)
Win: LivelihoodsEmployment, income & production
Annual value
US$ 5.6 million
(2009)
>9,600 people
directly involved
production
>500 micro/SMEs
>125 SMEs & 2
large enterprises
Annual value
US$ 1.6 million
(2003)
1500 tons honey
1-7 tons wax (?)
5005 tons honey
235 tons wax
• Inherently unsustainable practices: bark hives (Zam), water &
charcoal use in wax production (Cam), smoking techniques
•Little positive evidence despite conservation rhetoric
• Once projects finish protection levels decrease & degradation
from other sources continues (Cam)
• Hive trials show secondary forest just as productive (Zam)
• Loss of honey type due to decreasing forest : white montane
honey (Cam)- major marketing and quality indicator Geog
Indicator
• Link between forest health and honey production needs to be
explicit before local beekeepers act to conserve e.g. hive resources
• Apiculture needs to be sufficiently valuable + high livelihood
priority to outweigh other beekeeper & conflicting external
interests
Win?: ConservationForest management & protection
Loosing: Conservation (long term)
Forest management & protection
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1051-1
300
1300-1
500
1500-1
700
1700-1
900
1900-2
100
2100-2
300
2300-2
500
2500-2
700
2700-2
998
C la sses d'a ltitudeS
urf
ac
e d
éb
ois
ée
(e
n h
a)
1988-2001
1978-1988
21
270
734
2177
3842
5540
4491
1424
896
Sources Cheek 2000, Solefack 2009
Cameroon: Beeswax
ArrangementsNegative impact value chain arrangements- Unclear/usufruct land tenure = conservation disincentive- Open access to forest = tragedy of commons- Conservation focus ignored livelihoods aspects & forest useconflicts – dual approach needed for long term sustainability- Production focus and not markets discourages beekeepers- Entering specialty & export markets = high cost for small, local,remote organizations with unsure and marginal profits- Importers have hands in both honey pots- restrictive marketcontrol or bonus?- Collective action without ‘good’ governance rules leads = over-organized, high cost, inefficient organizations and ultimately ‘death’- Dependency on export markets raises cash & can increase scale &quality but creates credit access problems-Remoteness is a cost and market barrier-Many small, unconnected organizations and actors = inefficiency,lack of exchange on technology and market information.
Positive impact value chain arrangements+ new market chains and new markets+ deregulation opens up competition+ external actors ‘brokers’ promote information/sector exchanges+ remote forests = naturally organic, pest free, highly resilientenvironment+ successful income & high value = incentive for forestmanagement
• Generally not a pathway out of poverty
• However, where little or no alternative
sources of cash income, apiculture vital
in preventing sinking deeper into poverty
– ZAM: In Mwinilunga 50% households
keep bees , providing an average
US$140 per household annually: main
source of cash income
– CAM: In Ngoundal 68% households
beekeepers, average annual income
US$ 433, 43% of total household
income & major cash source.
Cameroon: Beeswax
Poverty
prevention
more
than
alleviation
Opportunities & challenges
• Introduction of modern technologies allows more women to
get involved in production
• Women already active in adding value –especially in Zambia
• Low entry barriers: both poor & and wealthy households keep
bees (low costs, ease of entry & potentially high returns
• Lost opportunity: Low level value-adding in both countries
despite wide range of options available (low tech & cost): e.g.
candles, creams, wines, beers
• National and African regional markets highly promising and
easy to reach
• Export & specialty markets increasingly open (propolis,
organic, ethical & fair trade, community trade etc.)
• Need strong, financed national institutions coordinating sector
support, with clear roles and responsibilities and supporting
legal frameworks to enforce and protect.
• Increased coordination and networking facilities (stakeholder
platforms, trade fairs, etc.) to avoid duplication & improve
collaboration
The balance....Livelihoods win and conservation looses, unless......
• Apiculture is more highly valued (economic, social &legal aspects and values)
• The value is sustained over a long term
• Can compete favorably with other forest uses &population pressure
• Unlikely that apiculture alone can achieve MDG goalsof poverty alleviation & environmental sustainability.
• ……instead consider apiculture as one activity indiversified livelihood portfolio
• External factors also have a major impact (agriculture,industry, infrastructure, market access politicalculture….)
• Value chain approach taken with business focusedsupport and capacity building for associations,cooperatives and service providers
• Coordinated and inter-sectoral policies and institutionscreated.