Dear friends

During July 2013 the French language portal of FAO’s TECA beekeeping exchange group* discussed sustainable beekeeping in Africa. Bees for Development moderated the interesting discussion that took place. A statement made by one of the contributors is an excellent starting point for our summary:

“North is convinced its way to keep bees is the best. South wants to follow the leader without any change or adaptation”

Beekeeping systems in Africa cannot stand still – as the environment and human society change, so must beekeeping systems adapt. Burning bees to harvest honey is not sustainable in today’s environment and alternative methods of harvesting need to be introduced. However, change and adaptation must be locally relevant and – above all – sustainable.

Beekeeping systems in industrialised countries do not offer models that are generally appropriate for African farmers. For example, hobby beekeepers in Europe spend a lot of money on equipment and their beekeeping is rarely profitable. Large-scale bee farms in parts of Asia achieve economy of scale and profitability, but this model is not suitable for the household-level beekeeping which remains the norm in Africa. Large-scale bee farms are ecologically unsustainable: bee diseases are kept at bay only through the use of veterinary medicines and bees rely on supplementary sugar feeding during winter. These models cannot be followed, and an alternative pathway to change and adaptation is needed.

The recurring themes of the discussion were the ecological and economic implications of local-style fixed comb and top-bar beekeeping systems

It is important to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of these systems correctly – to understand the implications for sustainability.

Some statements from contributors:

• ‘Traditional’ hive-making causes deforestation

• Beekeepers kill bees when harvesting from ‘traditional’ hives

• ‘Traditional’ beekeeping is expanding

• The success of ‘other kinds’ of hives depends on knowledge of beekeepers

• The two practices ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’ have to be mixed progressively

• Sometimes it is difficult for populations [people] to accept ‘modern’ hives

• ‘Traditional’ beekeeping is ecologically sustainable (except the cutting of trees)

• The profitability of ‘modern’ beekeeping may be 5-7 times higher than ‘traditional’

• The ecological and economical profitability is higher in ‘modern’ beekeeping than ‘traditional’

• Top-bar hives are not convenient for bees.

Discussing correct terminology

To continue this discussion it is important to make a comment about the use of terms.

The terms ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ are not technical beekeeping terms and are prejudicial words which cause confusion. Traditional implies ‘of the past’ and ‘no longer relevant’ yet hives which are often labelled ‘traditional’ are clearly very relevant today. ‘Traditional’ also implies that a method is static and unchanging. This view disregards people’s ingenuity to take on new ideas – for example in Ethiopia beekeepers use fixed comb hives in many areas, and the materials they use and the size of the hives have varied over time. Modern implies ‘the best’ or ‘technologically advanced’ and makes no allowance for context. The term ‘modern’ is sometimes used to refer to top-bar hives and sometimes frame hives: the term is ambiguous. Use of these words can prejudice opinion and decision-making when in fact, what is required, is a careful analysis of the suitability of any beekeeping system for the resources available and prevailing conditions. ‘Traditional’ hives in Africa are fixed comb hives, and this is an accurate beekeeping term, especially useful when discussing beekeeping techniques. Another useful term is ‘local-style’. There are two main types of moveable comb hives – frame hives and top-bar hives. These technical terms should always be used as they accurately describe the hive type. It is important to go beyond simplistic polarisations between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ to understand the capacity people have to integrate different ideas, materials and technologies.

* http://teca.fao.org/

Continued on page 5

Support: Bees for Development Trust gratefully acknowledge Marr Munning Trust, Panta Rhea Foundation, E H Thorne (Beehives) Ltd, Trade Advance Ltd, The Waterloo Foundation, and the many groups and individuals who support our work. Please encourage your friends and colleagues to help. See our website for how to become a Supporter.