Locally certified organic beekeeping in Mwingi, Kenya

Peter Musinguzi, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Introduction

Governments and NGOs acknowledge that beekeeping supports rural livelihoods in Africa. It is associated with forest conservation, and agencies have promoted it with the twin objectives of improving livelihoods, while conserving forests. Honey can be produced in ways that are beneficial for forests and the environment, and one way to capitalise on this link is to seek organic certification.

There are gaps in our understanding of how poor communities can benefit from organic certification, and we therefore studied the impact of local organic certification of honey production upon the livelihoods of beekeepers in Kenya.

Kenya’s arid and semi-arid lands (ASAL) form 80% of the country and produce approximately 80% of the country’s honey. The ASAL are home to about 90% of Kenya’s forest resources.

Case study and research question

This study focusses on beekeeping and honey selling in Mwingi, eastern Kenya, where beekeeping has long formed a part of mixed farming and livestock livelihoods. In 2002 a range of development interventions were implemented to support beekeepers. One intervention established a marketing group called Mwingi Market Place (MMP) and beekeepers were trained in organic apiculture. Subsequently, MMP was formalised into Mwingi

Organic Co-operative (MOC). In this study we aimed to understand the impact of organic certification upon livelihoods. A comparison was made between the situation in 2008 and in 2015, and between beekeepers whose practices were organic certified and those who were not.

A total 303 households (185 certified and 118 noncertified) were randomly sampled from 54 beekeepers’ groups between December 2015 and February 2016. A household questionnaire was used to collect qualitative and quantitative data. Data from 2008, collected in 2015, was based on recall and records. Key informant interviews, informal conversations, participant observation, participatory rural appraisal and secondary data also informed the research.

Key results

The study looked at metrics including honey price, quantities sold, trading channels used, profit margins and overall household income. Table 1 * shows number of beekeepers selling into different market channels and the quantities sold.

* Table 1. The original article has a table showing the market channels used by beekeepers for honey trade and quantities of honey which is not available on this mobile friendly version.

Across both certified and non-certified beekeepers, honey trade doubled from 6,258kg in 2008 to 12,738kg in 2015. While the non-certified beekeepers more than doubled their cumulative sales (over 100%), the increase in sales by certified beekeepers was slightly less, an increase of 92%. The proportion of certified producers who sold through MOC fell between 2008 and 2015, from 34.6% to 16.8%. The non-certified beekeepers sold very little to MOC in 2015. This not surprising as MOC is mandated to purchase only certified organic honey. Yet interviews with key informants revealed that in 2015 the MOC resorted to the purchase of non-organic certified honey from a honey broker in Kitui.

* Table 2. The original article has a table showing honey prices secured by beekeepers selling to different market channels which is not available on this mobile friendly version.

In addition to the increase in volume of trade between 2008 and 2015, the honey price also increased – more than doubling in most marketing channels. As shown in Table 2 *, MOC was offering a slightly higher price than brokers in 2015, yet as we have seen in Table 1 most beekeepers were opting to sell to brokers. Why? Beekeepers explained that the most important factors to them were receiving cash payment and having low transport costs to market. Some beekeepers said they had experienced delayed payments from MOC. MOC did not own or hire any transport to facilitate honey purchase from the beekeepers’ farm gate, or from centres near their homes, obliging beekeepers to bear the cost of transport. This was reported as another important reason for choice of market channel.

Contrary to expectation, beekeepers do not routinely earn a higher price for organic-certified honey, and certified honey fetches a higher price only when beekeepers sell to individual processors and consumers. Yet as Table 1 shows, such sales are infrequent. Furthermore, beekeepers reported that the costs of producing organic-certified honey were higher than non-certified honey. In 2015 certified beekeepers spent more time engaged in activities such as apiary cleaning, hive transportation, hanging, purchasing, baiting, watering and inspection as compared to non-certified beekeepers, and organic certified beekeepers thus had higher production costs. The costs of production incurred by both organic and non-organic beekeepers were calculated. The results indicated that the gross profit margin on each kg of honey produced by organic beekeepers was US$0.80, while for nonorganic beekeepers the gross profit margin was US$0.85 per kg. This suggests that organic certification was not always more profitable.

Another key result is impact on household income. Both groups reported that their beekeeping income and overall household income had increased between 2008 and 2015, but there was no significant difference between certified and non-certified households. This quantitative data was backed up by the views of the organic certified beekeepers, 83% of whom perceived that they were no better off because of certification.

Discussion

Since 2008 volume of honey trade and prices have both increased. This suggests substantial progress. It is difficult to attribute this change to the introduction of organic certification processes only because beekeepers who are selling organic honey are not earning more than those who are selling non-organic honey. Furthermore, MOC – the institution established to provide a route to market for organic honey - is not the preferred marketing channel for beekeepers in the area, and MOC appears to be trading also in non-organic honey. However, it is possible that the intervention to support organic certification in Mwingi may indirectly be responsible for some of the positive trends. It is possible that the organic certification programme drew attention to the quality and availability of honey in Mwingi, and perhaps this attracted new interest from buyers and brokers which increased trade opportunities for all beekeepers.

The results show that beekeepers have very clear preferences in terms of how they rate market conditions. Low transport costs to market and cash terms of payment are very important for all beekeepers. Price is not always the main factor.

Way forward

To offer a worthwhile route to market for organic honey, MOC requires revitalisation. This process should include training of leaders, members and staff in co-operative management and business skills. Increasing accountability to members is also important because MOC must access sufficient working capital to pay beekeepers cash during the harvesting season. Otherwise beekeepers will continue to sell their honey to brokers - even if it means selling at a lower price.

Even if MOC is re-vitalised, this does not address the issue that beekeeping following organic procedures is less profitable than non-organic beekeeping. There could be several reasons for this. It is possible that despite an apparent demand for organic produce amongst the middle and upper-class income groups in Kenya, consumers are still unwilling to pay more. Another underlying issue could be awareness by buyers and consumers that honey purchased from non-certified beekeepers shares similar quality parameters to honey purchased from certified beekeepers.

Footnote All prices were converted into US$ using the average currency exchange rates of KES87.92 and KES69.18 in 2008 and 2015. The inflation rates for 2015 (8.01%) and 2008 (27.70%) were taken into consideration to have accurate income figures for comparability purposes. For details about data analysis, and to consult all results, access the full report on Bees for Development website or contact the author.

US$1.00 = €0.89 (June 2017)