Traditional beekeeping what chances for development and conservation?

by Bernhard Clauss, Beekeeping Survey Officer, Kabompo, Zambia.

The editorial in the last edition of this Newsletter (May 1989, No 14) pointed out clearly that traditional beekeeping methods are sustainable. Contributions by Gnägi, Svensson and Wainwright supported this statement in detail, providing most constructive and encouraging guidelines for beekeeping extension and development personnel, whether local or expatriate. I would like to add some observations and comments from my own experiences, mainly from Zambia's North-Western Province.

Development chances

With the accelerated destruction of various types of tropical forest, growing attention and homage is being paid to traditional land use patterns like traditional forest beekeeping. Fewer people are now calling these beekeeping methods “primitive” because we now understand more about the complexity of this art.

We have learnt something about forest beekeepers’ powers of observation and their detailed knowledge about their environment, which allows them to make multiple use of their forests:

- First of all, of course, there are the “bee plants”.

- Forest plants also provide food (fruit, nuts, vegetables, edible tubers and bulbs, gums, beverages and edible caterpillars) and numerous medicines.

- There is abundant wood which provides building materials, timber for furniture and dug-out canoes, and bark, used not only for hives, but also for light canoes, durable ropes and even bags and blankets. Last but not least there is always enough firewood.

- The forest beekeeper has always been a hunter and fisherman, not only snaring birds, rodents, and small antelope, but also hunting for larger game and catching fish in the numerous streams.

In some areas beekeepers set up camps for better co-operation where of course part of the produce is turned into honey beer.

It is obvious that beekeeping activities like hive making, baiting, hanging and maintenance all form part of multipurpose undertakings.

This is what makes extensive, side-line forest beekeeping so attractive. Accordingly, traditional beekeepers do not see any disadvantage in having their hives scattered over vast areas. After honey harvest they undertake to carry buckets weighing 35 kg on their heads or shoulders over a distance of 10km or much further.

The local market for honey is most attractive. Until the honey marketing centre was established in Kabompo 10 years ago, virtually all honey was turned into honey beer, highly esteemed for its social and food value! Even now an estimated 50% of all honey harvested still goes this way to the benefit of the beekeeper.

For the beekeeper any quality of honey is a form of “sweet currency” against which desirable goods, animals and even services like bird scaring and ox-ploughing can be bartered easily.

Any commercial honey marketing body which enters this barter structure as a competitor with different standards, has to motivate remote area beekeepers to produce honey of selected quality. This has been successfully achieved here by offering attractive prices for both honey and beeswax, as well as a barter service for basic commodities hardly available in the rural areas. It is of course crucial to maintain such a “marketing service”!

The continuity of a new marketing system, being a welcome complementary income source for the beekeeper is the main key to any increase in marketable production. Beekeepers not yet included in the commercially orientated marketing network have often told us, “If someone will only come to buy our honey they will be amazed by what we can really achieve!”

Therefore: THE MOST POWERFUL OF ALL MESSAGES OF EXTENSION AND DEVELOPMENT IS A CONSISTENT AND ATTRACTIVE MARKETING SERVICE.

Only then will beekeepers adopt the principles of quality control. Only then will beekeeping extension workers get a responsive hearing for messages of improved traditional management practices. It is obvious that the trader is more dependent on the local beekeeper than vice-versa. However the beekeeper is of course always keen to maintain sources of income and commodities.

If this anxiety coincides with a natural or increasing shortage of traditionally available hive materials, like suitable bark, the beekeeper becomes innovative and looks for other local resources. We found log hives in this province, as well as cylindrical hives made of slats of dead wood covered with grass. Although beekeeping or honey hunting is in principle a male occupation, some families may display a remarkable flexibility in their response to shortages. There are some cases where women assist their husbands in cropping. In Kasempa_ District some women even go out honey hunting alone.

The sensible beekeeping extension and development worker (being first of all a learner), should be thankful when chance alternatives come from the people themselves. Being aware of innovative potential the extension worker should always test, demonstrate and offer alternative and appropriate hive types wherever traditional beekeeping prospects are limited.

The North-Western Province of Zambia is still largely covered by forests. However some areas are rapidly becoming deforested because of population pressure. The availability of suitable bark and even other alternatives is reduced. Here, the prospect of “village beekeeping” with alternative simple hives may come in, with additional opportunities for women to be involved.

Like forest beekeeping, hive trials at village level must be adapted to the ecological conditions influencing the behaviour of the African honeybees and traditional management patterns. If alternative hives are to be accepted by villagers the bees should occupy them readily during swarming seasons. They should be easy to handle and control with minimum management. The hive and all other equipment must be available locally.

Forest Conservation

As Wainwright put it already, “Traditional bark hive beekeeping does not lead to deforestation”. The effect of even the excessive “one-way” system of bark trays and bark ropes still in use in many areas is negligible compared with the disastrous “late fires” during the last months of the dry season. Whereas a number of small shrubs seem to be particularly well adapted to “early fires” (and are induced to flower early) most trees and shrubs are adversely affected by regular fires, especially when late: bark wounds are charred, regeneration is hampered and important nectar sources are burnt (eg flowers of Cryptosepalum pseudotaxus exfoliatum and Brachystegia spiciformis).

The beekeepers complain and call for government action which is, however, unlikely. Could beekeepers themselves spearhead conservation strategies? The question cannot be answered easily.

First of all one has to examine the reasons for “late burning”:

- to clear fields

- to remove forest undercover to create a clear view for hunting purposes

- to encourage fresh grass to shoot up thus improving grazing for cattle.

These fires regularly get out of control. They have intensified since the end of repressive, non-educational colonial control, partly due to increasing population density in certain areas.

When recalling the “multipurpose” nature of traditional beekeeping activities one realises that many beekeepers themselves are participating in the destruction!

So how can beekeepers become a growing pressure group for the conservation of their forest? First of all they have to regain awareness (together with other local people) that it is their forest. This can be achieved only by an integrated land-use pattern relying on a (newly installed) traditional system of local hierarchy supervision of individual rights and duties. This has to go hand-in-hand with education.

Finally reliable honey and wax marketing services may contribute considerably in strengthening the situation.

It is in the beekeeper’s own interest to utilise each tree for as many bark hives as possible.