Bark hive beekeeping and forest maintenance - Part 3

Janet Lowore, Programme Manager, Bees for Development

This is the third article about bark hive beekeeping in Zambia and the connection between beekeeping and forest maintenance.

Part I (BfDJ 140) considered whether bark hive making causes deforestation: it does not! There are a low number of trees suitable for making hives within any given area of forest, and most of the trees in an area used for forest beekeeping are retained – because they are the wrong species, shape or size for hives. Smaller trees are left until they grow larger.

Part II (BfDJ 141) showed that beekeepers are very protective of their hive sites in the forest, as they provide them with all the resources they need to make an income from beekeeping. Beekeepers use forest resources carefully and wisely, yet there are many causes of forest loss which are outside their control. Where beekeepers can control factors which damage forests, for example, harmful late season fires, they will do so.

In this article we consider this last point in more detail – the actions taken by forest beekeepers to reduce the damage caused by hot, late season fires.

Impact of fire on beekeeping

During focus group discussions held with beekeepers in Ikelenge and Mwinilunga in 2015, beekeepers explained that fires which burn at the end of the dry season are intense and can destroy the flowers which provide nectar and pollen for bees. This must be avoided if possible. Hot, late season fires also disturb bees, burn hives and kill tree saplings. “Late fire is a problem ”, and beekeepers in Jimbe said, “If the forest burns at this time [end of dry season] it is bad”. These comments fit with an observation by Clauss, who noted that, ‘… beekeepers are generally worried about late fires between August and October which widely scorch the flush and above all the flowers of the most important nectar sources’, (Clauss 1992).

To reduce the impact of late season fires, beekeepers explain that they engage in a practice known as ‘early burning’. Beekeepers in Muzhila explained, “Fire destroys flowers. Early burning is the solution and the Forestry Department used to get people to do that in June and July. We beekeepers do that now, we burn here and there, where the hives are, in June”, (beekeepers, Muzhila, 2015), corroborated also by others, “We do early burning - to protect the flowers from late fires. Yes, everyone does early burning”, (Beekeepers, Saluzhinga, 2015).

This fire was set in June when the ambient temperatures are relatively low. At this time of year the fire creeps along the ground and does not reach the tree canopy (Chibwika, Zambia, 2018)

Janet Lowore

Early burning is a forestry technique

The activity of early burning is a miombo woodland management tool widely advocated by foresters who have long recognised that late season fires are hotter and more damaging than early season burns. The damage caused by frequent, hot burns has led foresters to note that ‘fire is probably the most important management problem in miombo’ (Chidumayo 1997, p132).

The management regime advocated by foresters revolves around managing the heat of the burn. Given the impossibility of total fire prevention and the damage caused by uncontrolled burning, the best option is to promote a policy of planned and controlled burning ‘ …what is needed is to influence and encourage people to use fire in a more responsible, controlled, and beneficial manner so that they obtain the benefits while reducing the environmental, economic and social costs’. (Frost 1999, p199).

The main fire mitigation measure at the disposal of forest managers is to reduce the intensity of burns and this is best achieved through the practice of early burning. Trapnell’s research in Ndola, Zambia 1933-1956 showed that most of the dominant miombo species suffered a 2.5% per year mortality under late dry-season burning compared to mortality rates of between 0.2-0.5% under completed protection or early dry-season burning regimes (Trapnell 1959 in Campbell 1996).

Early burning involves the setting of fire early in the season when the grass is only just dry, the daytime temperatures are low and there is residual moisture in the forest undergrowth and litter (Trapnell 1959 in Campbell 1996). Early burning creates patches of burned areas and these reduce the intensity of fires in the dry season when large, destructive fires would otherwise occur (Frost 1999; Eriksen 2007).

Beekeepers practise early burning

During my PhD study fieldwork I asked beekeepers about threats to their hive sites, and how they protected them, I asked questions about whether beekeepers took any deliberate actions to ensure that there would be enough trees for future hive-making and I asked about forest protection in general.

What is a forest beekeeper’s hive site?

A ‘hive site’ is not a collection of closely located hives as might be found in a commercial apiary. It is a large forest area with widely spaced hives in trees with no clear boundary. Yet there is a sense of exclusivity and ownership. Beekeepers explain that each person has their own hive site and no one else can interfere with it:

“Each person might have different places, but they stick to them when they have them. I know my place. I have used the same place for 20 years, and I replace hives if old. We have our own places,” (beekeeper, Kasochi Central, 2015).

In fact, beekeepers have no formal ownership rights to the forest which belongs to the Chief and is governed by statutory laws,

“The forest doesn’t belong to me, but my hive site does. I have used the same place for 30 years. No one can interfere”, (beekeeper, Muzeya, 2015).

Most beekeepers have more than one hive site, to cater for local fluctuations in forage availability, to spread risk and to maximise opportunity.

Brachystegia seedlings and saplings can be killed by intense, late season fires. Avoiding fires in October is a key forestry technique in protecting miombo woodland (Chibwika, Zambia, 2018)

Janet Lowore

What beekeepers said

89% said they used early burning to protect small trees from fire, to ensure there will be enough trees for hive-making in future

88% said they practised early burning to protect their hive sites from late season fires

72% said they practised early burning every year to protect trees and forests in general

Field work was undertaken in 2018 to investigate these actions in more detail. Two beekeepers were accompanied to their hive sites in June. Both sites were about 15km from a road and visits took place at the beginning of the dry season when it was relatively cold, yet dry. The grass was still green in parts, elsewhere dry and flammable. On the way to the first hive site the lead beekeeper ignited some dry grass about 4km prior to reaching his main hive site, explaining that “all the forest is important”. During the subsequent three days of work he walked throughout the hive site hanging hives he had made in March and making new hives.

It was during the course of this work that he set fires while walking from one side of the hive site to the other, putting a match to the grass where there was a clear build-up of dry grass. He explained that at this time of year the fire does not burn hot and does not damage trees, even small ones, compared with late season fires which burn hot and are extremely destructive. He explained that trees might be scorched by early season fires, but they quickly recover; this is in contrast to late

season fires which can kill trees. The purpose of burning in June was readily explained as a deliberate measure to avoid late season fires. The beekeeper at the second hive site did the same. Neither beekeeper attempted to create firebreaks around their hive sites, nor did they try to burn everything, instead burning patches here and there. This approach created a mosaic of burnt and unburnt areas.

Area of forest impacted by fire mitigation measures

If beekeepers take actions to reduce the impact of damaging late season fires in their hive sites, this raises the question about how much forest is protected in this way by forest beekeepers. One way to answer this question is to gauge the size of an average hive site and multiply this by the number of beekeepers. However, given that hive sites are not fenced apiaries in the conventional sense, and have no clear boundaries, measuring the size is not easy.

The method used to measure two hives sites visited in June 2018 was to follow each beekeeper through his hive site and take GPS waypoints of as many hives as possible. Hives in each site were then plotted using GIS software. An assumption was made that the size of the hive site was equivalent to the size of the plotted polygon which was created by the most exterior sited hives. This was necessarily an estimate as the hives were not uniformly distributed.

This method resulted in estimates for two hive sites, one being 163ha, the other 259ha, with a calculated average of 211ha. While these may seem large, it should be explained that working through each hive site took two whole days in the case of the smaller, and three for the larger. The beekeepers work in and use very large areas of forest. If these results are extrapolated further an extraordinary picture emerges. The honey company Forest Fruits Ltd. buys honey from 3,000 beekeepers and if each beekeeper has two hives sites of an average size of 211ha each – this suggests that 211ha x 2 x 3,000 beekeepers = 1,266,000 ha of forest being used for forest beekeeping. This is a significant result.

This beekeeper practises ‘early burning’ at his hive site in Chibwika, Zambia, June 2018

Janet Lowore

We might assume that the two hives sites which were visited and measured were larger than average – after all – not all beekeepers are the same, and the visits were deliberately arranged with ‘senior’ beekeepers. Yet, if an average hive site is half the size of the two which were measured, and only 88% of beekeepers practise early burning, this still means that 1,266,000/2 x 88% = 557,040 ha of forest are being protected to some extent through early burning. That such a large area of forest is being protected by fire mitigation measures by beekeepers - more often maligned as forest destroyers than forest protectors - is extraordinary. This finding supports the view promoted by Smith (1966) who referred to beekeepers as the ‘foresters ally’ in the fight against fires.

Conclusion

The forest beekeeping system comprises a collection of actions; hive-making, hive-siting, attracting swarms to hives, early-burning and honey-harvesting. The precise and exacting requirements for bark hive making places a self-constraining limit on tree use which prevents intense exploitation. This low-impact tree use is coupled with early burning, which protects saplings from being killed by intense bush fires. Hive placement provides bees with excellent and plentiful nesting sites, which support the overall bee population. Forest beekeeping is a practical and sustainable beekeeping system, although not possible for every context. The system requires large areas of forest - not all communities have access to these as in Zambia. The methods involve long periods of working in the forest, making the system less accessible for women.

While other beekeeping systems depend on the management of individual colonies, the forest beekeeping system involves a very different approach. Forest beekeepers do not manage the bees, which live as they do in nature, they manage instead the habitat and the food source of the bees, that is the forest. Yet this management does not take the form of a scientific forest management plan, involving forest inventory and the setting of ‘Annual Allowable Cuts’. Instead, forest beekeepers recognise that to gain from forest beekeeping it is necessary to protect hives sites and because hive sites are forest; protecting hive-sites, means protecting forest. Forest beekeepers engage in a number of activities which cumulatively result in a maintained forest. Forest beekeepers do not ‘keep’ bees in the conventional sense, instead they ‘keep’ forest: in this way forest beekeepers are forest-keepers.

References

CAMPBELL,B. (1996). The Miombo in Transition: Woodlands and Welfare in Africa. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/ books?hl=nl&lr=&id=rpildJJVdU4C&pgis=1

CLAUSS,B. (1992). Bees and beekeeping in the North Western Province of Zambia. Ndola: Mission Press.

CHIDUMAYO,E. (1997). Miombo Ecology and Management: an introduction. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

ERIKSEN,C. (2007). Why do they burn the bush? Fire, rural livelihoods, and conservation in Zambia. Geographical Journal, 173(3), 242–256. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00239.x

FROST,P.G.H. (1999). Fire in southern African woodlands: Origins, impacts, effects, and control. Proceedings of an FAO Meeting on Public Policies Affecting Forest Fires, 138 (January), 181–205.

LOWORE,J. (2021). Forest beekeeping in Zambia: analysing the nexus of sustainable forest management and commercial honey trade. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Huddersfield, UK.

SMITH,F. (1966). Beekeeping as a forest industry. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal. Volume 31, 1966 – Issue 3. DOI: 10.1080/00128325.1966.11662064