ArticlePDF Available

Beekeeping in Tanzania: When the bees get out of the woods. An innovative cross-sectoral approach to communitybased natural resource management

Authors:

Abstract

The present trend in Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) is focused on development of economic alternatives to destructive environmental practices (slash and burn agriculture, poaching, charcoal production , etc.). Among the activities frequently cited is beekeeping (for Apis sp.) but the few existing examples relate more to an experimental approach with real economic impact generally being marginal. Beekeeping has a long history in Tanzania, but recent degradation trend in forest resources is endangering this activity. The initiative of ADAP, a Swiss ONG, in supporting village-based bee-keeping in Tanzania has been supported by different favorable elements: (1) a strong legal framework that supports both CBNRM and beekeeping activities, (2) the existence of a strong " collective " awareness of their common interests among the beekeepers, (3) the presence of a competitive market for bee products , (4) a substantial support from the central government down to the village level, and (5) the " miombo " ecosystem that covers the area is highly favorable for bee products production. The introductory workshop held in Mpanda in 2002 in which all stakeholders participated, confirmed the findings of the 5-month (September 2001-February 2002) village survey realized by ADAP. There was no cooperation, and conflicts among the stakeholders were numerous. The crux of the project is its ability to make stakeholders who have a long conflict relationship and who distrust each other work together. ADAP first supported (2001-2003) the Inyonga Beekeepers Association (IBA) in training, capacity building, improved beekeeping techniques, and a micro-credit scheme for beekeeping equipment. In addition, ADAP has implemented land demarcation in 13 villages. In two years, beekeeping has demonstrated its ability to compete. Rather than competition, which implies exclusion of the non-competitive activities, the interest of the approach relies on its ability to permit the implementation, under the same single management structure, of numerous complementary activities on the same land, but depending on different resources. As beekeeping is dependant on natural factors, ADAP will support on the second phase of the project (2004–2007) other sustainable productive activities benefiting to the local community, such as ecotourism and agro-forestry productions. Uncertainties remain at different levels, in both community reactions to change, institutional support, contradictory policies, and reaction from competitive forms of exploitation not associated to the project (e.g. tobacco companies). Moreover, community behavior remains highly unpredictable, and benefit-maximization strategy seems to be a possible option.
Game and Wildlife Science, Vol. 21 (3) 2004, p. 291-312
ISSN 1622-7662
BEEKEEPING IN TANZANIA: WHEN THE BEES
GET OUT OF THE WOODS… AN INNOVATIVE
CROSS-SECTORAL APPROACH TO
COMMUNITY-BASED NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
Y. HAUSSER (*) and P. MPUYA (**)
(*) University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland,
Department of Nature Management,
150 route de Presinge, CH-1254 Jussy, Geneva.
E-mail: yves.hausser@etat.ge.ch
(**) Forestry and Beekeeping Division,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism,
P.O. Box 426, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
E-mail:macpall@yahoo.com
KEY WORDS: Bee, Apis sp., natural resource, beekeeping, community-based manage-
ment, Tanzania.
ABSTRACT
The present trend in Community-Based Natural Resources Management
(CBNRM) is focused on development of economic alternatives to destructive
environmental practices (slash and burn agriculture, poaching, charcoal pro-
duction, etc.). Among the activities frequently cited is beekeeping (for Apis sp.)
but the few existing examples relate more to an experimental approach with real
economic impact generally being marginal. Beekeeping has a long history in
Tanzania, but recent degradation trend in forest resources is endangering this
activity. The initiative of ADAP, a Swiss ONG, in supporting village-based bee-
keeping in Tanzania has been supported by different favorable elements: (1) a
strong legal framework that supports both CBNRM and beekeeping activities, (2)
the existence of a strong “collective” awareness of their common interests
among the beekeepers, (3) the presence of a competitive market for bee pro-
ducts, (4) a substantial support from the central government down to the village
level, and (5) the “miombo” ecosystem that covers the area is highly favorable for
bee products production. The introductory workshop held in Mpanda in 2002 in
which all stakeholders participated, confirmed the findings of the 5-month
(September 2001-February 2002) village survey realized by ADAP. There was no
cooperation, and conflicts among the stakeholders were numerous. The crux of
the project is its ability to make stakeholders who have a long conflict relation-
ship and who distrust each other work together. ADAP first supported (2001-
2003) the Inyonga Beekeepers Association (IBA) in training, capacity building,
improved beekeeping techniques, and a micro-credit scheme for beekeeping
equipment. In addition, ADAP has implemented land demarcation in 13 villages.
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 291
292 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
In two years, beekeeping has demonstrated its ability to compete. Rather than
competition, which implies exclusion of the non-competitive activities, the
interest of the approach relies on its ability to permit the implementation, under
the same single management structure, of numerous complementary activities
on the same land, but depending on different resources. As beekeeping is
dependant on natural factors, ADAP will support on the second phase of the
project (2004–2007) other sustainable productive activities benefiting to the local
community, such as ecotourism and agro-forestry productions. Uncertainties
remain at different levels, in both community reactions to change, institutional
support, contradictory policies, and reaction from competitive forms of exploita-
tion not associated to the project (e.g. tobacco companies). Moreover, commu-
nity behavior remains highly unpredictable, and benefit-maximization
strategy seems to be a possible option.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
I. INTRODUCTION
The present trend in Community-Based Natural Resources Management
(CBNRM) has led research to focus on alternative economic activities to the
destructive and environmentally detrimental practices of slash and burn agri-
culture, forest clearing and poaching that occur in most rural areas in Africa.
The development of activities linked to the so-called Non-Timber Forest
Products (NTFP) has received considerably more attention and support than
previously from financing organizations, cooperation agencies and national
public agencies in charge of natural resource management. The promotion of
those environmentally friendly but productive activities is now widely recog-
nized as being among the "good practices" that occur in this field.
Nevertheless, in the end, little concrete action has taken place.
The keeping of bees, Apis sp., is often cited as being one such activity
(CHRISTOPHERSEN et al., 2000). A lot of Integrated Conservation and
Development Project (ICDP) Initiatives include it among other “alternative
activities” that should be supported and promoted in the course of the life of
a project. Yet few existing examples offer more than experiments or demon-
strative experiences that generally have fallen short of expectations regarding
the socio-cultural (appropriation of new techniques) and economic sides
(profitability) of the issue.
Beekeeping has a long history in Tanzania (MPUYA, 2001; NJIRO WILDLIFE
RESEARCH CENTER, 1993; MPUYA and HAUSSER, 2004, in prep.) as it is
believed that honey hunting predates agriculture. Portuguese, British and
German colonial States contributed to an expanded trade in bee products.
Along with their trade in beeswax and honey, the Germans introduced box
hives and the concept of colony preservation. The post-independence period
has seen a strengthening of the beekeeping sector and the introduction of
beekeeping development programmes and strong inputs in technological
innovations (MPUYA, 2001). In 1998, an innovative, first-time Beekeeping
Policy was adopted and a formal Beekeeping Division was developed within
the Forestry and Beekeeping Division (FBD) of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism (MNRT).
Tanzania has a wide variety of ecosystems and climate, and, accordingly,
different methods of beekeeping have been developed with several types of
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 292
Y. Hausser and P. Mpuya 293
hives. It is estimated that Tanzania has about 33.5 million ha of forests and
woodlands (1998 National Forest Policy; ALDEN-WILY, 2001; IDDI, 2002). 88%
of the forests are of the invaluable miombo woodland type, recognized as
being among the most productive for beekeeping purposes (FORESTRY AND
BEEKEEPING DIVISION, 2000). 14 million ha are legally protected under
reserve protection status (ALDEN-WILY, 2001), while the remaining 19 million
ha are non-protected areas on public lands (village land or General land –
Government owned). But the recent trend in deforestation is threatening the
future of forest-based activities, including beekeeping, under the cumulative
effect of slash and burn cultivation, deforestation for conversion to rental
crops such as tobacco or extended use of pesticides. There is no reliable data
about deforestation, estimates varying from 91,200 ha/year (FAO, 2000, quoted
by IDDI, 2002) to 300,000-500,000 ha/year (KIHIYO, 1998; GTZ, 2003).
Tanzania is rich in beefodder plants that include both natural plants and cul-
tivars. Surveys have so far identified more than 300 beefodders plants. The
stocking rates of productive colonies (number of honeybee colonies per km2
for a given area) have been estimated for various vegetation types in the
country (KIHWELE et al., 2001) and vary from 2 in grassland areas to 15 in
closed forests. It is estimated that from about 9.2 million honeybee colonies,
the production potential of bee products in the country is about 138,000 tons
of honey and 9,200 tons of beeswax per annum (1998 National Beekeeping
Policy). These are worth US$ 138 million and US$ 18.4 million, respectively
(using average prices of the year 2003, i.e. US$ 1 per kg of honey and
US$ 2 per kg of beeswax). Present utilization of this potential is only about
4 per cent annually (FORESTRY AND BEEKEEPING DIVISION, 2000).
In this paper we will present, for Tanzania: (1) the legal and institutional
framework that permitted the development of CBNRM (including beekeeping),
(2) the stakeholders who are concerned by beekeeping activity, (3) the first
lessons of an initiative supported by ADAP, a Swiss NGO, dating from
September 2001 in western Tanzania, and (4) the environmental, socio-cul-
tural and economical perspectives of beekeeping.
II. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
II.1. HISTORIC EVOLUTION
Tanzania is committed to poverty alleviation and improvement in the living
standards of its people. Currently, more than 50% of the population still lives
below the poverty line and this proportion might be higher in the rural areas
(following the criteria of the United Nations Development Program).
The TANZANIA DEVELOPING VISION 2025 (2003) and the Macro Economic
Development Program on Poverty Reduction and Growth propose several
issues and strategies in order to eliminate poverty by 2025.
Following IDDI (2002), “over the last quarter of a century, Tanzania’s land policy
and law have been built on what is arguably the most decentralized and
devolved regime of governance in sub-Saharan Africa, in which governance is
lodged first and foremost at the village level”. A complex framework of policies
and legislation (Table I) permitted the rapid development of community-based
forest management, including beekeeping activity. Nevertheless, there is room
for conflict as well, as there are some contradictions between policies.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 293
294 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
TABLE I
Legal and institutional framework (policies, programs and acts) of
Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in Tanzania.
Sources: MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM (1998a,
1998b, 1998c) and UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (2000a).
TABLEAU I
Cadre légal et institutionnel (politiques forestière, apicole, concernant la
faune sauvage et l'environnement; programme concernant l'apiculture;
lois sur la terre, les territoires villageois et le gouvernement local) de la
gestion participative des ressources naturelles en Tanzanie.
Title (year) Contents
National Forest Policy (1998) Enhances the contribution of the forest sector to
the sustainable development of Tanzania and the
conservation and management of its natural
resources for the benefit of present and futur
generations
National Beekeeping Policy (1998) Enhances the contribution of the beekeeping
sector to the sustainable development of
Tanzania and the conservation and manage-
ment of its natural resources for the benefit
of present and future generations
National Wildlife Policy (1998) Calls for the creation of Wildlife Management
Areas (WMA), defined as “an area declared by
the Minister to do so and set asides by village
governments for the purpose of biological
natural resources conservation” (MNRT, 1998).
Transfers the management of WMA to local
communities, thus, taking care of corridors,
migration routes and buffer zones and ensuring
that the local communities obtain substantial
tangible benefits from wildlife conservation.
National Beekeeping Program Instrument designed to put into practice the
(2001) NBP with emphasis on stakeholders’ participation
in the planning, management, ownership
and sustainable utilization of bee resources for
poverty eradication, improved biodiversity
development and environmental conservation.
Beekeeping Act (2002) Its main objectives are: (i) to make provisions
for the orderly conduct of beekeeping; (ii) to
improve the quality and quantity of bee products; (iii)
to prevent and eradicate bee diseases and bee
pests; and (iv) to improve revenue collection.
National Environmental Policy The legal framework to confirm government
(1997) intentions to empower beekeepers to own and
manage the use of resources (e.g. bee reserves)
so as to prevent and control degradation of life
supporting land, water, vegetation and air.
Land Act (1999) Creates the necessary conditions for CBNRM
through the recognition of village land as a
category of land.
Village Land Act (1999) Empowers the village councils with devolution of
management rights on the land.
Local Government Act (1982) Permits village by-laws to enter statutory laws,
through procedures of recognition from the District
Council.
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 294
Y. Hausser and P. Mpuya 295
KIHIYO (1998), KAJEMBE et al. (2000) and YLHÄISI (2003) produced
a detailed analysis of the historic evolution of the legal and institutional
framework that supports the management of natural resources in Tanzania.
They found that under the combined effect of economic crises, structural
adjustment programs and “a recent common attitude that traditional, pre-cap-
italist societies were efficient managers of their natural resources“ (YLHÄISI,
2003), there has been a move from the centralized and exclusive “fences and
fines” approach that ruled the sector since colonial times, towards decentral-
ized, and mainly community-based regimes. Government and non-govern-
ment agencies accordingly reshaped their own functions away from direct
management towards supporting technical and advisory roles (CAMPBELL
et al., 1999, quoted by KAJEMBE et al., 2000).
The awaited outcome of this new vision is closely linked to participation.
As KAJEMBE et al. (2000) have expressed it, “if governments decentralize,
citizens will participate”. Among the reasons quoted by different authors to
explain this change is the fact that forest under public land lacked proper
management. For KIHIYO (1998), “due to lack of management by the govern-
ment, the forests on public lands can be considered as open access”. This
"open access situation" leads to a quick degradation of forests, as “every-
body’s access is nobody’s property” (BROMLEY, 1992, quoted by KIHIYO,
1998). Closely linked to that situation is the question of land tenure.
As observed by YHLÄISI (2003), “the insecurity of tenure resulted in a number
of environmental problems, including the promotion of open access, particu-
larly in forest and woodlands (…)”.
In this context, the New Policy aims at solving all those management
problems. As outlined by KIHIYO (1998), quoting OSTROM (1990), "rarely
has attention focused on management of resources by communities or has
managing them as a common property been considered”. The new Forest
and Beekeeping Policies are characterized by “the efforts to strengthen or to
otherwise reintroduce earlier management traditions” (IDDI, 2002).
Based on the pilot project experiences prior to the adoption of the new policies,
the new National Forest Policy (MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
TOURISM, 1998b) promotes two different tools to implement this new vision.
These are CBNRM and Joint Forest Management Agreement (JFMA), for
which user rights have been clearly defined.
Among the different objectives of the 2002 Forest Act (UNITED REPUBLIC
OF TANZANIA, 2002b), one is “to delegate responsibility for management of
forest resources to the lowest possible level of local management consistent
with the furtherance of the policies” (YHLÄISI, 2003). The Forest Act
contributed as well to defining different categories of protected areas that
could be managed by the communities.
The 1998 National Forest Policy, as quoted by IDDI (2002), “is quite clear
on the need to bring unreserved forest and woodlands under the jurisdiction
of local communities as “village Forest Reserves”, (…). This also opens the
way for forest-adjacent communities to become co-managers of both central
and local government Forest Reserves (FR) through the JFMA. KIHIYO
summarized the view when saying “this is the idea being proposed in the new
forest policy: making communities responsible for managing forest resources
as common property in Tanzania whenever possible.”
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 295
296 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
The 1999 Land Act and 1999 Village Land Act are complementary to the
environmental policies. “In Tanzania, the existence of formal local govern-
ments structures at community level is incorporated into community forest
based management” (YHLÄISI, 2003). Thus the Land Act is strengthening the
role of the village councils with the establishment of a “clear and strong foun-
dation by the introduction into the Law of the “village land” as one of the three
land management categories” (IDDI, 2002). YHLÄISI (2003) underscored that
the Tanzanian Land Act is one of the few in sub-Saharan Africa to draw a clear
distinction between reserved land, general land and village land as manage-
ment categories. However, as YHLÄISI (2003) has observed, the more impor-
tant contribution is probably that it permits distribution of state-owned land,
not only agricultural land, but also all kind of forests, to communities
and groups of people as well as to private individuals. This, YHLÄISI has
noted, is unusual in developing countries.
II.2. THE TANZANIAN CHOICE TO GIVE MANAGEMENT
RIGHTS INSTEAD OF PROPERTY RIGHTS TO THE
COMMUNITIES
Different authors (ALDEN-WILY, 2001, YHLÄISI, 2003) consider the
Tanzanian framework as the most appropriate to Community-Based Forest
Management in East Africa. The choice has been made to give management
rights to the community instead of property rights. The main reason for this
was the objection to privatize the forests, because of their high importance to
the livelihoods of the poorest, who depend on direct access to resources for
their survival. Different studies have outlined the direct dependence of the
poorest to the forest natural resources for their day-to-day subsistence
(CARPANETO and FUSARI, 2000; HAULE et al., 2002). For ALDEN-WILY
(2001), it has been decided to devolve power of management instead of
access rights, which is not enough to promote sustainable management.
The principle behind this new vision has been summarized by KIHIYO
(1998) who stated that, “thus, common property is not access open to all but
access limited to a specified group of users who hold their right in common.”
The property rights are exclusive to the co-owners and are secured because
they received appropriate legal support from the government (1998 National
Forest Policy and 1999 Land Act).
As a result, the village councils have considerable power regarding land-
management. They can demarcate land (village land) for common use and/or
natural resource management. IDDI (2002) underlined “(…) the provision in
the Land Law for the ownership of rights in this land to be titled to the appro-
priate group in the community, or even to the community as a whole”. Village
councils have the capacity to promulgate village-by laws, which permits
villages to develop their own forest management regulations and their own
management mechanisms. YHLÄISI (2003) underlined that “all persons, not
only community members, are legally bound to adhere to the by-law once
enacted.” Among the motivating facts for CBNRM replication in Tanzania was
the low costs of those management systems (ALDEN-WILY, 2001; IDDI, 2002).
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 296
Y. Hausser and P. Mpuya 297
The main changes following the introduction of this new legislation are well
summarized by YHLÄISI (2003) when he says “that new development, con-
servation and other projects cannot be planned anymore in the villages with-
out consent and participation of the local communities.”
II.3. BEEKEEPING POLICY
The developments presented here regard mainly the Forest Policy and
Village and Land Act, but it is clear that numerous other legislative texts have
some influence on the issue treated. It needs to be made explicit that the 1998
National Beekeeping Policy (MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
TOURISM, 1998a) was modelled on the 1998 Forest Policy. The Beekeeping
Division is embedded in the Forest and Beekeeping Division; this explains this
common shaping of the policies. The 1998 BKP explicit the fact that it was
initially planned that beekeeping issues would be integrated in Forest Policy.
The 1998 BKP states “it was decided to write a separate beekeeping policy
document in order to have a clear vision, mission and adequate coverage
of beekeeping (…).” Thus the previous analysis for the forest sector is applicable
to beekeeping. For example the different type of reserves that have been
defined as “community-based protected areas” in the Forest Policy have been
replicated for the beekeeping sector. The Beekeeping Policy is similarly
taking into account the different links with the Land and Village Land Act.
Regarding CBNRM issues, the framework is very similar.
III. THE STAKEHOLDERS
Four main groups of stakeholders, often with competing interests, are
concerned by beekeeping activity. The beekeepers themselves are organized
in groups, cooperatives, associations, or as individuals or family groups. They
ensure the production with the collection and first conditioning of honey in the
wild. In the whole country, beekeeping is practised by about 2 million people,
which is more than 5% of the population. At the local level it could surpass
20% of the population as revealed by an ADAP survey in the Inyonga division
(OGEJO et al., 2002). Beekeeping activity occurs under different land tenure
statuses [open land, village land, Game Reserve (GR), Forest Reserve (FR),
Game Controlled Area (GCA), Wildlife Management Area (WMA)] covering
almost all the country except the National Parks and the urban areas. This can
lead to conflicts with other stakeholders.
The bee-product buyers, of whom there are different types, are the second
group of stakeholders. The local market absorbs part of the production
for honey-beer production. At a regional level, there is a potential market
provided by some food-shops, hotels and restaurants, and tour-operators.
At a national/international level, there are two major companies trading food
products, namely Fidda Hussein and Mohammed Enterprise. They are important
buyers, collecting beeswax and honey, among other food products,
for export. As far as we know, Goldapis Ltd. is the only private specialized
organization that works only on bee products and exports a high standard
quality honey to the European Union (mainly the German market).
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 297
298 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
The trophy hunting and game viewing safari operators do operate
on the same land than the other stakeholders. They have a competing interest
as they consider beekeeping a threat to their activity, e.g. risk of poaching
activities being done under cover of beekeeping, uncontrolled bushfires,
disturbance to the game, etc. There have been conflicts recorded between those
stakeholders (CLARKE, 2001; FORESTRY AND BEEKEEPING DIVISION,
2000; OGEJO et al., 2002) and this was confirmed by professional hunters
from Tanzania Big Game Safaris and Robin Hurt Safaris (professional hunters,
pers. commun. 2003). Some trophy hunting companies try to prevent any
beekeeping activity on the land they have allocated, claiming that beekeeping
is always associated with poaching.
Those companies are often associated, in the mind of villagers as in reality,
to the law enforcement groups that constitutes the fourth group, namely the
public agencies in charge of the natural resources management on those
different lands [Forestry and Beekeeping Division (FBD), Wildlife Division
(WD), Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA)]. The relationship between the
fourth group and the first one is often conflict-based as, mostly for lack of
information, communication and misunderstanding regarding status of land
and boundaries, the conflicts occur on land that falls under their respective
jurisdictions.
IV. A LOCAL INITIATIVE OF BEEKEPING
A Swiss non-governmental association called ADAP initiated a Beekeeping
Support Programme in western Tanzania in September 2001 on the base of
the CBNRM principles.
IV.1. PRESENTATION OF THE AREA
ADAP’s beekeeping support program was located in the Rukwa region,
Mpanda District, Inyonga Division, in south-western Tanzania. The area is of
significant importance regarding biodiversity conservation, located between
the Katavi-Rukwa-Lukwati protected area complex in the south and the Ugala
Game Reserve in the north, while the vast Ruaha–Rungwa protected area
complex borders it on the east. The Katavi-Rukwa-Lukwati complex includes
the Katavi National Park (3rd in size in Tanzania), Rukwa Game Reserve and
Lukwati Game Reserve. It is managed by the Tanzanian National Parks and
the Wildlife Division, with strong support from the Katavi-Rukwa-Lukwati
Development Project of the GTZ. The Ugala Game Reserve is managed by the
Wildlife Division, with support from the Africare Community Conservation
Project (project financed through USAID). The program area supports heavy
miombo forests woodlands, inhabited by numerous wildlife communities.
Human population is low (20,000 inhabitants on 40,000 km2) while economic
activities are highly dependent on natural resources.
Most of the land is devoted to tourism hunting and reserve land, leaving little
space for village-based activities. The migration pressure is high, estimated
to be more than 5% (GTZ, 2002), which is among the highest in Tanzania.
The population largely consists of the Konongo ethnic group. They are historic
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 298
Y. Hausser and P. Mpuya 299
inhabitants of the area, mostly hunter-gatherers who recently have been
forced to turn to agriculture. Recent migrants are the Sukuma, cattle-breeders
who fled out of the dry areas located north to the Rukwa region. Despite the
relative good state of the natural resources in the area compared to most rural
areas in Africa (heavy forest cover, important wildlife communities) the
increasing pressure, mostly with deforestation for tobacco production and
poaching for bushmeat, are endangering the sustainability of this typical
miombo ecosystem. Beekeeping is typically a traditional activity in Inyonga,
with a long local history.
IV.2. PROJECT PREPARATION: IDENTIFICATION OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS AND CONFLICTS
The findings of a 5-month (September 2001 - February 2002) village survey
carried out by ADAP as a preparatory step for its project agreed with those
raised with all the stakeholders during the 3-day workshop held in Mpanda
in May 2002 (HAUSSER and SAVARY, 2002). At a local level in Inyonga Division,
Natural Resource Management stakeholders include, for the community:
groups of hunters, fishers, beekeepers, cattle breeders and farmers; for the private
companies: trophy hunting, bee products traders, classical crops traders; for
the public: parastate organizations (Wildlife Division, Forestry and Beekeeping
Division, Tanzanian Natural Parks, District Council, Village Council). Regarding
its relative importance at a local level, a fourth group of stakeholders has been
considered, the cooperation organizations (GTZ, Africare).
This survey (OGEJO et al., 2002) indicates a complex situation for a basically
poor rural population that has led to the development of the multiple-use
strategy they seem to have. A majority of incomes are from agricultural
activities or natural resource extraction activities. The calendar of activity
is influenced by both agro-ecological and meteorological conditions and
probably as well by the intensity and frequency of law enforcement measures
regarding illegal activities (hunting). The complex situation is due to the
contradiction between the traditional way of natural resource use that people
have in the area, and the regularization and implementation of the modern
natural resources policy recently adopted by the government.
The village survey also pointed out that “rights of access to natural resources
and rights of use seem to be the core problem between the different
stakeholders and this issue must be addressed by the project for its future
success.” Problems/conflicts arise mainly from recent size extensions of the
protected area in the region (extension of the Katavi National Park and Rukwa
Game Reserve and creation-extension of the Lukwati Game Reserve) and lack
of information regarding the precise new boundaries, as well as from
cumulative beekeeping and hunting-poaching activities.
IV.3. THE PROJECT
The participatory identification of the project’s objectives was made during
the workshop held in Mpanda in May 2002. There were two major objectives:
(1) to establish CBNRM mechanisms in the Inyonga Division, and (2) to support
the development of village-based sustainable economic activities with a view
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 299
300 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
to increase the local incomes from natural resource management.
Following the findings of this first phase, the project strategy was adopted
in June 2002, comprising: (1) support to the Inyonga Beekeepers Association
(IBA) in training, introduction of modern hives, improved techniques for quality
honey collecting, conditioning and packing; (2) support for the introduction of
a micro-credit system for beekeeping equipment; (3) support to the local
authority in charge of natural resource management and local government in
implementation of village land demarcation and registration (stage 1), and
then support to the village Participatory Land Use Management Process
(stage 2); (4) support to the Village Councils’ Environmental Committees
through training and capacity building; (5) support for the Community
Participatory identification, implementation and management of a Bee
Reserve; (6) negotiation with the different managers clear rights of access for
duly-registered professional and organized beekeepers in cross-sectoral
areas; and (7) development of other sustainable economic alternatives:
launching of an ecotourism project and support to the production of other
sustainable crops.
ADAP decided as well to increase its participation as a facilitator,
a "bridge-actor" (VAN DER DUIM and CAALDERS, 2002) between the different
stakeholders so as to be sure to integrate the many-sided interests in the process.
IV.4. FIRST RESULTS
At a community level, the most important achievement was probably
the implementation of the village land demarcation process and registration,
in collaboration with the Land Tenure Office for 12 of the 13 villages of the
Inyonga Division. This has helped considerably in solving all remnant land
conflicts between villages. As IDDI (2002) pointed out while studying another
experience of forest community-based management, “one of the main factors
that has contributed to the success of the management of the Duru-Haitemba
woodlands is the fact that it is adjacent to organized villages with defined
boundaries and democratic government”.
The growing size of the Inyonga Beekeepers Association (from 100 members
in May 2002 to 300 in December 2003) reflects the strong interests of the
beekeepers in the proposed solutions, and its increasingly formal and
organized structure is an encouraging sign of its sustainability. The Inyonga
Beekeepers Association is now widely and fully recognized among the
stakeholders. Public interest and awareness has been greatly improved
in the last three years.
The production, benefiting from both the effects of the training and excellent
natural conditions, increased from 7 t in 2001 to 200 t in 2003. This increase,
together with the competitive market in bee products, enables an income of
120,000 US$ in 2003 from beekeeping in the Inyonga Division to be reached.
This estimate is based on information from the buyers, the beekeepers and
the authorities.
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, the Ministry of Local
Government, the District Council of Mpanda and local authorities (Division
and Village Councils) have expressed their satisfaction with the participatory
approach and the results achieved. Following the typology of participation as
established by the INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES GROUP (2000), ADAP’s
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 300
Y. Hausser and P. Mpuya 301
project ranks stage 6 on 7 stages, which go from passive participation
to self-mobilization. This 6th stage is Interactive participation, with main
components defined as “Joint analysis to joint actions, possible use of new
institutions or strengthening existing ones. Enabling and empowering so
people have stake in maintaining structures or practices”.
IV.5. COMPARISON WITH OTHER NATIONAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY INCOMES: A STATE OF THE
SITUATION IN THE INYONGA DIVISION
Regarding these facts, it could be estimated that honey production brings
back to beekeepers about 120,000 US$ in 2003 and this concerns only the
Mpanda District. Compared to the given estimates of 120,000 US$ of incomes
for the Mpanda District (District Natural Resources Officer, pers. commun.,
2004) from trophy hunting or to the estimates of 70,000 to 100,000 US$ from
tobacco crop earnings for the Inyonga Division (representative of Tanzania
tobacco Company, pers. commun., 2003), beekeeping proves its ability
to compete with the other forms of land use, while playing a considerable role
in the micro-economy of the households. At a more global level, for 2003,
regarding the figures provided by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division
(MAPOLU, 2003), the Inyonga Division honey counted for about 30% of total
value of Tanzanian honey export (200 t over 656.9 t). We were not able to
collect figures regarding the other important and potentially threatening activity,
forest exploitation. It appears that most of this exploitation is illegal, as the
area is huge and the services in charge of forestry are lacking the means
to work efficiently in such huge natural forest areas.
Regarding household micro-economics, different studies (FORESTRY AND
BEEKEEPING DIVISION, 2000) revealed that per capita incomes are far
greater with well established beekeeping than with crop production such as
tobacco, which is time consuming, and environmentally destructive (KILON
and MASAYANIKA, 1993 ; TEMU, 1998), or through extractive activities such
as charcoal production (MONELA et al., 2000, quoted by KILAHAMA, 2000),
or poaching, which, despite being economically viable, is becoming a risky
business, considering the better organized anti-poaching activities.
IV.6. THE STEP FORWARD: THE BEE RESERVE
The Bee Reserve concept
The Bee Reserve (BR) concept has been developed through the
Beekeeping Policy (1998). It aims at ensuring the long-term conservation and
management of forest resources that are essential for beekeeping activity.
This new kind of Protected Area has been conceived with a view to permitting
the investment of the stakeholders in the activity. Thus, the BR can be owned
by the State, the District Council, the Village Council, or even the individual
beekeepers as long as they are organized in cooperatives or associations.
Regarding the status of land, the BR could be established on Public land
(General Land and Village Land). But is has been observed that the activity is
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 301
302 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
definitively forest based (FORESTRY AND BEEKEEPING DIVISION, 2000) and
thus the most important forest resources are located within the protected area
network. Beekeeping in protected areas seems to be an interesting option
regarding (1) the availability of forest resources, (2) the security of beekeeping
material (risk of vandalism) and (3) the potential role that beekeepers could
have in the management of the area (e.g. anti-poaching intelligence).
Regarding reserve land, the 2002 Beekeeping Act provides opportunities
to practice beekeeping in both Forest Reserves and Game Reserves, under
a permitting system. While beekeeping largely occurs in Forest Reserves,
despite being obviously possible, only few examples relate experiences
of permitting system in Game Reserves. The FORESTRY AND BEEKEEPING
DIVISION (2000) stated that from the records and experiences of the
permitting system for beekeeping practices in the Ugala, Moyowosi and
Kigosi Game Reserves, which were initially Forest Reserves, it is evident that
beekeeping itself does not conflict with other forms of land/resource use in the
Forest or Game Reserves, Game Controlled Areas and public lands. Instead
it is quite compatible as well as complementary. Following this recent trend,
the management of the Rukwa Game Reserve has recently accepted to
integrate a system of management of beekeeping in the Game Reserve, based
on a permitting system. The zoning tool has been used to identify a part of the
Game Reserve as a “Community Use Zone”, where beekeeping is allowed.
Most of the conflicts between trophy hunting companies and beekeepers
occur on Game Controlled Areas. As quoted by the FORESTRY AND
BEEKEEPING DIVISION (2000), “there are more conflicts between outfitters
and beekeeper in the Game Control Areas where the outfitters assume
preferential rights and power over resources than in the Game Reserves.”
Among the most important problems at this level is a question of By-Law
hierarchy; the gazettement of a reserve is a complex process that goes
through the Parliament, while a Game Controlled Area declaration is an
unilateral decision by the Director of Wildlife. This has led to a situation where
numerous Forest Reserves have been declared as Game Controlled Areas,
but with no regard to their original official status. When it comes to the question
of activities allowed within those areas, there is usually a de facto situation
that favors the outfitters and confirms preferential rights over resources they
seem to have, while discouraging beekeepers from staking their claims and
rights, despite a favorable de jure situation.
The Inyonga District case
Currently, this is the case in the Inyonga Division with the Mlele Forest
Reserve. The beekeepers (IBA), the VC and the counselors of Inyonga
division have conducted a participatory assessment of the most appropriate
area to set up a Bee Reserve. The result of this assessment reveals the high
degree of knowledge beekeepers have of their surrounding environment.
They have identified a huge forest-covered area that is located in Mlele Forest
Reserve. The area has been classified as a Game Controlled Area by the
Director of Wildlife and an outfitter is actually conducting trophy-hunting
operations on the block. Identified as an intermediate solution was the setting
up of a beekeeping zone in the Forest Reserve that could be managed under
a Joint Forest Management Agreement with all the stakeholders. A gazetting
process in Bee Reserve thus first implies a degazettement of the Forest
Reserve and a re-gazetting in Bee Reserve.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 302
Y. Hausser and P. Mpuya 303
It has been decided to follow two lines: (1) establishment of small Village
Bee Reserves on the village land while implementing the Planning of Land
Use Management process, and (2) establishment of a Beekeeping Zone in the
Mlele Forest Reserve, and establishment of a Joint Forest Management
Agreement for the Mlele Forest Reserve. This second axis is a transitory step
to the creation of a Bee Reserve. Once established, the Joint Management
Agreement will be evaluated after a trial period and will serve as a basis for
setting up the management plan for a future Bee Reserve.
V. PERSPECTIVES
Environmental
Beekeeping activity is more environmentally friendly than many other
extractive activities. Even the debarking method used to build hives in different
parts of the country is far less destructive than conversion to agricultural land
through slash and burn agriculture or forest clearing for tobacco cultivation.
The actual trend is to promote intensively the introduction of modern hives in
order to cease those practices. The fixed target in the 2002 Beekeeping Act
(UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA, 2002a) is to abolish this practice by
June 2006. The same can be said for the use of the fire to harvest that is
progressively converted to the use of smokers. The activity if well done
is more a harvest than a take-off. It could produce different kinds of products
(honey, wax, propolis, royal jelly, etc.) that could be exploited and valorized.
Moreover, beekeeping has definitively a crucial role in biodiversity
conservation as it is playing a determining role in pollination services.
LWOGA (2003) has stated that “bees are thought to be the most efficient
of the insect pollinators” and this demonstrates how they are important for
both cultivated crops and natural vegetation formations. In the main, reflect-
ing their highly sensitive reactions to environmental change, bees could be
considered as a state of the environment indicator.
A key issue regarding environmental impact will be the success of this
conversion to modern beekeeping techniques, as it implies financial
investment and technical support. But there are different encouraging examples
of this progressive conversion, such as the Beekeeping and Development
Project implemented by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division in five District
Councils of Tanzania, with financial support from Norway (MPUYA and
HAUSSER, 2004, in prep.), or the ADAP project.
It has been observed that the negative effects of traditional beekeeping
(debarking trees, bushfires, etc.) can be stopped by a slight improvement in
techniques (FOREST AND BEEKEEPING DIVISION, 2000; ADAP, 2003).
Among the most difficult negative impacts to control is poaching. While
trained active occupational beekeepers seem to have left poaching, it appears
that poachers still use the beekeepers’ camps in the bush in the beekeepers’
absence. The beehives are sometimes used to hide weapons or bush meat
(professional hunters, pers. commun. 2003).
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 303
304 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
Socio-cultural: indigenous beekeeping knowledge
Over 90% of beekeeping in Tanzania is carried out by traditional beekeepers.
However, participation of women and young people in beekeeping is estimated
at 5% of all beekeepers. Therefore strategies to encourage their participation
are urgently needed. Traditional beekeepers have indigenous knowledge that
has been used to produce high quality honey and beeswax for many years.
Existence of high beekeeping potential is a function of the presence
of a high density of honeybee colonies, beefodder plants, as well as the
presence of traditional beekeepers that are rich in indigenous knowledge
of beekeeping. Traditional beekeepers represent a group favorable to
participatory approaches as they are aware of their common interests and
their shared problems and difficulties. As pointed out by KIHWELE (1983),
“they express strong conservation concerns and responsibilities for the
sustainability of their beekeeping occupation”.
Economics: from local to global markets
Beekeeping touches a wide range of economic stakeholders. In natural
resource management activities, it is among the few of direct benefit to house-
holds, which represent the basic beekeeping production unit. At a more global
level, the different markets reflect the quality of honey produced. The added
value is considerably higher with a top quality table honey than with an
industrial honey. The good results in the improvement of beekeeping
techniques reached in different projects (Couturier Gm, Goldapis Ltd., pers.
commun., 2003; ADAP, 2003 ; MPUYA and HAUSSER, 2004, in prep.) give
hope for increasing the quality of the honey as well as increasing the average
number of hives per beekeeper. Currently, both quality and per unit quantity
of production are increasing, leaving appreciable margin of progression for
the future. The conversion from bark hives to box hives would further enhance
this increase, with an expected ratio of 1:2.
The global income of beekeeping can hardly be estimated, as an important
part of the business is informal (local traders). Regarding state income, both
local governments (District Council) and central government have raised
taxes on the trade of bee products, but the only clear figure available pertains
to export. Due to competitive pressure, reflecting the increasing value of the
produced honey, producers’ prices doubled between 2001 and 2003. Export
figures for bee products (Figure 1) may be estimated to be 50-60% of the real
entire export business for the bee products. The remaining 40-50% is exported
informally through “njia za panya”, an informal trading system that export
bee’s products to neighboring countries as Kenya, Burundi, Rwanda. Through
the formal export trade, Tanzania has been earning an average of US$ 1.7 million
annually from exports of honey and beeswax in the last five years. Regarding
international market prices, the highest quality table honey raises
1,200 US$/ton, while industrial honey is only about 700 US$/ton.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 304
Y. Hausser and P. Mpuya 305
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Cross sectoral management of natural resources: the case
of beekeeping
As demonstrated earlier, the cross sectoral management of beekeeping is
the main challenge facing the activity in the coming years. Despite a complex
and unclear situation, there is space to move further and to strengthen what
already has been established.
The experiences held in Ugala-Moyowosi-Kigosi Game Reserves, and more
recently in Rukwa Game Reserve revealed how those spaces could and
should be exploited. As shown previously, the most problematic issue seems
to be the cases of Forest Reserves/Game Controlled Areas double status.
In this sense, ADAP experience is innovative as it seeks a solution that tries
to save the various interests invested and then addresses the issue of natural
resource conservation and management outside protected areas.
Hunting, tourism and beekeeping: complementarity
instead of competition
The global interest in this integrated approach remains in the ability
of Natural Resource managers to integrate these different activities so as
to maximize incomes for all of the stakeholders and thus to accrue the value
added to the land and the resources it holds. While increasing the incomes,
this approach could help to solve conflicts and then contribute to decreasing
the level of conflicts between the stakeholders.
Rather than competition, which implies exclusion of the non-competitive
activities, the interest of the approach relies on its ability to permit the
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
Value in USD
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
1991/92
1992/93
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/ 2003
Year
USD
Beeswax
Honey
Figure 1: Tanzania export earnings (US$) from honey and beeswax 1988-2003. Adapted from MAPO-
LU (2003).
Figure 1 : Revenus ($US) des exportations de miel (courbe gris clair) et de cire (courbe noire) de
Tanzanie de 1998 à 2003. Adapté de MAPOLU (2003)
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 305
306 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
implementation, under the same management structure, of numerous com-
plementary activities on the same land, but depending on different resources.
Thus, trophy hunting, beekeeping and ecotourism in the same areas would
permit a maximization of the resources and increased benefits for each of the
stakeholders, including the State via taxes.
Until the present time, the relationships between the different stakeholders
were unbalanced in favor of the wildlife stakeholders, which tended to exclude
the other stakeholders. As observed by the FORESTRY AND BEEKEEPING
DIVISION (2000), the notion that the 1974 Wildlife Conservation Act N° 12 is
supreme over the other natural resources legislation is mis-guided and
excludes options for joint management of resources. The reason for that
unbalanced situation seems to stem from the feeling that big game
management is of greater importance with respect to both ecological and
economical issues. Yet recent findings tend to shed doubt on this assertion.
As pointed out by KOTHARI (2001), there is a bias in considering only the big
animal as a wildlife resource. “In many regions of the world, however,
Community Conservation is dependent on the use of wild plants, smaller
animals, and habitats in general.” This is definitively the case with beekeeping.
Another bias cited by KOTHARI is linked to the restricted vision of economic
value that western scientists have of natural resource use. There are numerous
examples of non-utilitarian Community Conservation initiatives, which tend to
achieve both conservation and community livelihood security (ROE et al.,
2000; KOTHARI, 2001). ALDEN-WILY (2001) recognized it when she claimed that
it also opens the way for communities to manage forests which are important
less for their products than for their existence values and environmental
services. It is the same understanding that KAJEMBE et al. (2000) showed
when they considered that “economic utility does represent an important
incentive. However, where community-based forest management authority
has been well established, it is frequently apparent that less tangible socio-
cultural or simple tenurial interests (“it is ours”) play equally as important roles
in sustained community management.”
Beekeeping benefits
It has been demonstrated that after having realized that the current
deterioration in the state of natural resources in Tanzania can be attributed to
the State monopoly in the sector (SHAURI, 2001), the State has introduced
a decentralization program that has been coupled with the establishment
of new policies in natural resources aimed at ensuring the full participation of
communities in the management of natural resources as de facto managers
(SHAURI, 2001). As summarized by YLHÄISI (2003), “the control of natural
resources is being returned, to some extent, to the pre-colonial time (…)”.
In Tanzania, in the context of CBNRM and under specific conditions
(improvement of techniques, co-management), beekeeping has proven
its ability to compete with other forms of land use, generate important, and
direct, incomes to the rural community, while being environmentally friendly
and compatible with other complementary natural resource management
activities such as trophy hunting.
But that is an ideal point of view, and while technical questions can easily
be answered, legal, institutional, organizational and political issues are
hardly predictable and many uncertainties remain.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 306
Y. Hausser and P. Mpuya 307
Different lessons can be drawn from this experience at different levels (local,
national, global). At the local level, following community requests and in line
with ADAP’s determination that beekeeping is highly dependent on numerous
natural factors (agro-ecologic and climatic), it has been decided not to make
all economic activity dependent only on beekeeping. Following from this
decision, ADAP will support in the second phase of the project (2004–2007)
other sustainable productive activities benefiting the local community, such as
ecotourism and agro-forestry production. At the national level, community-
based management of beekeeping is not a panacea that will help to solve all
the conservation and development problems.
Conditions necessary to implement beekeeping,
principles and recommendations
The decisive conditions that we have identified so far in this case study are
as follows: (1) a favorable and strong legal and institutional framework that
supports both CBNRM approaches and beekeeping activities; (2) a favorable
social substratum, relatively homogenous and unperturbed, with the key
population, the beekeepers in this case, having a strong collective awareness
of their common interests with the support of the other determinant stake-
holders, e.g. the community as a whole, state agencies, trophy hunting
companies; (3) the presence of a competitive market for bee products and the
support of a committed buyer; (4) consistent and substantial support from the
central government down to the village level; (5) the use of a participatory
approach from the initiation of the project, with the inclusion of community
actors in decision making processes; (6) a favorable ecosystem for bee
product production; and (7) a new role for the implementing agency, more as
an advisor and a bridge-builder than an executive manager of the project.
At a more global level, as a contribution to the global CBNRM debate,
some principles could be derived as well from that experience. Beekeeping is
definitively an option for the development of alternatives to environmentally
destructive practices. It implies a substantial support through training
and seminars both on the technical side (improvement), financial side
(micro-credit system), and on the organizational side (capacity building of the
local partner).
Among the important contributive elements is the real empowerment
of communities in the process. This implies not only an adequate legal
framework but also a change in the practices of the “project makers” and
associated government agencies, in order to leave enough space to permit
community appropriation of the initiative. Let’s cite some elements for such
a strategy: (1) to ensure regular exchanges of information on the aims and the
means of the project with the different relevant stakeholders, (2) to use local
languages as the language of work, (3) to promote transparency about the
real objectives of the cooperation partner, (4) to ensure the association
of the key actors in the decision making process, and (5) to implement
a strong policy of communication towards the members of the community
and other stakeholders not associated with the project.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 307
308 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
Resistances, problems and limits
There are numerous resistances, problems and limits that such initiatives
have faced when being implemented. Experiences in CBNRM and
decentralization of natural resource management in Tanzania and in other
countries of Africa have shown that there might be some resistance from
central government agencies to this devolution of rights. This often implies
a loss of power, social status and financial income. As, KAJEMBE et al. (2000),
IDDI (2002) and YLHÄISI (2003) observed, the short-term losers of this devo-
lution process will be the officers of the different Divisions of the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism. In this sense, such resistance could be seen
as “natural” and predictable.
As this paper has shown, while policies are definitively community-oriented,
there seems to have been a gap regarding cross-sectoral management issues
which has led to overlapping jurisdictions. This probably could be linked
to some remaining gaps between the policies (particularly between Forest
Policy and Beekeeping Policy on one side and Wildlife Policy on the other)
and to ancient practices of the traditional conservation management model.
As underlined by the LAWYERS ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION TEAM (1999),
“these legal opportunities have existed for years, local communities have
not used them due to the dominance of the state-centered conservation
paradigm, which restricted community participation in wildlife and natural
resource management.” It would be interesting to make a detailed
comparison of the different CBNRM components in the different policies, acts
and legislation of the Forestry Sector, Beekeeping Sector and Wildlife Sector
in order to identify those gaps and propose solutions for their resolution.
The fragmentation of responsibilities regarding natural resource management
between different bodies is weakening the overall capacity of management
and calls for strong coordination to be efficient.
It seems that only a few of these initiatives are able to raise significant
benefits for the community, which is a condition for their investment in
establishing and enforcing rules about resource use (KAJEMBE et al., 2000).
Here we are back to the question of the economic and non-economic value
of natural resources. As underlined by KAJEMBE et al. (2000), no serious
attempt has been made to calculate the sum total of all marketed, subsistence
and service value of community-based forest resource projects in the region,
and a question remains regarding the ability of non-market product values
to provide adequate incentives for people to participate in CBNRM initiatives.
Another problem cited by KAJEMBE et al. (2000) and IDDI (2002) is the
question of the characteristics of communities. It seems commonly
recognized today that communities are very rarely homogenous and instead
very stratified. This aspect is essential, as observed by AGRAWAL et al. (1999)
cited by IDDI (2002), “locally based dominant actors tend to hijack communi-
ty-based processes and forcefully occupy the political space opened
by decentralization”. The only way to prevent such phenomena would be to
“create institutional structures of representation and accountability that can
undermine existing asymmetries and prevent new ones from becoming
entrenched” (KAJEMBE et al., 2000; IDDI, 2002).
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 308
Y. Hausser and P. Mpuya 309
Uncertainties remain at different levels, in both community reaction
to change, institutional support, contradictory policies, and reactions from
competitive forms of exploitation not associated with the project, e.g. tobacco
companies. Moreover, community behavior remains highly unpredictable,
and a maximization-of-benefits strategy seems to be a possible option.
Despite this critical examination, both economic and ecological analyses
tend to show that multiple land use is the key solution, the challenge being
to reach integrated management of those different activities on the same land
and under the same management structure. It would help to decrease the
level of conflicts between the stakeholders, permit a legitimate “come-back”
of the local communities as managers of their natural resources, increase
the incomes accrued for a given space of miombo woodland for all of the
stakeholders through the sum of the value added of the different resources,
while ensuring better global management of the land and the associated
natural resource management activities.
The major interest of this approach is that it provides strong arguments
to maintain natural habitats under a strict protection status, ensuring the
long-term conservation of the forest cover, while habitat loss remains the most
important threat to ecosystems and biodiversity. Bees could be perceived
as an umbrella species: the production of natural honey implies the protection
of the forests and the other resources it contains.
A strategy of support to alternative activities thus could produce substantial
environmental conservation outputs at the community level and serve
as an efficient complement to the classical “law enforcement strategy” which
is still needed.
REFERENCES
ADAP (2003). - Project Activity Report, June – October 2003. Inyonga Bee Reserve Program, ADAP
Tanzania, 3 p.
AGRAWAL A., BRITT C. & KANEL K. (1999). - Decentralization in Nepal: a comparative analysis. A
report on the participatory district development program. A publication of the International
Centre for Self Governance. Institute for Contemporary Studies, Oakland, California, 95 p.
ALDEN-WILY L. (2000). - Forest law in Eastern and Southern Africa: moving towards a community-
based forest future? FAO, Unasylva, 203, 12 p.
ALDEN-WILY L. (2001). - Forest management and democracy in East and Southern Africa: lessons
from Tanzania. IIED, London, Gatekeepers Series, 95, 20 p.
BROMLEY D. W. (1992). - Property rights as authority systems: the role of rules in resource
management. Journal of Business Administration, 20(1-2): 453-470.
CAMPBELL B., BYRON N., HOBANE P., MADZUDZO E., MATOSE F. & WILY L. (1999). - Moving to
local control of woodland resources: can CAMPFIRE go beyond the mega-fauna? Society and
Natural Resources, 12: 501-509.
CARPANETO G.M. & FUSARI A. (2000). - Subsistence hunting and bushmeat exploitation in central
western Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation, 9: 1571-1585.
CHRISTOPHERSEN K., HAGEN R. & JAMBYIA G. (2000). - Economic opportunities in Wildlife
Management Areas. Report prepared for the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism and USAID / Tanzania, June 23, 78 p.
CLARKE J. E. (2001). - An evaluation of the Cullman & Hurt Community Wildlife Project, Tanzania.
Conservation Force, 24 p.
FAO (2000). - Global Forest Resource Assessment 2000, Tropical Countries. FAO Roma, Italy.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 309
310 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
FOREST AND BEEKEEPING DIVISION (2000). - A study on beekeeping in cross-sectoral areas,
National Forest Programme Formulation in Tanzania. Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism, Dar es Salam, Tanzania, 36 p.
GTZ (2002). - Katavi – Rukwa Conservation and Development Programme. Available from:
http://wildlife-programme.gtz.de/wildlife/krcd.html
GTZ (2003). - Tanzanian-German Technical Cooperation. GTZ Office, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 50 p.
Available from: http://www.gtz.de/laender/doks/GTZ_Tanzania.pdf
HAULE K.S., JOHNSEN F.H. & MAGANGA S.L.S. (2002). - Striving for sustainable wildlife
management: the case of Kilombero Game Controlled Area, Tanzania. Journal of Environmental
Management, 66: 31-42.
HAUSSER Y. & SAVARY J.-F. (2002). - ADAP: A cross-sectoral approach to beekeeping support.
Bees for Development Journal, 64, September: 6-7.
IDDI S. (2002). - Community participation in forest management in the United Republic of Tanzania.
In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Participatory Forestry in Africa: 59-67.
INTERNATIONAL RESOURCE GROUP LTD. (2000). - Community-based conservation experience in
Tanzania: an assessment of lessons learned. Report prepared for USAID / Tanzania, August
2000, Washington DC, 35 p.
KAJEMBE G.C., KIHIYO V.B.M.S., BANANA A.-Y., GOMBA–SSEMBAJJWE W. & ONGUGO P. (2000).
- Community participation in the management of protected forest areas in East Africa:
opportunities and challenges. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, 11 p.
KIHIYO V.B.M.S. (1998). - Forest policy changes in Tanzania: towards community participation in
forest management. The World Bank, WBI’s CBNRM Initiative, February 1998, 12 p.
KIHWELE D.V.N. (1983). - A survey on the traditional honeybee hives of Miombo woodlands of
Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,18 p.
KIHWELE D.V.N., MASSAWE J.A., LWOGA P.D. & BURTON S. (2001). – Beekeeping in Tanzania.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 169 p.
KILAHAMA F. B. (2000). - The Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Project. Forestry Is
Wealth Newsletter, 5(1): 1-57.
KILON E.N.L. & MASAYANIKA S. (1993). - Benefit and cost sharing in community-based forest
management and joint forest management initiatives in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 21 p.
KOTHARI A. (2001). - Time to move out of Africa, a response to Adams and Hulme. Oryx, 35(3), 4 p.
LAWYERS ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION TEAM (1999). - Recognizing local community interests: the
new wildlife policy in Tanzania. Available from: http://www.leat.or.tz/publications/wildlife.
policy/community.interests.php
LWOGA P.D. (2003). - Pollination services for quality and quantity of high yield of crops in
Kakakuona. Tanzania Wildlife Magazine, July-Sept.: 15-16.
MAPOLU (2003). - Forestry in Figures. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Forest and
Beekeeping Division, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 15 p.
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM (1998a). - National Beekeeping Policy.
Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 57 p.
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM (1998b). - National Forest Policy.
Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 69 p.
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM (1998c). - National Wildlife Policy.
overnment Printer, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 39 p.
MONELA G.C, KAJEMBE G.C., KAONEKA A.R.S & KOWERO G. (2000). - Household livelihood
strategies in the miombo woodlands of Tanzania: emerging trend. Tanzania Journal of Forestry
and Nature Conservation, 73: 17-33.
MPUYA P. (2001). - Beekeeping in Zanzibar. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Department
of Forestry, Fruits and Trade, Zanzibar, Study Report, 89 p.
MPUYA P. (2002). - The potential of honeybees and beekeeping in the Udzungwa Mountains of
Tanzania. MSc. Thesis, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 299 p.
MPUYA P. & HAUSSER Y. (2004). - Beekeeping in Tanzania: a fast-growing industry: the case of the
Beekeeping and Development Programme. (In prep.).
NJIRO WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER (1993). – Sustainable beekeeping for Africa. Njiro Wildlife
Research Center, Arusha, Tanzania, 67 p.
OGEJO H. F., HAUSSER Y. & BRÜSCHWEILER C. (2002). - Village survey report, Inyonga Bee
Reserve Program, Tanzania, September 2001 to February 2002. ADAP, Geneva, Switzerland,
46 p.
OSTROM E. (1990). - Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, UK.
ROE D., MAYERS J., GRIEG-GRAN M., KOTHARI A., FABRICIUS C. & HUGHES R., eds. (2000). -
Evaluating Eden: exploring the myths and realities of community-based wildlife management.
IIED, London, Evaluating Eden Series, 8, 112 p.
SHAURI V. (2001). - The legal aspect of governance in community-based natural resources
management in Tanzania. Commons Southern Africa, 3(1): 9-10.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 310
Y. Hausser and P. Mpuya 311
TANZANIA DEVELOPING VISION 2025 (2003). - Poverty Reduction Strategy. In: 1998
Small and Medium Enterprise Development Policy. Ministry of Trade and Industries,
Dar es Salaam,Tanzania: 7-25.
TEMU A.B. (1998). - Tobacco production in miombo woodlands of Tanzania.
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (2002a). - The Beekeeping Act (Act N°15 of 2002).
United Republic of Tanzania Official Gazette: 1283-1333.
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (2002b). - The Forest Act (Act N°7 of 2002).
United Republic ofTanzania Official Gazette: 1159-1281.
VAN DER DUIM R. & CAALDERS J. (2002). - Biodiversity and tourism: impacts and
interventions.Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3): 743-761.
YLHÄISI J. (2003). - Forest privatization and the role of community in forest and nature
protection in Tanzania. Environmental Science and Policy, 6: 279-290.
L’APICULTURE EN TANZANIE :
QUAND LES ABEILLES SORTENT DES BOIS …
UNE APPROCHE MULTI-SECTORIELLE
INNOVANTE DE GESTION PARTICIPATIVE
DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES
Y. HAUSSER et P. MPUYA
MOTS-CLÉS: Abeille, Apis sp., ressource naturelle, apiculture, gestion participative,
Tanzanie.
RÉSUMÉ
La tendance actuelle dans la Gestion Participative des Ressources Naturelles
(CBNRM) est de développer des alternatives économiques aux pratiques dom-
mageables à l’environnement (agriculture sur brûlis, braconnage, production
de charbon, etc.). Parmi ces alternatives, l’apiculture (pour Apis sp.) est souvent
citée, mais les quelques exemples existants sont plus liés à une approche
expérimentale avec peu de retombées économiques. L’apiculture a une longue
histoire en Tanzanie, mais la récente dégradation des ressources forestières met
en danger cette activité. L’initiative d’une ONG suisse, l'ADAP, qui encourage les
villageois de Tanzanie à faire de l’apiculture, a été favorisée par différents
éléments: (1) un solide cadre légal qui soutient les CBNRM et l’apiculture,
(2) une forte conscience collective chez les apiculteurs de leurs intérêts
communs, (3) la présence d’un marché compétitif pour les produits de l’apiculture,
(4) une aide importante du gouvernement central aux villages, et (5) la présence
de l’écosystème "miombo" couvrant la zone, très favorable à la production
apicole. L’atelier qui s’est tenu à Mpanda en 2002, auquel tous les acteurs
concernés ont participé, a confirmé les résultats d’une enquête de 5 mois réalisée
dans les villages par l'ADAP de septembre 2001 à février 2002. Il n’y avait pas
de coopération et les conflits étaient nombreux. Le point crucial du projet est
donc sa capacité à réunir et faire travailler ensemble différents acteurs qui étaient
en désaccord depuis longtemps et ne se faisaient pas confiance. L'ADAP
a d’abord aidé l’Association des Apiculteurs d’Inyonga (IBA) entre 2001 et 2003
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 311
312 Beekeeping development in Tanzania
en formant les gens, en améliorant les techniques d’apiculture et en proposant
des micro-crédits pour l’achat d’équipement. De plus, l'ADAP a délimité
des territoires dans 13 villages. En deux ans, l’activité d’apiculture a montré qu’elle
pouvait être compétitive. L’intérêt de cette approche réside dans sa capacité
à permettre la mise en place, sous une même structure de gestion et sur
un même territoire, de nombreuses activités complémentaires faisant appel
à différentes ressources, plutôt que dans une compétition impliquant l’exclusion
des activités non-compétitives. Comme l’apiculture dépend de facteurs naturels,
l’ADAP apportera son aide, dans la seconde phase du projet (2004-2007),
à d’autres activités productives rentables pour la communauté locale, comme
l’écotourisme et les productions agro-forestières. Des doutes subsistent
concernant les réactions des communautés face aux changements,
l'aide financière des institutions, les politiques contradictoires et la réaction
des participants à d’autres formes d’exploitations compétitives non-associés
au projet (par exemple, les compagnies de tabac). De plus, le comportement
des communautés reste complètement imprévisible et la stratégie de la maximi-
sation du profit semble une option possible.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004
0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 312
... Despite these positive contributory factors, several authors have suggested that beehive product potential remains untapped across much of Southeast Africa (Carroll and Kinsella, 2013;Kihwele, 1985;Mickels-Kokwe, 2006). While a potential yield gap in African beekeeping products has recently been contested (Bradbear, 2018), the Tanzanian Government and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have developed a series of policy and technical training initiatives to improve production efficiency and gross production in the national beekeeping sector (Hausser and Mpuya, 2004;MNRT, 2016;United Republic of Tanzania, 2002). The majority of beekeeping interventions in sub-Saharan Africa comprise an admix of training, hive donation and occasionally protective equipment provision (Affognon et al., 2015;Anand and Sisay, 2011;Carroll et al., 2017;Hausser and Mpuya, 2004). ...
... While a potential yield gap in African beekeeping products has recently been contested (Bradbear, 2018), the Tanzanian Government and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have developed a series of policy and technical training initiatives to improve production efficiency and gross production in the national beekeeping sector (Hausser and Mpuya, 2004;MNRT, 2016;United Republic of Tanzania, 2002). The majority of beekeeping interventions in sub-Saharan Africa comprise an admix of training, hive donation and occasionally protective equipment provision (Affognon et al., 2015;Anand and Sisay, 2011;Carroll et al., 2017;Hausser and Mpuya, 2004). Several support organizations encourage the modernization of beekeeping through the distribution of frame hives (Carroll et al., 2017), although these are thought to be less suitable for both the local honeybee sub-species and prevailing climatic conditions (Bradbear, 2009;Carroll and Kinsella, 2013). ...
... The study also assessed whether and what type of support and training influenced beekeeping success, defined here as the quantity of honey harvested in the preceding twelve months. Since the aim of most external beekeeping training is to increase production (Hausser and Mpuya, 2004;MNRT, 2016;United Republic of Tanzania and Tourism, 2002), we hypothesized that the more external training received, the greater the honey harvest. We hope that the results of this analysis can provide guidance for future alternative livelihood project planners intending to promote beekeeping in Tanzania and the wider Miombo-region. ...
Article
The estimated economic potential for the apiculture sector in Africa is currently unmet, and in part due to a lack of training in appropriate beekeeping techniques. Development agencies promote beekeeping widely in developing nations to alleviate rural poverty and simultaneously provide an incentive for forest conservation. There is little robust evidence to suggest that beekeeping interventions target the most suitable beneficiaries, or that training length and content are adequate to sustainably promote beekeeping in sub-Saharan Africa. This study aimed to determine predictors of both beekeeping adoption and levels of dependence on beekeeping. We also assessed whether the type and quantity of external assistance appeared to influence beekeeping success. We applied a mixed methods approach to identify beekeeper characteristics and identify key drivers and barriers to beekeeping in four communities in central Tanzania. Income and food provision were the main drivers for beekeeping adoption, but the effects of these were moderated by both the respondents’ cultural background, and the perceived human health risks posed by African bees. Land ownership, technical knowledge, initial capital inputs and hive theft were important constraints to adopting beekeeping. We found that formal beekeeping training did not result in increased yields and propose that training provided by the majority of development agencies is inadequate to address the technical capacity requirements of local beekeepers. We also propose that the requirement to form associations to access project benefits creates divisions in communities and needs to be handled with more care than is currently done.
... Traditional beekeeping and honey hunting practices have generated a wealth of innovations across the planet (Brown, 2001;Hausser and Mpuya, 2004). An array of diverse nondestructive stratagems are used by honey-hunters (Joshi and Gurung, 2005) (Figure 5-13 A and husbandry methods are used by human beekeepers, and a multitude of products have been derived from bees (Crane, 1999). ...
... Training courses for the "ribeirinhos", traditional populations living near rivers (Kurihara and Cardoso, 2007;Cavalcante et al., 2009), and indigenous groups from the Amazon region have been successful in recovering and strengthening stingless bees rearing practices (Venturieri, 2008a(Venturieri, , 2008b. In New Zealand, the introduced European honey bee production from Leptospermum scoparium (mānuka trees) that are vital CASE EXAMPLE 5-23 BEE RESERVES PROTECTED AND MANAGED BY LOCAL PEOPLE Location: Tanzania Traditional forest beekeepers (Hausser and Mpuya, 2004;Hausser and Savary, 2009) The forests of Inyonga area, located between the Katavi National Park, Rukwa-Lukwati Game Reserve and Ugalla Game Reserve, are some of the least disturbed, wild ecosystems in Africa. Beekeeping is traditionally practiced in the area. ...
Chapter
Diverse knowledge systems, including science and indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), contribute to understanding pollinators and pollination, their economic, environmental and socio-cultural values and their management globally(well established). Scientific knowledge provides extensive and multidimensional understanding of pollinators and pollination, resulting in detailed understanding of their diversity, functions and steps needed to protect pollinators and the values they produce. In indigenous and local knowledge systems, pollination processes are often understood, celebrated and managed holistically in terms of maintaining values through fostering fertility, fecundity, spirituality and diversity of farms, gardens, and other habitats. The combined use of economic, socio-cultural and holistic valuation of pollinator gains and losses, using multiple knowledge systems, brings different perspectives from different stakeholder groups, providing more information for the management of and decision-making about pollinators and pollination, although key knowledge gaps remain.
... Moreover, beekeeping is regarded as a sustainable livelihood diversification strategy by farmers and development organizations in developing countries, as it offers supplementary income, food, and medicinal resources [29,87,88]. It is not only serves as a significant economic resource for rural communities but also plays an important role in fostering environmental sustainability. ...
Article
Full-text available
Beekeeping is widely recognized as a valuable farming practice with the potential to enhance both natural resource conservation and rural livelihoods. It benefits the environment by promoting ecological balance and preserving natural resources. The purpose of this paper is to review the potential of beekeeping in fostering natural resource conservation and poverty alleviation, along with its transformative impact in these areas. The success of beekeeping is closely linked to the availability of untapped forests and low population density, as both factors create an ideal conditions for successful beekeeping. Beekeeping plays a vital role in preserving and enhancing the value of forests, while also promoting active involvement in their protection, conservation, and sustainable management. Honeybees are highly valued for their critical role in pollination, which greatly influences the global food system. They pollinate different agricultural crops, including fruits, vegetables, and nuts, leading to improved crop yields. Furthermore, honeybee pollination enhances the quality, nutritional content, and shelf life of many fruits and vegetables. In this regard, beekeeping serves as an important tool for fostering long-term development in numerous developing countries. Promoting beekeeping is a key to achieving sustainable development goals, such as poverty reduction, food security, and biodiversity conservation. In Ethiopia, beekeeping is a vital component of the agricultural sector and plays a significant role in the nation's economy. Recognizing its potential to reduce poverty and promote rural development, the Ethiopian government has introduced various programs to support and advance beekeeping activities across the country.
... Such customary kobo arrangements in Ethiopia not only restrict access and tree use but also extend to measures for controlling bushfires and for forest conservation and regeneration. And in Tanzania, community managed bee reserves protect forest resources crucial for beekeeping activities (Hausser and Mpuya 2004). ...
Article
The problem of insect pollinator declines and pollination scarcity is impacting food production and ecosystem integrity worldwide. The term “pollinator commons” has often been invoked in existing literature, but there is little actual evidence of collective action to manage pollinators, pollination services or foraging resources. This may be due to the availability of a technical fix to the problem of pollination scarcity in some places, or the purported lack of awareness and undervaluation of pollination services. Given the increasing extent of the problem, there may be some conditions under which collective governance of the pollinator commons could emerge. We predict that collective action to manage a pollinator commons is more likely to emerge among farmers: (a) whose farms are small, and livelihoods are dependent on high-value crops for which wild pollination services cannot be easily substituted; (b) whose neighbors are similarly dependent on pollinator-dependent crops; and (c) who are able to make reasonable cost-benefit determinations based on information about other farmers and pollinator status. Geographers are particularly well-positioned with the theoretical and methodological tools to engage with this important, yet under-explored system to understand the potential for collective action to manage pollinators as a common pool resource.
... Grevy's zebra in Kenya (2) Bee keeping in Tanzania (3) Jaguars in Mexico (4) Andean cats in Argentina (5) Lobster fishing in Mexico (6) Black bear in Mexico (7) Knowledges Tanzania (Hausser & Mpuya, 2004;Hausser et al., 2009). The aim of the project was to offer livelihood options other than forest resources, particularly beekeeping, a traditional practice. ...
Article
Full-text available
Conservation biology is a mission‐driven discipline that must navigate a new relationship between conservation and science. Because conservation is a social and political as well as an ecological project, conservation biologists must practice interdisciplinarity and collaboration. In a comparative study of 7 cases (Jaguars in the Chaco, Grevy's zebra in Kenya, Beekeeping in Tanzania, Andean cats in Argentina, Jaguars in Mexico, Lobster fishing, and Black bears in Mexico), we examined motivations for collaboration in conservation, who can collaborate in conservation, and how conservation professionals can work well together. In 5 case studies, successful conservation outcomes were prioritized over livelihood benefits. In the other 2 cases, livelihoods were prioritized. All case studies employed participatory approaches. There were multiple external actors, including local and Indigenous communities, nongovernmental organizations, agencies, regional and national governments, and international organizations, which enhanced conservation and wider sustainability outcomes. Key collaboration aspects considered across the case studies were time (mismatch between relationship building and project schedules), trust required for meaningful partnerships, tools employed, and transformative potential for people, nature, and the discipline of conservation biology. We developed guidelines for successful collaboration, including long‐term commitment, knowledge integration, multiscalar and plural approaches, cultivation of trust, appropriate engagement, evaluation, supporting students, and efforts for transformation.
... The income generated from beekeeping activities can be used to pay for social services such as education, health, transport, and housing; and beekeeping provides employment for both urban and rural people (Hausser & Mpuya, 2004). Beekeeping also generates a variety of productive assets that can improve the livelihoods of rural communities (Qaiser et al., 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
There is an enormous potential for beekeeping practices to generate income, create jobs, and alleviate poverty. However, in Ethiopia, there are many constraints that hinder rural households to expand and adopt beekeeping practices. The objective of this study was to analyze the determinants of beekeeping adoption in Northwest Ethiopia. To achieve the objective, cross-sectional data were collected from 369 rural households and analyzed using a nonlinear econometric (binary logistic regression) model. The maximum likelihood estimation results revealed that sex, marital status, household size, and the educational status of the household head, number of extension visits, membership in a farmers’ association, and access to credit were the statistically significant variables determining beekeeping adoption in the study area. The beekeeping constraints that had statistically significant influence on beekeeping adoption were grouped as marketing, natural, and financial. To reap the benefits from the huge potential of honeybee colonies, the government of Ethiopia and other associated actors and stakeholders should work together to solve the constraints faced by rural households in adopting beekeeping practices that could result in improving their livelihoods.
... Selecting how they wish to live and reproduce, which bees in Africa have done for millennia, is a buttress for their resilience against Varroa by way of natural selection. The maintenance of biodiversity is important for a variety of reasons, not just for bees, although the two go hand-in-hand as is demonstrated in healthy bio-cultural contexts, for example (Hausser & Mpuya, 2004). ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction The Agave log hive appeals to bee activists and keepers who wish to return to more natural practices and forms of beekeeping. Among the attractions of this hive, both aesthetic and functional, are the organics of the logs and their typically distended, indeed pregnant shape that outwardly suggests the living organism inside (Figure 1). The hive will interest Darwinian and natural beekeeping people as well as workers in the bees for development sector. But the biggest endorsement comes from the bees, exercising their selective choice to colonize these hives.
... Sustainable beekeeping in many developing countries has been recognized as among the best forms of sustainable agriculture practices that can improve livelihood of rural communities without much investment cost [4] . Tanzania recognizes the role of beekeeping in contributing to livelihood and for biodiversity conservation as emphasized by the beekeeping policy [9] . ...
Article
Full-text available
The study was conducted in Inyonga Division, Mlele district, western Tanzania in July 2014. The study aimed at assessing the contribution of beekeeping to community's livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. A total of 101 beekeepers were interviewed from purposively selected villages. Focus group discussions, Key Informant Interviews and physical observation were also used. Significant difference on number of hives was observed (χ 2 =11.726, df = 2, P = 0.003) in the study villages, no significant difference was detected in hive occupancy rate between hive types (Chi-square =4.127, df=4, p>0.389). Harvesting, processing and packaging of bee products were observed to be done locally, causing a negative impacts on biodiversity conservation due to fire setting in harvesting process. Bark hives were widely used 63% (n=11,928) of the recorded hives. Thus, awareness rising on the use of appropriate beekeeping practices is highly recommended for enhancing biodiversity conservation in Mlele District.
Article
Full-text available
Med hrál významnou roli při evolučním vývoji a přežití našich předků. Je vyhledávanou potravinou i pro mnoho zvířat včetně velkých opic. Byl nejen zdrojem potravy, ale také léčivem. V oblasti Tanzánie, kde jsem prováděl svůj výzkum, tvořil med speciální dietu spolu s rostlinami v rámci některých kmenových systémů. V rámci východní Afriky a svahilské kultury pak med sloužil také jako součást některých kmenových alkoholických nápojů.
Research Proposal
The proposed study introduces a data driven approach where problems facing the forest conservation initiatives, beekeepers, and beekeeping as an industry are identified and analyzed to understand problem roots using qualitative and quantitative methods. Feasible solutions are then proposed based on empirical evidence to accurately address existing beekeeping problems. The focus is made to assess the use of locally made bark and log beehives used in traditional beekeeping practices and their effects on forest degradation and honeybee post-harvest colony losses. The study then suggests feasible solutions to identified problems for improved beekeeping practices and biodiversity conservation.
Article
Full-text available
"There is a move in East Africa from centralized and state-driven forest management regimes towards decentralized and mainly community-based regimes. The paper points out some of the opportunities and challenges. Structural changes in forest policies are seen as a contributing reason that decentralization is more in tune with the prevailing ethos of governance. Similarly, economic and political crises have now discredited service delivery systems based on central bureaucracy, forcing theorists of development administration to shift their focus from hierarchy and control to participation and empowerment. Moreover, the accelerating retrenchment during the 1990s, often to comply with structural adjustment policies, occurred together with the realization that centrist management strategies need reformulation. Erosion of the legitimacy of local institutions has been cited in the paper as one of the challenges. Local institutions have no real authority to decide on the management of forest resources. Another challenge is with regard to the stratified communities. In all stratified communities, interests of some actors are represented only inadequately. Lack of political will at the centre to give powers to communities and grassroots organizations is also a challenge to community based forest management initiatives in the region. It is also important that benefits must be significant if the community is to go to the trouble of establishing and enforcing the rules about resource use. This begs the question on whether community based forest management programmes/ projects in East Africa have sufficient value to stimulate community participation. This remains a puzzle. The paper concludes by pointing out that 'Rural communities in the region are undergoing rapid social, economic, and political change, as the development and modernization process spreads and deepens"' Even if effective and viable user groups exist or can be put in place today, will they survive and persist in the face of modernization pressures? Much more needs to be known about the institutional context in which users now find themselves and the type of support that will increase the probability of sustainable management of our forest resources."
Article
Devolution of authority over natural resource management is now well advanced for the mega-fauna in Zimbabwe, through the CAMPFIRE program. We ask whether models like CAMPFIRE can be applied to a broader spectrum of woodland resources. Problems in applying CAMPFIRE to woodland resources relate to a legal and policy framework that is not enabling to local management; weakened local institutional structures; a high degree of differentiation with respect to wood land resource use within communities; problems of defining resource user groups; and, the potentially low market value of woodland products. In identifying circumstances where CAMPFIRE may be applied successfully to woodland resources, economic, sociological, and ecological circumstances must be considered.
Article
This paper sets a framework for intervention in the relationship between biodiversity and tourism against the background of the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is argued that intervention cannot and should not only be based on considerations of measurable impacts of tourism on biodiversity alone. This action should also be weighed against arguments of legitimacy, feasibility, and effectiveness of its various types. Currently, feasibility seems to be the main principle on which interventions are based. As most instruments are non-compulsory, they are effective only to a limited extent. For reasons of legitimacy, the position of small-scale entrepreneurs should receive more attention in international and national policy debates.RésuméCet article établit un cadre pour l'intervention dans la relation entre la biodiversité et le tourisme dans le contexte de la Convention sur la Diversité Biologique. On soutient que l'intervention ne peut pas et ne devrait pas être basée seulement sur des considérations des impacts mesurables du tourisme sur la biodiversité. Il faudrait peser aussi la légitimité, la faisabilité et l'efficacité des différentes sortes d'interventions. Actuellement, c'est la faisabilité qui semble être le principe maı̂tre sur lequel sont basées les interventions. Puisque la plupart des instruments ne sont pas obligatoires, ils ne sont efficaces qu'à un degré limité. Pour des raisons de légitimité, la situation des entrepreneurs à petite échelle devraient recevoir plus d'attention dans les débats de politique nationale et internationale.
Article
An ethnozoological research was carried out in the Tabora District (central-western Tanzania) from December '95 to February '96, to gather information on the sustainable exploitation of wildlife there and to outline the zoological culture of the native people (the Banyamwezi). The objective was to describe the hunting activity and the techniques employed in capturing wild mammals and to gather quantitative data on game harvest. An inventory of the mammal species living in the study area was conducted by three different methods: (1) direct field observation of animals and their tracks; (2) identification of animals captured by the villagers; (3) interviews with the hunters. The activities of 10 local hunters from seven villages were followed during a nine week period. The number of mammals killed and the techniques used for each species were recorded. Other data were collected through interviews of the villagers and concerned (1) the use of every species as food or for other purposes; (2) the species considered as pests; (3) the best places and time for hunting the different species; (4) the time spent hunting them; (5) the food restrictions and taboos; (6) the extent of the bushmeat market (quantity, price, etc.). A total of 236 animals belonging to 37 species were killed during the study period with the following breakdown into taxonomic groups: Bovidae (44.06%), Carnivora (22.88%), Lagomorpha (8.05%), Rodentia (7.2%), diurnal Primates (5.93%), Insectivora (4.23%), Hyracoidea (0.84%), nocturnal Primates (0.84%), Hippopotamidae (0.42%) and Pholidota (0.42%). Four different techniques were used by local hunters in the study area: guns (53.81%), traps (19.06%), spears (11.01%) and dogs (16.01%). Poaching is rampant because of the scarcity of ranger staff and vehicles for patrolling.
Article
The sustainability of wildlife resources in Africa is threatened by poaching for trophies and meat as well as changes in land use. In order to motivate local people for sustainable wildlife management, efforts to transfer decision-making power as well as benefits from central to local level have been made in several countries. Such efforts have not yet been seen in Kilombero Game Controlled Area, which is the area covered by the present study. The paper documents the importance of wildlife to local people, explores local people's perceptions on wildlife management and identifies constraints to sustainable wildlife management. A total of 177 household interviews in 5 villages and 129 interviews of pupils in schools have been conducted. The majority of pupils reported that their latest meal of meat was from a wild animal, and the most common species was buffalo. Apart from availability of cheap wildlife meat, advantages from living close to wildlife include the use of various parts of animals for, e.g. medical and ritual uses, and various plant products from wildlife habitats. Disadvantages include damages to crops, predation on livestock, and injuries to humans. The estimated loss of yield due to raiding by wildlife amounted to 21.9 and 47.8% of the harvest of rice and maize, respectively. Traditional wildlife management in Kilombero includes few rules to avoid resource depletion, because depletion has traditionally not been a problem due to low hunting technology and low human population. Government management includes strict rules, with hunting quotas as the main instrument, but the government has failed to enforce the rules. Ongoing discussions on new approaches to wildlife management like co-management and community-based management were largely unknown to the villagers in the area. Both poaching and agricultural expansion threaten the sustainability of Kilombero Game Controlled Area. It is suggested that transfers of decision-making power and benefits to local people is necessary in order to achieve sustainable management.
Report prepared for the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and USAID / TanzaniaA study on beekeeping in cross-sectoral areas, National Forest Programme Formulation in Tanzania
  • Christophersen K Hagen R
  • G P Jambyia
  • E Clarke J
CHRISTOPHERSEN K., HAGEN R. & JAMBYIA G. (2000). -Economic opportunities in Wildlife Management Areas. Report prepared for the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and USAID / Tanzania, June 23, 78 p. CLARKE J. E. (2001). -An evaluation of the Cullman & Hurt Community Wildlife Project, Tanzania. Conservation Force, 24 p. FAO (2000). -Global Forest Resource Assessment 2000, Tropical Countries. FAO Roma, Italy. Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (3), 2004 0197_inter_onc 19/10/05 20:06 Page 309 FOREST AND BEEKEEPING DIVISION (2000). -A study on beekeeping in cross-sectoral areas, National Forest Programme Formulation in Tanzania. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salam, Tanzania, 36 p. GTZ (2002). -Katavi – Rukwa Conservation and Development Programme. Available from: http://wildlife-programme.gtz.de/wildlife/krcd.html GTZ (2003). -Tanzanian-German Technical Cooperation. GTZ Office, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 50 p. Available from: http://www.gtz.de/laender/doks/GTZ_Tanzania.pdf HAULE K.S., JOHNSEN F.H. & MAGANGA S.L.S. (2002). -Striving for sustainable wildlife management: the case of Kilombero Game Controlled Area, Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Management, 66: 31-42.
Community-based conservation experience in Tanzania: an assessment of lessons learned
  • International Resource Group Ltd
INTERNATIONAL RESOURCE GROUP LTD. (2000). -Community-based conservation experience in Tanzania: an assessment of lessons learned. Report prepared for USAID / Tanzania, August 2000, Washington DC, 35 p. KAJEMBE G.C., KIHIYO V.B.M.S., BANANA A.-Y., GOMBA–SSEMBAJJWE W. & ONGUGO P. (2000).