Content uploaded by Yves Hausser
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yves Hausser on Apr 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
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