Transcript Influencing NTFP policies in the Congo Basin

African forest
apiculture market
chains:
Win-wins for
livelihoods &
conservation?
Verina Ingram, Madeleen Husselman
Bush/wild mango Irvingia spp.
THINKING beyond the canopy
Aims
o Assess & compare how
environmental, economic and
social aspects of apiculture
value chains in 2 countries
affects sustainable livelihoods
of
actors,
the
use,
conservation & management
of forests.
o Does
apiculture
alleviate
poverty ? And if so, what role
does it play in preventing
households
from
sinking
deeper into poverty?
o How do arrangements within
apiculture
market
chains
influence livelihoods positively
and negatively?
Wax processing
Background
• Literature review
• Production area selection
VCAs
2007-2009
• Interviews service providers & support actors
Interviews
Action data
Analysis
Outputs
• Participatory action research: SWOT, Stakeholder analysis, working sessions
• Market price tracking; Cameroon
• Monitoring, training & capacity building events
• Data analysis SPSS and Excel
• Preliminary findings verified in meetings & peer cross-checked
• Value chain maps; representations & visualizations
• Reports
• Policy briefs & product sheets
Methodology
• Semi & structured interviews actors all stages chains = 190 Zambia & 702 Cameroon
Cameroon
Europe, USA
Zambia
North West
Adamaoua
Ngoundal
Results: Cameroon
•
Regions: Adamaoua 41% & NW 30% est. national production,
high & increasing population density 70-99 inhabitants km² NW
and 8/km² Adamaoua
•
•
History : Traditional (NW 88%, Ad 97%), project ‘push’ 80s, market focus >5 years
Production technologies: Basic & traditional, large volume, low quality, new
technologies now emerging for wax processing & propolis collection
Economic: Ad 68% household beekeepers, 55% primary activity
Llivelihoods: Contributes to 48% incomes Ad, 30-60% in NW
Ecological conditions: rapid deforestation of montane forest, slower degrading
savanna forest, forest protection/controls in NW, competing forest uses
Institutional context: High level collective organization (NW n=284) Ad n=98), bio &
ethical schemes at enterprise level, Geographical Indication scheme emerging
Regulatory context: Unregulated national production & market, no standards, exports
to Europe regulated since 2009, no interaction forestry & livestock authorities,
customary rules exist but often overridden and degrading concerning forest use in
NW, but good in Adamaoua
Governance: high corruption levels re transport, business set up, taxes and exports,
poor ‘doing business’ and ‘corruption perception’ indexes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Results: Zambia
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regions: Mwinilunga 82%, Kapiri 5% est. national production,
low population density 6 to 11.2 inhabitants km2
History: Traditional, 150 years of trade, colonial support,
government post –independence, donor push since 1970s &
community owned, organic 1990s & fair trade since 2003,
change to private enterprises
Production technologies: 90% traditional bark hives, low level hive
management, low volume 2nd processing except for beer
Economic: Mw 48% & K 29% households are beekeepers, 20-25% income
Livelihood: Mw 50% households beekeepers, av.73 hives, av. yield 7.4 – 20
kg, male dominated
Ecological conditions: Miombo woodlands, secondary clearings preferred for
diversity, Kapiri degraded forest more regulated,
Institutional context: Source foreign exchange, beekeeping Division ‘65-‘91,
high level NGO/development involvement, numerous SMEs vertically active in
chain, support marketing
Regulatory context: Govt support, national beekeeping policy developed 2008.
good customary regulation for forest use
>20 Traders/exporters
12 Processer/traders
Meiganga, Ngoundal
7 village
beekeeper groups
Adamaoua
>12300
Ngaoundal
6 intermediary
processer/trader &
capacity builder
Ctrl African Rep, Nigeria, Middle
East
5 Importers/processors
15 Processing
companies
EU, USA, SA.
Europe, South Africa
Ngoundal, Bamenda,
Yaounde,
3 Producer
Co-ops
Bamenda, Belo,
Oku
Craftspeople
Bamenda,
Foumban
4
Producer
shops
8 Pharmaceutical/
Cosmetic companies
EU, USA
Beekeepers
>200 Trad.Medicine
practionners
North West
>4500
‘> 20
Buy’am sell’ams’
Middlemen
Bamenda, Belo, Oku,
Douala
>10
Supermarkets &
grocery shops
Consumers
(International)
Oku, Bamenda,
Fundong, Belo,
Yaounde, Douala
Bamenda, Yaounde,
Douala ,Bafoussam,
Buea
>75 Roadside and
rail side traders
5x 10Market
stalls (urban)
Ngoundal, Ngoundere,
Bamenda, Dschang,
Bafoussam
Bamenda, Yaounde,
Douala ,Bafoussam,
Buea
Urban consumers
(<450km from source)
Yaounde, Douala
Products
Urban consumers
(>100km from source)
Bamenda, Bafoussam,
Buea, Ngoundere
>15 Beer
brewers (local)
Tabeken, Ndu
Local
consumers
(within village)
wax
propolis
honey
Others
North West
Adamoua
Cameroon apiculture value chains
Lunchu
Pc=K3555/kg
Kapiri/Kabwe
Lusaka
Pl=K18,250
Medium-small
registered companies
Importing
companies in
Eastern and
Southern Africa
BK=70%
Pl=K18,213
Q=65%
Supermarkets and grocery shops
B
Pl=
E
Urban consumers
(>150km from
source)
K18,213
E
Pl=K4000
K
BK=5%
E
Q=1%
Roadside traders
Pl=K11,800
E
P
Pl=K4100
E
BK=25%
R
Q=21%
S
Pc= price per kg comb honey
Pl=K4700
♀
Urban consumers
(<150km from
source)
BK=10%
Local consumers
(within village)
Pl= price per kg liquid honey
BK= beekeepers selling to market
Q= fraction of total volume produced, sold to market
Q=13%
Zambia apiculture value chains: Lunchu honey (2007)
Salujinga
Lusaka
International
Pc=K1988
Importing companies
in EU, USA
Large registered
companies
BK=86%
Q=83%
Medium-small
registered
companies
Importing companies in
Eastern and Southern
Africa
Pl=K11750
Supermarkets and grocery shops
Pl=K3500
Pc=K2333
B
e
e
k
e
e
p
er
Pl=K15000/kg
BK=11%
Middlemen
Q=10%
(only trading)
Pc=K3400
Pl=K16525
Market stalls (urban)
Pl=K2637
Pc=K1800
BK=7%
Beer brewers (local)
Pl=K18992
Beer brewers
(urban)
Urban consumers (>500
km from source)
Q=7%
Pl=K4487
s
Pl=K4487
Urban consumers
Local consumers
(within village)
Pc= price per kg comb honey
Pl= price per kg liquid honey
BK= beekeepers selling to market
Q= fraction of total volume produced, sold to market
Zambia apiculture value chains: Salujinga honey (2007)
Win: Livelihoods
Employment, income & production
Annual value
US$ 1.6 million
(2003)
>125 SMEs & 2
large enterprises
1500 tons honey
1-7 tons wax (?)
5005 tons honey
235 tons wax
Annual value
US$ 5.6 million
(2009)
>9,600 people
directly involved
production
>500 micro/SMEs
Win?: Conservation
Forest management & protection
• Inherently unsustainable practices: bark hives (Zam), water &
charcoal use in wax production (Cam), smoking techniques
•Little positive evidence despite conservation rhetoric
• Once projects finish protection levels decrease & degradation
from other sources continues (Cam)
• Hive trials show secondary forest just as productive (Zam)
• Loss of honey type due to decreasing forest : white montane
honey (Cam)- major marketing and quality indicator Geog
Indicator
• Link between forest health and honey production needs to be
explicit before local beekeepers act to conserve e.g. hive resources
• Apiculture needs to be sufficiently valuable + high livelihood
priority to outweigh other beekeeper & conflicting external
interests
Loosing: Conservation (long term)
Forest management & protection
4000
5540
1988-2001
3500
3842
2500
4491
2177
2000
1500
1424
734
1000
896
270
500
21
2700-2998
2500-2700
2300-2500
2100-2300
1900-2100
1700-1900
1500-1700
1300-1500
0
1051-1300
S urfac e débois ée (en ha)
1978-1988
3000
C la sse s d'a ltitude
Sources Cheek 2000, Solefack 2009
Negative impact value chain arrangements
- Unclear/usufruct land tenure = conservation disincentive
- Open access to forest = tragedy of commons
- Conservation focus ignored livelihoods aspects & forest use
conflicts – dual approach needed for long term sustainability
- Production focus and not markets discourages beekeepers
- Entering specialty & export markets = high cost for small, local,
remote organizations with unsure and marginal profits
- Importers have hands in both honey pots- restrictive market
control or bonus?
- Collective action without ‘good’ governance rules leads = overorganized, high cost, inefficient organizations and ultimately ‘death’
- Dependency on export markets raises cash & can increase scale &
quality but creates credit access problems
-Remoteness is a cost and market barrier
-Many small, unconnected organizations and actors = inefficiency,
lack of exchange on technology and market information.
Arrangements
Positive impact value chain arrangements
+ new market chains and new markets
+ deregulation opens up competition
+ external actors ‘brokers’ promote information/sector exchanges
+ remote forests = naturally organic, pest free, highly resilient
environment
+ successful income & high value
= incentive for forest
management
Cameroon: Beeswax
Poverty
Generally not a pathway out of poverty
However, where little or no alternative
sources of cash income, apiculture vital
in preventing sinking deeper into poverty
– ZAM: In Mwinilunga 50% households
keep bees , providing an average
US$140 per household annually: main
source of cash income
– CAM: In Ngoundal 68% households
beekeepers, average annual income
US$ 433, 43% of total household
income & major cash source.
prevention
more
than
alleviation
Cameroon: Beeswax
Opportunities & challenges
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction of modern technologies allows more women to
get involved in production
Women already active in adding value –especially in Zambia
Low entry barriers: both poor & and wealthy households keep
bees (low costs, ease of entry & potentially high returns
Lost opportunity: Low level value-adding in both countries
despite wide range of options available (low tech & cost): e.g.
candles, creams, wines, beers
National and African regional markets highly promising and
easy to reach
Export & specialty markets increasingly open (propolis,
organic, ethical & fair trade, community trade etc.)
Need strong, financed national institutions coordinating sector
support, with clear roles and responsibilities and supporting
legal frameworks to enforce and protect.
Increased coordination and networking facilities (stakeholder
platforms, trade fairs, etc.) to avoid duplication & improve
collaboration
The balance....
Livelihoods win and conservation looses, unless......
• Apiculture is more highly valued (economic, social &
legal aspects and values)
• The value is sustained over a long term
• Can compete favorably with other forest uses &
population pressure
• Unlikely that apiculture alone can achieve MDG goals
of poverty alleviation & environmental sustainability.
• ……instead consider apiculture as one activity in
diversified livelihood portfolio
• External factors also have a major impact (agriculture,
industry, infrastructure, market access political
culture….)
• Value chain approach taken with business focused
support and capacity building for associations,
cooperatives and service providers
• Coordinated and inter-sectoral policies and institutions
created.
Thank you plenty!
On
mange
quoi?
La forêt.
?