Beekeeping dynamics and its driving forces of change in Ethiopian mixed farming system

Asaminew Tassew and Maria Wurzinger¹

Department of Animal Production and Technology, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University,
PO Box: 276, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
asaminew2@gmail.com
¹ Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, BOKU - University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences,
Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180, Vienna, Austria

Abstract

The study was aimed to investigate the beekeeping dynamics and its driving forces of change in the mixed farming system of Northwest Ethiopia. The research approaches include use of secondary and primary data. The primary data was collected; including key informant interviews, focus group discussions, workshops and field observation. The data was collected for a time frame of 10 years (from 2002-2012). Qualitative data analysis was done by using the ATLAS-ti version 7 software.

The most important changes in all three watersheds during 2002-2012 were: reduction in honeybee colony size per household and decline in honey production; the adoption of movable-frame and top-bar hives were limited; few attempts by beekeepers to improve honeybee colony management practices; reduction in honeybee floral resources; increase in honeybee pests and predators attack and agrochemicals exposure. These changes are driven by the interaction of various driving forces that can be categorized into political (policy, institutional), economic, social, technological and ecological. Therefore, improvement of the beekeeping in the mixed farming system demands the commitment and action of stakeholders (farmers, development practitioners, researchers, policy makers, etc.) to change the influence of the various driving forces for the better.

Key words: adoption of hives, honeybee colony, improvement, watersheds

Introduction

In Ethiopia beekeeping has significant contribution to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers as well as to the nation’s economy. A recent study revealed that Ethiopia has a production potential of 500,000 tons of honey and 50,000 tons of beeswax per annum (MoARD 2007). However, the country only produces about 53, 680 tons of honey and 4,700 tons of beeswax which is only 10.7% and 9.4% of the country’s total production potential (CSA 2011). Besides, beekeeping stabilizes and protects fragile environment and increase the production of agricultural food and cash crops through pollination services from honeybees (Addi et al 2006; Jacobs et al 2006). These indicate that the contributions of beekeeping in poverty reduction, sustainable development and conservation of natural resources are very high.

Despite the long tradition of beekeeping in Ethiopia, having the highest honeybee colonies and being the leading honey producer as well as one of the largest beeswax exporting countries in Africa, the share of the sector in the GDP has never been commensurate with the country's potentiality for beekeeping (MoARD 2007). In the mixed crop-livestock production system, the productivity of honeybee has been low due to many factors. The main reasons include low beekeeping technology adoption, changes in natural environment, pests and predators attack, and indiscriminate applications of agrochemicals (Kebede et al 2007; Belie 2009; Ejigu et al 2009; Gebey et al 2010). The few beekeeping development programmes undertaken so far have been unsuccessful. Among others, the failures of the development programmes appear to be the lack of understanding the production systems, distribution of improved hives in isolation from other associated accessories, and lack of technical support (Ejigu et al 2009; Gebremedhn and Estifanos 2013; Yehuala et al 2013). Thus, the beekeepers haven’t been benefiting from the growing demand for honeybee products in both domestic and export markets (Tadesse and Phillips 2007; Legesse 2014).

In Northwest Ethiopia, agriculture takes place mostly on small-scale farms with less than one hectare. The farms are extremely diverse, and one farm usually incorporates a variety of agricultural practices. Farmers combine crop production, livestock production and beekeeping as main livelihood activities. Yet, progress in improving the productivity of this system has been much more limited and is a significant research challenge (Hailu et al 2011 Unpublished). Thus, the nature of the problems confronted by beekeepers requires a holistic and context-specific approaches and integration of stakeholders working together for the beekeeping sub-sector development. In this regard, scholars highlight that research efforts should focus on integrating knowledge from diverse disciplines and various stakeholders to solve real-world problems (Mcdonald et al 2009; Bammer 2013).

However, an underlying premise of the study is that there is no local-scale understanding of the changes observed in the beekeeping and the reasons for these changes, and how farmers adapt to the changing situations. In this study, beekeeping refers to the honeybees, the beekeeping technology, the honeybee colony management practices and the wider environment which a beekeeper manages, uses or interacts with, as they work to secure their yield of honeybee products. We also define a driving force as “any influencing factor that directly or indirectly brings about change in the beekeeping”. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the beekeeping dynamics and its driving forces of change in the mixed farming system of Northwest Ethiopia. The associated research questions are: (a) What have been the changes in beekeeping? (b) What have been the driving forces for changes in beekeeping?

Methodology

Study sites

This study is part of the Strengthening Rural Transformation Competences of Higher Education and Research Institutions in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia (TRANSACT) project. In this study, the research approach is a case study comprising three watersheds in Northwest Ethiopia (Figure 1). The watershed approach is selected because nowadays the government of Ethiopia and NGOs has been supportive of community watershed programs to enhance rural livelihoods through managing natural resources (Desta et al 2005). Hence, three watersheds were selected based on the following criteria: size of the watersheds (area coverage), accessibility, agro-ecological representation, and years of experience in extension support by the government and Sustainable Natural Resource Management Program in North Gondar Zone (SRMP-NG) project. The watersheds are named Wujraba, Godinge, and Mezega which are found in Chilga, Dabat, and Debark district, respectively. The total area of the watershed is 560 ha, 330 ha and 316 ha for Wujraba, Godinge, and Mezega, respectively (Hailu et al 2011 Unpublished). The watersheds are agro-ecologically distinct. It ranges from tepid moist ( Weynadega) in Wujraba, cool moist (Dega) in Godinge and cold to very cold moist (Dega to Wurch) in Mezega. The watersheds are also distinct in rainfall, potential evapotranspiration, and temperature. Maximum annual average temperature is 23.9^oC, 18.8^oC, and 19.9^oC for Wujraba, Godinge, and Mezega, respectively. The annual rainfall is 1,300 mm, 1,200 mm, and 1,450 mm at Wujraba, Godinge, and Mezega, respectively. The topography of the watersheds is generally rugged mountains and undulating hills on the upper part of the watershed. Mixed crop-livestock farming is the mainstay of the livelihoods of households in all watersheds. Farmers keep different livestock species and honeybees. The principal crops grown include teff (Eragrostis tef), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), and maize (Zea mays) in Wujraba, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and triticale (x-Ttriticosecale) in Godinge and Mezega (Hailu et al 2011 Unpublished).

Figure 1. Location map of the study sites (Source: Authors based on 1994 Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency data)

Data collection

Both secondary and primary data sources were used. Secondary data was collected from past studies, office of agriculture, statistical office, research institutes and non-governmental organizations. The primary data was collected using qualitative research methods (Silverman 2005), including key informant interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), workshops and researcher observation. A purposive sampling technique was used to select the farmers for key informant interviews, FGDs and workshops (Patton 1990). Farmers were selected by considering sex, age, wealth status, years of settlement (> 10 years), and experience in beekeeping. The selection was done by the involvement of the first author, livestock development agents, and district SRMP-NG focal persons. Thematic and institutional relevance are considered to select development agents, experts, researchers and officials. In this study, the time frame considered is 10 years (from 2002 to 2012). Data was collected from September, 2012 – April, 2013.

Prior to the actual data collection, the researcher visited the specific research sites and several issues related to beekeeping system were learnt by observation and informal discussion with people. Transect walks created opportunities for observation and informal discussion with people. Issues that emerged from observation and informal discussion with people were used to guide key informant interviews, focus group discussions and workshops. In this study, a total of 24 (8 per watershed) key informant interviews and 9 FGDs (3 per watershed) with farmers were carried out. The FGDs participants comprise of both men and women, ranging in size from 8-12 participants. Similarly, interviews were held with livestock development agents, beekeeping development and research officials. FGDs were also held with beekeeping experts and researchers. Open-ended questions used for both the key informant interviews and FGDs and the discussion done using the local language (Amharic) and their responses were recorded using a voice recorder. The researcher and his assistant moderated the recorded discussion.

Workshops were held at each watershed with 16 participants (farmers’ representatives (7 male, 3 female), chairman of the kebele, one livestock development agent, two district beekeeping experts, head, district office of agriculture, and head, district administration) to identify the driving forces for changes in beekeeping. In the workshops, first participants discussed and presented a list of driving forces that they considered important for changes in beekeeping in the past, present and future. Following, the researcher added driving forces identified from preliminary assessment (key informant interviews and FGDs), and literature search. Finally, the driving forces from different stakeholders were discussed together and agreed and the aggregated driving forces presented in a systemic picture. The discussions were done using the local language (Amharic) and minutes were taken by the researcher and his assistant.

Data analysis

All interviews and FGDs were transcribed using express scribe software and translated into English. Following, the transcribed interviews and FGDs, workshops minutes and field notes were imported into the program ATLAS-ti version 7 software for qualitative analysis (Muhr & Friese 2004). Then, 52 primary documents were used for content analysis (Berg 2001). Ex-situ coding was done based on the research questions. For each category, a list of codes and sub-codes were defined and grouped into code families. Finally, the interpretation was done by filtering the codes families. The driving forces identified for changes in beekeeping categorized using PESTE (Erdogan et al 2009) framework: political (policy, institutional), economic, social, technological, and ecological driving forces.

Results

Changes in honeybee colony holdings, productivity and use of hives

Farmers realized that honeybee colony holding per household, total colonies at watershed level and honey production decreased in the past ten years. The main reasons were lack of honeybee floral resources, agrochemicals effect, and honeybee pests and predators attack. A farmer explained the change in honeybee colony holding as:

‘‘Before ten years I had 5 honeybee colonies in traditional hives, but now I have 1 honeybee colony, the reasons were of lack of honeybee forage and agrochemicals effect.’’ (Key informant farmer in Wujraba, November 2012)

Other farmer described the change in honeybee colony holding as:

‘‘Before ten years I had 2 colonies in traditional hives, since 2008 I haven’t been kept honeybee colonies, the reasons were lack of honeybee forage, birds eating honeybees and herbicide spray effect.’’ (Key informant farmer in Godinge, November 2012)

In terms of hives use, the majority of beekeepers have been using traditional hives only. And only few farmers are using movable-frame and top-bar hives. However, according to the district and zonal livestock development experts, nowadays top-bar hive is being promoted by stakeholders besides to movable-frame hive. Key informant and FGDs participants’ farmers explained that the reasons for the low adoption of movable-frame hive are due to high price, lack of awareness and technical support. Farmers at Wujraba also mentioned that wax moth created a problem for the adoption of movable-frame hive. Moreover, farmers at Mezega highlighted that the movable-frame hive is not suitable for honeybees due to moisture absorption. Similarly, livestock development agents, livestock experts and beekeeping researchers realized that the adoption of movable-frame hive failed due to lack of the full technology package and lack of understanding the socio-economic situations of farmers. However, they are perceived that the technology has a comparatives advantage compared to both traditional and top-bar hives, especially the quality and quantity of honey production. They also comprehend that the price of movable-frame hive and its accessories are unaffordable for the majority of beekeepers.

Farmer explained the reasons for the low adoption of movable-frame hive:

‘‘‘Zemenawi kefo kisikasie selemisibi legna akababe alihonenim’, meaning, the movable-frame hive is not good for honeybees because the hive attracts moisture and due to this our honeybees abscond frequently.’’ (Farmer in FGD in Mezega, November 2012)

Beekeeping researcher also described the reasons for the low adoption of movable-frame hive:

‘‘The adoption of movable-frame hive was low despite the efforts made. The reasons for the low adoption of movable-frame hive is because of the extension approach which are used, the distribution has been done without considering farmers’ socio-economic situation and that is why some farmers are using movable-frame hive for putting clothes. The report also focuses on the number of movable-frame hives distributed and didn’t include hive occupation percentage.’’ (Beekeeping researcher, October 2013)

Change in sources, placement and management of honeybee colony

Farmers and livestock development agents stated that there are changes in the sources of honeybee colonies in the past ten years. The sources of colonies were mainly by catching swarms and gifts from parents, but, nowadays catching swarms and buying colonies are the common practices. On the other hand, district and zonal livestock experts confirmed that, in recent time splitting colony multiplication training is given for beekeepers. With regard to hives placement, nowadays honeybee colonies are placed in the backyard and under the roof of the house than in the forest. In FGD with farmers, a farmer highlighted the sources of colonies:

‘‘I obtained honeybee colonies by hanging traditional hives on trees found in crop and communal lands.’’ (Farmer in FGD in Mezega, November 2012)

With regard to colony management practices, farmers stated that they are practiced the honeybee colony management practices such as honeybee pests and predators control and provision of supplementary food such as sugar syrup and water during the dearth period. However, livestock development agents and experts working in the district office of agriculture and beekeeping researchers realized that year round colony management practices are practiced by few beekeepers.

Changes in honeybee floral resources

The honeybee plants in all watersheds include trees, shrubs, herbs, and cultivated crops. All participants perceived that the availability of honeybee floral resources decreased in the past ten years (Table 1). The perceived reasons for the reduction in honeybee floral resources are attributed by land clearing for cultivation and settlements, cutting trees for fuelwood, fencing and building, change in cropping types and use of herbicides on crop and pasture lands. They stated that the use of herbicides, i.e., 2, 4-D and glyphosate contributed to the reduction in honeybee floral resources through damaging the weeds which are found in the hedgerow and inside crop land, crop aftermath and pasture lands. Farmers and livestock development agents stated that, nowadays the honeybee floral resources are coming from Eucalyptus spp. that are found around homestead, cultivated crops, trees and shrubs that are found around churches. A religious leader (farmer) explained the honeybee floral resources:

‘‘Ye kessim etsewat eyetefa newu, be ersha bota mesfafat and den chifchefa mikniyat manebi alechalenim’, meaning, due to expansion of crop lands and high deforestation rate, the plants which were important for honeybees are now extinct. As a result, keeping honeybees are becoming difficult in our area.’’ (Religious leader in Godinge, November 2012)

Changes in honeybee health

All participants described the major pests and predators that endanger the life and products of honeybees include wax moth (Galleria mellonella), ants, bee-eater birds, spider, and honey badger (Mellivora capensis) (Table 2). Farmers explained that the incidence of ants, spiders and honey badger are decreasing due to the local prevention methods, but the problem of wax moth is increasing, especially in Wujraba. Furthermore, farmers and livestock development agents revealed that bee-eater birds’ predation are a serious problem in Godinge and Mezega watersheds. They indicated that the bee-eater birds coming in-groups from lowland areas and causes a considerable loss of honeybees, especially from February to June.

Farmers described that the local preventive measures against honeybee pests and predators include cleaning of apiaries, destroy of ant nests and spider webs to prevent ant and spiders; chasing and/or killing of bee-eater birds and suspend upside down to create fear of other birds coming to apiary to prevent the predation of birds; and fencing of apiaries with strong thorny fences and having a dog to prevent honey badger. Farmer explained the impact of wax moth:

‘‘My honeybees absconded from the movable-frame hive last year (2011) and when I opened I found ‘‘senbele tele’’ (wax moth) inside hive, the wax moth in most cases found inside hive in the months February-June.’’ (Key informant farmer in Wujraba, November 2012 )

Beekeeping researcher realized the impact of wax moth:

‘‘Due to poor management practices by beekeepers, wax moth is easily found in honey supper after honey harvest and drawn combs. If internal colony inspection and other seasonal colony management practices shouldn’t be done by the beekeepers themselves; wax moth is becoming a challenge for the adoption of movable-frame hive.’’ (FGD with beekeeping researchers , November 2013 )

With regard to agrochemicals, farmers, livestock development agents and district livestock experts realized that due to agrochemicals exposure the death of honeybees is increasing from time to time in all watersheds. They explained that due to agrochemicals effect, the honeybees didn’t return to the hive after their foraging trip. They mentioned the agrochemicals in use: In Wujraba, the agrochemicals in use include, a mix of endosulfan and diazinon spray to control maize pests; a mix of endosulfan, diazinon and malathion spray to control teff pests; malathion spray to control aphids on grass pea and African bollworm on chickpea; fungicides such as macozeb to control potatoes disease, and herbicides, such as 2, 4-D to destroy broad leaved weeds from teff, finger millet, barley and wheat crop farm and pasture lands. They also mentioned that nowadays glyphosate is used together with 2, 4-D by farmers in Wujraba to destroy any plant materials available in crop lands before ploughing. In Godinge, the agrochemicals include the use of mancozeb and chlorothaloni to control chocolate spot disease of faba bean; herbicide, 2, 4-D to destroy broad leaved weeds from barley and wheat crop farm lands. In Mezega, farmers use mancozeb and chlorothaloni to control chocolate spot disease of faba bean, but, there is no report on the use of herbicide to destroy crop weeds. Similarly, zone and regional livestock officials and experts, beekeeping researchers and NGOs working on beekeeping development emphasized that the health of honeybees are highly affected by agrochemicals application in the mixed crop-livestock production systems in the recent time than before. Farmer in FGD described the impacts of agrochemicals use:

‘‘Nib yalewum, yelelewum medihanet yirchale, meaning, both beekeepers as well as non-beekeepers have been used agrochemicals to control crop pests and weeds. Erichit kalkome wedefit mar le kimisha aynornim, meaning, if the agrochemicals spray will continue, we (farmers) will not harvest honey due to death of honeybees.’’ (Farmer in FGD in Wujraba, November 2012)

Similarly livestock development agent explained the impacts of agrochemicals use:

‘‘Nowadays the honeybees didn’t return to the hives due to pesticides and herbicide poisoning, especially in the months from August-January. In Wujraba, different types of agrochemicals are in use, including a mix of endosulfan and diazinon spray to control maize pest; a mix of endosulfan, diazinon and malathion spray to control teff pest; malathion spray to control aphids on grass pea and African bollworm on chickpea, 2, 4-D, to destroy broad leaved weeds on teff, finger millet, and wheat crops and pasture lands; and a mix of glyphosate and 2, 4-D to destroy any plant materials available in crop land before ploughing the crop land and farmers name the mix ‘ayimertie’, meaning, destroy any plant materials available in crop land.’’ (Livestock development agent in Wujraba, January 2013)

Changes in consumption of honey and marketing of beekeeping equipment and honeybee products

All participants described that honey is in most cases consumed at household level during harvesting time. The crude honey harvested is sold at rural and/ or urban markets to fulfill households’ goods. But in Godinge, beekeepers have been selling the crude honey to the cooperative and the cooperative process the crude honey. However, there is no established cooperative both in Wujraba and Mezega. So far, individual farmers didn’t sale beeswax, because the crude honey was sold without processing into pure honey and beeswax. Nowadays sale of honeybee colonies has become a source of income for beekeepers.

The buying and selling points of honey in all watersheds located at local village points and district towns. Farmers reported that the honeybee colonies have been sold at farm gate. They haven’t been taken to local market places due to fear of beestings and difficulty of transporting honeybee colonies.

Beekeeping researchers, beekeeping extension workers, and livestock development agents explained that marketing of honeybee colony is a quite recent enterprise developed as an adaptive strategy to generate some income for the sellers, and a starting and/or expansion mechanisms for the buyers. A livestock development agent stated:

‘‘Nowadays it is common in Wujraba that selling and buying of colonies are practiced by beekeepers, one colony can cost 500-700 birr.’’ (Livestock development agent in Wujraba, January 2013)

Farmers, livestock development agents and livestock experts working at districts office of agriculture realized that the market price of honey and honeybee colonies had increased significantly in the past ten years. For instance, the market price of one kilogram crude honey increased from 10-15 EB in 2002 to 40-50 EB in 2012. While the market price of pure honey per kilogram increased from 25-30 EB in 2002 to 70-80 EB in 2012. The market price of a honeybee colony also increased from 100-120 to 500-700 EB. Similarly, the market price of beekeeping equipment has increased significantly (Table 3).

Changes in support services

In all watersheds, the beekeeping extension services and financial support have been mainly funded and provided by the government through the district office of agriculture. Besides, in the past, NGOs such as ILDP had supported, currently SRMP-NG is supporting farmers. The district office of agriculture has been supported by the zonal office of agriculture, and regional bureau of agriculture. The beekeeping extension services given for beekeepers include training and knowledge and technology transfer such as movable-frame and top-bar hives and accessories. In the past ten years, training and deployment of livestock manpower in the public sector expanded considerably. However, livestock development agents, livestock experts and officials emphasized that the beekeeping extension services are unsatisfactory due to their strong involvement in crop extension and soil conservation activities. Beekeeping expert stated the beekeeping extension services:

‘‘In the past the beekeeping extension services weren’t good because the government focused on crop productivity improvement. But in recent times there are changes especially in human power; one livestock development agent assigned for one kebele, and beekeeping experts also assigned at district, zone and region levels.’’ (Beekeeping expert, November 2013)

On the other hand, livestock development official highlighted the beekeeping extension services:

‘‘Lack of skillful beekeeping experts, including the livestock development agents, districts and zone beekeeping experts, is of the problem for beekeeping extension services. Due to this the technical advices that have been delivered to beekeepers is not satisfactory.’’ (North Gondar Zone livestock resources development and promotion agency head, January 2013)

With regard to financial support, livestock development agents and experts realized that there was no change in the financial support in the past ten years. For beekeeping development investment, government owned Amhara Credit and Saving Institution (ACSI) has been providing short term loan for farmers. Most of the loan has been used for purchasing movable-frame hives and its accessories. In addition, in the past, NGOs such as ILDP had provided financial services through revolving funds. At the moment, SRMP-NG is also supporting financial services through revolving funds. Furthermore, nowadays, livestock experts and officials stated that the landless youth in rural areas and graduates of higher institutions are being organized to start a beekeeping business. To start the business they are provided with training and financial services through revolving funds.

Description of driving forces

The driving forces (DFs) identified for changes in the beekeeping are diverse. However, all the DFs are similar across watersheds (Table 4). Thus, each driving force working alone and/ or in synergy with other driving forces has influence the changes in beekeeping.

Discussion

In the study areas, beekeeping is still practiced as a complementary activity by the farming community. It provides income from the sale of honey and beeswax, nutrition, and employment opportunities. Studies also showed that beekeeping is one of the important income-generating activities in the rural community and it also provides an employment opportunity for many Ethiopians (Girma et al 2008; Ejigu et al 2009; Gebey et al 2010; Legesse 2014). Despite the importance of beekeeping for farmers in the study areas, the finding of this study shows that the honeybee colony holding per household, population at the watershed level and honey production decreased in the past ten years. These changes were attributed due to reduction in honeybee floral resources, increase in agrochemicals exposure, and increase in pests and predators attack, among others. The study also shows that knowledge is lacking regarding the role of honeybees to pollinate crops. This is because, both beekeepers as well as non-beekeepers have been using agrochemicals to control crop pests, and destroy weeds from crop and pasture lands without taking care for honeybees.

Moreover, the use of agrochemicals may involve unacceptable residue levels in exportable products, such as honey and beeswax, may serve as a barrier to international trade. However, a national proclamation to regulate agrochemicals that harm honeybees is old enough to be proclaimed (Apiculture resources development and protection proclamation No. 660/2009, under article 4:

‘‘ Any person engaged in crop protection undertakings shall have the responsibility to take proper precaution to avoid poisoning fatalities that may occur on honeybees due to improper use of pesticides chemicals.’ ’

The reason might be that the enforcement guidelines are not yet put in place. Thus, a joint thinking plus action by stakeholders to protect honeybees against destruction from agrochemicals sprays would be important. Studies in the highlands of Ethiopia show that the population of honeybee colonies is decreasing from year to year, among others, due to reduction in honeybee floral resources and exposure to agrochemicals (Belie 2009; Ejigu et al 2009; Gebey et al 2010). Thus, the plant-honeybee interactions have been faced increasing threats through deforestation, expansion of crop land and agrochemicals use, and therefore demand solution to maintain the mutual plant-honeybee interactions.

The study shows that the evolution in improved hives systems seem stagnant despite the efforts made. The efforts for the adoption of movable-frame and top-bar hives systems are driven mainly by government and few NGOs. Similarly, the adoption rate of movable-frame hive system is low in other parts of Ethiopia (Ejigu 2005; Workneh et al 2008; Gebremedhn and Estifanos 2013; Lowore and Bradbear 2013; Yehuala et al 2013). The study also shows that the seasonal colony management is not practiced by the majority of beekeepers. Thus, to improve production and productivity the beekeepers indigenous knowledge should be supported by practical field training.

The extension and financial support services for beekeeping sub-sector development hasn’t improved. With regard to marketing support, very little efforts have made to establish honey and beeswax processing cooperatives. The study also shows that the watershed development that has been undertaken through community participation not integrated with beekeeping. But, studies show that the importance of integrating beekeeping with watershed development to increase the availability of floral resources in other parts of the country (Jacobs et al 2006; Woldewahid et al 2012; Gemeda 2014).

The changes in beekeeping have been driven by various driving forces that can be categorized into political (policy, institutional), economic, social, technological, and ecological. Each driving force working alone and/ or in synergy with other driving forces has influence the changes in beekeeping (Figure 2). Studies also reveal that various driving forces have the potential to drive beekeeping at global, national and local levels, for instance, habitat loss and fragmentation, pathologies, invasive species, pollution, and agricultural intensification (Shepherd et al 2003; UNEP 2010). According to these authors, these driving forces are threats for beekeeping. On the contrary, the demand for honey and beeswax also increased in the developed countries (CIAFS 2012). According to this study, this driving force is an opportunity for beekeepers.

Figure 2. Forces driving change in beekeeping. The circle box represents the changes in beekeeping systems while the orange boxes represent the five category of driving forces associated with changes in beekeeping (Table 4); black arrows represent direct impact on beekeeping from driving forces; blue arrows represent interaction between driving forces; and green arrows represent interactions within driving forces.(Source: Authors)

Conclusions

• This study shows that the beekeeping in the mixed farming system is at increasing threats.
  
  
• The findings show that the beekeeping is not in harmony with crop production, because the agrochemicals in use to control crop pests and weeds have been affecting the honeybees’ health.
  
  
• The herbicides have been damaging the honeybee floral resources.
  
  
• The expansion of crop land has been damaging the herbs, shrubs and trees that are important honeybee floral resources.
  
  
• Moreover, the development efforts that have been made by the government and NGOs to improve the quantity and quality of honey production mainly focus only on distribution of movable-frame hives and lack other support schemes.
  
  
• They haven’t been also addressing properly the technical, socio-economic and biophysical factors that could affect adoption of beekeeping technologies under specific-context.

The findings reveal that the participation of stakeholders provides knowledge relevant for understanding the dynamics and driving forces of change in beekeeping. Such participation might help, especially the local authorities to better understand the opportunities and challenges of beekeeping and to inform from bottom-up to policy-makers and analysts the new ways that the national and regional governments could support for the beekeeping sub-sector development. In a nutshell, the governments (national, regional and local) still have a relevant role to play, e.g. to support the access to production-enhancing input (including services) and output markets by considering the resource availability during planning. Therefore, improvement of the beekeeping in the study sites demands the commitment and action of stakeholders (farmers, development practitioners, researchers, policy makers, etc.) to change the influence of the various driving forces for the better.

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank the farmers, livestock development agents, experts, researchers, and public administrators participated in this study. We also gratefully acknowledge Strengthening Rural Transformation Competences of Higher Education and Research Institutions in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia (TRANSACT) project and Austrian Partnership Programme in Higher Education and Research for Development (APPEAR) for the financial support.

References

Addi A, Gizaw I and Bezabeh A 2006 The effect of honeybee pollination on seed production of Allium cepa. Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production 8(1) 2006: 79-84.

Bammer G 2013 Disciplining interdisciplinarity: Integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. Published by ANU E Press, the Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia. 472pp.

Belie T 2009 Honeybee production and marketing systems, constraints and opportunities in Burie district of Amahara Region, A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Animal Science and Technology, School of Graduate Studies, Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia.

Berg B L 2001 Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 4th edition, by Allyn and Bacon.

Bradbear N 2003 Beekeeping and sustainable livelihoods. Agricultural Support Systems Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome 2003.

Bradbear N 2009 Bees and their role in forest livelihoods: A guide to the services provided by bees and the sustainable harvesting, processing and marketing of their products. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

CIAFS (Capacity to Improve Agriculture and Food Security) 2012 The world market for honey. Market survey number 01.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia) 2011 Agricultural Sample Survey 2010/11. Volume II; Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Desta L, Carucci V, Wendem-Ageliehu A and Abebe Y (eds) 2005 Community based participatory watershed development: A guideline. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ejigu K 2005 Honeybee production systems, opportunities and challenges in Enebse Sar Midir wereda (Amhara Region) and Amaro Special wereda (Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region), Ethiopia. M.Sc. thesis. Alemaya University, Department of Animal Science, Ethiopia. 133pp.

Ejigu K, Gebey T and Preston T R 2009 Constraints and prospects for apiculture research and development in Amhara region, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 21, Article #172.

Ejigu K, Gebey T, Tassew A, Worku M and Mitikie A 2012 Linking research and development in beekeeping: The case of Amhara region, Ethiopia. Presented to the ApiAfrica Expo 26-30 September, 2012, Ethiopia.

Erdogan B, Abbott C, Aouad G and Samad A 2009 Construction in IT 2030: A scenario planning approach. Journal of Information Technology in Construction Vol. 14 (2009) 539-555. http://www.itcon.org/2009/35

FNG (Federal Negarit Gazeta of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia) 2009 A proclamation to provide for apiculture resources development and protection. Proclamation No. 660/2009.

Fichtl R and Addi A 1994 Honeybee flora of Ethiopia. Margraf Verlag, Germany. 510p.

Gebey T, Berhe K and Hoekstra D 2010 Beekeeping development using value chain approach in Fogera district: Experiences from IPMS project. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute.

Gebremedhn H and Estifanos A 2013 On farm evaluation of Kenyan top-bar hive (KTBH) for honey production in Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 25, Article #86. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/5/haft25086.htm

Gebremichael B and Gebremedhin B 2014 Perceptions of smallholder farmers on improved box hive technology and its profitability in Northern Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Vol. 6 (12), pp. 393-402. http://www.internationalscholarsjournals.org/

Gemeda T K 2014 Integrating improved beekeeping as economic incentive to community watershed management: The Case of Sasiga and Sagure districts in Oromiya region, Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2014, pp. 52-57. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/aff

Girma M, Ballo S, Tegegne A, Alemayehu N and Belayhun L 2008 Approaches, methods and processes for innovative apiculture development: Experiences from Ada’a-Liben Woreda, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia. Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 8. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 48pp.

Jacobs F J, Simoens C, de Graaf D C and Deckers J 2006 Scope for non-wood forest products income generation from rehabilitation areas: Focus on beekeeping. Journal of the Drylands 1(2): 171-185

Kebede A, Ejigu K, Aynalem T and Jenberie A 2007 Assessment of the status of beekeeping in Amhara region, Amhara Region Agriculture Research Institute, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. 57pp.

Legesse G Y 2014 Review of progress in Ethiopian honey production and marketing. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 26, Article #14. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/1/lege26014.htm

Lowore J 2013 Pesticides kill bees in Ethiopia. Bees for Development Journal 106.

Lowore J and Bradbear N 2013 Profitability, productivity and sustainability in beekeeping. Bees for Development Journal 106.

McDonald D, Bammer G and Deane P 2009 Research integration using dialogue methods. Australia: ANU E Press, The Australian National University Australia.

MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) 2007 Livestock development master plan study. Phase I report - Data collection and analysis, Volume N - Apiculture. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) 2002 Ethiopia: Macroeconomic and social indicators. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) 2013 Ethiopia: Macroeconomic and social indicators. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Muhr T and Friese S 2004 ATLAS.ti, The knowledge workbench: User’s guide and reference (Second Ed.). Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.

Patton M Q 1990 Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Shepherd M, Buchmann S L, Vaughan M and Black S H 2003 Pollinator conservation handbook. The Xerces society 4828, Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland. 145pp.

Silverman D 2005 Doing qualitative research (Second Ed.). London: Sage Publishers.

Tadesse B and Phillips D 2007 Ensuring small scale producers in Ethiopia to achieve sustainable and fair access to honey markets. Paper prepared for International Development Enterprises (IDE) and Ethiopian Society for Appropriate Technology (ESAT), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) 2010 UNEP emerging issues: Global honeybee colony disorder and other threats to insect pollinators.

Workneh A, Puskur R and Karippai R S 2008 Adopting improved box hive in Atsbi Wemberta district of eastern zone, Tigray region: Determinants and financial benefits. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 10. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 30pp.

Woldewahid G, Gebremedhin B, Hoekstra D, Tegegne A, Berhe K and Weldemariam D 2012 Market-oriented beekeeping development to improve smallholder income: Results of development experiences in Atsbi-Womberta district, northern Ethiopia. IPMS Case Study. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute.

Yehuala S, Birhan M and Melak D 2013 Perception of farmers towards the use of modern beehives technology in Amhara region, Ethiopia. European Journal of Biological Sciences 5 (1): 01-08, 2013.

Yemane N and Taye M 2013 Honeybee production in the three agro-ecological districts of Gamo Gofa zone of southern Ethiopia with emphasis on constraints and opportunities. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 2013, 4(5): 560-567 www.scihub.org/ABJNA/PDF/2013 5/ABJNA-4-5-560-567.pdf

Received 24 September 2016; Accepted 11 October 2016; Published 1 December 2016

Go to top