SDS.

Ltd

Feasibility study on the value of honey

bees for sustainable livelihood and
biodiversity conservation: Case of
Nyungwe landscape

Conducted and written by

Ndimukaga Marc

November, 2014
Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
(CEPF) Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot Small Grant
Mechanism through Birdlife International for funding this study and
Straightforward Development Services Ltd (SDS Ltd) for allowing us to
share our findings from the study commissioned by them. Thanks to
Wildlife Conservation Society for kindly having accepted collaboration
and the field staff at Kitabi in Nyamagabe district who welcomed us and
made us so much at home. An especial 'thank' to Vincent …who guided
us and helped us in every way in the field. We could not have hoped for a
more cooperative and easy assistance. Thanks to staff of Ubwiza bwa
Nyungwe beekeeping cooperative for their assistance and permission to
inspect their honeybe

i
Executive summary

The role of honeybees in sustaining forests and forest dependent

livelihoods remains poorly known and appreciated. Their service to
mankind is enormous as they carry out pollination of different crop
plants without which development of fruits and seeds cannot occur in
cross pollinated crops.

Honey is probably the most product that people usually associate to

beekeeping although it generates much more than that. The
maintenance of biodiversity and pollination of crops are perhaps the
most valuable services provided by honeybees. Honeybees produce other
hive products of high value such as beeswax, pollen, propolis, royal jelly
and bee venom. Hive products are a source of food and nutritional
security, raw materials for various industries, medicine, increased
government revenue through levies and taxes, improved biodiversity
conservation and enhancing environmental resilience.

This investigation showed how beekeeping would get associated to forest

conservation and livelihood improvement. The study investigated
opportunities and challenges associated to beekeeping development in
Nyungwe landscape.

ii
Contents

Contents ...............................................................................................iii
List of figures ....................................................................................... vii
List of tables........................................................................................ viii
1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 2
2. Methods ............................................................................................ 7
2.1. Study area...................................................................................... 7
2.2. Methodology ................................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Desk studies................................................................................ 9
2.2.2. Field survey................................................................................. 9
2.2.3. Gap analysis.............................................................................. 10
2.2.4. SWOT analysis .......................................................................... 10
2.2.5. Cost benefit analysis.................................................................. 11
12. Desk studies ................................................................................. 12
2.1. Beekeeping development in Rwanda ............................................. 12
2.1.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 12
2.1.2. Overview on African honeybees Apis mellifera ............................ 12
2.1.2.1. Introduction ........................................................................... 12
2.1.3. Beekeeping in Rwanda............................................................... 13
2.1.3.1. Types of honeybees found in Rwanda...................................... 14
2.1.3.2. Beekeeping development in Rwanda ....................................... 15
2.1.3.3. Importance of beekeeping ....................................................... 16
2.1.3.4. Beekeeping and natural environment conservation ................. 18
2.1.3.4.1. Conservation of natural forest and natural vegetation (breeding
grounds of wild honey bees)................................................................. 18
2.1.3.4.2. Conservation of natural forest and natural vegetation
(conservation of nectar/pollen sources) ............................................... 18
2.1.3.4.3. Restoration and rehabilitation of natural vegetation ............. 19
2.1.3.4.4. Reduced expansion of agricultural land ............................... 19

iii
2.1.3.4.5. Reduction of cutting down pressure (conversion from charcoal
production) ......................................................................................... 20
2.1.3.5. Challenges to beekeeping development ................................... 21
2.1.3.5.1. Bee colony loss .................................................................... 21
2.1.4. Social economic activities associated to Nyungwe National Park . 29
2.1.5. Conclusion ................................................................................ 31
4. Field survey..................................................................................... 33
4.1. Social economic activities associated to Nyungwe National Park.... 33
4.2. Challenges to beekeeping development ......................................... 35
4.2.1. Low returns from beekeeping ..................................................... 35
4.2.2. Poor colony management ........................................................... 35
4.2.3. Bee Predators ............................................................................ 37
4.2.3.1. Man........................................................................................ 37
4.2.3.2. Chimpanzes............................................................................ 38
4.2.3.3. Birds (Honeyguide and bee eaters) .......................................... 38
4.2.3.4. Ants ....................................................................................... 38
4.2.3.5. Honey budger (Mellivora capensis) .......................................... 38
4.2.4. Bee pests................................................................................... 39
4.2.4.1. Wax Moth (greater and lesser) ................................................. 39
4.2.4.2. Hive beetles ............................................................................ 39
4.2.4.3. Bee louse or bee fly (Braula coeca) .......................................... 40
4.2.5. Bee diseases .............................................................................. 41
4.2.5.1. Paralysis................................................................................. 41
4.2.5.2. Diarrhea ................................................................................. 42
4.3. Other challenges to beekeeping..................................................... 42
4.3.1. Absconding................................................................................ 42
4.3.2. Poor harvesting methods ........................................................... 43
4.3.3. Quality control challenges ......................................................... 44
4.3.4. Pesticide kill .............................................................................. 44
4.4. Honeybees and biodiversity conservation ...................................... 46
4.5. Conclusion ................................................................................... 48

iv
5. SWOT Analysis ................................................................................ 50
5.1. Strengths ..................................................................................... 50
5.1.1. Indigenous knowledge ............................................................... 50
5.1.2. The potential of hive products.................................................... 50
5.1.3. Social resources ........................................................................ 50
5.1.4. The potential of large swathee of bee forage ............................... 51
5.2. Weaknesses.................................................................................. 51
5.2.1. Quality control of hive products ................................................. 51
5.2.2. Limited knowledge and low inputs by the government................ 51
5.2.3. other weakenesses in the beekeeping sector............................... 52
5.3. Opportunities ............................................................................... 52
5.3.1. Favorable government policy regarding entrepreneurship and
beekeeping development ...................................................................... 52
5.3.2. Viable market ............................................................................ 52
5.3.3. Threats...................................................................................... 53
6. Cost benefit analysis ....................................................................... 55
6.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 55
6.2. Cost-benefit analysis of interventions ........................................... 56
6.2.1. Current situation (“without” intervention scenario of traditional
beekeeping) ......................................................................................... 57
6.2.2. Intervention 1: Introduction of four transitional Beehives (Top bar)
per Beekeeper’s Household .................................................................. 59
6.2.3. Intervention 2: Introduction of four modern beehives (Langstroth)
per Beekeeper’s Household .................................................................. 61
6.3. Economic Analysis ....................................................................... 63
6.4. Conclusion ................................................................................... 64
7. Gap analysis ................................................................................... 66
7.1. Presentation of Beekeeping development around Nyungwe National
Park 66
7.2. Current gaps associated to beekeeping development around
Nyungwe National Park ....................................................................... 66

v
7.3. Conclusion............................................................................................................ 68
8. General conclusion................................................................................................ 70
9. Recommendations ........................................................................... 72
10. Reference ...................................................................................... 74
11. Appendices.................................................................................... 79

vi
List of figures

Figure 1: Study area.............................................................................. 7

Figure 2: Scaling dendrogram of social economic activities associated to
Nyungwe National Park ....................................................................... 34
Figure 3: A barchart of the methods that beekeepers use during honey
harvesting around Nyungwe National Park .......................................... 37
Figure 4: Wax moth larva and combs destroyed by wax moth in in
Rangiro apiary..................................................................................... 39
Figure 5: A hive beetle in Rangiro apiary.............................................. 40
Figure 6: A bee louse (Photo: Internet) ................................................. 41
Figure 7: Barchart of period of harvesting ............................................ 44
Figure 8: Mass death of honeybees in Muganza apiary......................... 45
Figure 9: Beekeepers’ attitudes towards Nyungwe National Park
conservation........................................................................................ 47
Figure 10: Rangiro apiary located approximately 1.5 Km away from
Nyungwe National Park in very poor bee forage place........................... 47
Figure 11: Honey value chain in Nyungwe landscape ........................... 56
Figure 12: Economic gross value per intervention (Frw) ....................... 64

vii
List of tables

Table 1: Expenditures in the “without” intervention scenario of

traditional beekeeping. ........................................................................ 58
Table 2: Expenditures .......................................................................... 60
Table 3: Expenditures ......................................................................... 62

viii
I.INTRODUCTION

1
1. Introduction

The service of honeybees to mankind is enormous as they carry out

pollination of different crop plants without which development of fruits
and seeds cannot occur in cross pollinated crops. They are considered a
very successful bee species due to their capacity to adapt to diverse
environments and to out-compete many species of native bees (Santos,
2006).

They also are an important element in sustainable agriculture. Their role

is essential in maintenance of biodiversity and conservation by their
pollination service both to crops and wild plants (Payette, 1996; Dongock
et al., 2007).

Many cultivated crops do not yield seeds or fruits without cross-

pollination of their flowers by pollinators such as honeybees and other
insects. With regard to bees' contributions, about one-third of our total
diet comes directly or indirectly from bee-pollinated crop plants
(Hoopingarner and Waller, 1992; Jagadish, 2008).

Beekeeping offers a great potential for development and is comparatively

less demanding in terms of investment, labor and time. Also, beekeeping
is advocated to improve human welfare by alleviating poverty through
increased household income: it is a source of food and nutritional
security, raw materials for various industries, medicine, increased
government revenue through levies and taxes, improved biodiversity
conservation and enhancing environmental resilience (Kihwele et al,
1999; MNRT, 2004). A decline in bee colonies and bee species could
therefore threaten the survival of plant species that depend on the
pollination by bees. Some types of plants depend uniquely on their
pollination by bees (FAOa, 2007).

2
It gives local people and the Government economic incentive for the
retention of natural habitats, and is an ideal activity in any forest
conservation program (Mwakatobe , 2001 ; Okoso-Amaa et al, 2004).

Nevertheless, the potential of beekeeping is far too often not exploited in

forest activities and development programs, because the benefits of bees
and beekeeping are not well known to stakeholders (C. Lietaer, 2009).

In spite of the great economic and biological importance of honeybees as

pollinators of agricultural crops and natural vegetation, it has yet not
been made an integral part of agriculture and forest management in the
developing countries (Verma, 1992).

Munyuli (2011) showed that 90% of interviewed farmers in Uganda were

not aware of the role played by bees in coffee yield increase. Beekeeping
industry, one of the important agricultural and forest based rural
industries in the world, is basically traditional and of non commercial
nature in Rwanda. It is often promoted as being a pro-poor income
generating activity for poor communities (Sreejith A. et al., 2011).

There is little or no empirical evidence on the potential of honey bees’

value for income generation and forest conservation in Rwanda.
Beekeeping in Rwanda (universally categorized under 'livestock related'
activities) remains underutilized, receives little support or recognition if
any, and therefore assumes a peripheral role in relevance with
contributions to the national economy. Information on the sector
remains scattered with most of the information available amongst
various sector stakeholders merely assumptions due to the lack of well
defined monitoring and evaluation systems in the sector

3
(MINAGRI/RARDA, 2007). Honeybees contributions to rural people have
hardly ever been assessed (Nel & Illgner, 2004).

In addition, the unsustainable management of honey bees would

compromise the livelihood of the population as well as biodiversity
conservation especially flowering plants depending on honeybees
pollination and associated animals if there are no proper management of
African honeybees as well as other pollinators.

Given the socio-economic conditions in Rwanda, protected area

conservation is closely linked to community issues and community
management of natural resources. The market potential and value of
ecosystem services is not well understood. Equally uncertain is the
potential for developing viable investments. In addition, raising
awareness about the value of ecosystem services provided by forests is
an important first step. Several attempts to improve the benefit from
beekeeping for people surrounding Nyungwe National Park have been
made by institutions active in the area in the last 30 years.

Conservation in Rwanda views conservation of its montane forests as a

priority concern. Nyungwe National Park is a recognized site of global
importance for its biodiversity and endemism values: among the highest
within the biologically rich Albertine Rift ecoregion. This park is also
seen as primary source of tourism revenue and ecological services, such
as water catchment, pollination services, erosion control, and
hydroelectric development potential among others. This forest estate
remains under threat from the land and resource needs of a still-growing
human population that occupies the rural landscape at average densities
of 345 per km2. These pressures have resulted in past habitat losses
and degradation, as well as local species extinctions. To combat these
problems, the Government of Rwanda, with support from different

4
partners, has invested rehabilitation of park infrastructures,
restructuring of the national park service, and preliminary strategic
planning.

Although many efforts have been put and positive changes achieved so
far for the development of apiculture coupled with biodiversity
conservation in Rwanda particulary in Nyungwe landscape by Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS), RDB-Nyungwe National Park, local NGOs as
well as local authority, there is still much to do to make beekeeping
much more profitable.

The aim of this feasibility study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness
of beekeeping in Nyungwe landscape to reduce poverty levels and to
determine the influence of the activity on forest conservation.

The objectives of the study were:

- To explore the information avairable regarding beekeeping development
in Rwanda
- To conduct field survey regarding beekeeping development around
Nyungwe National Park
- To analyze gaps existing in the beekeeping industry in Rwanda

5
II. METHODS

6
2. Methods

2.1. Study area

The feasibility study was carried out around Nyungwe National Park in
areas of Kitabi in Nyamagabe District, Muganza in Nyaruguru District
and Rangiro in Nyamasheke District.
Figure 1: Study area

This Park is Africa’s largest remaining block of lower montane forest. It is

Rwanda’s most important water catchment, providing an estimated 40%
of dry season flow in the Nyabarongo River system. More than 235 tree
species are found in a rich variety of associations within Nyungwe’s
1,013 km2, across an altitudinal gradient from 1600 m to 2990 m.
Entendrophragma excelsum is a giant (50-60 m) emergent, previously
overexploited for its valuable mahogany-like hardwood. The distinctive
forms of Newtonia buchanii, Symphonia globulifera, and Syzigium
parvifolium also dominate the upper canopy, while providing food and

7
shelter for diverse biota. Native bamboo (Arundinaria alpina) is limited to
barely 16 km2 in southeastern Nyungwe, where it supports the only
population of owl-faced monkeys outside of the Congo Basin.

Poaching of wildlife is a prime concern for this Protected Area, as is the

illegal cutting and collection of wood, bamboo, and grass. Fire is the
number one threat facing Nyungwe, where more than 13,000 ha have
burned over the past decade – primarily due to human-set fires,
complicated by drought conditions. This in turn is linked with problems
of regeneration following disturbance. Mining also ranks fairly high on
the Nyungwe threats list, although this decades-old problem appears to
be largely under control in recent years.

It is Rwanda’s newest—and largest—national park. It is situated in the

southwest of the country and, along with the contiguous Kibira National
Park in Burundi, lies in Africa’s most biodiverse region, the Albertine
Rift. The park straddles the Nile and Congo river basins and is crucially
important to Rwanda’s water supply: 70 per cent of the country’s rain
falls in Nyungwe. It is home to a wide variety of flora and fauna,
including approximately 100 species of orchids; 13 species of primates,
including chimpanzees, L’Hoest’s monkeys, blue monkeys and large
colonies of Angolan colobus; almost 300 bird species, including a
number of enigmatic turacos; and a number of other species of
mammals, reptiles and insects.

The forest was first protected in 1903, when it was declared a forest
reserve by the colonial administration, but protection was not expanded
until more than a hundred years later, when in 2005 Nyungwe was
finally declared a national park. Rwanda Development Board is
responsible for the management of the park, and is supported by a
strong partnership with Wildlife Conservation Society.

8
2.2. Methodology

The approach was to conduct a feasibility study on beekeeping

development in order to develop sustainable, long-term economic
activities that would benefit biodiversity and reduce poverty around
Nyungwe National Park. This pilot study was conducted around Nyungwe
National Park and is to facilitate the development of a full project plan on
the value of honeybees for livelihood improvement and biodiversity
conservation.

2.2.1. Desk studies

During these studies, information already available in print or published

online regarding beekeeping development in Rwanda was explored,
gathered and analyzed. It has involved exploring organizations working
or holding beekeeping related information. These included Wildilife
Conservation Society and SNV, Ministry of Agriculture as well as Rwanda
Development Board.

2.2.2. Field survey

Field surveys were conducted at Kitabi, Muganza and Rangiro in the

vicinity of Nyungwe National Park. Apiaries in these areas were inspected
and interactions with community members were held in guidance of
Wildlife Conservation Society and beekeeping cooperative members.

Discussions were held with groups of varying sizes depending on the

level of participation. The importance of beekeeping and problems
associated with it were discussed. Local human activities were

9
documented by use of depth interviews and focused group discussions.
Direct observations activities carried out around the park were made.

Semi-structured interview method were adopted to assess drivers such

as training and information, conservation, policy-related support, and
market access. Local cooperatives and individuals were selected for
interview using purposive sampling (Patton, 2002; Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2007). Information on people’s perception on Nyungwe
National Park and its sustainability were collected.

In order to standardize information to be gathered from field with key

informants, questions about bee populations, honey yields and prices,
honey processing and harvesting practices, disease symptoms and
treatment, pests of bees, insecticide poisoning, hive sanitation, hive
inspection practices and comments of farmers about beekeeping were
formulated. These interviews targeted active stakeholders i.e beekeeping
development partners (WCS), beekeeping cooperatives and their union,
beekeepers themselves as well as experts.

2.2.3. Gap analysis

Gaps in the beekeeping sector were documented and analyzed. It

consisted of (1) listing of characteristic factors of the present situation,
(2) listing factors needed to achieve future objectives, and then (3)
highlighting the gaps that exist in the beekeeping sector in the area that
need to be filled.

2.2.4. SWOT analysis

This analysis helped to determine what may assist beekeeping project in
accomplishing its objectives, and what obstacles must be overcome or
minimized to achieve desired results.

10
2.2.5. Cost benefit analysis

It involved the evaluation of all potential costs and revenues that may be
generated when a beekeeping project is completed. The outcome of the
analysis has determined whether the project is financially feasible, or if
another project should be pursued.

III. DESK STUDIES

11
2. Desk studies

2.1. Beekeeping development in Rwanda

2.1.1. Introduction

Apiculture is an activity in which man rears honey bees and acquires

their products. So long as a honey bee is an animal, the apiculture is
generally treated as a form of animal husbandry in a broader sense of the
word, and consequently in many countries and regions it is supervised
specifically by the administrative structure which controls livestock
industry within the larger sector of agriculture (JAICAF, 2009).

2.1.2. Overview on African honeybees Apis mellifera

2.1.2.1. Introduction

Honeybees are classified into the family Apidae and the genus Apis.
There are four accepted groupings of honeybee species with three of
these species groups further subdivided into additional species. The
african honeybees belong to the

Phylum: Arthropoda

Class: Insecta

Order: Hymenoptera

Superfamily: Apoidea

Family: Apidae

Subfamily: Apinae

Tribe: Apini

Genus: Apis

12
There are about 11 African races of honeybees namely A. m. lamarckii, A.
m. jemenitica, A. m. litorea, A. m. scutellata, A.m. sahariensis,
A.m.intermissa, A. m. monticola, A. m. adansonii, A.m.major, A. m. unicolor
and A. m. capensis (Peter.G. Kevan, 1995; Friedrich Ruttner, 1988)

The behavioural and biological characteristics of each race can be

distinctive and each race will have their own value and disadvantages for
the beekeepers wishing to keep them. In general these differences arise
in response to evolotionary pressures and so enable each race to
maximise its capacity for survival within a given environment. In
particular, there are significant differences between tropical and
subtropical and European races of honey bees. This is an evolutionary
consequence of adaptation to different habitats. The difference between
races is so marked that it affects the management of these differing
bees. However, even within races, there can be tremendous genetic
variation and determining what is a typical honey bee race is often
subjective. These naturally occurring genetic variations are what bee
breeders use to enhance desired characteristics and reduce those that
are less desirable.

2.1.3. Beekeeping in Rwanda

Apiculture is an activity in which man rears honey bees and acquires

their products. So long as a honey bee is an animal, the apiculture is
generally treated as a form of animal husbandry in a broader sense of the
word, and consequently in many countries and regions it is supervised
specifically by the administrative structure which controls livestock
industry within the larger sector of agriculture (JAICAF, 2009).

13
2.1.3.1. Types of honeybees found in Rwanda

There are two groups of bees that produce honey and other bee by-
products in Rwanda. The first group which is domesticated belongs to
the Apis species with Apis mellifera, the only Apis species found in Africa.
According to studies, there are two races of Apis mellifera in Rwanda
namely Apis mellifera scutellata which inhabits lowland areas of the
country at around 500-2400 m – between the range of litorea and
monticola. The A.m.scutellata area is characterized by two dry periods
between cool rainy seasons (16-23°C). The bees are relatively large
corresponding to the altitude (temperature) of its habitat. Generally
scutellata is regarded the African bee. In several countries scutellata
beekeeping is practiced with movable frames. The other bee race found in
Rwanda, A.m. monticola, has a special position among honeybee races. It
is entirely isolated by ecological factors showing a unique disjunct
distribution. It is the bee of the mountain rain forests in East and West
Africa at altitudes of 2000-3000m (11°C – 21°C). In spite of this cool
climate, monticola can not be compared to races of the temperate zones
(with cold winter) as longer periods without flight activity do not occur.
Monticola drones are uniformly dark (as are many other bee species in
higher altitudes) (Peter.G. Kevan, 1995; Friedrich Ruttner, 1988).

The second group of honeybees belongs to the group of stingless bees

(Meliponae) not well known in Rwanda but much more valued in other
countries including the neighboring Tanzania because people beleave
that honey produced by stingless bees has a very high medecinal value.
Keeping these bees is reffered to meliponiculture in contrast to apiculture
(Peter.G. Kevan, 1995; Friedrich Ruttner, 1988).

14
2.1.3.2. Beekeeping development in Rwanda

Beekeeping activity has been practiced for many years through

successive generations and along inherited patterns. The activity has
basically been traditional and of non commercial nature, where honey
was used as a food product, medicine and for brewing traditional liquor.
Prior to the 1994 genocide, attempts were made to support the sector
through modernizing systems and the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal
Resources (MINAGRI) contracted ARDI, a national capacity building
organization, in 1992 to undertake extension and training support of
beekeepers. Subsequent support for the sector has mainly been through
community based natural resource management projects around the
protected areas with key organizations such as ORTPN, World
Conservation Society (WCS), International Gorilla Conservation Project
(IGCP) and ADAR project(now closed). Communities in these areas have
been provided with some level of training, processing equipment and a
number of modern hives with mixed results mainly due to the creation of
unsustainable donor dependent supply chains. Production is mainly
through traditional methods and the few modern techniques introduced
have not been successful due to un-sustainable implementation
methods. The introduction of modern technologies namely the Kenya Top
Bar Hive (KTBH) and Langstroth hive have been accompanied by severe
flaws in design, quality, lack of appropriate hive management training for
these, and inappropriate approaches to projects supported by unrealistic
‘artificial markets’ for products by project grant providers. (MINAGRI,
2007). Production and harvesting of honey and beeswax has been
restricted to traditional harvesting techniques leading to low production,
poor quality of products due to excessive use of smoke, poor post harvest
handling and inadequate bulking mechanisms. Studies undertaken on
the sector in 2004 by SNV Netherlands Development Organization
Rwanda show that the production of traditional hives (which is in excess

15
of 95% of the total hive population) per season was at an average of 3Kgs
per hive, comparatively low compared to regional statistics for the same
which translated to an average of 15kgs per season per hive. Recent
information however peg the average production at 5Kgs per hive per
season. The number of harvests seasons equate to 2 per year, thereby
translating to an average of 10kgs per hive (SNV, 2004).

2.1.3.3. Importance of beekeeping

The least visible livelihood outcome is the pollination of flowering plants,

both wild and cultivated: this is an outcome impossible to quantify.
Honey is a traditional medicine or food in nearly all societies and whether
sold in a simple way at village level or packaged more sophisticatedly,
honey generates income and can create livelihoods for several sectors
within a society. Beeswax is also a valuable product from beekeeping,
although in some places its value is not appreciated. Industrialized
countries are net importers of beeswax, and the supply comes from
developing countries.

Beekeeping plays a critical role in the livelihoods of the rural

communities in five native dynamics:

(1) it is an income generating activity

(2) medicinal value of honey and other hive products is invaluable
(3) it supports agricultural activities through facilitating critical
processes for example cross pollination and improves crop and seed yield
(4) it contributes immensely to forests conservation efforts
(5) it facilitates healthy linkages between biodiversity (insects and plants)
towards sustainable livelihoods. It is also a low-investment and low-input
business enterprise that directly generates economic gains for the

16
participating members and integrates well with agriculture that forms
the main economic activity for communities living in the rural areas.

Its advantages are numerous also bearing in mind that it can be

practiced by men, women, and youth. According to a baseline survey
carried out by SNV Rwanda in 2007, across 17 high potential honey
production Districts in Rwanda showed that there were an estimated
30,293 beekeepers of whom 18,430 were men, 7,233 women and 4,630
were youth. The total number of hives was estimated to be 92,971 with
84,255 being traditional log, mud and other indigenous hives while the
modern hives were estimated to be approximately 8,716 (SNV, 2009).

Honey is the main beekeeping product. It is consumed widely across the

country as a table food, for its medicinal qualities, preservative, or
medicine. As a food, honey is consumed for its rich fructose and glucose
levels, making it a natural source of energy. The high sugar levels and its
ability to catalyze fermentation make honey a suitable raw material for
brewing liquor hence it is also used for the industrial production of local
beer. Its antioxidant and microbial properties make it ideal as a
preservative in foods, including meat, poultry and pastry – this is mostly
by large food processing companies (SNV, 2009).

The sub-sector also harbors a great potential for increasing incomes and
supportive sustainable development, especially considering the varied
players and activities along the broader chain. According to figures from
Rwanda Development Board (RDB), in 2012, Rwanda had 83,000
beekeepers with an estimated 93,000 beehives. Available statistics from
RDB show that annual production was 311 tons in 2010 and honey
demand was 1715 tons in 2012 (RDB, 2012).

17
2.1.3.4. Beekeeping and natural environment conservation

In the areas where the acquisition of honey bees depends on wild

colonies and the nectar sources depend on natural vegetation, the basic
elements of apiculture derive from the richness of the nature that
provides two resources. Therefore the closer the relationship between life
and apiculture becomes, the much higher the consciousness of
conservation of forest and natural vegetation is raised. People eventually
come to realize through experience that unless they conserve and
manage the natural ecosystem appropriately, apiculture itself would not
be able to keep on going any more (Jun Nakamura et al.,2009).

Conservation of natural environment could be summarized into the

following 6 categories

2.1.3.4.1. Conservation of natural forest and natural vegetation

(breeding grounds of wild honey bees)

Since apiculture depends on swarms of wild colonies, the necessity of

conservation of wild bee colonies as the source is recognized. As activities
resulting from the recognition, the conservation of natural vegetation,
habitat of wild bee colonies, for their breeding grounds can be cited.

2.1.3.4.2. Conservation of natural forest and natural vegetation

(conservation of nectar/pollen sources)

In the apiculture which depends on the natural vegetation for nectar

sources, the richness of natural vegetation assures the richness of the
nectar source and sustains the honey production. The ecological
structure like this can be recognized most readily by beekeepers from the
viewpoint of economics that the natural vegetation as nectar sources is

18
equivalent to the production of honey, and constitutes the most
important element in the principle of conservation. When the activities of
apiculture is introduced and developed, the more heavily a region
depends on the natural environment for nectar sources, the higher can
become the level of improvement of awareness of conservation of natural
vegetation (recognition that it is important to respect the forest preserve
and to protect the remaining vegetation, from the viewpoint of
conservation of nectar sources), and the level of responsive actions of the
residents there.

2.1.3.4.3. Restoration and rehabilitation of natural vegetation

Beekeepers who have got conscious of the reduction of natural nectar

sources will become cooperative for the cause of restoration of natural
vegetation. Moreover, highly conscious farmers and those depending
more on apiculture are able to take responsive actions to facilitate the
restoration of vegetation suitable for apiculture on their properties and
farmland, such as the exclusion of animals from such areas in order to
secure the nectar sources. The activity of apiculture on its own increases
the number of individual honey bees, and hence promotes the pollination
by their intermediary visits, increases the seed production by plants of
nectar sources and thus assists the acceleration of restoration of
vegetation.

2.1.3.4.4. Reduced expansion of agricultural land

If sufficient cash income is generated by apiculture, the necessity for

dependence on agricultural crops is reduced, and hence the necessity for
expansion of agricultural land by felling and clearing natural forests
diminishes. Under the current situation that the reduction of forests has

19
become a continuous trend, this fact can be considered as an important
activity of conservation in a different connotation.

2.1.3.4.5. Reduction of cutting down pressure (conversion from

charcoal production)

Although it does not apply to all areas, in many parts of semi-arid

regions in Africa, because of insufficient rainfalls, the crop productivity is
low and the interval between rainy seasons is long. Consequently, at the
time before and immediately after the beginning of the rainy season,
farmers often run out of provisions and have to purchase food by cash.
Many local residents lacking other means of earning cash, such as
selling of animals, practice charcoal production around this time to raise
the cash for purchasing food by selling the product to urban areas. If
apiculture is introduced and cash is earned by the activity before the
rainy season, the reduction of forests cut down by charcoal production
can be expected. Furthermore, among tree species used for charcoal
production, there are many species which are particularly important as
nectar sources. If apiculture can be introduced and developed in those
areas where these species still remain, it is likely that many local
residents would come to convert their attitude toward the forest trees,
recognizing that they are the nectar sources and not the crude material
for producing charcoal. Such conversion signifies a direct change of
paradigm of exploitation of existing forest trees from utilization by cutting
down to that by conservation (Jun Nakamura et al.,2009).

20
2.1.3.5. Challenges to beekeeping development

2.1.3.5.1. Bee colony loss

1. Starvation of bees

Lack of food is a major contributing factor to disease susceptibility in

bees, but can also result in death of a colony. Starved bees are often
found with their heads stuck inside dry combs or dead on the bottom of
hives with no honey. Prolonged dearth periods, cold temperatures in
some places, and over-cropping of honey without sufficient
supplementary feeding leads to starvation of bees. In the rain season, if
honey stores have not been sufficiently accumulated before the start of
the heavy rains, bees can be unable to go out to collect sufficient food
due to rain. Sufficient flowers yielding nectar may also be unavailable
(Naomi M. Saville and Narayan Prasad Acharya, 2001).
.
2. Wax moth

The wax moth is a Lepidopteron that specialises on eating beeswax. Two

species of wax moth are known, the greater wax moth (Galleria
mellonella) and the lesser wax moth (Achroia grisella). The wax moth
larvae burrow through combs eating beeswax, pollen and honey,
damaging developing bees in the cells through which it tunnels. As it
eats the combs it creates a silky trail like spiders web. Eventually whole
combs become covered in this kind of ‘web’ and disintegrate when
handled. Usually wax moths are only able to infest empty combs that
cannot be covered by bees, so colonies that have become weaker and
have left previously covered combs empty of bees are more susceptible
than strong colonies that cover all the combs in the hive. The wax moth
larvae grow in size up to about 2cm long and then pupate in corners of

21
the hive. The pupae spin cocoons that dig themselves into the wall or
corners of the hive. These leave a small distinctive ‘scar’ on the wood,
which can show even after wax moth have stopped infesting a hive
(Naomi M. Saville and Narayan Prasad Acharya, 2001). There are many
options available to beekeepers to practice integrated management of
wax moths (The State of Western Australia, 2007):

a) Preventive Cultural Practices

Beekeepers should maintain strong and healthy colonies by practicing

good colony management to help the bees defend against wax moths.

b) Genetic control

Wax moth control can be enhanced indirectly by the use of bees that
have been selected for resistance to disease and other pests. These
resistant strains of bees should be more tolerant of some of the primary
problems that affect bee colonies which often create stress conditions
that “open the door” to secondary invaders like wax moths. Bees that
have been selected for hygienic behavior are normally better
housekeepers which remove colony debris that creates conditions
favorable for increased wax moth reproduction

3) Mechanical control

Traps can play an important role in a wax moth integrated management

plan because of their safety in providing control without fear of hive
product contamination. The most used is a 2 liter clear soda bottle. A
1.25 inch (3.2 cm) diameter hole should be cut in the side of the bottle
just below the shoulder of the neck. The ingredients for the bottle trap
include one cup white vinegar, one cup granulated sugar, one cup water,

22
and one banana peel. The bottle should be set aside a few days until the
contents begin to ferment after which the bottle should be suspended a
few feet off the ground using wire or string making a noose opposite the
side of the entrance hole. Wax moths adults will be attracted by the trap
contents and will enter the bottle entrance and die because they are
unable to escape.

d) Physical control

- Cold Treatment: minimum cold temperature storage time required to

kill all life stages of wax moths in honey-extracted comb include: 20ºF (-
7ºC) for 4.5 hours, 10ºF (-12ºC) for three hours, or 5ºF (-15ºC) for two
hours

- Heat Treatment: heat can be used to kill all life stages of wax moths
by using the following exposure periods: 115ºF (46ºC) for 80 minutes or
120ºF (49ºC) for 40 minutes.

- Carbon Dioxide Treatment: carbon dioxide can be used as a fumigant

to control wax moths in stored comb or comb honey.

23
e) Biological Control

- B401, a microorganism, is a product manufactured by Vita-Europe

Ltd. for the biological control of wax moths.

- The product is a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies aizawai

that is manufactured specifically for wax moth control in stored comb

- The bacteria is used to kill young wax moth larvae as they attempt to
feed on comb and must be used as a preventive before combs are
infested.

f) Chemical control

- The use of chemicals in an integrated pest management program is

recommended as a last resort when other options have failed or are not
possible.

- Paradichlorobenzene (PDB) and Aluminum Phosphide (Phostoxin) are

used in the USA to control wax moths

- PDB is only used on stored combs as it may contaminate honey while

used in live bee colonies.

3. Queenlessness and worker laying

Colonies die if they lose their queen for some reason. Reasons for death
of the queen could be predation on mating flights, disease or damage by
pests, old age, or weakness resulting in usurpation of the queen by the
workers. Too much swarming and / or untimely destruction of queen
cells by the beekeeper can also lead to queen-less-ness. Worker laying

24
results after a new queen fails to emerge from queen cells (special cups
that the workers produce for raising queens once the old queen has
gone). The scent of the queen ‘controls’ the worker’s urge to lay eggs so
once the queen has died workers ‘try to become queens’ by laying eggs.
Since worker bees can only lay drone (male) eggs a queen less worker-
laying colony will slowly die unless provided with a new queen (that gets
accepted by the bees). The colony only comprises old workers and
drones. Drones do no work and do not help the colony to survive and
new workers cannot be raised, so gradually the bees die off.

Worker laying can only be remedied completely by replacing the lost

queen, but first the laying workers need to be disposed of, otherwise they
will kill a new queen or queen cell. All combs of a laying worker colony
and all bees need to be shaken out so that all the bees fall to the ground
50-100m from the hive. The laying workers, which are full of drone eggs
and thus very heavy, cannot fly back to the hive and so only non-laying
workers remain. Once the bees have been shaken a queen may be
introduced in a cage a day after shaking off the bees. If no queens are
available combs with new eggs, sealed brood, pollen and honey stores
(and if possible a comb with a queen cell already formed too) can be given
to the colony from a good strong non-diseased colony to help the bees
rear a new queen (Naomi M. Saville and Narayan Prasad Acharya, 2001).

25
4. Robbing

Robbing is the term for fighting between 2 or more colonies of bees.

Usually it is caused by non-resident bees entering another colony’s hive
in order to steal honey. The resident bees detect the intruder bees by
their smell and fight with them, usually attempting to sting them to
death. Once alarm pheromones (smells secreted by the stinging bees)
reach a certain level in the air these can stimulate nearby colonies to join
in the fight, which means that very large numbers of bees can be killed.
If robbing reaches sufficiently high levels weaker colonies can be totally
destroyed by stronger ones. Beekeepers can control robbing by never
spilling sugar syrup or honey around the apiary and by removing any
remaining sugar syrup or honey feed from weak colonies that are unable
to consume their entire feed overnight.

If bees from another colony are found to be robbing at the hive entrance
sprinkling water on the fighting bees and putting scented herbs such as
Artemisia indica beside them to break down the pheromone signals can
help stop it (Naomi M. Saville and Narayan Prasad Acharya, 2001).

5. Absconding

Absconding is the term for when all the bees from a hive leave and desert
the combs. Usually absconding occurs as a result of disturbance or
attack by pests and diseases. Soaking with rain, excessive smoke, too
much human disturbance, jarring of the hive causing combs to fall and
other such disturbances are common causes of absconding (Naomi M.
Saville and Narayan Prasad Acharya, 2001).

26
6. Mice

Mice may invade beehives and eat comb, honey and even developing
brood. Generally they cause a problem in winter when the bees are
dormant, rather than at times when the bees are very active. If a colony
is weak a mouse attack could kill it but usually mice are less likely to
destroy a colony than the bigger mammals (Naomi M. Saville and
Narayan Prasad Acharya, 2001).

7. Ants

Ants may infest a bee colony and feed upon larvae and honey stores.
Usually ant populations are not high enough to severely damage colonies
in the hills of the Nepal but in warmer climates they can damage colonies
and / or cause absconding. If ants become problematic a hive may be
places on a stand with the stand feet inserted into bowls of water that
are not allowed to dry. So long as vegetation or other ‘bridges’ for ants to
access the hive are removed the water if kept topped up and clean will
stop ants accessing the hive (Naomi M. Saville and Narayan Prasad
Acharya, 2001).

8. Lizards

In certain areas lizards can be a major predator of bees. Large lizards

tend to wait near the hive entrance and prey upon foragers leaving or
returning to the hive. Small lizards can occasionally be found inside
hives where presumably they prey on bees. Although lizards are a
relatively major predator of bees, other than killing them directly, there is
no known way of controlling them. Since they only eat individual
foragers, they are less problematic than bears and pine martens, which

27
can destroy entire apiaries within the course of a few nights (Naomi M.
Saville and Narayan Prasad Acharya, 2001).

9. Insecticide poisoning

Insecticide is a very serious cause of bee mortality in the World. Whereas

in some more developed countries relatively ‘bee-safe’ insecticides are
being promoted, in developing countries it is not the case. New users of
insecticide are often insufficiently informed of the toxicity of the
chemicals to bees, humans and livestock. Instructions, if provided at all,
are rarely in a language that users can read and sometimes Agricultural
Extension workers themselves are unaware of the danger to bees. As a
result of insecticide misuse bee colonies die in large numbers. An entire
colony can be killed within 3 hours if feeding close to an area where
insecticide is being applied. Aside from killing foraging bees in the field,
nectar or pollen carrying the toxin may be carried back to the hive and
fed to nurse bees and larvae such that the whole colony is destroyed.

If insecticide is to be sprayed at all in areas where bees forage or where

beehives are located it should be applied at just after dark. If this is
impossible, then beekeepers should be informed of the day and time of
day that sprays will be applied so that they can close up hives from the
dawn if that day, using wire mesh or other material which provides
ventilation but keeps the bees trapped inside the hive (Naomi M. Saville
and Narayan Prasad Acharya, 2001).

28
2.1.4. Social economic activities associated to Nyungwe National
Park

Human dependence upon forests is a multifaceted phenomenon due to

the fact that forests provide a diverse stream of benefits to humans
(Beckley 1998 in Masozera 2002). Humans depend upon forests directly
for timber, non-timber products, and recreational experience and
indirectly for things such as air and water quality, biodiversity, carbon
sequestration, and other ecological services (Masozera 2002). In the
southern parts (Southern Province) where Nyungwe National Park is
located, the main poverty-environment issue is soil erosion and soil
infertility, largely due to over cultivation, use of inappropriate technology
and lack of external inputs (REMA, 2006). The situation for people
around Nyungwe Nyungwe National Park is very critical. The incidence of
poverty is as high as 77% (Kagaba et al. 2003), and 59% have less than
2.0 ha of agricultural land (MINECOFIN 2002; UNEP/IISD 2005).

Sixty percent of Rwandans live below the officially established poverty

level, with some of the highest poverty rates in districts bordering the
Volcanoes and Nyungwe parks. Landlessness is also concentrated to a
high degree in these areas. In Southern Province (Former Gikongoro),
along Nyungwe’s eastern border, 59% of families own less than 0.2 ha of
farmland; in Western (Former Cyangugu) Province to the west of
Nyungwe, 37% have less than 0.2 ha. Gikongoro also has the highest
percentage of renters (19%), who are generally less likely to use soil and
other conservation practices (Bush 2004). Still, it is notable that roughly
25% of all families living around Nyungwe National Park plant and
maintain small woodlots on their private parcels: a significantly higher
percentage than for those living around comparable Protected Areas in
southwestern Uganda (Plumptre et al, 2004).

29
It is no surprise that people living in sectors bordering Nyungwe National
Park depend on the natural forest for at least some of their subsistence
needs (water, wood, bamboo, honey, medicines). In their large-scale
study of Albertine Rift communities, Plumptre et al (2004) found that
small, but significant minorities of those living around the Nyungwe
National Park (12%) admitted entering the park illegally to cut and collect
wood, bamboo, poles, or bean stakes. In a smaller, but more detailed
study of community relations around Nyungwe, Masozera (2002), found
that 22% of participants admitted to such illegal use. Water access is
further complicated by the fact that one-third of all rural water sources
in Rwanda need rehabilitation, according to the national Poverty
Reduction Strategy (PRSP 2001).

This would get complicated by the fact that surrounding communities

are not included in park’s decision-making processes and are not
permitted to access the natural resources within its boundaries.

Tourism is growing by approximately 30 per cent per year; in 2010 the

park welcomed approximately 4,000 visitors. Tourists are drawn to the
recently opened canopy walk, chimpanzee and colobus-tracking
opportunities, hiking trails and birding. There is, however, currently no
mechanism in place to monitor growth in tourism, nor is there a
concerted tourism strategy for Nyungwe.

Five per cent of national tourism revenues are allocated to projects in

communities near each of Rwanda’s three national parks: Volcanoes,
Nyungwe and Akagera. Funding is divided among the parks (Volcanoes
receives 40 per cent, Nyungwe 30 per cent and Akagera 30 per cent), and
is then distributed to communities in the districts surrounding each
park. Funding typically goes to support housing and education projects,
mainly in those communities that pose the biggest threat to the park.

30
The main challenges to the continued protection of Nyungwe’s
ecosystems and biodiversity are population pressures, high rates of
poverty, a high reliance on natural resources for livelihoods in the
communities surrounding the park, forest fires (fires in 1997 consumed
5 to 8 per cent of the park), hunting pressures (particularly for large
mammals), pressures from artisanal and industrial mining, and
deforestation for firewood and construction materials.

2.1.5. Conclusion

In this section of the research, types of Apis mellifera species were

discussed with two races (A.m.scutelata an.m.monticola) identified
to occur in the beekeeping sector in Rwanda. There are about
83,000 beekeepers with an estimated 93,000 bee colonies where
most of them practice traditional beekeeping (more than 95%) and
support for the sector has mainly been through community based
natural resource management projects around the protected areas.
The general importance of beekeeping including the implication of
honeybees in the conservation of both agricultural crops and natural
vegetation was discussed. This section has also documented major
challenges to beekeeping development including bee colony loss due
to several factors.

31
IV. FIELD SURVEY

32
4. Field survey

4.1. Social economic activities associated to Nyungwe National Park

Activities associeted to Nyungwe National Park are mainly beekeeping.

According to information from beekeepers and conservationists in the
Nyungwe landscape, before 1994, beekeeping was practiced inside the
park where two forms of honey production were used i.e. honey hunting
and keeping beehives within the park. These practices were sometimes
the source of wildfire and associated to other illegal activities such as
mining, sawing and poaching. It is this poaching that caused the
extirpation of elephants and buffaloas in this park. After 1994,
conservation measures were taken and those who were practicing illegal
activities in the park were expelled including beekeepers. With this
regard, Wildlife Conservation Society and other development partners
managed to help beekeepers settling their beehives outside the park in
the buffer zone and formed cooperatives.

This survey involved “Ubwiza bwa Nyungwe” cooperative union operating

around Nyungwe National Park and other 2 cooperatives which are not
part of the union. The union comprises 1,370 beekeepers grouped into
13 cooperatives with more than 4,000 bee colonies where more than 95%
are traditional colonies. The union enjoys technical and financial
supports from Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Other four
cooperatives are supported by other development partners including
Rwanda Development Board and local NGOs. Tourism activities in and
around Nyungwe National Park are increasing but still at low level
compared to other parks. Figures from RDB show that in 2010, the
number of visits was 5,769 compared to 23,359 and 16,231 in Volcanoes
and Akagera National Parks respectively.

33
Other activities are considered illigal and include herbalism, mining,
sowing, poaching and honey hunting (Figure 1).

Figure 2: Scaling dendrogram of social economic activities associated to Nyungwe National Park

7 Mining
0.3133
6 Sawing
0.8373
5 Poaching
0.1655
Rank

4 Honey hunting
1.472
3 Traditional medecine
0.6143
2 Eco-tourism
1.132
1 Beekeeping

0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25
Interevent distance

Gapusi (2007) found that the population surrounding Nyungwe National

Park are more interested in honey production as an alternative income
for their livelihood.

Agriculture, the main economic activity in the area, is not linked directly
to Nyungwe National Park. There are many tea plantations in extension
that generate income to the local population. Tea plantations serve also
as a buffer zone in some parts of the park but is not favorable for
beekeeping development as it is not serve as a bee flora. The remaining of
the buffer zone is made mainly by Gum trees (Eucalyptus sp) which is a
good food source to bees but not sustainable because when harvested,
this would disrupt beekeeping activities. The most stepple food crops

34
include potatoes, sorghum, wheat, peas and maize, but the production
remains insufficient, the region has been suffering from chronic food
shortage.

4.2. Challenges to beekeeping development

The challenges for beekeeping in Rwanda in general and Nyungwe

landscape in particular include:

4.2.1. Low returns from beekeeping

Many farmers have left beekeeping because of lack of profits and low
yields and due to the amount of work and the investments that are
required for hives and equipment. This low return is sometimes
associated to the use of traditional hives mostly log hives and operating
outside the park boundaries, poor in bee floral sources. Others have
abandoned modern beekeeping because of improper management
coupled with substandards equipments.

4.2.2. Poor colony management

Beekeepers around Nyungwe National Park practice mostly traditional

beekeeping using traditional hives mostly log hives with very little use of
modern hives such as Top bar and Langstroth types. The use of these
types of hives does not ease colony management because it is almost
impossible to inspect colonies inside these hives. In this kind of
beekeeping, bees are left to look for their own forage, water and to
provide their own security from invaders. During dearth periods,
beekeepers do not provide supplements to their bees which triger
starvation to bees and sometimes occasioning desertion and hence the
farmer loses potential yield from such hives. This was realized in apiaries

35
inspected during this survey where a number of hives were unoccupied.
When examined, desertion was due to several factors all associated to
poor colony management. The identified factors included food shortage
because in these kind of beehives, beekeepers cut combs
indiscriminately, both honey and brood combs and don’t leave enough
food for bees during dearth periods (Figure 2). During this exercise,
beekeepers are likely to kill the queen that would trigger the collapse of
the whole colony.

It was proved that the colony strength is reduced and in some extent
destroyed while harvesting as honeycombs are cut indiscriminately
whether having honey or brood. During the exercise, the queen (the
mother of the colony) has many chances to be killed as the practice is
done most of the time during night hours because of the wildness of
African honey bees and the use of excessive smokes that kill many
worker bees and would also alter the quality of honey (P. Gallmann and
H. Thomas, 2012 and Kangave Alice et al. 2012).

36
Figure 3: A barchart of the methods that beekeepers use during honey harvesting
around Nyungwe National Park

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7
Respondent (Transformed data)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
C

D
A

A: Cut combs with only honey; B: Cut combs with both honey and brood; C: Cut combs indiscriminately; D: Killing bees before
collecting honey

4.2.3. Bee Predators

4.2.3.1. Man

People can cause a lot of damage to hives and are usually considered the
worst enemy of bees. Honey hunters and thieves destroy countless bee
colonies and hives. Children often antagonize bees by throwing stones at
beehives, which often results in people and livestock being stung.
Human predation is a serious challenges for beekeeping development
around Nyungwe National Park. It is practiced mainly by Batwa
communities living in the vicinity of the park. They destroy colonies in
the search of honey and cause huge losses to beekeepers. This finding is
supported by reports that indicate that man is the most significant
predator to honeybees in Africa followed by honeybudgers (Crane 1990).

37
4.2.3.2. Chimpanzes

Chimpanzes were also reported predating on bee colonies in the search of

honey and brood. They enter the apiary, open hives and eat honey and
brood while destroying all combs they find in the hives.

4.2.3.3. Birds (Honeyguide and bee eaters)

These birds were also reported predating on outgoing and incoming

worker bees from hives. Some birds sit on the hive and eat worker bees
coming out. Honey guides eat bees and bee brood. Honey guides on the
other hand lead other predators to the hive.

4.2.3.4. Ants

Ants go for bees, brood and honey during any season or when the hives
smell of honey. They were reported to challenging beekeepers around
Nyungwe National Park.

4.2.3.5. Honey budger (Mellivora capensis)

This small mammal was cited by beekeepers to cause damage to their

bee colonies. This information is not verified as during the field work, it
was not sighted and it is sometimes confused by locals with mangoose.
This animal breaks into hives to eat honey and brood.

38
4.2.4. Bee pests

4.2.4.1. Wax Moth (greater and lesser)

This moth looks like the moth that eats grain and destroys woolen
clothes. It lays eggs in the hive and the larvae looks like a worm or
maggot. Both the larvae and adult feed on the combs. The greater moth’s
larvae feed on the brown combs and destroy the wax. It burrows through
the combs and leaves a white web or mesh in a long line in the comb.
The lesser moth tends to attack processed wax. Wax moth is not a major
problem to beekeeping development in the region because beekeepers
still practice traditional beekeeping while these insects attack
honeycombs in modern hives type Langstroth. It was not reported in
Kitabi apiary made mostly by log hives but was found in Rangiro apiary
in Langstroth hives.
Figure 4: Wax moth larva and combs destroyed by wax moth in in Rangiro apiary.

4.2.4.2. Hive beetles

Beetles enters hives through gaps and cracks but also through large
entrance holes. The large black beetle feeds on brood and is most
numerous during the rains. Others with distinct markings feed on small
amounts of honey and pollen. The smaller hive beetles lay eggs in pollen

39
cells, which can be turned into a stinking mess by the maggots within a
few days. They were not reported in Kitabi apiary but was found in
Rangiro apiary.
Figure 5: A hive beetle in Rangiro apiary

4.2.4.3. Bee louse or bee fly (Braula coeca)

The bee louse, Braula coeca Nitzsch is a common pest in colonies around
Nyungwe National Park. It is a wingless fly that lives as a commensalist
in western honey bee, Apis mellifera Linnaeus, colonies. The fly is
presumed to be harmless to its host, though this point is debatable as in
some countries bee louse control is recommended. Because no true
economic damage can be attributed to the fly, it probably poses a
minimal threat to the beekeeping industry. It is seen on the backs of the
bee but causes negligible damage to the colony. Regular smokes in the
hive would control them.

40
Figure 6: A bee louse (Photo: Internet)

4.2.5. Bee diseases

4.2.5.1. Paralysis

This disease was reported by beekeepers around Nyungwe National Park.

It is caused by viruses in adult honeybees.

Paralysis is a symptom of adult honey bees and is usually associated

with viruses. Two different viruses, chronic bee paralysis virus and acute
bee paralysis virus, have been isolated from paralytic bees. Other
suspected causes of paralysis include pollen and nectar from plants such
as buttercup, rhododendron, laurel, and some species of basswood;
pollen deficiencies during brood rearing in the early spring; and
consumption of fermented stored pollen.

Symptoms of the disease are the inability to fly, as well as uncoordinated

and trembling movements of the body. Affected bees are usually found on
top of the frames. In severe cases, large numbers of crawling bees are
seen on the hive floor and in front of the hive. Death follows within days.
The infected bees may be molested by the other bees and become
hairless. The symptoms of paralysis are similar to those of Nosema and
poisoning by pesticides.

41
4.2.5.2. Diarrhea

Diarrhea or Dysentery or Nosema in honey bees was reported by

beekeepers around Nyungwe National Park. No definite diagnosis is
possible without microscopic examination. The only outward signs of
Nosema are a weakening of a colony or failure to build up normally when
conditions are favorable. However, in severe cases the diseased bees will
soil the hive, inside and at the entrance. Bees may be seen crawling out
of the hive with abdomens slightly swollen. Heavily infected bees may
give the impression of being clumsy and lethargic.

Although definite diagnosis of Nosema is only possible with microscope

examination, there is a method which beekeepers can put to use with a
little practice. The last abdominal segment (with the sting) of an adult
bee is grasped with a fine pair of forceps and the gut pulled out. In
healthy bees the midgut is brownish-yellow or mustard coloured, and its
constrictions or rings are clearly seen. In bees that are heavily infected
with nosema, the midgut is white and somewhat swollen, obscuring the
constrictions.

4.3. Other challenges to beekeeping

4.3.1. Absconding

Beekeepers around Nyungwe National Park faces absconding problems in

their apiaries. Reasons for absconding can be the lack of water,
exhaustion of food stores, overheating, fire, thwarted swarming,
deterioration of the nesting site and continuous pest attack (Sakagami,
1960; Smith, 1960; Fletcher, 1975, 1976; Seeley et al., 1982; Ruttner,
1988; Mutsaers, 1994; Hepburn and Radloff, 1998; Dyer, 2000).

42
African subspecies do not experience a winter and may forage virtually
all the year round (Schneider and Blyther, 1988; Schneider and McNally,
1992). However, food availability in tropical Africa is often temporally and
spatially unpredictable, owing to unpredictable rain patterns (Griffiths,
1976; Sinclair, 1983; Rinderer, 1988). As a result, African races
frequently respond to unfavorable periods by undergoing "seasonal
absconding" or migration, which consists of a colony abandoning a nest
site, presumably to move into an area of greater resource abundance
(Fletcher, 1978; 1991; Winston et al., 1979; Schneider, 1990 a; McNally
and Schneider 1992).

4.3.2. Poor harvesting methods

Rudimentary harvesting methods, for example, using too much smoke or

burning the hives leads to destruction of the bee colonies as well as to
contamination of the honey harvest. Majority of beekeepers harvest
honey by cutting combs indiscriminately; Very few cut combs having only
honey or combs with both honey and brood where while some few others
kill bees to access honey. These conducts regarding honey harvesting
have a negative impact on the colony and honey quality one way or
another. This poor hervesting method is sometimes accompaned by
visiting the beehive more than once during honey flow season while it is
recommended to visit the hive once per honey flow season. These
combined practices are the main causes of aggressiveness and
absconding behaviors of african honeybees (Figure 6).

43
Figure 7: Barchart of period of harvesting

0.48

0.42
Respondent (Transformed data)

0.36

0.30

0.24

0.18

0.12

0.06

0.00
C

D
A

A-Weekly B-Twice a month C-Monthly D-Once a season

4.3.3. Quality control challenges

Due to limited availability and improper use of harvesting equipment,

honey becomes susceptible to contamination and adulteration. The
resulting low quality honey cannot enter the formal market chain, but
ends up in the informal markets.

4.3.4. Pesticide kill

During this investigation, mass bee killing was observed in Muganza

apiary. Pesticides poisoning were suspected for the mass killing.

44
Figure 8: Mass death of honeybees in Muganza apiary

Pesticide poisoning of honey bees can be a serious problem for

beekeepers, especially near areas of intensive agricultural crop
production or when serious pest outbreaks warrant increased pesticide
applications. Pesticides can have lethal or sublethal impacts on bees.
Some pesticides necessary in crop production are toxic to honey bees.
Colonies may be completely destroyed by a pesticide, but more commonly
only field bees are killed. Large numbers of dead bees (sometimes piled)
around the outside of the colony are characteristic of a pesticide kill.
Sublethal pesticide kills are difficult to diagnosis. Colonies exposed to
pesticides that do not kill bees outright may be more susceptible to
disease, have difficulty replacing aging queens, and/or be less
productive.

45
4.4. Honeybees and biodiversity conservation

Honey bees play an important role in the creation and conservation of

biodiversity. They played an important role in the evolution of many
plant species of Nyungwe landscape. When people are aware about the
valuable contribution of bees to the life of humans, they will respect bees
and try to protect them, their habitat and forage area as much as
possible. Beekeeping projects are therefore an ideal tool to raise
awareness about the value of forests and engage people in conscious
protection, conservation and sustainable resource management.
Beekeeping could also be used to deal with the issue of property rights
over natural areas, an issue that has been proven to be essential in the
sustainable use of natural resources. . In this regard, beekeepers in the
Kitabi region informed to have reported to Nyungwe National Park
managers, 10 tree cutters for charcoal and sowing, 2 poachers and
contained 4 honey hunters who got rewareded integration in the
cooperative to abandon their practices.

Although many beekeepers showed their favor toward Nyungwe National

Park, a few number of respondents showed a negative attitude toward
Nyungwe National Park conservation (Figure 8). This may due partly to
the fact that many of them were denied any access in the park. They
complained about absconding of their bees when some plants in the park
are in boom. This complaint may be linked to the fact that their apiaries
are located in places poor in bee forage and a little bit far from the park.
Therefore, honeybees make long distances in the search of food to the
forest which may be one of the cause that would trigger absconding.
Other reasons may get associated to social econimic conditions of people
living in the area that are made of subsistance agriculture coupled with
high density of population.

46
Figure 9: Beekeepers’ attitudes towards Nyungwe National Park conservation

1.0

0.9

0.8
Respondents (Transformed data)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
In favor

Undecided
Against

Figure 10: Rangiro apiary located approximately 1.5 Km away from Nyungwe
National Park in very poor bee forage place

47
In the past, honey hunting, was an activity that was widely practised in
Nyungwe National Park, but that was a direct threat for the bees. The
activity consisted of lundering wild bee colonies. The honey hunter used
fire to chase the bees away and often kill them by burning to facilitate
the collection of honey. This was not only a direct threat for the bees but
also for the forest as this type of fire was sometimes reported as the
origin of forest fires which used to destroy large parts of the forest. These
practices are still occuring even though at low level.

4.5. Conclusion

Beekeeping is the most social economic activity associated directly to

Nyungwe National Park although it is practiced outside the park
boundaries in an area dominated by Gum trees. Other activities
identified include herbalism, mining, sowing, poaching and honey
hunting. The beekeeping activity is dominated by traditional beekeeping
and this represent a challenge that results in low return to beekeepers.
This practice is associated to poor colony management because hive
inspection in those kind of hives is almost impossible. Predators
dominated by man as well as pests (Wax moth, hive beetle and bee louse)
and diseases (Paralysis and Diarrhea) usually associated to hign
absconding behavior and pestcide kill were also found to hamper
beekeeping development in the Nyungwe landscape. But beekeeping was
found to support conservation effort to the landscape due to the fact that
honeybees are important pollinators but also to beekeepers who maneged
to contain illigal activities and therefore contributed to the protection of
the forest and its resources. Majority of beekeepers were in favor of
Nyungwe National Park conservation Vs a small number of them against
its conservation.

48
V. SWOT ANALYSIS

49
5. SWOT Analysis

5.1. Strengths

5.1.1. Indigenous knowledge

Beekeeping has been practiced since very long time hence there is rich
indigenous knowledge and skills among beekeepers in the Nyungwe area
and these should be easily developed through trainings.

5.1.2. The potential of hive products

Honey is the most known hive product from honeybees. But there are
other bee products of economic importance such as pollen (a good source
of proteins), propolis (medecinal value), royal jelly, bee wax, swarms, etc.
Honey from Nyungwe landscape is of high quality because most of the
honey comes from forested areas free from any contaminant and different
natural bee forages. Prices of honey and bee wax are good compared to
neighboring countries and the market is not yet saturated because the
supply does not meet the demand.

5.1.3. Social resources

The beekeeping sector in the Nyungwe landscape is supported by

different development actors including international organizations such
as Wildlife Conservation Society, national institutions such as Rwanda
Development Board_Nyungwe National Park and local NGOs such as
Associaton pour la Conservation de la Nature au Rwanda.

50
5.1.4. The potential of large swathee of bee forage

Nyungwe landscape has good climate (Mountan rain forest), which is full
of diverse flowering plants, ideal for production of pure organic honey for
export to niche market and fair trade market. The landscape constitutes
therefore a potential for beekeeping development because of its mix of
natural vegetation that would provide bee forage all year round.

5.2. Weaknesses

5.2.1. Quality control of hive products

Honey produced in tropical areas, a place where Nyungwe National Park

is located has a high content of HydroMethylFrufrol (HMF) because of
tropical temperatures. HMF would increase in honey produced in the
Nyungwe landscape because of lack of appropriate technologies while
processing it.

5.2.2. Limited knowledge and low inputs by the government

Generally Rwanda lacks qualified professionals in the apiculture sector

and this is a challenge to beekeeping development. The government
invests very low inputs compared to other agricultural programs. There
are no proper research and development regarding beekeeping in
Rwanda. In addition, beekeepers in the Nyungwe landscape possess
limited knowledge in beekeeping and mostly indegenous knowledge and
therefore lack basic techniques of modern beekeeping such as queen
rearing and colony multiplication.

51
5.2.3. other weakenesses in the beekeeping sector

- The beekeeping industry is fragmented.

- African honey bee has an aggressive and absconding behavior and
there are no program to rear honeybees of less aggressive and
absconding behavior.
- There are limited financial means.

5.3. Opportunities

5.3.1. Favorable government policy regarding entrepreneurship and

beekeeping development

The government of Rwanda has published in the Official Gazette n° 27

the law n° 25/2013 of 10/05/2013 determining the organization and
functioning of beekeeping in Rwanda (Official Gazette, 2013). In 2007, It
has elaborated a national strategy on beekeeping.

5.3.2. Viable market

There are prenty of opportunities for hive products. Apart from honey
which is consumed at all level in the rwandan society, other bee hive
products such as propolis, beeswax, royal jelly, pollen and bee venom as
well as live bees are not well explored and would be an opportunity for
both local, regional and international market. In addition, recently the
European Union has certified the Rwandan honey for export in Euro
zone.

52
5.3.3. Threats

- There is a high risk from other honey producers bringing pests and
diseases into Rwanda and these would reach Nyungwe landscape.
- There is a lack of understanding within stakeholders on the pest and
disease risk associated with bees.
- There is a risk of Varroa mite detected in Rubona (Southern of Rwanda)
recently and Varroa destructor occuring in neighboring countries of
Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya.
- Donor dependency sector

53
VI. COST BENEFIT
ANALYSI

54
6. Cost benefit analysis

6.1. Introduction

There are many products a beekeeper can sell. It is therefore important

to consider costs as well as benefits. Beekeepers around Nyungwe
National Park produce honey and beewax for sell and in some extent for
home use purposes. Other products i.e. pollen, propolis, royal jelly, bee
venom and live bees are not well known and therefore less exploited. Log
hives are commonly used but Langstroth and Top bar are rarely seen.

Information received during field works indicates that an unkown

quantity of honey is sold at household level for consumption, traditional
liqual making and traditional medecin. There is a honey collection center
at Kitabi which also process honey using not advanced technologies in
honey processing. Two companies (MIG and Api Business Development
Company Ltd) are enganged in the honey value chain at domestic level.
There is a small wholesaler at Kitabi belonging to Ubwiza bwa Nyungwe
Cooperative union. Honey is sold to by-passers mainly travellers going or
coming from Rusizi town and tourists. A considerable quantity of honey
reaches supermatkets in Kigali city and other major town especially Huye
and Muhanga towns.

55
Figure 11: Honey value chain in Nyungwe landscape

Domestic Consumers

Retailers

Wholesalers Processors/Agribusiness

Domestic Consumers Cooperatives

Beekeepers

6.2. Cost-benefit analysis of interventions

Cost benefit analysis of two interventions involving two types of hives:

one on transitional hives (Tob bar) and one on modern hives (Langstroth)
were analysed during this feasibility study. There are approximately
1,493 beekeepers in the Nyungwe landscape that would participate in
this interventions. More than 99% of them practice traditional
beekeeping.

56
6.2.1. Current situation (“without” intervention scenario of
traditional beekeeping)

Inflows

The beekeeper’s income comes from the sales of the beekeeper’s annual
honey output whenever it is consumed or sold to the market. The
following farm-gate prices have been used to calculate the base-case
scenario: 2,000 Frw/kg for honey. In this scenario, the average yield
from a traditional beehive has been established at the level of 6 kg/year
of honey (regardless the type of honey). Nyungwe landscape accounts
1,493 beekeepers with approximately 4 traditional beehives per
beekeeper’s household. Domestic consumption of honey has been
averaged at 5 kg/household/year according to information collected
during the field survey. Therefore, out of 24 kg/per household produced,
5 kg is consumed at household level. The estimated yearly loss due to
pests (humans, ants, chimps and other pests) is approximately 3 kg per
year, leaving the beekeeper’s household with 16 kg of honey to sell. This
brings to 23,888 kgs of honey sold annually from Nyungwe landscape.

Expenditures (Input and Operating Costs)

The totals for required expenditures were mainly gathered during field
interviews.

57
Table 1: Expenditures in the “without” intervention scenario of traditional
beekeeping.

Expenditures Cost in Frw

Traditional beehives (4) 1,000

Bee colonies (4) 0

Beehive maintenance (10%) 0

Bee-colony replacement due to pest 0

attack or absconding

Beehive replacement due to pest 0

attack

Labor 1,000
Rental value of land 0

Expenditures above are for the first year in nominal terms. Values would
change, and additional costs would be included for beehive maintenance,
bee-colony replacement, and beehive replacement in the later years of
the project.

Assumptions

The honey yield from the traditional beehive will not increase, nor will the
prices of inputs (beehives, bee colonies). It is also assumed that the wage
rate will not increase, resulting in a 0 percent growth rate.

58
6.2.2. Intervention 1: Introduction of four transitional Beehives
(Top bar) per Beekeeper’s Household

The base-case scenario in this intervention is the same as in the

“without” intervention scenario described above. This intervention is to
replace traditional beehives with transitional beehives (Top bar).

In the proposed intervention, the total cost of buying a transitional

beehives with four bee colonies is 50,000 Frw. The base-case scenario’s
farm-gate prices for honey were used to analyze this intervention: 2,000
Frw/kg for honey.

Income

It is expected that the total amount of honey produced per beekeeper’s

household starting in the second year of the intervention would increase
from 24kg (as in the base-case scenario) to 84 kg/year because the
yearly average of a Top bar hive is 15 kg of honey. The total annual
honey yield from the four traditional beehives will stay at 24 kg, but the
additional honey production from the four transitional beehives will
reach a total of 60 kg. The total yearly honey loss due to pests will
remain the same as in the without scenario (3 kg/year). It is assumed
that annual household consumption of honey (5 kg) will not increase
with the higher levels of honey production, so the beekeeper’s household
will end up with 76 kg of honey available for sale. This will bring to
113,468 kgs of honey sold annually from Nyungwe landscape.

59
Table 2: Expenditures

Expenditures Cost in Frw

Traditional beehives (4) 1,000
Bee colonies (4) 0
Transitional beehives (4) 50,000
Bee colonies for transitional 0
beehives (4)
Beehive maintenance for traditional 0
beehives (10%)
Beehive maintenance for 0
transitional beehives (10%)
Bee-colony replacement due to pest 0
attack or absconding
Beehive replacement due to pest 0
attack
Labor 1,000
Rental value of land 0
Queen excluder (4) 24,000
Feeders (4) 12,000
Queen catcher 3,000
Balance (20 Kg) 60,000
Container (200L) 50,000
Strainer 15,000
Hive tool 3,000
Brush 3,000
Bee suit 25,000
Food supplement (sugar) for 20,000
honeybees (20 kgs)
Smoker 15,000

60
Expenditures above are for the first year in nominal terms. Values would
change, and additional costs would be included for beehive maintenance,
bee-colony replacement, and beehive replacement in the later years of
the project. This requires trainings but are not included because it will
be provided free of charge.

Assumptions

The honey yield from the traditional beehive will not increase, nor will the
price of inputs (beehives, bee colonies). It is also assumed that the wage
rate will not increase, resulting in a 0 percent growth rate. Additionally,
beekeepers will be conditioned to sell their output to SDS Ltd
(beekeeping equipment and training providers) for further processing

6.2.3. Intervention 2: Introduction of four modern beehives

(Langstroth) per Beekeeper’s Household

The base-case scenario in this intervention is the same as in the

“without” intervention scenario described above. This intervention is to
replace traditional beehives with modern beehives (Langstroth).

In the proposed intervention, the total cost of buying a modern beehives

with four bee colonies is 100,000 Frw per colonized colony. The base-
case scenario’s farm-gate prices for honey were used to analyze this
intervention: 2,000 Frw/kg for honey.

Income

It is expected that the total amount of honey produced per beekeeper’s

household starting in the second year of the intervention would increase
from 24kg (as in the base-case scenario) to 144 kg/year because the

61
yearly average of a modern hive is 30 kg of honey. The total annual
honey yield from the four traditional beehives will stay at 24 kg, but the
additional honey production from the four modern beehives will reach a
total of 120 kg. The total yearly honey loss due to pests will remain the
same as in the without scenario (3 kg/year). It is assumed that annual
household consumption of honey (5 kg) will not increase with the higher
levels of honey production, so the beekeeper’s household will end up with
136 kg of honey available for sale. This will bring to 203,048 kgs of honey
sold annually from Nyungwe landscape.

Table 3: Expenditures
Expenditures Cost in Frw
Traditional beehives (4) 1,000
Bee colonies (4) 0
Transitional beehives (4) 50,000
Bee colonies for transitional 0
beehives (4)
Beehive maintenance for traditional 0
beehives (10%)
Beehive maintenance for 0
transitional beehives (10%)
Bee-colony replacement due to pest 0
attack or absconding
Beehive replacement due to pest 0
attack
Labor 1,000
Rental value of land 0
Queen excluder (4) 24,000
Feeders (4) 12,000
Queen catcher 3,000

62
Balance (20 Kg) 60,000
Container (200L) 50,000
Strainer 15,000
Hive tool 3,000
Brush 3,000
Bee suit 25,000
Food supplement (sugar) for 20,000
honeybees (20 kgs)
Smoker 15,000
Honey extractor 600,000
Comb foundation machine 600,000

Expenditures above are for the first year in nominal terms. Values would
change, and additional costs would be included for beehive maintenance,
bee-colony replacement, and beehive replacement in the later years of
the project. This requires trainings but are not included because it will
be provided free of charge.

6.3. Economic Analysis

The proposed Interventions 1 and 2 were designed to improve the quality

and quantity of the supply of honey and other bee products, which would
in turn facilitate developments in the Nyungwe landscape beekeeping
sector domestically and in terms of potential exports.

63
Figure 12: Economic gross value per intervention (Frw)

As the graph show, there is a huge difference in terms of gross benefit

between traditional beekeeping and the proposed interventions. These
values would change positively because only one product (honey) is
considered here. Other products of much more value than honey are not
discussed in these scenarios. The highest level of yearly gross profit is
observed in the case of Intervention 2.

6.4. Conclusion

Based on the analysis of the two proposed interventions in contrast to

tradition beekeeping around Nyungwe National Park, intervention 2
(modern beekeeping) is the most appealing choice because it will provide
the highest results in terms of financial and economic feasibility. The
other proposed intervention will also yield positive results a considerable
quantity of beewax, but honey production will be much lower than that
of intervention 2.

64
VII. GAPS ANALYSIS

65
7. Gap analysis

7.1. Presentation of Beekeeping development around Nyungwe

National Park

The beekeeping sector around Nyungwe National Park is mainly

traditional as it is in other places in Rwanda. Activities are carried out
outside the park. The current characterisitics of the beekeeping industry
around Nyungwe National Park are summarized below:
- Apoximately 99% of beekeeping in the area is traditional. The modern
beekeeping involves langstroth hive types and very few beekeepers in the
Kitabi region have introduced Top bar hives (only 4 were identified during
this study).
- Beekeepers in the region are grouped in cooperatives. 13 cooperatives
form a union “Ubwiza bwa Nyungwe” with 1,370 members and over
4,000 beehives. Other 4 cooperatives with 123 members are not part of
the union.

7.2. Current gaps associated to beekeeping development around

Nyungwe National Park

Beekeeping in the Nyungwe landscape has not fully succeeded in

exploiting its natural capacity for honey production, nor has it been able
to fully benefit from its comparative advantage in the honey sector.
Several factors have contributed to keep honey production from reaching
its full market potential:

66
- Outdated technologies for honey and other by-products
production, which includes traditional beehives which result in low
quantity and poor quality of honey produced: Currently, most of the
honey produced in Nyungwe landscape comes from traditional beehives.
At national level, statistics show that as of 2012, beekeepers were
numbered at 83,000 with 93,000 beehives. Traditional beehives yield low
quantities of honey ( average 6kg/beehive/year) that is also generally low
quality, because it contains brood, wax, and other impurities.

- Lack of financial resources (such as access to loans) for beekeepers

to obtain modern beehives and associated equipments necessary to
make beekeeping much more profitable: Beekeepers have little access
to financial products that would allow them to switch from traditional
beehives to improved versions. Moving to transitional and modern
beehives requires an initial investment of capital that most beekeepers do
not have, so they continue to produce honey using traditional methods.
In addition, the support to the sector is fragmented.

- Supply-related barriers to properly managing modern beehives: The

supply of tools necessary to manage modern beehives is not readily
available. For instance, some beekeepers possess modern beehives (just
boxes), but they lack the tools required for the proper management of
these beehives (such as a smoker, queen excluder, or honey extractor).

- Lack of proper training regarding efficient management of a

modern-style apiary: In general, beekeepers who do have modern
beehives do not have sufficient skills or knowledge needed to properly
manage them (queen rearing, colony inspection and management) and
training is not readily available. Therefore, beekeepers tend to rely on
ineffective extractive harvesting methods and inappropriate tools for this

67
type of hive. In addition, beekeepers don’t provide water for apiaries
located far from water points or feed their colonies with food
supplements (most of the time sugar syrup) during dearth periods and
these are causes of bee starvation and absconding.

- Other associated obstacles: Additional barriers include a general lack

of advocacy for the sub-sector. The honey sub-sector is considered
“negligible” by insitutions in charge. As a result, the sub-sector has
enjoyed limited support from the government. There is currently lack of
continuous technical support to beekeepers. In the area of capacity
development, support has been limited to one-off training. The result is
the inability of beneficiaries to effectively apply training knowledge to
their operations. There is also limited support in the area of honey
processing. A honey processing center visited at Kitabi use rudementary
technologies.

7.3. Conclusion

Key barriers to successfully expanding the honey value chain as well as

other bee products in Nyungwe landscape primarily lay at the supply
side of this commodity. Nyungwe honey production is insufficient in
terms of quantity as well as quality. To meet the growing domestic
demand as well as a likely profitable demand in the export markets,
these supply-side issues need to be addressed.

68
VIII. GENERAL
CONCLUSION

69
8. General conclusion

Nyungwe landscape has potentials for beekeeping development which

would have a positive effect on people’s livelihood improvement
inhabiting the landscape, the overall economy as well as biodiversity and
conservation.

Shortage of bee forage during dearth periods, honeybee pests and

diseases, lack of skilled manpower and appripriate trainings to handle
transitional and modern beehives, outdated technologies in honey
processing and absence of policy in the apiculture sector were observed
to challenging beekeeping development in the Nyungwe landscape.

Despite the challenges encountered the sub sector, the opportunities for
beekeeping development in the region were the presence vast swathes of
natural resources (bees and forage), the current attention of the
government and development partners to develop apiculture as one of
the strategies to reduce poverty in rural areas, high demand for hive
products (honey) and the existance of in the area.

It was observed that upgrading avairable resources (beekeepers and their

bee colonies) in the landscape by intervening using modern technologies
in beekeeping (Intervention 2), results showed a gross profit of
406,096,000 Frw (U$580,137) per year.

70
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS

71
9. Recommendations

1. Beekeeping activities are practiced outside the park boundaries in

places that are not suitable for large scale beekeeping. This was marked
as one of the causes of bee starvation and high absconding behavior
observed in apiaries visited. Given the likely successful outcomes of
Intervention 2 (positive effects on the honey sector and livelihood
improvement), bee forage is a pre-requisite for this intervention. It would
be advised that apiaries would be settled at 0 m from the Nyungwe
National Park and in some extent, relevent authorities would issue a
special permit to professional beekeepers to practice beekeeping activities
inside the park for more honey production and other bee products.

2. It is important however, to realize that for beekeeping to be a

sustainable activity, beekeepers need to be trained on best practices. The
necessary financial, extensional and technological support to fully exploit
the great potential of beekeeping in the conservation Nyungwe National
Park and in poverty-reduction programmes should therefore be allocated.

72
X. REFERENCE

73
 10. Reference

Charlotte Lietaer, 2009. Impact of beekeeping on forest conservation,

preservation of forest ecosystems and poverty reduction. Universita degli
Studie Roma 3, Italy.

Dongock, Delphine N., Tchoumboue, Joseph, D'Albore, Giancarlo

Ricciardelli, Youmbi, Emmanuel and Pinta, Yves J., 2007. 'Spectrum of
melliferous plants used by Apis mellifera adansonii in the Sudano-
Guinean western highlands of Cameroon', Grana, 46(2): 123 — 128.

FAO. 2007a. Crops, browse and pollinators in Africa: an initial stock

taking. Rome.

Friedrich Ruttner (1988) Biography and Taxonomy of Honeybees.

Springer, Berlin,Heidelberg, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo

Gallmann P. and Thomas H., 2012. Beekeeping and honey production in

southwestern Ethiopia, Ethiopia.

Hoopingarner, R.A., and Waller G.D. (1992) Crop Pollination in Graham

J.M. (Ed.). The hive and the honey bee, Dadant and Sons, Hamilton,
Illinois, pp. 1043-1082.

Jagadish, B.S. (2008). Honeybees: the pollinator sustaining crop

diversity. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment, Vol. 9T

Jun Nakamura, Mary W. Gikungu, Yoshiaki Kano, Kazuo Hanzawa,

Mercy Gichora, Yasuyuki Morimoto, Shinji Ogawa, Hiroto Fujiyosi,
Ryoichi Udagawa, 2009. Development of Beekeeping in Developing
Countries and Practical Procedures – Case Study in Africa –. Japan
Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and Forestry.

74
Kangave Alice, Butele Cosmas Alfred, Onzoma Apollo, and Kato Agapitus,
2012. The national bee keeping training and extension manual. Ministry
of agriculture, animal industry and fisheries, Republic of Uganda.

Kihwele, D.V.N.; Chiguru, S.K.; Naasi, E.M. (1999) Participatory Rural

Appraisal in establishing the beekeeping development project in 15 villages
of five selected districts: Kibondo, Tabora, Manyoni, Kondoa and Handeni.
MNRT, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

MINAGRI/RARDA, 2007. National beekeeping strategic plan (2007-2012).

MNRT (2004) Identification of study report on the development and

improvement of processing, packaging and marketing of honey, beeswax
and other bee products in Tanzania. MNRT and Belgium Government
commissioned study. Unpublished research report.

Munyuli T., 2011. Farmers’ perceptions of pollinators’ importance in

coffee production in Uganda. Agricultural Sciences. Vol.2, No.3, 318-333
(2011) doi:10.4236/as.2011.23043

Mwakatobe, A.R. (2001) The impact of home garden on beekeeping

activities in Arumeru District, Arusha, Tanzania. Unpublished MSc
dissertation.

Naomi M. Saville and Narayan Prasad Acharya, 2001. Beekeeping

in Humla district West Nepal: a field study. Report.

Nel, E., Illgner, P.M., Wilkins, K., & Robertson, M.P (1999). Rural Self-
Reliance in Bondolfi, Zimbabwe: the role of beekeeping. The Geographical
Journal, 166 (1), 26-34. Retrieved April, 9, 2009, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/823051

75
Nicola Bradbear, 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 (FAO), Rome.

OKOSO-AMAA, K.; OTSYINA, R.; NDABIKUNZE, B.; MPUYA, P.; NGINDO,

E. (2004) The development and improvement of processing, packaging
and marketing of honey, beeswax and other bee products in Tanzania.
Unpublished research report.

Payette, A. (1996). Les Apoı¨des du Que´bec: Abeilles et agriculture.

L’Abeille, 16(4): 14–15.

Peter G. Kevan (1995). The Asiatic Hive Bee. Enviroquest, Ltd.

Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

Plumptre, A.J., Kayitare, A., Rainer, H., Gray, M., Munanura, I.,
Barakabuye, N., Asuma, S., Sivha, M., and Namara, A. 2004. The socio
Economic Status of People Living Near Protected Areas in the Central
Albertine Rift. Albertine Rift Technical Reports, 4. 127pp.

Production data, SNV Rwanda Beekeeping Baseline Study 2004

Roger A. Morse Nicholas W. Calderone, 2000. The Value of Honey Bees

As Pollinators of U.S. Crops in 2000. Cornell University, Ithaca • New
York

Roubik David W., 2002. The value of bees to the coffee harvest.
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Unit 0948, APO AA 34002-
0948, USA.

Santos, F.A.R. (Ed.), 2006. Apium Plantae. IMSEAR, Recife.

76
Sreejith A. and Worku J. N. and Mir Humayun K. and Md. Waliul G.,
2011. Exploring the potential of non-timber forest products: the case of
Ethiopian honey export to Denmark. University of Copenhagen

Verma, L. R., 1992. Beekeeping and pollination ecology of mountain

crops. In: Verma, L. R. (ed.) Honeybees in mountain agriculture.
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD),
Kathmandu, Nepal.

The State of Western Australia, 2007. Wax moth and its control.
Department of Agriculture and Food, Government of Western Australia.

Suzanne King, Mark Dyball, Alan Worley, Tara Webster, Sarah Frost,
Chantelle Jay, Michelle Fountain and Gary Saunders, 2010. A Study of
Beekeeping Practices: Influences and Information Sources. Final Report
Prepared for Defra. London NW1 2SD 020 3102 8139.

77
XI. APPENDICES

78
11. Appendices

Questionnaire

Study on the value of honey bees for sustainable livelihood and

biodiversity conservation: Case of Nyungwe landscape

A. Personal details

Name…………………………………………………………
Date of visit……………………………….
Sub-location……………………………………..
Village………………………………………….

1. Age:

(1) Below 20
(2)20-40 years
(3) Above 40

2. Sex:

(1) Male
(2) Female

B. Social-economic activities

4. Please rank the most activities generating income around here

(1) Agriculture
Name crops
(2) Pastoralism
Name animals
(3) Business
Name business
(4) Other
Name them

5. Please rank the most common causes for the exploitation of Nyungwe
landscape resources by the people around here:

6. Please rank all resources exploited by people around here beginning

by the most exploited

79
(1) Timber
(2) Water
(3) Medicinal plants
(4) Honey
(5) Mine

C. Beekeeping activities

9. Apiaries location

a) Orchard
b) Private Garden
c) Roof garden
d) Shared garden
e) Farmland
f) Elsewhere (please specify)

10. Number of hives:

11. Do you regard beekeeping as a

a) Profession
b) Hobby
c) Somewhere in-between

12. Which best describes your view of the bees

a) Pet
b) Farm animal

13. Do you know these bee products?

a) Honey
b) Pollen
c) Beeswax
d) Propolis
e) Royal Jelly
f) Bee venom

13. Please order these aspects of beekeeping in importance for yourself.

a) Hive products
b) Pollination
c) Enjoyment
d) Farming

80
e) Relaxation
f) Research and Education

14. Please rank the comparative advantage in terms of economic values

of the following honeybee by-products uses in your home area:

(1) Commercial
(2) Home uses

15. Do honeybees’ by-products play any traditional role to the people of

this region?
(1) Yes
(2) No
If yes specify………………………………………………………………………

16. Do people harvest wild honeybees’ by-products around here?

(1) Yes
(2) No
If yes, rank the reasons why they harvest
(1) Products e.g. home based
(2) Sale

17. What are your feelings about this practice?

(1) Like
(2) Dislike
(3) No feeling
Others, specify…………………………………………………………………

18. What kind of hive do you own and how many?

(1) Traditional hive

(2) Top bar
(3) Langstroth

19. How do you harvest honey (methods)?

(1) Cut combs with only honey

(2) Cut combs with both honey and brood
(3) Cut combs indiscriminately
(4) Killing bees before collecting honey

20. How often do you harvest during honey flow season?

(1) Weekly
(2) Twice a Month

81
(3) Monthly
(4) Once a season

21. What quantity harvested per hive?

(1) Traditional hive

(2) Modern hive

22. What other bee by-products rather than honey do you harvest and
how much?

(1) Pollen
(2) Wax
(3) Royal jelly
(4) Bee venom
(5) Swarms
(6) Pollination

D. Market

23. How is the demand in the market for the products?

(1) High
(2) Low

24. How is the supply of the products in the markets?

(1) High
(2) Low

25. How much do you earn out of one product per day?
(1) <1,000
(2) >1,000
Any other, specify……………………………………………………………………..

E. Conservation of biological resources

26. What is your opinion about Nyungwe landscape conservation?

(1) In favor
(2) Against
(3) Undecided
Others, specify…………………………………………………………………………..

27. Are you aware of the effects of over-exploitation of biological

resources here?

82
(1) Yes
(2) No
(3) Not sure
If yes, specify…………………………………………………………………………..

28. Please rank the comparative advantage that you think should be
done to sustainably use biological resources here

(1) Add value to the products

(2) Control harvesting
(3) Alternative economic uses e.g. Beekeeping

H. Other activities associated with the landscape

29. Do people hunt and /or poach animals around here?

(1) Yes
(2) No
If yes, rank the reasons why they hunt and which species

30. How were the animals when you first settled here and which species?
(1) Many
(2) Few
Any other, specify………………………………………………………………….

83