Increasing value chain Ethiopia

Transcription

1 Increasing economic benefit from apiculture through value chain development approach: The case of Alaba special district, Southern Ethiopia Abebe Shiferaw, Moti Jaleta, Berhanu Gebremedhin and Dirk Hoekstra March 2010

2 Table of contents Acknowledgements Abstract iv v 1. Introduction 1 2. Methods and Approaches Data source Baseline information Documenting changes processes and results 2 3. Commodity Background Description of the district Apiculture history and diagnosis 4 4. Commodity Value Chain Interventions Extension service intervention Apiculture production intervention Input supply intervention in apiculture Beehives Bee forage Bee colonies Credit service intervention in apiculture Apiculture marketing intervention Results and Discussions Hives owned, honey production and income Input supply and marketing Bee forage Hive supply Bee colony supply Marketing/processing Main streaming HIV/AIDS, gender and environment Organizational and institutional changes Challenges and Opportunities Knowledge and skills development 22 ii

3 Bee forage development Input supply Honey processing Honey marketing Credit Gender Lessons Learned and recommendations for scaling out Recommendations References 25 iii

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This paper documents interventions, results and lessons learned for apiculture commodity development in Alaba Woreda (district), based on a participatory market oriented value chain approach. The approach was introduced by the IPMS project, which not only facilitated the introduction of the approach (technically and financially), but also played an important role as partner in the development process. The credit for the development results obtained go however to all the partners involved in this endeavor especially farmers, staff of the Alaba OoARD (Office of Agriculture and Rural Development), Alage ATVET, Holeta Bee Research Center and private sector input suppliers and traders. The authors are grateful to Jemal Mohammed (Subject Matter Specialist, OoARD) for providing information from OoARD, Bereket Dinadmo (IPMS project Research and Development Assistant) for compiling field data, Shemsu Mohammed (IPMS project field assistant) for field data collection. Special thanks go to Rebeka Amaha and Abraham Getachew for summarizing base line data, Yasin Geta for producing maps and Genevieve Renard for final edition of the document. iv

5 Abstract In 2005 the IPMS project introduced a participatory market oriented value chain approach in Alaba and apiculture was identified as one of the priority marketable commodities. Amongst the problems and potentials identified in the apiculture value chain were lack of knowledge and skills to operate the modern beehives, low occupancy rate, lack of bee forage and a government controlled technology driven development approach. Furthermore, there was no marketing/processing system for the honey produced from the modern hives. Initial emphasis was given to build capacity and skills on different aspect of apiculture development with follow up and supervisory visits to targeted farmers in two PAs (Peasant associations). Those farmers also benefited from innovative credit channeled through the Menchone farmers Union, which enabled them to own more than three modern beehives per household. Linkages were also made with local carpenters for the construction and supply of modern and transitional hives. To alleviate bee forage problems, new forage were introduced in FTCs (Farmers Training Centers) and farmers fields. Finally colony splitting was introduced to increase the availability of productive colonies. The results of these interventions were measured both at district and household levels. Household survey data showed an average 26.7kg/modern hive/year in At district level, the number of farmers who now have modern hives (supplied under different programs) is 1783, which is 33% of the estimated beekeeping households. Average annual gross production value of bee keepers with a combination of hive types averaged Birr 1,500, as compared to Birr 500 for household who only had traditional hives. Data from 17 farmers which were more intensively supported, showed a significant higher productivity from modern hives (38 kg/hive) and their gross production value from different hive types averaged Birr 4,600/year. A cost benefit analysis based on the data obtained from 17 farmers indicated that benefits exceeded costs in year 2, which resulted in a cumulative net benefit of Birr 437 /hive over a 2 year period. The latter shows that apiculture can be a viable economic activity, once sufficient knowledge and skills are applied. Finally, as a result of the value chain approach, the number of partners involved in the development of the apiculture increased including private sector partners. However, while linkages were made with commercial processing factories in Nazareth, actual sale of clean honey through these outlets has not yet been materialized, since most honey is sold in the local market. With the expanding honey production from modern hives, more attention needs to be given to local processing and sale of extracted honey. Key words: Extension, honey, impact, smallholder, innovation systems v

6 1. Introduction The IPMS project, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency, was implemented to assist the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in the transformation of smallholder farmers from a predominantly subsistence oriented agriculture to a more market (commercial) oriented agriculture. The project, which started its activities in Alaba in 2005, adopted a participatory market oriented commodity value chain development approach, based on the concepts of innovation systems and value chains. Crucial elements in the approach are the focus on all the value chain components. Instead of focusing only on production technologies, the approach also stresses the linking, capacitating of value chain partners, assessment and synthesis and sharing of knowledge among the partners. The project introduced this approach in 10 Pilot Learning Woredas (PLW) in Ethiopia with the objective of testing/adopting so that it can be promoted nationwide. An integral part of the approach is the identification of marketable commodities and the value chain constraints and interventions. This was accomplished through a participatory process in all PLWs. This case study focuses on the development of apiculture development in Alaba district with the objective of documenting diagnostic results and value chain interventions, and providing evidence of concepts, challenges and lessons learned to be considered for scaling out. Following the introductory section, the remaining sections are structured as follows. Section two deals with methods and approaches used in the study, while section three presents background information, including description of the PLW and the history and diagnosis of apiculture development. In section four value chain interventions - extension, production, input supply, marketing and credit issues are presented. Section five dwells on results and discussion on production/income, input supply/marketing, gender/environment/labor use, organizational and institutional aspects, while sections six and seven deal with challenges and lessons learned, respectively. 2. Methods and Approaches To start the development of a commodity, IPMS used a district level participatory market oriented value chain planning approach, aimed at identifying (i) main farming systems, (ii) potential marketable crop and livestock commodities at farming system level, (iii) constraints, potentials and interventions for each value chain component, and (iv) value chain stakeholder assessment with potential (new) roles and linkages. Different value chain stakeholders were involved and consulted in the development process. Biophysical and socio economic data were collected, followed by open ended interviews with focus groups and key stakeholders. The results were presented in a stakeholder workshop in which priority marketable 1

7 commodities were decided upon together with key intervention areas and partners. This initial rapid assessment was followed by some more detailed studies on selected commodities. Such studies were conducted by partner institutions and/or students and/or IPMS staff using formal surveys, interviews and observations. To implement the program at Woreda, Peasant Association (PA) and community levels, the project facilitated different knowledge management and capacity development approaches and methods to stimulate the introduction of the value chain interventions by the actors concerned. The various value chain interventions are documented by the project staff in the six monthly progress reports and the annual monitoring and evaluation (M&E) reports Data source To quantify the results from individual and/or combination of interventions, the project established a baseline and measured/documented changes. Several data sources were used to establish the baseline and to document changes and results Baseline information To establish a baseline, data from a formal baseline study and data from some special diagnostic studies were used. The initial PRA study also contributed to the quantitative and qualitative baseline information. Amongst others, the formal baseline study used PA level interviews and records to collect information on apiculture technology and the number of households involved in apiculture. This information was used to compile district level information on apiculture technology and households Documenting changes, processes and results Several sources were used for regular documentation of change processes and results, including six monthly progress reports, annual M&E reports, project data kept by the OoARD, personal observations and diaries. In Alaba, staff also monitored changes in production/productivity for 17 selected farmers on a regular basis over a three years period, in Wanja and Galato Peasant Associations (PAs). In 2009, the project also developed a set of guidelines for the PLW staff to systematically collect relevant information for the case studies including history, changes in extension services, value chain interventions (production, input supply, marketing and credit), results, challenges and lessons learned. Part of the information was obtained from the previously mentioned baseline and other sources and specially arranged (i) key informant interviews, (ii) a commodity stakeholder workshop, and (iii) a household level survey. 2

8 The stakeholder meeting was organized to establish the evolution of the roles and linkages of the value chain actors. The formal household survey conducted in 2009 obtained data from selected sample households in 10 PAs (Gubba Sherero, Galleto, Andgengna hansha, Yanbbo, Geremma, Wanjaa Weldeya, Angegna konicha, Ulegebba kukke, Besheno, Bendo cholockssa). These representative PAs were selected purposively to include both PAs targeted and non targeted by IPMS for market development. The survey data consists of relevant production and marketing information on apiculture including honey yield, number and types of beehives/hh, income from apiculture, production costs and inputs use, level of production, In selecting the sample households, with the aim of getting some idea about the effect of the different interventions, a distinction was made between households who had adopted/benefited from the various interventions and households who did not. In both sample groups, both wealth and gender criteria were considered to get a representative distribution of sample households. Following the collection of all relevant information, a write shop was organized to present information in a systematic manner. Drafts of the PLW specific commodity case studies were then reviewed by experts at IPMS Head Office. 3. Commodity Background 3.1. Description of the district Alaba Woreda (district) is located 310 km South of Addis Ababa and about 85 km South-West of Hawassa (IPMS, 2005). The Woreda is located geographically around 7017 N latitude and E longitude (Figure 1). It is located West of Oromia region, North of Hadiya (Silte), East of Kembata Tembaro, South-East of Silte and Hadiya zones. The total land area of the Woreda is 64, ha of which 48,337 ha (75%) is considered suitable for agriculture. There are 73 peasant associations (PAs) in the rural area and two urban associations in Alaba Kulito, the capital of the Woreda. According to 2004/05 population reports, the Woreda has a total population of 210,243, of which 104,517 (49.7%) are male and 105,726 (50.3%) are female. The total number of rural households in the 73 PAs is 35,719. Out of these, 26,698 (75%) are male headed and 9,021 (25%) are female headed households (IPMS, 2005). Most of the population is Muslim in religion. Agro-ecologically, the district is classified as Weina Dega (Tropical Climate). The altitude of the district ranges from 1554 to 2149 meters above sea level (m.a.s.l). The topography of the area is dominantly flat. The Woreda is suitable for crop production and the major crops grown are Pepper, Teff, Wheat, Maize, Haricot Bean, Sorghum and Millet. The annual rainfall varies from 857 to 1085 mm (bi-modal), while the annual mean temperatures also varies from 17 0 C to 20 0 C with mean value of 18 0 C. Despite the recurrent drought, flood has also been a major problem in the area. Teff/Haricot Bean and Pepper/Livestock are the two priority farming systems identified (IPMS, 2005). 3

9 Figure -1- Map of Alaba district 3.2. Apiculture history and diagnosis Ethiopia is the world s tenth biggest honey producer and the fourth largest beeswax producer after China, Mexico and Turkey. Owing to its varied ecological and climatic conditions, Ethiopia is home to some of the most diverse flora and fauna in Africa, making it highly suitable for sustaining a large number of bee colonies. Ethiopia reportedly has the largest bee population in Africa with over 10 million bee colonies, out of which 7.5 million are confined in hives and the remaining exist in the forest and cervices (Elfring et al, 2005). In 2005, the honey production in Ethiopia was estimated to be 24,600 tons per year (Elfring et al, 2005). Beekeeping in Ethiopia is a traditionally important off-farm activity for many rural people-both men and women and is carried out in home gardens and even housed in all parts of the county (Deffar, 1998; Elfring et al, 2005). The long tradition of beekeeping in Ethiopia goes back to time of King Ezana, around the 3rd century A.D (Girma et al, 2007). Forest beekeeping and backyard beekeeping are common cultural practices of many farmers and agro-pastorals (Elfring et al, 2005). Elfring et al (2005) indicate that the major constraints that affect apiculture in Ethiopia are lack of beekeeping knowledge, shortage of trained manpower,

10 shortage of beekeeping equipment, pests and predators, fires, pesticide threat and inadequate research works to support development programs. The resulting effect of low productivity and quality for rural beekeeper was pointed out by Girma et al (2007). In Ethiopia, honey productivity is very low. On average, 5-6kg of honey could be harvested per traditional hive per year, while one can get kg from modern hives (Elfring et al, 2005). The national average yield for honey is 5 kg, 13 kg and kgs from the traditional, transitional and modern hives respectively (IPMS, 2009). Apart from honey, another valuable product obtained from honey bees is beeswax. It is largely collected from traditional hives rather than the modern hives. The wax yield from traditional hives is 8-10 percent of the honey yield, compared to percent from modern hives (Deffar, 1998). Girma et al (2007) reviewed that beekeepers in Ethiopia are thinly scattered and the prevailing logistic problem to reach every beekeeper coupled with the small quantity of bee products available in the hands of the beekeeper as key marketing problem. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and Regional Bureaus have development strategies aimed at improving quality and quantity of honey and beeswax production. In fact in 1978 beekeeping extension started in Holeta with the establishment of a bee research and training center, and other four training centers for production and distribution of equipment and development of marketing access. The extension package of the current government is towards gradually replacing traditional beehives with modern wooden frame type (Elfring et al, 2005). Deffar (1998) has reviewed the extension effort under the Ministry of Agriculture as training, introduction of new technologies, production and distribution of equipment and institutional capacity building. Under the Federal Ministry, Holeta Bee Research Center, (HBRC), Asella and Agarfa Farmers Training Centers, Wondo Genet Forestry Colleges are responsible for research and training at national level. Technology introduction and adoption focused on modern beehives and low cost bee-keeping technologies (Deffar, 1998). The establishment of the Ethiopian Honey and Beeswax Producers and Exporters Association (EHBPEA) in 2005 has also positive effect in supporting the development efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture. The role of international and local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) mainly the involvement of SOS Sahael, SNV, World Vision-Ethiopia in support of government extension program in apiculture should also be mentioned as part of the development strategy at country level. An earlier value chain study and criteria based ranking of 29 commodity shows that honey and beeswax ranks third for South Nation Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR) and Oromia Region (Elfring et al, 2005). The study reflects the potential of honey and beeswax commodity for the nation and regions. The findings of the study agree with the commodity ranking undertaken in Alaba PLW (Pilot Learning Woreda) (IPMS, 2005). Honey and beeswax production in SNNPR accounts for 22% of the total production in 5

11 Ethiopia and the region ranks second next to Oromia Regional State (Girma et al, 2007). Although all the PAs in Alaba district are suitable for beekeeping, 30 PAs located in the Pepper/Livestock farming system and especially PAs in Besheno areas are known for having high potential for beekeeping. Despite the existence of high potential for apiculture, income from beekeeping is low and production is predominantly traditional. Beekeeping is an off-farm activity and less attention is given to this sector. Honey can fetch good price at local market and there is high demand for honey. However, the existing produce does not meet local demand (IPMS, 2005). Under the Regional Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD), the Alaba OoARD started efforts to boost honey production in Previous emphasis was on the supply of inputs, in particular modern and transitional beehives and an introductory farmers training on modern apiculture. In 2005, the number of modern hives distributed amounted to 138. Most of these hives were distributed with the help of EU funded food security project ( ) and the MERET project. The stakeholders identified several problems along the apiculture value chain including poor production, especially from the modern hives, poorly developed input supply and lack of marketing linkage for quality honey. Specifically, poor access to improved beehives and accessories, scarcity of bee forage, poor management, bee predators and effect of agro-chemicals on bees were highlighted. Adequate knowledge and skills for modern apiculture is lacking, coupled to these problems the resulting low yield and low occupancy of modern hives are also problems. Also institutional capacity in support of apiculture development was poor, since only one expert (trained by HBRC) was available (IPMS, 2005). Finally marketing of honey was limited. Key honey market actors were, three licensed honey traders, several collectors and consumers. Most of the produce ends up being consumed locally and small proportion reaches finally the local markets. Farmers are involved in individual marketing and no collective marketing took place. The market for clean honey from the modern hives was not developed (IPMS, 2005). 4. Commodity Value Chain Interventions The project efforts on apiculture value chain started in 2005, initially focusing on 17 farmers in 2 PAs (Wanja and Galato) and gradually increased to 12 PAs in IPMS project activity with apiculture farmers group includes farmers identification, group formation, problem identification and various capacity building efforts which include training, educational tour, demonstration, introduction of technology and credit service provision, improvements in input supply and marketing (see Table 1). 6

12 Table 1. Timeline of apiculture value chain interventions in Alaba Sept 10-13, 2005 Training on improvement and management of bee farm Jan 10-15, 2006 Preliminary Assessment of Beekeeping in Alaba Jan 20-23, 2006 Farmers selection, base line data for apiculture group and group formation Identification of 3 innovative apiculture farmers (Ashoka, Wanja April 2-8, 2006 and Guba PAs) May 16,2006 Farmers training on improved bee forages and planting April 2006 Introduction of 3 bee forages & demonstration (from HRBC) Educational tour for apiculture farmers to Nazerth Beza Mar May 3, 2006 P.L.C and Alage ATVET College. May 16, 2006 Training and demonstration on bee forage for farmers Provision of 6 queen excluders for demonstration with 2006 transitional Beehives. Credit provision for 17 farmers in Wanja and Galato PAs June, 2006 (51,000 Birr) April 27-28, 2007 Educational tour - Apiculture Study Tour to Sodo Zuria Woreda June to Nov 2007 Demonstration and practical training Forages (Bee forages) Aug 07-Feb 08 Documentation of indigenous knowledge Dec, 2007 Establishment of Apiculture cooperative Jan 21-23, 2008 Farmers training on Apiculture /Alem Tenna PA/ Jan 21-23, 2008 Farmers training on Apiculture /Guba Sheraro PA/ Dec 31-Feb 19, 2008 Farmers training on Colony multiplication at Alage ATVET College IPMS presentation on regional meeting on Farmers Research April 9-10, 2008 Group (in Gedo Zone) Tree Bee forage seedling provision ( for Apiculture groups in July Galato and Wanja ) Oct 12, 2008 Credit was provided for 15 farmers (47% women) (32,475 Birr) Oct 10, 2008 Training on wax printing (Wanja and Galato farmers) Apiculture farmers awareness creation & Drama on HIV/AIDS June 4, 2008 and Gender Establishment of Bee forage demonstration sites ( Guba and March 2008 Wanja) June 15, 2009 Seminar on apiculture for OoARD staff June 25, 2009 Promotion of wax and apiculture technology July 14, 2009 Stakeholder workshop on apiculture Sept 3-4, 2009 Rapid assessment of honey and beeswax marking in SNNPRS Aug 21, 2009 Seminar on apiculture for OoARD staff Source: IPMS progress reports 4.1. Extension service intervention Prior to 2005, knowledge and skill development on apiculture was general in scope and training was organized only once when beehives were provided. This has also resulted in poor supervision and lack of follow up for introduced technologies by staff from the OoARD. To improve knowledge, new methods of knowledge transfer included were: demonstration (on bee forage, apiary site establishment, wax printing, etc), farmer to farmer knowledge exchange, leaflet distribution, and farmers educational tour within and outside of the Woreda. To improve skills, the number of trainings provided for targeted 7

13 farmers increased with diversified topics focusing on specific issues like bee forage, modern beehives and apiary site management, improvement of traditional beehives, modern apiculture, bee-predator control and etc. This increase in frequency of training was also followed by increased supervision and follow up of farmers. Particular attention was paid to include women (see Table 2). Another innovation was the identification of innovative beekeepers/practices to learn and share lessons on new practices. Also, documentation of indigenous knowledge was undertaken and effort is exerted to link with development intervention like trainings. One of the useful practices was bee feeding in dry season. This practice is shared during trainings and field days. To improve the supply of inputs for beekeeping, the extension service also worked on bee colony development, forage development and marketing and linking with other actors in particular EU and MERET Projects. Linkages were also made with credit institutions to provide credit for new interventions. 8

14 Table 2. Overview of major knowledge management and capacity development activities Date Type of events Public Farmers/Private Male Female Male Female Total Male Total Female Total Participants Sept 10-13, 2005 Training Jan 10-15, 2006 Rapid Assessment 3 3 Jan 20-23, 2006 Targeting farmers April 2-8, 2006 Identify model farmers May 16, 2006 Training May 3, 2006 Study tour Apr 27-28, 2007 Study tour Dec 2007 Establish coop Dec 31-Feb 19, 2008 Training Jan 21-23, 2008 Training Jan 21-23, 2008 Training June 4, 2008 Training/drama July 23, 2008 Demonstration Oct 10, 2008 Training June 15, 2009 Seminars June 25, 2009 Promotion July 14, 2009 Workshop Aug 21, 2009 Seminar Sept 3-4, 2009 Meeting Source: IPMS progress reports

15 4.2. Apiculture production intervention The effort of OoARD/IPMS over the past four years was to demonstrate how small-scale farmers can have increased productivity and gained economic benefits from modern beekeeping. As mentioned in the extension interventions, particular attention was paid to modern bee keeping technologies including bee forage development (see input supply), colony splitting, hive management, apiculture site development and sanitation. Unlike previous attempts, where only one hive was distributed to a family, the number of hives distributed varied depending on the skills of participating farmers Input supply intervention in apiculture Beehives Traditional bee-hives were available in local markets (Guba, Kulito and Besheno), while modern hives were supplied through the BoARD/OoARD and the various safety net programs. The project partners tried to diversify the bee hive supply system by linking local carpenters to beekeepers.the beehives used by the targeted project farmers were in fact produced by these carpenters. The same applies to the nuclei boxes for colony splitting Bee forage In a review of the state of resource for beekeeping in Ethiopia, (Deffar, 1998) describes the degradation of natural resource and bee forage in Ethiopia. Ethiopia is suffering from the ecological deterioration of its natural resources and this means the basis of any honey production is threatened (Elfring et al, 2005). This problem was also diagnosed in Alaba Special district and the project, therefore, introduced three types of exotic bee forages: Tree Lucerne (Chamaecytisus palmensis) (50 gm), Leonorus sp. (20 gm), and Phacelia sp.(50 gm) from HBRC. Training on bee forage management was provided for farmers in Wanja and Galato PAs in 2007 and Bee colonies Key informants indicated that the most common form of getting beecolony was swarm trapping method. An alternative method of getting beecolony from adjacent area is to purchase from Sinkilee and Alem Gebeya markets. Group discussion with farmers shows that there are two types of bee-colony identified by farmers, the red colored Bisha Zi Za or Ye Chaka Nib and the black colored Gembella Zi Za or Tikur Nib. The former is aggressive and more productive than the latter. Bee-colony availability is restricted due to seasonality of forage and price has increased from 80 Birr/Colony to 350 Birr, reflecting the imbalance between supply and demand because of an increase in apiculture development. The strength of colony (density, aggressiveness, colony size) is the most determining parameter for setting the price. This lack of colonies was addressed by training on colony

16 multiplication at Alage ATVET College for 17 farmers. Small nuclei boxes are used for this technology Credit service intervention in apiculture Support for modern apiculture, mainly beehives, was undertaken by EU food security, MERET project and safety net projects through OoARD, and the support was limited to supply of one modern hive/hh. There was little or no involvement of official lending institutions in apiculture production. To improve sustainability of the credit supply as well as to diversify the use of credit for apiculture development, the Woreda Advisory and Learning Committee (WALC) reviewed the then existing potential lending institutions and recommended IPMS use the Alaba Menchenon Union to disburse its innovative credit fund. Credit was disbursed for farmers to purchase modern hives (varying from 1 to 5) and farmers who started colony splitting after having received training. To facilitate credit disbursement, the OoARD/IPMS organized 31 farmers into an apiculture cooperative. In the end 17 farmers qualified for credit to purchase beehives and its accessories Apiculture marketing intervention The project organized a study tour to Honey Processing Industry in Nazareth to make producers aware of quality requirements and possible linkages for the sale of extracted honey from modern hives. IPMS project and OoARD has also been disseminating honey market price at three open markets (Guba, Kulito and Besheno) using billboards. The OoARD, provided 10 honey extractors and wax printers on a demonstration basis for selected PAs in support of modern hive based apiculture development. In 2004 (2 honey extractors and 3 wax molders). In 2006, the number of honey extractors increased to Results and Discussions 5.1. Hives owned, honey production and income The effect of the various interventions in terms of hives/household, production/productivity and income from apiculture are assessed at household and district level. At household level Two sets of data are available to quantify various apiculture performance indicators at the household level. The first set of data is derived from monitoring of 17 farmers in Wanja and Galata PAs over a period of 2 years (see Tables 3 and 4). All farmers already had one modern hive in 2006 (obtained from other projects and programs), however production was zero, 11

17 except one farmer who harvested 42kg. With the help of credit provided, the number of modern hives gradually increased to 5 per household. Table 3. Summary statistics of hives owned, production, and productivity per hive for the 17 beekeepers in Wanja and Galeto PAs (Alaba) Year Number of hives owned/hh (N=17) Production (kg)/hh (N=17) Productivity (Kg/hive) * Hive type Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Obs Mean Min Max Traditional Transitional Modern Traditional Transitional Modern Source: Data from 17 farmers in Wanja and Galato PAs Note: * Productivity is calculated only for those households producing honey from the specific hive type The table shows that the productivity per hive type increased from 6.3kg to 9.5 kg/traditional hive and from 13.2 kg to 38.1kg/modern hive. Average household honey production from different hives increased from 63.9 kg to kg. In monetary terms, gross production value increased from Birr 1286 to Birr Table 4. Average income from honey production for the 17 beekeepers in Wanja and Galeto PAs Year Hive type Obs Mean* Std. Dev. Min Max Traditional Transitional Modern Total Traditional Transitional Modern Total Source: 17 beekeepers monitoring data (OoARD/IPMS, 2009) Note: Prices of honey from traditional and transitional hives is assumed to be 17Birr/kg whereas 22Birr/kg is considered for honey from modern hives. 12

18 Based on these data the following cost/benefit analysis is made for modern hives over two years period: Table 5. Benefit-Cost analyses on modern hive (based on observations from 17 farmers) Items Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 1. Benefits 1.1 Honey per hive (kg) Honey price (Birr/kg) Revenue per hive (a) Costs 2.1. Investment cost Bee hive (life span 10 years) (440.00) Bee colony (changed every 3 years) (66.70) Accessories (function for five years) (189.00) Total investment cost (b) (695.70) 2.2. Annual operation costs Hive cost (annual depreciation) Bee colony Interest rate on loan (12%) Accessories Total annual operation costs (c) Net Benefit (per hive per year ) (a-c) Undiscounted return over two years period (per hive) Undiscounted cost over two years period (per hive) Undiscounted net return over two years period Source: Data from 17 farmers in Wanja and Galato PA The above mentioned calculations indicate that farmers can on average make a profit in the second year of operation, on a condition that annual rainfall is good and hives are managed properly. Given the fact the most farmers have 5 hives, total gross revenue from modern hives in year 2 would be Birr 4,190. The second source of information was the project s household level commercialization survey conducted in 2009 from 10 PAs (see methods and approaches). Results are shown in Tables 9 and 10 Table 6. Average number of hives and occupancy rate Farmer type Number of hives owned per household Obs a Modern Transitional Traditional Occupancy rate of Modern hive (%) Adopters * 86.7 Non-adopters Source: IPMS household survey 2009 Note: a Number of sample households engaged in beekeeping * Significant at 10% significance level 13

19 As can be seen from Table 6, adopters on average have more hives, including traditional hives, however they have fewer modern hives than the specially targeted farmers in Wanja and Galeto (who on average had 5 hives/hh). This is in line with the previous/exiting strategy of providing farmers with one hive only. The average production and revenue from adopter households were about 3 times that of non-adopters, but much lower than the Wanja and Galeto farmers, which is explained by the fact that the sampled household farmers have fewer hives. Finally the productivity per hive type from the 2009 household survey is shown in Table 8 below. 14

20 Table 7. Average household production and value of production from apiculture Farmer type Average production (kg/hh) Production value (Birr/HH) a Obs Traditional Obs Transitional Obs Modern Obs Total Obs value Adopters ** *** *** Non-adopters Source: IPMS Household survey 2009 Note: a Average production value is calculated by multiplying the individual honey production from each hive type by the hive specific average honey prices for each group (adopters and non-adopters) in each PLW. HHs with hives but zero level of production are dropped out in calculating the average productions and values. *** and ** are significant at 1 and 5% significance level, respectively. Table 8. Honey productivity per hive (kg/hive in hive types) Farmer type Traditional a Transitional b Modern b Obs Mean Min Max Obs Mean Min Max Obs Mean Min Max Adopters * Source: a IPMS (2008) monitoring data and b IPMS household survey 2009 Note: * There is no data on the productivity of traditional beehives On average, beekeepers harvest 26.7kg of honey per modern hive. The average productivity from traditional and transitional hives is 9.5 and 23 kg per hive, respectively.