Bees for Development Journal Edition 121 - December 2016 / January 2017

Page 1

Bees for development

JOURNAL

No 121 Dec 2016 / Jan 2017

• BEE AUDACIOUS • DARWINIAN BEEKEEPING • FOREST CONSERVED BY BEEKEEPERS • APIMONDIA & FAO NEWS • GREAT NEW BOOKS

The Journal for sustainable beekeeping 1


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

Dear friends

The beekeeping techniques used in simple, natural beekeeping allow honey bee populations to evolve and to survive well. Indeed, on pages 9 – 13 of this Journal you can read about beekeeping in the rainforest of South West Ethiopia and recent work done by us for the international cosmetic company,

Issue 121: Dec 2016/Jan 2017 In this issue

page

Inside information......................... 2 Darwinian Beekeeping................. 3 Bee Audacious .......................... 4-8 Honey trade conserves forests in Ethiopia................................ 9-13 FAO News....................................14 Apimondia News.........................15 Bob Malichi .................................16 News, Look Ahead................. 17, 19 Bookshelf.....................................18 Bees for Development Journal Produced quarterly and sent to readers in over 130 countries Editor: Nicola Bradbear PhD Co-ordinator: Helen Jackson BSc Subscriptions cost £26 per year - see page 18 for ways to pay Readers in developing countries may apply for a sponsored subscription. Apply online or use the form on page 20. Bees for Development Works to assist beekeepers in developing countries.

The Body Shop, to confirm for them that the beekeepers are harvesting honey and beeswax in highly sustainable ways, and indeed helping to safeguard the precious rainforest. We have argued many times for careful use of beekeeping vocabulary! We encourage an end to the use of unhelpful terms, ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ beekeeping, descriptions that are widely, inaccurately, and unscientifically used elsewhere. We are delighted now to welcome a new term to our beekeeping vocabulary: Darwinian beekeeping. Professor Tom Seeley described this concept, at the Bee Audacious gathering which took place in California in December. It is a perfect, scientific description of the simple, natural beekeeping that is practised by many readers of this Journal. We might even say that it is traditional! Nicola Bradbear Director, Bees for Development

TECA FAO discussions teca.fao.org

Adulteration of honey 14 April to 7 May Moderated by Etienne Bruneau, President of the Technology and Quality Commission of Apimondia, Head of CARI asbl, Centre for Beekeeping Research and Information, Belgium.

Simplified field methods for diagnosing bee diseases

3 July to 7 August Moderated by Giovanni Formato, Head of the Beekeeping Laboratory, at the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale (Regional Institute for Animal Diseases), Latium and Tuscany Italy. These discussions are at Beekeeping Exchange Group at www.teca.fao.org

Photo © Bees for Development

For many years now Bees for Development has been promoting the concept of simple, natural beekeeping as practised today in many countries worldwide. In these pages, we have described how honey and beeswax harvested from forest beekeeping meet the world’s highest criteria for these products - because the honey bee populations are healthy and, because beekeepers never treat their bees with medicines, the honey and beeswax are always free from any residues of these medicines - a problem that besets much of the world’s industrialised beekeeping.

Bees for Development Trust gratefully acknowledge Charles Hayward Foundation, The Daylesford Foundation, Eva Crane Trust, E.H. Thorne Ltd, The Waterloo Foundation, and the many groups and individuals who support our work. Copyright You are welcome to translate and/or reproduce items appearing in Bees for Development Journal (BfDJ) as part of our Information Service. Permission is given on the understanding that BfDJ and author(s) are acknowledged, BfD contact details are provided in full, and you send us a copy of the item or the website address where it is used.

Bees for development 1 Agincourt Street Monmouth NP25 3DZ, UK Telephone: +44 (0)1600 714848 info@beesfordevelopment.org www.beesfordevelopment.org 2

Cover picture Paulos Makos (left) teaches Biniyam Abebe, BfD’s Research Coordinator, about the large and beautifullymade log hives utilised by Mejengir beekeepers in forests of south west Ethiopia. With the roof in place, this hive will be suspended high in a tree, ready to become occupied by a wild honey bee colony.


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

Photo © Sierra Salin

Darwinian beekeeping By Professor Tom Seeley, Professor of Biology at Cornell University, New York, USA

Darwinian beekeeping means applying Darwin’s understanding of how evolution works, to arrive at organisms that are well adapted to the problems that they face. The heart of this idea is for we beekeepers to allow honey bee colonies to live as they have evolved to live in nature, rather than manipulating them to live in ways that benefit us. Tom Seeley (right) is a proponent of Darwinian beekeeping

In Darwinian beekeeping, we let the bees live in our hives as they do in the wild, as for example, when they are nesting in a hollow tree. When we do this, we do two things:

2. In the longer term, we allow natural selection to continue operating on these bees, which is particularly important for enabling them to maintain their natural resistance to diseases. This contrasts with normal practice in countries like North America, where current beekeeping may be described as ‘non-Darwinian’. Just some examples of this: • We purchase queen bees that originate from regions with different climates, so that we end up with bees that are not well-adapted for the local climate. • We crowd colonies within apiaries, in a way that is very different from how they live in the wild. Crowded apiaries foster the spread of disease, and favour the evolution of more virulent strains of diseases. • We eliminate highly defensive, or ‘aggressive’ colonies: we are just learning that these are also the most vigorous colonies! • We house colonies in large, thin walled hives: these make it harder for the bees to keep their nest warm, and the larger available space also reduces their propensity for swarming which is their means of reproduction. • We use treatments against Varroa mites: by ‘protecting’ the bees this way we eliminate the possibility of selection for resistance to Varroa.

Photo © University of Huddersfield

1. We respect the natural features of honey bee behaviour and physiology: these are aspects of their biology that have been exquisitely shaped by natural selection to help them to survive and to reproduce.

Of course, in North America, Darwinian beekeeping is most easily practised by the small-scale beekeeper. However, this is an idea that every beekeeper needs to consider, if we are to understand fully our relationship with bees. Tom Seeley discusses Darwinian beekeeping further in the next BfD Journal 122. Bees for Development is proud to have Professor Tom Seeley as Patron of our organisation. See Tom being interviewed by fellow Patron, Bill Turnbull on our website: www.beesfordevelopment.org/about-us/staff-patronstrustees-and-volunteers/professor-tom-seeley/

An African yegilo hive placed high in a Polyscias fulva tree in Sheka forest in Ethiopia. This type of African beekeeping is Darwinian beekeeping, and the bees are abundant and healthy – see pages 9-13 3


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

Bee audacious! It was reading a letter in the April 2015 edition of Bee Culture Magazine that finally motivated Bonnie Morse to organise the unique Bee Audacious event that has just taken place in California. In his letter, Mark Winston, Professor and Senior Fellow at Simon Fraser University in Canada, had called for ‘Audacious ideas for the future of beekeeping’, arguing that for honey bees to survive, and for their health to improve, there has to be agricultural change and evolution of beekeeping itself1.

After two days of workshops, the Conference culminated with the presentation of new ideas aimed at shaking up the status quo of beekeeping and farming, to reverse a worsening epidemic in which it has become ‘normal’ for 50% of honey bee colonies in North America to die each year.

Mark Winston ‘The coolest bee meeting I have ever attended!’ “We need to create a lobby that would advocate for habitat, and to stop the misuse and abuse of pesticides.”

Jim Frazier, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at Penn State University, said the goal of the conference, which was to drum up as many “audacious and bold” ideas as possible, was achieved.

Tammy Horn’s suggestion of forming a Bee Corps to function as an educational arm was widely applauded. Others proposed the formation of a National Pollinator Alliance to work the political front, advocating for the environment and conservation.

Chas Mraz of Champlain Valley Apiaries, a Vermont-based honey producer, was among the thought leaders: ‘What we really lack - that others have – is a lobby,” he said. All images, with thanks © Sierra Salin

Bonnie set to work planning Bee Audacious, with Mark Winston, Marla Spivak and Tom Seeley joining her as advisors. And so it happened that a group of constructive, collaborative, and thoughtful people bringing experience from a wide variety

of bee-related sectors, from six countries, and 24 States of USA, were invited to spend days, not listening to lectures, but provided with time and space to think and reflect on our approach to bees and beekeeping, and to audaciously suggest fresh ways to address some of the problems that bees face.

Mark Winston is writing up the many proposals generated by the conference, and this will be published in March 2017. For now, here are five Audacious ideas from Bee Audacious thought leaders:

1. Small hive beekeeping by Tom Seeley, Professor of Biology, Cornell University Perhaps my idea is no longer terribly audacious, given the growing interest in natural beekeeping, but it is that we embrace another way of keeping bees besides the standard approach of managing colonies to be 1) as large as possible, 2) as disinclined to swarm as possible, and 3) as productive of honey as possible. Specifically, I am suggesting an alternative approach that enables bees to live more like they do in the wild, and (hopefully) to enjoy the health that I am finding wild Mark Winston Beekeeping should change Bee Culture April 2015 pp 13-15 1

Gary and Bonnie Morse, creators of the Bee Audacious gathering. 4


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

colonies possess. I am calling this approach “small-hive beekeeping” for it involves keeping colonies in one deep 10-frame Langstroth hive body for the broodnest and honey stores, along with one shallow super over a queen excluder for the honey crop. This housing arrangement has the following features: 1. the colony occupies a small nest cavity (like in wild colonies), 2. the colony is likely to swarm each summer (as do wild colonies), 3. the colony produces a modest surplus of honey for the beekeeper. I think this approach will be attractive to beekeepers who do not want to treat their bees for Varroa, do not mind if their bees swarm, and do not seek a vast quantity of honey from each hive of bees. This approach might also be strongly attractive to beekeepers who are unwilling or unable to invest in an extractor, bottling tank, uncapping knife, and the other equipment needed for extracting honey. For these folks, the honey super could be used to produce comb honey.

I will be testing this approach by creating apiaries managed in this way and seeing what levels of disease and colony mortality I find, and what size honey crops I obtain. As background, I have completed a 6-year study in which I have transferred swarms caught in bait hives into hives consisting of one deep, 10-frame Langstroth hive body with drawn combs, and have then left the colonies alone (no disease treatments, no feeding, no swarm prevention measures, and no honey harvests). I have found that nearly every colony changes its queen each year (probably by swarming), that the Varroa counts in these colonies stay low, and that most (80%) of these colonies survive each year.

2. Small and large scale beekeeping by Marla Spivak, MacArthur Fellow, Distinguished McKnight Professor, University of Minnesota There could be a separation of bee stocks and management practices between large-scale and small-scale beekeepers. Smallscale beekeepers could rely on locally and regionally bred stocks

Tammy Horn – her audacious idea is to establish a Bee Corps (and swarms collected from Tom Seeley’s small colonies!), and end their reliance on queens, package bees and nucs from other regions. Small-scale beekeepers in different regions would need to develop new management practices that work in their region, including when they can obtain new bees. The results would be more locally adapted stocks that require fewer or no mite treatments.

Bee Audacious participants, pictured among the woodlands at Marconi Conference Center in California

5


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

research around the planet on many high-value crops. While the results vary by crop, the general picture is that the 20,000 or so species of wild bees not only have excellent potential to perform most crop pollination, but they are already doing so in areas where agricultural practices have not diminished their numbers. For wild bees, it’s all about habitat. They require diverse nectar and pollen sources in and around crops to sustain their numbers when the crop isn’t blooming, and habitat in which they can nest. Proactive practices to encourage robust wild bee populations include reducing herbicide and insecticide use and planting hedgerows and floral strips in which bees can nest and forage. Wolfgang Ritter, Kristy Lynn Allen and Sierra Salin Large-scale, migratory beekeepers that move bees for pollination services and honey production, would obtain queens, packages and nucs from current commercial bee suppliers. Large-scale beekeepers would use bee-appropriate livestock management principles, such as treating in unison right before or after almond pollination, or during other appropriate window of time(s), and removing (eliminating) diseased colonies from apiaries. All States could employ a 2-3 mile limit between apiaries owned by different beekeepers, whether an apiary has 3 or 200 colonies, to reduce density of colonies and limit horizontal transmission everywhere.

3. Pollination prominence for wild bees by Mark Winston, Professor and Senior Fellow, Simon Fraser University Centre for Dialogue My audacious idea is to turn pollination management upside down, making wild bees the primary crop pollinator and reducing honey bees to a minor role as supplemental pollinators. What would it take for wild bees to achieve pollination prominence, and how might beekeepers still earn an income from pollination? There has been a recent explosion of studies into using wild bees as commercial pollinators, including

Beekeepers might shift to become habitat managers, earning income by designing and implementing management zones and practices that foster and sustain wild bee populations. Honey bees would be a part of this system, but diminished from the current model in which colonies are moved long distances, often several times a year and possibly to their detriment. Government could assist through subsidies targeted to shift agriculture into pollinatorfriendly directions. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent globally each year supporting industrial agriculture, and if even ten per cent of those funds were moved into ecologically based farming, we would see a significant improvement in wild bee diversity

Fanny Mondet, French National Bee Lab.; Marla Spivak; Paul Fert and Joris Villalba, Observatoire Français d’Apidologie

6


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

and abundance. By reducing pressure on honey bees, we would also see significant improvements in honey bee health.

4. A new model for funding and conducting bee research by J.L. Frazier, Professor Emeritus of Entomology, Penn State University. I would like to suggest that we develop a new model for funding and conducting bee research that will result in increased efficiency of funding and enhancing the impacts of results on public understanding and policy. The federal funding of academic research has become so burdensome that researchers have too little time to spend on the conduct of research. I would suggest the BBSRC model of research funding as a departure point for discussion that offers improvements in overall efficiency; a limit of eight pages maximum for the project description, reviewers suggested by the Principle Investigator, reviewers comments returned to the PI to respond to them, and then all comments to the grant panel for evaluation. This process thus reduces the time to write and review proposals, and prevents misunderstood reviewers’ comments from having undue influence in the panel evaluation process. In his classic book, Toxic Exposures, Phil Brown argues that the public understanding

and following policy impacts of a scientific issue are reliant mostly on the personal experiences of people with the issue, rather than a plethora of science results, thus I propose we involve citizen science volunteers into our routine research efforts. This would reduce personnel costs, while giving highly motivated volunteers the opportunity to learn from experience the significance and demands of research. The current public policy response to the annual downturn of 30-45% of honey bees, the third most important animal in the US food system, belies the critical nature of the problem as well as its importance in sustaining our food supply. Bee researchers need to be involved in changing this scenario.

5. A new alliance by William Klett, Commercial beekeeper As panic and desperation begin to take hold in the face of low commodity prices, there is talk of taking up the next USA Farm Bill in the near term. Whether this happens, whenever the next one is being drawn up, an alliance of beekeepers, wildlife interests, organic/sustainable agriculture people and their concerned consumers needs to step up and insist upon a place at the table. This need not be hostile toward the big agriculture interests already benefitting from taxpayer support systems. It should be focused on stating what is obvious and reasonable: if the public is going to

Commercial beekeeper, William Klett support agriculture, there should be incentives to use land in a way that produces food with minimal chemical input and that supports pollinators and wildlife. Ideologies and peripheral issues, dear to us as they may be, should be kept to an absolute minimum. We’re not out to make enemies or further polarize people. There is nothing extreme about advocating for land use that doesn’t eradicate habitat and contaminate land, air and water. I don’t think there will be anything easy about this. But if land use doesn’t change for the better and soon, what future do pollinators and wildlife really have?

The event consisted of dozens of groups, engaged in thought and dialogue. Each discussion followed Chatham House Rules, providing anonymity to speakers and encouraging openness and sharing of information

7


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

The event was organised by Bonnie and Gary Morse of Bonnie Bee & Company. Bee Audacious was sponsored by Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Lush, Community Partners and Friends. It was made possible with help from an army of generous and willing volunteers, many from Marin County Beekeepers. We thank organisers of the Bee Audacious event for sponsoring Nicola Bradbear’s participation. More details at beeaudacious.com with further content being continuously added. Visit this link to watch the Bee Audacious concluding panel presentations: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=gDkR7looBio&fea ture=youtu.be We will publish more Audacious ideas in future edition of BfD Journal. (left) Nicole Armos and her team of 17 note takers were crucial to the process, transcribing everyone’s Audacious ideas and group conclusions

Why not organise your own Bee Audacious dialogue? What is dialogue? “Debate is a conversation with sides, dialogue is a conversation with a centre.” William Issacs Dialogue is a concentrated conversation among equals. It offers helpful ways to work together cooperatively, encourages mutual understanding between diverse perspectives, and leads to stable, resilient outcomes. Productive dialogue is entered with a spirit of curiosity, an interest in continually learning from and with others, and a willingness to be changed. Instead of arguing, convincing and advocating for what one already knows, dialogue encourages one to enter a space of the unknown: exploring diverse experiences and values, as well as points of agreement and disagreement.

Ideas for impactful dialogue: Be open to other perspectives: Disagreement is normal – use this as an opportunity to clarify and understand new ideas. Be inquisitive: Ask thoughtful questions and listen openly to the answers (e.g. What do you mean? Tell me more. What leads you to believe this?) Speak personally: share stories of lived experiences and personal values rather than set opinions. Be disciplined in your participation: brief, focused and on topic, leaving time for others. And do let us know if you plan to organise an Audacious event! 8


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

Honey trade conserves forests in Ethiopia

The Body Shop is an international cosmetics company aiming for high environmental sustainability standards when sourcing ingredients, and to use trade to promote biodiversity conservation. In 2016 The Body Shop asked Bees for Development to undertake a sustainability study of forest beekeeping in Ethiopia, to determine whether forest beekeeping and the harvest of honey and beeswax cause harm to the environment, and to seek any positive link between honey trade and forest conservation. Background The rainforests of Sheka Zone, Ethiopia, are centres of high biodiversity and the forests remain relatively intact. The importance of these forests has been recognised by categorisation as a UN Biosphere Reserve in 2013. Government regulations outlaw forms of forest exploitation such as logging and clear-felling, yet against this background deforestation and forest degradation continues (Sutcliffe et al. 2012). Forest beekeeping is widespread and a well-established activity for income generation, with large volumes of honey and beeswax traded in the area. The forest provides all the natural resources – bees, flowers, and hive-making materials - that are required.

Methodology The study was undertaken in The Body Shop’s honey supply areas. Primary data was collected through a household questionnaire involving sixty beekeepers, group discussions with farmer-led honey trading groups and interviews with key informants. Secondary data was also consulted. The honey supply

locations have seen considerable forestry conservation and NTFP enterprise intervention in recent years. The NTFP-PFM Project1 ran from 2003-2013, and is now continuing with new funding and a new name, REPAFMA2. This project was the source of important information about the status of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) agreements in the area.

Photos © Bees for Development

Janet Lowore and Nicola Bradbear

Results

Honey bee health and population status “I always find adequate bee swarms occupying my hives as I expected.” Nesiro Shifa, Gemechu Honey bee health and population status were gauged only through beekeeper interviews. No population or health surveys were conducted. Results are shown in Table 1. Beekeepers said that they have never observed symptoms of honey bee disease. Many beekeepers (more than half) considered that there were fewer swarms than usual this year– and some gave reasons which included the weather and normal yearly fluctuations. Others mentioned possible harm caused by chemicals used in plantations. When asked if there will be enough bees in the future, if the number of beekeepers increases, 45% expressed confidence that “bees reproduce – there will be enough”. Others were less certain (30%) or said they did not know (25%).

HONEYMANIA – one of The Body Shop products featuring honey from Sheka rainforest in Ethiopia Impact of hive-making on availability of forestry resources “It might seem a lot is extracted because of the hives we make - but it is balanced - what we put in - in terms of conservation - is greater than the taking out of hives.” Chairperson, Shuno Begatti Honey Co-op The Body Shop asked if hivemaking caused forest degradation.

Table 1. Responses to questions about the status of the honey bee population Question (N = 60)

Yes

No

Don’t know

In general, is the overall population of honey bees healthy?

55 (92%)

0

5 (8%)

Compared with a normal year, are there enough bee colonies to occupy empty hives this year?

22 (37%)

37 (62%)

1 (1%)

If the number of beekeepers increases – will there be enough bees for everyone?

27 (45%)

18 (30%)

15 (25%)

9


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

Beekeepers in South West Ethiopia show great skill in hive making. Made with local and free materials like bamboo, vines, and twine, these hives make beekeeping accessible and financially rewarding for many. These hives were made by Gazao Likasa in Supe, Illubabor There are two main types of beehives used in these forests. Yegilo are seasonal hives placed and taken down each year. These are made of hollowed out logs. Bajo are permanent hives and colonies remain from one year to the next. These are made from bamboo, grass, leaves and twine. Bamboo grows fast and is quickly replenished, therefore the study focussed on the making of yegilo log hives because trees are felled to make these hives. By using the PFM database (REPAFMA 2016) we calculated that each household has access to 5 ha of forest. Beekeepers provided information about the size of trees harvested to make hives and preferred species. This data was combined with inventory data (Yilma et al 2010) to estimate that the forest can support a sustainable offtake of 4.8 suitable trees per ha. This means a potential offtake of 5x4.8 = 24 trees per year per household. We learned that each beekeeper makes 35 new yegilo each year, and 9.7 yegilo per tree. Both figures are derived from the questionnaire. This means that 3.6 trees are used per beekeeper. As the sustainable offtake is 24 trees per household per year this suggests that cutting trees for

beehive making is well within the sustainable limit. Conservation actions by individuals and communities “You ask about how we take care of the forest.You do not need to ask - the evidence can be seen the forest is here; the forest is the evidence”. Belay Gerito, Gecha The fact that forest beekeeping does not cause forest degradation is only part of the story. Where forest is under pressure, positive actions must be taken to combat or mitigate drivers of forest loss. Questions were asked about how individuals and communities protect trees. Beekeepers said they were aware of the need to balance use with protection and the economic importance of forest for honey production is strongly understood. During the group discussions and the beekeeper questionnaire, many respondents gave positive, forthright comments describing their commitment to forest conservation. Some stated their love for forest more than anything else, “We love forest more than money”, while many explained that economic reasons motivated them, “Because the beekeepers benefit more from the forest than non-beekeepers through 10

honey production”. According to the questionnaire results, hive ownership has increased by 70% in the last ten years, since The Body Shop started buying honey. 50% of respondents said that beekeepers are more committed to forest conservation than nonbeekeepers because of the economic gain derived from honey. Of those interviewed (all beekeepers) honey ranked among the top three most important sources of income, and for half the beekeepers, honey was their most important source of income. For teenagers and youngsters who are still living at home, forest beekeeping is their only opportunity for personal income as they have no farm or livestock of their own, and much of this income is spent on their education. 59 out of 60 people said that should the honey price rise further3, they would put yet more effort into forest conservation. Individually 95% of all respondents said that they took some action to balance forest use with replacement. Strategies they employ to ensure harvested trees are replaced include: • Planting trees • Protecting seedlings from cattle, fire and competing vegetation


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

• Checking seedlings and saplings are emerging before felling larger trees • Checking the direction of tree-felling to avoid crushing seedlings and saplings • Leaving trees in farmland when forest is cleared for crops • Taking care of coppice regrowth • Taking care of yegilo so that they do not rot, and need not be replaced so often 70% of households in the study area are beekeeping households, and the cumulative actions of many individual beekeepers must make significant contribution to overall forest protection. However, if an individual protects a tree from fire, this does not stop another person from later cutting the tree down. For that to occur, forest management must occur also at institutional level. There are two main institutional mechanisms which support forest management in the area: kobo and Participatory Forest Management (PFM). Kobo Kobo is a forest land ownership system, devised so that beekeepers could stake a claim for places to hang bee hives. Of 49 kobo-holders, 40 (82%) said that they maintained their kobo primarily for honey, while 9 mentioned ‘land asset’ as the main motivating factor. Of the 50 respondents who answered this question, 11 (22%) said kobo was getting weaker, 6 (12%) said no change and 33 (66%) said it was getting stronger. Using kobo as a proxy indicator for honey-trade leading to forest conservation is a good one – but not a perfect one. A person who protects their kobo may be protecting their kobo from other beekeepers who wish to hang their bee hives, or may be protecting the kobo plot so they can use it for forest-coffee. A notable number of kobo-owners said their sons were in the future likely to maintain their kobo– another indicator of the security of the forest. Several respondents said that PFM had strengthened kobo because it legitimised this customary form of ownership – which is not recognised by government.

Participatory Forest Management PFM agreements give people legal rights to their forest land, within certain guidelines. In all other instances, government does not recognise communities as legitimate owners of forest. The responsibility for managing PFM forests lies with a local Forest Management Association (FMA) and 36 out of 60 (60%) of people gave at least one concrete example of how they personally supported PFM, e.g. by volunteering their labour to patrol boundaries. Evidence that a community accepts PFM can be seen from people’s responses about the impact of coffee prices. Most respondents (78%) said that they thought it unlikely that people would replace forest with coffee, even if the coffee price increased – giving the following reasons: • Because the forest is now under legal protection through PFM. Its boundary is demarcated and physically marked. • Because the forest is now owned by communities under a PFM agreement and the agreement forbids changing of forest land into other uses. • The forest in our village is managed under PFM. It is strictly

forbidden by our PFM agreement to change the forest in to coffee plots. Discussion This study strongly supports the conclusion that forest beekeeping does not harm the environment. Unlike most forms of agriculture, forest beekeeping does not require land clearance and the principal resources which are harvested are nectar and pollen from flowers, which are readily replenished. Moreover, these resources are provided to bees as an incentive for them to visit flowers and bring about pollination. Collection of the resources, nectar and pollen, brings about pollination and thus secures biodiversity. In this way, forest beekeeping is not just harmless, it is beneficial to the environment. Honey bee disease outbreaks, especially caused by exotic pathogens, are an increasing concern in industrialised countries. Yet honey bees have a range of genetically determined physiological and morphological characteristics which enable them to cope with and adapt to hazards such as pests, diseases, and environmental conditions. It is

Beekeepers on the way to the forest to hang hives. The hives have been stored in the forest 11


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

increasingly understood that lessintensively managed bees develop and maintain genetic fitness with greater success than intensively managed colonies (Lowore and Bradbear 2012). On the question of bee health, the results indicate that the bees are symptom-free. This is as expected and consistent with widespread evidence that Apis mellifera populations across sub-Saharan Africa are healthy – largely because of the bees are living extensively, and not intensively. There is a close correlation between honey bee health and type of management, and Ethiopian forest beekeepers are at the natural end of the spectrum, which ensures genetic fitness and honey bee well-being. Sustainability of hive-making At the current rate of usage, hive-making is well below the sustainable harvesting rate of trees used for hives. There is no evidence to suggest that hivemaking causes forest degradation. Whole forest management and protection Beekeepers take a range of individual actions to ensure that the use of trees for hivemaking is balanced with the rate of replenishment, and these actions are extremely important in maintaining the forest. The forest is however under threat from competing land uses, both small-scale crop-growing, and large-scale plantation agriculture. At community level, local respect for kobo is significant and appears to be largely driven by the value people place on the forest for honey production. Yet kobo is not a system recognised by government and has no legal backing. This is where PFM is important. PFM protects forests from outside interests and forest clearance. PFM gives local people recognition as the legitimate owners of the forest, for the first time, provided they abide by an agreed set of rules. In Anderacha and Masha, evidence to date suggests PFM has been successful. Evidence for its success has been falling deforestation rates (NTFP-PFM 2013) and testimonials from respondents.

Young beekeeper being interviewed. Hanging hives requires no capital, and for many boys, beekeeping is a source of income they can start while in school – and can help pay for fees and school books It is important to note that local support for PFM is not driven by honey alone. People see their forest as an asset – but in the future the actual economic benefit derived from that asset may change. If the honey market collapsed, local people would still want their land – as perhaps another economic opportunity may emerge e.g. coffee or spices. Without PFM, the government may allocate forest land to private investors to establish tea, rubber or coffee plantations, so depriving local people of this asset. This is a very important consideration. The link between honey trade and the motivations and mechanisms for forest conservation Beekeepers recognise the value of forest for honey production and take actions to protect forest – both individually and at community level. Yet forests are maintained for many reasons, 12

not just honey. This makes it hard to attribute falling deforestation rates in PFM forests to increased honey trade alone. There are other contributing factors. One way to make a direct and incontrovertible link between honey trade and forest conservation is to invest the financial proceeds of honey trade into forest management. And there are examples of this in Anderacha. The Shuno-Begatti Honey Marketing Co-operative is a beekeeper-run group that buys and sells honey. They have an institutional link with their local Forest Management Association who have responsibility for managing their PFM forest, which is the source of their honey. ShunoBegatti buy and sell honey and make profit, which is distributed to members. A percentage is retained and passed on to the FMA to help them to cover the costs associated with forest management. This is an


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

example of a direct and traceable link between honey trade and forest maintenance. Bees for Development concludes that forest beekeeping does not cause forest degradation, and honey trade provides an economic incentive for local people to take forest protection actions at both individual and community level. Participatory Forest Management gives local people governmentrecognised rights to use and protect their forests, especially from private investment. Honey production is one reason – but not the only one – why local people support PFM. Supporting honey co-ops such as Shuno Begatti which provide financial support to PFM, can strengthen the link between honey trade and forest conservation. However, such co-ops do not handle large quantities of honey. We suggest that there might be ways for other honey trading channels to make a financial

contribution to PFM. The easiest and obvious way would be for honey traders and trading groups to pay a forest conservation support fee to their local FMA. If this were voluntary, it might avoid being seen as a tax which would probably be very unpopular and perhaps counterproductive. Another way to strengthen the link might be for The Body Shop to give an annual Honey Forests Conservation Award to the FMA which most strongly demonstrated their forest conservation achievements. REFERENCES Lowore, J. and Bradbear, N. 2012. Extensive beekeeping. Bees for Development Journal, 103, June 2012. NTFP-PFM South-West Ethiopia, Forested landscapes, and livelihood project. 2013. End of Project Evaluation Report. ENV 2006 114229. Submitted to SLA and its partners by LTS International Ltd. 5th October 2013

REPAFMA, 2016. Database of Participatory Forest Management forest blocks with status and area. Sutcliffe, P., Wood, A. and Meaton, J. 2012. Competitive forests – making forests sustainable in south-west Ethiopia, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 19:6, 471-481 Yilma, Z., Yohannes, T. and Sutcliffe, P. 2010. Forest inventory Ethiopian Montane Cloud Forest, Mizan Teferi, January 2010. An NTFP-PFM Project Report.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We commend The Body Shop for initiating this important study and for their continuing commitment to sourcing honey and beeswax from beekeeping communities in Africa. We thank Mr Biniyam Abebe for his excellent field work, and staff of REPAFMA for advice and information.

Full title: Forest landscape sustainability and improved livelihoods through non-timber forest product development and payment for environmental services. Project managed by University of Huddersfield and Ethio-Wetlands and Natural Resource Association (EWNRA) 2003-2013. 2 REPAFMA = REDD+ Participatory Forest Management in South-West Ethiopia. This Project is managed by EWNRA and was preceded by ten years of related work under the auspices of the NTFP-PFM Project. 3 Beekeepers tell that the honey price has already risen in recent years. 1

Thick forest in Anderacha. The main honey tree is Schefflera abyssinica. Interestingly this is an epiphyte and starts its life cycle growing on other trees, and will eventually grow into a tree up 30m tall. 13


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

Convention on Biological Diversity in 20021.

FAO News

Observance of World Bee Day Stephen Dowd, FAO Conference, Council and Government Relations Branch Members of the Committee on Agriculture (COAG) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) have overwhelmingly backed a proposal by Slovenia to establish a World Bee Day, to be celebrated every 20 May. The proposal is expected to be endorsed by the FAO Conference in July 2017, and then submitted to the UN Secretary-General for approval by the General Assembly session opening in September 2017. The draft Resolution draws attention to the urgent need to address the global decline in pollinator diversity and the risks this implies for sustainable agriculture, human livelihoods and food supplies. FAO plays a leading role in facilitating and coordinating the International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Pollinators, established by the

Slovenia, with the backing of Apimondia, has stressed the crucial role of bees in ensuring global food security, sustainable agriculture, biodiversity, healthy environments and eco-systems. COAG Members shared Slovenia’s concern over the decline in bee colonies worldwide and Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union, highlighted the multiple threats faced by bees, including intensive agricultural production techniques, incorrect pesticide use, pests, pollution, diseases and a shrinking habitat. FAO has noted that over the past 50 years world agriculture has become increasingly dependent on pollinators, with insect/animalpollination-derived food produce increasing four-fold compared to a two-fold increase in produce that is not dependent on animal pollination2. The research comes at a time when wild and managed bee populations are not keeping up with the increase in pollinationdependent crops. According to a recent FAO study, pollination is the agricultural “input” with the greatest impact on global yields compared to human agricultural practices3. The FAO research project demonstrates that improving pollinator density and diversity is good both for the environment and for food security and argues in favour of actively preserving and nurturing habitats in and around farms for bees and

other pollinators. Bees are struggling as global temperatures rise, with flowers in some parts of the world blooming out of season, when the bees are not there to pollinate them. FAO members stressed that bees are accurate bio-indicators of the state of health of the environment and offer a way of gauging climate change. The Russian Federation spoke at COAG in favour of beekeeping as a deeply-rooted and popular activity, while Bangladesh spoke of the symbolic importance of bees as industrious and disciplined agricultural agents. Thailand highlighted the role of bees in traditional medicine. Overwhelming and cross-regional support was given to the World Bee Day initiative as a way of raising awareness at all levels and to promote action in favour of protecting bees and other pollinators. May 20 has been proposed as it is the birth date of Anton Janša (1734–1773), a pioneer of beekeeping, considered to be the world’s first beekeeping teacher. Empress Maria Theresa of Austria named Anton a full-time teacher of beekeeping at the new Beekeeping School in Vienna. Once approved by the UN General Assembly, the first World Bee Day is expected to be celebrated on 20 May 2018.

http://www.fao.org/pollination/en/. L.A. Garibaldi et al. (2016) “Mutually beneficial pollinator diversity and crop yield outcomes in small and large farms”. Science :Vol. 351, Issue 6271, pp. 388-391. 3 http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/383641/icode/. 1 2

International photography competition Slovenian Beekeepers’ Association (SBA) has launched this competition open to everyone to submit their own, as yet unpublished, photographs. There are four categories: Honey bees and the world of plants; The life of bees (biology); Beekeeping tasks and honey bee products; and

Traditional bee house / bee yard. Photographs will be assessed by experts according to expressiveness, originality, technical design, aesthetics, and honey bee race. The panel will select three best photographs in each category. Closing date 16 January 2017. The award ceremony will be at the ApiSlovenia 2017 Fair on Sunday, 12 March 2017, in Celje, Slovenia. See http://www.czs.si/ objave_podrobno_czs/8007 for more details. 14

Bee and dandelion © Franc Sivic of Slovenia. Franc is one of the world’s best photographers of honey bees


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

an open source licensing system throughout the global beekeeping community.

Apimondia announces Open Source License to enable the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Bee Genetic Resources The Executive Council of Apimondia meeting in Mugla, Turkey in October 31 2016 unanimously voted to adopt the Apimondia Open Source Breeding Material (OSB) license for Apis mellifera and Apis cerana as a first step to implement

“The contributions of beekeepers in all regions of the world in conserving the genetic resources of the honey bee can now be protected using a public license”, said Philip McCabe, President of Apimondia. “In Germany, we already have the first organisation of bee breeders, who have made a commitment to base all exchange of breeding material on the new license”, said Walter Haefeker, Coordinator of the Apimondia Working Group. “Apimondia is calling on all beekeeping associations to implement this license to protect their collaborative efforts to maintain healthy bees for the beekeeping community and society as a whole.” Apimondia is supporting an international collaboration to establish honey bee germplasm repositories using state of the art technologies, which permit storing honey bee semen for a long time and perhaps indefinitely. Given present and future threats to honey bee survival, it is imperative to

The license and related documentation are published on Apimondia’s website: http:// www.apimondia.com/documents/ gmo/apimondia_open_source_ breeding_material_license.pdf Photos © Franc Sivic

Apimondia News

guarantee the preservation of the various species and races of honey bee that exist worldwide, including both commercial genetic lines and locally adapted wild types.

The Apimondia license will be used to ensure free and open access to the genetic resources collected for the scientific and beekeeping community.

Background

from the use of the genetic resources of the honey bee.

In 2015 reports were published about the first genetically modified bees having been created at a University in Germany. In 2016, researchers in Japan announced the production of Knockout Mutants by CRISPR/Cas9 in the European honey bee. Furthermore, documents of the European Union about the regulation of genetically modified insects contain a section on genetically modified honey bees including the concept of insecticide resistant bees.

Beekeepers consider the genetic resources of the honey bee to be indigenous and the community of beekeepers to have the established right to grant access to them. Any use of honey bee genetic resources for commercial purpose outside the traditional scope of the beekeeping community has to ensure the communities’ prior informed consent, and fair and equitable benefit-sharing. Beekeepers’ should be treated and promoted as an integral part of the human right to food, in that our future food supply, and its sustainability, depends on such rights (beekeepers’) being firmly established.

During the 44th International Apimondia Congress in Daejeon, Korea in 2015, an Apimondia Working Group was tasked with drafting a public license intended to be used by the beekeeping community when exchanging honey bee genetic resources, which does reserve the rights of the community to protect this common good from undue commercial exploitation or bio-piracy.

The recognition of beekeepers’ rights is a form of promoting the conservation of pollinator genetic resources, of traditional knowledge, and of ensuring current and future food security. The recognition of beekeepers’ rights benefits not only beekeepers, but all of humanity.

The beekeepers organised within Apimondia wish to put the scientific community and commercial enterprises on notice that this work has to be considered a creative commons and is the basis of Beekeepers’ Rights.

Notwithstanding the assertion of rights to the intellectual property inherent in the genetic resources of the honey bee collaboratively created by the beekeeping community, the beekeepers of the world hereby reject the very concept of patents on life and intend to fight vigorously any attempt to patent all or part of the genetic resources of the honey bee.

Beekeepers are asserting the rights use, exchange and participate in decision-making regarding, and in the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising 15


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

Photo © ???

Bob Malichi Bob Malichi, who died in 2016, was the well-known Manager of North West Bee Products in Zambia. Bees for Development regarded him as one of the wisest people working in this sector, and it was always marvellous to hear him speak about his work. In this tribute, his colleague Ben Robertson shares some memories of Bob: Of all the people I worked with in Kabompo, Zambia during 1990 2000, Bob Malichi was by a large margin the person with whom I worked most closely. We didn’t socialise much but in our work we were the closest of colleagues. I had enormous respect and affection for him so it might be of interest and feels appropriate to share some recollections of Bob and those times. I can pinpoint the exact moment at which Bob and I clicked. It was when Martin Atkinson, the previous manager of North Western Be Products Ltd, came to the end of his contract with the British charity Voluntary Services Overseas (VSO) necessitating the appointment of a new manager. There were various strongly held views about this among beekeepers, employees, trading partners, directors and aid agencies. Some were saying that Bob, who was Assistant Manager, should take over and others that I, then Financial Controller also from VSO, should do so. Bob and I therefore felt we should sound out one another’s opinions about this. I recall vividly his characteristic roar of laughter when we realised that each of us thought the other the best candidate and that neither of us wanted the job. From that point on we were on the same wavelength: the reality was that we were both more interested in and committed to the future of beekeepers, their environment and their business than in

Bob Malichi holding a bark hive promotion, status or personal gain. As a result, we were always able to see eye to eye and became close allies in the workplace. In the decade that followed I got to know Bob well. He was down to earth and didn’t bother with the airs and grace that many people, quite wrongly, believe managers should have. What he did have, alongside an improbable but great fear of bees, was an abundance of many qualities that make a good manager: he was intelligent, hardworking, insightful, diplomatic, articulate and honest. Of course, he was a human being and, as we all do, had his imperfections too but there was something special about Bob and since learning of his death, I have been reflecting about what it was. In fact, I think 16

there were two things: firstly, Bob’s commitment to what he was doing knew no bounds. It was simply inconceivable that he could give up. He was extraordinarily determined, downright stubborn in fact. But there were always reasons for this, none of which had anything to do with pride or self importance, rather he believed passionately in serving the beekeepers, in the importance of beekeeping to the ecosystem, and he genuinely loved what he did. This brings me to the second remarkable quality Bob had. Whether it came from his faith, his upbringing and/or from within I cannot say, but Bob cared deeply not only about his work but also about people in a much more profound way than most of


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

us do. As a result, he was able to develop extraordinary working relationships with people such as David Wainwright, Kelvin Chikasa, Aggie Chimanda and myself. These relationships were not ones of blind obedience to anyone, but of partnership between individuals with different points of view who could and did frequently clash but who could work together because of shared values and complementary skills. Bob didn’t simply love his job: he loved the people he worked with and many of us came to love him too. There was nothing sentimental or wishy-washy about this: it was strong and good like the unbreakable bond between members of a healthy family. That Bob could exemplify and nurture this quality in the workplace speaks volumes for the kind of person he was. We shall miss him dearly. David has been good enough to tell me that many such sentiments were expressed at his funeral gathering and that it has been suggested an institute of sustainable

beekeeping be established in his name. Whether this is practical or desirable isn’t for me to say but I do know what Bob thought about such issues in the years I worked with him. Over countless long drives to and from Lusaka, the Copperbelt, Solwezi and many other destinations in NW Province he and I spent hundreds of hours exploring one another’s thoughts about such issues. One reason he was so committed to his work was that he believed, as I do, that beekeeping and the beekeepers play a key role in the management and sustainability not simply of North Western Province and its vast tracts of Miombo woodlands but also in the ecosystem which depends on the Zambezi River and its major tributaries such as Kabompo River because so much of its water derives from the relatively high rainfall in the very area where the beekeepers live and work. We both thought these woodlands crucial to the way the river system works, especially during the long dry season, and that beekeepers,

NEWS

being the people who go deepest into the forest and depend on the good health and blossoming of the most common species of trees for their livelihoods, have for generations had, and still have, a uniquely valuable contribution to make in looking after and nurturing the forests. As populations increase and global warming progresses; careful farsighted management of North Western Province’s precious ecosystem is going to become increasingly important not just to Zambia but to all the countries that depend on the Zambezi river system. So, may all those who worked with Bob or work in the beekeeping sector or live in North Western Province remember him and long continue the work he did for more than three decades. I am certain he is enjoying a hero’s welcome from the ancestors and will not be forgotten. Rest in Peace Bob – you’ve earned it. Ben Robertson, London

LOOK AHEAD TURKEY

Ghana I have finally found the real name of the proposed bee bee tree. It is different from the other bee bee tree. It is a tropical plant Hannoa undulata. Please see my picture (below). It blooms here in Krachi West District of the Northern Volta of Ghana, from October until December. Krachi West is a savannah area.

APIMONDIA: 45th International Apicultural Congress 29 September – 4 October 2017, Istanbul Further details apimondia2017.org

UK

Strengthening livelihoods in developing countries through beekeeping 31 March 2017, Monmouth Sustainable beekeeping 22-23 April 2017, Forest of Dean Further details beesfordevelopment.org National Honey Show 26-28 October, Sandown Park Further details honeyshow.co.uk If you want notice of your conference, workshop or meeting to be included here and on our website, send details to Bees for Development.

BfD Beekeepers Safaris Trinidad & Tobago January 2018 Kafui Kwesi Appiah, Honey For Wealth Beekeepers Association 17

Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter @BeesForDev


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

BOOKSHELF Bee health and veterinarians

Edited by Wolfgang Ritter, 316 pages softcover, OiE World Organisation for animal health This comprehensive text is an excellent, international guide to the topic. The content is divided into three main sections: Honey bees and beekeeping in general, The veterinarian and the honey bee colony, and Standards and regulations. Within the sections are chapters, with each written by top international experts working in the field. Together these contribute to a comprehensive, reliable, and up-to-date text.

Beekeeping with children and school groups

Undine Westphal, 143 pages hardcover, available from Bees for Development £23 Beekeeping is increasingly popular, and many people aspire to teach beekeeping to schoolchildren. But how to do it? This is a wonderful, extremely useful new book, full of ideas for guiding the beekeeping-teacher throughout the year, addressing all the aspects that must be considered when working with bees and children. In addition to the beekeeping advice, there are excellent novel and fun ideas for teaching and making bee craft items, for example a game to learn about pollination. Also, interesting things to do with bees - encouraging a colony to store honeycomb in a glass salad bowl, and hunting for pseudo scorpions which feed on Varroa mites.

Evolution and phylogeny of bees

Review and cladistic analysis in light of morphological evidence (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) John D Plant and Hannes F Paulus, 364 pages hardcover, Schweizerbart Science Publishers This is a reference work for those studying bee evolution, phylogeny and morphology. Part One reviews all previous attempts to construct the phylogenetic tree for bees based on morphological, bionomic or molecular approaches, including both very ancient and most recent publications. The various hypothesis for bee evolution are compared, also including fossil evidence. Part Two provides a new phylogenetic study using an extensive dataset of morphological features.

The elephant and the bee

On saving the world and other triumphant failures Jess de Boer, 192 pages softcover, Jacaranda Books London Jess de Boer writes with a very light touch, and this is the autobiography of her busy life so far, though still in her twenties! Jess learned about beekeeping in South Africa, and describes experiences in the world of beekeeping development that many will recognise - organising a three-day training and the disappointing, slow realisation that apparently enthusiastic, smiling participants have turned up only for the daily allowance. And it is not all beekeeping - she represented Kenya in the Women’s Triathlon at The Commonwealth Games in Glasgow - a multi-talented person indeed, and surely one to watch as she continues her mission to save the world. An engaging and fun read.

The observation hive handbook Studying honey bees at home

Frank Linton, 65 pages softcover, Honey Tongue Press This is an excellent guide to observation hives – bee hives fitted with windows to let us to see what bees are doing inside their nesting place. As the author puts it: Beepeekers make better beekeepers! He has written the book in the hope that ordinary, small-scale beekeepers can set up and operate an observation hive, and begin to appreciate and learn far more about their bees’ behaviour. All the commonly available commercial designs are reviewed, as well as examples of homemade styles including a full size top-bar observation hive. Important considerations include selecting a location, caring for and manipulating the bees, maintaining the hives, what to consider if the observation hive is situated in a public place, using an observation hive for photography of bees, and suggestions for many other things to try. The book is packed with excellent pictures, making it the best we have seen on this topic.

WAYS TO PAY

• Secure order and payment at www.beesfordevelopment.org/shop • Send Money via PayPal to store@beesfordevelopment.org • Credit/Debit card Maestro/MasterCard/Visa. We need card number, name on card, valid from and expiry dates, card issue number (if given), security number on back of card. • Cheque/bank draft in GBP payable to Bees for Development 18


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

NEWS Nigeria Youth embrace beekeeping In Nigeria our youth are seen as vital sources of power for development, and as leaders of tomorrow. Youth constitute the major resource for any country aiming for any meaningful rural development. Some writers argue that young people, through antisocial behaviour and activities, are a threat to society. WE find that youth exposed to beekeeping entrepreneurial education contribute to the nation’s overall development, and will never be a threat. WE understand that all young people need support, guidance, and opportunities during adolescence. With this support they develop self-assurance in beekeeping which is one key to creating a happy, healthy, and successful life. I train young people between 10 and 25 years in the Imo community at Ilesa, Osun state. In October 2016 I provided training using a Resource Box from the Bees for Development.

Beekeeping training underway at Ilesa Grammar School, Osun State. The Youth Embrace Beekeeping group were very happy, thanks to Bees for Development! Falade Saanu Patrick

New association for Imo State A new Apiculture Association for Imo State was inaugurated in Nov 2016 by the Raw Material Research and Development Council of Nigeria. The objectives of the new association are to harmonize beekeeping activities, to share information and ideas, to create market opportunities, to promote biodiversity, economic empowerment, and food security, to protect the indigenous honey bee species from extermination, and to improve the livelihood of our communities through beekeeping.

Bottlingtanks Made of high quality stainless steel. All tanks come with a loose-fitting lid or with an airtight lid as an option. Capacity from 25 kg - 600 kg.

Solar Wax Melter For frames or comb. It has a strong wooden frame, insulating double window and a small tray for collecting the melted wax / honey.

Refractometer Measures water content in honey. Range: 12-25%. With automatic temperature compensation.

Honey Press Easy and effective way to press your honey. Made entirely of stainless steel. Holds approx. 9.5 L.

Honey Extractors Our modern tangential manual extractors. High quality machines at a very affordable price.

Packaging Many different sizes and shapes in both PET plastic and glas. Available with plastic and metal lids.

at Available om ienty.c www.sw ... for better honey

Swienty A/S

Emmanuel Ubeh, President, Apiculture Association of Imo State 19

Hørtoftvej 16, Ragebøl DK-6400 Sønderborg Tel. +45 74 48 69 69

www.swienty.com Fax + 45 74 48 80 01 shop@swienty.com


Bees for Development Journal 121 December 2016

Bees for Development Trust raises the funds we need to undertake our work 45th Apimondia International Congress 29 Sep – 4 Oct 2017 Istanbul, TURKEY

PROTECTING BEES & POLLINATORS TEACHING SUSTAINABLE LIFE SKILLS CHAMPIONING BIODIVERSITY

WORKING TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY FACILITIATING FAIR MARKET ACCESS SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

If you share our passion for protecting bees and pollinators, and working to alleviate poverty in some of the world’s poorest regions, you can help us by

Making a regular donation Subscribing to BfD Journal Sponsoring a Journal subscription Sponsoring a Teaching Resource Box Please give us your support at:

www.beesfordevelopment.org

Bees for Development Trust www.apimondia2017.org

An independent UK-based charity, registered no 1078803

SUPPORT FOR TRAINING BfD Training Booklets and Training Cards are for use by beekeeper trainers in Africa Each booklet provides one day of training on one topic. The cards provide pictures and plans illustrating techniques discussed in the booklets. These are included in our Resource Boxes for training events and workshops. Projects and associations in developing countries are welcome to apply for a Sponsored Resource Box by filling out an application form on our website, or request the form by email. Projects in other areas can purchase Resource Boxes through our website store.

www.beesfordevelopment.org

SUBSCRIPTIONS AVAILABLE This Journal is available for resource-poor beekeepers, projects, schools and groups in developing countries Supported with funds raised by Bees for Development Trust Name................................................................................................. What is your involvement with bees and beekeeping? ......................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................... Organisation ..................................................................................... Postal address................................................................................... ......................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................... Country............................................................................................. E-mail address................................................................................... Date of application............................................................................. Additional copies of this form are available from our website Email journalrequest@beesfordevelopment.org Post to BfD Trust at the address below

Bees for Development, 1 Agincourt Street, Monmouth NP25 3DZ, UK Telephone +44 (0)1600 714848 info@beesfordevelopment.org www.beesfordevelopment.org © Bees for Development 2016 ISSN 1477-6588 Printed on environmentally friendly paper