This is a presentation of key findings of the multidisciplinary PhD study focused on assessing factors driving beekeeping adoption, environmental contaminants of hive products, status of honeybee health as well as model profitable interventions for improved beekeeping in Northern Uganda.
Towards Increased honey production in Northern Uganda: A multiperspective approach
1. Towards an increasing honey production in Northern
Uganda:
A multi-perspective approach
Ms Deborah Ruth Amulen (BSc, MLD)
In Hebrew “Deborah = dēvōrah = Bee or swarm of bees”
2. Outline of presentation
1 Relevance of beekeeping
2 Current situation and challenges
3 Research questions & conceptual framework
4 Specific studies
5 Pathways for improvement
6 Areas of future research
3. Relevance of beekeeping
Ecosystem service: Pollination
Economic contribution
Social role “Gets someone a
wife”
Medicines
The wonder
insect
6. Current situation
West Nile and mid-northern
high density of beekeepers
Eastern medium density of
beekeeping
50% of Uganda’s
beekeepers
10% of Uganda’s
beekeepers/ Fruit
production belt!!
(Kajobe et al., 2009; UBOS
& MAAIF, 2009)
8. Current situation: Technology
and production
Transitional
beehives
Top bar
beehives
11% beehives used.
National yield 12kg vs 26kg
potential and in Northern
3.8kg
9. Current situation: Production
Frame beehives
Frame
beehives
Langstroth beehives
2% beehives used.
National yield 15kg vs 60kg
potential and in Northern
5.5kg
11. Conceptual framework
Institutional
environment
Natural environment Household
environment/capital
Bee colony
environment
Government, NGOs,
market
Bees, plants, agriculture,
diseases
Physical, human, social,
natural, financial
Honeybee diseases, race,
behaviour, products
Livelisystems
transitions
Adoption of beekeeping
Hanging in –current
state (no- profit)
Falling down
impoverishment
Stepping up improved
beekeeping
Stepping out
Quitting beekeeping
Study 1: Socio-
economic drivers and
barriers to
beekeeping
Study 1: Socio-
economic drivers and
barriers to
beekeeping
Study 2: Toxicological
status of the
environment
Study 3: Prevalence
and extent of pest,
pathogen and
parasites effect
Study 4: Most-cost
effective
interventions
12. Study 1: Drivers and barriers to
adoption
1. Quantify beekeeper wealth status
2. Determine drivers and barriers
3.Quantify relative contribution
14. Study 1: Well-being index
BK
NBK
Sleeping
hungry
Food
shortage
No off farm
income
No cattle
keeper
Not a
casual
labourer
Grass
thatched
house
Sleeping on
polythene
52% 34% 88% 72%
39% 49% 37% 23%
53% 42% 54%
12% 17% 12%
16. Study 1: Drivers and barriers
to adoption
Income (92%)
Nutrition (91%)
Market for the product (71%)
Limited knowledge (62%)
Fear of bees (59%)
Insufficient capital (31%)
Beekeepers: drivers to adoption Non-beekeepers: barriers to adoption
18. Study 1: Income contribution
7%
Annual mean household
income = 616
19. Study 1: Conclusions and
implications
Beekeepers are poor1
Adoption is driven by development
agencies
2
Knowledge of beekeeping is low3
Training approach could be wrong4
28. Study 3: Conclusions and
implications
Detected pathogens associated
with colony losses
1
Extent of damage unknown2
More detailed surveillance3
29. Study 4: Estimated potential
production (Monte Carlo simulation)
Added fixed comb hives Added top bar hives Added frame beehives Planted Calliandra trees
Would there be an improved
beekeeping?
34. Knowledge dissemination
Areas for future research
1
Effectiveness of development
agencies
2
Market research3
Product quality
and development
4
Further health screening5
Production- model validation6
35. Overall conclusion
This PhD study has established that beekeeping has the potential to
improve livelihoods
1
However, this can only be achieved if beekeepers improve their current
management practices and adopt beekeeping technologies
2