Anyona_S. Gichuru - VCA_Beekeeping & Honey - Kinangop and Kakamega_July 2008 Final

USAID /PACT KENYA

KENYA CIVIL SOCIETY STRENGTHENING PROGRAM (KCSSP)

HONEY PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

VALUE CHAIN MAPPING,

KINANGOP AND KAKAMEGA CLUSTERS

Carried out by: Prepared for: SIMON G. ANYONA

RESOURCE MOBILIZATION CENTER P.O. BOX 75187 00200

NAIROBI KENYA TEL: 020-2166259

E-MAIL: [email protected]

NATURE KENYA P.O. BOX 44486 00100

NAIROBI KENYA TEL: 020-3749957

E-MAIL: [email protected]

Final Report

July 2008

Pact Kenya /KCSSP and Nature Kenya

Honey Production and Marketing Value Chain (Kinangop & Kakamega) ii

ABBREVIATIONS

BDS Business Development Services DLEO Divisional Livestock Extension Officer GOK Government of Kenya ICIPE International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology IGA Income Generating Activity HCA Honey Care Africa HH Household HLDS Holdings KEBS Kenya Bureau of Standards Kg(s) Kilo gram(s) Kshs. Kenya Shillings KTBH Kenya Top Bar Hive MOLFD Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development MT Metric Tones NALEP National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Program NGO Non Governmental Organization NK Nature Kenya NRM Natural Resource Management RMC Resource Mobilization Center TOR Terms of Reference UK United Kingdom USA United States of America USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar VAT Value Added Tax VCA Value Chain Analysis


Honey Production and Marketing Value Chain (Kinangop & Kakamega) iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the many persons who made the execution of this task a success. Kindly accept our sincere gratitude. Special mention goes to all Nature Kenya management and staff, donor representatives, and other stakeholders who facilitated, participated and shared their candid views and experiences as well as offered great support throughout this exercise. Of special mention are Washington Ayiemba, Jacob Machekele, and Leonard Likhotio of Nature Kenya who tirelessly assisted with all the logistics from the start to the finish of the assignment. Mr. Enock Kanyanya and the Executive Director, Mr. Paul Matiku are also singled out for their valuable technical support and honest feedback throughout the assignment. It may not be possible to mention all those who supported us – by name and title – but it is a fact that their support and input in the data gathering was quite valuable. We are deeply indebted to these persons and the supportive organisations. Your individual and collective input has been a pillar to our finalisation of this mapping exercise. We sincerely acknowledge your role!.

Anyona S. Gichuru Resource Mobilization Center

July 2008


Honey Production and Marketing Value Chain (Kinangop & Kakamega) iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION: The honey /bee keeping sub-sector has been in existence from as early as 7000 B.C. Early rock paintings on cave walls in Africa and eastern Spain show people gathering honey from trees or rock crevices while bees fly around them. It plays a critical role especially in the livelihoods of the rural communities in three native dynamics; one, it is an income generating activity, two, the medicinal value of honey and other products is invaluable and three, it supports numerous agricultural activities through facilitating the process of pollination among plants. Despite the numerous potential economic benefits that may accrue to farmers practicing beekeeping, the entrepreneurship aspect has not been effectively internalized by the farmers, an element which has greatly hindered growth and expansion of the sub-sector. To this end, an assessment needed to be carried out to ascertain the current and potential value that may accrue to practicing farmers (if any) and at all levels so as to determine the appropriate intervention and leverage points for market penetration. To clearly understand the sub sector, a value chain analysis was carried out of which, this is the output that emerged. The value chain analysis (VCA) concept is a framework for assessing hierarchies, transactions, linkages, relations and benefit sharing arrangements within a sub-sector. It involves trust and open communication between the actors within a sub-sector and is focused to bring forth mutual benefits for all actors creating a win-win situation. The essence of value chain analysis is to understand the vertical and horizontal alliances or strategic networks between independent business organizations in order to meet the needs of targeted consumer(s). The VCA exercise is expected to analyze the current situation identifying the strengths and weaknesses and causes which would assist to shed more light on the strategies for developing commercial orientation of future support activities of the relevant stakeholders in the sub sector. This report brings up the study findings and recommendations for the honey /beekeeping players in Kinangop and Kakamega. The VCA was carried out in Kinangop and Kakamega areas in which Nature Kenya has interests in conservation. Both areas are close to nationally gazetted forest reserves which provide a wide range of forage for the bees. Communities on the other hand need to benefit from their brilliant efforts in conservation activities to reward and motivate them to continue. Beekeeping supports conservation activities by discouraging cutting down of trees as well as supporting natural processes in agriculture especially pollination. Beekeeping therefore provides an income earning opportunity for the farmers thereby improving their livelihoods as well as promotes the conservation agenda in the focus areas creating a win-win situation for all. In Kinangop the VCA was carried out in North Kinangop (Magumu, Engineer and Njabini) and part of South Kinangop (Murungaru area). In Kakamega the VCA covered Isicheno, Shinyalu, Buyangu, Ileho, Kakamega town and the greater Kakamega Forest. BEEKEEPING IN KAKAMEGA AND KINANGOP CLUSTERS: Kinangop and Kakamega Forest areas have a very high probable potential beekeeping based on their close proximity to the Aberdare and Kakamega forests respectively, diversity in vegetation (providing a wide selection of forage) and abundance of water sources. In both areas beekeeping farmers use mainly 3 types of hives; traditional log, Kenya Top Bar (KTBH), and the Langstroth although there exists other types of hives in minimal numbers. Beekeeping in both areas is mainly carried out by small scale subsistence farmers owning approximately 2–5 acres of land. In North Kinangop (Magumu, Engineer and Njabini) production is mainly for sale to the local Friends of Kinangop Plateau (FOKP) Honey Processing Plant while in South Kinangop (Murungaru and Kanyenyaini) and the greater Kakamega Forest areas of Shinyalu, Isicheno and Buyangu honey production is mainly for home consumption, brewing traditional liquor, and for medicinal purposes. Production quantity and quality in both areas differed depending on the type of hive used and methods of honey harvesting and processing. Across the board the Langstroth emerged as the highest yielding with KTBH and the traditional log hive following in that order. This was mainly due to the


Honey Production and Marketing Value Chain (Kinangop & Kakamega) v

hive topology and the lack of serious commitment to beekeeping as an income generating activity by many farmers. Most beekeepers do so as a hobby, or as a tradition that has been passed down generations although with the assistance of support NGOs many farmers are taking beekeeping as an enterprise. The honey harvesting seasons per year depending on the hive topology averaged 3, 2.5 and 1.26 seasons for the Langstroth, KTBH and log hives respectively. The weighted average yield per hive per season was 17.16kg Langstroth) 13.2kg (KTBH), 9.75 (log) in Kinangop while in Kakamega 19.5kg (Langstroth), 14.5kg (KTBH) and 8.5kg (log). Stingless beekeeping was also sampled for assessment and the average yield was 5kg per season with only one season per year. The quality of honey depended on apiary maintenance, honey harvesting and processing techniques where farmers lacked adequate equipment and skills to manage the above processes. VCA MAPPING: The identified actors were clustered in 4 main hierarchies during the VCA which comprised one, production (hive manufacturing, actual beekeeping and extension services), two, bulking and semi-processing (farm gate buyers, middlemen and local traders who buy honey from farmers and mostly repackage immediately with minimal further processing for sale), three, refining, packaging and marketing (branding and marketing to local consumers) and finally the export hierarchy where honey is refined, branded, certified and packaged destined for the export markets. IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES: Lack of Business Development Services (BDS) among farmers is illustrated by lack of essential services for example training, extension, financing and honey processing knowledge. This leads to over reliance on traditional beekeeping methods which in turn leads to production of poor quality and contaminated honey, inadequate quantities per hive and poor market knowledge and intelligence have continually discouraged production Value loss avenues: In both areas farmers explained how they either gave out honey combs (especially those from traditional and KTBH) to honey buyers for free or let them rot away in the compound because they did not know what to do with them. In Kakamega, farmers complained of loosing many hives to fires from firewood that is used during harvesting and harvesting very dark honey due to using too much smoke and lack of sufficient knowledge on other hive products for example propolis, royal jelly, and bee venom among others. Poor packaging and branding standards: Some labels are hand written while others are printed and scissor cut from common computer applications for example MS Word. This and lack of a barcode automatically reduces the competitiveness of honey in the major markets. This service is available from several players in the market. The main bar coding company in Kenya is GS1 Ltd which would charge a starting business entity approximately Kshs. 12,670 for a single bar-code. This includes a registration and barcode license fee of Kshs. 5,500 each plus 16% VAT thus totalling Kshs. 12,760. EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES: Potential enterprises emerged that would effectively complement beekeeping and they included: � Planting various forage plants that would be of great economic value while at the same time sustain

beekeeping for example sunflower and Lucerne. � Intensifying production at the farm level: A key constraint that cut across the areas was the low hive

numbers per households which contributed to production of unviable quantities of honey for processing and created very little bargaining power.

� Marketing honey as a special product: If honey was certified organic, fair trade or sold within a specialist marketing niche e.g. single forage source, then a higher price could be expected from both local and international markets. Honey from Kakamega could be sold as Equatorial Forest Honey while that of Kinangop should embrace Aderdares.

� Commercialization of extension services: It was observed that extension services are in high demand but the channels for accessing them are not clear. If well developed these would streamline the provision of services where some community members would be trained and provide these services as an IGA.


Honey Production and Marketing Value Chain (Kinangop & Kakamega) vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... IV 1.0. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background to the Study ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Elaboration of Scope of Work ......................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Value Chain Mapping Methodology ............................................................................................. 3 1.4. Rationale and Background Infornation ......................................................................................... 4 2.0. HONEY PRODUCTION AND MARKETING VALUE CHAIN MAPPING .......................... 8 2.1. Sub-sector Status in Kinangop and Kakamega ............................................................................ 8 2.2. General Sub-sector Organisation ................................................................................................... 9 2.3. Sub-sector Interactions .................................................................................................................. 12

2.3.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.2. The Sub-sector Map ............................................................................................................. 13 2.3.3. Functions and Participants ................................................................................................. 14 2.3.4. The Market Flows ................................................................................................................ 18

2.4. VCA Mapping ................................................................................................................................. 20 2.4.1. Links and Business Services ............................................................................................... 20 2.4.2. Analysis and Deductions .................................................................................................... 20 2.4.3. Inputs and Margin Estimates ............................................................................................. 23

3.0. GENERAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................... 25 3.1. Market Trends and Competitiveness .......................................................................................... 25

3.1.1. Threat to Market Competitiveness .................................................................................... 25 3.1.2. Income and Employment Generation ............................................................................... 25 3.1.3. Willingness and Abilities to Pay for Business Services .................................................. 25

3.2. Governance and Regulatory Environment ................................................................................. 26 3.3. Current Constraints ....................................................................................................................... 26

3.3.1. Supply side............................................................................................................................ 26 3.3.2. Demand side ......................................................................................................................... 28

3.4. Non-explored BDS Opportunities ............................................................................................... 29 3.5. Other Sector-support Opportunities ........................................................................................... 30 4.0. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITIES .................................... 32 4.1. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 32

4.1.1. Emerging Issues ................................................................................................................... 32 4.1.2. Node-specific Findings........................................................................................................ 32

4.2. Opportunities and Recommended Actions ................................................................................ 33 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 36 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................. 37 Annex 1.0. Data Collection Tool ....................................................................................................... 37 Annex 2.0. Study Itinerary ................................................................................................................ 38 Annex 3.0. Field Contacts .................................................................................................................. 40


Honey Production and Marketing Value Chain (Kinangop & Kakamega) 1

1.0. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background to the Study The honey production and marketing sub-sector has been in existence since time immemorial and it plays a critical role especially in the livelihoods of the rural communities in three native dynamics; it is an income generating activity, medicinal value of honey and other products is invaluable, and it supports numerous agricultural activities through facilitating pollination. Bee keeping is considered as an agro-based enterprise that facilitates healthy linkages between biodiversity (insects and plants) and sustainable livelihoods. In particular, beekeeping contributes to four key fundamentals of sustainability;

• Environmental sustainability, as the beekeepers understand and appreciate the link between beekeeping and forest conservation

• Economic sustainability, by being a low-input rural activity that provides economic returns, and

• Cultural sustainability, by being an activity that integrates well with other agricultural activities and that can be practiced by men, women, and youth; and four, social sustainability, by reducing poverty and enhancing quality of life.

This study, the value chain mapping of the honey production and marketing operations was commissioned by Nature Kenya under a larger Kenya Civil Society Support Programme (KCSSP)-funded initiative.1 The study is part-contribution and component to the Nature Kenya's project - “Increasing local communities economic benefits for sustainable natural resources management project” The focus of the study is to deepen the overall understanding and organization of the honey sub-sector in two clusters – Kinangop and Kakamega – where Nature Kenya is operating and implementing the project. By determining the value chains and systems of the sub-sector, Nature Kenya will be better placed to undertake informed intervention in keeping with biodiversity conservation and management, and as well in facilitating resilient livelihood support among the potential and current bee-keeping communities in the two clusters. Overall, this study is viewed and acknowledged for its potential supportive role in contributing towards the achievement of the Strategic Objective (SO) 5 of the United State Agency for International Development (USAID) under which KCSSP is formulated and funded. The Nature Kenya's KCSSP-supported project is a 2½ year intervention whose main objective is increased incomes to local communities participating in natural resource management (NRM) and conservation. The approach adopted by the project encompasses building the entrepreneurship capacities of the business owners, scaling up the current initiatives to commercial viability, strengthening professional production and marketing arrangements and standards and enhancing biodiversity conservation by and for local communities maximizing incomes for sustainable living and biodiversity gains. To achieve these objectives Nature Kenya is intervening through eco-tourism operations, conservation, and promotion of beekeeping. Though the bee-keeping support of the project is currently directed to two clusters, the overall geographical coverage is significantly broader. The areas of coverage of the conservation initiative are; Kinangop, Kakamega Forest, Dunga Beach (Kisumu) and Mount Kenya National Park. Of these four areas, bee keeping is a popular activity mainly in Kinangop and Kakamega. It is on this basis that this value chain analysis (VCA) is specific to the two clusters. In the two clusters, relatively significant honey production and marketing is evident.

1 Nature Kenya is one of the grantees of the Pact Inc /Pact Kenya's KCSSP initiative.



1.2. Elaboration of Scope of Work It is understood that under the KCSSP framework and project proposal by Nature Kenya to Pact Kenya, there is need for the project holder to deepen its understanding about the honey production and marketing arrangements. The efforts are noted for their input into the NRM and sustainable livelihoods contributions while at the same time having a contribution in developing the capacity of the applicant. Bee-keeping is one of the two pillars in which Nature Kenya is intervening in. By engaging in this component, Nature Kenya sees itself in the light path of appreciating and adopting a market-driven as well as engaging the communities in active participation and involvement. It is notable that in the two clusters, the sub-sectors offers potential for improved livelihoods among the poor households through increased incomes while taking into consideration the need to have self-supporting and sustainable local systems. This will best be achieved by embracing and working through the business development services (BDS) paradigm shift. Of special interest are NRM-based sub-sectors with distinguishable opportunities for income generation, employment creation, involvement of women and enhancing the capabilities of households to strengthen livelihood systems. Recently, and based on a long-term support, Nature Kenya has identified the bee-keeping as a hub of opportunities and with significant potentials to contribute to NRM. In its entirety, beekeeping sector is broad. The local scenario in the two geographical clusters indicates that within the broader sector, honey production and marketing has perhaps the promising opportunity – owing to investment requirements and organisational arrangements while also learning from systems already in place.2 Honey, as in other parts of the country remains the key product and of immediate commercial interest. It is on this basis that a single product-based VCA has been adopted – paying attention to honey. For the honey sub-sector, Nature Kenya acknowledges that a VCA would be a critical basis for informing on follow-up and organisational considerations in an effort to make the operations more vibrant and economical, and responsive to environmental needs. Nature Kenya therefore commissioned this VCA to deepen the overall understanding, knowledge and determine the opportunities and gaps that it could exploit, and in partnership with others, to engineer its support and direction. The study in essence is meant to put Nature Kenya in the know on where and how to intervene in a feasible way. The study offers the crucial information regarding the feasibility of moving forward with interventions in the bee-keeping sector and coming up with a viable plan of action for the approaches that will best allow this to happen in light of SO 5. It focuses on the identification and understanding of structural, organizational (behaviour) and operational (performance) dynamics of the honey sub-sector. The study is also meant to identify concrete action-point, steps and methods, based on the recommendations supported by appropriate rationale and feasibility provisions. In carrying out the study, it is understood that the drive is to respond effectively to the scope of work interpreted to incorporate;

• Identification of the actors, linkages and relationships in the value chain – including supportive actors in the policy and organisational spheres

• Understanding the vertical and horizontal linkages – both in the supply side and demand side of the sub-sector.

• Identification and consolidation of relevant constraints and opportunities along the value chain to inform design of future interventions and activities to realize expected impacts.

• Encapsulating opportunities for business services and their supply arrangements.

2 Other products such as beeswax, propolis, bee venom and royal jelly and services such as pollination are not

locally developed at all and would require significant attention for support.



• Undertaking estimation in quantitative terms the likely returns or anticipated impacts on the target community in terms of production, and incomes in the beekeeping sector.

• Determines potential options for value addition by communities and recommend whether they are appropriate.

• Commenting on levels of market demand /saturation in the local and regional markets. • Making specific recommendations on possible approaches that Nature Kenya should use

and /or avoid in intervening in the sub-sector.

1.3. Value Chain Mapping Methodology This study was commissioned in April 2008. The process covered preparatory stages, field data collection, data analysis and development of the report. The field data collection stage involved the participation of Nature Kenya staff – in planning as well as in specific participatory interviews. The preparatory phase involved design and development of data collection schedules and guidelines, and assemblage of background materials and reviews. Various secondary data sources included sector and sub-sector reports, and policy documents, among others. Such reports are referred to within this document and are also separately filed in the reference list. It is on the basis of the review that reflective gaps were identified that would form pillars for the VCA. Again, this was in line with the study objectives. The principal tool prepared was shared with Nature Kenya contact point for feedback before their application. At the data collection stage, pre-discussions about the interests of Nature Kenya in the VCA shaped the sampling process and identification of some primary sources of information. The bulk of the sources of primary data were beekeepers from whom information was collected through participatory discussions organised in sessions in selected sites as well as outside the Nature Kenya’s focus area especially in addressing processing and marketing interests. A list of the interviewees contacted during the survey in available in the Annex section of this report (see Annex 3.0). Data was collected from 113 bee keeping farmers of whom 8 did not own bee hives but were interested in the practice. 3 honey processing and marketing actors and 2 international honey importers based in United Kingdom and USA were interviewed. The list of informants to the VCA is contained as Annex 3. The composition of informants was diverse and due consideration was made to ensure representation of men, women and youth. An highlight of the composition of the primary respondents is as follows; 84 men, 14 women and 15 youth The field visits with current and potential bee keepers were organized into 10 sessions while 3 sessions were held with government staff from the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development 2 in Nyandarua South District and 1 session in Shinyalu Division. A total of 7 Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MoLFD) staff were interviewed in the VCA. The field visits formed the primary phase of the VCA. The field consultations were designed to capture the following information;

� Information from key participants in the value chain, and from beekeepers and suppliers of associated gear and para-professionals as suppliers of services – to understand the current production and support arrangements, demand and potential demand of supportive services, marketing arrangements, and willingness to pay for services and other inputs, operational constraints



� Information from markets and dealers in honey and informal and formal levels – to understand supply, pricing, demand, operational constraints, interrelationships and associations

� Information from policy implementers and field officers – to understand their place in the value chain, potential opportunities for developing and stimulating the sub-sector.

After collecting information RMC proceeded to analyze and filter the raw data leading to the development of the draft report. The final stage of the VCA was undertaken in Nairobi. The report was prepared based on standard VCA process while taking into consideration additional requirements as understood and interpreted from the scope of work. The development of the analytical sections of the report involved detailed data evaluation. A preliminary output was prepared and submitted to the client soon after the fieldwork. The contents of this preliminary analysis are integrated in this document. It is based on this that further consultations were held with the client to strengthen core areas of potential response and actions in order to support the sub-sector. It is also based on these consultations that this report has been finalized.

1.4. Rationale and Background Information Overview: Beekeeping has over the years become an important livelihood strategy in the rural areas – having been upgraded from a traditional to a commercial activity. Currently, the sector is not only considered a strategy for enhancing environmental conservation, but a supportive pillar to sustainable agriculture and rural livelihoods (Mathuva and Odhiambo, 2007). The sector harbours a great potential for increasing incomes and supportive sustainable development, especially while considering the varied players and activities along its broader chain (Njoroge and Kioko, 2006). The practice of beekeeping for honey is more than 4,500 years old with its earliest evidence noted from Mesolithic rock painting in Eastern Spain dated 6000 BC (Crane, 1990). The economy of beekeeping is widely notable; In USA, the apiculture industry is worth over USD 200 million and the honey bee pollination services to crops is valued at USD 14 billion (Mathuva and Odhiambo, 2007). In Israel, the value of beekeeping is worth over USD 480 million with about 60,000 hives used for pollination services (Mbae, 2007). World over, the economic importance of beekeeping is refereed; alternative source of income, employment and for wealth creation, poverty alleviation, improves crop and seed yields through pollination, contributes to food security, and contributes to environmental conservation. In Kenya, the sector has a potential to contribute Kshs. 12 billion to the GDP (Mathuva and Odhiambo, 2007). Milestones in the sector and intervention: The government has been on the forefront in promoting beekeeping in the country. These efforts date back 1960s. The engagements can be enumerated as follows;

- 1967 – 1969: Oxfam sets up a beekeeping pilot project - 1971: CIDA, through the central government structures and systems, undertakes

feasibility study of the sector followed by training, research, extension support and investment in selected districts.

1980s: The government sets up the National Beekeeping Station (NBS) – leading to significant sector stimulation.

1984: The government steers an extension support to the sector, an effort later in 1993 to witness complementary support from diverse agencies including NGOs.

1990s: The government endears to develop and inform on honey quality standards. Part of this was the development of the Kenya Top Bar Hive.



Late 1990s: The sector witnesses the entry of diverse stakeholders as a measure to stabilising rural livelihoods. Of particular mention are the NGOs, the donor community, the private sector and a number of government departments and bodies including the Kenya Wildlife Service, the Kenya Forest Service and the Kenya Bureau of Standards. In the recent past, the Beekeeping Section of the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development has made valuable inroads in spearheading the establishment of a honey monitoring plan.

Beekeeping status and trends: According to the Kenya's Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MoLFD) estimates, 80% of the country is suitable for beekeeping while the estimated production of honey is 80,000 to 100,000 metric tons and 10,000 metric tons of beeswax per year. To date, only about 20% of this production potential is being realised – mainly from traditional beekeeping (Njoroge and Kioko, 2006), currently estimated at 25,700 tons of honey, and 3,100 tons of beeswax (Mbae, 2007). The beekeeping sector in Kenya is an important one especially in the arid and semi-arid areas and in forested and wooded areas where bee forage is in abundance. Areas where the practice is considerable are concentrated around Kitui, Mwingi, Makueni, Mbeere and Tharaka in Eastern Province; Baringo, Koibatek, Transmara, Samburu, Marakwet and Laikipia in Rift Valley Province; Nyeri, Thika, and Kirinyaga in Central Province; Migori, Gucha and Rachuonyo in Nyanza; Kakamega in Western Province; and Taita Taveta, Kwale and Kilifi in Coast Province. Estimates by the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development indicate that there were about 200,000 beekeepers in Kenya in 2007 (Mathuva and Odhiambo, 2007; Mbae, 2007). Of the national figures majority however practice beekeeping as a subsistence activity while only about 5% could be considered as undertaking beekeeping as a business (Mathuva, 2004). The NBS confirms that in 2002, there were estimated 1,729,000 hives in the country of which 90% were log hives, 8.4% were KTBH, and 0.1% were Langstroth hives while 1.5% were made up of other hive types (NBS, 2004; Mathuva and Odhiambo, 2007). Based on NBS long-term assessments, average honey production per harvest is best understood per hive typology and availability of bee forage; log hive – 8kgs, KTBH – 10 to 12kgs, and Langstroth – 20 to 25kgs. The 2006 data illustrate notable decline in hive numbers as well as average production levels compared to 2004 data; in 2006, NBS noted that the hives were 1,455,050 of which 89.3% were log /traditional, 8.8% were KTBH, 1.7% were Langstroths while 0.9% were other types (Mbae, 2007). Apiculture and the legal and regulatory framework: Apiculture operations are currently being governed by the Agriculture Act of 1980 which recognizes it as a support activity in livestock farming. The Act is very shallow on beekeeping and honey and does not address the unique facets of apiculture neither does it spell out any guidelines or standards for the same. Stakeholders in the sub sector have been holding consultative meetings which are aimed at developing specific guideline and policies for apiculture in Kenya. With the support of SNV, significant efforts have been made in drafting a comprehensive policy. This is viewed as a stepping stone towards establishing an inclusive legal and regulatory framework in Kenya. Due to the lack of an exclusive governing Act and guidelines for honey and hive products, certification is carried out through the support of other related Acts of Parliament which include the Animal Health Act of 1984, the Public Health Act and the Foods and Poisons Act. The absence of a regulated framework has led to the uncoordinated efforts and activities by players within the



sector which has contributed to duplication of efforts, market disorganization and no coordination. So far, the draft policy in place outlines the following key considerations;

• Ensuring participation of all stakeholders in managing and conserving honeybee

• Encouraging active participation of the private sector apiculture development and growth

• Ensuring development of sustainable beekeeping especially in semi-arid areas with a view to alleviating poverty through improving income to farmers and creation of employment

• Encouraging sustainable management of resources and promote integrated approach involving use of various trees and crop species for beekeeping equipment and as a source of honey, beeswax and other hive products

• Promoting utilisation of other bee products (pollen, bee venom, propolis, and royal jelly)

• Encouraging research institutions, private sector and community in general to invest in research and development

• Encouraging formation of Beekeepers Associations, groups and cooperative to enhance production and support marketing for honey and other products

• Expanding beekeeping enterprises into national parks, forests and game reserves. However, since the policy is in draft form and is yet to be formally discussed and put into use, the sector remains less organised. In its current form, though NBS is in place, there is some lack of coordination, limited integration of the private sector and inadequate research and development. Though with significant production potential, the operations remain nascent. Except honey, production of other hive products and by-products are highly ignored. Honey marketing: The bulk of honey in the country is from the log hives (based on the high numbers) and is sold locally to neighbours and in informal markets (25%) in crude form. This is mainly used for home consumption – preparation of traditional liquor and herbal medicine. Largely, this is honey of low quality and poorly harvested with the larvae and pollen as well as old combs. Cooperatives form a significant segment of the honey market outlets taking 25% of the honey in the country (Mathuva and Odhiambo, 2007). Generally, middle-men also are involved in the marketing chain and buy 40% of the honey – directly from farmers – to sell it to processors and retailers. Based on the productivity potential and actual production levels of honey and beeswax, Kenya is generally deficient of these hive products. The import and export records of honey in the country for the years 2000 – 2003 are a confirmation of this conclusion as illustrated in the figure below. Figure 1-1: Kenya's honey and beeswax balance of trade, 2000 - 2003

Product Trade

Year

2000 2001 2002 2003

Honey Export (MT) 0.35 0.32 0 0.5

Import (MT) 63 38 84 10

Balance of Trade (MT) -62.65 -37.68 -84 -9.5

Beeswax Export (MT) 16 24 15 0

Import (MT) 0.37 2.5 0.3 1.2

Balance of Trade (MT) 15.63 21.5 14.7 -1.2

Source: Mathuva and Odhiambo, 2007. Nation-wide sub-sector challenges: Though significant efforts have been made to address honey quality through a number of measures (though piecemeal), this is still a challenge. Honey residues still inhibit export market penetration especially to European destinations – and in



particular antibiotics, pyrethroids and carbonates, chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphorous compounds and chemical elements (such as zinc, lead, cadmium, arsenic, and copper). Kenya’s apiculture sector, though with significant and diversified support, is however nascent and inadequately growing; general low productivity per hive and per producer, weak production systems and arrangements, limited adoption of viable technologies in production and processing, inadequate and poorly organised marketing systems, weak extension arrangements and inadequate private sector participation, and weak developments and links with service providers. Above all, the sector is unlikely to develop with vigour unless the market structures and organisation are improved and efforts made to address cost structure and access systems of inputs and accessories including hives. New business models are needed to revamp the sector. The population of cycles of wild Apis mellifera bee subspecies in Kenya depend on seasonal flowering of plants. The nectar-flow period is at its peak when trees, shrubs, climbers, weeds and crops flower. Cold and /or dry weather seasons are not good for the honey bee and honey production in general as these are periods when colonies are relatively inactively and less productive – often absconding in search of food and /or adjusting colony activities to the minimum. Relatively cold areas such as Kinangop and Kakamega are likely to face honey-bee management challenges. It is reported that absconding is a major concern among beekeepers in Kenya, an occurrence associated with inadequate knowledge and practices in managing the colonies. Farmers still suffer from inadequately shared beekeeping knowledge and practices especially on the use of modern hives while marketing and market information for honey is limited. Often quality management for honey is a concern as good practice harvesting mechanisms are relatively isolated due to inadequate access to modern gear. Apiary sizes are as well limited hence the possibilities to engage in commercial honey production among the farmers are limited.



2.0. HONEY PRODUCTION AND MARKETING VALUE CHAIN MAPPING

2.1. Sub-sector Status in Kinangop and Kakamega Beekeeping is emerging as an important intervention pillar within the KCSSP-linked work of Nature Kenya. It is expected that this intervention will produce diversified developments – income generation for sustained livelihoods and support to environmental management. In Kinangop and Kakamega clusters, on average at least 1 in every 3 households is involved in beekeeping.3 However, this engagement has not development adequately so far to become a significant and reliable source of income. Encouragingly, it is acknowledged for its notable potential of uplifting the living standards of the communities as they pursue other NRM and conservation gains. Kinangop is one of the highest potential areas for beekeeping. This is based on its close proximity to the Aberdare forest, diversity in vegetation (providing a wide selection of forage) and abundance of water sources. In both areas beekeeping farmers use mainly 3 types of hives; traditional log, Kenya Top Bar (KTBH), and the Langstroth hives although there exists other types of hives in minimal numbers. Honey production /bee keeping in Kinangop and Kakamega areas is mainly carried out in small-scale – this is by subsistence farmers owning approximately 2 – 5 acres of land. In North Kinangop (Magumu, Engineer and Njabini), production is mainly for sale to the local Friends of Kinangop Plateau Honey Processing Plant while in South Kinangop (Murungaru) and the greater Kakamega Forest areas of Shinyalu, Isicheno and Buyangu honey production is mainly for home consumption, use in traditional liquor, and herbal medicine. Production quantity in the two geographical clusters differs depending on the type of hive used and methods of honey harvesting and processing. More than 60% of the producers from Kakamega employ traditional methods to harvest the honey which was mostly from traditional log hives although several Non-governmental organization (NGOs) have extended interventions aimed at providing farmers with modern hives which include Kenya Top Bar and the Langstroth. These organizations include Nature Kenya, Honey Care Africa (HCA), Community Action for Rural Development (CARD) and International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE). These organizations initially started providing the hives for free but realized that the approach was not sustainable since it lacked personal ownership and commitment to the hives. Most of them developed a hive leasing arrangement where interested farmers could acquire hives upon paying a 30% down-payment after which the balance would be settled from proceeds realized from honey sales. The various honey sub-sector organizations in the two geographical clusters have supported communities through apiculture training. The leading organizations in the field include Nature Kenya and ICIPE. According to the initial arrangement, the trained farmers were to pass the knowledge acquired others interested in beekeeping. However, though this has been done piecemeal, these farmers have not effectively trained others. Encouragingly, they provide essential services for example harvesting, hive cleaning and management among others. The traditional log hive is the most popular – even in the two clusters. This is associated to either the high cost of acquiring the modern hives or the lack of motivation to produce honey in large quantities. A spot check at the cost of a basic modern Langstroth hive revealed that it would cost a farmer Kshs. 4,805 (USD 73.92) minimum. Comparatively, a standard traditional hive on

3 Based on averaged generated from consultations with diverse consultations and engagements with

stakeholders during the data-collection process for the study – April - May 2008.



average costs Kshs. 900 while a modernized one (with a queen excluder) would retail at a maximum of Kshs. 1,200. The composite elements and costs of a Langstroth are as follows: Figure 2-1: Modern beekeeping start up gear costs Equipment: Cost per Unit: Total: Total

(KSH) (KSH) (USD)

Langstroth Hive (brooder) 3700 3700 56.92

Super 1000 1000 15.38

Queen excluder 150 15 0.23

Hive tool 50 50 0.77

Hive brush 20 X 2 units 40 0.62

Total Cost 4805 73.92

(very basic equipment) Source: Field Investigations, April - May 2008. The above breakdown has not taken into consideration the cost of training, purchase of bee colonies (if need be), protective equipment for example gloves, harvesting gear among others.

2.2. General Sub-sector Organisation Ownership and management: The media for honey production are hives. Traditionally, log hives have been owned and managed by men and in particular through knowledge and skills passed over generations. With the introduction of KTBH and Langstroths in 1990s, and with the support of development agencies as a means to address rural poverty, women have entered the sector. Currently, and in the Kinangop and Kakamega, women own about 25% of the hives – and mainly KTBH and Langstroths. While about 60% of the hives are owned by men, social groups are gaining popularity in hive ownership – currently owning 15%. Promotion of group-owned apiaries is being spearheaded by CARD, ICIPE, Nature Kenya and the Beekeeping Unit of the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Department – as the lead support agencies. The role of these organisations in the sub-sector has been, through their programmes, to support farmers acquire beehives as well as train groups of beekeepers in the organisational and management aspects of apiaries. In addition, the stakeholders have made some efforts to support producers identify and access local honey markets. According to a baseline survey carried out in Kinangop (2006) on the number of hives in the three Divisions Kipipiri, North Kinangop and South Kinangop the breakdown of hives was as follows: Figure 2-2: 2008 beehive numbers, Kinangop Cluster Hive: Kipipiri: N. Kinangop:S. Kinangop:

Log 762 1700 360

KTBH 40 88 150

Langstroth 196 380 194

Totals: 998 2168 704 Source: Divisional Dairy/Bee Keeping Officer, North Kinangop (MoLFD). The above illustration shows that popularity for log hives is significantly high while the numbers of Langstroth are on the growth path though limitedly. Apparently, the investment costs is



significantly high for the Langstroth while the overall rate of return is on average taking into consideration the time required for total pay-back. It is on this basis that farmers will continue to prefer log-hives compared to other types as individuals can easily acquire them without the need for credit arrangements. A comparison by percentage control and ownership of hives in Kinangop and Kakamega combined for the years 2002 and 2006 still confirm the limited numbers of modern hives. In year 2002, for every one Langstroth hive owned, there was a corresponding number of 1.8 KTBH and 7.9 log hives. In year 2006, there were notable improvements in the proportionate numbers; for every 1 Langstroth hive, there were 0.4 KTBH and 3.7 log hives. About 80% of individual hive owners have 1 to 2 hives while only 20% have more than 2 hives – and these are mainly the traditional beekeepers with a long history in the practice. Honey production and productivity: The average hive ownership by typology is highly varied. Though the production potential is relatively high, this is not being realised. According to the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development estimates, the clusters are only producing between 10 and 20% of their potential. Production of honey in the two areas is highly variable. Based on data gathered from the field, the harvesting seasons vary by hive typology. For log hive, the seasons range from 1 to 2 with an average of 1.47 times per year. For KTBH, the seasons range from 2 to 3 with an average of 2.3 times while for Langstroth, the seasons have ranged from 2.5 to 3 with an average of 2.92 times. The yields are varied as shown in the illustration below. Figure 2-3: Yield comparison for different hives by season

Area: Kenya Tob Bar Hive: Langstroth Hives

Seasons KGS per Total Seasons KGS per Total Seasons KGS per Total

per Year season yield (KGS) per Year season yield (KGS) per Year season yield (KGS)

Kanyenyaini - N. Kinangop 2 6.3 12.6 3 9 27 3 15 45

Engineer - N. Kinangop 2 5 10 2.5 10 25 3 16 48

Murungaru - S. Kinangop 1 8.2 8.2 2 10 20 3 20.5 61.5

Madioli Women Group 3 7 21

(Kakamega)

Isecheno Farmers - Kakamega 1 9 9 2 18 36 2.5 17 42.5

Shinyalu beekeeping farmers 1.8 5 9 2 11 22 3 22 66

(Kakamega forest)

*Sting less bee farmer 1 5 5

(Kakamega Forest)

Traditional Hives:

Source: Field investigations, April – May 2008. Field analysis confirms that the average number of hives per beekeeper in the region is generally low. The annual production levels per hive per harvest are also varied; 47.33kgs per Langstroth (which is one of the highest production levels in Kenya), 26.0kgs per KTBH, and 8.97kgs per log-



hive.4 This is against indicated potentials of 35kgs for Langstroth, 30kgs for KTBH, and 20kgs for log-hive. It is encouraging to note that the production by Langstroth is above expectations and hence though new, the technology has picked up well. The comparisons are presented in Figure 2-4 below. Figure 2-4: Productivity potential versus actual production levels

Hive typology

Average honey output (kgs) per hive per season

Average harvest times per year

Honey productivity potential (kgs) per hive per harvest5

Potential annual output (kgs)

Difference (kgs)

Proportionate difference - unmet (%)

Langstroths 47.33 2.92 35.0 102.1 12.33 Strongly positive

KTBH 26.0 2.3 30.0 69.0 (4.0) 13.33%

Log-hive 8.97 1.47 20.0 29.33 (11.03) 55.15%

Source: Field investigations, April – May 2008. Marketing: There are two categories of beekeepers; individual producers and groups involved in honey production. There is also some level of processing by some individuals and groups. Regardless of the category of beekeepers and typology of hives, honey producers utilise five marketing nodes; at home to local consumers, through local bulking agents, selling to major distant honey dealers in Kakamega and Nairobi, direct sales to consumers in distant markets in Nairobi, and direct sales to a formal industrial packers – specifically HCA and ICIPE. There are no other known organised formal industrial honey packers sourcing honey from the two clusters. The system applied is dependent on hive typology and marketing arrangement in place. Figure 2-5 is an illustration of the diverse arrangements in place as facilitative systems for honey marketing. Figure 2-5: Comparative marketing arrangements for honey and pricing structure Marketing nodes

Honey source Buying point Centres

Producer to 1st level buyer price (Kshs. per kg)

At home to local consumers

- Langstroth - KTBH - Log hive

Honey producer’s base (interested buyer visiting the producers)

- farm-gate 70.00 - 100.00 (crude honey – from KTBH and

/or log hive) 150.00 – 250.00

(processed- from Langstroth only)

Honey from stingless bees sells at Kshs. 100.00

– in crude form

Through local bulking agents


Honey producer’s base (interested buyer visiting the producers)

Or Honey producer taking to a buyer at a collection point (especially during a local periodic market day or on order arrangements)

- Kanyenyaini - Kinangop - Engineer - Kinangop - Murungaru - Kinangop - Madioli - Kakamega - Isecheno – Kakamega - Sinyalu - Kakamega

Kshs. 100.00 - 150.00 (crude honey – from

KTBH and /or log hive) (honey from Langstroth –

pricing system not different from the above marketing node due to the inherent marketing arrangements in place)

4 Results of data based on interviews with 7 honey producing and marketing groups. 5 Based on NBS analysis (Mbae, 2007).



Marketing nodes

Honey source Buying point Centres

Producer to 1st level buyer price (Kshs. per kg)

Selling to major distant honey dealers


Market centres - Kakamega - Shinyalu - Engineer - Murungaru - Naivasha

160.00 – 250.00

Direct sales to consumers in distant markets


Major centres - Kakamega - Kisumu - Nairobi

200.00 Honey from stingless bees retails at Kshs.

600.00 (in semi-processed form)

Direct sales to a formal industrial packer

- Langstroth - KTBH

Designated points of weighing and collection

- Diverse collection centres in the two geographical areas for formal markets

150.00 – 250.00 – depending on the season (super-based only for the

packer to extract – restricted to HCA, CARD

and ICIPE)

Source: Field investigations, April – May 2008. Except for the formal industrial packer, honey weighing in the region is calibrated on a 750ml juice bottle considered to be equivalent to 1kg of honey. However, honey handling mechanisms is an issue to be pointed out – there is a significant use of recycled bottles and other containers while hygiene standards are not well maintained in the marketing processes. Due to relatively low volumes of honey produced in the two clusters, the general amounts handled are generally inadequate to warrant significant economics for major marketers and bulk collection. While the demand is evident for honey, the low volume handled is an indication of limited production. This is also a motivating base to promote the sub-sector to address income and production gaps. In the marketing processes, about 20% of the producers harvest and wait for buyers. This is common among long-term beekeepers who are well known in the region. Majority of these use log hives. On the other hand, 80% make individual initiatives – of which only 30% take their produce to some distance markets while 50% rely on local bulking agents. The Remaining 20%, mainly with Langstroth and KTBH rely on HCA, CARD in association with HCA and ICIPE systems for collection.

2.3. Sub-sector Interactions

2.3.1. Overview The honey sub-sector in Kinangop and Kakamega clusters is considered a viable activity taking into consideration the existence of noticeable forage and suitable environments for bee ecology. However, the commercial aspect of the activity is significantly new and is existing alongside competing land uses and practices. The sub-sector has significant potential in contributing to better incomes especially with improved numbers of hives per individual. In particular, the weakest point in the chain is production – currently farmers are producing too little to attract significant market development. While on business service principles the best starting point is to respond to a product market, national honey production figures illustrate deficits. In 2004, a market analysis found that 40.9% of honey handled by Kenya’s supermarkets was imported (Mathuva, 2004). This excludes crude



honey imported from Tanzania for local packaging and selling by two leading formal honey packers and distributors. In addition, the same study found that among five key formal honey packers, in general operations were only at about 40% capacity – indicating that these packers were not in a position to cover the 60% under-capacity and honey market demand in the country from honey produced locally including the amounts imported from Tanzania and packed in the country. The development of this sub-sector is bound to impact positively on the following;

� Contributing to annual honey output in the respective regions and the country as a means to reduce imports of honey nationally

� Increasing incomes among the honey producers by pro-actively adopting beekeeping as a viable livelihood option

� Supporting service provision and para-professionals’ engagement which will become a conduit for income generation and disposable income

� Streamlining honey market arrangements for better pricing and competitiveness � Contributing to poverty reduction through increased earning from honey sales hence

playing a critical role in household food security and satisfaction of other financial needs at the household level

� Developing entrepreneurial skills and competences among the households as well as other players pro-actively entering in the sub-sector to fill business service gaps within the emergent sub-sector – such as hive producers, gear producers, etc.

2.3.2. The Sub-sector Map The honey sub-sector is founded on the beekeeping engagement and sector. In the clusters, the foundation is based on two broad categories of technological differentiation.

• Users of modern hive technology – mainly Langstroth and KTBH, and

• Users of local /traditional technology in particular the log hive. The largest formal market for the honey from the clusters as per current status of organisation is Nairobi. This is honey produced via Langstroths and KTBH. The markets are categorised as follows;

• Local market within the clusters – mainly for honey from log-hives and KTBH for home consumption and preparation of herbal medicine

• Local /regional markets – purchased by local honey packers for onward local markets in the neighbourhood and adjacent smaller centres

• Distant markets through Nairobi after processing and standardised industrial packaging. Some of the honey finds its way to Naivasha, Kisumu and Kakamega through the distribution channels of supermarkets and other marketing arrangements.

The honey sub-sector map as presented below (see Figure 2-6) illustrates the product flows through different channels from production to the markets. The indicative map outlines varied functions around the product – from production to destination markets. The operations are organised into two channels based on their forward and backwards linkages and their technological applications, involvement and outreach. The following key elements have been considered in constituting the honey sub-sector map as important notes;

- The sub-sector map is solely based on the results of the fieldwork carried out for this VCA and sources a greater part of its basis on consultations with actors in the clusters plus some analysis.



- The sub-sector map was informed by the overall sub-sector organisation. The channels are 'dictated' by the foundation and not the end. The marketing arrangements are of particular importance in explaining and expounding on the organisation and not the markets themselves. In this case, though there are three categories of markets, the production systems are two. The distinction is illustrated by the results of the fieldwork and based on economic – cum – technological options.

- Other stakeholders such as Nature Kenya, CARD and the GoK extension support and policy agents are not direct sub-sector operators and hence they have not been included in the map. Though, their roles are indicated in relevant sections of the analysis.

Figure 2-6: Honey production and marketing sub-sector map (Kinangop and Kakamega)

Source; Field investigations, April – May 2008 (synthesis).

2.3.3. Functions and Participants The main functions identified in this sub-sector are production, semi-processing, collection and bulking, transportation, processing, packaging, and distribution. These are described in details below, along with the range of participants who fulfil the various functions.



A. Production: There are two distinct categories of beekeepers in the region;6

• Farmers using modern hives and with 1 to 3 Langstroths, and /or 1 to 4 KTBH. In addition, there are women and youth groups engaged in beekeeping. The hive ownership among groups and related CBOs in varied in the two clusters.

• Beekeepers using log-hives and other traditional mechanisms. Most of these have inherited beekeeping skills and practices over the patriarchal generations. Little management efforts are devoted to these hives and honey harvesting activities.

B. Semi-processing: This is considerably common for honey from log hives and KTBH. There is significant semi-processing taking place across the hive technological divide and is the basis on which local honey traders get their supplies. For the log hives and KTBH, producers carry out semi-processing through crude means – either by using double cooking pan or self-drip. For improved KTBH and Langstroth, the producers or honey bulking agents use simple tools such as spoons to squeeze honey from combs. However, this has a negative effective on the comb foundation. Overall, nearly all the beekeepers except those still selling honey to HCA and ICIPE are involved in some form of semi-processing. However, while assessing honey quality management activities; there are high possibilities that at this stage quality are being compromised leading to some form of poisoning and inclusion of foreign substances. C. Collection and Bulking: The process of collection and bulking is an important engagement in the marketing chain. While CARD, Friends of Kinangop Plateau (FoKP), HCA and ICIPE are key player for the Langstroth-based honey producers, some local honey traders in the clusters and other external ones are involved in collection and bulking (though the number is minimal). Some para-professionals are also involved in honey trade. The role of these actors is to buy honey – either in crude or semi-processed form from farmers, bulk and sell either in specific measurements and /or undertake packaging using recycled bottles. Currently,

� The lower level participants in the function buy a kg of honey for an average Kshs. 70 to 100 and sell it at between Kshs. 150 to 200.

� The middle level players are local grocers who buy at between Kshs. 100 and 150, pack in recycled bottles and sell at the shops at a price of Kshs. 200.

� The upper level category buys a kg of honey at an average price of Kshs. 160 to sell it at a maximum price of Kshs. 250.

D. Transportation: Transportation is an important link between the collection points and the processing /packing sites or consumption /or markets. Large-scale formal operators have own or organized transport. Such operations have developed honey collection schedules either on hired or own transport. This is evident to CARD, Friends of Kinangop Plateau (FoKP), HCA and ICIPE. Local informal traders are deficient in this and either use bicycles or rely on public transport. Hence they operate with 50kgs of crude honey and below per single collection. To the traders, transport remains a core challenge with a load of 50kgs costing between Kshs. 50 and 150 to transport from source to a reliable collection and /or working centre. Overall, three systems of transport and transportation arrangements are evident;

• Own transport for large and formal buyers dealing with Langstroth hives and KTBH

• Hired transport especially for large and sometimes informal buyers (and CBOs) based in Kakamega and Kinangop clusters

• Use of bicycle and /or public means for traders dealing with relatively smaller volumes.

6 These categories have overlaps as some of those with the modern hives also own log hives and could as well

be members of women and youth groups that have benefited from HCA, Nature Kenya, CARD, ICIPE and /or GoK support in beekeeping.



E. Processing /refining: Honey processing in the clusters takes different forms and stages;

• Some local log-hive farmers undertake semi-refining either by warming the honey combs and sieving it out or by simply squeezing the honey either using a piece of cloth or by hand. This generates a better graded honey which sells at about Kshs. 100 to 150 per kg. while the crude one will normally sell at between Kshs. 70 and 100 – depending on status of supply.

• Individual traders involved in packaging carry out processing similar to the one carried out by farmers to remove scum and other solid compounds.

• Off-farm processing – by HCA, ICIPE and FoKP which acquire honey in supers and transports their processing units for extraction and onward transportation for centralised packaging. There are no other formal processors and packers of honey operational in the clusters.

F. Packaging: Formal packaging in the two clusters is a preserve of ICIPE, HCA and FoKP. However, two of these firms are taking less than 50% of the honey produced in the areas as they are particular on certain standards and measures in the industry. As well, they tend to buy honey mainly produced via Langstroth hives. ICIPE and HCA collect honey in supers and deliver to their processing units centrifuge, extract and semi-pack the honey to transport for packaging. Other packers are basically informal operators and either sells in recycled bottles of soft drinks or beverages. Within the formal packaging, there is use of;

• Glass bottles – weighing (with content) 420 grams

• Plastic bottles – weighing (with content) 400 grams

• Various sizes of squeeze bottles

• Family packs. G. Distribution: HCA, ICIPE and FoKP and informal traders take charge of distributing and marketing arrangements as well as promotion of their honey. The formal and informal establishments pursue distribution and marketing differently;

• HCA and ICIPE markets varied honey packs through supermarkets, small retail shops, and petrol stations. HCA has successfully registered and is already recognised under the fair-trade labelling organisation (FLO) and has opened marketing opportunities in the US. ICIPE is also in the export market – especially in Europe. Both ICIPE and HCA have established and continue to retain marketing relationships with leading supermarkets – including Nakumatt Holdings, Uchumi, Ukwala, Tuskys (formerly Tuskermatt), Naivas, Chandarana, Macuisine, Zucchini, among others.7 Based on the arrangements, some companies such as HCA often undertake promotional activities and merchandising in collaboration with the supermarkets to improve the market flow of their packs. Formal enterprises in honey as well participate in local trade fairs and exhibitions organized for organic foods and development and livelihood themes to promote honey production and consumption (Mathuva and Odhiambo, 2007).

• Informal channel – some operators in this channel supply honey to formal operations. Other operators within the informal channel also process and undertake personalized marketing in offices, markets and estates, among other areas. Packs from these market agents are not branded and are often packed in non-standardised containers.

H. Marketing and markets: Marketing of honey is diverse and passes via various media;

7 A common arrangement between the supermarkets and packers is such that packers should be ready to re-

package the honey once it has crystallized. This is at the cost of the packer.



• For formal processors, the marketing media are; Supermarkets, Small retail shops, Large-scale processor stores, through trade fairs and exhibitions, through large-scale purchase arrangements such as hotels, industrial buyers, among others.

• For informal systems, the marketing channels are; office to office, retail shops, through friends, from operation bases, among others.

As already indicated, there is some minimal export to USA and Europe for honey. In late 2007, HCA delivered its first and test consignment of honey of 2 tons to USA. On the other hand, ICIPE has established some minor markets in Europe. However, the fact that the two agencies are exporting honey is perhaps a paradox as Kenya is a net importer of honey – mainly from Australia, New Zealand and Middle East (Mathuva, 2004). HCA is also sourcing honey from Tanzania for the Kenya and export market. I. Sub-sector map invisible participants /players: The honey VCA cannot be comprehensively understood without making reference to the whole sector. In this respect, diverse players support the systems and structures of the sector in the two clusters which the particular sub-sector is based. Two categories are notable;

• Institutional players: - Supportive development partners, namely CARD, Africa Now (under former initiatives in Kakamega), and Nature Kenya. These agencies have been working with individual and group-based beekeepers by facilitating beehives acquisition, beehives management support and beekeeping knowledge dissemination. CARD and Nature Kenya have been dynamic in supporting the development of honey markets. - Institutional extension service provision continues to be offered by CARD, HCA and ICIPE. In particular, CARD, HCA and ICIPE have emerged as strategic organisations that have been providing embedded extension services to beekeepers and in some instances, the organisations have developed capacity of some farmers who are currently providing extension services in the sector for fees – such as hive inspection, harvesting and repairs. - Other services – HCA, ICIPE and FoKP are active players in the market. They undertake honey bulking, extraction and packaging of honey. ICIPE and HCA are also in the production, advisory and supply of hives and other beekeeping gear. - Beekeeping office of the Livestock Production Division, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development: The office is well represented both at the Division and District levels in the two clusters. Operationally, the office has and continues to offer extension, demonstration and support to quality production. Though not quite visible in the focus areas, their contribution in extension broadly is evident. In addition, the office is responsible for collecting and sharing important sector statistics to gauge performance. The office is working closely with diverse beekeeping groups through NGOs' funding and other development funding through the government channels. - Indirectly, two players are worthy mentioning;

• The Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) is active nationally in the quality management of locally produced and imported goods. It is the main certifying body for all consumer commodities in Kenya. Certification is usually governed by Acts of Parliament, quality standards and guidelines set by different bodies and institutions. Honey poses a big challenge to standardization and uniform certification. This is because the composition of honey is dependent on many



variables which include the origin, vegetation, climatic conditions, forage source, source hive and handling. These conditions change the entire composition of honey thus giving it different colours, viscosity, chemical and metals composition thus making it difficult to define the appropriate, quality and average composition of honey. KEBS therefore relies on various Acts and standardization processes to certify honey which include the Food and Poisons Act. For the export markets KEBS liaises with importing countries and companies who outline the minimum standards, composition and guidelines for the desired honey then certify the honey based on the prescribed standards. This is because each importing party has specific requirements depending on the purpose for importing, existing trade and safety guidelines and targeted markets. In the honey sub-sector, the role of KEBS is evident in the market arrangements. Honey marketed by HCA and ICIPE have received the diamond mark for their products’ range based on random Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points assessment and other checks. In order to maintain and stabilise their place in the market, the agencies have a responsibility to keep the quality high and safeguard the mark retention.

• The bar-code provision companies – in order to facilitate formal honey (like other goods) selling and marketing through supermarkets and other chains, bar-code for price-readability is required. HCA and ICIPE have acquired bar-code and have their packs properly coded. The bar-code companies remain central and relevant to honey market development for enhanced outreach and diversified stocking. Unfortunately, there are no other honey market operators in the two clusters known to have embraced bar-coding. Currently, FoKP is facing limited market penetration due to non-use and application of the system on its packs.

• Individual and group-based players: - Service provision level – This is a lean informal category and relatively new in the sub-sector. Out of training offered by the diverse agencies that have supported beekeeping in the two clusters, some individuals have taken up para-professional role to offer quasi-commercial services to beekeepers. Such include hive inspection, repairs and harvesting. Currently, beekeepers pay between Kshs. 40 and 70 for inspection and .or harvesting services per hive.

2.3.4. The Market Flows The sub-sector demonstrates the linkages between the different actors whose roles and functions are described in the relevant section. Two distinct channels and 3 market ends (as illustrated in the sub-sector map – refer to Figure 2-5) flow from the analysis: Each of these channels has specific characteristics about the way it operates, though there is significant overlap. A. Market Chain I – internal and domestic end: Community members in the two clusters honey mostly for domestic production and sale to local residents and friends. Due to inefficiencies in production and lack of market awareness they have no motivation to produce more honey. The average price per kg of semi processed honey is Kshs. 70. The honey is used as medicine, as a gift to visitors and friends and to brew tradition liquor. In this chain, quality of honey and the form in



which it is either consumed and /or marketed is not of great essence and is not a determinant of the market price. B. Market Chain II – Kenya’s major urban end: The beekeepers harvest the honey and market through occasional middlemen who come to the farm gate and purchase semi-processed honey. The average buying price at the farm gate ranged from Kshs. 60 to 90 per kg of semi processed honey. Often, middlemen display the packed honey by the roadside and mainly packed in recycled bottles and sell at a price range of Kshs. 80 to 95 per 250gms of honey thus translating to approximately Kshs. 350 per kg. No machinery is required since in most cases the honey is usually already harvested and in a semi-processed state. The middlemen buy mostly from farmers with KTBH and traditional hives. The traders dictate the price since the farmers do not produce in bulk and form a negotiating bloc also bearing in mind they do not have reliable markets. C. Market Chain III – Distant and export destination: This chain in the two clusters involve actively HCA and ICIPE that procure quality honey from beekeepers directly (without brokers’ involvement) and mainly where Langstroth hives have been used. The buying agents undertake bulking, secondary processing, packaging, branding and resale to large retail outlets mostly leading supermarkets intended for consumers in major towns. This is the only clear and integrative formal market chain. The other two are generally informal and with limited self-regulation. This is the only chain highly sensitive on quality and quality control yet it handles less than 40% of the honey produced. The buying price at the farm gate ranges from Kshs. 70 to 110 per kg of semi-processed honey. This is usually facilitated by a hive-leasing arrangement where some farmers were advanced hives on credit. Repayment was to be financed based on the harvest. However, some farmers source other “better” markets for their honey in one way breaching the agreement. HCA shared that it made its first export sale in October 2007 where it exported honey to the USA.8 Honey for export is processed to meet conditions stipulated by the importing country. For these organizations quality is of high importance and there have been cases where poorly handled honey from farmers has been rejected. The export market though limited exists but has specific conditions which many beekeeping farmers may not be able to meet even collectively. While quality and composition may be of very high standards, volumes and traceability standards are major stumbling blocs towards accessing these markets. The producers have not positioned themselves effectively to access these markets since they require constant supply of the product in large volumes. Traceability of the source, processing and stability in composition are key factors for consideration by export markets hence ruling out the probability of sourcing honey from different parts of the country and exporting as a single entity. Ideally there is no defined export market for honey but it can be created through identifying Kenyan honey’s competitive edge and special qualities and thereafter aggressive marketing overseas. It was the perception of Bees for Development UK representative that honey would sell more for its unique nature and qualities rather than generalizing as honey.

8 HCA shared that 1 Kg of processed and refined honey was wholesaling at US Dollars 1.5 to 2 (upon delivery

to the country). Kenyan honey may not compete effectively in the global market because of low hive numbers per household thereby increasing the cost of production, avoiding economies of scale, harvesting and honey handling techniques, high prices brought about by production inefficiencies.



2.4. VCA Mapping

2.4.1. Links and Business Services The value chain relationships evident in Kinangop and Kakamega illuminate a picture of weak linkages between the actors and a situation of non-exploitation of potential business services. Overall, the sub-sector is not extensively developed. Of the 4 clusters of potential services identified, the levels of taking advantage of these opportunities are minimal. With support to the whole sector and increased players in honey sourcing, it is foreseen that the provision of the services, both in an embedded form or as commercial ones is likely to take root. Below is the generated VC map.

2.4.2. Analysis and Deductions The honey market chain is organized around 5 broad market and operational nodes. These hierarchies are comparable to the functions identified in the sub-sector map and analysis. At each of these points, mean price variation is notable. It is important to note that of the 5, one of them does not directly deal in honey but make up some facilitative operations. Details are provided in some brief analysis below (Figure 2-7). Hive producing and marketing operations: These organizations either work in collaboration, own-produce or contract technical institutions to manufacture or procure hives and associated gear and thereafter market these inputs to the beekeepers. Diverse mechanisms are used including marketing directly to the farmers or using an intermediary to arrange for credit. HCA, ICIPE, CARD, Africa Now, Nature Kenya among others have been playing this critical role – hive production, facilitation as well as distribution to farmers. The hives are availed to the farmers in two channels; one, they are required to purchase the hives on a cash basis by paying the full amount upfront and /or credit facilities are available for those who may not have the ability to pay the full cost of the hive/s. The hives covered under this arrangement are primarily of the Langstroth type. A completed Langstroth hive with the basic required accessories costs approximately Kshs. 4,805 (USD 73.92). On the credit system, farmers are required to pay a 35% down payment with an informal agreement to recover the balance from the harvest obtained. The key hive leasing stakeholders identified included Nature Kenya, ICIPE, CARD and HCA. This revealed the dual role played by these actors (except Nature Kenya) since they are also found along the higher ranks of the value chain as honey collecting, bulking and marketing agents. HCA, CARD and ICIPE harvest, grade, bulk, transport, process, package, and market the honey in the major towns. They also provide technical assistance to the farmers at “minimal fees” or as an embedded service. Considering the costs incurred during bulking and transportation a minimum of 80 KGS of semi-processed honey is required to break even. Despite the numerous benefits and support that farmers receive from the modern hives it emerged that this may be the biggest hindrance to sustainable production. The Kshs. 4,805 per hive multiplied by the minimum number of hives required for beekeeping to be an economical income generating activity totalling Kshs. 24,025 is rather out of reach for majority of subsistence farmers. The quality of construction is sometimes questionable since some hives are not colonized for as many as 8 years. This forces willing farmers to depend largely on traditional hives which have lower production and capacity acquisition costs. Assemblage of hives using well seasoned materials has been a key challenge which has been orchestrated by the ban on timber harvesting and logging. Due to the increasing popularity of the modern hives and the need to make quick money, some hive manufacturers use unsuitable wood and other products which repulse bees instead of attracting them.

Pact

Ken

ya /

KC

SSP

and

Natu

re K

enya

Hon

ey P

rod

uct

ion

an

d M

ark

etin

g V

alu

e C

hain

(K

inan

gop

& K

akam

ega)

21

- Production &

marketing of

cheaper hives

- Para-professional services

- Production of gear

- Micro-leasing of gear

- Micro-leasing of hives

- Credit services /honey for hives

- Carbon sequencing and pollination

- Hive inspection and m

aintenance contracts

- Harvesting and extraction services

- Honey quality checks and controls

- Bulk packing and warehousing

- Transport arrangem

ents and logistics

- Farmer payment transfers and handling

Fig

ure

2-7

: H

on

ey p

rod

uct

ion

an

d m

arket

ing v

alu

e ch

ain

map

(K

inan

gop

an

d K

akam

ega)

Sou

rce;

Fie

ld in

ves

tigat

ion

s, A

pri

l –

May

200

8 (s

yn

thes

is).

KENYA BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Support Organizations

Hive manufacturing and m

arketing organizations

Beekeeping (sm

all scale subsistence

farm

ers) Owning 3 – 50 hives per HH

Small scale subsistence farmer groups

(carrying out beekeeping collectively)

Retail outlets (supermarkets & others)

Middle m

en /bulking agents – individuals

/Local retailers

Honey processing and m

arketing firms

Consumers (M

ajor cities and towns)

Local consumers (customers, fam

ily &

friends

Export M

arkets

- Assessm

ent /evaluation for eco-labelling

- Producer group training and m

anagem

ent

of negotiating for marketing

- Input linkages and negotiations

- Processing and quality assurance support

Grey area represents GoK, MoLFD and other

interventions aimed at supporting the sub-sector

e.g. NALEP, other actors e.g. NK, ICIPE, & HCA

These comprise non

partisan (purely

support actors e.g. NK

& Govt.)

Existing and potential business services



Honey producers: These are organised in two distinct though closely related categories; small-scale producers and producer groups;

• Small-scale honey producers: These are community members who carry out beekeeping either as a hobby or as an alternative income generating activity (IGA). The average hive ownership per household is 3 hives with the least being 1 and the recorded highest being 50. Some farmers have received training through the various supporting organizations and they provide some services to the other beekeeping farmers at a small fee.

• Collectively-engaged mall-scale honey producers: These groups are comprised of 10 to 30 small scale farmers who come together with a common purpose. Most groups carrying out beekeeping activities are doing so from the hive-leasing agreement from various supporting institutions including ICIPE, HCA and Nature Kenya. FoKP (North Kinangop) is the only group that has grown to acquire its own honey extraction and processing equipment and it collects honey from beekeeping farmers for bulking, processing, packaging and marketing to local residents and major owns.

Middlemen /bulking agents: These comprise individual entrepreneurs who purchase honey from farmers and market it to surrounding towns and cities. The middlemen do not process the honey any further only repackage it in used plastic and glass containers. They market the honey through hawking and mouth to mouth and do not have any distribution outlets. One middleman in Kakamega cluster purchases honey from Kakamega beekeeping farmers at between Kshs. 80 to 100 per Kg. Sometimes he is not able to buy all the available honey due to lack of financing and reliable transport system. He like all other honey middlemen uses a bicycle which can carry a maximum of 20 – 30Kgs per trip. The middlemen are not able to access the farms during the heavy rains due to the poor infrastructure and overlain on bicycle transport to purchase honey. They rely mostly on friends and word of mouth to pass the message round on sourcing. Honey processing and marketing firms: These comprise institutions which purchase honey from beekeepers, bulk it and transport it to Nairobi for further processing, packaging and marketing to various large retail outlets. HCA and ICIPE are already exporting honey to USA and Europe, respectively. In Kakamega, CARD is the leading honey marketing firm and it offers farmers additional services which include hive maintenance and harvesting. ICIPE is also a key purchasing and marketing actor. ICIPE is also setting up a honey market facility in Kakamega town where the farmers may come and market their honey directly. This facility is near completion and will greatly assist the farmers by providing an opportunity for the farmers to directly access the market. HCA purchases honey at the farm gate seasonally due to the high transactional costs involved since the main office is based in Nairobi. HCA average farm gate price depends on the seasons but ranges from Kshs. 90 to 120. Sometimes this price is lower especially for those farmers who are still financing the hive purchase cost. Retail outlets: These comprise supermarkets, healthy food and food supplement stores, chemists, and grocery shops through which the honey processing and marketing firms sell their produce. Nakumatt, Naivas, Tuskys, Chandarana, Ukwala and Uchumi supermarkets were found to have honey products from HCA and other hives products marketed by other packers from Eastern, Coast and Central Provinces. The beekeeping farmers in North and South Kinangop areas have found it difficult to directly access this niche market because of the complexities they encounter in obtaining bar code. This is an involving engagement with some financial costs involvement. It is likely to be a deterrent for a marketing agency with limited stocks and cash-flow. They are convinced that they may get better prices and margins if they accessed customers directly through the informal retail markets.



Following a visit to a leading bar coding company GS1 Limited it emerged that the process required basic legal documents of the business, the ownership structure and a description of the nature of products. The applicable costs identified were: Description: Amount (Kshs.) - Initial registration fees 5,5009 - Single barcode license fee 5,500 - 16%VAT 1,760 Total: 12,760 Honey from neighbouring countries was found on 2 supermarket shelves and it was much cheaper than locally produced honey. HCA shared that the government is not doing enough to protect the local honey producers since there are very high standards on honey intended for export whereas imported honey is not subjected to rigorous testing and certification. This is mainly due to the high regulations set aside by the European markets among others on the quality and composition of honey. Local consumers are not aware of the variances and their purchasing decisions are mainly based on domicile and preference. Kenyan sourced honey sells faster than imported honey. This could be attributed to the fact that most buyers are Kenyan and this has no correlation with the quality and composition of honey. According to the Nakumatt Supermarket Purchasing Officer, local honey demand is estimated at 7 litres of honey per day based on the daily purchases records. Sometimes there is absolute lack of honey due to the inability of farmers to produce required quantities. A major challenge identified at this level was that most honey processing firms have not acquired a bar code for their honey which is a prerequisite for any commodities being traded within the supermarkets and retail outlets.

2.4.3. Inputs and Margin Estimates a). Honey production gross margins estimates: 10 Production Selling /KG Profit /KG % Returns/KG

Cost /KG (Farm Gate Price)

45 95 50 111.11

45 100 55 122.22

45 120 75 166.67

Scenario with different selling price at the farm gate. The cost of production is relatively high because of the low production capacity levels. During discussions with farmers and service providers it emerged that it would cost Kshs. 10 per kg of raw honey while harvesting one hive but would cost Kshs. 30 per hive to harvest 5 to 10 hives. Hive cleaning, inspection and management for 1 hive during a 3-month season was estimated to cost Kshs. 370 being: Production Costs Estimate (1 hive):

Inspection 4 times a month = 20 X 4 = 100 Cleaning = 40 X 1 = 40

9 Only applicable at the initial stages not for subsequent barcode license applications. Subsequent applications

would cost approximately Kshs. 6,380. 10 The production cost is established to be Kshs. 40 per kg (Mathuva and Odhiambo, 2007).



Harvesting = 10 X 15 = 150 Forage and water = 50 Miscellaneous = 30 Total (Kshs.): = 370 Production Costs Estimate (10 hives)

Inspection 4 times a month = 50 X 4 = 200 Cleaning = 40 X 10 = 400 Harvesting = 30 X 10 = 300 Forage and water = 150 = 150 Miscellaneous = 200 = 200 Total (Kshs.): = 1,350 Upon estimating that each of the 2 farmers above harvested 15 kgs of honey from each hive then: Farmer with 1 hive: Farmer with 10 hives Production Cost = 370 Average harvest (kgs) = 15 Average cost /litre = 100 Yield = 1500 % prod. cost /yield = 24.7% Production costs and costing mechanisms are different depending on the number of hives and informal understandings between the service provider and the farmer. Where the farmer has 1 to 4 hives the costing system is based on the quantity of honey harvested. When the hives are more than 10 then costing is usually per hive thus creating a substantial difference for those with many hives. As illustrated above the production costs of a farmer with 1 hive account for 24.7% of the yield while for the larger scale farmer they account for only 9% of the yield. b). Honey collection, bulking and marketing gross margins: Ave. Price /KG Estimated Over-head Selling Price /KG Profit or Loss % returns

Farm Gate Expenses /KG Retail Outlets /KG /KG

95 76 500 329 192.4

100 76 500 324 184.1

120 76 500 304 155.1 c). Honey collection, packaging and marketing (Middlemen): Ave. Price /KG Estimated Over-head Selling Price /KG Profit or Loss % returns

Farm Gate Expenses /KG Retail Outlets /KG (KSH) /KG

95 22 200 83 70.9

100 22 200 78 63.9

120 22 200 58 40.8 Source; Field investigations, April - May 2008 (analytical).

Production Cost = 1,350 Average harvest = 15 Average cost /litre = 100 Yield = 15,000 % prod. cost /yield = 9%



3.0. GENERAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1. Market Trends and Competitiveness

3.1.1. Threat to Market Competitiveness The market for locally produced honey exists regionally and nationally. Formal channel in the clusters and especially Kakamega supply the produce to Nairobi based on which distribution is managed. Local consumption by individual households is yet to be fully grown; it is currently depressed by high price of honey and limited production and where it exists, the tendency is to rely on low quality products and especially from local hives. Such honey is lowly priced. Low hive productivity, scale of investment and overall outputs, rank highest as the main impediments to market competitiveness. At the current production levels, the market is set to stagnate and remain weak and undeveloped. Most farmers confirm having limited requisite capacity to manage the apiaries. In addition, the cost of setting up commercial apiaries is relatively prohibitive. Rudimentary processing, packaging and distribution techniques for locally marketed honey further compromise the future growth and competitiveness of the beekeeping enterprise in the clusters.

3.1.2. Income and Employment Generation The potential for the sub-sector to create jobs and sustainable income is far from being fully exploited. Hive productivity and ownership per household is low, thus reducing the level of income from sales of honey achievable annually. Increased productivity and scale is hence likely to lead to increased incomes and more permanent jobs in the sub-sector. At a production scale of 5 Langstroth hives per household coupled with better management practices, a family is able to earn Kshs. 22,750 in annual gross (Kshs. 15,750 net) income from sales of honey.

3.1.3. Willingness and Abilities to Pay for Business Services Commercial services in the beekeeping sector are not fully developed. The existing private extension services providers are operating below capacity, have limited business volume and largely unprofitable. Apart from the ad hoc services provided by individuals (with relatively deeper knowledge in the field) and support systems from embedded approach by CARD and HCA in Kakamega, there is little service provision. In Kinangop, there is over-reliance on the relevant government departments. Specifically, pure commercial services are non-existent including notable micro-leasing of equipment. Though, a number of development agencies have provided relevant gear to producers on a loan basis. Though, this input is minimal compared to the potential number of those with interest in the sector. While farmers are aware of the availability of some sector-specific services, their ability to pay is compromised by limited knowledge, non-growing market, limited growth and trust between buyers and producers and inadequate sector promotion. There is also some significant reliance on subsidies by the support organizations including Nature Kenya and limited appreciation of business development services by a majority of producers. Provision of these services is yet to emerge strongly with good coordination and backing from support organizations and honey marketing agencies. Nature Kenya is better placed anchoring and promoting commercial service delivery through a pilot of selected and well structured beekeeping producer business or marketing groups with profit orientation and focus. These groups should be linked with a few



selected profit focused beekeeping artisans /service providers to deliver services and inputs. This approach will stimulate productivity and generate commercialization models for replication.

3.2. Governance and Regulatory Environment There are limited governance and regulatory inputs and considerations in the local beekeeping sector in general that also affect the operations in the two clusters. The current regulatory and governance issues include;

� Licensing local traders or shop owners who double up as main buyers of honey through the informal market

� The role of KEBS is providing reliable and easy to use standards that honey producers can follow to streamline quality honey production and handling

� The government through the ministry of livestock offers testing and quality assurance analysis on acidity, water content, sugar levels, residues /impurities etc at the National Beekeeping Station. However, this is not easily accessible to producers and local dealers of honey.

3.3. Current Constraints In its present state, the Beekeeping sector in Kinangop and Kakamega clusters faces both supply-side and demand side constraints. The supply-side dynamics are relatively highly pronounced and underpinning the sector growth as a whole. This survey has identified these growth impediments through individual consultations with sub-sector experts, informants and authenticated these through focus group discussions with local honey producers. The core constraints are described here below – spanning from production to marketing functions.

3.3.1. Supply side Lack of knowledge on existence and potential role of business services: Along the value chain, beekeepers in Kinangop and Kakamega clusters generally operate on a trial and error basis. There is a tendency by the farmers to do for themselves activities that they are not full knowledgeable about. Such include harvesting, hive inspection, and general bee calendar management. Unfortunately, such tend to happen either due to inadequate operational knowledge on available BDS, overall access to the services at affordable rates or general absence of qualified business service provision operators. The lack of adequate training and technical knowledge base among the farmers leads to over reliance on traditional beekeeping methods which in turn lead to low yield, production of poor quality and contaminated honey, inadequate quantities per hive and poor market knowledge and intelligence. The continued lack of profits or reliable income has discouraged many farmers who no longer tend to their hives. Inadequate credit arrangement and facilitation: Integrated credit services with focus to beekeeping in Kinangop and Kakamega are not apparent. At critical nodes of the chain, inadequate facilitation to acquire inputs and manage markets are limited. Where they exist, such are not available along the whole chain and can only be accessible by groups and especially those working with selected partners. There are no universal credit packages to stimulate the sector. There is limited credit at the bottom of the chain where farmers receive Langstroth hives through credit but further along the value chain there are no tailored products for the actors. For example one of the limitations of the middlemen in purchasing and marketing honey is low purchasing power due to limited resources available. Credit facilities would enhance their capacity to purchase higher volumes which would motivate the beekeepers to produce more and effectively stimulate them to revamp the supply side of the chain.



Limited extension support: Extension services to apiculture at the production end are not well defined and developed in Kinangop and Kakamega. For example the cost of engaging a trained or local expert harvester to assist in checking and harvesting honey per hive ranges from Kshs. 40 to 70. Sometimes both parties enter into agreement that the harvester will take a certain portion of harvested honey. Limited business motivation for BDS provision: The current numbers of bee keepers is not concentrated and relatively large enough to attract packaging of commercial BDS. There currently exist informal BDS providers who only provide apiary maintenance and harvesting services. Such exists in limited numbers - approximately one per Division. In addition, the availability of good business is questionable as apiary sizes are rather small and uneconomical. Potential and quality BDS providers include technical institutions for example Egerton University and Baraka Agricultural College. However, there have to be good and attracting apiary numbers to activate commercial service orientation and packaging. Limited production competitiveness: The presence of supportive agencies including NGOs assisting selective groups and application of divergent approaches in the two clusters is not necessarily in good support of the sub-sector. There has been a tendency to crowd out the market and destabilising the private sector. Little has been done to support the private sector as an entity to stand and grow. The donor-driven approach through the NGOs and other agencies has pursued the supply path. However, the implications have been that the market economy has significantly failed. By appreciating the need for long-term sustainability, it would be essential to ensure that the support to the sector is encapsulated to exploit the regional potentials and adopt a market orientation. Limited honey volumes: Due to the fact that apiary sizes are uneconomically small, the general honey output is generally low and non-attractive for competitive markets. In addition, there is an apparent ‘control’ and ‘restricted’ ownership mechanisms especially of the Langstroth-based honey production by the honey marketing agents working in the region, especially in Kakamega where ICIPE and HCA have bases. Non-recognition and subsequent non-commercialisation of other hive products: Tied to limited apiary sizes and unexploited aspects of the sector, the drive for commercial support services is absent. Weak colonies and high absconding rates: 6 farmers complained that some hives had remained un-colonized for as many as 8 years. Hive and colony management emerged as a major constraint since only few farmers had received training. This is a critical component in honey production and is a major contributing factor to the sustainability of beekeeping as an enterprise. The high absconding rate is associated with inappropriate apiary siting and management. Other identified causes of absconding were invasion of hives by the pseudo scorpion and tree frogs (Njoroge and Kioko, 2006). Human, livestock and bee conflicts: The African bee is said to be extremely violent and defensive. There at least 4 cases of bee attacks recorded every year in North Kinangop - most of them involving children and livestock. These attacks are mostly caused by curious children who throw stones at hives and sometimes by cattle grazing around the hives. Bees become extremely agitated by hive disturbance and in most times they react by stinging the potential intruders. This causes conflicts between beekeeping farmers and community residents who are paranoid of bees. This has caused friction and conflict to the extent of some beekeeping farmers being forced to abandon the practice.



3.3.2. Demand side Unqualified demand for BDS in the sub-sector: The two clusters have not been ‘opened up’ to demand for BDS services. On one hand, this is associated with limited knowledge of the potentials and general low uptake of beekeeping as an income generating activity and service to the environment and biodiversity. Limited bee-keeping operations: Though beekeeping is on a growth path in the two clusters, one cannot fail to observe that the practice is not widely spread. It is still carried out by a select number of farmers. The economic viability of the sector is yet to be tested and accepted by a wider majority. The promotion of the sector has not taken off substantially. General nascent stage and dependency on donors and NGOs as stimulants and drivers of the honey sub-sector: Based on the fact that the beekeeping sector is limited in spread and that its promotion is yet to achieve good and reliable numbers and production, there is a general observation that its existence and continuity is currently externally-driven’. The fact that there are limited ‘home-grown’ efforts in the two clusters presents a challenge to sustainability and long term economic focus. Apparently, the sector is dependent on donor programmes and hence it substantially lacks local ownership and identity. Non-utilisation and commercialisation of other hive products: Beekeepers from both Kinangop and Kakamega explained that they either give out the honey combs for free or dispose them. This is already one potential avenue to boost their sales from looking at a hive as a means to produce other products other than honey. A cross-check with HCA and ICIPE revealed that beeswax is in high demand and that the price per kg is approximately 100 (at the farm gate) and Kshs. 130 to local factories. Propolis, bee venom, royal jelly and pollen are other products that can be pursued for serious consideration as avenues for income generation (Mathuva, 2004). Currently, farmers look at honey as the only product and do not consider other potential products. However, HCA recommends that farmers should first learn to manage the hives effectively since these products require careful planning, numerous training and sophisticated equipment. In a KTBH which is a net producer of beeswax for example, the ratio of beeswax to honey units is 1:9 with an allowance of 1 unit of waste products. Therefore, with an average production of 12 kg per hive a farmer is highly likely to harvest 1.25 kg of beeswax. The calculated illustration below shows the potential economics in beeswax as compared to honey;

10 KTBH hives X Av. production of 13 kg per hive = 130 kg of honey From each hive, harvest Ave. 1 kg. of beeswax = 13 kg of beeswax 130 X 100 (Av. price of honey) = 13,000 Add: (Av. price of beeswax) = 13 X Kshs. 120 = 1,560 Total (Kshs.): = 14,560

Poor packaging and branding: In Kinangop cluster, poor packaging and branding of honey packs is notable. The FoKP Engineer honey processing plant uses plastic containers to pack honey. These packs are generally inappropriately labelled. Quality standards are not adhered to. Regrettably, the products cannot be marketed through major supermarket chains as they lack barcodes. The government and industry regulations are slowly requiring that honey be packed in clear glass containers a shift from the traditional low quality plastics. The labelling content and materials used are scissor-cut mere computer-printed papers. The labels are stuck to plastic bottles using paper glue. In Kakamega cluster as well, it has been noted that a number of local



dealers pack honey in recycles bottles whose cleanliness is doubtful. Similarly, members of Madioli Women Group in Kakamega use clear 250ml bottles. However, the honey handling mechanics, labelling and general branding is inappropriate. For the women group, the labels are hand-written and stuck to the containers using local or paper glue. The handling mechanisms, poor packaging and labelling adopted by the low-end packers has a negative effect on the competitiveness of their honey in the commercial market. This is despite them having better and more superior quality honey. The honey cannot retail at leading stores and outlets in Nairobi because they lack a bar code, which is the basic identification symbol of point of sale management information systems. Inadequate market intelligence and structures: Marketing arrangements are either inadequate, weakly founded or supply based. Farmers have to wait for collection which takes some time while payments are also significantly delayed. The farmers do not have information on the market performance and standards on pricing hence they rely on the price offered by the honey buying agent. This discourages farmers who sometimes feel cheated with a false perception that the honey is going to be sold at very high prices while they purchase from the farmer at very low prices. Marketing and markets are also distorted by the contractual arrangements between farmers and some support actors where under the agreements honey is only harvested by the hive lending company which also purchases it on their own terms. The farmers are therefore limited in sourcing their own markets competitively. These arrangements hinder cost-based and competitive pricing. Most farmers are therefore handicapped in organizing themselves into marketing blocs and operating in a ‘liberalised’ market.

3.4. Non-explored BDS Opportunities The beekeeping g interventions in the two clusters are generally in nascent to emerging stage. Value chain mapping has shown that though significant potential at the producer level and enthusiasm and interest at the supportive agency level exist, some gaps exist. Efforts to take advantage of these gaps and exploit them as opportunities is timely – and in particular in stimulating the business service development, targeting and provision. The envisaged business service opportunities with the potential for igniting the sector in line with the analysis include;

i. Training and capacity building on apiary maintenance and management; basic business management techniques including record keeping, costing and marketing, hygiene and effective handling of honey and other hive products; group dynamics and importance of economies of scale. Lack of adequate skill and knowledge on apiculture was cited as the greatest challenge towards production and marketing of honey.

ii. Provision of credit facilities at all critical points (production, management, processing and

marketing); Credit facilities should be tailored to meet the unique facets of apiculture taking into consideration the cash flows, and external factors impacting the practice. In addition, packaging of the credit services should be made in such a way that recognises specific actor needs, aspirations and expectations. It is important that these services are designed to stimulate and support both the supply and demand sides of the chain. This would assist farmers acquire at least 5 hives as well as provide finances for management and extension services. The credit facility should be provided by independent (market-driven) institutions to individual and group members with clear terms, conditions and credit appraisal.



iii. Preferential contractual and trading arrangements; Provision of credit services by support actors especially those that enter into agreements for sole-trading generates a conflict of interest as well as limits competitive honey pricing since the market is not liberal for those farmers who acquired hives through the credit system. Currently most farmers acquired hives through this arrangement and in most cases they only have the brooder boxes, while the super box still belongs to the support actors. This arrangement was identified with only 2 support actors.

iv. Extension support services; Extension services to stimulate technology uptake and production efficiency, features as a major impediment to the growth, impact and future of the beekeeping intervention in the two clusters. Individual lead farmers in honey production could be encouraged and supported to take up part-time /side-engagement extension provision on a fee-paying basis. In addition, Nature Kenya is better placed supporting the provision of embedded services and also encouraging the major honey dealing agencies to station limited personnel in the two production clusters.

v. Affordable hive technologies; Present beekeeping technology promoted by Nature Kenya is based on the Langstroth hive, based on its high productivity and quality honey if well managed. Besides its high management requirements, the hive is also largely unaffordable and costly in relation to the incomes of the majority of the local people. Besides promoting the Langstroth, Nature Kenya may need to innovate and adopt in collaboration with the local artisans on hybrid hives that are cheaper as relatively efficient.

vi. Small scale extraction and processing; Opportunities in local extraction and marketing of

honey remain largely unexploited. There is need to explore the possibilities of setting up and managing seasonal micro-extraction units through private local entrepreneurs – linked with major buyers to reduce transactional costs and increase profitability among the producers. By this approach, major packers could either concession their facilities, and /or franchise them in the local setting.

3.5. Other Sector-support Opportunities Forage for bees and income generating activity: Several crops have been identified as good forage some including sunflower, Lucerne, hibiscus and other all weather plants. Some of these plants have potential for great financial gain while others can support other farming activities which can be economic boosters for the farmers. The forage sources for honey bee are an important consideration and inputs to production. Sunflower is a highly a commercial plant in high demand for its natural oil content. At the same time it provides one of the best forage for bees. Lucerne is also regarded for its quality livestock feed. Both Lucerne and sunflower are rich in nectar and pollen. If introduced, they would be of great benefit to apiculture as well as provide income (sunflower) and support dairy farming. Intensifying home production at the farm-level: Currently some farmers own 1 hive while others own up to 50. More than 80% of beekeepers have less than 5 hives in their apiaries. Subsidies will need to be factored in to address the severely weak production end but only on a credit basis. Specifically, these will be needed to enable farmers increase the level of hive ownership, develop service delivery, and cover intensive and targeted training, mobilization and sensitization campaigns to stimulate investments in the sub-sector. For optimal production the minimum number of hives should be 5 per household.



Marketing honey from Kinangop and Kakamega as a special product and blend: If honey was certified organic, fair trade or sold within a specialist marketing niche, such as single forage source, then a higher price could be expected from both local and international markets. Honey from Kakamega could be sold as Equatorial Forest Honey while that of Kinangop should embrace Aderdares. Single source and organic forage honey is in high demand and fetches higher prices in the market as compared to mixed forage sources.11 The farmers and supporting partners should start looking into these elements to increase the value added for locally produced honey.

11 As indicated by Janet Lowore, Bees for Development UK.



4.0. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITIES

4.1. Conclusions The following issues and findings adduced from the VCA are meant to highlight potential caveats in addressing sub-sector constraints in ways that provide long term solutions and economic benefits to honey production and marketing through the KCSSP-funded project of Nature Kenya.

4.1.1. Emerging Issues � There are gaps in the production systems of honey, which is apparently the weakest point in

the chain. � Honey producers are less informed and aware of the market dynamics and consideration

leading to significant organisational misconceptions. � Beekeeping in Kinangop and Kakamega is characterized by poor hive management practices,

frequent absconding of bees, frequent low harvests and poor honey harvesting and processing techniques at the cottage level.

� Beekeeping complements existing farming systems in the two geographical clusters and in Kenya as a whole. It is simple relatively cheap to start, enhances the environment through the pollinating activity of bees, is completely sustainable and generates income.

� In Nairobi and other urban centres, there is a strong market for high quality honey and supermarket shelves are stocked with expensive imported honey which sell alongside local output. In a number of cases, the local produce is often adulterated and /or poisoned from poor harvesting systems.

� Beekeeping and the honey sub-sector in particular holds the potential to contribute to the overall Nature Kenya’s programme goals while complementing and strengthening other programme initiatives in the clusters as well as other areas.

� Among the producers using Langstroth hive, it is evident that there is a low recovery rate especially considering the cost of the hives hence it would generally take a significantly longer time for the poor producers to break even in the business.

� There is need for specific sub-sector re-engineering and management improvement targeting constraints and opportunities towards;

o Paying attention to economical apiary sizes o Concentrating support only to promising beekeepers as 'puller' of other producers o Promoting cheaper technologies for improved sub-sector up-take and self-drive in

hives and associated gears' acquisition o Interesting increased adoption of beekeeping to enhance production.

4.1.2. Node-specific Findings a). Production:

• Uneconomical apiary sizes per farmer (average ownership is 1 to 3 hives per household) thus increasing production costs

• Lack of market awareness and intelligence. The producers either market to single source buyers or prefer to market their honey individually thereby opening up avenues for exploitation due to market disorganization

• Lack of training and well developed extension services

• Poor apiary management techniques. These include colony hunting, husbandry issues, hive maintenance, harvesting and handling of honey and other products

• High cost of Langstroth hives, substandard hives and lack of well developed credit facilities to enhance production

• Information flow, lack of new innovations and development in apiculture.



b). Intermediate marketing, processing and packaging:

• Poor packaging of honey and honey products. This is caused by lack of standard processing and packaging equipment and decentralized marketing

• Gross inefficiencies leading to increased production costs. 1 to 3 hives per household give less returns

• Delayed payments to farmers by collecting and bulking agents for example HCA and CARD, and

• Mistrust between farmer and honey collecting agents. c). Marketing and export:

• Kenyan honey is not competitive in price as compared to honey from other countries due to limited production hence high costs of production

• Kenyan honey is not marketed as a special product whereas honey from Kakamega and Kinangop can be marketed as special, organic, forest and Equatorial product

• Production is not sufficient to sustain export business (very low volumes)

• Lack of traceability standards (source and processing) and fair-trade arrangements.

4.2. Opportunities and Recommended Actions Value chain node Matching recommendations

Production: - Ensure the minimum sustainable production capacity of 5 hives per household through provision of credit facilities by independent institution and through an independent vetting system

- Capacity building for farmers and extension service providers (on all aspects of apiary management) for service uptake and later commercialization.

- Developing formal hive leasing arrangements with contractual arrangements to farmers and reacquisition of already issued but non productive hive and issuance to serious bee farmers.

- Mobilize farmers to pay off for any contractual arrangements that bind them to sell honey to one entrepreneur.

- Train farmers on environmental management and encourage them to plant trees, and

- Encourage farmers to plant numerous forage plants around apiaries.

Intermediate marketing, processing and packaging:

- Kenyan entrepreneurs should embrace the new packaging requirements of food-grade clear glass containers and sourcing for high quality and tamper-proof packaging materials to ensure that traceability may be possible and reduce degree of contamination or interference with the product.

- Entrepreneurs should develop a collective packaging point where the products will be well packaged and they should acquire a barcode for the products to enable them compete in the retail and supermarket chains.

- Actors at this level should focus on increasing efficiency, collecting and bulking greater quantities of honey for increased economies of scale

- Institutionalisation of business development services would need to be considered. At the same time, major market players with presence in the clusters should be encouraged to work with promising service providers to promote diverse models including ground sole representation and offering branded services for these market players.



Value chain node Matching recommendations

Marketing and export:

- Consider reducing production inefficiencies and increasing production per farmer then mobilizing farmers to form organized and collective marketing blocs and to diversify the markets. Focus should be to move away from the conventional contract based arrangements to a liberal and competitive market.

- Branding cluster-specific honey as a special product and intensifying marketing efforts. This may involve quality and composition assessment to identify special honey characteristics and marketing these qualities as opposed to holistic marketing as honey. This may attract potential international buyers interested in purchasing a special and distinct product.

- Consider organizing the producers into groups and liaising /approaching fair-trade labelling organizations for honey sourcing and export marketing based on certification and eco-labelling.

- Increasing production levels through promotion of the sector for increased quality tonnage.

Other supportive interventions:

- Promoting other hybrid hives such as modernized log-hives (other than Langstroth) especially as a strategy to lower purchase /production costs per unit would give the producers an opportunity to explore commercializing other hive products such as beeswax and propolis.

- Addressing a weak and underdeveloped production side is a key strategy to full development and commercialization. Nature Kenya will need to employ viable strategies to excite and stimulate production beyond current levels so as to generate needed scale and benefits. These include; sensitization and training farmers on beekeeping as viable business, facilitate access to minimum number of hives to operate at scale, extension services and technology transfer, better apiary management, market linkages and building on local knowledge to promote honey production and enterprise acceptance.

- Initial targeting to promote commercial production and establishment of viable enterprises at household level should target entrepreneurial poor and specific lead farmers to act as trainers and innovators from which replicable model can emerge. It is also important to learn from previous initiative failures.

- The financial intermediation should be at the main critical points in the value chain which comprise production to enhance quantities and quality and retail to financially empower retailers in bulk purchasing and handling capacities. No subsidies should be encouraged but leniency on collateral should be exercised.

- Subsidies will need to be factored in to address the severely weak production end. Specifically these will be needed to enable farmers increase the level of hive ownership, develop service delivery, and cover intensive and targeted training, mobilization and sensitization campaigns to stimulate investments in the sub-sector. The subsidies can be gradually reduced as the sub-sector expands and sustainable business models are developed and replicated.

- Definite focus on development and strengthening of services and market support system should inform the intervention in the sub-sector. Specific elements to consider will include; farmer to farmer based extension



Value chain node Matching recommendations

service delivery, cost-effective input supply system, alternative markets development via current pool of informal traders and processing starts ups, apiary management --- mostly targeting a weak production side and general marketing organization and efficiency.

- Institute a clustering approach in honey sub-sector development in order to make commercialisation of business services meaningful and realistic. There is need to develop and spearhead the setting up of honey collection and bulking centres based on the clustered honey production localities. Though, this should only be initiated once the clustering process has been testing and supported to work.



REFERENCES

Caroll T., 2006. Preview: A Beginner’s Guide to Beekeeping in Kenya. Source - http://www.apiconsult.com/beekeeping-beginner.s-guide.htm

Caroll T., February 2004. BAC/SHDI Beekeeping Extension Project, Kenya: Annual Report - 2003. Baraka Agricultural School – Molo and Self Help Development International - Ireland.

Carroll T., ‘The Future of Beekeeping in Kenya: Some issues to reflect on’, a presentation made during the Beekeeping in Kenya: What is the future? Forum – Hotel Silver Springs, Nairobi; 13 September 2007 (organised by CEF /CDTF).

Gichora M., 2003. Towards realisation of Kenya’s full beekeeping potential: A case study of Baringo District. Ecology and Development Series No. 6, 2003 – Cuvillier Verlag Gottingen. Source - http://www.tieroekologie.uni-bonn.de/Projects/Baringo.html

Government of Kenya, June 2003. Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation, 2003 – 2007. Government Press, Nairobi.

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2007. Basic Report on Well-being in Kenya. Ministry of Planning and National Development, Regal Press, Nairobi.

Kula O. and Farmer E., October 2004. Mozambique Rural Financial Services Study. AMAP and ACDI/VOCA, Washington, DC.

Lightfoot C, Scheuermeier U and Dennig A., August 2006. Proceedings - Linking Local Learners: Strengthening Market Linkages in Kenya. International Support Group (ISG) and Kakamega Farmer Field School Network, Kenya.

Marter A., 2004. Enterprise Development: Rural Incomes and Employment – Kenya Case Study Report. AKF /CRSP (K) – Mariakani.

Mathuva J. M. and Odhiambo W. O., October 2007. Value Chain Analysis of the Honey Sub-sector in Kinango, Kaloleni and Kilifi Districts - Kenya. CRSP (K) /Aga Khan Foundation, Mariakani.

Mathuva J. M., July 2004. Market Analysis for Honey and Other Hive Products, Kitui District. Kenya Gatsby Trust and MEDP – Kitui, Nairobi.

Miehlbradt A.O. and McVay M., 2005. From BDS to Making Markets Work for the Poor. The 2005 Reader - Annual BDS Seminar 2005. ILO International Training Centre, Turin - Italy

National Beekeeping Station, December 2005. Nyuki Newsletter. Vol. X Issue No. 1 of December 2005.

Njoroge G.N. and Kioko E.N., 2006. Beekeeping in Kenya: Status, Lessons and Experiences from BCP-supported Projects. Community Development Trust Fund, Nairobi.

RED., August 2004. The CRSP (K) Revised Beekeeping Implementation Paper 2004-05: Learning from Experience. CRSP (K) /Aga Khan Foundation, Mariakani.

Saville N., March 2004. Beekeeping Sector Potential in Kwale District. Progressive Interventions, Nairobi.



ANNEXES

Annex 1.0. Data Collection Tool

RESOURCE MOBILIZATION CENTER /NATURE KENYA

VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS INFORMATION COLLECTION & INTERVIEW GUIDELINE:

(SUMMARIZED)

1. Description of the beekeeping and honey extraction process:

In the following stages: o Marketing and market analysis o Packaging /branding o Processing o Primary

2. Challenges faced in the process of beekeeping/honey production 3. Who are the stakeholders involved in:

o Hive marketing and manufacture o Apiary management and maintenance o Training and extension services o Honey packaging, marketing and export o Support, regulation and certification

4. Which are the functions of each stakeholder: 5. How have the market trends been in the honey /beekeeping sub-sector

• Demand for honey - Emerging markets

• Pricing - Past markets

• Future markets - External markets 6. How are the governance structures placed within the sub sector 7. Is there an enabling environment for the sub-sector: Legal and regulatory framework

• Infrastructure

• Policy gaps and needs 8. Is there a linkage between beekeeping /honey and other sectors 9. What can be done to stimulate growth in the sub sector



Annex 2.0. Study Itinerary

Date: Time: Activity: Location:

19.02.08 10.00 Meeting beekeeping farmers (Kanyenyaini & Njabini)

Kanyenyaini

02.00 Meeting Divisional Livestock and Agriculture Officer – South Kinangop

Engineer

20.02.08 09.00 Meeting FOKP beekeeping farmers and Honey Processing Plant personnel.

Engineer

02.00 Meeting beekeeping farmers North Kinangop (Murungaru)

Murungaru

03.03.08 12.00 Meeting Bees for Development Representative

Nairobi

07.05.08 10.00 Meeting Nakumatt Representative Nairobi

08.05.08 10.30 Meeting Prime Foods Representative Nairobi

08.05.08 12.00 Meeting Forest Honey Representative (failed)

Did not take place

09.05.08 10.00 Meeting Uchumi Supermarkets purchasing manager

Nairobi

29.05.08 3.00 Meeting GS1 Kenya representative Nairobi

19.05.08 10.00 Meeting KEBS representative Nairobi

23.05.08 09.00 Meeting Director of Livestock, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development

Nairobi

25.05.08 10.00 Meeting National Beekeeping Station representative

Nairobi



Date Time Activity Venue

11th Mar Travel by road to Kakamega

12th March 08 7:30-8:00

am.

Travel to Isecheno

8:30 AM Courtesy call on the Forester Kakamega Forest

Station

9-9:30 am Meeting with KEEP officials and branch

representatives (introduction)

KEEP Resource

Center

9:30-12

noon

Project briefing Isecheno

12:30-

2:00pm

Lunch Break KEEP Bandas

dining hall

2-4 pm Viewing of KEEP project and short tour to

the forest

KEEP Resource

Center

4:30 PM Break and plan for next day

13th March 9-12 noon Value Chain Analysis Discussion :1

Isecheno

KEEP Resource

Center

12:30-

2:00pm

Lunch Break and Travel to Buyangu

2-2:30 pm Courtesy call on the Warden KWS office

Kakamega

3-5 pm Value Chain Analysis Discussion 2 KEEP Buyangu

Resource Center

5:00pm Break and plan for the next day

14th March 8-9 am meeting stakeholders at Iielo lleho

10-11 am Madioli Women's Group Mr Lijoodi

Demonstration

Farm

1-2 pm Lunch Break Kakamega Town

2-3 pm CARD Kakamega Town

4:00 PM Muliru Farmers Conservation Group Isecheno-Tom's

residence

5:00 PM Wrap up and Way Forward KEEP Resource

ITINERARY

VCA TASK - KAKAMEGA

11th to 14th March 2008



Annex 3.0. Field Contacts

No. Name: Location: No. Name: Location:

1 Vincent Nderitu Njabini /Magumu 42 J. Musyoki Murungaru Branch

2 Francis Muigai beekeepers meeting 43 Samuel Thiongo FOKP Meeting

3 Benson Mwangi 44 Morris Lisiolo

4 Peter Mwangi 45 Peter Musiomi

5 Steven Kangethe 46 Caroline Lumosi

6 Francis Mwangi 47 Shikono Langwen

7 Paul Wambugu 48 Boniface Alukaya

8 Paul Macharia 49 John Shunza

9 Joseph Muchiri 50 Ruth Bandi

10 Raphael Karua 51 Leonard Muhanga

11 Feliste Thiongo 52 Evans Lumiti

12 Charles Mugo 53 Cyrus Mavuru

13 Samuel Gitau 54 George Azenga

14 Charles Kamau 55 Joel Mbogani

15 Steven Wambugu 56 Benjamin Okalo

16 Peter Macharia 57 Emily Liyayi

17 Wambua Joshua 58 Beatrice Muchesia

18 Nicholas Wambugu 59 Josephat Imbayi

19 Wambua Joshua 60 Joseph Bitinyu

20 Waitisko Elija South Kinangop 61 Enosh Indango FOKP Beekeeper

21 Jane Kamau Engineer, beekeepers 62 Christine Nanjila

22 Wanjiku Ndirangu and farmers 63 Abraham Imbayi

23 Pius Njoroge 64 Boniface Alukaya

24 Paul Muhuha 65 Walter Chamkui

25 Jeff Maina 66 Noah Sunguli

26 Mary Ndirangu 67 Andrew Yakama KEEP Beekeepers

27 Walter Gathama 68 Timona Kabuka Buyangu

28 Kamau Jane 69 Solomon Isiye

29 Francis Gathura Murungaru Branch 70 Elijah Bwonya

30 James Kangethe FOKP Meeting 71 Laban Shihunwa

31 Mrs. Ndaire 72 Patrick Mutsami

32 Andrew Mwangi 73 Ernest Milimu

33 Chege Muchiri 74 Noah Induku

34 Ruth Gathura 75 Aineah Gitau

35 Johakim Kiiru 76 Dennis Shitandayi

36 Waweru James 77 Eluid Ingachi

37 Njoroge Githuki 78 Aggrey Lukongo

38 Wachira Kariuki 79 Solomon Kitaa

39 Francis Njau 80 Collins Alusiola

40 Mungai Kamau 81 Nixon Satita

41 Kariuki Gakuru 82 Jonathan Mukaisi



No. Name: Location:

83 Ernest Milimu KEEP Beekeepers

84 Jackson Mwanje Buyangu (Cont)

85 Jared Sajita

86 Gabriel Mulama

87 Jacklyne Ayuka

88 Timothy Lusonga Madioli Women

89 Patrick Lumumba Group Members

90 Truphosa Mutembule

91 Truphosa Mutembule

92 Kelvin Lumumba

93 Hanna Atamba

94 Alice Manyengo

95 Thomas Luyundi

96 Elizabeth Musonye

97 Ben Musonye Community Action

98 Zaddock Andaya for Rural Dev.

99 Alfred M'mumayi Officials

100 Felix Musonye

101 Stanely Imbusi Stingless Beefarmer

102 Kakamega forest

103 Peter Kibai DLEO, Shinyalu

104 Peter Kisau NALEP, Shinyalu

105 Jannet Lowore Bees for Development

(United Kingdom)

106 Margaret Ateka Acting General

Manager, HCA

107 Martin Muraya NAKUMATT HLDS.

108 Faith M. KEBS

109 Mr. James Moinde Director, Livestock

Division, Ministry of

Livestock and

Fisheries Development

Documents

Anyona_S. Gichuru - VCA_Beekeeping & Honey - Kinangop and Kakamega_July 2008 Final