Biodiversity-Based Value Chains · Biodiversity-Based Value Chains A review of best practices for selected biodiversity value chains that ... GAPAs Gum Arabic Producers Associations

Biodiversity-Based Value ChainsA review of best practices for selected biodiversity value chains that

promote pro-poor conservation in the Horn of Africa

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resource Education (ANAFE)

Biodiversity-Based Value ChainsA review of best practices for selected biodiversity-based value chains that promotes pro-poor conservation in the

Horn of Africa

Edited by Jan de Leeuw, Sammy Carsan, Grace Koech, Aissétou Dramé Yayé and Josephat Nyongesa

Biodiversity-Based Value Chainsiv

ABOUT THE EDITORSJan de Leeuw; worked as a senior scientist with ICRAF’s Eastern and Southern African Programme. He is currently senior scientist land conservation at ISRIC World Soil Information, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

Sammy Carsan is a senior scientist with the Global Programme on Trees at the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Email s. [email protected]

Grace Koech is a researcher at the Eastern and Southern Africa, World Agroforestry Centre. Email [email protected]; [email protected]

Aissétou Dramé Yayé worked as the executive secretary for the African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resources Education (ANAFE). Email [email protected]

Nyongesa Josephat is the IGAD BMP Project Manager-Eastern and Southern Africa, World Agroforestry Centre-ICRAF: Email [email protected] |[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]









A review of best practices for selected biodiversity value chains that promote pro-poor conservation in the Horn of Africa v

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUMMARY

1 http://www.worldagroforestry.org/project/igad-biodiversity-management-program-horn-africa

Disclaimers: This book is made available with two disclaimers. First, the information provided is to the best of the authors’ knowledge. However, neither the authors, ICRAF, nor ANAFE will assume liability for any damage, injury or expenses that may be incurred or suffered from the use of the information. Second, the geographic designation employed in this book does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the authors, ICRAF, ANAFE, IGAD or the European Union concerning the legal status and the delimitation of frontiers or boundaries of any country or administrative territories therein.

This book is a product of a project that supports the conservation of biodiversity in the cross-border area between Kenya and Somalia that is managed by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and funded through the Biodiversity Management Programme (BMP) supported by IGAD and the European Union. Additional information on the BMP project is available on the website1.

Published by: The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resource Education (ANAFE) Nairobi, Kenya.

Copyright: The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) holds the copyright to its publications and web pages, but encourages reproduction without alteration of these materials for non-commercial purposes. Acknowledgement of the source of the information is required in all instances.

ISBN: 978-92-9059-408-6

Citation: De Leeuw J, Carsan S, Koech G, Yayé AD, Nyongesa J, (2017). A review of best practices for selected biodiversity-based value chains that promotes pro-poor conservation in the Horn of Africa.

Cover photo: Mangrove ecosystem (section of seascape in Lamu-Kenya); photo credit Josephat Nyongesa, 2015.

http://www.worldagroforestry.org/project/igad-biodiversity-management-program-horn-africa

http://www.worldagroforestry.org/igad-bmp/overview

Biodiversity-Based Value Chainsvi

A review of best practices for selected biodiversity value chains that promote pro-poor conservation in the Horn of Africa vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF BOXES ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi

FOREWORD xiii

1. SUMMARY 1

2. INTRODUCTION 2

3. APPROACH TAKEN 6

4. REVIEW OF SEVEN BIODIVERSITY-BASED VALUE CHAINS 10

4.1 Tamarind Value Chain Development for Enhanced Biodiversity Conservation and Livelihoods in East Africa 10

4.2 Gum arabic and aromatic resins 26

4.3 The honey value chain 46

4.4 ButterflyvaluechainsandtheconservationofArabukoSokokeforest 60

4.5SeafoodvaluechainsandmangroverestorationinMidaCreek 64

4.6 Carboncredits,socialdevelopmentandwildlifeconservationinKasigau 73

4.7 ConservingForestBiodiversitythroughValueChainDevelopment: TheCaseStudyofKaruraForest 82

5. SYNTHESIS AND DISCUSSION 88

6. GUIDELINES FOR VALUE CHAINS THAT SUPPORT BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 93

7. NEED FOR CAPACITY BUILDING AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 95

Biodiversity-Based Value Chainsviii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure1: Primaryactivitiesandoutboundlogisticsofthetamarindvaluechain (Authors compilation) 13

Figure2: Tamarindtreedensitiesontheplateau(a)andinthecoastalzone (b)landcoverclass(LCC)ofsouth-westernMadagascar (Source:Ranaivosonetal2015). 14

Figure3: ProcessingOperationsandProductsfromtamarind (Source:Chikamaietal2004) 17

Figure4: TamarindmarketsupplychainsinKenya (Source:Chikamaietal2004) 18

Figure5: Gumgardenrotationsystemadoptedbyfarmersinthegum beltinSudan(Luukkanenetal2006,modified). 29

Figure6: Honeyvaluechain(NyongesaJM,2015:) 48

Figure7: Thewidervalueofhoneybees.Source:AdoptedfromICIPE,2015 52

Figure8: Diagrammaticrepresentationofcrabproductionprocess 68

Figure9: NumberofvisitorstotheKaruraForest2010-2014 (sourceFKFNewsletterDec2014) 86

Figure10:Schemeshowingtheroleofcollectiveactionandcollaborative managementinthesocio-ecologicaltransformationfroma degradationtowardsamoredesirableandsecuresituation. 89

LIST OF TABLES

Table1: Challenges,knowledgegapsandactorsneededtoimprovetamarindvaluechains

Table2: Summaryofthevaluechainsdescribedwithreferencetoother areas in Kenya where these value chains have been implemented andtheirpotentialforscaling. 87

Table3: Keychallengesidentifiedinbiodiversity-basedvaluechains 99

Table4: Thefishvaluechainactorsandtheircapacitystrengtheningneeds 101

Table5: Thehoneyvaluechainactorsandtheircapacitystrengtheningneeds 102

A review of best practices for selected biodiversity value chains that promote pro-poor conservation in the Horn of Africa ix

Table6: Thetamarindvaluechainactorsandtheircapacitystrengtheningneeds 103

Table7: Thecarbonvaluechainactorsandtheircapacitystrengtheningneeds 104

Table8: Nature-basedvaluechainactorsandtheircapacitystrengtheningneeds 105

LIST OF BOXES

Box1: TamarindJam,JuiceandWineProductProcessingby MatinyaniWomenGroup,Kitui,Kenya(Source:Chitevaetal2016) 12

Box2. TamarindtradeinKisumu(Source:Carsanetal2010) 20

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex1: Listofparticipants 106

Annex2: WorkshopProgramme 111

Annex3: Programmewriteshopandexcursion 115

Biodiversity-Based Value Chainsx

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSAFFORNET African Forest Research NetworkANAFE African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resource EducationAGFOR Agriculture for LifeBBVC Biodiversity-based Value ChainBMP Biodiversity Management ProgrammeCBBM Community Based Biodiversity Management CBD Convention on Biological DiversityCBOs Community Based Organizations CCBA Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance CFAs Community Forest AssociationsCIDA Canadian International Development Agency CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered SpeciesDACs Directed Agricultural Companies EU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFNC Future Naval CapabilitiesKFEET Karura Forest Environmental Education TrustFKF Friends of Karura ForestGAPAs Gum Arabic Producers Associations GDP Gross Domestic ProductGEF Global Environment FacilityGHGs Greenhouse gases GoK Government of KenyaHACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point HCENR Sudan Higher Council for Environment and Natural ResourcesHVC Honey Value Chain ICIPE International Centre of Insect Physiology and EcologyICRAF World Agroforestry CentreIGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development IUCN International Union for Conservation of NatureKEFRI Kenya Forest Research InstituteKFS Kenya Forest ServiceKWS Kenya Wildlife Service

A review of best practices for selected biodiversity value chains that promote pro-poor conservation in the Horn of Africa xi

LCC Locational Carbon CommitteesMoA Ministry of AgricultureMRV Monitoring,ReportingandVerificationNAFIS National Association of Family Information ServicesNEMA National Environment Management Authority NGARA Network for Natural Gums and Resins in AfricaNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNRC Nuclear Regulatory CommissionPDD Project Design Document PI Project InvestigatorPIN Project Idea Note REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest DegradationRSA Rehabilitation Services AdministrationSDGs Sustainable Development GoalsSEI Stockholm Environment InstituteSNV Netherlands Development OrganizationUNCCD UnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertificationUSA United States of AmericaUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVCS VerifiedCarbonStandardsWTO World Trade OrganizationWWCT Wildlife Works Carbon Trust

Biodiversity-Based Value Chainsxii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis publication was produced from a workshop,writeshopandfieldexcursionorganizedbytheWorldAgroforestryCentre(ICRAF)andtheAfricanNetworkforAgriculture,AgroforestryandNaturalResourcesEducation(ANAFE).

WethanktheEuropeanUnionthroughtheInter-GovernmentalAuthorityforDevelopment(IGAD)forthefinancialandtechnicalsupportprovided.Wewouldalsoliketoacknowledgealltheparticipantsfortheirimportantcontributionsduringtheworkshopandwriteshop.SpecialthanksgotoMr.JamesAcworth(IGAD)forsupportingtheworkshopandwriteshopprogram,aswellasprovidingthebasisfordiscussiononestablishmentofanetworkfor biodiversity-based value chains in the HornofAfrica.

Theauthorsappreciatethekeynotespeakers:Dr.JandeLeeuw,

Mr.RobinsonNg’ethe,Prof.RainaSureshKumar,Dr.PhilipOsano,Dr.PeterMinang,andDr.Miyukiliyama,Ms.MaryNjunguna,Prof.YayeAissetou,Dr.JanVandenabeele,Dr.KiringariKamauandProf.OlaviLuukkanenfortheirtechnicalsupport.WealsoexpressappreciationtoInternationalCentreofInsectPhysiologyandEcology,Nairobi,KasigauWildlifeWorks,KenyaForestServiceMalindi,andthecommunity-basedgroups:ArabukoSokokeForest,KipepeoProjectinArabukoSokoke,andtheMidaCreekConservationGroupforfacilitatingfieldvisits.Theexperiencegainedduringthefieldtripsdefinitelycontributedtoimprovingthequality of the chapters.

Theauthorsthanktheinternalandexternalreviewers for their contribution which significantlyimprovedthefinalversionofthis publication.

A review of best practices for selected biodiversity value chains that promote pro-poor conservation in the Horn of Africa xiii

FOREWORDThe coastal lands and seascapes betweenKenyaandSomaliacontainrich biodiversity which is threatened by both human and natural factors. This regionisfacedwithcomplexitiessuchashabitatdegradation,insecurity,landtenureissuesandhumanwildlifeconflictwhichprogressivelydegradetheuniquebiodiversity found in this area. The result is poorlivingstandardsforlocalcommunitiesdependent on these ecosystems. Increasinghumanpopulationsandhighpovertylevelsintheregionaggravatetheimpactofthemainhazardsidentified,and often leads to low motivation to conserve biodiversity. The need to develop appropriate adaptation measures, includingthenecessaryknowledgeandmarketsforproductsthatpromotebiodiversity conservation is therefore apriority.Themarketpotentialofabiodiversity product nonetheless depends on its characteristics and as well as the type of value chain.

This publication addresses the role of valuechaindevelopmentinpromotingownership and conservation of biodiversityintheHornofAfrica.Supportfor development of biodiversity-based value chains recognises ecosystem goods and services with the potential to address complex biodiversity challenges. ItcontributestotheAichibiodiversitytargetstrategicgoalBto: ‘Reduce direct pressure on biodiversity and promote sustainable use’ bygivingguidelinesfor value chain development that

promote sustainable use of biodiversity. Biodiversity-based value chains also contributetoachievingseveraloftheSustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDG),e.g.SDG1(endpoverty),SDG8(inclusiveandsustainableeconomicgrowth)andSDG15(sustainableuseofterrestrial resources and halt biodiversity loss).

Thisbookdwellsonhowthedevelopmentof nature-based value chains may support biodiversity conservation of protected areas, private and communally owned lands for sustainable environmental and socio-economicgains.Thedevelopmentofbiodiversity-based value chains can result in a desired win-win case; it can increase thekeyactors’socio-economicbenefitsalongthevaluechain,andstrengthenvaluechainactors’motivationtoconductsustainable activities for biodiversity conservation.Compiledknowledgeandexperience will contribute towards better understandingofbiodiversity-basedvaluechains and increase awareness to facilitate cross-border cooperation on information exchangeandpolicydevelopmentrequiredto conserve biodiversity.

Thepublicationprovidesguidelinesneeded to develop a biodiversity-based valuechain.Itputsemphasisontheneedforparticipatoryapproaches,enablingpoliciesandinstitutionstopromotegreateruptakeofvaluechaindevelopmentasatoolforbiodiversityconservation.Webelievethisbookmakesanimportantcontribution to biodiversity conservation

Biodiversity-Based Value Chainsxiv

to protect the vulnerable communities in theHornofAfrica.Conservationofdiverseplants and animals is not only important for survival of smallholder farmers in Africa,

Asia and Latin America but also for the entireworld’snutrition.

Dr. Tony Simons Director General (ICRAF)

Dr. Jeremias Mowo Regional Coordinator, Eastern and Southern Africa (ICRAF)

Dr. Debalkew Berhe Programme Manager, Environment Protection IGAD Secretariat

A review of best practices for selected biodiversity value chains that promote pro-poor conservation in the Horn of Africa 1

1. SUMMARY

2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/a6qt9povqc0mq6l/Biodiversity%20Based%20Value%20chain%20Workshop.pdf?dl=0

3 https://www.dropbox.com/s/143p3qsk41v15e4/Cross Border Research and Training Exchange Write shop.pdf?dl=0

4 https://www.dropbox.com/s/lo7bo1d74trssq0/cross%20border%20exchange%20visit%20to%20strengthen%20capacity%20on%20

cbm%2c%20nov%2c%202015.pdf?dl=0

Thereisanincreasinginteresttodevelopinitiativesthatpromotethegrowthofbiodiversity-based value chain approaches thatutilizebiodiversityinandoutsideconservationareas.Thisbookreviewsexperiencesindevelopingbiodiversity-based value chains that alleviate poverty andconservebiodiversity.Itisbasedon a workshop2 , write shop3 and a fieldexcursion4organizedin2015bytheWorldAgroforestryCentre(ICRAF)andtheAfricanNetworkforAgroforestryEducation(ANAFE).

Thebookdescribessevenbiodiversity-based products that have the potential to address social and biodiversity conservation(tamarindandgumand

aromatic resin value chains described in chapters 4.1 and 4.2) and descriptions of the social and biodiversity outcomes of four biodiversity-based value chains (honey,tropicalbutterflies,crabsandcarbon) that have been implemented in the HornofAfrica.

Thebookreviewstheexperiencesindevelopingtheseproductsvaluechainsincludingtheirpotentialandlimitationsandprovidesguidanceforthosewishingto develop similar products value chains. Finally,recommendationsonareasforcapacitydevelopmentforstakeholdersinvolved in biodiversity-based value chains are provided.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a6qt9povqc0mq6l/Biodiversity%20Based%20Value%20chain%20Workshop.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/143p3qsk41v15e4/Cross%20Border%20Research%20and%20Training%20Exchange%20Write%20shop.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lo7bo1d74trssq0/cross%20border%20exchange%20visit%20to%20strengthen%20capacity%20on%20cbm%2c%20nov%2c%202015.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lo7bo1d74trssq0/cross%20border%20exchange%20visit%20to%20strengthen%20capacity%20on%20cbm%2c%20nov%2c%202015.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a6qt9povqc0mq6l/Biodiversity%20Based%20Value%20chain%20Workshop.pdf?dl=0


https://www.dropbox.com/s/lo7bo1d74trssq0/cross%20border%20exchange%20visit%20to%20strengthen%20capacity%20on%20cbm%2c%20nov%2c%202015.pdf?dl=0.


Biodiversity-Based Value Chains2

2. INTRODUCTIONDevelopmentofvaluechainsthatgenerateincome from biodiversity can help alleviate poverty and conserve biodiversity. This premise,whichfitsintoabroaderagendatointegratepoorcommunities,theirlandand biodiversity resources in local and globalmarkets(VanDijkandTrienekens2011), forms the basis of policies and projectsthatpromotethedevelopmentofbiodiversity-basedvaluechains.Forexample,ConservationInternationalsupports the development of nature-based tourism to alleviate poverty and conserve biodiversity(ConservationInternational,2016),whileUSAIDhasbeensupportingprojectswithbiodiversityconservationasan outcome of rural value chains (Bourns 2009).Inaddition,severalcasesofvaluechain and business-oriented approaches to biodiversity conservation were the subjectofdiscussionduringaworkshopinArushain2010(Translinks2009).

Thetheoryofchangeunderlyingtheabovepremise assumes that the development of biodiversity-based value chains will result inatriple-win.Itsupposesfirstofallthatvalue chain development will increase benefitsforalltheactorsalongthevaluechain, second that local communities will benefitfromthisvalueaddition,andthirdthattheaddedbenefitsarisingfromthecommodificationofthebiodiversitywillmotivate value chain actors to implement more sustainable conservation of the biodiversity.Together,suchvaluechainsmaythuscontributetoachievingseveraloftheSustainableDevelopmentGoals

(SDGs),e.g.SDG1(endpoverty),SDG8(inclusiveandsustainableeconomicgrowth)andSDG15(sustainableuseofterrestrial resources and halt biodiversity loss).

Whileappealingatfirstsight,itisnotself-evident that value chain development andmarketintegrationwillautomaticallyresult in social inclusion of the local communities and a more sustainable use of the biodiversity. The premise that additionofvaluealongthevaluechainwillcreate opportunities and hence alleviate povertyhasbeencontested(Hospesand Clancy 2012). The stimulation of economicactivityalongavaluechainmay,insteadofbenefitingthepoor,justaswellresultinelitecapture,themonopolizationofbenefitsbyafewalreadyadvantagedactorsattheexclusionofthedisadvantaged.Increasedawareness of the social trade-offs and the dangerofexclusionandelitecapturehastherefore resulted in calls for development ofguidelinesandstrategiesforpro-poorvaluechaindevelopment(Sevilleetal2011).

Equallychallengingistheassumptionthatcommoditizedbiodiversityvaluechainswillmotivatetheirstakeholderstoconservebiodiversity.First,therearemany examples where the development ofvaluechainsandmarketintegrationhas pushed the exploitation of resources beyondsustainabilitye.g.fisheries(Rosenberg2003),non-timberforestproducts such as traditional medicine


becauseofdegradationofthespeciespopulations that form the basis of the developmentofitsvaluechain.Second,effortstodevelopvaluechainsforasinglespecies typically result in the promotion of more productive or lucrative varieties, withgeneticerosionasaconsequence.Theobjectiveofthisbookisnottoassessthe impact of value chain development of specificspeciesonthegeneticvariabilityof these species. This is an issue relevant inlandandseascapesthataremanagedprimarilyfortheprovisioningofagriculturalcommodities. The interested reader is referred to the dedicated body of literature, which describes these problems and possiblesolutionsforthegeneticerosioninduced by the development of crop-based valuechains(VanderWouwetal2010).

Thisbookconcentratesonlandandseascapesthataremanagedprimarilyforbiodiversityconservation.Itaddressesthe issue of how development of nature-based value chains could support the biodiversity of protected areas, privately and communally-owned lands that are managedforbiodiversityconservation.Distinction can be made between value chains that are developed on-site, within a conservation area or off-site, in the areassurroundingsuchanarea.Atypicalexample of on-site biodiversity-based value chains is the sequestration of carbon inaconservationarea.Italsoincludestheharvestingofwildspecies,forexample,non-timber forest products. These value chains add value to the land under conservation and their primary pathway to impact is that they may raise the net benefitsofbiodiversityconservation

relative to other land use options. Off-site biodiversity value chains are those whicharedevelopedinareassurroundingan area conserved for its biodiversity. Examplesincludetheplantingandvaluechain development for trees or non-timber forest products in areas around aprotectedarea.Thetheoryofchangeunderlyingthepromotionofoff-site value chain development is that an increase inincomeoutsideprotectedareasmightreduce the pressure on biodiversity found within these areas.

Thescientificliteratureprovideslittleevidence of nature-based value chain approaches that result in positive poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation outcomes.Thepaucityofknowledgearound social and environmental outcomes of such value chain approaches is not restricted to biodiversity conservation. Bolwigetal(2010)arguedthatwhilevalue chain approaches have been applied widely to promote mainstream agriculturalcommodities(Wikipedia2015)andneglectedcropspecies(Will2008),littleattentionhasbeenpaidtothe social and environmental outcomes of the development of value chains and themarketintegrationofcommunitiesand their natural resource base. This bookproposesaconceptualframeworkthatintegratessocialandenvironmentaloutcomes for a more inclusive and sustainable nature based value chain.

Therehasbeenalackofemphasisonthesocial and environmental outcomes on the development of biodiversity-based value chains in and around conservation areas. Consequently, there is no conceptual


frameworkforamorecomprehensivevaluechainanalysisandnoguidanceonprocedurestodesignmoresustainableand inclusive value chain approaches inbiodiversityconservation.Thisgapcannotbeaddressedbysimplycopyingtheconceptsandguidelinesdevelopedforagriculturalvaluechains,becauseoffundamental differences in theories of change.

Thelackofclarityonthelinkbetweenvalue chain approaches and biodiversity conservationwasveryclearduringthepreparation and early implementation oftheEUIGAD5 funded Biodiversity ManagementProgramme(BMP).Thisinitiative supports biodiversity conservation inthecross-borderregionsbetweenIGADmemberstates.Oneoftheprojectaimsisto support the development of biodiversity value chains based on local ecosystem servicesgoodsandservices.Whenconsultedforproposals,stakeholderssuggestedsupportingwellestablishedandformalizedagriculturalvaluechainswithstrongsocialoutcomesratherthanbiodiversity conservation, such as support toaleatherfactory,promotionoffishproductioninfishpondsandplantingofplantation trees.

5 IGAD-IntergovernmentalAuthorityonDevelopmentintheHornofAfrica

Thechallengeistoidentifythelessestablished and informal value chains thatallowcombiningofeconomicgrowth,social development and conservation of biodiversity. After further discussions, the WorldAgroforestryCentre(ICRAF)andits partners decided to support honey value chains in areas inside and directly adjacenttoconservationareas.YetduringtheprocessofselectingvaluechainsithadbecomeclearthatICRAFandpartnershaddifficultiesreachingconsensusonvaluechains that could support the conservation of biodiversity.

Toaddressthisgap,theBMPprojectdecidedtofocuson–raisingofawarenessonvaluechainsthatcombinegeneratingeconomicgrowth,socialdevelopmentand biodiversity conservation. This publicationaimstosynthesizeexistingknowledgeonanumberofbiodiversity-basedvaluechainsrelevanttotheHornofAfrica. A review on their performance and sustainabilityinachievingtheeconomic,social and environmental outcomes was regardedascrucialtoaidscalingoutworktosimilargeographies.


REFERENCES Bolwig S, Ponte S, Riisgaard L, du Toit A,

Halberg N. 2010. Integrating Poverty and Environmental Concerns into Value-Chain Analysis: A Conceptual Framework. Development Policy Review, vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 173-194.

Bourns N. 2009. Adding Biodiversity Conservation Objectives to a Value Chains & Rural Finance Initiative. The AFIRMA project experience in Mexico.

Conservation International. 2016. Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/africa/Pages/Coastal-Forests-of-Eastern-Africa.aspx

Hospes O, Clancy J. 2012. Unpacking the discourse on social inclusion in value chains. IN: value chains, Social Inclusion and Economic Development. Helmsing, A.H.J. and Vellema, S. (Eds.) Contrasting Theories and Realities. Routledge Studies in DevelopmentEconomics.https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=f7HUCl51wyoC&pg=PA28&lpg= PA28&dq=value+chain+exclusion+poor&so urce=bl&ots=l6YGgG4bpH&sig=zJTz98S1 Zoo5g1XagCOeqDLdigA&hl=en&sa= X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=value%20 chain%20exclusion%20poor&f=false

Rosenberg AA. 2003. Managing to the margins: Theoverexploitationoffisheries.Frontiersin Ecology and Environment 1: 102-106. http://site.xavier.edu/blairb/eco/ecology_biol_250/discussionreadings_biol_250/ecoarticles/overexploitation-of-fisheri/overexploitation_fisheriesi.pdf

Seville D, Buxton A, Vorley B. 2011. Under what conditions are value chains effective tools for pro-poor development. Report for the Ford Foundation. International Institute for Environment and Development/Sustainable Food Lab http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/16029IIED.pdf

Translinks. 2009. Linking Natural Resources, Economic Growth and Good Governance. Value Chain Cases in the Context of ConservationMarketingandCertification.Workshop in Arusha, Tanzania. June 25-27, 2009.

Van Dijk MP, Trienekens J. 2012. Global value chains, linking local producers from developing countries to international markets. Amsterdam University Press.

Van de Wouw M, van Hintum TJL, Kik C, van Treuren R, Visser B. 2010. Genetic erosion in crops: concept, research results and challenges. Plant genetic resources 8: 1-15.

Wikipedia Agricultural Value Chain. Accessed 19-11-2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_value_chain

Will M. 2008. Promoting Value Chains of Neglected and Underutilized Species for Pro-Poor Growth and Biodiversity Conservation. Guidelines and Good Practices. Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilized Species. Biodiversity, Rome, Italy.

http://www.researchgate.net/journal/1467-7679_Development_Policy_Review

http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/africa/Pages/Coastal-Forests-of-Eastern-Africa.aspx



http://site.xavier.edu/blairb/eco/ecology_biol_250/discussionreadings_biol_250/ecoarticles/overexploitation-of-fisheri/overexploitation_fisheriesi.pdf




http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/16029IIED.pdf

http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/16029IIED.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_value_chain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_value_chain


ParticipantsposeforagroupphotoduringthestakeholderconsultativeworkshopinICRAFheadquartersNairobiinOctober,2015(Photo:ICRAF/AlbertMwangi)

3. APPROACH TAKENThetopicemergedduringaworkshoporganizedbyICRAF,ANAFEandIGADonissuessurroundingbiodiversityconservation that are relevant to the BMPproject.Theteamappreciatedincreasingrecognitionthatecosystemgoodsandserviceshavethepotentialto support socio-economic development and that biodiversity conservation cannot be achieved in isolation of social development. They also considered thattheBMPprojectwishestosupportalternative livelihoods based on the development of value chains, which alleviate poverty and promote conservation ofbiodiversity.Bysupportingtheimplementingofahoneyvaluechain,theICRAFteamrealizedthattherewasnotmuch literature on value chain approaches

that support biodiversity conservation and socialdevelopment.Theteamthussoughttofillthisgapbycompilinginformationonbiodiversity-based value chains in order to raisestakeholders’awarenessondifferentoptionstodevelopingsuchvaluechains.

Theidentificationofasuitabletopicwasfollowedbyanefforttoconceptualizetheissues around biodiversity-based value chainsandhowtoaddresstheknowledgegaparoundthissubject.Duringthisconceptualizationperiodtheteamaskedquestionssuchas:Whatistheproblemthat biodiversity-based value chains solve? Howdoesitdealwithpotentialtrade-offstowards biodiversity and social equity? andmoregenerally,Isthevaluechainapproach, which is traditionally used for thedevelopmentofagriculturalvalue


Dr.JandeLeeuw(standing)facilitatesasessiononidentificationofbiodiversity-basedvaluechains(PhotobyICRAF/AlbertMwangi)

chains appropriate for the development of biodiversity-basedvaluechains?Followingthis,theteamdecidedtoorganizeanumber of activities to raise awareness, compileandsynthesizeexistinginformationanddevelopaguidelineonbest practices in biodiversity value chains.

ItisagainstthisbackgroundthattheBiodiversityManagementProgramme(BMP)organizedaworkshop,awriteshop and an excursion for researchers andlecturersfromKenyaandSomalia.Theexchangehelpedtostrengthentheawareness of participants on the role of value chains in biodiversity conservation.

Theactivitieskickedoffwithaworkshopon1-2October2015.ParticipantsweredrawnfromnationalresearchandhighereducationinstitutionsofKenya,SomaliaandDjibouti,internationalandnationalresearch and development institutions,

non-governmentalorganizations(NGOs);governmentorganizationsandtheprivatesector.Duringthefirstdayoftheworkshop,participantslearntfromknowledgeablekeynotespeakersonvariousbiodiversity-based value chains. The second day of the workshopfocusedonopendiscussionstoexchangeexperiences,problems,propose best practices and the way forward on biodiversity-based value chains inpreparationfortheupcomingexcursionand write shop that would be held in November2015.

Duringtheplenarysessions,theparticipantsidentifiedsevenbiodiversityvaluechainstoworkonduringthewriteshop.Participantsthenregisteredtojoinvariousgroupsthatwouldbeinvolvedinwritingupthechapters.


The write shopconductedinNovember2015aimedatreviewingtheparticularvaluechainsidentifiedduringtheOctoberworkshop.Eachteamdraftedtheirchapterwhiledescribinghowtheirparticularvalue chain would support biodiversity conservation and social development.

Anexcursionwasorganizedtoallowparticipantsvisitinganumberofprojectswhere biodiversity-based value chains had been developed and implemented. The sites were selected after discussions withtheparticipantswhoidentifiedanumberofprojectsthathaddevelopedbiodiversity-based value chains. The team visited the carbon credit value chain that wasdevelopedbytheKasigauCorridorREDD+projectinVoi.Thisprojectcertifiedhalf a million acres of drylands between TsavoEastandWestNationalParksforgeneratingincomefromavoidanceofcarbonemissionsandtherebybringbenefitsofdirectcarbonfinancingtomorethan100,000peopleinthesurroundingcommunities.

ThesecondsitewasArabukoSokokeForestwherebutterflyandhoneyvaluechains have been developed by the KipepeoProject.ThecommunitiesaroundArabukoSokokeareallowedtosustainably harvest forest products while ensuringthatbiodiversityisconserved.Inthe1990s,communitieslivingadjacenttoArabukoforestderivedtheirlivelihoodsfrom the forest and unsustainable use of forest resources over time and the needtoexpandagriculturallandforfoodproductionasaresultofgrowinghumanpopulation,ledtoincreasingforestecosystemdegradation.Tocreate

alternative livelihoods opportunities, farmers were trained to produce pupae oftropicalbutterflies,whichareexportedtobutterflyhousesinEuropeandNorthAmerica.Modernbeekeepingpracticeswere also initiated to develop a honey value chain for sustainable income generationandbiodiversityconservation.Theincomethatisgeneratedbythesevaluechainshaschangedtheperceptionof the local communities who now value theForestReserveandsupportitsconservation.

ThethirdsitevisitedwasMidaCreek,acoastalareawheremangroveshadbeencutanddegradedovertheyearstothedetrimentoflocalfishermenwhocouldnolongermakealivingfromtheirtrade.Inthe1990syouthfromthelocalcommunitywithsupportfromotherstakeholdersincludingKenyaMarineandFisheriesInstitute,KenyaForestService,KenyaForestryResearchInstitute,KenyaWildlifeServiceandnon-governmentalorganizationssuchasArochaKenya,tooktheinitiativetorestorethemangrovestodevelopecotourism and promote the production of crabs as a value chain. The crabs and crabproductsaresoldtolocalmarkets,mainlyhotelsalongtheKenyancoast,includingtheyouthgroup’srestaurantwhichtargetsbothlocalandforeigntourists.Theexperiencesgainedduringthe fieldexcursion were used to review the draft chapters.

Later, chapter authors completed and submittedtheirsectionstotheircolleagueswho served as peer reviewers to provide constructivefeedback.Theeditorialteamalsoprovidedfurthereditingandfeedback




onchaptersthathadgonethroughthefirstphase of peer review.

Participantsalsoreflectedonthedifferences and commonalities between the various value chains that were described and lessons that could be learnedfromthis.Thesereflectionswereused to write chapter 5 (discussion) and

chapter6(guidelinesforvaluechaindevelopment).Finally,participantsdeliberated on the need for inclusion of biodiversity-based value chain approaches in academic and professional curricula. The result of the latter has been included inchapter7(theneedforeducationonbiodiversity-based value chains).


4. REVIEW OF SEVEN BIODIVERSITY-BASEDVALUE CHAINS

Thissectiondescribesarangeofvaluechains.Thefirsttwosectionsdescribevaluechains(4.1tamarind,4.2ongumsand resins) that have the potential to combine biodiversity conservation and social outcomes. The other sections describe the development of value chains in and around protected areas and

theirsuccessinsupportingbiodiversityconservation and poverty alleviation (4.3 on honey-based value chains; 4.4 on butterflyvaluechains,4.5oncrabvaluechains and 4.6 on carbon value chains and 4.7ontherecreationvaluechainofKaruraForest).

4.1 Tamarind Value Chain Development for Enhanced Biodiversity Conservation and Livelihoods in East AfricaSammy Carsan, Linus Wekesa and Grace Koech

IntroductionDevelopment of tree-based commodity valuechainsinareassurroundingprotected areas is one of the options that can help create livelihood opportunities and reduce pressure on the available biodiversity. This chapter reviews the development of Tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.)valuechaininAfrica:exploringits status, use and potential to support livelihoods and biodiversity conservation in and around protected areas.

A global review of the status and use of tamarind Tamarind tree (Tamarindus indica L.) originatesfromAfricawhereitoccursinthewoodedsavannasofWestandEastAfrica(El-Siddigetal2006;Dialloetal2008).Thespecieshasawidedistributionacross more than 50 countries in tropical AfricaandAsia-areflectionofitshigh

plasticity(Boweetal2010;Fandohanet al 2011b). The tamarind tree is valued for its fruit which has sweet-sour taste due to a combination of tartaric acid and reducingsugars(DeCaluwéetal2010).The red-brown pulp is used for a variety of domestic and industrial purposes suchassnacks,sauces,confectionery,drinks,concentrates,pulppowder,jam,ice cream, wine, coffee-substitute, pectin, foodstabilizer,dye,glue,tartaricacid,alcohol, edible oil and medicine (Bhadoriya etal2011;VandenBilckeetal2014).Onaverage,thefruitscontain55%pulp,34%seedsand11%shellandfibres.Thepulpcontainshighlevelsofprotein(1.4to3.4%),carbohydrates(60-72%)andminerals(Coronel1991;Feungchanetal1996;GunasenaandHughes2000).Itisrichincalcium,phosphorus,iron,thiamine,riboflavinandniacin,andtherefore,importantinsupportingdietsof


communitiesindrylandswhoareregularlyconfrontedwithfoodsecuritychallenges.Fruitqualityhowever,varieswithlocalityorhabitat.Forinstance,proteincontentisreportedtoberatherlowforNigerianmaterialwhilefruitsfromMalihaveastrongsourtasteassociatedwithhightartaricacidcontent(VandenBilckeetal2014).

Tamarindisaleguminoustree(notknowntofixnitrogen)importantforagroforestrydue to its multiple cultural uses and value indrylandfarming.Thetreeisresilientagainstlivestockanddamagebypeople,andregenerateswellincommunallandareaswhereit’sreveredforitsshadequalities and medicinal values for people andlivestock(Bueso1980;Vogt1995).Althoughnaturalizedwidely,inmanyAfricancountries,it’sbeendescribedasoneofthe‘lostorneglectedcrops’asthemarketsforitsproductsarenotwelldevelopedasinAsia(e.g.IndiaandThailand),wherestrongmarketsandvaluechainsexist(NRC2008).Indiaproducesabout 300,000 tons of sour tamarind annually and exports over 10,000 tons annually,makingitoneofthelargestexporter and consumer of tamarind productsintheworld(El-Siddigetal2006).Ontheotherhand,inThailand,atleast 50 sweet and sour cultivars have beendevelopedtotargetdifferentfoodmarkets(El-Siddigetal2006).

Tree inventories have reported that wild tamarindpopulationsinAfricaaredecliningduetohabitatlosswithrisksofgeneticerosion soon expected (Gunasena & Hughes2000;Muoketal2002;Nyadoi

2010).On-farmtreeconservationandusethroughproductvaluechaindevelopment,could therefore help preserve tamarind diversity in the event of total depletion of wild populations or loss of habitats (Diallo etal2008).

Tamarind value chain development in Africa Tamarind production has not been commercializedtoalargeextentinAfrica,despitetheavailabilityofdiversegeneticresources that could offer opportunities forproductdifferentiation.Existingproduct value chains are semi-formal, relyingontradersoperatingfromlocal,national,regionalorinternationalmarkets.Producers’marketknowledgeispoorandmostunsoldproduceoftengoestowaste while little quantity is used at home. ValuechaindevelopmentinWestAfricaismoreorientedtothejuiceindustrywhilethat of East Africa is more focused on foodadditives.InMaliandBurkinaFaso,forinstance,tamarindjuiceispopularinupmarketrestaurants.Concentratedsyrupis reported to sell better compared to importedsyrupsinthedomesticmarketsand some are exported to restaurants in ParisandRome.

InEastAfrica,fruitsaretradedalongthecoastal areas for use as a condiment; added to foods, substitute for dates, and spices mainly by the Asian and Arabic communitiesinKenyaandTanzania.Kenya’sproduceisexportedtoSomalia,YemenandZanzibarbutpotentialmarketcouldemergeforJapan,China,Europe,MiddleEastandNorthAmerica(adherence


tostrictpermitsisrequiredonlyallowingimportsfromMexicoandIndia).BasedontheexperiencesinIndiaandThailand,processed pulp has a commercial value for sauces,syrups,drinksandjams.However,attemptshavebeenmadetopopularizedevelopmentofcommercialtamarindjuice

andjamproductsinKenyaeventhoughthese initiatives have not been up-scaled toanygreatextent.TheKenyaForestryResearchInstitute(KEFRI)initiativeontamarindjuiceandjamproductionisdescribed in Box 1.

Box 1: Tamarind Jam, Juice and Wine Product Processing by Matinyani Women Group, Kitui, Kenya (Source: Chiteva et al 2016)

TheMatinyaniWomenGroupinKitui,Kenya is involved in the commercial production of tamarind products. The groupof60memberswasregisteredas an enterprise in 2010 and receives trainingandmentorshipfromtheKenyaForestryResearchInstitute(KEFRI).Memberscollectfreshripefruitsandsortthembyremovingfruitsthataredirty,discolored and physically deformed. The fruits are then washed and pulp extracted usingapestleandmortar.Thepulpisthenusedtomakejam,juiceandwine.Tamarindjamismadebydissolvingsugarin a pan of warm water and strained to removeimpurities.Onekilogramoffruitpulpmixedwithgumarabic,usedasapreservative, is added into the prepared sugarsolutionandstirred.Themixtureisthenboiled,stirringconstantlytomakeituniformlythick.Lemonjuiceisaddedwhenthejamisnearsetforflavorandpreservation.Tamarindjuice,ontheotherhandismadebyaddingoneteaspoonofgumarabicpreservativetoonekilogramoffruitpulp.Inaseparatepan,sugaris dissolved in warm water then mixed withpulpmixturefollowedbystrainingusingamuslincloth.Thisisthenboiled,

pasteurized,pouredinsterilizedjarsandheatedbeforecooling,labellingandstoring.Finally,Tamarindwineismadefrom2kgofpulpthatisweighedandmixedwithwaterandboiledwhilestirring.The boiled pulp is left to cool and then sievedusingaplasticsieve.Thesievedproduct is then put in a container and 3kgofhoneyisaddedfollowedbyyeast,gumarabicandthenstirredproperly.Theproductislefttofermentfor7daysandthensievedusingacleanmuslincloth.Thefiltrateisputin2½-litrebottles,closedtightlyandkeptinasafeplaceforfermentation.Fermentationisleftbetweenone and two months to allow the wine tomature.ThegrouphasbeenabletomakedailygrossearningsofKsh.8,000(US$92)fromrawflavouredfruitpulp,Ksh.12,000(US$138)fromthejuice,Ksh.15,000-20,000(US$172-230)fromthewineandKsh.10,000fromthejam.Amongthethreeproducts,thejamhasbeenmostprofitablewithanetreturnofKsh.127.29fromeachkilogram.Asaresultoftheenterprise,groupmembershave been able to pay school fees for theirchildren,buylivestock,treeseedlingsamongotherbenefits.


Typically, tamarind value chain activities canbecategorizedintwoareas–primaryand outbound activities as shown in Figure1.Theprimaryvaluechaincoversthesuppliesacquisition,thegrading,

initialprocessingandthepackagingfortransport.Outboundactivitiescoveractors’functionalrolesontransport,storage;wholesaling/bulkbreakup,exportsandretailingtoconsumers.

Figure 1: Primaryactivitiesandoutboundlogisticsofthetamarindvaluechain(Authorscompilation)

Management of primary value chain activitiesThe successful development of tamarind value chains depends on a number of critical success factors such as availability ofresources,value-addingtechnologiesandrelevantmarketingexpertise.Theseelementsarebrieflydescribedinthefollowingsection.

Resource availabilityAfrican farmers and collectors obtain tamarind fruits mainly from their farms, community lands and forest areas to supply limited volumes to traders and

fewmerchants.ThisisunlikeAsia(India,Thailand,SriLankaandIndonesia)andSouthAmerica(Mexico,Brazil,VenezuelaandCostaRica),wheretreesarecultivated for commercial fruit production. The sweet and sour varieties are available. Sweettamarind,mainlyproducedinThailand on a commercial scale, and is exported in fresh and processed forms (Teklehaimanot2008).Generally,thetreegrowswelloverawiderangeofsoilandclimaticconditionspreferringsemi-aridareasandwoodedgrassland,oftenassociatedwithtermitehills(El-Siddigetal 2006).


InKenya,tamarindfruitsareproducedinthedrylandareasofTharaka,WestPokot,Siaya,Kitui,MwingiandthecoastalareasofLamu(Betser1999).Treesgrownfromseedstarttobearfruitsfrom7to14years(GunasenaandHughes,2000).Yieldsofmature trees however vary tremendously dependingongrowingconditionsandcare.Globally,averageannualyieldspertreevariesfrom10-50kgwithyieldsof150-200kgor(12-16tperha)realizedinfavorableconditions(El-Siddigetal2006). Trees are harvested once every yearwiththefruitingseasonrunningfromJulytoSeptember/OctoberinTharaka,Kenya.Giventhedeforestationchallengeswidely experienced in natural areas, future production is expected to develop fromsmallholderfarms,agroforestrysystems, industrial plantations and plantingprogrammesforbiodiversityandenvironmental improvements.

Anassessmentcomparingtamarindtreedensities (trees per ha) in savannahs, shrub land, forest and cropland areas of a plateauandcoastalzoneofMadagascarfrom2004to2012(Figures2aand2b)revealswiderchallengesonnaturaltamarindpopulationdegradation.Thestudy showed that tree density was highinthevillageandcroplandareas,whereas trees in forests, shrub lands and savannahweredecreasingandoftenisolated(Brinkmannetal2014).Treesinareas other than near settlements and in croplands are over exploited mainly for charcoalmaking(Ranaivosonetal2015).Tree densities were overlaid on land cover class (LCC) on the plateau (a) and inthecoastalzone(b)ofsouth-westernMadagascar(Brinkmannetal2014).Thelandcoverchangesinthestudyregionreflectedanincreaseinsavannahsandcropland and a decrease in forests and shrub land from 2006 to 2012.

Figure 2:Tamarindtreedensitiesontheplateau(a)andinthecoastalzone(b)landcoverclass(LCC)ofsouth-westernMadagascar(Source:Ranaivosonetal2015).


Treedensitiesof17.5to18.4treesperha have been reported for the humid galleryforestoftheBerenityReserveinsouthernMadagascar,similartoforestsoftheWesternNationalParkofBeninwithdensitiesof18.2treesperha(Fandohanet al 2010). Tamarind tree population in savannahs, shrub land and forest seems most exploited compared to those of croplands, where tree density remained stable probably due to protection by farmers(Figure2aandb).Itisalsolikelythatlocalcommunitiesavoidloggingtreesnearvillagestosecurefoodandshadeprovisionbenefitsforbothpeopleandlivestock(Ranaivosonetal2015).

There are however, concerns that traditional beliefs which contribute to tree conservationaregraduallyerodingaspeopleengageincharcoalproductionandagriculture(Chitevaetal2016).Thishas contributed to a reduction in tree population in the savannah, forest and shrublandsofsouth-westernMadagascarfor instance. A similar situation has alsobeenreportedinMalawiwheredeforestation has made tamarind a rare species(Maliro&Kwapata2002).Effectsofchangingtraditionalbeliefsystemontamarind use are nonetheless not fully understoodinspiteoftheurgentneedforsuchknowledgetohelpinsustainablemanagementoftheavailablegeneticresources.

Harvesting, processing, grading and packagingFruitsaremostlyharvestedwhenripeanddrypodsturnbrownincolour.Harvestingis often carried out by either women or

children,and/orhiredlabourwhilemenmaybeinvolvedinsaleoflargequantitiesofthefruits.Longsticksareoftenusedtoknockdownthepods.Cuttingofbrancheswith fruits is sometimes applied by some farmerstohastenharvesting.Dryingofharvested pods is not required, but some farmersinTharakadrypodsinthesunfor1-2 days.

Shellingofdrypodsisthencarriedoutto obtain fruit pulp. The pods are easily crackedbyhandandpulpandfibresseparatedfromthebrokenshells.Insomecases,heavysticksareusedtopoundthepodstohelpbreakofftheskin.De-huskedtamarindisthencompressed,weighedandpackedingunnybagsorplasticbagsweighingbetween50kgand100kgbeforebeingtransportedtothemarket,usuallyonafarmer’sback,donkeycartormotorbike.InTharakatradersapplyfourgradesontamarindsaleas:

• Grade1:de-husked,de-seededandnofibres

• Grade2:de-husked,de-seededwithfibres

• Grade3:de-husked,withseedandfibres

• Grade4:withhusk,seedandfibres.

Mostofthetamarindtradedisofgrade3 quality. Grade 2 is also available at times, mostly when a particular order is placed.TamarindoriginatingfromLamuisnonetheless normally de-seeded before transportation.Whentamarindisde-seeded,theworkiscarriedouton-farm.Onepersoncanharvest100to150kginonedayandde-husk50kginoneday.


Additionally,Kenyantradersrankfruitquality based on production areas. These include:

• Lamu(bestqualityandrankedas1)

• Meru(rankedas2)

• Ukambani(rankedas3)

• Taita(rankedas4)

• Mombasa(rankedas5)

• WestPokot(poorestquality,rankedas 6 and preferred by traders from Tanzania)

Local communities may process fruits into variousproductsusinglocalknowledgeacquiredovergenerations.Processinghelps to preserve the product or obtain products that could be converted easily intootherby-products.Forinstance,localcommunitiesinTharaka,KerioValley,andMakueniprocessfruitsintojuice,squashes,icedrinkorasacondimentforporridgemaking.Juiceispreparedbyblendingthepulpwithwaterwhichisthen sieved to separate the solution from theseedsandfibre.Toenhancejuiceextraction,hotwaterisused.Juicewithanacidictasteislocallyknownas“mkoloo” amongthelocalcommunitiesinMakueni.Sugarmaybeaddedtosweetenthejuice.Additionally, tamarind sauce is easily

preparedbyblendingpulpwithwaterandsaltorbyaddingmasala to enhance flavour.

TheKenyaForestryResearchInstitute(KEFRI)ispromotingthedevelopmentoftamarindproductssuchasjuicesandjamsatacommerciallevel.Incubationprogrammeshaveenabledanumberofcommunitygroupstoproducesuchproducts.Processingoperations,therefore,varydependingonthedesiredproduct.Insumtheseinclude,drying,shelling,groundingandroastingincaseofseed.Blendingisachievedusingtechnologyvaryingfromsimpleequipmenttoelectricallyoperatedmachines(Figure3).

Compressedtamarindspackedin50-100kgsizesacks(Photocredit:KEFRI,2015)


Harvested pods

Drying pods

Shelling pods

Removal of shells, fibres and/or seeds

Marketing Packing and storage Blending

Milk solution

Juice/Ice drink

Porridge Saucee

Figure 3: ProcessingOperationsandProductsfromtamarind(Source:Chikamaietal2004)

Outbound logistics

About70-85%oftheharvestedtamarindfruitsaremarketed(Gunasena&Hughes2000;Muok2002;Chikamaietal2004).The rest of the fruits are either used for homeconsumptionorlefttowaste.Supplyquantitiesarelargelydependentonthesizeofharvest,prevailingmarketpriceandpreviouspricesfetched.Fruitsaresoldtodifferenttraderssupplyingeitherlocal,nationaland/orinternational/exportmarket(Figure4).TradersinpartsofKenyamayoperatefromsmallshops,kiosks,storesoropenairmarketsinmajorurbancentressuchasKongowea(Mombasa),Gikomba(Nairobi)andKibuye(Kisumu).Fruitcollectors or producers sell fruits to traders who in turn sell directly to consumers, mostly in towns or local centres.

Markettransactionsinlocalchainsarecharacterizedbylowpricesandvolumes.Studiesondevelopmentandpromotionofindigenousfruitsconductedbetween2004and2007bytheAFFORNETproject,reportedthatcollectorsfetchedaboutKsh3.50perkiloandtraderssoldakiloforaboutKsh15tradingavolumeofabout3.5kgperday(Chikamaietal2004;Wekesaetal2009,unpublished).Tamarind traders at the national level obtain supplies from collectors or local tradersandsellthefruitsinmajortownssuchasMombasaandNairobi.Onaverage,200kgoffruitsweretradeddailypertraderatthislevel.NationaltraderswhodoubleupaswholesalersboughtakilogramoftamarindfruitsfromlocaltradersataveragepriceofKsh7.50.


Inturn,theysoldfruitstoretailersforaboutKsh15perkilogram.TheaverageretailingpriceforakilogramofthefruitstoconsumersatthenationalmarketswasKsh18.50(Chikamaietal2004).ProfitmarginsbycollectorsandtradersoperatingatthelocallevelwasaboutKsh2perkilogramwhiletradersoperatingatmajorurbancentresorexportsmade

aboutKsh5perkilogramoftradedfruits.

Tamarind from Kenya is mainly exported to Zanzibar,Somalia,TanzaniaandYemen.TradebetweenKenyaandTanzaniaisoccasionedduetodifferentfruitingseasons experienced. Generally, demand ishighamongcoastalcommunitiesandMuslimsingeneral.

Figure 4:TamarindmarketsupplychainsinKenya(Source:Chikamaietal2004)

Themaincostincurredduringlocalmarketsupplyincludetransporttothesellingpointswherelorries,pick-ups,humanporters,bicycles,donkeys,motorbikesorwheelbarrowsmaybeused.ItcostsKsh.0.50totransportakilogramofthefruitstothemarketusingatruck(Chikamaietal2004).Localtradersmaypackfruitsinsimplepolythenebagsanddisplaythemfor sale or whole fruit pods may be sold. Materialsuppliedtomajorurbancentres

or national supply chains incur transport costsofKsh0.20perkilometre.Theyalso pay taxes levied by local authorities. Municipalcouncilleviesarepayableatloadingandoff-loadingpointsandsaleatopenairmarkets.Handlingcosts,includingpackagingmaterials,labourandstorageareinevitableforsuppliesdestinedforurbanorexportmarkets.Storageoftamarind for urban centres trade may occurinmajormarketoutletssuchas


KongoweainMombasa.Participationoffruitproducers/collectorsinthesupplychainisvaried.Anestimated80-90%ofproducers sell fruits within local supply chainsattheirfarm-gateorlocaltrading

centresandonly10-20%ofcollectorssell their fruits either to the national or the exportmarketoutlets(Chikamaietal2004;Wekesa2009).

StorageoftamarindproductsatKongoweaMarketinMombasa


Box 2. Tamarind trade in Kisumu (Source: Carsan et al 2010)

Tamarind traded in urban and peri-urban marketsofKisumuoriginatefromtheneighbouringregionsofAlego,Gem,UgenyaandAsembo,wherewholesaletradersgatherthemfromhomesteads.Thepluckingandpackingcostofasackload(50kgand100kgsizesacks)rangesfromKsh.40-60(US$0.5-0.8).FarmersreceiveKsh.150-200(US$2-2.6)orKsh.400-500(US$5-7)forafull50kgor100kg-sizedbag.TransportcostsfromfarmsinAlegotoacentralmarketinKisumulikeKibuyeisaboutKsh.50(US$0.6)persack.AttheKibuyewholesalemarket,sackloadsof

tamarindpodsaretradedbythe2-kgtin-load (gorogoro), which is a standard local measuringunit.Atin-loadissoldatKsh.25-30(US$0.3-0.4).Thismeansa150%profitmarginforwholesalers,althoughthey incur costs of collection from farms andtransporttotheurbanmarkets.Retailtraders,mainlywomencomingfromfiveoftheperi-urbanmarketsaroundKisumu(Kondele,Nyamasaria,Kibos,JubileeandOtonglo),sourcetheirtamarindsuppliesfromKibuyewholesalemarket.TamarindtradeinopenairandperiurbanmarketsofKisumu is shown below.

Attheoutletmarkets,podsaresoldinbundlescostingKsh.5-10oratKsh.1perpiece.Wholesaletradevolumeaverages2-3100kgsacksperweek,whileretailatthesmallperi-urbanoutletslikeKibosandNyamasariaisnormally1-2tin-loadsperweek.Thereisnoprocessingorspecialpackaging,andtheconsumersoftamarind

are mainly urban dwellers. The tamarind marketchaindoesnotextendbeyondKisumu,withnothingbeingtransportedtoNairobiorothercities,althoughthesurveycould not conclusively identify all possible buyers at the farm level. The interviewed traders did not indicate that there was any form of competition.


Challenges, opportunities and the future of tamarind value chain development

Tamarind production in many parts of Africa,thoughnotyetundertakenonacommercialscale,isnegativelyaffectedbylossofitsnaturalhabitatsthroughdeforestation. This is accelerated by demandforlandforagricultureleadingtotenurechanges,unsustainablecharcoal-makingpracticesandchangingculturalnorms occasioned by the rapid rural developmentandurbanization.Thesefactorshaveanegativeimpactonthenatural tamarind population structure and localecosystems(Brinkmannetal2014;Ranaivosonetal2015;Nyadoietal2010).Experience has nonetheless showed that farmerscanmaintainhightreedensitiesin croplands as tree resources in shrub lands, savanna and forests are felled for charcoal in many parts of the arid and semi-arid lands where tamarind occurs (Brinkmannetal2014).Inordertodevelopsustainable tamarind value chains in Africa,goodpracticesinmaintenanceanduseoftheavailablegeneticresourceswillbe required to avoid problems associated withplantingmaterialsofinferiorgeneticquality (Dawson et al).

At the same time, fruit value chain developmentisneededtorealizeimportantlivelihoodgoalssuchasfoodandnutritionsecurity,andincomegeneration.Surveysfromkeytamarindproductionareasnonetheless report low fruit utilisation sometimes, simply because people do notknowofalternativeuseforinstancecompared to the coastal area, where consumersusethefruitregularlytomakesauces,juice,iceandtotenderisemeat(Betser1999,unpublished).Increasingly,tamarindisbeingusedtosubstituteimportedspicestherebydiversifyingitsmarket.Atindustriallevel,tamarindextracts have been used as a replacement for phosphoric acid, citric acid and other acidsusedinsoftdrinkspreparations(El-Siddigetal2006).Theextractionoffruitpulpisadifficultoperationbecauseofthestickinessofthepulpwhichhaslowwatercontent.Technologydevelopmentforpulpextractionhasbeenevolvingratherslowly.Asummaryofkeychallenges,knowledgegapsandactorsrequiredtoleverageon current value chain development is presented in Table 1.


Table 1:Challenges,knowledgegapsandactorsneededtoimprovetamarindvaluechains

Challenge Knowledge gaps Who needs to know? Who can help resolve the challenge?

Loss of habitats andgeneticresources in different countries

Mappingofwildpopulation Trends in loss of geneticresourcesManagementoffarmland/agroforestrygeneticresourcesRoleofculturalnorms

PolicymakersMinistriesofforestry,agriculture&environmentFarmers,communitygroupsExtension servicesGenebankmanagers

RelevantcommunitiesResearchersGovernments ministries Investors(NGOs,CBOs,donors,privatesector)Conservationists, educationist, extensionists

Poorproductdevelopment initiatives

NewproductsfornewmarketsInteresttoinvestin new product developmentRoleVCdevelopment

InvestorsProducers/collectorsConsumersNutritionistsOrganicfoodsmarketersFoodtechnologists

InvestorsGovernment,NGOsResearchandUniversities

Lackofknowledgeonhowtheexistingmarketworks

Trainingsonmarketdynamics-keyVCactors

Producers,extensionservices and consumers

Government extension services,NGOsMarketresearchers

Lackofmarketinformation

Current information onpricing,demand,processingandpackaging

Producers,traders,processors

MarketresearchersGovernment ministries

Useofinferiorgeneticresources

Knowledgeonavailableelitegeneticresources

Producers,nurseryoperatorsExtension providersInvestorsTraders

Researchers,Extensionservices, Educationist

Detailed fruit characterizationgivenfruitsfromdifferent locations show different qualities

Knowledgeonspeciesdiversity (within and between)Fruitphenology

Producers,traders,researchers

Researchers,Horticulturalists/pomologists,Botanist,nutritionists and dieticians, food technologists


Tamarind value chains in boundary zones of biodiversity conservation areas

There are various reasons why tamarind is aninterestingcandidatespeciesforvaluechainsdevelopmentintheboundaryzonesofbiodiversityconservationareas.First,thespeciesthrivesindrylands,withlargeareas under biodiversity conservation. Second,asdescribedabove,thetamarind-based value chain has the potential to serve local, national and international marketsforitspulpandjuice.Third,thespecies offers a number of additional productsandserviceswhichmakesitattractivetocommunitiesinhabitinglandsaround biodiversity conservation areas. Forexample,itprovidesfuelwood,shadetopeopleandlivestock,andisnowrecognizedasanimportantsourceoftraditional medicine where all parts of the treeareused(Havingaetal2010;Kuru2014).Finally,thespeciesisnativetotheAfricancontinentandhenceitsplantingdoesnotposetherisksimilartothatofexotic species that may become invasive.

Itisclearthatwildtamarindpopulationsmaybeinsufficienttomeettheproductneeds of local communities as the trees are readily felled for charcoal and timber, therebyincreasingitsvulnerability(Fandohanetal2011).Ontheotherhand,

treesfoundonfarmsorinagroforestrysettingsaremoreprotectedeventhoughthereislimitedplanting(Nyadoi2010;Fandohanetal2010b).IncountriessuchasUgandaandKenya,it’sclearthatmoreplantingneedstobedonetomatchtheincreasingutilization(Nyadoi2010).Itishowever, not clear whether increased tree plantingforproductvaluechainsintheboundaryzonesadjacenttoconservationareas could reduce pressure on the biodiversity of these areas.

Itistherefore,hypothesizedthataneffectislikelytooccurwhenthevariousproducts that tamarind offers would replacecommoditiesthatpeopleseekfromconservationareas.Plantedtamarindstands may, for example, offer fuelwood and thus reduce the need for collection fromtheconservationarea.Itmayalsooffer additional income and reduce the need for value chains that are based on produce harvested from the conservation areas.Obviously,considerationsofhowtheplantingoftamarindandthedevelopment of tamarind value chains would impact on the pressure for resourcesharvestingfrombiodiversityareas need to be reviewed and discussed withlocalcommunitiesbeforedecidingonthe implementation of such value chains.


REFERENCESBhadoriya SS, Ganeshpurkar A, Narwaria J, Rai

G, Jai AP. 2011. Tamarindus indica: Extent of explored potential. Pharmacogn 5(9): 73–81.

Betser E. 1999 Rapid Reconnaissance Market Survey on Tamarind in Kenya. ICRAF Internal Report, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Pp. 11.

Bowe C, Haq N. 2010. Quantifying the global environmental niche of an underutilized tropical fruit tree (Tamarindus indica) using herbarium records. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 139:51–58.

Brinkmann K, Fanambinantsoa N, Ratovonamana RY, Buerkert A. 2014. Deforestation processes in south-western Madagascar during the past 40 years: what can we learn from settlement characteristics? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 195:231–243.

Bueso CE. 1980 Soursop, tamarind and chironka. In Tropical and Subtropical fruits. Nagy, S. and Shaw, P.E., (Eds.), AVI Publishing, Westport, Conn., 375.

Carsan S, Osino D, Opanga P, Simons AJ. 2010. Urban Agroforestry Products in Kisumu, Kenya: A Rapid Market Assessment. In Prain G, Karanja N, Lee Smith D (Eds) African Urban Harvest: Agriculture in the Cities of Cameroon, Kenya and Uganda. Springer, New York Dordrecht Heidelberg 249-263pp.

Chikamai B, Eyog-Matig O, Mbogga M, Eds. 2004. Review and appraisal on the status of indigenous fruits in Eastern Africa. A report prepared for IPGRI-SAFORGEN in the framework of AFREA/FORNESSA. Nairobi, Kenya, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Pp.152.

Chiteva R, Mayunzu O, Lukibisi M, Wachira N. 2016. Enhancing community livelihoods through nature-based enterprises: case of Matinyani Women Group, Kitui, Kenya. Environment and Ecology Research 4(1): 30-35.

De Caluwé E, Halamová K, Van Damme P. 2010. Tamarindus indica L. – A review of traditional uses, phytochemistry and pharmacology. Afrika Focus 23 (1): 53-83.

Diallo BO, Mckey D, Chevallier MH, Joly HI, Mckey MH. 2008. Breeding system and pollination biology of the semi domesticated fruit tree, Tamarindus indica L. (Leguminosae: Caesalpinioideae): Implications for fruit production, selective breeding, and conservation of genetic resources. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 4068–4075.

El-Siddig K, Gunasena HPM, Prasad BA, Pushpakumara DKNP, Ramana KVR, Vijayanand P, Williams JT. 2006. Tamarind (Tamarindus indica). Southampton Centre for Underutilized Crops, Southampton, UK.

Fandohan B, Assogbadjo AE, GlèlèKakaï RL, Sinsin B. 2011. Effectiveness of a protected areas network in the conservation of Tamarindus indica (Leguminosea-Caesalpinioideae) in Benin. Afr. J. Ecol., 49:40–50.

Fandohan B, Assogbadjo A, Kakaï R, Kyndt T, De-Caluwé E, Codjia J, Sinsin B. 2010. Women’s traditional knowledge, use value and the contribution of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) to rural households’ cash income in Benin. Econ. Bot., 64:248–259.

Fandohan B, Assogbadjo AE, GleleKakaï RL, Sinsin B, van Damme P. 2010. Impact of habitat type on the conservation status of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) populations in the W National Park of Benin. Fruits, 65: 11–19.

Fandohan B, Assogbadjo AE, Kakaï RG, Sinsin B. 2011. Geographical distribution, tree density and fruit production of Tamarindus indica L. (Fabaceae) across three ecological regions in Benin. Fruits, 66:53–6.

Gunasena HPM, Hughes A. 2000. Tamarind. International Centre for Underutilized Crops, Southampton, UK.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Narwaria%20J%5Bauth%5D


Havinga RM, Hartl A, Putscher J, Prehsler S, Buchmann C, Vogl CR 2010. Tamarindusindica L. (Fabaceae): Patterns of use in traditional African medicine. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 127: 573–588.

Kuru P. 2014. Tamarindus indica and its health related effects. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 4(9): 676-681.

Maliro MFA, Kwapata MB. 2002. Impact of deforestation on diversity of wild and semi wild edible fruits tree species in southern Malawi. Doscov. Innov. (Special edition) 98-104.

Morton JF. 1958. The tamarind Tamarindus indica (L.) its food, medicinal and industrial uses. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 71, 288–294 (Cited in Blench, 2003).

Muok B. 2002. Socio-economic and eco-geographical surveys of Tamarindus indica and Dialium orientale in Kenya. In Development of appropriate conservation strategiesforAfricanforesttreesidentifiedas priority species by SAFORGEN member countries. Eyog-Matig O, Gaoue OG, Obel-Lawson E. (eds). IPGRI-SAFORGEN Programme

National Research Council (2008) Lost Crops of Africa. Volume III: Fruits, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Nyadoi P, Okori P, Okullo JB, Obua J, Burg K, Fluch S, Nasoro M, Saleh H, Temu A, Jamnadass R (2010) Variability of East Africa tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) populations based on morphological markers. Gene Conserve 9: 51–78.

Ranaivoson T, Brinkmann K, Rakouth B, Buerkert A (2015) Distribution, biomass and local importance of tamarind trees in south-western Madagascar. Global Ecology and Conservation, 4:14–25.

Teklehaimanot Z. 2008. The role of indigenous fruit trees in sustainable dryland agriculture in eastern Africa. In Akinnifesi F, Leakey R, Ajayi O, Sileshi G, Tchoundjeu Z, Matakala P. & Kwesiga F (Eds), Indigenous Fruit Trees in the Tropics: Domestication, Utilization and Commercialization. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK. pp. 204-223.

Wekesa L, Wang’ombe E, Ngatia M, Muok B, Sato Y, Mukolwe M. 2008. Tamarindus indica Propagation and Marketing guide. WorkingPaperforIntensifiedSocialForestry Project, JICA, 8 pp.

Wekesa LC. 2009 Existing and potential opportunities in processing and marketing of Adansonia digitata and Tamarindus indica fruits in the Southern Rangelands of Kenya. Unpublished paper.

Van den Bilcke N, Alaerts K, Ghaffaripour S, Simbo DJ, Samson R. 2014 Physico-chemical properties of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) fruits from Mali: selection of elite trees for domestication. Genet Resour Crop Evol. DOI 10.1007/s10722-014-0080-y.

VogtK.1995.Afieldworker’sguidetoidentification,propagationandusesofcommon trees and shrubs of dry land Sudan. SOS Sahel International, UK 1, Tolpuddle Street, London NI OXT 52p.


4.2 Gum arabic and aromatic resinsOlavi Luukkanen, Badal Ahmed Hassan and Jan de Leeuw

AbstractGum arabic and aromatic resins are valuable commodities derived from trees in the drylands of East Africa and the Sahel.Thisarticlereviewsthepotentialofdevelopingvaluechainsforthesecommodities in and around protected areas to support the conservation of biodiversity in such areas. This chapter firstdescribestheexportmarketsforthesecommodities, and reviews the social and environmentalsideeffectsofdevelopingthese products. There is excellent potential fordevelopmentofmarketsfortheseproducts because international demand forgumarabicandaromaticresinsishigherthanthecurrentsupply.Finally,areviewsonthepotentialfordevelopingthegumarabicandaromaticresinsvaluechains to support biodiversity conservation within and around conservation areas is provided.

Markets for gum arabic and aromatic resins Gum arabic and aromatic resins are two commodities produced in the drylands of EastAfricaandtheSahel.Gumarabichas been used from ancient times as a bindingandstabilizingsubstanceincludingmummificationinpharaonicEgypt.Todayitisusedasstabilizerorfillingingredientin the food, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries,ascoatingmaterialinprinting,textileandceramicmanufacturing,andasa water-soluble odourless and tasteless adhesive(ChikamaiandOdera2002;

Thomkins2007).Between1992and2007globalproductionofgumarabicfluctuatedbetween27,000and72,000tons(Touré2009).Forcomparison,globalconsumptionofanimal-basedgelatin,analternativetogumarabic,exceeded220,000tonsforthecorrespondingperiod(UNCCD2004a).

Thesefluctuationsingumarabicsupplyhaveresultedinathreefoldchangeindemand(UNCCD2004a).First,theuseofgumarabicinthesoftdrinksindustry(includingPepsiandCoca-Cola)hascontinued to increase despite price increases.Second,whenpricesincreased,manufacturersreplacedgumarabicinconfection and foods with other natural andsyntheticgums.Third,thistrendiscountered by increased consciousness of foodqualityandorigin,causingareversionbacktoplant-basedgums.

Theapproximateglobalmarketdemandfor aromatic resins is 6,000 metric tons perannum.IneasternAfrica,themainexporter countries for aromatic resins areEthiopia(3,000t/a),Eritrea(400t/a),Kenya(1,500t/a)andSomalia(1,200t/a)(ChikamaiandCasadei2005;Ogbazghietal2006;Touré2009).Thebiggestmarketsfor aromatic resins are in China, Europe, Japan,MiddleEast,NorthAfricaandtheUSA,whileemergingmarketsexistinEasternEuropeandSouthAmerica.Thevolume of exports of aromatic resins from theHornofAfricaregionareconsideredsmall when compared to the potential (Lemenih and Kassa 2011).


Production of gum arabicGumarabicisproducedintheSudano-SahelianzoneofAfrica,inabeltthatextendsfromtheAtlanticOceantotheRedSeacoast.Historically,bythe17thcentury,the overseas export of this commodity, earlierrunningfromArabia,hadbecomeestablishedbytheFrenchinMauritaniaandSenegaltoservethegrowingtextileindustryneedsinFrance(Thomkins2007;Webb1985).InSudan,thegumbeltspansacrossthetraditionalrainfedagriculturalareas of western, central and eastern Sudan.Withtime,Sudanbecamethemainsupplyingcountry,dominatingthetradeinthiscommoditywithmorethana90%share of the total volume by the mid-20th century.Duringthisperiod,themainuseofgumarabicalsoshiftedfromtechnicalusestofoodindustryprocessing.Sudanisstilltheleadingcountryingumarabicproduction, followed by Chad (where the productionhasincreasedremarkablyinashortperiodoftime)andNigeria(Touré2009).

InSudan,gumarabicisstillaproductof both local and national importance, providingmillionsofruralpeoplewithsomecash income, and the national economy withexportearnings(WorldBank2007).Sinceitisfullycommoditized,itservesas an example of how a non-wood tree product can contribute to both local and national economic development in other countries.Inrecentyears,anincreasingtrendhasbeenobservedgloballyingumarabicproduction.InSudan,theannualproductionisnowestimatedtobe88,000t,correspondingto80%oftheglobalmarket(Hafften2014;Tahaetal2015).

InSudan,gumarabicistraditionallyproducedinsustainably-managedagroforestrysystems.Thiscommodityprovides an example of value chains that cancontributetoenvironmentalintegrityand potentially support biodiversity managementaswellasecosystemrestorationandrehabilitation(Luukkanenet al 2006).

Production and value chains of aromatic resins Aromatic resins are important sources of income for poor households and exportcommoditiesintheHornofAfricaregion(Sunninchanetal2005).TheyareobtainedfromtreesofthegeneraBoswellia and Commiphora, whichbelongto the Burseraceae family (Lemenih et al 2014). The two most important aromaticresinsintheHornofAfricaarefrankincenseandmyrrh.Frankincenseisexuded naturally or tapped by harvesters from different Boswellia species, particularly from B. frereana, B. neglecta, B. papyrifera and B. sacra.Myrrhisaresin obtained from Commiphora species, particularly C. myrrha, C. hadi and C. holtziana, eithernaturallyoraftertapping.Aromaticresinsplayasignificantroleinrural livelihoods, the national economy and ecosystemstability(Farah1994;Hassan2008).

The value chain of aromatic resins consists ofcollectors/harvesters,assemblers(localtraders),stockists(wholesalersinKenyainMombasaandinSomaliainBosaso)andexporters.Foraromaticresins,themarketsandend-usersfallintothreemainsectors:fragrance(chieflyincense


inmanysocialceremoniesandreligiousritualssuchasOrthodox,RomanCatholicandMuslim;Coulter1987;Farah1994);flavour(principally ‘maldi’forchewingandchewinggumindustrybutwithsomeminorusesoftheoilsasflavouringagentsinbakeriesandotherfoodindustriesthatproducemilkproductsandvariousalcoholicandsoftdrinks);andasarawmaterialinpharmacology.Pharmacologicalusesincludeointmentsforcuringtumours,vomiting,dysentery,fevers,leprosyandcancer; wound plasters, toothpaste and mouthwash.Incosmetics,aromaticresinsareusedasingredientsinlotions,soaps,detergentsandcreamsaswellasinoriental“powder”perfumes,floralperfumes,citruscolognes,spiceblends,malefragrancesandotherscentedpreparations.Inaddition,aromaticresinsare used in paints, adhesives, varnishes, fumigationpowders,dyes,beveragesandlaxatives(Tadesseetal2007).

Product description and value chain of gum arabicGum arabic is a dried natural exudate collected in the form of roundish nodules ofvaryingsizesfrom Acacia senegal trees usuallyaftertappingthebrancheswithvarioustools.Asimilargumisobtainedfrom A. seyal bycollectingnodulesthatappear on intact stems and branches. The gumobtainedfrom A. seyal (the so-called “talha”, friable,orflakygum)isconsideredto be of inferior quality, but it is used for certain special products or, because of itslowerprice,mixedwiththe“hard”gumobtained from A. senegal, so as to lower productioncosts.SharppriceincreasesforA. senegal gum,followingthedroughtsin

Sudanintheearly1980s,alsocontributedto an increase in the production of A. seyal gum,especiallyinnewproducercountriessuchasChadandNigeria(Rahim2006).

Gum arabic consists mainly of a mixture ofcomplexpolysaccharides.Itistastelessand odourless and easily soluble in water. Inthefoodindustryitsnon-toxicandnon-calorificpropertiesmakeitaversatilefoodadditive,whichisalsolowinprotein.IthasbeeninternationallyclassifiedasafoodadditivewiththeEUcodeE414(UNCCD2004 a).

Attempts have been made (especially bySudan)toassignonlythe A. senegal gumadesignationastruegumarabic.However,since1999,gumarabichasinternationally had a food additive status whichdefinesitasadriedexudateeitherfrom Acacia senegal or from A. seyal trees;inearlierdefinitionsonlytheformerspecies was mentioned by name while alsoreferringto“closelyrelatedspecies”(discussionpresentedbyRahim2006).However,therestillexistssomeambiguityindefinitionsandlabellingofgumarabic,because of differences in chemistry (e.g.opticalrotation),thegreatdiversityofpotentialplantandproducerorigins,competingcommercialinterests,andevenglobalpolitics.Forimagereasons,theproductmaybecalledacaciagum,or,asinSouthSudan,“gumAfrica”.Inthecaseofsoftdrinks,itcanbeincludedinadiffusecategoryof“plantextracts”.Inpractice,gumsfromdifferentAcacia species may be mixed by the end users, but price differences exist between the different varieties; quality, as indicated by gradingtherawproductaftercollection,


alsoaffectsthegumprices(UNCCD2004b;Thompkins2007).

Thetraditionalvaluechainforgumarabicisbestillustratedbythemanagementof“gumgardens”(Figure5)inSudanbetween the 300 and 600 mm isohyets. As anindicationofthediversifiedlivelihoodbaseinthisparticularzone,this“gumbelt”hasahigherhumanpopulationdensitythanthemorearidzonestothenorthorthe more humid ones to the south. Besides producinggumarabic,Acaciasenegaltreesprovidegoodfodderfromleavesandpods,firewood,timberandtraditionalmedicines from different parts of the tree.

Gumgardensarearotationalbushfallow system. The cycle starts with crop cultivation,evolvesintoanintercroppingsystem with crops and trees, and

eventually ends up as a pure tree stand. ItmayconsistofAcacia senegal trees establishedbysowingornaturallyregenerated.Tappingforgumusuallystartswhenthetreesarefiveyearsoldand continues until the trees are 20 yearsofagewhengumyieldsbegintodecrease. Then all trees are cut and the cyclestartsagainfromplantingfoodcropsandregeneratingtheacaciatrees,eithernaturallyorartificially(Elsiddig2004;Luukkanenetal2006).

InthecaseofgumarabicincentralSudan,mentapandcollectgumfromremoteareas, whereas women and children collectgumnearthevillages(Eskonheimo2006).AleadingroleofwomeningumarabicharvestinginnorthernKenyawasalsoreportedbyWekesaetal(2010).

Figure 5: GumgardenrotationsystemadoptedbyfarmersinthegumbeltinSudan(Luukkanenetal2006,modified).


Weatherconditionsaffecttheexudationofthegum,withhighergumyieldwithanincreasingamountofprecipitationduringthepreviousrainyseason.Tappingisdonemainlyduringthedryseason,thusalsoprovidingemploymentoutsidetheagriculturalcroppingseason.Theyieldper tree depends on the weather and the location,includingthesoilquality.Averageannualgumyieldsof900-2000gpertreeareconsideredacceptableforyoungandoldtrees,respectively(FNC2004).IntercroppingwithfoodcropsresultsinhighergumproductionthanfrompureAcacia senegal stands of similar density; thismightberelatedtothehigherrainuseefficiencyofmixedsystemscomparedtopure stands of trees (Gaafar et al 2006).

Traditionally,inSudan,gumarabicnoduleswereharvestedandpackedinsacksbythegrowersandthensold,oftenthroughtraders,tothestatemonopolyforgumtrade, the Gum Arabic Company. This companygradedtherawproductbasedon quality and then sold it to international buyerseitherinraworpurifiedform.Thefirststepofprocessing(nowobsolete),wasintroducedtothegum-producingcountriesinthe1990sandconsistedofmechanicalcrushing(“kibbling”)andsieving(NGARA2004).

Inthelate1990s,followingthefirstattemptsinNigeria,theGumArabicCompanyofSudaninitiatedtheuseofamodernpurificationandprocessingtechnologybasedonspraydryingthat was already used in the end-user countries(FNC2004).Thispurificationprocess,whichallowsmarketinggumofinternational quality standards required

bythefoodindustry,addsabout10%tothevalueoftheproduct(NGARA2004).However,themodernprocessingmethodisenergy-intensiveandrequiresconsiderablequantities of pure water; this limits its application in many producer countries (FNC2004).

Whilethefoodindustryconsidersthegumarabicproductiontohavelowbiologicalcontaminationrisks,variousinternationalprotocols have been developed to improve thefoodsafetyalongtheproductionchain.A forerunner towards this direction was theHazardAnalysisandCriticalControlPoint(HACCP)thatwasappliedingumprocessingformarketsinUSAandCanadaalreadyinthe1990s.Simplestandardizedtests were developed for moisture content,opticalrotation(fordeterminingthechemicalconstitution),foreignmattercontent,andmicrobiologicalcontamination(FNC2004).

InSudan,sincethe1990s,theregulationsovergumarabictradeandexportweregraduallyeased,allowinginternationalbuyers to directly procure the product fromlocalmarketingcentres,mostimportantlyfromauctionsheldinElObeidinNorthKordofan.TheGumArabicCompanyofSudanwasdissolvedin2009,whichmadeitpossibleforlocalandinternationalenterprisestofirmlyestablishtheirowngumprocurementnetworks.NewcompaniesinSudanalsousedthespray-dryingtechnologyandwereabletoexport branded products that adhered to international standards in the food industry (Hafften2014).


Sudaneseproponents,whiletryingtohighlighttheexudateobtainedfromAcacia senegalastheonly“true”gumarabic,havealsoattemptedtochangethestatusofgumarabicfromafoodadditive to a food substance. This would allowmarketingoftheproductinpureformdirectlyashealthfood,containingfunctionalfibresbutnocalories.Thislineofmarketingtakesadvantageofthe explanation which states that the divinely created “manna”, mentioned in HolyScriptures,wasinfactgumarabic(Thompkins2007;Siddig2009;Touré2009).

Theendproductsinthegumarabicvaluechain are the food industry products, which normally contain the substance as aningredient,orotherindustrialproductsinwhichgumarabichasbeenusedasafacilitatingagent.Obviously,itisdifficulttoestimate the true monetary equivalent of thevalueofgumarabicattheendofsuchcomplicated value chains.

Especiallyinthefoodindustry,gumarabichasthemarketingadvantageofbeingaplant-basedproduct(replacinganimal-basedgelatin)andproducedpredominantly by poor people in developingcountries.Italsocomesfromagroforestryproductionsystemsinwhichchemicalfertilizersorpestcontrolagentsaregenerallynotused.Thesefactswouldseeminglyeasilyallowcertificationandeco-labellingforgumarabic.

6 VolumesoftradeshownhereareextrapolatedfromquarterlyfiguresreportedinTouré(2009).

The value chain

Exportpricesforgumarabicgivesomeindication of the monetary value of the value chain associated with this commodity.Datapublishedin2009showtheexportprices(ofrawgumarabic)fromSudanvaryingbetweenUS$2.0andUS$2.3perkg,thelowestpriceusuallybeingpaidbybuyersinFrance.Thepricecould be, as found in a case of exports toIreland,ashighas5.4US$/kg.Thesame statistics showed that buyers from USApaidanaverageofUS$1.9/kg.Interestingly,USAprocured(alsobasedonstatisticsfrom2009)10,600t/aoftheproductfromSudanand,additionally,considerable quantities which probably alsomainlyconsistedofSudanesegumarabic,fromFrance(5,300t/a)andfromtheUK(900t/a).Atotalof5,300t/aofUSA’sgumarabicsupplycamefromChad(Touré2009)6.

Assumingarathergenerousannualproductionof2kgpertreeandagumgardenwith400trees/ha(Gaafaretal 2006), the annual production of a productivegumgardencouldbeintherangeof800kg/ha.Withafurtherassumption that the producer receives halfoftheexportpriceofUS$2/kg,theannualgrossrevenuefortheproducerwouldbeUS$800perhectareeachyear.This compares favourably to the income obtainedfromsorghumwhichwithayieldof500kg/ha(typicallyfromthesamepieceofland)wouldearnafarmerUS$330/ha(RepublicofSudan2015a).Althoughtheproducerpriceforgumarabicmaybe


considered low, it is clear that it provides a considerable additional source of on-farmrevenuetothefarmersinSudaneseagroforestrysystems.Similarresultswere found by Vellema et al (2013) for pastoralist household income derived fromtappingwildacaciatreesforguminnorthern Kenya.

AspointedoutbyRahim(2006),theproducerpriceforgumarabicvariessharply and depends on many factors. Sheconcludedthat,inSudanbeforethederegulationofgumtradethatwasinitiatedinthelate1990s,thecollectorcouldobtainaslittleas21%oftheexportvalueofthecommodity.Shealsofoundthatthegreatmajority(86%)ofgumcollectors sold their product to traders who also acted as traditional credit providers; only8%ofthefarmershadadirectaccesstotheauctionmarketstipulatedatthattimebytheSudanesegovernmentastheregularchannelfortrade.

Anotherdataset(WorldBank2007)basedonthesituationinKordofan,Sudan,assumedaproductionof400gpertree,fromabout360treesperhectare.In2002theproducerpricewasUS$0.28/kg(20%of the then export price), while in 2006 the producerpricehadincreasedtoUS$1.25/kg,equalling37%oftheexportprice.Itwas estimated that in 2006, revenues fromgumarabicconstitutedabout20%of the total annual household income in Kordofan.AccordingtoTahaetal(2014),

theincomefromgumproductionaccountsforabout10-15%ofthehouseholdeconomyofthedwellersoftheentiregumbeltinSudan.

TakingintoaccountthefactthatthenumberofruralpeoplebenefittingfromgumincomeinSudanisindeedconsiderable – it has been estimated to beatleast2.8million(UNCCD2004b)butpossiblyashighas6million(Hafften2015)–thesignificanceofgumarabicforthelocal economy becomes obvious.

Product description and value chain of aromatic resinsIntheHornofAfricaregion(inplaceswithabimodalrainfallpattern),harvestingoffrankincenseandmyrrhtakesplacetwiceayearduringthedryseasons,andeachperiodlastsforaboutfourweeks(Hassanetal2011).Theseproductsareharvestedbytwodifferentgroups:(1)pastoralistswhoarepassingby,withouttappingandforexchangeoftheproductforsugarandtea(frankincensefromB. neglecta is typically collected by pastoralist women and children); and (2) men from the poorest sedentary households who tapfrankincensefromBoswellia papyrifera and B. frereana.Ineachharvestingseasonthetapping(e.g.formyrrhfromCommiphora myrrhaandforfrankincensefrom Boswellia frereana) is conducted for three successive rounds, with a time intervalofoneweek,byusinganaxe.


TappingofCommiphoramyrrhatreesusinganaxeinWajir,north-easternKenya.Photo:BadalAhmedHassan,2010.

TappingofCommiphora myrrha trees usinganaxeinWajir,north-easternKenya.Photo:BadalAhmedHassan,2010.

Atthefirsttappingforaromaticresins,thetree exudes a small amount of resin with low quality in terms of colour, taste and smell;thenthesecondtappingisdoneoneweeklater,byremovingtheexudedresinandmakinganewincisioninthesameplacetodeepenthewound.Finally,thelasttappingisdoneaweekafterthesecondtapping,whenthetreesexudethemaximum amount of resin with the best quality.

Atthemoment,theonlyexistinginvestment for myrrh harvesters in northernKenyaandSomaliaissugar,tea, oil and rice provided by local myrrh tradersintheformofaloan.Dependingon the initial contract, in most cases the harvestersarelegallyboundtoselltheir

resin products to the investor or trader who supported them.

Localprocessingofmyrrhandfrankincenseconsistsofremovingbark,soil, leaves and any other adulterants. Thesortingandcleaningisdonemanuallyby women and children who may earn US$1.50perday(Luvandaetal2007).Thequalityoffrankincenseisbasedonthepurityandcolourofresin.Thefirst-gradefrankincenseiswhiteincolourandfreefromtreebarkandsoil.Thesecondgradeoffrankincenseisblackincolourandshowssignsofinsectinfection.

Ontheotherhand,myrrh(malmal), has a differentqualityandgradingsystem.Thegradeisprimarilybasedoncolour,smell,tastingandcleanness.Thebestqualitymyrrhisreddish-goldincolour,withastrongsmellandverybittertaste.


Frankincensecanbesafelystoredonthefloor,atroomtemperature,foruptoeightyears,whilemyrrhcanbestoredinsacksatroomtemperatureforonlyabout1.5years.However,duetohighdaytimetemperatures and poorly aerated store rooms,frankincenseoftenmeltsandformsblocks,whilemyrrhevaporatesitsessentialoils,hencelosingquality.

Inindustrialprocessingofaromaticresins,simplemethodscanbeused.Usingsteamororganicsolventstherawmaterialsare fractioned by distillation into their component essential oils, which then are used for different end products. Essential oilscangenerateaprofit10timeshigherthan the one obtained from an equivalent amountofthearomaticresin.However,todate,minimalprocessingtakesplaceinresin-producingcountries(FelekeandMelaku2011).

Policy frameworkTherearegoodpossibilitiestointensifythemanagementofgumandresinresourcesin cases where these products constitute anessentialpartofthelivelihoodstrategy,as demonstrated in Ethiopia by Lemenih et al (2014). These authors also concluded that the ownership of or the access tospecificdrylandresourcescanbeachieved with either formal or informal arrangements.Theysuggestedthatgovernmentregulationorwellestablishedtraditional rules could prevent the degradationofdrylandresources,whilealackofsucharrangementscouldleadtotheirrapiddegradation.Ontheotherhand, the private sector may not have muchinterestininvestinginimproved

gumorresinproductiononcommunalland.Whenlanduserightsarenotclearlydefined,conflictscommonlyeruptamongproducers; this has also been reported for pastoralistcommunitiesfromChad(FNC2004).

IntheirstudyonthesocialorganizationofgumandresinproductioninEthiopia,Lemenih et al (2014) found seven different productionmodels,whichreflectedthedegreeofdomesticationofthetreeresources.Intwoofthemtheproductionwasbasedonindividualfarmers’activities,either on part time or full time basis. Two additional models were based on cooperatives, with restricted or unrestricted membership.Furthermore,twoothermodels consisted of concessions which used local or, alternatively, external labour. Inthelastmodel,farmersexploitedtreesthatgrewontheirownfarmsorhomesteads.Therewasageneraltrendfrom communal, open-access resource useandnaturalregenerationoftreestowardsmoreprivatizedandmoreartificialsystems.Simultaneousdevelopmentwas found from part-time activities in gumorresincollectiontoorganizedandpermanent forms of production.

Underconditionsofsubsistenceeconomy,livelihooddiversificationbasedongumand resin production may be caused by diminishingimportanceofapreviouseconomicactivity(thuscontributingtoanew“safetynet”).Incaseswherethecash economy is well established and labouravailable,suchdiversificationcan also be a result of active search for better economic opportunities but


often, nevertheless, constrained by more profitablelanduseforms(Lemenihatal2014).

ThetraditionalgumarabicproductioninSudanisoftenpresentedasanexampleofwell-regulatednaturalresourceuse(Elsiddig2004).ProducersofgumarabicinSudantypicallyconsistofsedentaryfarmersearningcashincomefromguminadditiontotheirsubsistenceorcashproductionfromfarmingactivities.EveniflandtenureisseldomofficiallydocumentedinSudan,alongtraditionofgumarabicproductionhasledtoinformallyrecognizedrightstolandoccupiedbysystematicallymanagedgumgardens.InthecaseofunmanagednaturalAcacia senegal or A. seyal treesinSudan,theownership is not as clear, and the same situationprevailsingumcollectionbynomadic pastoralists in northern Kenya, ChadandNigeria(FNC2004).

AccordingtoRahim(2006),SudanhasseveraladvantagesinitsgumarabicproductionwhencomparedtocompetingcountriessuchasChadorNigeria.TheproductioninSudanreliesonalongtraditionofmanagement,tradingandprocessing,andismainlybasedonthemorevaluablegumobtainedfromAcacia senegal.IncontrasttoChadandNigeria,A. senegalgrowsinSudanalsoinpurenaturalstandsoverlargeareas,especiallyin the western parts of the country, apart frombeingintensivelymanagedandregeneratedingumgardens.InSudan,landscarcityisgenerallynotaconstraintforgumproduction(incontrasttolabouravailability).InChadandNigeriathereisatendencytomixgumswithdifferent

species, which creates problems for the processing,useandpricingofgum.

Impacts of value chain development

Environmental impacts TheSaheliangumbeltisunderthethreatofdesertificationcausedbothby climatic variation and direct human-influencedfactors,suchasovergrazingandunsustainablefuelwoodharvesting.Reportsindicatethatthegumbelthasmoved towards the south, but it would be anoversimplificationtoclaimthissolelyasaclimatechangeeffect(Eskonheimo2006).

IntheHornofAfricaregion,itisobviousthatcivilwarandotherinternalconflictshave disrupted the traditional patterns of land use and accelerated the process of landdegradation.Thelackofcontroloftree resources and low producer prices for gumarabichaveledtocuttingofAcacia senegal and A. seyaltreesforfirewoodandcharcoal,asspecificallyreportedfromSudanandSouthSudan(FNC2004).Ontheotherhand,therearealsoobservations on accelerated return of thewoodyvegetationcoverasaresultofpoliticalconflictsandsubsequentmigrationof rural people out from their traditional settlements (Asare 2011).

Acacia trees have important positive effects on soil fertility and the sustainability ofagriculturalproductionondrylands.Theyfixatmosphericnitrogenandmakeitavailableforagriculturalcrops;theyalso improve the physical soil properties and contribute to carbon sequestration by increasingthesoilcarboncontent(Elsiddig2004).Non-woodproductssuchasgum


arabic and aromatic resins add to the valueofagriculturalproductionsystemsand function as incentives to maintain treesindrylandecosystems.Ahighbiodiversitywithallitscombinedbenefitsand services can only be maintained on drylandswithsufficienttreecover,eitherin man-made or in natural production systems(RepublicofSudan2015b).

AspointedoutbyRahim(2006),inherstudiesongumarabicproductionsystemsinKordofan,Sudan,maintainingthegum-producingacaciasontheirlandsofferseconomicbenefitsforfarmersinthe form of more secure income under varyingclimaticconditionsascomparedtopureagriculturalcropproduction,whichthey often consider as economically moreprofitable.Thisfactcontributestomaintainingatreecoverandthustoenvironmentalbenefitsingeneral,includingbiodiversityconservation.

SinceAcacia senegalgenerallygrowson sandy soils and in drier areas when compared to A. seyal, it has been suggestedthattheformerspeciesismoreimportantforprovidingenvironmentalservices,suchasdesertificationcontrol(Rahim2006).Itcouldthusalsobeconcluded that A. senegal would have a more important role in land conservation, byensuringtheintegrityofthefragiledesertmarginecosystems.

Aclearconstraint,however,formaintainingthe tree cover is the fact that farmers oftenperceiveagroforestrysystemswithnaturaltreesasprovidingthemwithweaklandtenuresecurity(forthecaseofSennarState,Sudan,cf.Luukkanenet al 2006). Alternative land use options

commonly lead to deforestation and thusenvironmentaldegradation.Forestconversion may be induced by increased pressure on land resources caused byimmigration.Lemenihetal(2014),referringtoEthiopia,alsosuggestedthatenvironmental stresses, such as those causedbyclimatechangeorinducedbypoliticalinstability,mayweakenthetraditionalregulatorysystemswhichpreviously have ensured a sustainable resourceuse.PolicymeasuresforimprovingclimatechangeadaptationondrylandsinAfricahavebeensuggestedby Kalame et al (2011); they also include strengtheningtheroleofgumsandresins as sources of livelihood. The woodyvegetationcoverdynamicsondrylandsasinfluencedbythecombinedeffectsofclimaticvariations,conflictsandagriculturalandforestryactivitiesobviouslyneedsnewscientificresearchtosupportimprovedmanagementguidelines(Bernard et al 2011).

Social impacts Rahim(2006)hasstudiedfactorspotentiallyleadingtoexpansionofgum-producingforestsandthuscontributingto ecosystem restoration or rehabilitation ondeforestedanddegradedlands.BenefitsfromAcacia senegal-based forest oragroforestrysystemsassuchwouldeconomicallybeattractiveenoughforafarmer to plant more trees; however, the scarcityoflabourforgumharvestingisoneof the reasons why such activities are not takingplace.Gumharvestingisconductedin the dry season when, theoretically, there should be more temporary labour availablethanduringthecrop-producing


rainyseason.Othercontributingfactorsmentioned include political instability and insecurepropertyrights.

InSudan,especiallyupto2005,directthreats to Acacia senegalforestsorgumgardenswerecausedbypoliticalunrestandthecivilwar,whichoftenledtoillegaltreecuttingforfuelwood.Whileconflictsaregraduallydisappearing,thereisstillacontinuingtrendofagriculturalexpansionthroughlandclearingformechanizedrainfedfarming.Abandonmentofgumproduction may also be a consequence of ageneraldiversificationoftheSudaneseeconomy, with the rural population increasinglyleavingthecountrysideforalternative, off-farm income from urban centres.However,thebalancebetweendifferent land use systems is also heavily dependent on prices of commodities, includingthatofgumarabic(Elsiddig2004; Kalame et al 2011).

Ontheotherhand,highreturnsfromagriculturalcropproductionseemtocontribute to increased investments inSudanbyfarmerstogumarabicproduction that does not compete, in terms of labour requirement or the annual farm workschedule,withfarmingactivities.There is thus a positive relationship betweenimprovementsinagriculturalproduction and an increase in labour availabilitywhichinturnfacilitatesgumproduction(Rahim2006).

BasedonfindingsinWestandNorthKordofanstatesinSudan,Tahaetal(2015) recommended distribution of creditsandsupporttothealreadyexistingcooperativegumproducerassociations,soastoboostagriculturalproductionand

tosupportsustainablegumproduction.Inmostofthegumproducingcountries,producer associations have been found to be one of the most successful approaches forimprovingtheeconomicprofitabilityofgumproductionforfarmers,andstrengtheningofthisdevelopmenthasalready for some time been the aim of severalinternationallysupportedprojects(FNC2004).

As mentioned above, in Ethiopia, seven distinctlydifferentmodelsforgumandresinproductionwereidentifiedbyLemenihetal(2014).Ageneraltrendin this country (as elsewhere) has been decentralizationandde-regulationofthegumproductionandtrade.Intensificationofproduction(orhigherdegreeofdomesticationofgumandresin-producingtrees) is often associated with increased environmentaldegradation.Thesameauthorsarguethattheoppositemayalsobe true, and, in fact, a common pattern isincreasingenvironmentaldegradationwith more intensive resource use, which however, turns to more environmentally-friendly use with further increases in productioninputs.Specifically,acertaindegreeofdomesticationcanimprovetheenvironmental services of the production system,includingitsbiodiversity.

Challenges in value chain development for gum and resin products

Gum arabic management Theproductionofgumarabicstartswhenthetreesareaboutfiveyearsold.InSudan,acommonmethodthathasbeenusedintappingforthelastcoupleof


Demonstrationoftheimproved“sunki”toolforgumarabicharvestinginNorthKordofan,Sudan.Photo:OlaviLuukkanen,2000.

decades is a shafted metal cutter (sunki), whichisforcedunderthebarkofbranchesofacaciatrees,thusremovingstripsofbarkabout10-30cmlongand2-4cmwide.Typically, 3-5 branches are tapped each year. This results in considerably less damagetothetreeswhencomparedtousinganaxe,whichwaspractisedearlier.Sufficientattentionshouldthusbepaidtopromotingtappingmethodsthatminimizedamagetotrees.Gumyieldsaftertappingatdifferenttimesduringthedryseasonandaftertappingdifferentnumbersofbranches of the tree have been studied in detail, and recommendations for optimal

tappingprotocolshavebeengiven(Ballalet al 2005).

Recentinvestigationshavealsoconfirmed(earliersuggestionsbyRaddadandLuukkanen2006)thatboththegumquantityandgumqualityinAcacia senegaltreesisgeneticallycontrolledina way that would allow improvement of gumproduction,bothbyselectionandmoreadvancedbreeding(Dialloetal2015).Similarstudiesonaromaticresinproducingtreesareobviouslyalsoneeded.

Theamountofprecipitationduringtherainyseason,throughitseffectespecially


on soil moisture in the top-soil layer, seemstohaveapositiveeffectongumyield.Intercroppingofacaciaswithannualfood crops also seems to have a positive effectongumyield.Grainyieldsmayormaynotbeaffectedbyintercroppingwithtrees,dependingontreedensityandsoilmoisture.Underconditionsoflimitedwater availability, as commonly found ondrylands,agroforestrysystemswithgum-producingacaciasintercroppedwithannual food crops also seem to increase therainwateruseefficiency(Gaafaretal2006;Raddadetal2006).

Resultsonthecombinedeffectsofacacia-foodcropagroforestrysystemsareconfusingandpartlycontradictorybecauseofthefactthatgrainmono-croppingduringthefirstyearsofcultivationcommonlyresultsinhighergrainyieldsthanwhatcanbeachievedinintercroppingwithtrees;thebeneficialeffectsofacaciasforsoilfertilityareonlymanifestedafteraprolongedtimeofagroforestrysystemmanagement(Luukkanenatal2006).Itisthusevidentthat, from the viewpoint of the producer, allbenefitsandservicesobtainedfromthelandundergumproductionshouldbetakenintoaccountwhendevelopingnewguidelinesorpoliciesformoresustainableandeconomicallymoreprofitablegumarabicmanagement.

ThecaseofSudanshowshowgumproducersaredisadvantagedinthetradingprocess,stillhavingtorelyonlocal merchants to sell their produce. A clear step forward would be to strengthenthealreadyexistinggumproducers’associationsandtoprovidealternativeformalizedcreditchannels,

whichcouldreplacethegumtradersascreditproviders.Infact,therecentstudybyTahaetal(2015)inWestandNorthKordofanstatesinSudanindicatesthatgumproducershavealreadybeguntobenefitfromservicesprovidedbygumarabicproducersassociations(GAPAs).Amongtheservicesespeciallyappreciatedbyfarmerswereprovisionofmarketingservices,collateralforcredit,anddrinkingwater from boreholes in remote areas used forgumcollection.

Aromatic resin management Followingthepatternofinterventionsforimprovingthegumarabicproductionand trade, in the case of aromatic resins, possible approaches would include (1) formation of commodity based organizations,(2)constructionofbetterstoragesystemwithbetteraerationbyusingsolarpower;(3)introducingbettertappingsystem,and(4)domesticationof Boswellia frereana and Commiphora myrrha asagroforestrytrees(Hassanetal2011).

The populations of trees that produce aromaticresinsintheHornofAfricaregionarenowcommonlybeingthreatenedbydegradationandgradualdisappearanceor even extinction, because of the heavy pressure put on them by unsustainable resinextractionandcuttingforfuelwood.Forgermplasmconservation,commonlyused approaches are in situ conservation and ex situconservation,referringtoprotectingtreepopulationswithintheirnativerangeofdistribution,oratseparatelocations,respectively.Forresin-producingtrees, the third, less commonly advertised approach of circa situmconservationmight


be especially suitable. This approach aimsatpreservingthegermplasmofthetreespeciesbyusingitincultivation,inman-made production systems, and thus maintainingandevenincreasingandstrengtheningthegenepool.However,todate, available experiences of circa situm treegermplasmconservationmainlycomefromhumidtropicalregions(Dawsonetal2013). The simplicity of circa situmgeneconservation and the obvious associated economicandsocialbenefits,inadditiontothe biodiversity conservation aspects, are stronglyinfavourofapplyingthisapproachtoaromaticresinproduction.Incontrast,mostgumarabic-producingtreespeciesarecommonintheHornofAfricaregion

andthewholeSudano-Sahelianzone,and their populations are not to the same degreethreatenedbygermplasmloss.

Developing value chains in and around biodiversity conservation areas Gum arabic and aromatic resins are sourced from Acacia, Boswellia and Commiphoratreesgrowinginnaturalandsemi-natural stands that also occur in and aroundareasthathavebeenassignedforbiodiversity conservation. The presence of such trees in and around conservation areas raises the question to what extent thesecommodities(i.e.,thegumandresins) could be sourced from such areas

AdegradednaturalBoswellia papyrifera standinSouthDarfur,Sudan,threatenedespeciallybyfuelwoodcutting(observethetreeharvesterattheleft).Photo:OlaviLuukkanen,2000.


to enhance local livelihoods without compromisingbiodiversityconservationaims.Itfurtherraisesthequestionwhetherdevelopmentofgumandaromaticresinvalue chains could be used to enhance thesupportivenessoflocalstakeholderstowards the conservation of the biodiversityinsuchareas.Inthesectionbelow we review the opportunities for such agendasofgumsandresinbasedvaluechains inside and outside conservation areas.

Within protected areas The fact that the species that support the productionofgumandresinvaluechains(Acacia, Commiphora and Boswelia spp.) occur naturally in many drylands protected areas offers an opportunity to engagelocalcommunitiesincollectingthesecommodities.Yet,wearenotawareofanyexamplesofformalarrangementswhere local communities are allowed to collectgumarabicoraromaticresinsfromtrees within state-controlled conservation areas,asituationwhichprobablyreflectsexistingregulationsthatrestrictorprohibitthe use of secondary forest products within conservationareas.Suchanattitudeisunderstandablegiventheexamplesofoverutilizationanddegradationofthestandsoftreesthatproducegumandaromatic resins.

Yet,theabovereviewalsohighlightedrecentinnovationstowardslessdegradingand more sustainable extraction of these commodities. Experience with the development of other biodiversity-based commoditiese.g.honeyandbutterfliesreveals that the development of these valuechainschangedtheattitudeoflocal

communities and they became proponents and supporters of the conservation area. Wesuggestthataneffectsimilartothatdescribedforhoneyandbutterfly-basedvalue chains could also be achieved for gumandaromaticresin-basedvaluechains;localcommunitiesbenefitingfrom biodiversity within a conservation areachangingtheirattitudetowardssupportingtheconservationarea.Wefurthersuggestthatitwouldbeworthwhile to explore whether it should and under what circumstances and how itcouldbepermissibletoextractgumsand resins from trees within protected areas.Theobviousbenefitofallowingregulatedsustainableextractionwithinconservation areas would be creation of incentives for the populations in the periphery to maintain the trees inside such conservationareas.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatsuchuseneedstobewellregulatedand controlled to avoid over-extraction and damagetothetrees.

Within the periphery of conservation areas A second possibility could be the development of value chains in the areas surroundingbiodiversityconservationareas.HerethereareoptionstodeveloptreegardenslikethegumarabicgardensinSudan.Theamountofrevenuethatcouldbegeneratedappearsattractivewhencomparedtothebenefitsderivedfromotherlanduses.Whenwellmanaged,suchtreegardenscouldalsoprovideabufferprovidingwoodforenergysupplyandthusprotectthevegetationinsidetheconservationareaagainstoverutilizationanddegradation.Hence,wesuggest


that the development of value chains for gumarabicandaromaticresinsinareassurroundingbiodiversityconservationareas requires more attention than it has received thus far.

Conclusions and recommendationsDifferentcountriesproducinggumarabichave different natural resource bases and alsodifferentcomparativeadvantagesintheglobaltradeofthiscommodity.ItisobviousthatSudanshouldfocus,initspolicydevelopment,onensuringtheproductionofhighestqualitygumfromAcacia Senegal. This country, because ofliberalizationandprivatizationofthegumarabictrade,hasalsoundergonearapiddevelopmentofaddingvalueto the commodity before it enters the internationalmarkets.InthestudybyRahim(2006)thegumtradehasbeendescribedasanoligopoly,withSudanastheleadcountry,andChadandNigeras“follower” countries. This will also allow other countries to develop their own, but different,comparativeadvantages.Itwillbelargelytheinternationaldevelopmentofthepricesofdifferentgumqualitiesthatdetermines the future production pattern of ChadandNigeria.

Rahim(2006)hasalsoanalysedtheconsequences of interventions, for instance,intheformofsubsidies,togumproductionindifferentcountries.Sudanwouldincreasinglybenefitfromitsleadingpositionespeciallyinhigh-qualitygumproduction,ifChadandNigeriawouldbe externally supported to continue investments in A. seyalgumproductionunderascenariowherethistypeofgumcontinuestohaveahighdemandglobally.

Functioningsocialorganizationsareneeded for sustainable natural resource use. This was demonstrated by Lemenih atal(2014)intheiranalysisongumandresin production in Ethiopia where they concluded that while better income options from alternative land uses commonly lead toforestconversionanddegradation,constraints in resource availability may also lead to improved social and policyarrangements.However,externalregulationthatdoesnotconsiderlocalconditions is not successful in control of over-exploitation of resources. Thus, in ordertostimulatesustainablegumandresin production and to control further ecosystemdegradation,measuresareneededwhichstrengthenthelanduseortreeuserightsoflocalcommunities.

Productionofaromaticresinscanpotentially become an effective tool for enhanced biodiversity conservation by applyingthecirca situmgeneconservationapproachandactivelypromotingcultivation of trees that yield these commoditiesinagroforestrysystems,withlivestockmanagement,cropcultivation,or both. This would be especially feasible formyrrh-producingCommiphora species, whichareeasilyvegetativelypropagatedfromstemcuttings.Thiswouldalsoopenupneweconomicandsocialbenefits,apart from the obvious biodiversity conservation services.

Acknowledgement: The authors aregratefulforvaluablecommentsandsuggestionsgivenbyMohamedAhmedElfadl.


REFERENCESAsare E. 2011. Studies on changes in

vegetation cover in Southern Sudan as indicated by remote sensing and GIS Analysis. MSc Thesis, University of Helsinki.

Ballal M E, Elsiddig EA, Elfadl MA, Luukkanen O. 2005.Gum arabic yield in differently managed Acacia senegal standsinWesternSudan.AgroforestryForum63:237-245.

BernardO,WycliffeM,SiriE.2011.Sustainableadaptationandhumansecurity:Interactionsbetweenpastoralandagro-pastoralgroupsin dryland Kenya. Climate and Development 3(1):42-58

ChikamaiBN,OderaJA.(Eds.)2002.Commercialplantgumandgumresinresources:Sourcesofalternativelivelihoodand economic development in the drylands ofKenya.ExecutivePrinters,Nairobi.90p.

ChikamaiB,CasadeiE.(Eds.)2005.Productionandmarketingofgumresins:frankincense,myrrhandopoponax.NGARAPublicationSeries5.KEFRI,Nairobi.97p.

CoulterJ.1987.MarketstudyforfrankincenseandmyrrhfromSomalia.NationalResourcesInstitute,Chatham,UK.

DawsonIK,GuariguataMR,LooJ,WeberJC,LengkeekA,BushD,CorneliusJ,GuarinoL,KindtR,OrwaC,RussellJ,JamnadassR.2013.Whatistherelevanceofsmallholders’agroforestrysystemsforconservingtropicaltreespeciesandgeneticdiversityincircasitum,insituandexsitusettings?Areview.BiodiversityConservation22:301–324.

DialloAM,NielsenLR,HansenJK,RaebildA,KjaerED.2015.Studyofquantitativegeneticsofgumarabicproductioncomplicated by variability in ploidy level of Acacia senegal (L.)Wild.TreeGeneticsandGenomes11:80.DOI10.1007/s11295-015-0902-x

ElsiddigE.2004.Community-basednaturalresourcemanagementinSudan.In:Awimbo,J.,Barrow,E.&Karaba,M.(Eds.)CommunityBasedNaturalResourceManagementintheIGADregion,pp.142-

171.IGADSecretariat,Djibouti&IUCNEasternAfricaRegionalOffice,Nairobi.

ElsiddigEA,TalaatDafallaAM,GaffarMohamedA.2011.ForestPlantations/woodlotsintheeastern and north-eastern African countries ofKenya,Tanzania,Uganda,Burundi,Rwanda,EthiopiaandSudan.Countryreport:Sudan.AfricanForestForum,Nairobi.77p.

EskonheimoA2006.Women,environmentalchangesandforestry-relateddevelopment:Gender-affected roles of rural people inlanddegradationandenvironmentalrehabilitationinadryregioninSudan.Univ.HelsinkiTropicalForestryReports29.214p.

FarahAY.1994.ThemilkoftheBoswellia forest.FrankincenseproductionamongthepastoralSomali.ResearchProgrammeonEnvironmentalPolicyandSociety,EPOS,DepartmentofSocialandEconomicGeography,UppsalaUniversity.

FelekeS,MelakuS.2011.Value-addedprocessingandmarketingofgumsandresins.In:Lemenih,M.&Kassa,H.(Eds.).OpportunitiesandChallengesforSustainableProductionandMarketingofGumsandResinsinEthiopia,pp.69-86.CIFOR,Bogor.93p.

FNC(ForestsNationalCorporation)2004.Assistinggumarabicproducersthroughsustainable improvement of their livelihoods. DraftprojectproposalforSudan,ChadandNigeria,submittedtotheCommonFundofCommodities(CFC).ForestsNationalCorporation, Khartoum. 33. p.

GaafarAM,SalihAA,LuukkanenO,ElFadlMA,KaarakkaV.2006.ImprovingthetraditionalAcacia senegal-cropsysteminSudan:Theeffectoftreedensityonwateruse,gumproductionandcropyields.AgroforestrySystems66(1):1-11.

HafftenM.2014.ThecurseongumarabicinSudan.GlobalEnvision.http://www.globalenvision.org/2014/02/03/curse-gum-arabic-sudan Accessed9Dec.2015.

http://www.globalenvision.org/2014/02/03/curse-gum-arabic-sudan




Hassan BA, Glover EK, Luukkanen O, Chikamai B, Jamnadass R, Iiyama M, Kanninen M. 2011. The role of Boswellia and Commiphora species in rural livelihood security and climate change adaptation in the Horn of Africa: Case study of North-Eastern Kenya. International Journal of Social Forestry 4: 86-112.

Kalame FB, Luukkanen O, Kanninen M. 2011. Making the national adaptation programme of action (NAPA) more responsive to the livelihood needs of tree planting farmers, drawing on previous experience in dryland Sudan. Forests 2(4): 948-960.

Lemenih M, Kassa H. 2011. Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Production and Marketing of Gums and Resins in Ethiopia. CIFOR, Bogor. 93 p.

Lemenih M, Wiersum KF, Woldeamanuel T, Bongers F. 2014. Diversity and dynamics of management of gum and resin resources in Ethiopia: A trade-off between domestication and degradation. Land Degradation and Development 25: 130-142.

Luukkanen O, Katila P, Elsiddig E, Glover EK, Sharawi H, Elfadl M. 2006. Partnership between public and private actors in forest-sector development: Options for dryland Africa based on experiences from Sudan, with case studies on Laos, Nepal, Vietnam, Kenya, Mozambique and Tanzania. Univ. Helsinki Tropical Forestry Reports 31. 119 p.

Luvanda AM, Mulugeta L, Choge S, Chikamai B, Alhedy A, Mbwambo L. 2007. The role of Boswellia species and frankincense in the livelihoods of local communities in Eastern Africa. Discov. Innov. 18: 398-403.

NGARA. 2004.Production and marketing of gum arabic. NGARA Publication Series 2. NGARA & KEFRI, Nairobi. 89 p.

Ogbazghi W, Rijkers T, Wessel M, Bongers F 2006. The distribution of the frankincense tree Boswellia papyrifera in Eritrea: the role of environment and land use. Journal of Biogeography 33: 524-535.

Raddad EY, Luukkanen O. 2006. Adaptive geneticvariationinwater-useefficiencyand

gum yield in Acacia senegal provenances grown on clay soil in then Blue Nile region, Sudan. Forest Ecology and Management 226: 219-229.

Rahim AH. 2006. Economic analysis of deforestation: the case of the gum arabic belt in Sudan. PhD thesis, Wageningen University.141 p.

Republic of Sudan 2015 a. Annual crop and food supply assessment mission report 2014/2015. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Khartoum.37 p.

Republic of Sudan 2015 b. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2015 -2020. Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Physical Development & Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR), Khartoum. xiv + 133 ElSiddig I. 2009. Greatest marginalization of all time. Sudanese online. http://sudaneseonline.com/en2/publish/Articles_and_Analysies_12/Greatest_Marginalization_of_All_Time.shtml Accessed 9 Dec. 2015.

Sunninchan VG, Mohan Ram HY, Shivanna KR. 2005. Reproductive biology of Boswellia serrata, the source of salaiguggul, an important gum resin. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 147, 73–82.

Tadesse W, Desalegn G, Alia R. 2007. Natural gum and resin bearing species of Ethiopia and their potential applications. Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales, 16(3): 211-221.

Taha ME, Bekele T, Hammad ZM. 2014. Socio-economicconditionsinfluencingthe decision of communities to retain gum producing stands in the gum belt of the Sudan. International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2(1):1-7.

Taha ME, Mugadam IF, Elamin HMA, ElTahir BA, Adlan OE, Osman Elsaid Adlan OE, Eltahir MES. 2015. Involvement of gum arabic producers’ associations in promoting gum arabic production and marketing in Ennuhud and West Bara Localities, Sudan. International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 3(5): 182-188.

http://sudaneseonline.com/en2/publish/Articles_and_Analysies_12/Greatest_Marginalization_of_All_Time.shtml





Thompkins G. 2007. Gum arabic: Sudan’s miracle commodity. WBR News, http://www.wbur.org/npr/11224050 . Accessed 9 Dec. 2015.

Touré S. 2009. Gum arabic and gum resins. ITC Market News Service. International Trade Centre, Geneva. 39 p.

UNCCD. 2004a. Using acacias in landscape management practices to mitigate land degradation, reduce poverty and promote food security. Regional Project (Draft). UNCCD, Bonn & University of Helsinki/VITRI.20 p.

UNCCD. 2004b. Using acacias in landscape management practices to mitigate land degradation, reduce poverty and promote food security. Project for White Nile State, Sudan (Draft). UNCCD, Bonn & University of Helsinki/VITRI.17 p.

Vellema W, Mujawamariya M, D’Haesa M, Burger K. 2013. An economic approach to household collection of gum arabic from the wild. International Forestry Review 15(2): 255-269.

Webb J. 1985. The trade in gum arabic: Prelude to French conquest in Senegal. Journal of African History 26(2-3): 149-168.

Wekesa C, Makenzi PM., Chikamai BN, Muga O. 2010. Traditional ecological knowledge associated with Acacia senegal (Gum Arabic Tree) management and gum arabic production in Northern Kenya. International Forestry Review 12(3): 240-246.

World Bank. 2007. Export marketing of gum arabic from Sudan. World Bank Policy Note. The World Bank, Washington DC. 24.

http://www.wbur.org/npr/11224050

http://www.wbur.org/npr/11224050


4.3 The honey value chainNyongesa Josephat, Mohamed K.A. Mohamed and Mohamud A. Madey

IntroductionHoneyisbiodiversitybasedproductvalued in many societies. This article reviews development of honey value chainfortheindigenouscommunitieslivingadjacenttoprotectedareasandhighlightsthepotentialofthevaluedchain to motivate communities conserve biodiversity for sustenance of their wellbeing.Thearticledescribesthehoneyproduct and the honey bees ecosystems habitats,markets,economicviabilityandsustainabilityandchallengesofhoneyvalue chain development. The chapter finallyreviewspolicyimplicationforvaluechain development, example of best practiceinbee-keepingcase,improvinghoney values chain and provide some recommendations.

Honey product description and the providing ecosystems Honeygatheringfromthewildhasbeengoingonforover8000years(Nicola2004).Honeyfromtimeimmemorialis used for many social-cultural and economicpurposes.Societieshaveused it mainly as food, medicine and duringreligiousceremonies,therebycontributingimmenselytopeople’swell-being.Itismainlyprocessedfromfloralnectar collected by bees (Apis mellifera) throughtheregurgitationprocess.Honeyisagoodexampleofbiodiversityproductlinkedtoforestandagro-ecosystems.Beesplayanimportantroleinagricultureandforestrythroughpollinationandforagingfornectarcollectionfromplants

usedinhoneyproduction.Plantsalsoprovide a natural habitat for the bees. Communities,developmentorganizationsandgovernmentsintheHornofAfricahaverecognizedthecontributionofhoney production or apiculture to ruraldevelopmentandnationalgrossdomesticproduct(GDP).Promotionofmodern apiculture can therefore serve asamechanismtoimproveinefficienttraditionalbee-keepingpracticestherebyenhancinglivelihoodsandbiodiversityconservation(Moustafa2001).Forinstance,theSudanesegovernmentsupportsbeekeepingasaneconomicincentive for local communities to conserve naturalforests(EisaandRoth2008).InEthiopia,theMinistryofAgricultureandEuropeanDevelopmentFundprojectinGambella,havesupportedbeekeeping,whileinDjiboutiandSomalia,wildhoneycollectionandcommercialbeekeepinghave been supported as important economic practices to help promote the conservation, sustainable access and utilizationofnaturalresources(Hussein2001).

The annual worth of commercial apiculture industryinSomaliaisestimatedtorangefromUS$113,043toUS$305,882(Theresa2013;Sombee2011).InKenya,traditionalbeekeepingcontributestoover80%ofhoneyproductioninthecountry.Honeyproduction in Kenya is about 14,000 metric tons with an estimated value of Ksh.4.43billionannually(Wambua2015).Thesectorisnowbeingstrengthenedto


adoptmodernbeekeepingtechniquesbyLivestockDepartmentundertheMinistryofAgriculture,LivestockandFisheries(NAFIS2015).ApicultureisinstitutionalizedinKenyathroughtheNationalBeekeepingPolicyFrameworkwhichprovidesguidanceonbestpracticesandqualitystandards(NAFIS2015;Carrol2006).

Eventhoughhoneymakessignificantcontribution to the economies of the East Africanregion,harvestingfromthewildisunsustainable and has raised concerns due to destruction of the ecosystems that provide habitat for bees and poor harvestingtechniquesthatdestroybeecolonies.Theseconcernshaverekindledinterestbygovernments,developmentandconservationinstitutionstoseeksustainable practices that could balance livelihoods and biodiversity conservation needs.Bee-keepingisthereforeoftenpromotedinagro-ecosystemsandcommunityforeststhroughuseofmodernapiariessuchastheLangstrothandKenyatop bar hives in Kenya, and other parts ofEastAfrica.Studieshoweverreportlow adoption rate of the modern hives in severalbeekeepingzones(Mulietal2015;Nzanoetal2012)partlyduetolimitedaccesstoextensionservices(JAICAF2009).

The value chain concept applied mainly toagriculturalcommoditiesisrelevanttobiodiversity-based value chains (BBVC) suchashoney.Significantly,honeyas a biodiversity-based product can

support protected areas conservation andlivelihoodlinkagesthroughlocalcommunitycollaborativeengagement.Agoodexampleofsuchacommunity-driven,biodiversityprojectisfoundintheArabukoSokokeForest(covers420km2) inMalindi,Kenya.TheArabukoSokokeKipepeoCentrehasimplementedbiodiversity conservation activities such asbeekeepingandbutterflyrearingtobenefitcommunitiesadjacenttotheArabukoforest.Honeyvaluechaindevelopmentisrecognisedaspartandparcel of community participatory forest managementplans.Thehoneyenterprisewasinitiatedafterstakeholdersrealizedthatforestswasbeingdestroyedthroughunsustainableminingoftimberandnon-timberforestproductsleadingtodegradationoflocalfloraandfaunaofendemicspecieswithsignificantthreattocommunities’livelihoods(KFS2002).

Honey marketsThe demand for honey at local, national andinternationalmarketsishighandsurpassessupply.Honeycollectorstherefore frequently use unsustainable harvestingmethodstomeetdemand.Localsuppliersusingtraditionalbee-keepingandharvestingtechniquesprovidesubstantialsupplyofhoneyintheHornofAfrica. The honey often contains impurities reducingitsquality.Smallholdersthereforefail to compete favourably in the dynamics ofexistingmarkets.

ThemainactorsintheHoneyValueChain(HVC)inKenyaareproducers/collectors,


Figure 6:Honeyvaluechain(NyongesaJM,2015:)

processors, traders (wholesalers and retailers)andexporters.Honeyissoldeither in combs by producers or as a processed product extracted from combs. Pricingvariesdependingonquality,demand and point of sale for instance, at farmgateoraftertransportationtonichemarkets.Proceedsfromhoneyandhoneyproductsalesbenefitkeyactorsalongthe

chain that also cover distributors and input suppliers.Duetomarketimperfectionssuchaspricefluctuationandinformationdistortions, most actors in the chain, especiallyproducers,failtorealizeexpected optimal return on investment. The current honey value chains can be representedasshowninFigure6.

Challenges of honey value chain developmentSeveralstudieshavedocumentedsocio-economic,policy,institutional,governance,andculturalfactors,especiallygenderinequality that undermine development of profitablehoneyvaluechains(KIT2012;Baltazaretal2013;Birhanetal2015).

ThesechallengeswereidentifiedintheexampleoftheArabukoSokokeprojectleadingtotheformationofthecommunity-basedgroupoperatingahoneyprocessingcenter. A summary of the economic, social, environmental and policy factors that influencehoneyvaluechainsaredescribedasfollows:


Economic viability and sustainability • Low quality and quantity: Smallholder

farmerscontributetoover80%ofthehoneysupplyintheHornofAfricaregion(NAFIS2015).Honeyproducedthroughtraditionalmethodsismainlyoflow quality because of contamination with pollen, wax and other impurities duringharvesting.Lowqualityhoneyfailstocompetefavorablyinthemarketwhich demands for better quality and thus limits smallholder participation and returnoninvestment.Smallholdersarescattered,mainlyproducingminimalquantities at individual level which is unable to sustain the continually growingdemandforhoneyandhoney products. Low quantities of honeyproducedthroughtraditionalbeekeepingmethodsareconsumedathousehold level with little surpluses to trade.

• Low capital investment: Lackofaccess to capital to invest in value additionequipmentsuchascentrifugesreduces the possibility of farmers increasingthequantityandqualityofhoney produced, for more lucrative markets.Limitedstart-upcapitalto invest in commercial modern beekeepinghivesimpedessustainabilityoftheHVC.Thereisaweaklinkagebetween producers and potential micro-financeinstitutionsasserviceprovidersand important actors in the chain.

• Market imperfection: The dynamic marketinefficienciesfailtoworkfortheproducers,resultinginaninabilityto achieve quality, quantity and

sustainablesupplyaskeyactorsinHVC.Thechallengeisworsenedbylimitedmarketinformation.

• Limited commercial business acumen: Mostproducersinthechainrarely develop business plans, as an importanttooltovisualizedevelopmentof the honey business at individual orinstitutionallevels.Microfinanceinstitutions prefer business plans and lackofthistoolimpedesactors’accesstofinancialserviceswhichchallengesHVCdevelopment.

• Lack of proper infrastructure: Poorinfrastructure such poor roads… limits accesstomarketsbyproducersandfew traders are able to reach rural producers.Producersremainaspricetakerswhichlimitstheirprofitmargins.

• Limited ecosystem service valuation: Bees play an important role in the pollination of crops and other plants withgreaterproductionofagriculturalcommodities and wild plants. The pollination provided by bees is thus an important ecosystem service and it is aco-benefitofbeekeepingandhoneyproduction. The value of pollination as anecosystemserviceisincreasinglybeingrecognizedatglobalandnationalpolicy levels. At the local level, there is limited awareness of the pollination co-benefitsofbeekeeping(andhoney production). Limited literature on valuation of ecosystem services limits awareness on the economic sustainability of honey production.


Social inclusiveness and sustainability• Few beneficiaries:Mostofthe

HVCactivitiesonlybenefitthosestakeholdersinvolvedinprojects.Thefewstakeholdersengagedareusuallyconfinedinasmallareawithlittleimpactinthelargerecosystem.Thisisunsustainableinthelongterm.Ontheother hand,

• Limited human capacity: Modernbeekeepingtechniquesinvolvinguseofmoreefficienthives,processingequipmentandproperpackagingandbrandingareimportantforsustainableHVCdevelopment.ThemainHVCactorshavelimitedskillsinmodernhoney production, value addition and storage(processors),brandingandmarketing(producersandtraders,both wholesalers and retailers), andinformationonthelegalpolicyframework(mainlyexporters)whichimpedes adoption of modern apiculture tosustaintheHVC.

Environmental and Biological Sustainability• Ecosystem degradation: Beekeeping

isgenerallypractisedinmultifunctionallandscapes which combine land usessuchascropping,livestockandbiomassenergyproductionandconservation.Landusechangeresultinginfewernectarplants(e.g.as a result of deforestation or forest degradation)limitstheavailabilityofnectar and thus lower honey production.

• Climate change:Shiftinclimaticchangemanifestedthroughextremetemperature variation and low precipitationhashadasignificanteffectonbiodiversity,withfarreachingnegativeimpactonHVCsustainability.Climaticchangeisapredisposingfactor for increased pests and disease prevalence which affect honey bee colonies.

• Unsustainable agricultural practices:Poorlandusepractices,forinstance,clearingvegetationcoverformonocultures,over-useofagro-chemicals, could affect ecosystem healthandbiodiversityincludingbeesandtheirphysicalsurrounding.

• Bees’ health: Prevalenceofapiculturespests and disease such as…contributes to low honey yields and quality. Pestsand diseases therefore reduce the ecosystemservicesbees’offer,forinstance,pollination.Reductionofpollinated plant species that provide nectar can reduce honey yields and sustainabilityofHVC.

Policy challenges• Limited enabling environment:

ThoughbeekeepinghasbeeninstitutionalizedinsomecountrieslikeKenya,otherareasintheHornofAfricastilllackaclearpolicyframework.

• Insecurity: Insecurityandpoliticalinstability threaten sustainability of HVC.Theactorsalongthevaluechainarenotwillingtoinvestinaninsecure environment that results in lossofinvestment.Potentialinvestors


mayalsobediscouragedtosupportHVCdevelopment,whichunderminesconservationandcommunitywell-being.

• Property rights: Legallimitationonaccesstonaturalresources,andlackoflegallandownershiparemajorchallengesforHVCdevelopment.Freeaccess to wild bee colonies in forests throughusingtraditionalharvestingpractices could destroy colonies in the longrun.

• Weak policy enforcement: An unregulatedhoneybusinessenvironmentisathreattoHVCsustainabilityasithasencouragedimportation of cheap honey in the local markets.Theimportedproductattimesof low quality and low price leads to unfavorablemarketcompetitionwithlocal products.

• Limited research: There is still limited research on biodiversity-based value chains which limit improvement and suitabilityofHVC.Thisisevidencedbymorefocusonagriculturalbasedvaluechains compared to BBVCs.

Policy support for value chain development CountriesintheHornofAfricahavedifferentpoliciesandguidelinestodevelopthehoneyindustry.Forexample,inSomalia,HVCissupportedbutthecountrydoesn’thaveenablingpoliciesandstronginstitutionsthatguidemarketinganddevelopmentofHVC.Therearenorestrictions on collection of honey from forestsresultinginunsustainableminingoftheproductandcolonydistraction.In

Kenya,withamorestablegovernmentmanyinitiativeshavebeenusedtogrowthesubsectorashighlightedbelow.

ThegovernmentofKenya,forinstance,attempted to introduce modern apiaries amongcommunitiesthatwerealreadypracticingtheartbackinthe1950s.Thegovernmentfurtherinitiatedatrainingprogrammeforhoneyandbeeswaxinspectors,andestablishedbeekeepingdemonstration centers in various parts ofthecountry.Between1967and1969,Oxfam,throughtheFreedomfromHungerCouncilofKenya,conductedafeasibility study to determine the viability ofbeekeepingasanincomegeneratingactivity in the drier parts of the country.

In1971,thegovernmentofKenyaobtained assistance from Canadian InternationalDevelopmentAgency(CIDA)toestablishanationalprojectinbeekeeping.Theprojectspearheadedtheestablishmentofbeekeepingco-operatives,honeyrefineriesandequipmentworkshopsespeciallyofKenyatopbarhives.AmajormilestonewastheestablishmentoftheNationalBeekeepingStationin1982.Thestructuraladjustmentprogrammesofthe1990spavedthewayforliberalizationofthebeekeepingindustrywhichinturnencouragedprivatizationandcommercializationofequipmentandservices, with both private and public sector partnerships with respect to equipment manufacture and delivery of extension services.

Severalindividualsoperateatdifferentlevels of the value chain as either producers,processorsormarketers.


TheKenyangovernmenthasprovidedanenablingenvironmentfortheimplementationofbeekeepingactivitiesservices in collaboration with the private sector,researchandtraininginstitutionsaswellasdevelopmentpartners.Beekeepingcontributes close to Ksh. 4.3 billion annually and production is estimated at,100,000metrictonsannually.Ithastherefore become an important enterprise inthelivestocksub-sectorandthereisareadymarketforbeeproducts,bothlocallyand internationally.

ThegovernmentsupportsdevelopmentofHVCthroughtheMinistryofAgriculture,LivestockandFisheries,whileTheKenyaForestService(KFS)promotestheHVCasalivelihood-andconservationenterprise.Further,TheKenyaBeekeepingPolicy(2010)hasestablishedtheKenyaBeekeepingInstitutetoimprovethecapacityofstakeholdersonbeekeepingby:

• Developmentoftheresearchagendaforimprovedandhighlyproductivebeecolonies

• Promotionofvalue-addedhiveproducts

• Developing,managinganddisseminatingbee-keepinginformation

andtechnologiesthatpromoteproduction

• Encouragingandpromotingenvironmental conservation, particularly wild bee colonies

• Quality assurance and standards advisoryonbeekeepingequipmentandhive products

The economic importance of bee-keeping Globally,thereisalargeandgrowingdemand for honey and other bee products. From2001to2005theaverageannualgrowthrateofhoneyproductiongloballywas2.3percent(OxfamGB2009),althoughsincethensupplieshavedecreased,mainlyduetothegrowingincidence of colony collapse disorder in Europe,theUSA,andSouthAmerica.Thereisalargeun-metdemandfororganichoneyinEuropeancountriesaccordingtotheInternationalTradeCentre(UNCTAD/WTO).Figure7showssomegoodsandserviceshoneybeesprovide.


Figure 7:Thewidervalueofhoneybees.Source:AdoptedfromICIPE,2015

EastAfricahasgoodpotentialfororganicbeekeeping.Inthepastfewyears,increasingdemandhasprovidedEthiopia with opportunities to export small amounts of smallholder-produced honey toneighboringcountries.Ethiopiaisthe9thhighesthoneyproducingcountryinthehorn of Africa and the world with a total production estimated at 44,000 tons valued atUS$76.6(€57.6)million(FAOSTAT2007).Itisalsothelargestproducerandexporter of honey and beeswax in Africa. This means that bee products are very importantasasourceofforeigncurrency(MOARD2003).Thediverseproductsincludinghoneyandby-productssuchaswax which can be used to produce natural cosmetics,royaljelly,pollen,candle,shampoo,soaps,shoepolish,floorpolish

etc.Apartfromincreasingexportearningsandhelpingtodiversifythenationaleconomy,promotingbeekeepingsupportslargenumberofpoorhouseholdsoutofpovertythroughincomegenerationandnutrition.

Traditional honey producers in the horn of Africa Bee-keepingpracticesintheregionaremainlytraditional,basedonindigenoustechnicalknowledgeonhiveconstruction,managementofhoneybeecolonies,harvestingandprocessingofhiveproducts.Thecurrentbee-keepinginSomaliaisbasedonhoneyhunting(Kihwele1983)andreliesonindigenousknowledge(Kihwele1991).Thelocalbeekeepershave much to learn from scientists, but


so do scientists have much to from traditionalbeekeepersthrougheffectivecommunicationforexperiencesharing.Thoughtheregionhaslimitedaccesstoformaleducation(Katani1999),indigenous

knowledgeofbeekeeperscanbeutilizedinmanagingforest-beeecosystemstoguaranteetheirsustainableuseandstability.

AwerandWitucommunities’groupphotoduringHVCtrainingatArabukoSokoke-Kenya.Photoby:NyongesaJM,2015

Improved/Modern Honey Producers in the RegionHoneyvaluechainintheregionisattractingalotofrecognitiondueitspotentialtocontribute to livelihood enhancement and biodiversityconservation.Thebeekeepingsectorisundergoingmodernization.Modernbeekeepingtechniquesarebeingpromotedbygovernmentanddevelopmentorganizations.SatellitecentressuchastheoneinNairobibytheInternationalCentreforInsectPhysiologyandEcology(ICIPE)havebeenopenedtosupporttheHVC.Bee-keepingequipmentlikeLangstrothhivesandcentrifugesforhoneyextraction

are used to increase productivity and value addition(FAOundated).

Honey processing with examples Value can be added to honey in a variety of ways but additional and perhaps better opportunities added value can come from the use of other hive products such as wax. InEthiopia,bees-waxsdemandedforthemakingofvotivecandles.Additionalvalueof bees-wax include uses in cosmetics, foodtechnology,varnishes,polishandinmedicine.Also,royaljellyisusedasadietarysupplement(Krell1991).Localbeekeepersindevelopingcountriesuse


locallyavailablematerialsforprocessingandstorageofhoneyproducts.InZambiaforinstance,beekeepersusecalabashesor old plastic containers with holes of about 1 cm pierced at the bottom with alayerofcleancoursegrassspreadontop of the holes to strain honey (Kimbi etal1998).InMbuludistrict,somebee-keepersuseplasticcontainerstostorehoneybutthemajorityusevariablesizesoflocalcontainerscalledDahangorSepay.DahangcontainersarelargerthanSepay,theformercontainingabout4-5litreswhile the latter are of 1-2 litres capacity (Kiondo1998).Lackofcapitalcausessomebee-keeperslikeinHandenidistrictandelsewhereinTanzaniatoleavehoneyintheforestduetolackofstoragefacilities(Masalu1997).

Honey marketing in the regionTherearegoodinternalandexternalmarketsfornaturalhoney.Internationaldemandgreatlyexceedssupplygivenitsdemand for food and therapeutic uses. About 50 percent of honey production is consumedlocally,10%isusedforbeerand wine production in confectioneries and pharmaceutical industries and theremaining40%isexported.Thereunexploitedmarketsinlargetowns,hotels,airlines and tourist centres. This however demandsproperpackaging.Thekeymarketparticipantsinclude:bee-keepers,private traders, processors, associations and honey beer brewers. Value could be addedthroughprocessingandpackaging.MostAfricanhoneywillbesoldinthefuturethroughsuppermarketsservingparticularnichemarkets.TherearealsosubstantialopportunitiesintheworldmarketforAfrican

honeyasitisconsideredorganic(Morseand Calderone 2000). Care however has to betakenregardingproximityofcattledipsastheuseofagro-chemicalschemicalsand antibiotics can contaminate honey harvested in the wild.

Example of best practices in bee-keeping

Kenya

ArabukoSokokeforesthasthreeblocksnamely;Sokoke,GedeandJilore.Theforest is famous for its rich biodiversity; flora,faunaandphysicalfeatures(Itisprofiledtobethesecondmostimportantforest in terms of conservation of birds inAfrica).However,increasinghumanpopulationadjacenttotheforestwasnoted to exert pressure on natural resourcebasethroughunsustainableharvestingofforestbiodiversityproducts.Thisrealizationnecessitateddevisingof biodiversity conservation-livelihood strategiestosustaincontinuoussupplyofecosystembasedgoodsandservicesrequiredtosupporthumanwellbeing.Onecasestrategyisparticipatorymanagementplansinvolvingcommunitymembersin53villagessurroundingtheforestthroughcollaborative biodiversity conservation approach.Honeyvaluechainisoneofthecommunity driven enterprises promoted to enhance continuous supply of honey benefittingcommunitiesaroundtheforestas source of income and at the same time conserve the forest ecosystem from illegalactivitiessuchasloggingandoverminingofotherforestnontimberproducts.ThesuccessoftheHVChasbeenmainlythroughjointcollaborationofstakeholdersincludingKenyaForestServices;National


MuseumsofKenya,KenyaForestResearchInstitute,communitybasedorganizations,andgovernmentministryofagricultureandconservation/development/researchpractitioners(Okoth2011).ArabukoSokokeisoneofthemanysuccessful honey value chains that support biodiversity conservation and livelihood in thecountry’slandscapes.

Somalia

SAAFIHoneyCompanyismodernizingcommunitybeekeepinginSomaliathroughintroductionandmanagementofmodernhives in the wild forest ecosystems. Privatelymanagedapiariespromoteconservationofforestsforbeesforagingtherebyhelpingconservebiodiversityandenhancingnationaleconomicdevelopment. The company has curved its marketforbrandedpureandnaturalhoneysegmentedalongthesourceofnectarfromwildflowersofspecificindigenoustree species such as Acacia senegal (Gum Arabic), Acacia tortilis(Umbrellathorn),Doberaglabra(knownasGarasinSomali),Terminalia spinosa (spiny desert tree), Ziziphus mauritiana (Chinese date) and severalothernativefloweringplants.Tomaintain the brand name, the company and communities strive to conserve tree specieswhichinthelongrunconservebiologicaldiversityatlargeandimprovecommunities’well-being(Saafi2015)

Conclusion

Honeyisanimportantbiodiversity-basedproductwithavarietyofusescontributingto socio economic development at micro, mesoandmacrolevels.Farmer’sadoption

ofmodernbee-keepingtechnologieswillimprove honey production, and enhance biodiversity conservation.

RecommendationsPossible Solutions to Sustainable HVC: Honeyhaswiderangeofusessuchasfood and health products, medicinal, industrialusesandincomegeneration.This potential requires further improvement throughasustainableHVCapproach.Thischapter recommends several approaches to attain sustainability.

Focus on Physical, Social and Financial Assets:SustainableHVCwouldrequiremodernbeekeepingpractices,equipmentandrelatedinfrastructure.StrongsocialcohesionthroughhorizontalandverticalnetworkinginthevaluechainandaccesstofinancialresourceswouldsustaintheHVC.Thiscouldbereinforcedthroughgenderparityforsocialjusticeinclusion,enhancingcontributiontopoverty reduction and promote business innovativenessacrossgenderdivide.Thepersonalinterestsoflocalstakeholderscouldbeenhancedthroughcapacitybuildingtoenhancetechnicalknowledgeonmodernapiculturetechnologiestoincrease return on investment which contributes to sustainability.

Collaborative Biodiversity Management jointinclusivecollaborativeapproachesincludingcommunitybasedbiodiversitymanagement(CBBM)approachesisrecommendedforHVCdevelopmentandsustainability.EcosystemwideintegratedstrategyinvolvingmainstakeholdersisoneapproachtopromotetheHVCon


scale. Collaborative approach could be strengthenedthroughinstitutionalcapacitybuilding.

Equity, Efficiency, Effectiveness (3 Es): EquityindistributionofBBVCbenefitsandgenderparityalongthechainwillensuresatisfactionandtrustamongkeyactorswithpossibilitytosustaintheHVC.Efficientresourceallocationtobee-keepingaffordableenterprisesalongthe value chain would be an incentive to mainchainactorsandcouldencouragesustainability.Withcosteffectiveresourceallocation,actorsalongthechain,canrealizedesiredreturnoninvestmentas positive impact on socio-economic developmentthereforesustainHVCandbiodiversity conservation (effective).

Participatory Market Mapping: MarketintelligenceandhoneymarketmappingisimportanttoidentifyHVCactors’potential,challenges,andsolutionsateachlevelalongthevaluechainwithmainfocusonenablingenvironment,theservice

providersaswellasHVCmarketchainactors.

Institutionalize HVC: Thoughbeekeepinghasbeenintegratedinsomepoliciesbyfewgovernmentsintheregion,legislationsto conservation biodiversity, promote apiculturewithagro-forestryandcropproductionwouldsustaintheHVC.

Acknowledgements TheauthorswouldliketoacknowledgethesupportofICIPEandKFS,ArabukoForestMalindi,Kenyaforallowingtheteamofexpertstovisitandlearnfromthemduringtheexchangevisit.WeareindebtedtoProfessorSureshKamarRaina(ICIPE)forprovidingvaluableinformationaskeynotespeaker,Mr.BlessingtoneMaghanga(KFS),andMr.HusseinAden(ArabukoSokokeKipepeoproject)forprovidinginput to this chapter.

REFERENCESBaltazar ML, Namwata Kianga JM, Mwabless

N, Malila K. 2013. Potentials and Challenges of Beekeeping Industry in Balang’dalalu Ward, Hanang’ District in Manyara, Tanzania. Kvukoni Journal, Vol. 1 (2): 75 -93

Birhan M, Selomon S, Getiye Z. 2015. Assessment of Challenges and Opportunities of Beekeeping in and around Gondar. University of Gondar, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ethiopia. Academic Journal Entomology 8 (3): 127-131.

Bradbear N. 2004. Beekeeping and Sustainable Livelihoods.DiversificationBooklet1.

Agricultural Support Systems Division FAO Rome.

Carrol T. 2006. Beekeeping in Kenya. A beginner’s guide to beekeeping:

Eisa MA, Roth M. 2008. Overview of Traditional Beekeeping in Sudan: Competition for Resources in a Changing World: New Drive for Rural Development. Deutscher Tropentag, 7-9 October 2008 in Hohenheim.

FAOSTAT. 2007. http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx

http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx

http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx


FAO (undated): http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0104e/T0104E07.htm#Modern rives

Hussein MN. 2001. Beekeeping in Africa. Faculty of Agriculture. Assiut Univ., Assiut. Egypt. Apiacta

ICIPE. 2015. Honey Based Value Chain. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology.

ANAFE. 2015. Building a network of researchers, educators and developers to improve Biodiversity-based Value Chain Development in the Horn of Africa. Cross-border workshop October 1-2, 2015.World Agroforestry Centre Nairobi.

JAICAF. 2009. Development of Beekeeping in Developing Countries and Practical Procedures. Case Study in Africa. Japan Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and Forestry, March 2009.

Katani JZ. 1999. The role of gender based indigenous knowledge in developing coping strategies against deforestation: A case study of Mwanza District. Dissertation for Award of MSc Degree at Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. 110pp.

KFS. 2002. Arabuko-Sokoke strategic Forest Management Plan, 2012-2027: Prepared by Arabuku Sokoke Forest Management team. Forest Department, Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, National Museums of Kenya.

Kihwele DVN. 1983. Beekeeping in Tanzania. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism: Government Printers, Dar es Salaam. 43pp.

Kihwele DVN. 1991. Report on Research and Development advisory committee on Natural Resources Research. Government Printers, Dar es Salaam. 54pp.

Kimbi EC, Mmbaga SJ, Mwakatobe A, Debessu T, Mbede A. 1998. Potentials and problems of smallholder beekeepers. A case study of Nkoamangasha Sub-village in Arumeru District. A Report presented as a requirement for completing a course on Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture. Institute of Continuing Education (ICE), SUA, Morogoro, Tanzania. 24pp

Krell R. 1991. Centrifugal honey extraction in frameless-hive beekeeping. Journal of Beekeeping and Development 19 (2): 6-17.

Kiondo MR. 1998. A survey of local use and economic value of bee products in some Tanzanian tribes. A case study of Hai District, Kilimanjaro Region. In: Sustainable Beekeeping for Africa. NWRC/DFID. Project A 9317b. 10pp.

Masalu F. 1997. Improvement in productivity of bee products in East Africa. In: proceedings of the Workshop on Low productivity of honey and beeswax in East Africa. (Edited by NWRC).19 – 21 May 1997, A.I.C.C. Arusha, Tanzania. 34-40pp.

KIT. 2012. Agri-ProFocus and IIRR. Challenging chains to change: Gender equity in agricultural value chain development. KIT Publishers, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam.

Moustafa H. 2001. Beekeeping in Africa: North, East, and West Africa countries. University of Assiut, Fac. of Agric., Plant Prot. Dept., Assiut, Egypt. Proceedings of the 37th International Apicultural Congress, 28 October – 1

Muli EM, Kilonzo JW, Ngang’a JK. 2015. Adoption of frame hives: Challenges facing beekeepers in Kenya. ICIPE, Nairobi, Kenya.

Nzano PN, Nyamasyo GHN, Asiko GA. 2012. Beekeeping hive technology vis-á-vis honey quality in Kenya.

NAFIS. 2015. National Farmers Service. http://www.nafis.go.ke/livestock/bee-keeping/. Accessed on 17/11/2015.

MOARD. 2003. Beekeeping resources development extension packages. Amharic version, unpublished. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Okoth S. 2011. Beekeeping and forest conservation: a case study of Arabuko Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Theses and Dissertations (University of Pretoria):Research Output, University of Pretoria

Oxfam GB. 2009. Market and Value Chain Analysis Report.

http://www.nafis.go.ke/livestock/bee-keeping/

http://www.nafis.go.ke/livestock/bee-keeping/

http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/31741

http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/31741


SAAFI.2015.SaafiHoneyCompantwebsite. http://www.saafihoney.so/. Accessed on 18/11/2015

SOMBEE (2011): Somaliland Beekeeping Development Organization (SOMBEE) http://www.sombee.org/bees.htm. Accessed on 17/11/2015

Theresa M. 2013. Regional Lessons Learned for Somalia in the Apiculture (Beekeeping) Sector. http://shuraako.org/sites/default/files/documents/Regional%20Lessons%20Learned%20for%20Somalia%20in%20the%20Apiculture%20%28Beekeeping%29%20Sector.pdf,. Accessed on 17/11/2015

Wambua B. 2015. Assessment of performance indices of frame hive beekeeping and the traditional technology in Kenya a case study of Kitui County. Thesis submitted to the department of dryland agriculture in partialfulfilmentoftherequirementsfortheaward of a degree of Master of Science in agricultural resource management school of agriculture and veterinary sciences south eastern Kenya University Kenya April, 2015

http://www.saafihoney.so/

http://www.sombee.org/bees.htm

http://www.sombee.org/bees.htm

http://shuraako.org/sites/default/files/documents/Regional%20Lessons%20Learned%20for%20Somalia%20in%20the%20Apiculture%20%28Beekeeping%29%20Sector.pdf






4.4 Butterfly value chains and the conservation of Arabuko Sokoke forest

Hussein Abdulhi Aden and Jan de Leeuw

Abstract Thedevelopmentofbutterflyhousesinthedevelopedworldhascreatedmarketsforpupaeoftropicalbutterfliessincethelate1970s.Localcommunitiesinthedevelopingworldhaveanopportunityto produce the pupae for these clients overseas.Inthischapter,wedescribethedevelopmentofabutterflyvaluechainandbutterflyfarmsintheareassurroundingArabukoSokokeForestinKenya.Wefirstdescribethedevelopmentoftheproductionandmarketingofbutterflypupae in this area and then analyse its economic sustainability and the social and environmentalbenefits.

Markets for tropical butterflies Around1980smarketsemergedfortropicalbutterfliestopopulatethesocalledbutterflyhouses(Parson1992)inthedevelopedworld.Suchfacilities,typicallylandscapedlikeatropicalgarden,allowvisitorstowalkthroughandexperiencetropicalbutterfliesalive.Currentlythereareseveralthousandsofbutterflyhousesattractingaround40millionvisitorsperyear with an estimated annual turnover intheorderofUS$100Million(Bopreetal2012).Thebutterfliesdisplayedinthese houses hatch from pupae that are raisedinthetropics.Theemergenceofthesemarketsfortropicalbutterflieshasgivenrisetobutterflyfarmsthatsupply pupae to overseas customers. SoutheastAsiasupplies50to70%ofthe

stockwhileCentralandSouthAmericaandAfricasupply30to40%andlessthan10%respectively(Richetal 2014). ThearticlebyRichprovidesfurtherinformationontheseglobalvaluechainsthat connect farmers in the tropics with the butterflyhousesinthedevelopedworld.Theemergenceofbutterflyfarmshasalso offered an opportunity to combine increased income of the rural poor with the conservation of biodiversity.

The Arabuko Sokoke Forest TheArabukoSokokeforestisa420km2 NationalForestReserveonthenorthcoast of Kenya that is rich in biodiversity withahighlevelofendemism.Ithostsforexamplefivecoastalendemicbirdspecies,three near endemic mammals and six coastalendemicbutterflytaxa(GordonandAyiemba2003).Highratesofhumanpopulationgrowthresultedinscarcityofagriculturallandandpovertyamongthoselivingintheareassurroundingtheforest. The relation between the national reserve and these farmers worsened in the early1990swhenmostfarmerswishedtosee the forest cleared and converted to agriculturalland.

Whenin1993farmersinvadedtheforestandcampaignedforremovalofgovernmentprotection,severalorganizationsincludingtheForestDepartmentandtheWildlifeDepartmenttogetherwithNatureKenyacametogetherto discuss opportunities to address this


problem.Theparticipantsofthismeetingagreedthatanysolutionshouldconsiderthe root cause of the problem, which was poverty and few livelihood opportunities forthepeoplesurroundingtheforest.In1993Kipepeo(Swahiliforbutterfly)wasestablishedwiththeobjectivetochangeattitudesoftheforestadjacentcommunitiesthroughthegenerationofincomebyraisingpupaeofforestbutterflyspecies for export to customers abroad (Gordon and Ayiemba 2003). Kipepeo trainedfarmersonproducingbutterflypupae on their farms and helped connect thesefarmerstooverseasmarkets.Pupaewerefirstexportedin1995andthevaluechain has sustained itself since then. This choice was a fortunate one, because farmerslinkedtheirimprovedlivelihoodstothe conservation of the forest from where theysourcedtheadultbutterflies.

The value chain AgroupoffarmerslivingaroundArabukoSokokeforestproducepupaeoflocalbutterflyspecies.Thebutterflyvaluechainstartswiththetrappingofbutterfliesintheforestwhicharetakenbythefarmersto their farms. The farmers are allowed onlytocollectsinglebutterfliesandonlyforeggproduction.Theyarealsoallowedto harvest leaf material of the food plant tofeedtothecaterpillars.Theeggspondedbythebutterflies(highfecunditylevels,200eggsperbutterfly)arestoredat amenable temperature and moisture forhatchingofthefirststagecaterpillars.Oncehatchedthefarmersfeedthesecaterpillars with food collected in the forest butalsoderivedfromfoodplantsgrown

ontheirfarm.Thecaterpillarsgothrough6instarscaterpillarstagesbeforepupation.EveryFridaythefullgrownpupaearebroughtbyspecialmotorbikecouriers(boda boda) to Kipepeo, which does the gradingandpackaging,organizestheexport papers and delivers the pupae at theinternationalairportofMombasa.

ThepupaearemarketedandsoldtobutterflyfarmsinEuropeandNorthAmerica. ThepupapricesrangefromUS$3.5 – 0.5, “wholesale buyers” (purchase in bulkandselltoothers).Theproducersarepaid immediately for the pupae delivered and sold. Almost 65 percent of money generatedfrompupaesalesgoestotheproducers,whiletherest35percentgotoKipepeoforsalary,packagingmaterials,tools & equipment, maintenance & repairs andtrainingsonqualityandhusbandry. Ofgreatimportanceisarapidtransportofthepupae from the farm to these customers, because the freshness of the pupae affectstherateofsuccessfullyemergingbutterflies.Kipepeoplaysanimportantroleinmanagingarapiddeliveryofthepupae,toachievethisithassetupanefficientsystem that collects the pupae, controls theirqualityandpackagesthematerialfordirect export to the customers overseas. The above indicates that Kipepeo takestheroleasanintermediatevaluechainactorconnectingtheproducerstocustomersoverseas.Kipepeoalsotakestheroleofvaluechainprocessor,grading,packagingandexportingthepupaewhichsupportsfarmerstobringtheirproducttothemarkets.


Policy and institutions Formanyyears,forestlegislationandpracticeinKenyahasbeencriticizedforfailingtoprotectthecountry’sindigenousforests or to ensure sustainable use of plantations and other areas of forest and woodland.Mostforestcommunitieshavefeltdisadvantagedinbeingexcludedfromforestmanagementandtherehasbeenahistoryofpoormanagementandabuseofpowers.In2005,anewForestAct received parliamentary approval and endorsementfromthePresident,andcame into effect when it was formally gazettedinFebruary9,2007.

TheForestAct2005,containsmanyinnovative provisions to correct previous short-comings,includingstrongemphasisonpartnershipworking,theengagementof local communities, and promotion of privateinvestment.Italsoextendstheconceptoftimbermanagementtocoverfarm forestry and dry land forests. The Act also has clear provisions on the role of community forest associations in forest management.Itenablesmembersofforestcommunities to enter into partnership with KFSthroughregisteredCommunityForestAssociationsandmanagecertainportionof the forest.

Butterflyexportsareguidedbyvariousimportregulationsofthehostcountries.EUimportregulationsisthemostchallengingwitheveryotherEUmembercountryhavinguniqueimportregulations.ExportstoEUmembercountriesrequireaveterinaryexportcertificate,aphytosanitarycertificateandKenyawildlifeserviceexportpermitfornonCITESspecies.

Impacts of butterfly value chain development

Social impactsWhiletheprojecthastrainedsevenhundred people, there are two hundred farmersactivelyinvolvedandfiftythathave actively invested and therefore dominatethemarket.Kipepeoexportsaround one hundred thousand pupae peryear,whichbringsinKsh9milliontothesefarmers.Inaddition,thebutterflyvaluechainaddsemploymenttomotorbikeriderswhotransportthepupaetoKikepeoand six people at Kipepeo who are involvedintheprocessing,marketing,sales and export of the product.

Financial sustainabilityThebee-keepingandbutterflyproductionwere initially supported by donor funded projects.However,sincethenthebutterflyvalue chain has existed for 15 years withoutsignificantdonorsupport.Thevaluechainhasproventobeafinanciallysustainable to support farmer livelihoods andthebiodiversityoftheArabukoSokokeForest.

Environmental sustainabilityButterfly populations and feed plants. Thebutterflyvaluechaindependsonthecollectionoflivebutterfliesfromthewild.Various mechanisms are implemented toavoidover-exploitationofthebutterflypopulationsinthereserve.Therightstocollectbutterfliesandfoodplantsfromtheforestareregulatedandcontrolled.Inaddition,thereareregularcountsofbutterfliestomonitorbutterflypopulationssoastomitigateincaseofundesirabledeclines.


Forest biodiversity:Thebenefitsfrombutterfliesandhoneyvaluechainshavehelpedchangetheperceptionoflocalcommunities in forest conservation. This supportiveattitudewasalreadyrealizedtwentyyearsagowhenin1997thelocalcommunity resisted an attempt to excise partoftheforestforagricultureandsettlement.Followingthedevelopmentofthebutterflyandhoneyvaluechains,additionaltrainingwasdonein2004,toenhance community participation in forest managementandestablishaForestConservation Association. Today, the majority(87%)ofthecommunitiesnowsupporttheArabukoSokokeforesttoberetainedasaforestreserve.Forinstance,in 2014 when an oil company wished to explore the forest area for oil, civil society groupsincludingthecommunitiesandCFAslobbiedtoexcludetheforestreservefrom the explorations.

Conclusion ThehistoryofArabukoSokokeforestprovidesagoodexamplehowcollectiveactionchangedtheprospectsoftheForestReservefromathreatenedconservationarea towards a situation where local stakeholderssupporttheconservationof the forest reserve. The development ofthebutterflyvaluechaindescribedinthis chapter and the honey value chain described in Chapter 4.3 were important initiatives that allowed communities to benefitfromtheforest.Thedevelopmentofthesevaluechainsandthebenefitstheyhave created for local livelihoods has laid the basis for positive attitude transition amongthelocalcommunitiesthathashelped in conservation of the forest and its biodiversity.

REFERENCESParsonMJ.1992.Thebutterflyfarmingand

tradingindustryintheIndo-Pacificregionand its role in tropical forest conservation. Tropical Lepidoptera 3: 1-31.

BopreM,Vanc-WrightRI.2012.Thebutterflyhouse industry: conservation risks and education opportunities. Conservation and Society 10: 285-303

Rich K, Rich M, Chengappa PG. 2014.The governance of global value chains for livebutterflies.NorwegianInstituteofInternational Affairs, 21 pp.

Gordon I, Ayiemba W. 2003. Harnessing ButterflyBiodiversityforImprovingLivelihoods and Forest Conservation: The Kipepeo Project. Journal of Environment & Development 20: 1-17.


4.5 Seafood value chains and mangrove restoration in Mida Creek Titus Chemandwa Ndiwa, Dorothy Nyingi, Evelyne Wemali and

Hassan Ali Yusuf

Abstract Aquacultureisarapidlygrowingagriculturalsector.Whileprovidingfoodandbalancingnutritionaldeficiencies,ithasalsobeencriticizedforitsnegativeenvironmental, health and socio-economic impacts. The rapid increase in demand for aquaculture commodities offers the opportunity to develop value chains that are socially inclusive and support biodiversity conservation. This chapter describes the development of a value chainforcrabintheMidaCreeksysteminKenya.Here,localfishermenfattencrabswith bivalves that feed on the leaves of mangrovesintheMidaCreekSystem.Thechapter describes how the value chain was developed after an initial destruction of themangrovesysteminthe1990s,whichresultedindecliningproductionoffishandshellfish.ItalsodiscussestheinitiativesofMidaCreekConservationGroupwhodecided to reverse this downward spiral byengagingincrabfarmingandcrabfattening.Aprojectwasstartedtodevelopa crab value chain to provide an alternative source of income to the poor communities whose activities were environmentally unsustainable.Inretrospect,theprojecthascontributedtowardsreversingthedegradationofMidaCreekmangroveforest, restoration of its biodiversity and supports socio-economic development within the community.

IntroductionGlobally,aquaculturehasbeengrowingvery fast over the last few decades. AccordingtoFAO,the1990-2010annualgrowthrateof7.8percentofthecultivationoffishandshellfishinfreshwaterandmarinesystemsfarexceededthegrowthratesofotheragriculturalcommoditiessuchaspoultry,pork,dairy,beefandgrains(Troeletal2014).Asusualinagriculturaldevelopment,suchgrowthdoes not come without trade-offs and there havebeenreportsexpressingconcernaboutthenegativeenvironmentalimpactsofthegrowthoftheaquaculturesector.Forexample,thereisalargeandgrowingbodyofliteratureonthenegativeimpactsofshrimpfarmingontheenvironmentandhumanhealth(Paez-Osuna2001;Holstrometal2003)andonthesocio-economic conditions of people who earlier onbenefitedfrommangrovesystemsthat were transformed into shrimp farms (Primavera1997).

Inthecontextofthischapter,itisrelevantto raise the question whether there are examples of development of aquaculture value chains that support the conservation of biodiversity. The above mentioned fast growingdemandofcommoditiesfromaquaculture could also offer opportunities for the development of value chains that are supportive to the conservation of biodiversity and inclusive in socio-economic terms. This chapter describes the experience of the development of a


crabbasedvaluechaininthemangrovesystemsofMidaCreek,Kenya.Thechapterfirstdescribesthemarketsforcrab and the traditional production of crabalongtheKenyancoast.TheMidaCreekEcosystem,itsrapiddegradationinthe1990’sandtheinitiativetakentorestore the ecosystem and develop crab based value chains to create a source ofincometothecommunitiesmanagingthis ecosystem is then described. The chapter is then completed with a review of the environmental, social and economic effects of the value chain that was developed.

Market for crabs in East AfricaInEastAfrica,thereisagoodmarketpotential for crabs which has developed alongthecoastaltownsborderingtheIndianOcean.InKenya,themarkethas developed in response to demand fromtouristsresidinginthehotelsandrestaurants in coastal tourist destinations suchasMombasa,Malindi,Diani,Kilifi,WatamuandLamu.Initially,thisdemandwas volatile because it was driven by internationaltouristswhofluctuateinnumbersdependingvariousfactors.However,theKenyancoasthasseenanincrease in numbers of domestic tourists and it is expected that the demand for sea-food and crab in particular will continue to rise.

Initially,demandforcrabwassatisfiedbycrabs collected from the wild. Experience learnsthatsuchcollectionquicklyresultsinoverharvestingwithdeclininglandingsandreducingsizeofcrabs.Toaddressthis, producers have turned to crab

farming,anactivitythathasbecomepopularamongthecoastalcommunitiesin many places around the world. This is becauseitisoneofthemostprofitablemariculture activities that can be carried outinmarineecosystems.Farmingofcrabs is very popular in countries such as Thailand,Taiwan,Malaysia,SingaporeandIndonesia.InKenya,crabfarmingwasintroducedinthelate1990sanditspopularityhasbeenrising(Mirera2011).

There are two main methods of crab production:crabcultureandcrabfattening.Crabcultureistheprocessofstockingjuvenilecrabsweighingbetween20-250g,andallowingthemtomoultandgrow.Crabfatteningontheotherhandistheprocessofobtainingcrabsfromwildorfarmstock,holdingthemincagesorpensandfeedingthemforafewweeks.Afterattainingtherequiredmarketsize,thefattenedcrabsaresoldtolocalmarketsorexportedtointernationalmarkets.Thepricingofcrabsis mainly determined by their condition at the time of sale. Crabs within Kenyan marketaresoldatanaveragepriceof5dollarsperkilo.Crabsaregenerallysoldalive,cooked,frozenorcanned.Crabfatteningispreferredtocrabculturemainlybecause the turnover from this venture is fast; the period between investment andreturnsisshort.Theshortfatteningperiodalsoreducestheriskoflosingcrabstodiseases.Ifcarriedoutinaproperway,crabfarminghasgreatpotentialofimprovinglivelihoodsofthepoorlocalcommunitiesalongthecoast,andalsopromotestheconservationofmangroves(Fondoetal2010;MireraandMtila2009).


Need for conservation of mangrove forest in Mida CreekMidacreekisatidalcreeksystemlocatedtothesouthwestofWatamutowninKenya.Thecreekcoversanareaofabout32Km²,andissurroundedbyafringeofmangroveforests.Themangroveforestsunderwentseriousperiodofdegradationin the late twentieth century when they were cut and sold for poles and timber by the poor local community members asasourceofincome.Similarly,thecommunityalsoengagedindestructiveformsoffishingusingsub-standardnetssincetheycouldnotaffordproperfishingnets.Thelocalcommunityfeltincreasinglyuneasy and frustrated with this undesirable developmentthatbenefittedonlyafewindividualsatthedetrimentofthelargercommunity.Forinstance,degradationofthemangroveforestledtodeclineofsalesderivedfrommangrovedependentcrabsandfishbetween1970sand1980s.The consequence was an increased levelofpovertyamongthesurroundingcommunities who depended on the sale of crabsandfishfortheirlivelihoods.

Around 2000, some community members feltthattherewasaneedtobreakandreversethisnegativespiralofresourcedegradationandincreasedpoverty.Thisgroupconsideredthatthiscouldonlybeachievedbycreatingemploymentopportunities for individuals rendered joblessbydegradationthroughinitiationofactivities,whichcouldgenerateincome and at the same time promote conservationofthemangroves.ThisneedculminatedintheformationofMidaCreekConservation Group in the year 2002. The

groupwasformedbyafewyouthwhohadbeenrenderedjoblessbydegradationofmangroves.Thisisthetimewhentheideaof crab value chain was born.

TheactivitiesofMidaCreekConservationGroupweremadepossiblethroughassistance from other interested stakeholderscomprisinggovernmentinstitutions(KenyaMarineandFisheriesResearchInstitute,KenyaForestService,KenyaForestryResearchInstitute,KenyaWildlifeService)andnon-governmentalorganizationssuchasArochaKenyaamongothers.Theinitiativeofthegroupwastosensitizethelocalcommunityonthenegativeeffectsofdegradationofthemangroves.MangrovetreenurseriesandcrabfatteningprojectswerestartednexttoDabasovillage.Sincethen,MidaCreekConservation Group has extended its membershiptoothervillagesaroundMidaCreekwhoengageinvariouseco-friendlyincomegeneratingactivitiessuchasbee-keeping,snakekeeping,shrimpfarming,mangroveseedlingproductionetc.

Crab fattening and mangrove conservation CrabfatteningisoneoftheactivitiesthathasgreatlycontributedtowardsconservationoftheMidaCreekmangroveforest. This is mainly based on the significanceofthemangrovestothecrabvaluechain.Themangrovessupplyfoodfor the benthic invertebrates that are collectedbyfishermenandfedtocrabsincages.Therefore,crabfatteningactivitiesatMidaCreekdependdirectlyonthemangrovesandthemangrovesdependentinvertebrates. Adult crabs mainly feed on


benthic invertebrates that entirely depend onthemangrovesfortheirsurvival(Hill,1975).Thebenefitssuchasemploymentopportunitiesandincomegeneratedfromthecrabfatteningprojecthavealsogreatlycontributed towards conservation of the mangrovesbythemembersofMidaCreekConservation Group. The most preferred crab species for commercial production inregionisScylla serrata. This is mainly because S. serratagrowstoabiggersizecomparedtoothercrabspecies(Fondoetal2010).ThecrabfatteningprojectinMidaCreekreliesonbiodiversityresourcesinfeedingthecrabsheldincages.Thesefoodresourceshavetheirhabitatswithinthemangroveecosystems.Thisexplainswhythecrabfatteningcommunities have a direct interest in the conservationofthemangroveforest.Toconservethemangrovesandensurecontinued recruitment of crabs and supply offatteningfooditems,theMidaCreekConservation Groups in collaboration with itsstakeholdersparticipateinplantingapproximately20,000mangroveseedlingsannually.Followingtheseinitiative,mangrovesnowonceagainfringethecreek’secosystem.

TheprocessofcrabfatteningbymembersofMidaCreekConservationGroupinvolvescaptureofcrabsweighingbetween150-350gfromtheirnaturalhabitatsusingbaskettrapslocallyknownasLema(Swahili).Thecapturedcrabsaresortedbasedontheirsizesandplacedintobamboocageswheretheyarefedusingtrashfish,bivalvesandsoft-shelledsnails

(Figure8).Thefeedingiscontinuedforafewweeksuntilthecrabsattainsizesofabout500gthatarelargeenoughforsaleinthemarketsandtonearbytouristhotelsandrestaurants(Mwaluma2002;Mirera2009;MireraandMtile2009).

However,membersofthegroupfeltthattheycouldmakemorereturnsandcreatemore employment opportunities to the localsthroughvalueaddition.Toachievethis,thegroupthroughassistanceofitsstakeholdersconstructedtheirownrestaurantwherecrabsarecookedandsold to visitors in various processed forms,likethecrabsamosas.Theincomegeneratedfromthegroup’seconomicactivitieswithintheMidaCreekmangroveforestissharedamongitsmembersbasedon their respective shares. This income hasgreatlyimprovedthelivelihoodsofitsmembershencemakingthemappreciatethebenefitsthatcomethroughconservationofthemangroveforestandthe crabs that it nurtures.

DuringthepeakseasonthatfallsbetweenthemonthsofAugustandMarch,MidaCreekconservationgroupgeneratesmorethan3,600US$fromtheCrabvaluechain.Akiloofcrabisnormallysoldatapproximately5US$.Comparedtoincomegeneratedbysaleofamangrovepoleatapproximately0.5US$andthenegativeimpactsontheenvironment,crabfarminghasmorepotentialofgeneratingincomeaswellasconservingtheenvironment.


CagesusedforcrabfatteninginMidaCreekPhotocredit:JosephatNyongesa/ICRAF

Figure 8:Diagrammaticrepresentationofcrabproductionprocess


Environmental sustainabilityThecommunitieslivingaroundMidaCreeknow actively participate in conservation ofthemangroveforestbecauseofthebenefitstheyderivefromthecrabvaluechain.Hence,itisthedevelopmentof the value chain that converted the communities into conservationists, and now they support activities aimed at conservingthemangroves.TheMidaCreekmangroveforestisofgreatecologicalsignificancebothnationallyandinternationally. The forest is considered aspartoftheWatamuNationalMarinePark,andisalsoanimportantbirdarea(IBA).Inaddition,thebenefitsthelocalcommunitiesobtainfromtheMidaCreekmangroveforestsjustifytheneedforsustainable exploitation of its resources. Themangroveforestecosystemsupportsmyriad types of biodiversity; are preferred habitats of mud crabs as they provide bothhabitatandfoodsupply(FAO2011).Theyactasbuffersagainststorms,formaprotective barrier that reduce turbidity and erosion of the shoreline, absorption and transformation of nutrients. They have also beenfoundtobeanimportantbreedingsiteforfishinadditiontoharboringanassortmentofmajorzooplanktongroups(Mwalumaetal2003).Thecoastalmangroveforestsarethusavaluableecosystem whose sustainability will ensure an enhanced biodiversity-based value chains that play an important role in environmental, economic and social aspects of the local community.

TheprojectsoftheMidaCreekConservation Group can be considered to be environmentally sustainable. The

currentmethodsoffishingusedbythegroup(traditionalbaskettraps)ensuresthatfisheriesresourcesarenotover-exploited.Secondly,thegrouppromotesenvironmentalconservationthrougheducatingthelocalcommunityonimportanceofconservingtheecosystemthroughreplantingmangrovesindegradedareasoftheforest.Everyyear,thegroupplantsatleast20,000mangroveseedlings,anactivitythathasincreasedmangroveforest cover. The observation that some offishspeciesthathaddisappearedhavestartedcomingbackisfurtheraspectofthesuccessoftheproject.

Financial sustainability Theinitialoperationcostsofthegroupwere supported funds obtained from membershipcontributions,andgrantsfromotherinterestedstakeholders.MidaCreekConservationGroup’sprojectshavenotonlybeenabletogrow,buthavealsoexpandedovertime.Crabfatteningprojectforinstancehasbeenabletogrowsteadilyleadingtoconstructionofarestaurantinordertoincreaseprofitabilityoftheprojectthroughvalueadditionandalsocreatemore employment opportunities for its members.

Crabswithinthecoastalmangroveforestshavetheabilitytoreproducethroughouttheyear.Thismeansthatcrabfatteningcanbecarriedcontinuouslythroughouttheyearandaslongasthereisdemand,generateacontinuousflowofincomethroughouttheyear.Theincomefromcrabfatteningissusceptiblehowevertofluctuationsinarrivaloftouristswhoconstitutethelargestshareofthe


demand.Besidescrabfarming,theprojecthas also led to establishment of other projectssuchasbeekeepingwithinthemangroveforests,treenurseries,shrimpfarmingetc.Theseactivitiesgenerateadditional income for the members hence improvingtheirfinancialsecurity.TheeverincreasingdemandforcrabswithintheregionimpliesthatcrabsproducedbyMidaCreekConservationGroupwillfindreadymarkets.Thiswillgreatlypromoteeconomicsustainabilityofcrabfatteningactivities.Therefore,theactivitiesofMidaCreekConservationGroupseemtobeeconomically sustainable.

Social benefits Thecrabvaluechainprojecthasresultedinvarioussocialbenefits.First,ithasbroughtvariousmembersofthecommunitytogetherthuspromotingsocialcohesionandunitywithintheMidaCreek.Inaddition,thevaluechainhaspromotedgenderequitythroughincorporationofwomenincrabfarmingactivitiesunlikebeforewhenmendominatedfisheriesactivities.Lastly,profitsgeneratedfromthecrabfarmingprojectsinMidaCreekare shared to the members based on theirsharesinthegroup.Thisincomehasgreatlyhelpedinimprovingthelivelihoodsof the poor people in the society as well aspromotingeducationsincevariousfamilies are able to pay school fees for their children.

FisheriescultureactivitiesinKenyahavebeenoperatingdirectlyunderthesessionalpaperNo.1(1994)onnationalfoodpolicy(GoK,1994).TheneedbytheKenyangovernmenttointroducealternative

sustainablelowcostproteinsthroughfamily and community initiative in order to generateincomeandreducepovertyledtodevelopmentofsessionalpaperNo.3onnationalpovertyeradication1999-2015.Furtherpolicyreformsin2007sawplacementofthethenMinistryoffisheriesanddevelopmenttogetherwithKenyaMarineResearchInstitute.Currently,newfisheriesbillisonitsfinalstagesofdevelopment. The new bill is expected tofurtherboostfisheriesactivitiesalongthe coast. Crab value chain operates underthefollowingkeylegalinstrumentsgoverningfisheries;thefisheriesActof1991,theWildlifeActof2002,KenyaForestsAct2005,EnvironmentalManagementActof1999andWaterAct(2002).

CrabfarminginKenyaismainlypractisedwithinthemangroveenvironmentsbyconservationgroupshavingmembersrangingfrom15-45.Selectionandinvolvementoftheseconservationgroupsiscarriedoutbygovernmentministrieswithmandateinmangrovemanagement,local authorities and conservation non-governmentalorganization.Theconservationgroupsmustberegisteredbythe ministry of social services.

Amajordrawbacktothedevelopmentof crab value chains in Kenya is the lackofadedicatedaquaculturepolicy.Countries policy on aquaculture has not been developed despite existence ofcommercialfisheriesinthecountryfor the last 50 years. The result is lackofcoordinationindevelopmentof approaches by different actors in fisheriesmanagement,fisheriesresearch,


countydevelopmentprogrammes,localauthorities, development partners, private investorsandindividualfisheriesfarmers(NgugiandManyala2009).

Discussion and conclusion

BesideschangingthelivelihoodsofthemembersofMidaCreekConservationGroup,crabvaluechainhasgreatlycontributed towards conservation of themangroveforests.Thesuccessofthecrabvaluechainismainlylinkedto collaboration of all the interested stakeholders,withcommunitymembersplayingtheleadingrole.Crabfatteningenterpriseisinfluencedbybothbiophysicaland socio-cultural environmental factors that can be exploited to enhance the crabvaluechain.Naturalfooditemssuchasbivalves,fishandsnailsdependonahealthymangroveecosystem.Thisecosystemispronetodegradationhenceconsidered vulnerable. Conservation of the biophysical environment is therefore critical inmaintainingtheintegrityofthesystemandthecrabvaluechain.Maintainingtherighttemperaturesandsalinityforcrab production is also important, and the community should be made aware of the importanceofahealthymangroveforest

ecosystem.Localcommunitiesengagingincrabfarmingshouldbetaughtaboutthe effects of climate variability to enable themdevelopmitigationandadaptationmeasuresthatwillcushionthemagainstshocksofclimatechange.Additionally,there is need for research on wild crabs in ordertoenhanceknowledgeonitsculture,which is crucial in improvement of the crab value chain.

Apartfromequippingcommunitieswithtechnicalknowledgeimportantincrabproduction,creatingknowledgeawarenesson nutrition value of crabs compared to other delicacies should be carried out. Thiscanbeachievedthroughconductingresearchandsharingofthefindingstoallstakeholders.Thiswillgreatlycontributetowardschangingnegativeattitudesthatmightunderminecrabvaluechain.At policy level, crab value chain can be improvedthroughharmonizationoftheconflictingpolicies.Sincecrabmarketismainly provided by tourists, formulation of policies that will enhance security in the country, and especially within the coastal regionarenecessary.


REFERENCESFAO. 2011. Fisheries and aquaculture technical

paper 567. Mud crab aquaculture: A practical manual. FAO Rome.

Fondo EN, Kimani EN, Odongo DO. 2010. The statusofmangrovemudcrabfisheryinKenya, East Africa. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture 2(3): 79-86.

Hill BJ. 1975. Abundance, breeding and growth of the crab Scylla serrata in two South African estuaries. Marine Biology 32:119-126.

Holstrom K. 2003. Antibiotic use in shrimp farming and implications for environmental impacts and human health. Int. J. Food Science and Technology 38: 255-266.

Mirera DO. 2009. Mud crab (Scylla serrata) culture: understanding the technology in asilvofisheriesperspective.WestIndianOcean J Mar Sci 8:127–137.

Mirera DO, Mtile A. 2009. A preliminary study on the response of the mangrove mud crab (Scylla serrata) to different feed types under drive-in cage culture system. J. Ecol. Natural Environ. 1(1) 007-014.

Mirera DO. 2011. Trends in exploitation, development and management of artisanal mud crab (Scylla serrata – Forskall, 1775) fisheryandsmall-scalecultureinKenya:an overview. Ocean & coastal management 54:844-855.

Mwaluma J. 2002. Pen culture of the mud crab Scylla serrata in Mtwapa mangrove system, Kenya. West Indian Ocean J Mar Sci 1:127–133.

Mwaluma J, Osore M, Kamau J, Wawiye P. 2003. Composition, Abundance and Seasonality of Zooplankton in Mida Creek, Kenya in Western Indian Ocean, J. Mar. Sci. Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 147–155.

Ngugi CC, Manyala JO. 2009. Assessment of national aquaculture policies and programmes in Kenya. SARNISSA project report.

Paez-Osuna F. 2001. The environmental impact of shrimp aquaculture: a global perspective. Environmental Pollution 122: 229-231.

Primavera JH. 1997. Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture. Aquaculture Research 28: 815-827.

Troell M, Naylor RL, Metian M, Beveridge M, Tyedmers PH, Folke C, Arrow KJ, Barret S, Crepin AS, Ehrlich PR, Gren A Kautsky N, Levin SA, Nyborg K, Osterblom H, Polasky S, Scheffer M, Walker BH, Xepapadeas T, Zeeuw A. 2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(37): 13257-13263.


4.6 Carbon credits, social development and wildlife conservation in Kasigau

Jan de Leeuw, Maarifa Mwakumanya, Florence Bernard, Rob Dodson and Christina Ender

Abstract.

ThischapterdescribestheREDD+carboncreditprojectimplementedbyWildlifeWorksinthedrylandsaroundMountKasigauinKenya.TheenvironmentoftheKasigauareawasheavilydegradedin the late 20th and early 21st century becauseofrapidpopulationgrowthandanexpansionofunsustainableagriculturalland use. This was associated with a rise in insecurity and a downward trend of the wildlife for which the area once was reputed. The chapter describes the initiativetoreversethisnegativespiralthroughthedevelopmentofacarbonvaluechain that compensates landowners for theopportunitycostofchangingtheirlanduse to avoid carbon emissions, and that supports community development and the conservation of wildlife.

Markets for carbon credits and biodiversity conservation

Carbonmarketsregulatethetradeofcarbon credits that aim to reduce the emissions of carbon in the direction of low emissions of carbon dioxide and othergreenhousegases(GHGs)intotheatmosphere. They have been used so far primarilyfortradeinemissionsoriginatingfrom industry, transport and domestic sources.Theworld’sforests,agriculturallandsandothernaturalvegetationstorelargequantitiesofcarbonandhold

significantpotentialtosequestercarbon.There are however few examples of operational trade in carbon credits from forests(Afforestation/Reforestation(A/R)projectsandREDD+projects)duetotheissueofadditionality,leakage,andpermanence attached with forestry carbon offsets(NamirembeandJindal2012).

ReducedEmissionsfromDeforestationandForestDegradation(theREDD+initiative) is an international policy and financemechanismforclimatechangemitigationwhichwasfirstproposedattheCOP11meetinginMontrealtenyearsagoandallowstropicalforesteddevelopingcountriestosellcarboncreditstointerestedbuyersinmarketsorreceivefinancialsupportfromconservationfundsin order to reduce deforestation and degradationrates(WhiteandMinang2011).REDDprojectsaredevelopinginmany parts of the world and now constitute thesinglelargestshareofthevoluntarytradeinforestcarbonoffsets,accountingformorethan40%ofthevoluntarytransactionsin2010(Diazetal2011).

Providersinterestedinofferingcarboncredits from forest systems have to carefullydesigntheiroperationsanddeliverymechanismsbyproducingaProjectIdeaNote(PIN)andaProjectDesignDocument(PDD)whicharesubjecttovalidationandregistrationbyathird-partyauditor.Inaddition,carbon


certificationstandards(e.g.Goldstandard,VerifiedCarbonStandard,PlanVivoetc.)were developed to ensure that carbon offsetsarerealandverifiableandfollowsocialandenvironmentalsafeguards(NamirembeandJindal2012).TheyareobtainedafterindependentMonitoring,ReportingandVerification(MRV)thatproves that the product on sale (carbon credit) has effectively been delivered.

Largequantitiesofcarbonaresequesteredand stored in areas that are rich in biodiversity.WiththedevelopmentofREDD+,conservationorganizationshavebecome interested to develop carbon creditprojectsforbiodiversityrichareasas a mechanism to co-fund biodiversity conservation.Whiletherearemanyinitiatives around the world to develop carbon credit schemes for conservation areas there are so far few examples ofoperationalprojects.Thischapterdescribes the experience of an operational carbon credit scheme implemented by WildlifeWorksintheKasigauCorridorREDD+Project.

The Kasigau conservation area

OpenAcacia commiphera forests characterizethesemi-ariddrylandsaroundMountKasigauinSouth-EasternKenya.The area, which was rich in wildlife and classifiedascrownhuntinglandincolonialtimes,wasgiventotheTaitapeopleforcattleranchinginthe1970s.Acollapseofthelivestockranchinginthe1980sinitiatedanegativespiraloflandandresourcedegradationthatwasaggravatedbyrapid,abovenationalaverage,humanpopulationgrowthfrom10,000(1963)

tomorethan100,000peoplein2009.Local communities with few other options practised unsustainable slash-and-burn agricultureandcharcoalburningwhichdelivered2000bagsofcharcoaldailytoMombasa.Inaddition,insecurityinthearea allowed for opportunistic bush-meat collectionandpoachingforivorythatravagedtheareas’wildlife.

ThedrylandsaroundMountKasigaustillhavehighdensitiesofwildlifeandformanimportantcorridorallowingelephantstomigratebetweenTsavoEastandTsavoWestNationalParks.Yet,local communities have little incentive toconservethiswildlifeaslongastheydon’tbenefitandonlybeartheburdenofthedamageinflictedupontheircrops,property and lives. To address these challengesWildlifeWorksbroughttogetheranumberofstakeholders,includingthecommunities,themonitoring,reportingandverification(MRV)andtheCountyGovernmentofTaitaTavetatofindlonglastingsolutions.

WildlifeWorks(www.wildlifeworks.com) isaforprofitcompanywhichhasbeensupportingwildlifeconservationandsocial development in the area since 1998.Itworkswithlocalcommunitiesinprovidingalternativelivelihoodsandincomeactivitiesandseekstoachieveitswildlifeconservationagendabyinvolvingthesecommunitiesinthisgoal.Insearchofincreasingoptionsforfundingcommunity-based development and wildlifeconservationactivities,WildlifeWorksdevelopedthecarboncreditvaluechain that is described below.

http://www.wildlifeworks.com


The product and the value chain

ThedrylandsforestsoftheKasigauareastoreperhectareanestimated180tonsof carbon in their soils and the biomass of the trees. The traditional land use of these open forestlands revolved around the productionlivestockandcharcoal,whichgeneratesanetincomeof5US$perhectare (ha) per year. This and a further conversionofthelandtoagriculturewouldresult in an emission of approximately 150 tons of carbon per hectare. At a carbon priceof5US$pertonnethiswouldreflectadamagetotheenvironmentof750US$perha.Inotherwords,achangeinland use that would avoid emission of thecarbonoftheareas’240,000haofdrylandsforestswouldrepresentabenefittosocietyworth180millionUS$.

Thepossibilitytomanagelandsuchas to avoid emission of carbon from its forestsformsthebasisoftheKasigauCorridorREDD+project.Thelocalcommunitiesownandmanagethelandwhere the product, the avoided emission, isgeneratedandclaimedfrom.AvoidingcarbonemissionsfromtheKasigauforestsystemsisachievedthroughchangingland use options that would otherwise emit carbon.Commoncarbonemittinglanduseoptions include deforestation, conversion of the forest to croplands and charcoal production.Achievingtheavoidanceofemissionsrequiredachangeinlanduse that differed from the laissez faire approach, which had previously allowed thehistoriclanddegradation.

WildlifeWorksrealizedthatthisundertakingnecessitatedfullsupport

from the community and therefore emphasizedanall-inclusiveapproachthatbroughttogetherthelandownersandwidercommunities.Innumerousworkshops,meetingsandoutreaches,WildlifeWorksdiscussedtheissuesofdegradationandsensitizedtheseactorson the opportunities and conditionality ofaREDD+project,whilstexplainingthebenefitsthatthiscouldcreatefortheirwelfare.Oncecommunitiesmadethe decision to commit their lands to theKasigauCorridorREDD+project,appropriate institutions were established tomanagetheprojectanddisbursefundstostakeholders.TheseincludedLocationalCarbon Committees (LCCs) and CommunityBasedOrganizations(CBOs)that operate under a transparent standard operatingprocedureoftheWildlifeWorksCarbonTrust(WWCT).Furthermore,WildlifeWorksofferedemploymentintheareasofsecurityandmanagementoftheland,vegetationandwildlife,whichfurtherenhancedcommunitybenefits.

WildlifeWorkstookadualroleindevelopingandimplementingthecarbonvaluechain.Firstithasinitiatedandfacilitatedtheprocessofdevelopingthecarbon value chain and secondly, now thatthecarbonprojectisoperational,it also acts as a value chain processor. Asapioneerinthisarea,WildlifeWorksconceptualizedandinitiatedthedevelopmentofthefirsteverREDD+carbon credit value chain. This required sensitizingthestakeholders,designingtheproject,itsgoalsandactivitiesandensuringallmonitoringandreportingisinplace.Toobtainthird-partycertification,it


was also needed to prepare the required documents,suchastheProjectDesignDocument(PDD)andMonitoringReports(MR)forcertification.

TheprocessfordevelopingandsettingupthecarbonvaluechaininitsfirstphaseonRukingaSanctuarytookalmostayear.FinancialsupportwasreceivedfromNedbankfromRSA(www.nedbank.com) who invested in an option of carbon credits beforetheywereofferedonthemarket.The second phase of the development of the carbon value chain incorporated another13ranches,expandingthetotalprojectareato200,000ha.In2012,bothphasesoftheprojectwerevalidatedandverifiedundertheVerifiedCarbonStandards(VCS)andtheClimate,Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA).TheVCSisaninternationallyrecognizedcertificationbodywhichmaintainsarigoroussetofstandardstovalidatecarbonprojects,whilsttheCCBAisarespectedstandardtoensurebenefitsto the community and biodiversity.

After the development of the value chain, WildlifeWorkshasplayedaroleasvaluechainfacilitatorwhomanagesvariousactivitiestokeepthevaluechaingoing.ItorganizesregularMonitoring,ReportingandVerification(MRV)toprovideproofthat the avoided emissions are actually delivered.Inaddition,WildlifeWorksmarketsandsellsthecarboncreditsonthevoluntarymarketandmanagesthetransferoftheincomegeneratedfromsalestothevariousbeneficiaries.

WildlifeWorks’marketingandsalesapproach focuses on buyers who are interestedinpurchasingcarboncreditsin

thevoluntarymarket.Itsclienteleconsistsmostlyofcompanieswhicharelookingforopportunities to reduce the environmental footprint of their company or the product thattheysell.However,salesin2013and2014 were lower than the carbon credits thatKasigauhadonoffer.Thusfar,salesin 2015 have been low, but it is anticipated andhopedthatthemarketandsaleswillrespond positively to the outcomes of the climatesummit(IPCCCCoP21)inParisinDecember 2015.

Theincomegeneratedfromcarboncreditsalesissplitinathreefoldway.Onethirdoftheincomegoescontractuallytothelandowners who provide their land for the carbon credit scheme and therefore provide an income for the previously worthless land. These landowners are either individual families, or communities that collectively own ranches as Directed AgriculturalCompanies(DACs)limitedby shares. The second part of the incomegoestothecommunitieswholiveadjacenttotheland.ThisincomeismanagedtransparentlythroughtheLCCsandCBOstoestablishcommunitydevelopmentprojects.Eachcommunitydecidesindependentlywhatbenefitsaremost needed, which has resulted in the constructionofnumerouswaterprojects,classrooms and the provision of a total of 3,000 bursaries and scholarships to date.ThefinalthirdoftheincomegoestoWildlifeWorks’asavaluechainprocessortoensurethecontinuationoftheproject.Includedinthesecostsareemploymentcosts,officeandrunningcostsaswellasbasicoperationstocontinuetheprojectionoftheprojectarea.

http://www.nedbank.com


Benefits of the carbon credit project

Thedevelopmentofvaluechainslikethiscarboncreditprojectaffectstheeconomic,the social and the biophysical environment wheretheprojectisimplemented.Inthesection below we review the effects of the KasigauCorridorREDD+Projectonthesocial development of the actors involved intheproject,itseffectontheenvironmentandbiodiversityandfinallyreviewtheeconomicsustainabilityoftheproject.

Social developmentPartoftheKasigauCorridorREDD+projects’theoryofchangeisthatthedevelopment of a carbon value chain wouldbenefitthestakeholderslivingintheareawheretheprojectisimplemented.Theprojectperformswellinthisrespect.Onethirdoftherevenuegoestothelandowners, and therefore provides a significantinfluxofmoneyintothearea.Previously,thelandareasdidnotgenerateany income, yet in 2013 some landowners forthefirsttimeeverreportedaprofitfrom their land. This is a substantial milestone,indicatingthefinancialbenefitsa carbon value chain can provide to local landowners.

The second third of the revenue is made available for community development. ThebudgetismanagedbyWildlifeWorksCarbonTrust(WWCT)whiledecisionsonthespendingofthemoneyarederivedbythe Locational Carbon Committees (LCCs) andlocalcommunitybasedorganizations(CBOs).CBOsmayapplyforfundinganduponapprovalimplementprojectsthatprovidesocialamenitieslikewaterand health facilities. This income from

thecarbonvaluechainthereforesignifiestangiblebenefitstolargenumbersofthecommunity.

FurthersocialbenefitsaccruefromtheincomethatgoestoWildlifeWorks’operations.First,WildlifeWorksprovidesalargenumberofalternativelivelihoodincomegeneratingactivitiesandprovidesdirect and indirect employment to over 350 people. This includes their wildlife and security department, for which it employs rangersandscoutsfromthearea.Inaddition,WildlifeWorkssupportslocalindustriesandself-helpgroups,includingwomenbasketweavinggroupsanddisabledartgroupsbyactingasabrokerfortheproductstheyprovide.Finally,WildlifeWorks’HRdepartmentprovidestrainingandcapacitybuildingtoitsemployees on occupational safety, health issuesandfinancialproficiency,amongstothersthroughwhichitaddssignificantlytocommunity development.

Theaboveindicatesthattheprojectgeneratesincome,createsjobs,andsupportstheprovisioningofsocialamenitiestoaverylargenumberofpeopleintheprojectarea.Yettherearefurtherbenefitstothat.Bybringinglandownersunderthesameumbrellaproject,WildlifeWorkshasencouragedcommunicationbetween landowners and been able toenhancedsocialcohesionamongststakeholderswhopreviouslystruggledandrivalledwitheachother.Throughtechnicaladvice,WildlifeWorkshasalsosupportedlandownersinobtaininglegaltitlestotheirland,forwhichfinancialandproceduralcapacitieswerepreviouslymissing.Further,theemploymentofrangersand


scoutswhopatroltheareahasbroughtbacksecuritytoanareathatwasplaguedbywildlifecrimebefore.Finally,theKasigauREDD+CorridorProjecthasbroughttogetherthecommunities,WildlifeWorksandvariousgovernmentagenciesthatnowcollaboratetomanagetheland and forests such as to support the buildingofamoreattractivefuture.Thiscollaborativemanagementisexemplaryforthechangeincommitmentthathastakenplaceintheprojectarea.Withoutanyformalagreementthemajorstakeholdershavemutuallyagreedtoworktogethertoconserve the land and its biodiversity and atthesametimedeliversocialco-benefitstothecommunity.Together,thesebenefitsare equally, if not more, important than the increasedincomeandcommunitybenefits.

Biodiversity and environmentThecarboncreditvaluechainprojecthas had multiple positive effects on the environment and biodiversity of the KasigauCorridorarea.Firstofall,ithasmobilizedstakeholderstounderstandthepotential of carbon value chains and that it isintheircapacitytobenefitfromthiswhenmanagingtheirlandmoresustainably.ToachievethisWildlifeWorkscooperateswith the land owners and communities but alsowithstakeholderssuchastheKenyaForestService,whosemandateistoconserveforest,reducecharcoalburning,illegalloggingandunsustainablefirewoodcollection.TodayKFSandWildlifeWorksrangers,whoareallcommunitymembers,conductjointpatrols,whichhaveproveneffectiveincontrollingfirewoodcollectionandcharcoalburningwhileillegallogginghasbeeneliminated.WildlifeWorksfurther

providesfreeseedlingtofarmerswithKFSprovidingthetechnicalassistanceofplantingtrees.Thiscollaborativeeffortofcommunities,acompanyandgovernmenthas reversed the situation from one wherelandswereincreasinglydegradedtoasituationwherelandsaregivenpossibility for restoration with positive effectsontreecover.Itisanticipatedthatacontinued improvement of forest cover will positivelyaffecttheareas’biodiversityandwatershed functions.

Second,theprojecthasbroughtwildlifeconservationbackasapriorityinthearea.Theprojectsupportsconservationlandscaping,suchaslocatingwaterpansforwildlifeatstrategicpoints,throughwhichhuman-wildlifeconflicthasbeenreduced.Second,throughemploymentof local people to monitor security and managethewildlife,communitymembersnowseeadirectbenefitfromprotectingthe biodiversity, which has improved the generalattitudetowardswildlife.InwildlifemanagementtherangersofWildlifeWorksworkinclosecollaborationwithKenyaWildlifeServices(KWS).TheyreportintheeventofanincidenceofpoachingtoKWSinMackinnonRoadwhichprovidesreinforcementandcomprehendingofthearmedpoachers.Thisjointinitiativehasreducedthepoachingandincreasedthenumberofelephantpassingthroughthecorridor from 12,500 in 2010 to 14,500 in 2014.Hence,itisthecollaborativeeffortofthecommunitiesandtheseorganizationsthathasbeenveryeffectiveincontrollingpoaching,bringingbacksecurityandmanagingwildlife.


Economic sustainability Economic sustainability is an important premiseforvaluechaindevelopment.Itis the expectation that the value chain willbeabletosustainitselffinanciallyonce established. The spontaneous development of value chains may be constrained by requirements for initial investment.TheKasigauprojectwasfortunatetofindNedBankwillingtomaketheinitialinvestment.ThisinitialinvestmentwascrucialtoenableWildlifeWorkstodevelop,designandobtaincertificationofthecarbonproject.Beyondthis,thecarbonprojectisrunasaprivateenterprise,dependingonincomefrom sales of carbon credits sold on the voluntarycarbonmarket.Thisbusinessmodel is vulnerable due to the fact that salescannotbeguaranteed,asthedealsarebasedonawillingseller–willingbuyer.Itcanthuspresentachallengeto cover all costs in times of low sales volumes.Furthermore,itisimperativetomanageexpectationsofthelandownersand communities if these occasionally expectations cannot be met by the income from carbon credit sales. Transparency and open communication are absolutely imperative in such a situation.

The income from sales depends on the price of carbon, which is at present low and volatile, and the amount of credits thatthepurchaseriswillingtobuy.WildlifeWorksisdoingacommendablejobtobringtogetheranumberofcompaniesthatarewillingtoinvestincarboncredits,whichincludehighlyvisiblecompaniessuchasAllianz,LaPoste,BNPParibasorAudi.Yettheirappetitewasnotsufficient

totakeupallcarboncreditsandbyNovember2015manyofWildlifeWorks’carbon credits from 2013 and 2014 had notbeensold.Thelackofsalesinevitablymeanslowerincometothebeneficiariesthanwhathadbeenanticipated.Whilethis is accepted for a shorter period, if continuedoverprolongedperiodsitmayunderminethestakeholders’willingnesstocontinueavailingtheirlandsforREDD+activities.

The volatility of the sales and therefore theincomeflowingtostakeholdersformsa threat to the sustainability of the carbon project.Atthetimeofwritingthischapterallhopesarethatthecarbonmarketswill respond positively to the outcome ofthe2015climateconferenceinParis.Nevertheless,thereisanadditionalthreat,whichtouchesonthefactthattheKasigauREDD+projectwasthefirstofitssortandstarted when there were few competitors offeringasimilarproduct.Atthetimeofwritingthischapter(November2015),accordingtotheVCSwebsite,thereare22projectsregisteredwithVerifiedCarbonUnits(VCUs)issuedandanother120projectsupcoming.Itisnotclearhowthevoluntarymarketwillrespondtothisgrowingsupplyofcarboncreditsandhowthiswillaffectdemandandprice.Sofar,theKasigauCorridorREDD+projecthasmanagedtoobtainasomewhathigherpricethantheaveragesupplierinthevoluntarymarket.Thisisbecauseofthesocialandbiodiversityco-benefitsthatareoffered,whichmaketheproductmoreattractive to investors that are interested intheseadditionaloutcomes.Marketingoftheproductinthishigherendofthemarket


isonewaytomitigatetheeffectsoflowmarketdemand.

Discussion and conclusion

Inthischapterwereportthepositiveeffects of the development of a value chain for carbon credits in the drylands of the KasigaucorridorprojectareainSouthEastern Kenya. Development of the value chain has resulted in a restoration of the vegetation,significantsocialbenefitsandan improvement of the conservation of wildlife in this area.

The example of the implementation ofthecarbonsequestrationprojectinKasigausuggeststhatthereispotentialfor development of carbon value chain projectsinotherpartsoftheHornofAfrica,includingdrylandforestswhichholdnotonlysignificantcarbonreservoirsinAfrica’slandscape,butonwhoseresources millions of rural Africans depend (Bernardetal.,2014).Theregioniscomprisedofdiversifiedlandandcoastalregionsconsistingofgrasslands,forestsand marine ecosystems, which have potential to avoid the emissions of carbon. ThelessonoftheKasigauprojectisthatsuchprojectshavetheabilitytoachievemorethanmerelygeneratingincome.Theymaysignificantlysupportbiodiversityconservation, enhance community development and facilitate capacity building.

TherearehoweveralsosignificantchallengesthataffectthesustainabilityoftheKasigauprojectandlimitthepossibilityof replication of this model to other areas. Thesechallengesincludethelimitedsizeand the unpredictability of the carbon

market.Thereisnoguaranteethatthecarbon credits that are delivered will also besoldsincethesupplymaybehigherthanthedemandwhenthisisgeneratedbyalimitednumberofpurchaserswillingto offset their carbon emission on a voluntary basis. This shows there is need forlegislationthatrequirescompaniestooffset their emissions in order to stimulate marketdemandandincreasecarbonoffsetprices.ItisanticipatedhoweverthattheclimateaccordthatwasagreedoninDecember2015willchangethemarketperspectiveforcarboncreditsgeneratedthroughavoidanceofemissions.

Anotherchallengeisthatdevelopingcommunitybasedcarbonprojectsrequires broad community outreach and consultations, which inevitably raises the expectations of community members on theopportunitiesthatcarbonmarketsprovide.Developingcommunitybasedcarbonprojectsrequiresraisingawarenessof laymen on the opportunities that carbon marketsprovide.Whenimplementingsuchprojectscomplexconceptslikecarboncredits,offsetsandleakageneedtobetranslatedintothelayman’sdomain(Gupta2011).Mostimportantly,thesecommunityexpectationsmustbecarefullymanaged.This chapter also reports positive side benefitsofthedevelopmentofvaluechains for carbon of credits that are wider thaneconomicreturns.Weconsiderthatample attention is required to raise the awareness on the various social and biodiversityco-benefitsthatcarboncreditscreate.Itisthusrecommendedtopromoteawarenessraisingandcapacitybuildingon carbon credit value chains and their associatedco-benefits.


The policy environment is another dimension that requires attention. Thisisbecausenoprojectoperatesinisolation and the policy environment must thereforebetakenintoaccountwhenaimingtoestablishasustainablecarbonvaluechain.Climatechangeandthemanagementofcarbonemissionsaregovernedbyinternationalpolicies,whichhavesignificantimpactsonthenational,sub-nationalandlocallevel.Marketsforcarbon described here are international bynaturebecausetheylinkactorsfromdifferentsidesoftheglobe.Hereaswellinternationalpoliciesthatregulatetradeinemissions,likeREDD+,comeintoplay.ProjectsliketheKasigauCorridorREDD+Projectarehoweverimplementedinspecificcountrieswiththeirownnational

policylandscape.Whileexistingpoliciesonland,waterandforestmanagementincreasinglyconsiderclimatechange,theydonotoffertheenablingenvironmentthatpromotestheimplementationofprojectsthataimatsequesteringoravoidingemissions of carbon. The new Kenyan Climate Law, which is currently under discussion in parliament, offers provisions thatenableactorstomanagelandandresourcessuchastobenefitfromtheopportunities that international carbon trademarketsprovideGovernmentsalsoneedtoengagemorewiththeprivatesectorandcreateenablingconditionstosupport robust private sector involvement. Improvementofpublic-privatepartnershipstructure is needed.

REFERENCESBernard F, Adkins B. 2014. Implementing

REDD+: Lessons from Kasigau Corridor project in Kenya. ASB Policy Brief No. 44, ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya

Bernard F, Minang PA, Adkins B, Freund JT 2014. REDD+ projects and national-level Readiness processes: a case study from Kenya, Climate Policy, DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.905440

Diaz D, Hamilton K, Johnson E. 2011. State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2011: From Canopy to Currency. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC.

Minang PA, Meadu V, Dewi S, Swallow B. (eds) 2008. The Opportunity Costs of Avoiding Emissions from Deforestation. ASB Policy Brief No. 10. ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya.

Namirembe S, Jindal R. 2012. International Market for Forest Carbon Offsets: How these offsets are created and traded. ASB Lecture Note 14. ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.

White D, Minang P. 2011. Estimating the opportunity costs of REDD+: A training manual, Version 1.3. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Institute.


4.7 Conserving Forest Biodiversity through Value Chain Development: The Case Study of Karura Forest

Mbau J.S. & Gitonga M.

Introduction

Brief history of Karura Forest before 2005

KaruraForestReserve(KFR)islocatedinthenorthernpartofNairobicity. At 1,041 hectares, it is one of thelargesturbanprotectedforestsintheworldhavingbeengazettedin1932(http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=523). KFRwasmanagedbytheKenyaForestDepartment,whichby1990’shadbecomeweakandineffectiveinstitutionally.Thedepartment was dispossessed of as a brandnew“Mazingira”orEnvironmentofficecomplexthathadbeenbuiltin Karura and allocated to another governmentbody.Currently,theforestisunderthemanagementofKenyaForestService(KFS)andFriendsofKarura,acommunitybasedorganization.

The associated challenges till 2005

Duringthe1980s,Karuraforestacquireda reputation as an insecure area of the cityofNairobi.Itwasknownasadumpinggroundformurder,kidnapandganglandvictimsinNairobiandafavoritedestinationforcarjackers.TheforestalsosufferedweakmanagementbyKenyaForestService(KFS)till1990s,asituationthatofferedopportunityforillegalalienationof forest land for development or other purpose.Forexample,between1996and

1998halfoftheforesthadbeenallocatedto private developers for development of a privatehousingestates(Gachanja2009).Thesedevelopersremainedwithofficialdocumentsindicatingownershipoftheallocated land parcels of the forest. As lateas2009effortswerestillbeingmadeto excise part of the forest with a belated attempt to allocate a section of the forest totheNationalEnvironmentManagementAuthority(NEMA).Thiswashoweverquicklyresisted.DuringthisperiodKaruraremainedinsecurerenderingtheforestanogoplaceforvisitorsinNairobi.

The turning point for Karura forest

Community participation is a powerful toolinthemanagementofnaturalresources.ReactionstolandalienationsinKaruraforestarrestedtheillegallandalienations.AmongthekeyreactorstothesealienationswerethelateProf.WangariMaathaiwholaunchedsomeofher most famous environmental battles byresistingtheillegaltransactionsandthedevelopmentofthehousingestatesintheforest.Residentsofadjoiningareasjoinedthedemonstrationsthusincreasingthe momentum of the resistance. This combinedeffortresultedinthehaltingofthedevelopmentsin1999(Gachanja2009).Intheyear2002,anewpoliticaldispensationinKenyasawthehaltingofdeveloper activities in the forest (Daily Nation2003).Withnewpoliticalsupporta new forest act was developed and was

http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=523




enactedastheForestAct2005.ThischangedforestadministrationinKenyafrombeingprotectionisttoembracesustainableutilizationthroughstakeholderparticipation.TheForestAct2005providesguidelinesforstakeholderinvolvementin

themanagementofforests,inadditionto establishment of an effective forest administration,theKenyaForestServicein2007(GoK,2005).

Integrating biodiversity value chain development as a management tool in Karura forest

In2009anorganizationbythename“FriendsofKaruraForest”(FKF)wasformed.Itwasbornefromanaturelover(AliceMacaire).Shetookawalkin the beautiful Karura forest despite greatreservationsfromthethenHeadofConservancyforNairobi(CharityMunyasia)duetoinsecurityintheforest.ThiswasthebeginningofturningachallengeintoanopportunityinKaruraForest:fromaninsecureforesttoaneco-tourismsanctuary.FriendsofKaruraForest(FKF):acommunityforestassociation(CFA)wasformedinconjunctionwithotherkeystakeholdersmainlythelateProf.WangariMaathai,

formerUNEPExecutiveDirector,AchimSteiner,andWilliamWambugu,anenvironmentalist, in conformity with the ForestAct2005.FKFwasregisteredinOctober2009anditsmembershipincludes individuals, family, corporate membersandresidents’associationsborderingKaruraForest(WangariMaathaiInstitute2013).ACFAisamechanismestablishedbytheForestActof2005(sections46and47,ForestRules41and42)tosupporttheKenyaForestServiceinitsmissiontoprotect,manageandenhanceKenya’sforestresources.TheCFAaimsatprotectingandconservingtheforest,enhancingaccess,andimprovinglivelihoods and employment to people livingaroundtheforest.Inaddition,itseekstorestoreindigenoustrees(WangariMaathaiInstitute2013).In2013,theCFA

SomeoftheserenescenesofKaruraforest,photobyJudithSyombua(2015)


signedafive-yearmanagementagreementwiththeKenyaForestService.

TheFriendsofKaruraForesttogetherwithKFSimplementecotourismactivitiesinathree-prongedapproach.Thisconnectstheforestandcommunitiesbyensuringthat the association is comprised of peoplelivingadjacenttotheforestwhosesolefocushasledtoabettermanagedandconservedforestthatgivesbackreal social, environmental and economic benefitstothecommunity.Thishasresultedinastakeholder-drivenforestmanagementplanthatconstitutesacontractbetweenthegovernmentandthecommunityandprovidesaclearjointimplementationplan.Itfollowsthedictumthatallbenefitscomewithaccountability,leadingtoamandatedandsharedresponsibility for forest stewardship and thusajointimplementationstrategyfortheachievementoflong-termgoals(www.ecotourism.org/news/ties-announces-ecotourism-principles-revision).

ThefirstorderofbusinessfortheCFAwastobuildonsynergiesofpeoplethatareorhave been affected by the forest. Based on past history, security was essential toactualizeecotourism.Toaddressthis,the East African Breweries foundation financedtheconstructionofaperimeterfencearoundtheforest(MacaireandAlice2011).Inaddition,afencetodelinktheforestfromthemainKFSofficeswasalsoconstructedbySanyatiLtd,withfinancingfromtheGeorgeDrewTrust,RupertWatsonandMaryBinks(FKFnewsletterJuly2013).LocalcommunitiesfromtheadjacentHurumainformalsettlement,who used the forest to supplement their

livelihoods as a source of fuelwood and buildingmaterialswerehoweverthemostaffected by the establishment of the fence.

There has also been considerable investmentdesignedtomakeKaruraforestaviablerecreationalfacility.Muchoftheincomefromthegatecollectionsis reinvested in the development of facilitiesthatensureamoreenjoyablevisitbyvisitors.Toenhancetheecology,exoticinvasiveplantsalongtheRuakaRiverhavebeenclearedtoallowtheregenerationoftheindigenoussaplings,withover70haofdegradedexotictreeplantationshavingbeenremovedandreplacedwithindigenoustreespecies(FKFNewsletterJuly2015).Inaddition,aprojecttore-introduceColobusmonkeysintotheforestfromtheInstituteofPrimateResearchhasbeencompleted.Improvementofphysicalinfrastructureincludes the rehabilitation of a 250-metre-deep1920sboreholediscoverednexttoAmaniGardenssite.Itswaternowservesasanewpicnicsite,toiletsandirrigatestheWestgateMemorial(FKFApril2015).A400m stretch of cabro pavement has been laid in an effort to improve forest access throughthemaingate.Stakeholdersinvolvedincludedaconstructionfirm:H.YoungandCo(EA)LtdandBamburiCement who donated equipment and bricks,whiletheFKFandKFEETprovidedlaborfortheCabrobricks,drainageandprotective bollards.

http://www.ecotourism.org/news/ties-announces-ecotourism-principles-revision




Karura forest covers over 260 hectares ofpristineindigenousforestandoffersgeoattractionssuchascaves,waterfalls,picnicsites,markedwalkingandcyclingtrails.Theforesthasvarioussmallgamessuchasduikers,bushbucks,catsandmonkeys;therealsoavarietyofpythons,greensnakes,monitorlizardsandover200 species of birds.

Beneficiaries of Karura Forest

The enhancement of security at Karura forest in the recent past has ensured manypeoplevisitthepark(Figure9).The forest is an eco-tourism site for Nairobicitywherethepublicenjoyswalks,picnics,cycling,dogwalks,caves,rivers,lakesandasereneforestecosystemforrecreation.Manyarealsoprivilegedtoholdfunctionssuchasweddingsintheforest.FortheresidentsoftheadjacentHurumavillage,theKaruraforestprovideseconomicbenefitsthrough:bee-keeping(FKFNewsletter2015),employmentasscoutsandworkers,aswellasaccesstosome forest products. This is in addition tosupplyofcleandrinkingwaterwhichisalwaysabigchallengeininformalsettlements. Annual visitor numbers have grownexponentiallyfrom48,000intheyear 2011 to about 200,000 currently. The forestgeneratesonaverageKsh4million/year on entry fees which is collected and administeredbytheFriendsofKaruraForesttoimplementthejointmanagementagreementandtheforeststrategicplan.

The achievement so far

TangiblebenefitshavebeenrealizedunderthejointmanagementofKarura

forestbyFKFandKFS.Thesebenefitsdemonstrate how the development of a nature based value chain on ecotourism can enhance both biodiversity conservation and community development. ThejointmanagementofKaruraforesthasachievedthefollowingsofar:

• Construction of a perimeter fence around the forest

• Establishment of a 150 beehive enterpriseinconjunctionwithaUNDP/GEFandICIPEusingstinglessbees.This not only avails an essential ecosystem service of pollination but also provides employment to 40 people inhoneyproduction(FKFJuly2015)

• Employmentof27forestscouts,29permanentworkersaswellascasualworkersintheforestbyFKF

• ConstructionofawaterpurificationunittosupplyresidentsofHurumainformalsettlementwithdrinkingwater

• Constructionandfencingofaplaygroundwithinthesettlement

• Developmentandstockingoffishponds(WangariMaathaiInstitute,2013)and

• Revenuegeneration-theforestcollectsuptoKsh.4millionfromgatefees and the funds are administered bytheFriendsofKaruraForest.Thefundsareusedtoimplementthejointmanagementagreementandtheforeststrategicplan.


Environmental and biological sustainability

TheFKFhasundertakenasystematicremoval of exotic trees to replace them withindigenoustreesinanefforttorevertthe whole forest into its natural status. FKFhavealsorestoredsomeofthelostbiodiversitysuchasbyre-introducingtheColobusmonkey(FKFNewsletter2015) that had disappeared due to human activities.

Social sustainability

TheFKFfundsthatareraisedthroughgatefeesarekeptintheaccountofthecommitteeandhavegenerated29permanentjobsaswellasemploymentfor27forestscouts.Thefundshavebeenused for improvement and maintenance of the infrastructure such as the fence, development of better access roads,

sanitationfacilities,erectingofbirdwatch-towers, and establishment of motion sensitivecamerasforanimaltrackingandimprovement of education facilities at the education center. A total of 150 bee hives havealsobeenprovidedtotheHurumacommunityandstinglessbeesintroduced.Karura was infamous in the early 2000 as ano-gosecurityarea.Itwastransformedin2009toanattractiveurbanforestMeccawhere over 200,000 people now visit per year.TheforestisconnectingthepeopleandvisitorsofNairobiinauniqueway.

Conclusion

Stakeholderparticipationinforestmanagementisnotonlyanessentialtoolfor the conservation of biodiversity but can also improve community ownership and perceptions about nature based resources around them. The development of nature

Figure 9:NumberofvisitorstotheKaruraForest2010-2014(sourceFKFNewsletterDec2014)


based biodiversity value chain for the Karura forests, once threatened by the landgrabbingproblem,demonstratesan

important approach to achieve a win-win situation for biodiversity conservation and community development.

REFERENCEShttp://www.kenyaforestservice.

org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=523

http://allafrica.com/stories/201404300737.htm

http://kenyatalii.com/110/nairobi-day-tour

http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/green-belt-movement-defends-karura-forest-nairobi-kenya-1998-1999

https://nairobichronicle.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/mau-forest-politics-a-detailed-explanation/

http://everything.explained.today/Karura_Forest/

Macaire A. 2011: I helped preserve Karura Forest, Interview with the Standard Newspaper retrieved on http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/lifestyle/article/2000029550/i-have-helped-make-karura-forest-safe?articleID=2000029550&story_title=i-have-helped-make-karura-forest-safe&pageNo=2

www.ecotourism.org/news/ties-announces-ecotourism-principles-revision

http://www.greenbeltmovement.org/sites/greenbeltmovement.org/files/Management%20Plan%20Karura%20Forest%202.pdf

http://www.friendsofkarura.org/event/karura-forest-management-agreement-official-signing-ceremony/

Daily Nation, March 10,2003: More give up Karura Forest plots

Friends of Karura Forest Newsletter July 2013

Friends of Karura Forest Newsletter April 2015

Friends of Karura Forest Newsletter July 2015

Gachanja MK. 2009: Public perception of Forest as a motor for Change: The case of Kenya

Government of Kenya, 2005: Forest Act, Government printer

Wangari Maathai Institute. 2013: Participatory Forest Management the Role of Community Forest Associations




http://allafrica.com/stories/201404300737.htm

http://kenyatalii.com/110/nairobi-day-tour









http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/lifestyle/article/2000029550/i-have-helped-make-karura-forest-safe?articleID=2000029550&story_title=i-have-helped-make-karura-forest-safe&pageNo=2













5. SYNTHESIS AND DISCUSSIONTheprecedingchaptersdescribedanumber of nature based and biodiversity conservation based value chains that delivered a variety of ecosystem products and services. Cultural ecosystem services that we described revolve around examples of value chain approaches that servedrecreationalmarkets,suchasthe

KaruraForestandtheexportofbutterflypupaethatservicebutterflyhousesinthedevelopedworld.WithgrowingurbanizationinthedevelopingworldtheremightbeexcellentpotentialforgrowthforurbanparkinitiativesliketheKaruraforest.Someofthepossibleexamplesareshownin Table 2.

Table 2: SummaryofthevaluechainsdescribedwithreferencetootherareasinKenyawherethesevaluechainshavebeenimplementedandtheirpotentialforscaling.

Ecosystem service Value chain Potential for scaling

Cultural, recreation and tourism

ButterfliesforbutterflyhousesUrbanparksandrecreationWildlifeconservancies-naturebasedtourism

Limited,marketsaturationGoodforUrbanAreasthroughoutAfrica

Provisioningservices HoneyCrab Tamarind Gum arabic and resins

WidespreadMangrovesystemsDrylands African drylands

Regulatingservices Carbon Forests,naturalvegetation,agriculture

Wealsodescribedseveralexamplesofprovisioningservices;operationalones included the production of honey inArabukoSokokeForestandthecrabvaluechaininMidacreek.Wefurtherdescribed potential value chains that could be developed based on tree species such as Tamarindus indica as well as valuechainsforgumarabicandaromaticresins.Thepotentialforscalingthesebiodiversity-basedprovisioningservicesismixed,withgoodscopeforvaluechainsthatservicelocalmarketssuchashoney,tamarindandinternationalmarketssuch

asgumarabicandaromaticresins.Thepotentialforscalingofthecrabvaluechainrelies on the volatile demand created by touristsalongthecoast;theirnumbershavedeclinedwithgrowinginsecurity.Finally,wedescribedonevaluechainthatdeliversaregulatingservice,namelythe avoidance of carbon emissions from drylands forests. The demand for this regulatingservicestemsfromthevoluntarymarketforcarboncredits.TherecentParisclimateagreementcreatedamorefavourableenvironmentforinitiativeslikethis but it remains to be seen whether this


willtranslateinexpandingopportunitiesforscalingsuchinitiatives.

Severalcommonalitiesemergedwhenreviewingcasesofvaluechainsthathavedeveloped over the past decades. The development of the value chains that we reviewed started in areas where there wasaworseningdegradationofnaturalresourcesincludingbiodiversity,atrendthat was associated in most cases with ahighlevelofinsecurity(Figure10).Thisresourcedegradationandinsecurityresultedinreductionofbenefitsreachingthelivelihoodsofthepeopledependingonthesesystems.Inseveralcaseswewereabletoidentifyanactorwhorealizedthat this was an undesirable situation and that there was an opportunity to changethesituationforthebetter.Thesevisionaryactorstypicallyrealizedthatthey

neededtomobilizethebroadergroupofstakeholderstodevelopcollectiveactiontoreachthevisionthattheyhad.Duringthisprocessitwasrealizedthatlivelihoodsofpeoplemanagingresourcesneedtobenefitfromthisvisionwhensettingasideland or water for conservation. Value chain approachesarethenalogicalnextstepastheyallowcreatingaflowofincomethatcouldbenefitthesestakeholders.Severalofthevaluechainsthatwedescribed also had an outside investor to getthedevelopmentofthevaluechainstarted.Whiledonorfundingwasthesource of investment in most cases, it wasinterestingtoseethatWildlifeWorksmanagedtomobilizetheinvestmentinthe carbon credit value chain from private enterprise.Inallvaluechainsweanalysedthere were multiple parties involved in the managementofthedifferentfunctions.

Figure 10:Schemeshowingtheroleofcollectiveactionandcollaborativemanagementinthesocio-ecologicaltransformationfromadegradationtowardsamoredesirableandsecuresituation.


The examples described in the chapters above indicate that the development of value chains has potential to support the conservation of biodiversity in conservation areas. The examples of operational value chain development described in chapter 4 (e.g.honey,crabs,butterfliesandcarbon)aresimilarinthattheycreatebenefitswithinaconservationareamotivatingthebeneficiariestobecomesupportersof the conservation. The development of value chains outside a conservation area isassumedthatcreationofbenefitsinthe periphery of protected areas would increasethewellbeingofpeopleinthesurroundingareasandthusreleasethepressure on the biodiversity resources in the conservation area. This off site effect of value chain development does notalwaysautomaticallymaterialize.Anobvious reason for this is that people donotnecessarilyseethelinkbetweenvalue chain development and livelihood support they receive in areas outside the conservation area and the protection of biodiversity within that conservation area.Further,thereisgoodpossibilityofotherpeoplenotbenefitingfromtheperipheralvaluechainscontinuingtoexploitanddegradebiodiversitywithintheconservationarea.Sucheffectsarelesslikelytoemergewhenlocalcommunitiesareengagedinvaluechainsdevelopedwithin a protected area, because they will be more inclined to contribute to the protectionofsuchareas.Hence,therearechallengesrelatedtotheeffectivenessof the development of biodiversity-based value chains in the periphery of protected areas.Whenimplementedsuchinitiativesneed to be accompanied by awareness

raisingandnegotiationeffortswhichclarify the purpose for the value chain development and livelihood support in the peripheryandmaketheseconditionalondelivery of biodiversity outcomes inside.

Valuechaindevelopmentgenerallyrequires an initial investment before it isoperationaltogeneraterevenue.Thecases we reviewed revealed some value chains that were developed with support frompublicfundingwhileothersweresupported from investment by private enterprise.Forexample,thereareseveraltourism companies who have made the initial investment to set up tourism companiesthatgeneratetheincomethatthewildlifetourismvaluechainthatbenefitwildlifeconservancies.Further,WildlifeWorksmanagedtointerestNedbankfromSouthAfricatoinvestinthedevelopmentof the carbon credit value chain.

Severalofthebiodiversity-basedvaluechains that were described in chapter 4 appearedeconomicallysustainable.Forexample,thebutterflyvaluechainhasbeenoperatingforalmost20yearswithoutsignificantoutsidefunding,andonceestablished the honey value chains are alsoprofitableandsustainable.Also,theKaruraforesturbanparkrecreationvaluechain appears to be sustainable, because the number of visitors and income has beengrowingatarapidrate.Wealsodiscussed(chapter4.6)thechallengesofsustainabilityoftheWildlifeWorkscarboncreditvaluechain;WildlifeWorkshasn’tmanagedtosellalltheircreditsanditisquestionablehowthemarketwillevolve with the many new carbon credit schemesthatarebeingdeveloped.The


value chains described in chapter 4 differ inbargainingpower,theproducerisinabetterbargainingpositioninsomecaseswheredemandishighandincreasingandcompetitionislimited(e.g.Karuraforest,but also honey which is in short supply). Producershavelessbargainingpowerincasesofmarketsaturationandmultiplecompetingproducersforexamplethetropicalbutterflies

Certificationandqualitymanagement plays an important role in various value chains,e.g.carbon,pupae,andhoney.Certificationinformsandguaranteesproductqualitytokeyactorsmainlyusersthat the product has been produced and processed under certain standards of quality, safety and sustainability determinedbyindependentcertificationentity.CertificationplaysanimportantroleinsustainabilityofBBVCs.Certifiedproducts can earn better premium prices becauseofproductmarketsegmentationanddifferentiationfromnon-certifiedproducts.Thecertifiedproductswillbecompetitiveindynamicnichemarkets.Highvaluedproductsandthepricepremium earned directly or indirectly motivateproducersaskeyvaluechainactors to impress sustainable production ofnaturebasedproducts.Sustainableproductioncontributessignificantlytowardsconservation of biodiversity as producers of biodiversity-based products comply with the demand and satisfaction of their finalconsumerstosupplyproductsundersustainableconservationspecifications.Similarly,productgradingandbrandingcomplementscertificationprocessasmarketingstrategytoattractmore

consumersespeciallyinfuturemarketopportunities. Combination of product branding,gradingandcertificationasmarketingstrategyofferssignificantpotential for sustained increased return on investment for value chain actors includinglocalcommunitiesthatdependmainly on ecosystem services for their wellbeing.Usually,marketimperfectiondoesn’tworkwellforsinglesmallholderproducers in local communities, and collectiveproductionandmarketingofcertifiedproductsoffersanopportunityandhigherbargainingpowerthrougheconomies of scale. The approach feeds intofigure10schemewhichrequirejointcollaborative action of all BBVC actors and supporterincludinginput/serviceproviders,producers, processors, distributors, wholesalers,benefitsshouldberealizedby all actors for the success of BBVC. Example of BBVC products which can be certifiedincludehoney,crab,butterflies,Gums and resins, Tamarind products amongothersaimedatconservingtheirnatural ecosystem habitats and related biodiversity.

Ourreviewrevealedsignificantsocialbenefitsofthevariousoperationalbiodiversity-basedvaluechainprojects.Afirstcategoryofbenefitisthedirectincomegeneratedbythebiodiversity-basedvaluechainsthatflowsintothepocketsoftheproducersandvariousotherpeople that contribute to the value chain. Therearealsonon-monetarybenefits;theKasigaucarboncreditprojectforexample supports the delivery of social amenitiessuchastheprovisioningofwaterorthesupportofschooling.Finally,


wenotedthatseveralprojectsresultedinincreasedsecurityandmobilizationofthecommunities in the area where the value chain was developed. This has happened forexampleintheKasigauareabutalsointheKaruraforestandtheMidacreekarea.Severalstakeholdersindicatedthattheyconsidered these non-monetary social outcomesjustasimportantasthedirectmonetarybenefitsflowingintothepocketsof value chain participants.

Whilecivilsocietyactorswerecommonlyinitiatingandleadingthedevelopmentof the value chains described in this report,therewasalsoaremarkableinvolvementofgovernment.Mostvaluechainsdescribedandvisitedduringthe excursion were developed with activeparticipationoflocalgovernmentorganizations.Forexample,theKenyaForestService(KFS),theKenyaWildlifeService(KWS),theNationalMuseumsofKenya(NMK)andtheKenyaMarineandFisheriesResearchInstitute(KEMFRI)were actively involved in one or more of the value chains described in this report. Mostprojectsappeartohavebeenimplemented without much interest of the financialarmoftheKenyangovernment.This is understandable when value chain initiativesaresmallbutinterestmightchangevaluechainactorsraiseanincomesignificantenoughtoraisetheinterestofcountyandnationaltaxationoffices.Taxationreducesthenetbenefittothevalue chain actors who deliver the social and biodiversity outcomes described in this report.Onehastobecarefulandensurethat this does not reduce the attractiveness of the value chain to these actors, the

social and environmental outcomes are tooimportantandcareneedtobetakentoleavethevaluechainactorssufficientbenefit(e.g.throughtacexemption)tostimulate them to deliver these societally important outcomes

There is little if any attention for biodiversity-based value chains in current curricula that produce professionals active in social development and biodiversity conservation. This is a missed opportunity, because we consider that there is significantscopeforoutscalingofthevalue chains described in this report and development of biodiversity-based value chainssimilartothesevaluechains.Inchapter7wecallforawarenessraisingandcapacitybuildingtotrainprofessionalstosupportsuchagendas.

Inretrospect,thisreportportraysaratherpositive picture of the status and potential of biodiversity-based value chains. Above we have indicated that there is scope to out scale and further develop such value chains. At the same time, biodiversity-based value chains have theirlimitations.Theycan’tsolveallsocialdevelopmentissuesandtheycan’tsolveall the needs for biodiversity conservation. Itwouldbeunwisetoraiseanoverlyhighexpectationthatcommoditizationandcommercializationofnaturealonecouldsupportthefundingneedsforthe conservation of biodiversity. There arelimitationstotheamountoffinancethatsuchvaluechainscangenerate.Consequently, biodiversity-based value chains have a potential to complement otherpublicandprivatelyfinancedbiodiversity conservation efforts.


6. GUIDELINES FOR VALUE CHAINS THAT SUPPORT BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

7 Thecomponentoninteractionswillconsidertheaspectofinformationflowsamongthevaluechainactors.Ultimately,whatmakesahugedifferenceinamongtheactorsinspecificvaluechainisthedifferencesthatexistsininformation(e.g.marketpricesetc.)–whathasbeenreferredtoas“informationasymmetry”.Changesininformationtechnology(mobile,internetetc.)ismediatingthisandchangingVCprocesses,sothisshouldbeconsideredalongsideothertechnologies(e.gforprocessing,marketing

8 Beexplicitthatthefocusisonvaluechainsthatarebasedonbiodiversityorhaveasignificantcomponentofbiodiversityandnotimpactofvaluechains(includingnon-biodiversityones)onbiodiversity

Theintroductionarguedthatvaluechaindevelopment for biodiversity conservation does not automatically result in the positive social and biodiversity conservation outcomesthatsuchprojectsaimfor.Theseven case studies that we reviewed and describegaveamorenuancedpicturewithexamples of positive effects in some cases andconcernsinothercases.Followingthelessonslearnedwhilereviewingtheseven case studies, this chapter describes anumberofguidelinesdevelopedbytheparticipantsofthewrite-shoptoguidethosewishingtodevelopvaluechainsforbiodiversity conservation.

Problem Identification and sensitization: Thisentailsmobilizationofstakeholdersandsensitizingthemoncurrent natural resources and livelihoods status.Withtheknowledgeonthecurrenttrendsonbiodiversity,thestakeholdershould explore the possibility to develop biodiversity-based value chain to reversenegativetrendsonbiodiversity.Participatoryruralappraisaltechniquesshouldbeadoptedduringthissteptoensuretheengagementofallpotentialvaluechainactors.Inaddition,in-depthreviewoftheBBVCchallenges,currentmitigationstrategiesandbestpracticesin biodiversity-based value chain should beassessedduringthisstep.Economic

valuation provides and attaches value tobiodiversitytoinformstakeholdersstrengthenconservationeffortsandsustenancethroughBBVCdevelopment.

Stakeholder identification and engagement: Stakeholderanalysis,identification,engagementandinteractions7 (both physical and virtual) (whohasinfluenceovervaluechain,howaretheyengaged,andhowdothey interact). Document their interest onbiodiversity;definerolesofvariousstakeholdersandtheirpotentialinfluenceindevelopingthevaluechain.

Theory of place: Specifythetargetareawhere value chains will be developed to support the biodiversity. Be clear whether the value chain will be developed on site oroffsite,thegeographicalscopeforthevaluechain.Willitcoverlocal,national,regionalorinternationallevelactorsandsupporters?Thiswilldefinethetargetmarketfortheproduct.

Theory of change:Startwithatheoryofchangethatdescribeshowdevelopmentofthe value chain will affect the biodiversity anddefinethelinkbetweenthevaluechain and biodiversity conservation explicitly 8Thetheoryofchangeshouldexplains how the value chain would support the biodiversity, how the BBVC


will add value to biodiversity conservation andcommunity/actorslivelihoodsincludingsocio-economicmarginalincrementalbenefitsforinstanceincomewithdeveloped BBVC compared to business as usual scenarios.

Risk management: Identifyingandmanagingrisksinthevaluechain.Whatarethecurrentandexpectedfuturerisks,what are possible solutions, what is the assumption for success of the BBVC development?

Policy regulatory environment: Understandwhetherpoliciesareenablingorconstraining,andwhy.Further,identify,cross-sectoral policies related to the BBVC to be developed. Consider policies related tobiodiversity,regulatingproductqualitystandards,accessrightsproductsources(for example forest for forest products), jointresourcemanagementregulations,marketregulations(atmicro,mesoandmacro levels), products movement and phytosanitaryregulationsrelevantforspecificBBVCproducts.

BBVC analysis: Referencetogeneralstep 1 and 2 above, select and focus on specificBBVCforin-depthanalysisanddevelopment as a value chain based on its socio-economic and biodiversity conservation potential. Assess the value chain actors and supporters, their roles, andtheirexperience.Identifystrategiestomitigatethechallenges,identifyinterventions required at each level of the value chain to improve on effectiveness andefficiencysoastobenefitallactorsas

well as secure biodiversity resource base. Understandwhatincentiveswillmotivatethe actors to implement the BBVC plan, assess the economic viability of BBVC toindigenouscommunitieswholivewithinoradjacenttodesignatedhotspotbiodiversity areas, perform participatory marketmapping;marketintelligencetocollect information relevant to product development, communicate and build trustwithinandamongkeyvaluechainactors and supporters, address socio-economic/politicalandculturaldynamics,product supply-demand forces, develop diagrammaticmarketmap/valuechainfortheproductidentifyingenablingenvironment,valuechainkeyactorsandserviceproviders,product(goodorservice)branding,packagingandmarketing.

Development of the BBVC strategic plan: EngageintheBBVCdevelopmentstrategicplanwithkeyfactorssuchastheprivatesectortoencouragePublicPrivatePartnershipapproaches.Theplanshouldsupport biodiversity conservation so as to increase the resource base for biodiversity products.

Evaluation and follow-up: developed valuechainswillrequireperiodicjointstakeholders’follow-uptoassessthedesired impact both on actors and the natural resource base. This would constituteagoodfoundationofaconservation-livelihoods intervention plan.


7. NEED FOR CAPACITY BUILDING AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Aissétou Dramé Yayé

9 AlemayehuKandeKoira,2014.AgribusinessinSub-SaharaAfrica:Pathwaysfordevelopinginnovativeprogrammesforyouthandtheruralpoor.TheMasterCardFoundation.

Introduction

AccordingtoKoira(2014)9, value chain inagriculturerefersto“theadditionofvaluetopreliminaryagriculturalproductsbycombiningthemwithotherresourcessuchastools,manpower,knowledge,skills,otherrawmaterialsorotherpreliminary products”. As the product passesthroughseveralstagesofthischain,theproduct’svalueincreases.Akeycontribution of value chain analysis lies in the notion of upgrading, the acquisition oftechnological,institutionalandmarketcapabilitiesforgreatercompetitivenessormovementintohighervalueactivities”.The concept of a biodiversity-based value chainseemstobequitedifficulttograspbyAfricancommunitieseventhoughtheyhavebeenusingforcenturiesnon-timber forest products and other food, medicinal and nutritional products and services from forests and other natural resources reserves. Biodiversity-based value chains not only provide opportunities inaddressingincome,foodandnutritionalsecurity,butprovideotherbenefitsincludingnewproductswithhighbusiness/economicpotential.OtherinterventionslinkedtoBBVCincludePaymentforEnvironmentalServiceschemesapplied

as a conservation and livelihood business case;diversifyingagricultureandothersustainablelanduses,climatechangeadaptationanddesigningstrategiesand actions to improve the potential of biodiversity products and services for incomegeneration.

Diversegroups,particularlylocalcommunities, individuals, farmers, conservationists,rangers,researchand education institutions, international researchinstitutions(likeCGIARCentres),NGOs,haveknowledgeonbiodiversityconservation.However,knowledgeavailability,particularlylinkedtothebiodiversity-based value chain actors is hardtodetermineduetolackofmandateinstitutions. Besides, in Africa, capacity andknowledgeinbiodiversity-basedvaluechains do not automatically result in the conservationofbiodiversityandguidanceisthereforerequiredonthedesignofeffective interventions and appropriate capacitiesandskillstoreverttheworryingtrendsforinstancearoundfishstocksdepletion,coralreefdegradation,speciesextinctions, forest loss, loss of plant geneticresources,andtheharmfulimpactof pollution on biodiversity as reported in thefourtheditionoftheCBD’sflagshipGlobalBiodiversityOutlook(GBO)


publicationandhighlightedbyRobinson(2014)10.

There is a need to assess and map out the stateofknowledgeonbiodiversity-basedvaluechainsandthroughthatthegapsinknowledgecanbeproperlyaddressedthroughcurriculumdevelopmenttargetingspecificactorgroupsalongthevaluechains.

Themainobjectiveofthischapteristhereforetohighlighttheneedsforcapacitybuildingandcurriculumdevelopment in biodiversity-based value chains.

Methods

AnICRAFledworkprogrammewasorganizedinthreecomponents:FirstaworkshopwasheldinNairobiduringwhich about twenty participants from Somalia,KenyaandDjiboutiidentifiedkeybiodiversity-based value chains, and the settingofteamsworkingonaparticularvalue chain to develop a chapter that willfeedintotheprogrammereport.Thesecondcomponent,involvedvisitingkeyprojects,organizationsandinstitutionsinKenyadealingwithbiodiversityvaluechains, so as to enrich the chapters. The third component entailed participants visitingdifferentfieldsiteswherebiodiversity-based value chain have been developedandareoperational.Duringthis period, the participants deliberated on a number of value chains. Based on rankingbytheparticipantsofthepriorityvaluechainstheywantedtoworkonthefollowingvaluechainswereidentified:

10DanielRobinson,2014.Businessandbiodiversity:Towardssustainableusevaluechains.BIORES.Analysisandnewsontradeandenvironment.Volume8,Issue10,Dec.2014.

Honey,crab,GumArabic,Tamarind,CarbonandNature-based(Ecotourism)as described in the previous chapters.

Whiledevelopingthedifferentchapters,thewritersidentifiedkeychallengesthathinder the development of each value chain.Thosechallengeswereafterwardsspecifiedintospecificcapacitybuildingneeds for each actor of the value chain. Informationobtainedfromthevaluechainteamswereanalysedtoderivethegapsandtrainingneedsthatwouldhelpimprovecurriculaofferedatvariousdegreeandnon-degreelevels.

Results

Identification of value chain challenges

Theidentifiedchallengesconcernallvalue chain aspects from the production, processingandmarketing(Table3).Mostofthevaluechainslackdatabasesandresearchdatathereforehamperinginformationsharingandtheabilitytoadviceproducersandpolicymakers.Allteamsmentionedclimatechangeasakeychallengetodevelopmentofproductand services. They also reported on poor marketknowledgeandpoorinfrastructurewhileothershighlightedconcernswithover-exploitation and post-harvest losses.


Biodiversity value chains actors and their capacity needs

The diversity of actors involved in biodiversity-basedvaluechainsmakesthem more complex than ordinary agriculturalcommodityvaluechains.They nonetheless may have common actorslikeproducers(e.g.inthecharcoaland tamarind value chains) or those exploitingtheresourcessuchasfish,honey and nature based value chains; and product and service consumers such as tourists. Local communities are often consumers but are also producers who need to sustainably useandmanagetheresources.Theyneed to develop viable businesses from their resources. Conservationists, governmentbodieswerementionedaskeyactorsthatshouldcontrol,monitorandregulatetheresources.Scientistsare important actors in all value chains to build capacity and support decision makingwithdataandevidence.Becausetheyareofferingnotonlyproductsbutalsoenvironmentalservicesthatgivethem some trans-boundary and even internationalimportance,fish,carbonandnaturebasedvaluechainsbringinadditional international actors such as theUNspecializedagenciese.g.UNEP,UNFCCC,UNDPandothermultilateralenvironmental bodies.

Understanding Knowledge/Capacity Needs for Different Actors

The diversity of actors translates intodiversifiedneedsforcapacitystrengthening.Alongthevaluechains,producers, processors and business

persons seem to be the actors with the biggestneedsforcapacitybuilding.AsummaryofthecapacitygapsidentifiedforstrengtheningforalltheidentifiedvaluechainsareshowninTables4to8.

Producers,processorsandconsumersmayneedbasicskillstosustainablyconserveresourceswhileexploitingthem.Theseneededskillsincludeknowledgeon development, re-production and production of the resource they exploit, and the best exploitation and preservation technics.Makingabusinessfromthebiodiversity-based value chains requires the producers, processors and traders to haveskillsinbusinessplandevelopmentandknowledgeaboutmarketfluctuations.

Conservationists and scientists, who mostofthetimeworkwithproducers,environmentalactivistsandgovernments,needcapacitystrengtheningtobeableto assess the resources and develop the best production and conservation practices andtechnologiesthatproducerscanuse.Theyalsoareresponsibleforalertingthepublic and all actors about the status of the resources.

EnvironmentalLaw-makers,likegovernments,multilateralpartiesandinternational bodies who deal with critical environmentalissuessuchasglobalwarmingandpaymentforecosystemservices,needcapacityforunderstanding,andinterpretingthelocalandglobalenvironmentalchanges,andformakingorinterpretingenvironmentlawsandregulations.

Areas where capacity is needed by all actors,butatvaryingdegreesinclude


climatechangeanditsimpactontheresources.

Discussion

Biodiversity-basedvaluechainsbringinbusiness, entrepreneurships and private sector into community. This is critical as someestimatessuggestthatatleast40percentoftheglobaleconomydependsdirectlyorindirectlyonbiologicalresources.Thisfigureincreasetoaround80percentwhenevaluatingtheneedsoftheworld’spoorestcommunities(Robinson,2014).Robinson(2014)alsostressedthataccordingtosomeobservers,theCBDand the biodiversity issues it addresses have not traditionally been approached from an economic perspective yet one of theCBD’skeyobjectivesissustainabledevelopmentanduseofbiologicalresources.TheNagoyaProtocolonAccesstoGeneticResourcesandtheFairandEquitableSharingofBenefitsArisingfromtheirUtilization–knownasaccessandbenefit-sharingorABSseekstoensuregeneticresourcesareappropriatelyvaluedandthatbenefit-sharingisprovidedasmonetaryornon- monetary compensation towards biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, or in other cases, towards the indigenousandlocalcommunitiesthatholdusefultraditionalknowledgevis-à-visthe resource. This implies that capacity buildingoftheprimarybeneficiaryoftheresources, who are the local communities, is of paramount importance. Government agenciesneedcapacitystrengtheningtheir

11 KirstenHile,2014.Towardsconsent–Casestudiesandinsightoncompany-communityagreementsinforestlandscape.ResearchpaperNo5,TheForestDialogue(TFD).73P.

12WorldBank,2012.EstablishingagreencharcoalvaluechaininRwanda.Afeasibilitystudy.18P.

roleisimportantinfacilitatingagreementsbetween private companies and the communities(KristenHile,2014)11.Forthecharcoalvaluechains,theWorldBank(2012)12hasidentifiedthefollowingkeystrategicareasinwhichallactorsneedcapacitystrengtheningtomodernizethewoodenergysectorinfavourofagreeneconomy:

• Sustainablewoodproduction

• Exploitation and transformation

• Transportandcommercialization

• Utilizationofwoodfuel

• NationalandinternationalFrameworkconditions

Conclusion

Thechallengeshighlightedbythevarious value chains imply capacity strengtheningneedsforallactorsfromlocalcommunitiestogovernmentagenciesand researchers. Different capacity buildingserviceprovidersarerequired.Itistheresponsibilityoftechnicalcollegesanduniversities to develop sound biodiversity-based curricula to build capacity in areas suchas:

• Sustainableresourcesproductionandmanagementtheoryandpractices

• Business plan development and trade competitiveness

• Monitoring,controlandsurveillanceon use and renewal of the resources, particularlywithregardtoclimatechange


• Knowledgeandapplicationofexistingnational and international policies and legalframeworksandtheirapplicationto mainstream biodiversity and sustainable production principles into commercialmarkets.

• Mainstreamingbiodiversitybusinessintothesupplychainsofhighvalueproducts.

Table 3:Keychallengesidentifiedinbiodiversity-basedvaluechains

Value Chain Key challenges identified

Charcoal Species used like Prosopis are invasive and need to be properly managedPartofthetradeisillegalSecurityissuesEnergyefficiencynotwellassessedAlternative to charcoal needed

Tamarind LossofhabitatandofgeneticresourcesPoorproductdevelopmentinitiativesLackofgoodknowledgeofthemarketLand and tree ownership

Gum Arabic Collection technicsQualityofgumfromotherAcaciaspecies

Honey Lack of technical expertise of producers (for example to developdifferent brands of honey from various tree species)Limited community capacity on value chain developmentLackofinformationontechnologiesLackofcapital(Financeandcredit)LackofdataonvolumesproducedInsecurityLackofinfrastructureGender disparity


Carbon WeekknowledgeofimportanceofenvironmentalservicesWeekcapacityformonitoring,verificationandcertificationWeekknowledgeofinternationalpolicyframeworks(Conventions)WeakcapacityonBenefitsharingfromCarbonFacilityLimited informationWeekcapacityinevaluationofcarbonsequestrationWeekcapacityinvaluechaindevelopmentWeekcapacityindevelopingwinningprojectsforCleanDevelopmentmechanismoftheKyotoProtocol.NeedforPeopleempowermentTheoreticalconceptsnottranslatedintolocallanguages

Nature based Tourism PoachingLanduseandlandcoverchangesLandFragmentationOverharvestingEncroachmentHuman-wildlifeconflictsConflictoverwaterresourcesChallengesinconservation:illegalhuntingClimatechangeFragilesustainabilitySafety/securityVisitor entry proceduresLack of capacity to sustainably utilize biodiversity for ecotourism-especially by local communitiesSustainabilityofprotectedareasNaturalResourceconflictsinsteadofconflictsforwater

Fish based value chain Post-harvestlossesandstorageFinancialconstraintsIllegalfishingandoverexploitationPoorinfrastructureInsecurityPricevolatilityPollutionandacidificationLossofmangrovesWaterHyacinthClimatechange


Table 4:Thefishvaluechainactorsandtheircapacitystrengtheningneeds

Capacity needs

Actors in the value chain needing the capacity

Producers/Fishing Communi-ties/Fish farmers/Fish men

Proces-sors

Con-sumers

Busi-ness persons

Conser-vation-ists/Sci-entists

Policy makers/Govern-ment line min-istries

Methodsofconservation/preservation

X X X X X X

Quality standard X X X X X X

Cost effective aquaculture practices

X X - - X -

Development of business plan

X X - X - X

Marketingstrategies X X X - X

Value addition and value creation

X X - X X X

Biodiversity conservation

X X X X X X

Supplychain X X X X X X

Technologicalknowhow

X X X X X

Pricingofcommodities

X X X X X X

Supplyanddemand X X X X X X

Impactofpollutantsonfishdiversity

X X X X X X

Invasivespecies X - - - X X

Controllingpollution - - X X

Effect of climate changeonaquaticecosystems

X X X X X X


Table 5:Thehoneyvaluechainactorsandtheircapacitystrengtheningneeds

Capacity needs


Producers Proces-sors

Con-sumers/Pur-chasers

Business persons /Export-ers

Scien-tists


Modernproductionskills

X X X X -

Hivecolonizationrate and production capacity

X - - - X -

Useofmodernequipment and materials

X X - X X X

Marketintelligence X X - X X

Floralcalendar X X - X X X

Post-harvestskills X X X X -

Value addition X X - X - -

Knowledgeofactors X X - X X X

Financialcapital X X X - X

Governance - - - X X X

Processingtechniques

X X X X X

Informationsources X X X X X X

ITdevelopmentprogrammeforhoney production

X - - X X X

Serviceproviders X X X X X X

Marketsources X X X X X

Sourceoffunding X X - X X X


Capacity needs


Producers Proces-sors

Con-sumers/Pur-chasers

Business persons /Export-ers

Scien-tists


Enablingenvironment

- - - X - X

Infrastructure X X - X - X

Benefitsharing/genderequity

X X - X X X

Table 6:Thetamarindvaluechainactorsandtheircapacitystrengtheningneeds

Capacity needs


Producers/Collectors/ Nursery operators/Farmer com-munities

Proces-sors/Food technol-ogists

Con-sum-ers

Business persons/Traders/investors



Globalmappingof wild Tamarind population

- - - - X -

Trends in loss of geneticresources

X X X X X X

Managementoffarmlands/agroforestrybasedgeneticresources

X X - X X X

Development of new products for new markets

X X X X X X

Marketdynamics X X X X X X

UpdatedInformationonpricing,demand,processingandpackaging

X X - X - X


Capacity needs


Producers/Collectors/ Nursery operators/Farmer com-munities

Proces-sors/Food technol-ogists

Con-sum-ers

Business persons/Traders/investors



Available elite geneticresources

X X - X X X

Speciesintraandinter diversity

X - - X X -

Table 7:Thecarbonvaluechainactorsandtheircapacitystrengtheningneeds

Capacity needs


Local Commu-nities

Devel-opment practi-tioners/ Project manag-ers

Market regula-tors/UN agen-cies/

Devel-opment partners/Business

Scien-tists

Policy makers/Govern-ment line min-istries/

Concept and context of carbon credit value chain andlinkageto biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation

- X X X X X

Development of carbon credit projects

- X X X X -

Implementationofcarbon value chain

X X X X X X

Monitoring,ReportingandVerification(MRV)

X X X X X -

Mobilizingexistingknowledgeonbestpractices in carbon creditprojectsandtheirco-benefits

X X X X X -


Table 8:Nature-basedvaluechainactorsandtheircapacitystrengtheningneeds

Capacity needs

Actors in the value chain needing the capacityLocal Communi-ties

Tourists Rangers/Market reg-ulators/UN agencies/MEA Par-ties

Develop-ment part-ners/Tour guides/Business

Conserva-tionists/ Scien-tists/Extension Officers

Policy makers/Govern-ment line minis-tries/

Policy,Lawsandregulations

X X X X X X

TargetedSpeciesand their value significance

X X X X X X

BiologyandEcologyofspecies

- - X X X X

Populationtrendsof species

- - X X X X

Markets - - X X X XLand use and land coverchanges(driver and impact ofchange)

- - X X X X

Populationdynamics and consumption patterns

X - X X X X

Level of exploitation

X - X X X X

Formandmagnitudeofencroachment

X - X X X X

Ecologicalsustainability

X X X X

Suitabilityofgoverningpolicyframeworks

- - X - X X


8. ANNEXESAnnex 1: List of participantsListofkeynotespeakersduringtheworkshop

Sno. Name Topic Institution

Dr.JandeLeeuw Introductiontobiodiversity-basedvaluechains

ICRAF

Mr.RobinsonNg’ethe Gum arabic value chain AGFOR

Prof.Raina,SureshKumar

Honeybasedvaluechain ICIPE

Dr.PhilipOsano Value chains related to wildlife Based ecotourism

SEI

Dr.PeterMinang Carbon credit value chain ICRAF

Dr.MiyukiLiyama Charcoal value chain ICRAF

Day 2: October 2nd

Mrs.MaryNjuguna Implementingbiodiversity-basedvaluechains

SNV

Prof.YayeAissetou Curriculum development value chain and strengthening

ANAFE

Dr.JanVadenabeele the role of private enterprise in the development of biodiversity-based value chains

Better Globe Forestry

Dr.KiringariKamau Policyandinstitutionalcontextofbiodiversity-based value chains

Cabinet Secretary,Agribusiness(GoK,MoA)

https://owa.cgiar.org/owa/redir.aspx?SURL=HX_KPvUt_FZMa3jUJyVILWSo6KbsHDxzB5DrYYSpqD3VKtw-bLrSCG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAagBhAG4AQABiAGUAdAB0AGUAcgBnAGwAbwBiAGUAZgBvAHIAZQBzAHQAcgB5AC4AYwBvAG0A&URL=mailto%3ajan%40betterglobeforestry.com


List of participants during the workshop

Sno. Name Institution Email address

HassanAliYusuf Lecturer,BanadirUniversity [email protected]

MohamudAhmedMadey

MinistryofEnvironment,Jubbalandstate

[email protected]

AdamAliMohamed Lecturer, East Africa UniversitySomalia

[email protected]

MohamedKhadarAbdiMohamed

DeanoftheFacultyofAgriculture,BanadirUniversity,

[email protected]

DrHaredAbdullahiNur ProfessoratAmoudUniversity,Borama,SomalilandandGolisUniversity

[email protected]

AbdiqaniAhmedFarah FulltimelecturerattheEastAfricaUniversity

[email protected]

JudithSyombuaMbau CollegeofAgricultureandVeterinarySciences,Dept.ofLandResourceManagement&AgriculturalTechnology(LARMAT),UniversityofNairobi

[email protected]

AnthonyMichaelOchino

Director,Training&Education Conservation SolutionsAfrika;PartnerForestManagementConservationSolutionsAfrika

[email protected]

WekesaLinusLeslieChesoli

DeputyRegionalDirectorfortheCoastEco-RegionResearchProgramme,Technical Coordinator to the Kenya Coastal Development Project(KCDP)

[email protected]

MaarifaAliMwakumanya

DeanSchoolofEnvironmental and Earth Science

[email protected]

MathengeGitonga HeadResearch,LiaisonandProjectDevelopment

[email protected]\












mailto:[email protected]\



NambiriEverlynWamali Department of Environmental Education, KenyattaUniversity,Kenya

[email protected]

TitusNdiwa Department of clinical studies,UniversityofNairobi,Kenya.

[email protected]

PerisKariuki NMK,scientist [email protected]

SammyCarsan ScientistICRAF [email protected]

YayeAissetou ExecutiveDirectorANAFE [email protected]

JamesAcworth IGADTechnicalAdvisor [email protected]

Jan De Leeuw ICRAF,Drylandscientist;PIBMPProject

[email protected]

JosephatNyongesa ICRAF,IGAD,BMP,Projectmanager

[email protected]

Grace Koech Researcher,ICRAF [email protected]










List of participants during the field excursion

Sno. Name Institution Contact details

HassanAliYusuf FulltimelecturerBanadirUniversity

[email protected]

MohamudAhmedMadey

MinistryofEnvironment,Jubbaland

[email protected]


DeanFacultyofAgricultureBanadirUniversity

[email protected]

MathengeGitonga KFS [email protected]

TitusNdiwa Department of clinical studies,UniversityofNairobi,Kenya.

[email protected]


DeanFacultyofEnvironment,PwaniUniversity,

[email protected]

OlaviLuukkanen ProfessorEmeritus,ViikkiTropicalResourcesInstitute(VITRI),UniversityofHelsinki.

[email protected]

JanDeLeeuw ICRAF,Drylandscientist;PIBMPProject

[email protected]

JosephatNyongesa IGAD,BMP,Projectmanager

[email protected]












List of participants during the write shop


HassanAliYusuf BanadirUniversity [email protected]

MohamudAhmedMadey

MinistryofEnvironment [email protected]


DeanoftheFacultyofAgriculture,BanadirUniversity,

[email protected]

JudithSyombuaMbau Lecturer,UniversityofNairobi [email protected]

WekesaLinusLeslieChesoli

DeputyRegionalDirectorfortheCoastEco-RegionResearchProgramme,Technical Coordinator to the Kenya Coastal Development Project(KCDP)

[email protected]


Dean school of Environmental andEarthScience

[email protected]

MathengeGitonga HeadResearch,LiaisonandProjectDevelopment

[email protected]

DorothyWanja DepartmentofZoology,NationalMuseumsofKenya

[email protected]

EvelyneWemali Department of Environmental Education, Kenyatta University,Kenya

[email protected];

TitusNdiwa Department of clinical studies, UniversityofNairobi,Kenya.

[email protected]

OlaviLuukkanen ProfessorEmeritus,ViikkiTropicalResourcesInstitute(VITRI),UniversityofHelsinki.

[email protected]

JanDeLeeuw ICRAF,Drylandscientist;PIBMPProject

[email protected]

JosephatNyongesa IGAD,BMP,Projectmanager [email protected]


SammyCarsan Scientist,ICRAF [email protected]

YayeAissetou ExecutivedirectorANAFE [email protected]









mailto:%[email protected]









Annex 2: Workshop Programme

BIODIVERSITY-BASED VALUE CHAINS

Theme: Building a network of researchers, educators and developers to improve Biodiversity-based Value Chain Development in the Horn of Africa

Organizers: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in collaboration with African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resource Education (ANAFE)

Dates: October 1st –2nd 2015

Venue: ICRAF Campus, Un Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya.

Supported by EU funded Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Biodiversity Management Programme (BMP)


TIME ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE

Day 1, October 1st

08.30-09.00 Registration Mrs.EuniceWamwangi

09.00-09.05 Settingthescene Prof.YayeAissetou

09.05-09.10 WelcomeremarksbyPrincipalInvestigator Dr.JanDeLeeuw

09.10-09.15 WelcomeremarksbytheRegionalCoordinator Dr.JeremiasMowo

09.15-09.25 OpeningDGICRAF Dr.TonySimons

09.25–09.50 Introductions All

09.50-10.00 GroupPhoto All

10.00-10.30 CoffeeBreak All

10.30-10.40 BriefonIGADBMPProject Mr.JamesAcworth

10.40-10.50 Objectivesandexpectedoutputoftheworkshop Mr.JosephatNyongesa

10.50-11.05 Introductiontovaluechainsinagriculture Dr.JanDeLeeuw

11.05-11.20 Challengesoflinkingvaluechainsandbiodiversityconservation

Mr.JamesAcworth/Dr.JandeLeeuw

11.20-11.40 Groupworkexperiencebiodiversityvaluechains Groups

11.20-12.30 Plenarydiscussiononexperienceandchallengesinbiodiversity-based value chains

Prof.AissetouYaye

12.30-13.30 Lunchbreak Mrs.EuniceWamwangi

13.30-13.45 Gum arabic value chain Dr.BenChikamai

13.45-14.00 Charcoal value chain Dr.MiyukiLiyama

14.00-14.15 Honeybasedvaluechain Prof.RainaSureshKuma

14.15-14.45 Plenarydiscussion Dr.JandeLeeuw

14.45-15.15 Teabreak Mrs.EuniceWamwangi

15.15-15.30 Value chains related to wildlife-based ecotourism Dr.PhilipOsano

15.30-15.45 value chain Dr.JanDeLeeuw

15.45-16.00 Carbon Credit Value Chain Dr.PeterMinang

16.00-16.30 Plenarydiscussion Mr.JamesAcworth

16.30-17.00 Objectives,proposedactivitiesandoutputsfortheregionalnetworkonbiodiversity-basedvaluechainsandtheexchangeprogramme

Dr.JanDeLeeuwandMr.JamesAcworth



Day 2, October 2nd

9.00-9.15 Recapitulationofthefirstday Dr.SammyCarsan

Parallelsession1Writeshopandexcursion

9.15-9.45 Group1discussionontheexchangeprogrammeandthe various value chains

Facilitated by Dr. Jan deLeeuw

9.45-10.00 Formationofvaluechaingroups FacilitatedbyProf.YayeAissetou

Parallelsession2Regionalnetworkofexpertise FacilitatedbyMr.JamesAcworth

9.15-10.00 Group 2 discussion on regional network for biodiversity-based value chains

FacilitatedbyMr.JamesAcworth

10.00-10.30 Coffee break Mrs.EuniceWamwangi

10.30-10.45 SNVexperienceinimplementingbiodiversity-basedvalue chains

Mrs.MaryNjuguna;SNVKenya

10.45-11.00 Roleofprivateorganizationsonpolicyandinstitutionsof biodiversity-based value chains

Dr.JanVadenabeele;BetterGlobeForestry

11.00-11.15 Roleofthegovernmentonpolicyandinstitutionalcontext of biodiversity-based value chains

Dr.KaringaiKamau;Advisor to the Cabinet Secretaryagribusiness

11.15-11.45 Plenary discussion

11.45-12.30 Paneldiscussiononcurriculumdevelopment,trainingand research in BBVC

Panelists:Dr.DanielSila(JKUAT,Kenya);Dr.MohamedKhadar(AbdiMohamed(UniversityofBanadi);DrHaredAbdullahiNur(ProfessoratAmoudUniversity,Borama,SomalilandandGolisUniversity)andDr.AbdiqaniAhmedFarah(EastAfricaUniversityofSomalia)

Prof.YayeAissetou

12.30–13.30 Lunch Mrs.EuniceWamwangi



Parallelsession2Regionalnetworkofexpertise FacilitatedbyMr.JamesAcworth

13.30-14.15 GroupdiscussiononsettinguptheBBVCnetwork Mr.JamesAcworth

Parallelsession1Writeshopandexcursion

13.30-14.15 Groupdiscussiononplanningwriteshopandexcursionvaluechaingroups

Dr.JandeLeeuw

14.15–15.00 Presentationsbynetworkandvaluechaingroups Group leaders

15.00–15.30 Teabreak Mrs.EuniceWamwangi

15.30-16.30 Wayforward:proposedstrategyandplanningfor[1]thewriteshopand[2]theregionalnetworkoftoimprove Biodiversity Value Chain development

Dr.JandeLeeuw

16.30-16.45 Summaryofwhathasbeenagreedupon Dr.SammyCarsan

16.45-18.00 Closureanddrinks Dr.JeremiasMowo


Annex 3: Programme write shop and excursion

Time Activity Led by

8.30-9.00

9.00-9.10

9.10-9.20

9.20-9.35

9.35-10.00

10.00-10.30

10.30-11.30

11.30-1700

Registration

OfficialopeningbytheDirectorGeneralICRAF

WelcomeregionalcoordinatorEastandSouthernAfrica

Introductiontotheprogrammewriteshopandexcursion

Presentationoftheoutlineofthereport

Coffeebreakandgroupphoto

Plenarydiscussionontheoutlineofthereport

Breakoutgroupsdiscussingvaluechainchapters

Lunch

Plenarydiscussionandconfirmationwritingteams

VCgroupdraftingchaptersonspecificvaluechains

E.Wamwangi

A.Simons

J.Mowo

J.Nyongesa

J.deLeeuw

AlbertMwangi

J.deLeeuw

Groupwork

O.Luukkanen

Groupwork

9.00-9.15

9.15-17.00

Summaryofday1


J.deLeeuw

Groupwork

9.00-11.00

11.00-12.30

12.30-13.30

13.30-14.00

14.00-17.00

Plenarypresentationanddiscussionprogressgroupwork

Discussion on need for capacity and curricula

Lunch

DeparturetoICIPE

VisitICIPEincludingalectureaboutcommercialinsectprogrammeactivitiesanditsvaluechainactors;markets;enablingenvironment;biodiversityconservation-livelihoodslinkages;tourtothelabsandacupofteaattheguesthouse

DeparturetoICRAF

J.deLeeuw

A.Yaye

RainaSuresh,ICIPE

9.00-17.00

17.00


Submitdraftchapterto3peersforinternalpeerreview

Groupwork

Chapter teams

8.00

16.00

19.00

20.00

DeparturebybusfromICRAF

ArrivalatRockCamp

Dinner

Briefingonthenextday



6.30

7.30

8.00

8.30

10.00

11.30

13.00

14.00

16.30

18.30

21.00

Breakfast

DepartureforKasigau

Arrival,Introductions

Presentation

PresentationSocialandbiodiversitymonitoring

VisittoSasenyiRockCatchment

Lunch

Meetingcommunityrepresentatives

Visit the Conservancy and ecotourism facility

ReturntoRockSide

Summaryoflessonslearnedandbriefingnextday

Wildlifeworks;

RobDodson

MwangiGithiru

LaurianLenjo

LaurianLenjo

EricSagwe

6.30

7.30

1400-18.00

BreakfastatRockCamp

DepartureforMalindi

VisittoArabukoSokokeForest

Visittoconservationcore==sitesofhighbiodiversityconservation

Roleofbiodiversityonaddressinglivelihoods

Collaborativebiodiversityconservation,challengesandbest practices

DeparturetoScorpioVilla,Malindi

Summaryoflessonslearnedandbriefingnextday

KFS;

BlessingtonMaghanga(KFS)



6.30

7.30-8.00

0800-1400

14.3-16.30

16.30

Breakfast

DeparturetovisithoneyandbutterflyvaluechainsinArabukoSokoke

A lecture to brief the participant on;

Theproject

Honeyvaluechaindevelopment

Successstoryofcollaborativebiodiversitymanagement,highlightingchallenges,andbestpractices

Demonstration of the process of value chain developmentforhoneyandbutterflyvaluechains;thevaluechainactors;markets;enablingenvironment;biodiversityconservation-livelihoodslinkages

Question and answer session

VisittoMidaCreekConservationGroup

A lecture to brief the participant on;

• Theproject,valuechaindevelopmentonfish,ecotourismandmangrove

• Demonstration of conservation sites established andtheirbenefits

• Participationincollaborativebiodiversitymanagement,challengesbenefitsandbestpractice

DeparturefromMalinditorocksitecamp

8.00-9.00

3.00

Breakfast

DeparturetoNairobi

ArrivalatICRAF



9.00-10.00

10.00-13.00

13.00-1700

Plenarydiscussionlessonslearnedduringexcursion

Chaptergroupsreviewingpeerreviewandrevisingtext

Lunch

PlenaryondeclarationonneedtoincludeBBVCincurricula

Groupworkrevisingchapters

A.Yaye

9.00-10.30

10.30

11.00-12.30

12.30-1700

Groupworkonchapters

DepartureforICRAF

PresentationofthereportatLundgrenhallICRAF

DeparturetoOakPlace

Lunch

Groupworkfinalizingchaptersandsubmittingdepository

Groupwork

Participants

Groupwork

9.00-10.30

10.30-11.00

11.00-13.00

Plenarydiscussiononlessonslearnedandwayforward

Coffeebreak

Evaluation of the write shop and excursion

Lunch

Closureoftheprogram

JanDeLeeuw

World Agroforestry Centre, United Nations Avenue, GigiriP. O. Box 30677-00100, Nairobi, Kenya

Phone + (254) 20 722 4000, Fax + (254) 20 722 4001Via USA phone (1-650) 833-6645

Via USA fax (1-650) 833-6646Email: [email protected]

Website: www.worldagroforestry.org Science for a food-secure future

Documents

Biodiversity-Based Value Chains · Biodiversity-Based Value Chains A review of best practices for selected biodiversity value chains that ... GAPAs Gum Arabic Producers Associations