Livelihoods-conservation initiatives: Evidence of socio-economic impacts from organic honey production in Mwingi, Eastern Kenya

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

Livelihoods-conservation initiatives: Evidence of socio-economic impacts from organic honey production in Mwingi, Eastern Kenya

T

Peter Musinguzia,b, , Aske Skovmand Bosselmanna, Mariève Pouliota ⁎

a b

Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frb. C, Denmark UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale 2351, Australia

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Community based livelihoods-conservation initiatives Farmer cooperatives Organic certification Organic honey Rural livelihoods

Community-based initiatives with a double objective of improving rural livelihoods and conserving forest resources face the challenge of balancing the two objectives without creating trade-offs. Our study investigates the socio-economic performance of a community-based initiative that uses cooperative-driven organic certification of honey producers in Mwingi, Eastern Kenya, to improve livelihoods and acacia woodland management. Data were collected through a household survey of 303 beekeepers from 38 organic certified and 16 non-certified beekeeper groups. More data were collected using key informant interviews, informal conversations, participant observation, participatory rural appraisal, internal document reviews and secondary sources. The survey included questions regarding beekeepers' livelihood activities, organisation involvement, quantity of honey produced and sold, net honey income and welfare perceptions after certification (2015) and before certification (2008), retrospectively. The results showed minimal to no significant impacts of certification on households' incomes, honey quantity or sales prices, as the general development, though positive, followed that of the noncertified households. The lack of impacts stemmed from failure to monitor and technical backstopping of certified beekeepers, a poor cooperative management and mistrust among the members and Mwingi organic cooperative board. The board mainly bought honey from a non-certified middleman thereby undermining the Mwingi organic cooperative's values as well as their own potential niche market. On a positive note, the cooperative's honey market place, receiving customers from afar, has the potential to support the development of a niche organic market outlet. However, this requires reconnection of the cooperative to its members, trust rebuilding and transparent management of the cooperative. The study exemplifies a case of community-based livelihoods-conservation initiative which did not take local community capacity development and more general long-term project sustainability into consideration.

1. Introduction The dual objective of local, economic development and natural resource or biodiversity conservation has been the focus of many studies and the subject of a longstanding debate between conservationists, social scientists and practitioners. Among the many published studies on the topic, a geographical pattern emerges. In Africa, studies focus on community based natural resource management, governance and intitiative evaluations (Dave et al., 2017; Brown and Lassoie, 2010; Chomba and Nkhata, 2016; Makupa, 2013; Matose and Watts, 2010; Nkhata and Breen, 2010; Ouko, 2018; Shephard et al., 2010). In Asia, Harbi et al., (2018), Chou et al., (2018), Beauchamp et al. (2018), Ulambayar et al. (2017), Brooks and Tshering (2010), Ormsby and Bhagwat (2010) and Saito-Jensen et al. (2010) uncover community use

⁎

of natural resources, their management and obstacles such as elite capture. Other livelihoods-conservation and natural resource management studies draw from the US (Belton and Jackson-Smith, 2010), Australia (Howard, 2010), South and central America (Forcella and Huybrechs, 2015; Rodríguez-Izquierdo et al., 2010; Malkamäki et al., 2016). These cases focus generally on evaluation, detailed understanding of processes of local community livelihoods and achievement of conservation objectives. The above studies portray experiences, and some suggest best practices for livelihood conservation/ natural resource management interventions. For instance, Shephard et al. (2010) from an evaluation of a livelihoods-conservation community Hippo sanctuary shows local people's livelihoods improvement and reduced threats to Hippos and improvements in other biodiversity species in the area. Forcella and

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Musinguzi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.09.010 Received 12 January 2018; Received in revised form 12 August 2018; Accepted 11 September 2018 Available online 28 September 2018 1389-9341/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

Huybrechs (2015) indicate mixed results for both conservation and livelihoods and call for a need to balance the social and environmental outcomes. Brown and Lassoie (2010) and Chomba and Nkhata (2016) indicate that the success of the initiatives they studied was constrained by poor institutional structures and elite capture. Makupa (2013) finds many challenges including low community involvement, lack of transparency and accountability among others as key hinderances to fully achieving improved livelihoods and conservation at community level. Matose and Watts (2010) also find that the initiative's goals at community level can be hampered by poor accountability processes. Ulambayar et al. (2017) find no differences in the social outcomes of a community-based rangeland management intervention and indicate a need to achieve livelihood outcomes as key incentives for conservation. McShane et al. (2011) note that it is challenging to balance conservation and human wellbeing and suggests principles that could be essential while thinking about trade-offs. Other studies also highlight the role of the communities in livelihoods-conservation initiatives e.g. (Dyer et al., 2014; Kothari et al., 2013; Ouko, 2018; Shephard et al., 2010; Sunderlin et al., 2005). Many studies report negative outcomes from the initiatives (Brown and Lassoie, 2010; Chomba and Nkhata, 2016; Forcella and Huybrechs, 2015; Krishnakumar et al., 2015; Malla, 2000; Mekonnen, 2000; Ouko, 2018). While a few report positive results (Fomété and Vermaat, 2001; Shephard et al., 2010). Major reasons for successful community based livelihoods-conservation initiatives have been identified (Beauchamp et al., 2018; Brooks et al., 2012; Muriithi and Kenyon, 2002; Ouko, 2018; Scherr et al., 2002; Shephard et al., 2010). They include among others; thoroughly developed project designs, local community capacity building and considering the context of the project areas (Ibid). Based on a systematic review, Oldekop et al. (2016) indicate that livelihoods-conservation initiatives might achieve the dual goals in case the local population benefits. Sunderlin et al. (2005) Identify three major areas for further research related to livelihoods-conservation initiatives: i) geographic location of poverty and remaining natural forests; ii) the potential role of forests in poverty alleviation, and iii) possibilities for compatibility of forest-based poverty alleviation (FBPA) and forest conservation. Filling in these gaps would enable an understanding of the extent to which forests and their resources can contribute to poverty reduction and of the compatibility of the objectives of FBPA and forest conservation. Almost a decade later, Wunder et al. (2014) note that there is still need for research moving beyond annual income measurements to comparable temporal data that could contribute to further understanding of livelihoods-conservation initiatives and their contribution to poverty reduction. Opportunities that result from FPBA for smallholders often include some form of certification of forest product, which provides for a niche market. Angelsen and Wunder (2003) note that it is vital to understand these niche market potentials for certified forest products and more broadly, market-based livelihoods-conservation approaches. Angelsen and Wunder (2003) also called for better understanding of the conditions required for poor households to capture such opportunities in the face of market liberalisation and globalisation. Forest niche markets and certification of forest products is a path that has been trodden previously world-wide and has been mainly driven by foreign aid in the developing world. Forest certification, for example, was a response to the degradation of forests and deforestation globally, especially in the tropics (Auld et al., 2008). The certification targeted the private sector as most international forest policy negotiations had failed (ibid). Forest certifications originally focused on timber but now include non-timber forest products-NTFPs (Mallet, 2001; Pierce and Laird, 2003). It also includes certified crops grown adjacent to forests, such as shade coffee (Takahashi and Todo, 2017). Recent studies on forest certification show how forest certification schemes in Tanzania have improved livelihoods and forest biodiversity (Kalonga et al., 2016; Kalonga and Kulindwa, 2017). Regarding NTFPs certification, four main certification schemes have been fundamental; Organic, Fairtrade, product quality and forest management (Auld et al.,

2008; Mallet, 2001). As a way of improving smallholders' livelihoods and conservation of resources, organic farming was introduced in main stream development. Within the forest-livelihoods arena, organic certification involves NTFPs to enable communities living adjacent to forests obtain premium prices from the certified NTFPs or products they obtain from or adjacent forests such as honey, brazil nuts etc. (Ayuya et al., 2015; Duchelle et al., 2014; Girma and Gardebroek, 2015). For instance, Duchelle et al. (2014), in a study of three certification schemes involving Brazil nuts, found that organic certification was associated with better post-harvest handling and higher prices. Girma and Gardebroek (2015) indicate higher prices received by organic beekeepers involved in the sale of honey in Ethiopia using contracts. The authors further note that partnerships with various agencies including cooperatives, donors, government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are essential to maximize participants' benefits from such livelihoods-conservation initiatives. On the other hand, such partnerships can also proliferate undesired results such as over dependency of beneficiaries on partners which creates a dependency syndrome within local communities that might affect the sustainability of the initiatives (Ayuya et al., 2015; Brown, 2001). Even more complex is when the livelihoods-conservation initiatives use multiple instruments to improve their success for the beneficiaries to reap such as cooperative and organic certification forms. Such complex forms would often involve a range of actors besides the certified producers, such as NGOs, public authorities and other operators in the value chain. All these hold a stake, which may influence the socioeconomic and environmental benefits accruing to the producers (Klooster, 2006). There are great prospects of such market-based livelihoods-conservation initiatives to yield positive environmental and livelihoods improvements (Scherr et al., 2002). However, there are still mixed results which necessitate further studies (Ayuya et al., 2015; Girma and Gardebroek, 2015; Lowore et al., 2018; Lowore and Wood, 2014; Raina et al., 2009). In unravelling the livelihoods-conservation linkages in initiatives where cooperatives and organic certification are part of the impact pathway, it is crucial to understand what influences and facilitates poor households' opportunities for benefit capture at the local level (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003; Sunderlin et al., 2005). This paper attempts to contribute to the current discourse on livelihoods-conservation initiatives and their impacts on the livelihoods of communities living adjacent to protected areas (forests and game reserves). The overall aim is to advance the understanding of the status and impacts of locally certified organic beekeeping on the livelihoods of the certified smallholder beekeepers living adjacent to protected areas and within acacia woodlands as forest buffer zones. A further objective is to understand the factors that influence the ability of smallholder beekeepers to benefit from such an organic honey production and marketing system. As such, the study advances the understanding of outcomes of livelihoods-conservation initiatives by exploring the local circumstances of Mwingi organic cooperative and its members and factors which might have underlaid the observed conditions. This is done through a case study of acacia woodland organic honey production and marketing from Mwingi, Eastern Kenya formally known as Mwingi honey marketplace, hereafter Mwingi organic cooperative. The Mwingi organic cooperative was itself developed from a donor funded programme aimed at reversing the problems of forest resource loss (Chapeyama, 2008). The programme was based on the assumption that the management of the national forest reserves would be strengthened due to improved incentives for collaborative forest management with communities. In Mwingi, the programme activities involved organic beekeeping for honey production and butterflies for silk meant to improve people's livelihoods thereby incentivizing forest conservation (Chapeyama, 2008). Our study finds that there is minimal to no significant impacts of organic beekeeping on households' incomes, honey quantity or sales prices. Though there is a general positive development trend in terms of honey prices, honey sales and total income of the households, the non-certified households slightly outperform the 133

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

organic certified. Reasons for such a scenario stem from low capacity within the community to manage their own cooperative activities, lack of monitoring and technical backstopping of the organic beekeepers and poor management of the Mwingi organic cooperative. The poor cooperative management in turn led to purchase of non-certified honey from non-members, and mistrust among the Mwingi organic cooperative members and their leaders. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section two presents a brief overview of livelihoods-conservation initiatives, emergence of livelihoods-conservation initiatives in Kenya and beekeeping, forest conservation and cooperatives linkages. Section three presents the methods used including a description of our study area and sampling, data collection and analysis techniques. Section four presents and describes our study results while section five offers a discussion of the results. Section six concludes our study offering recommendations and insights for further studies.

2.2. Emergence of livelihoods-conservation initiatives in Kenya Kenya established forest and wildlife protected areas during the British colonial era (Ofcansky, 1984). The process did not involve the local communities who lived in the areas and saw their livelihoods adversely impacted by it (Norton-Griffiths and Southey, 1995). Realisation of the need for collaborative forest management and its equitable use led to the introduction of livelihoods-conservation initiatives that nonetheless had limited success (Muriithi and Kenyon, 2002; Ouko, 2018). Due to issues of corruption in the Kenyan forestry sector (Klopp, 2012), government-funded livelihoods-conservation initiatives became less common; instead, initiatives were being funded by the international community (Chapeyama, 2008).Only a few studies have evaluated their impact on local communities (Mitlin et al., 2007; Ouko, 2018). 2.3. Beekeeping, forest conservation and cooperatives linkages

2. Background

Beekeeping has been promoted by many agencies to improve rural livelihoods in many parts of the world (Amulen et al., 2017; Carroll and Kinsella, 2013; Hecklé et al., 2018; Jacobsen, 2010; Lowore et al., 2018; Pokhrel, 2009). In Africa, Ethiopia is the leading producer of honey with many smallholders practicing forest beekeeping (Lowore et al., 2018; Lowore and Wood, 2014). Beekeeping has been identified as an activity that can be profitable and incentivise beekeepers to conserve and rehabilitate natural resources (Agera, 2011; Gemeda, 2014; Minja and Nkumilwa, 2016; Dave et al., 2017; Malkamäki et al., 2016; Harbi et al., 2018). Studies also highlight the linkage between beekeeping and forest conservation, e.g. beekeepers have incentives to protect trees around their hives through early burning and apiaries show improved regeneration (Augustino et al., 2016; Lalika and Machangu, 2008; Wiersum and Endalamaw, 2013). Other studies note that beekeepers can possibly contribute to forest protection given their beekeeping activities though they may not identify as conservationists (Ingram, 2014; Ingram and Njikeu, 2011). However, it is evident that more empirical studies are required to deeply understand the links between beekeeping and conservation (Lowore et al., 2018; Minja and Nkumilwa, 2016). Many beekeeping initiatives have used a cooperative form as a means of farmer collective action (Fisher, 1997; Markelova and Mwangi, 2010; Paumgarten et al., 2012; Rahoveanu et al., 2012). Frick et al. (2006) note that many benefits can accrue when beekeepers start a cooperative. Indeed, some beekeeping cooperatives have benefitted their participants (Girma and Gardebroek, 2015; Teheux, 2014) while others have failed (Biruk, 2014; Brown, 2001). Cooperatives generally have long been used as an engine for rural development, taking advantage of their institutional arrangements to facilitate marketing, agricultural activities and other social benefits (Ma and Abdulai, 2016). A recent literature review on cooperatives notes that they are portrayed as flawed and complex business organizations but nonetheless can positively impact on their members (Grashuis and Su, 2018). Positive results of farmers engaging in cooperatives have been reported, especially when the cooperatives are highly organized, have transparent and good leaders who are accountable to the members (Baka, 2011; Fox, 1992; Girma and Gardebroek, 2015; Grashuis and Su, 2018; Méndez et al., 2010; Mojo et al., 2017; Wossen et al., 2017). However, cooperative-based initiatives risk failing (Markelova and Mwangi, 2010), due to poor and non-accountable management committees (Akwabi-Ameyaw, 1997; Baka, 2011; Sira and Craig, 1991) and overdependence on grants (Brown, 2001). Such issues might lead to the disintegration of the cooperatives (Baka, 2011; Gray and Kraenzle, 2002).

2.1. Overview of livelihoods-conservation initiatives In tandem with community based conservation efforts in the struggle to eradicate poverty while conserving the environment, many livelihoods-conservation interventions have increasingly been funded by international agencies (Roe and Elliott, 2006). These have been given different names by various academic authors such as alternative livelihood projects, bio-enterprise initiatives, livelihood-focused interventions with the most common name being integrated conservation and development projects- ICDPs (Roe et al., 2015; Roe and Elliott, 2006; Wren and Speranza, 2010; Wright et al., 2016). Our study adopts the term “livelihoods-conservation initiatives” to refer to such interventions. The thinking behind the livelihoods-conservation initiatives' approach has been widely applied in many interventions ranging from community development, forest and wildlife conservation to wet land and marine conservation (Wright et al., 2016). Currently, other interventions such as payments for ecosystem services (PES) have features that indicate that the livelihoods-conservation initiative thinking is embedded within the PES interventions (Redford et al., 2013). Most of the livelihoods-conservation initiatives invest in local business strategies targeting local communities (Roe and Elliott, 2006). Recently, Wright et al. (2016) proposes that such interventions should be known as livelihood-focused interventions in general to avoid the unbecoming assumptions usually coined with livelihoods-conservation initiatives. These initiatives have been heavily contested in the academia regarding whether they have achieved their intended goals (Roe et al., 2015; Wright et al., 2016). Ferraro and Pattanayak (2006) for example called for empirical evaluation of such initiatives. To date, research indicates that very few livelihoods-conservation initiatives have been successful (Harbi et al., 2018; Chou et al., 2018; Beauchamp et al., 2018; Ouko, 2018; Roe et al., 2015).These authors note that their findings indicate that success might be achieved when programs are properly designed to align with the local contexts (Ibid). Another livelihoods-conservation initiative was evaluated by Bauch et al. (2014) and found positive impacts on household incomes but no discernible impacts on other household variables and forest conservation. The authors underline that the lasting impacts on both livelihoods and conservation from such initiatives might be negligible (ibid). Most of the livelihoods-conservation initiatives have failed and there is a gap in our understanding of success determinants (Roe et al., 2015). As such, further studies to explore and lead to an understanding of factors and factor constellations for the success or failure of such initiatives and their long term sustainability would be helpful (McKinnon et al., 2016; Roe et al., 2015; Wren and Speranza, 2010).

134

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

Fig. 1. Map of Kenya showing the three study divisions.

2009 (ICIPE, 2013). Locally certified organic beekeeping in our study refers to group certification, a locally-initiated certification system whose control structure is not regulated purely by an external or thirdparty certification body. This structure is advantageous in greatly reducing certification costs while providing an assurance system of high quality standards of organic production (De Alcântra and De Alcântra, 2004; Herberg, 2007; Markandya and Setboonsarng, 2015). Further still, Mwingi lies in arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) characterized by low rainfall, high rain variability, high temperatures and frequent droughts (Wren, 2012). These ASALs in Kenya are noted as suitable for beekeeping as part of a household livelihood strategy (Carroll and Kinsella, 2013) and they are a home to about 90% of Kenya's forest resources (Wren, 2012). Furthermore, the livelihoods of the people in Kitui county, where the poverty level exceeds 65%, well above the national average, are based on small scale rain fed agricultural production, pastoralism and beekeeping (Ayuya et al., 2015; Carroll and Kinsella, 2013). In Mwingi, many smallholder beekeepers are organized in groups participating in both conventional and organic honey production and marketing activities. However, by default, “all honey production in Mwingi is considered organic because of minimal usage of external inputs in agricultural production and existence of forest buffer zones” (Ayuya et al., 2015, p. 28). Mwingi honey market place was a community-based organisation (CBO) in 2002 but is currently registered as a farmers' cooperative named Mwingi beekeepers and crops cooperative society limited. The Mwingi organic cooperative is the most important smallholder honey producer group in the district and has approximately 2000 members organized in small village based common interest groups (Ayuya et al., 2015).Technical assistance in form of certification trainings for members of the Mwingi organic cooperative and beehive materials were supported by ICIPE and the beekeepers were subsequently certified by the Kenya Organic Agricultural Network (KOAN). According to ICIPE (ICIPE, 2013), the

3. Methods 3.1. Study area The study was conducted in Mwingi district in Kitui county in Eastern Kenya (Fig. 1). Due to extensive woodlands and bushland, the Kitui county is an important charcoal source supplying nearby Nairobi and the majority of households in the county depend on fuelwood for cooking (Bär and Ehrensperger, 2018). Mwingi is home to Kenya's second largest national forest reserve as well as other smaller protected mountain areas (Kenya Wildlife Service, 2015, Kenya Wildlife Service, 2007; Kitui County government, 2015). All of these protected areas are categorized under dry and woodland forests and are inhabited by several endangered wildlife species (ibid).This was also the reason why the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) selected Mwingi for the implementation of their programme “Developing Incentives for Community Participation in Forest Conservation Through the Use of Commercial Insects in Kenya” that ran from 2004 to 2008, co-funded by the United Nations Development Programme-Global Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF) (Chapeyama, 2008; ICIPE, 2013; Raina et al., 2009). The program aimed at stopping forest degradation through forest buffer zone management and simultaneously reduce poverty through increased income from organic beekeeping (ibid). Mwingi was selected for our study because beekeeping in this area has been an important economic activity for generations and a considerable amount of good quality honey is produced here compared to all other areas in the country (Muli et al., 2007; Muya, 2004; Raina et al., 2009; Egelyng et al., 2017). Further to this, Kitui county in which Mwingi is located has had a well-developed pro-poor organic agriculture (OA) production program and marketing systems facilitated mainly by NGOs (Ayuya et al., 2015). This included OA training and subsequent local organic certification of smallholder beekeepers in 135

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

organic beekeeping initiative improved the smallholders' productivity by 10–18% with a corresponding increase in household income of 15%.

4. Results

3.2. Sampling, data collection and analysis

Table 1 below shows the descriptive statistics of the study participants. In terms of these characteristics, we find no significant differences between the certified and non-certified households in terms of size, sex and age of household head, occupations, and land size. Both the certified and non-certified household heads have an average age of 55 and are dominantly male headed. However, in 2008, the non-certified households had more adult males compared to the certified households (p = 0.07). The certified household heads have a relatively higher education level compared to the non-certified (p = 0.001). While there was no significant difference in total household assets in 2008, the non-certified households have a significantly higher total asset value compared to the certified in 2015 (p = 0.001). The noncertified households are involved in more income generating activities as compared to the certified (p = 0.002) in 2015 with no difference observed between the two groups in 2008. Total household income of the non-certified is higher than that of the certified households in 2015 (p = 0.06) with no significant difference in 2008. The certified households were in fewer groups in 2008 compared to the non-certified (p = 0.03), but their total group memberships increased significantly higher compared to the non-certified households in 2015 (p = 0.01). The precision of figures reported in income surveys can be hampered by respondents' limited recollection ability. Thus, it was important to learn about the beekeepers' perceptions of their net income, reasons for the perceptions, and if their welfare was related to certification and access to the Mwingi organic cooperative market. The data indicate no significant difference between the certified and non-certified beekeepers' perceptions regarding their welfare in both 2008 and 2015 (Pearson X2 = 3.16,3 d.f, p = 0.37 and Pearson, X2 = 0.67,3 d.f, p = 0.88), respectively. The non-certified and certified households, which perceived to be in the poor and average welfare category in 2008, constitute 82.2% and 85.4% of the sample, respectively. Likewise, in 2015, the percentages in the poor and average categories are high; 96.6% and 97.8%, respectively. However, all households improved between 2008 and 2015 in terms of income, asset value and number of income generating activities. No significant results are observed in the quantity of honey produced in 2008 and 2015, nor in honey prices of the certified and noncertified households in 2008 (Table 2). The median honey price received by the certified beekeepers is significantly higher than that of the non-certified (p = 0.05) in 2015. Results further indicate that the certified and non-certified households do not rank differently the importance of beekeeping for both food security and income generation purposes in 2015. However, for 2008, the non-certified households rank beekeeping as relatively more important for income generation compared to the certified households (p = 0.04). The certified households incur more variable costs in beekeeping when compared to the noncertified in 2015 (p = 0.003), while there was no difference in 2008. Consequently, the non-certified households have a significantly higher beekeeping gross margin in 2015 when compared to the certified households (p = 0.05) with no difference in margins in 2008. Noncertified households possess a higher number of traditional beehives in 2008 (p = 0.04). Further still, the certified households possess a higher number of Langstroth hives (a form of modern beehives which can be fitted with frames) in 2015 (p = 0.001).

4.1. Impacts of local certified beekeeping on smallholders

Our study was based on a single unique case study (Rowley, 2002) and used a mixed methods approach for data collection and a livelihoods framework as an analytical lens (Ashley and Hussein, 2000; DfID, 1999). Data were collected from December 2015 to February 2016 from 54 smallholder beekeepers' groups originally organized under the ‘Mwingi honey marketplace’. The 54 groups were comprised of 38 organic certified and 16 non-certified groups. Random sampling was used in the selection of the smallholder beekeepers' households at group level from a population list obtained from Mwingi honey market place. Stratified sampling aided the generation of the survey sample proportion from the population and group strata numbers, respectively. A total of 303 households (185 certified and 118 non-certified) were randomly sampled. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected for 2015 and 2008 (retrospectively). This was done to assess the households' before and after certification circumstances. Data were collected using a pretested household survey, eight key informant interviews, an annual general meeting, informal conversations, participant observation, participatory rural appraisal, internal document reviews and secondary sources. The key honey market channels in the study area include the Mwingi organic cooperative, brokers, and individual processors. Brokers are individuals who purchase honey from beekeepers and sell it in processed or crude form. Adding value to honey among brokers and Individual processors involves separating honey from combs with limited to no machinery use (Mburu, 2015). Consumers are those who purchase honey directly from beekeepers mainly for household consumption. Annual reports from beekeepers were used to estimate selected household specific variables, such as number of livelihood activities, organisation membership and benefits, quantity of honey produced and sold, net honey income, and welfare perceptions. Reliability of the data was checked by looking at the means and standard deviation for variables on which a t-test was applied; similar approach as used by Pouliot et al. (2010). In our case, the standard deviations of most reported values were lower than the mean indicating that the data was not just arbitrary reporting but reliable estimates. A household was defined in our study as a single or extended family living in the same residence (Méndez et al., 2010). The reported annual net household income is the sum of total yearly cash and subsistence income, from which costs such as inputs into crop and livestock production and hired labour are deducted. As in most other economic studies of rural households (Luckert and Campbell, 2002), household labour cost is not included as a cost in income estimation. All monetary values were converted into 2015 US Dollar (USD) using the average currency exchange rate of 87.92 Kshs for one USD in 2015 (World Bank group, 2016). The inflation rate for 2015 (8.01%) was taken into consideration to have accurate income figures for comparability purposes (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Data was analysed in STATA ver. 12 (Stata corp. LP, USA) using the student t-test, Kruskal Wallace (K—W) test, and the Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) test which was used as a post-hoc test for statistical differences within the variables. The Pearson chi-square was used to analyze categorical variables, as well as descriptive statistics of the variables. For data variables showing normal distribution, we present means and standard deviations and use the student t-test for mean comparisons, while for the non-normal data, we present the medians and interquartile ranges since the K—W test compares medians instead of means. The non-parametric methods were mainly used as most of the data variables were not normally distributed according to a ShapiroWilk test and sample sizes of the non-certified and certified beekeepers differed (Zar, 1999).

4.2. Beekeeping practices Table 3 shows the beekeeping practices that the certified and noncertified beekeepers were involved in before and after certification. Generally, some activities have increased in both groups of beekeepers, e.g. hive transportation, but where most activities were performed by the same number of beekeepers in both groups in 2008, the certified 136

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

Table 1 Selected broad level descriptive statistics of sampled beekeepers' households (N = 303). Non-certified (N = 118)

Age of household (HH) head (years) 2015 Education of HH head (years) 2015 HH size 2015 Adult HH males 2015 Adult HH females 2015 HH males 2008 HH females 2008 Land size (Acres) 2015 HH incomeb Total HH income 2015 Total HH income 2008

Certified (N = 185)

Mean

Std.Dev

Mean

Std.Dev

p-valuea

55.60 4.08 6.37 1.26 1.28 1.12 1.12 7.39

13.11 3.35 1.32 1.00 1.45 1.19 0.68 4.77

55.17 6.81 6.12 1.02 1.15 0.91 1.01 7.00

12.09 3.78 1.50 0.99 1.09 0.75 0.72 4.32

0.77 0.001*** 0.12 0.17 0.36 0.07* 0.19 0.47

1941.96 993.53

1548.27 978.78

1672.90 927.24

976.65 600.23

0.06* 0.47

Gender of HH head

Freq.c

%

Freq.

%

Male Female Main occupation Peasant farmer Trader/shop keeper Public / civil servant Private skilled worker

94 24

79.66 20.34

150 35

81.08 18.92

110 4 4 0

93.22 3.39 3.39 0

161 13 3 5

87.03 7.03 1.62 2.70

Median Total HH assets Total asset value 2015 1425.73 Total asset value 2008 915.56 No. of income generating activities & HH group memberships No. of income generating activities 2015 9 No. of income generating activities 2008 6 Total group membership 2015 1 Total group membership 2008 1 a b c d

IQRd

Median

IQR

(1180.05) (783.9)

1276.96 935.67

(1247.15) (710.58)

0.001*** 0.16

(2) (3) (0) (1)

8 6 2 1

(3) (3) (1) (0)

0.002*** 0.49 0.01** 0.03**

With the p-value associated with t-test and Wilcoxon rank sum test, *Indicates significance at p ≤ 0.1, ** at p ≤ 0.05 and *** at p ≤ 0.01. All incomes reported in this table are net incomes in 2015 USD. For all variables with shown frequencies in this table, the total frequency for each variable is 100. Medians are used by the K—W test hence, interquartile ranges (IQR)-analogous to the standard deviation of the median are shown in parentheses.

beekeepers have substantially increased their involvement in many practices. For all practices; apiary cleaning, hive transportation, hanging, purchasing, baiting, watering and inspection, a significantly larger share of the certified beekeepers are performing them in 2015 compared with the non-certified. This clearly shows a much higher engagement by the certified beekeepers, and thus very likely also more time spent on beekeeping.

However, this changes in 2015, where the number of certified beekeepers selling through the Mwingi organic cooperative more than halves (from 34.6% to 16.8%), while sales through brokers increases (from 47% to 71.4%) (Table 5). The quantity of certified honey sold through the Mwingi organic cooperative decreases amid general increases in honey production between 2008 and 2015. The other market outlets - the individual processors and consumers - are less used by both the certified and non-certified beekeepers in 2008 and 2015. However, the results indicate that sales through the individual processors did become more important for a few certified producers in 2015, more than doubling their sales through this channel.

4.3. Honey sales and market channels The median price irrespective of the honey market channel is significantly higher for the certified households in 2015 with no difference in 2008 (Table 2). The price difference in 2015 can be attributed to the individual processors and consumer market channels which offered a higher price to the certified as compared to the non-certified households (Table 2). However, only a small number of certified households reported to have sold through individual processors and directly at local markets (Tables 4 and 5). While there is no observed difference between prices offered to the certified and non-certified households by the Mwingi organic cooperative or brokers in 2015 (Table 4), the noncertified do get a significantly higher price from the brokers in 2008 (p = 0.002). Selling of either crude or semi-processed honey by the beekeepers could offer an insight into this price difference, as brokers pay a slightly higher price for the semi-processed honey, which is mostly sold by the non-certified households (Tables 4 and 5). Results indicate that the most important market channels for both the certified and non-certified beekeepers are brokers. The Mwingi organic cooperative is competitive in 2008 both in terms of quantities of honey sold and the number of beekeepers selling through it (Table 5).

4.4. Local certified organic market access and welfare status When directly asked, only 31 of 185 (17%) certified beekeepers attribute their welfare status to the organic certification and sales through the Mwingi organic cooperative. Apart from apiculture training, almost all other benefits reported are associated with asset accumulation. These benefits have accrued from participation in the initiative directly (training) while the rest are from income generated from the sale of honey (Table 6). 4.5. Beekeeping income as an environmental income The results indicate that the most important income generating activities according to their share of total household income for both the certified and non-certified beekeepers in 2008 and 2015 are: livestock, crops, off-farm activities and beekeeping, respectively (Table 7). Portraying the characteristics of an environmental income source, 137

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

Table 2 Beekeeping related descriptive statistics of sampled households (N = 303). Non-certified (N = 118)

HH beekeeping relative importance No. of maize seeds allocated for food provision 2015 No. of maize seeds allocated for food provision 2008 No. of maize seeds allocated for cash generation 2015 No. of maize seeds allocated for cash generation 2008

Honey quantities, prices, costs & incomec Honey volume (Kgs) 2015 Honey volume (Kgs) 2008 Honey price 2015 Honey price 2008 Annual bee keeping variable costs 2015 Annual bee keeping variable costs 2008 Total honey income 2015 Total honey income 2008 Bee keeping gross margin 2015 Bee keeping gross margin 2008 Beekeeping hive assets No. of traditional log hives 2015 No. of traditional log hives 2008 No. of Langstroth hives 2015 No. of Langstroth hives 2008 a b c

Certified (N = 185)

Mean

Std.Dev

Mean

Std.Dev

p-valuea

1.83 1.74 2.14 1.96

1.41 2.19 1.62 2.32

1.82 1.55 2.03 1.49

1.52 1.47 1.79 1.65

0.96 0.38 0.58 0.04**

Median

IQRb

Median

IQR

30 15 2.27 2.10 11.37 17.06 81.89 20.47 0.85 0.12

(34) (18) (1.7) (2.39) (10.80) (20.48) (88.72) (26.16) (0.23) (0.70)

30 16 2.84 1.82 14.79 13.08 81.89 34.15 0.80 0.16)

(30) (23) (1.25) (1.84) (11.94) (13.65) (90.43) (33.35) (0.81) (0.63

0.34 0.71 0.05** 0.16 0.003*** 0.11 0.96 0.27 0.05** 0.83

15 15 0 2

(17) (19) (1) (1)

15 10 2 2

(17) (16) (1) (1)

0.43 0.04** 0.001*** 0.30

With the p-value associated with t-test and Wilcoxon rank sum test, *Indicates significance at p ≤ 0.1, ** at p ≤ 0.05 and *** at p ≤ 0.01. Medians are used by the K—W test hence, interquartile ranges (IQR)-analogous to the standard deviation of the median are shown in parentheses. All incomes reported in this table are net incomes in 2015 USD.

Table 3 A comparison of self-reported beekeeping practices of certified and non-certified smallholder farmers in Mwingi. 2008

2015

Non-certified (N = 118)

Certified (N = 185)

Beekeeping practices

Freq.

%

Freq.

%

Apiary cleaning Hive transportation Hive hanging Bee hive purchases Bee hive baiting Bee hive watering Other activities

90 7 6 3 19 9 1

76.3 5.9 5.1 2.5 16.1 7.6 0.9

138 7 13 183 35 20 1

74.6 3.8 7.0 98.9 81.2 10.8 0.8

Non-certified (N = 118)

Certified (N = 185)

p-value

Freq.

%

Freq.

%

p-value

0.87 0.52 0.55 0.001⁎⁎⁎ 0.001⁎⁎⁎ 0.47 1.00

38 78 3 10 36 46 7

32.2 66.1 2.5 6.8 30.5 39.0 5.9

108 132 173 175 121 126 178

58.4 71.4 93.5 94.6 65.4 68.1 96.2

0.0002⁎⁎⁎ 0.001⁎⁎⁎ 0.001⁎⁎⁎ 0.001⁎⁎⁎ 0.001⁎⁎⁎ 0.001⁎⁎⁎ 0.001⁎⁎⁎

⁎ indicates significance at p ≤ 0.1. ⁎⁎ p ≤ 0.05. ⁎⁎⁎ Indicates significance at p ≤ 0.01.

though in this case much of the honey is from managed smallholder apiaries, beekeeping overall plays a minor role for the total household income for both the certified and non-certified households. It is, however, relatively more important for households in the lower income quintiles while the absolute income from beekeeping is highest for households in the upper quintiles (Table 8). From 2008 to 2015, beekeeping income becomes more important both in relative and absolute terms for both groups. On a general level, the certified households have economically performed poorer than the non-certified households as indicated by the percentages of non-certified and certified beekeepers in the different quintiles in 2015 compared with 2008. For instance, more non-certified beekeepers are now found in the top two quintiles while more certified beekeepers are now found in the bottom two quintiles (Table 8).

4.6. Factors influencing local organic certification benefit accrual to organic beekeepers 4.6.1. Organic honey prices and quantities sold through the Mwingi organic cooperative Generally, the Mwingi organic cooperative prices appear to be more stable as compared to prices of the other market channels. This is because the cooperative set a fixed price unlike the prices of other market channels, which may vary day-to-day. When compared to the broker price, it appears significantly higher because of its stability. However, the cooperative price is accessed by very few certified beekeepers i.e. in 2015 drastically reducing the scale of its impact. The number of certified beekeepers, who access the Mwingi organic cooperative price, is also low in 2008 compared to those who sell through the brokers (Table 5). Despite the motivation of a premium price, the certified beekeepers sell only a meagre proportion (12.4%) of their total honey produced in 2015 through the Mwingi organic cooperative (Table 5).

138

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

Table 4 Honey prices (USD/kg) offered by individual market channels from beekeepers' reports. 2015

Non-certified (N = 110)

p-valueb

Certified (N = 171)

Median

IQRa

Median

IQR

Mwingi organic cooperative Brokers Individual processors Consumers directly

2.84 2.71 2.27 –

(0) (1.7) (0) –

2.84 2.69 3.41 3.41

(0) (1.36) (1.14) (0.67)

2008

Non-certified (N = 100)

Mwingi organic cooperative Brokers Individual processors Consumers directly

1.13 1.14 – 0.48

0.85 0.60 0.04 –

Certified (N = 161) (0.69) (0.69) – (0.34)

1.13 1.02 1.02 0.77

(0.8) (0.91) (1.47) (1.65)

0.19 0.0002⁎⁎⁎ – 0.57

⁎ indicates significance at p ≤ 0.1. ⁎⁎ p ≤ 0.05. ⁎⁎⁎ Indicates significance at p ≤ 0.01. a Medians are used by the K—W test hence, interquartile ranges (IQR)-analogous to the standard deviation of the median are shown in parentheses. b The p-value is associated with Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test.

4.6.2. Market channel choice The certified and non-certified producers identify reasons for the choice of a market channel for their honey. The reasons identified by both groups include cash payment and transport costs as the most important in both 2008 and 2015 (Table 9). In addition, the certified beekeepers identify delayed payment from the cooperative as another important issue. The same issue is identified by a few certified and noncertified producers also in 2008 (Table 9). Interviews with the beekeepers reveal certified producers as being afraid of not receiving their honey sale payments if they sell through the Mwingi organic cooperative. This was because some had supplied organic honey in 2013 and had never received payment by 2015 as reflected in a beekeeper's statement;

Table 6 Benefits accrued from organic honey certification reported by Mwingi smallholder farmers (N = 31).

“When are we going to be paid our money for the honey supplied in 2013 and will transport costs incurred while coming to demand our pay after such a long period of time be refunded?”

Benefit

No. of beekeepers

Apiculture training Bought chicken Bought hives Bought land Bought livestock (goats) Bought organic manure Paid school fees Purchased a motorcycle Total

4 (12.9%) 1 (3.2%) 7 (22.6%) 1 (3.2%) 12 (38.7%) 1 (3.2%) 4 (12.9) 1 (3.2%) 31 (100%)

Table 7 Average contribution of different income generating activities to total household income from smallholder beekeepers' reports (N = 303).

As interviews further indicate, the above delayed payment by the Mwingi organic cooperative ties into the cooperative's lack of funds to pay back the accumulated debts for the already supplied honey and to purchase from beekeepers who even prefer cash payment (Table 9). During the funding period of the organic beekeeping intervention, the Mwingi organic cooperative had collecting centres in the villages and owned transport means for collecting the honey. However, this arrangement was discontinued and currently the cooperative does not own any transport means to facilitate honey purchase in the beekeepers' villages. Thus, the cooperative cannot address the transport cost issue, which is pointed out among the most important reasons for the choice of a market channel (Table 9).

Year

Animal Crop Off farm Beekeeping Total

2008

2015

Non-certified (N = 118)

Certified (N = 185)

Non-certified (118)

Certified (185)

64.1% 15.3% 17.1% 3.5% 100%

63.3% 16.5% 16.2% 3.9% 100%

52.4% 29% 11.7% 6.9% 100%

50.2% 31.9% 10.4% 7.5% 100%

4.6.3. Purchase of non-certified honey “Mwingi beekeepers and crops cooperative no longer purchases honey from farmers as it used to do. The honey is currently

Table 5 Number of smallholder beekeepers and honey quantities (kg) as distributed within different market channels from Mwingi farmers' self-reports in 2015. 2008

2015

Non-certified (N = 118)

Certified (N = 185)

Non-certified (N = 118)

Certified (N = 185)

Market channels

Freq.

%

Honey sold (kg)

Freq.

%

Honey sold (kg)

Freq

%

Honey sold (kg)

Freq

%

Honey sold (kg)

Mwingi organic cooperative Brokers Individual processors Consumers Did not sell honey (Honey consumed) Total

31 65 3 1 18 118

26.3 55.1 2.5 0.9 15.3 100

166 1680 50 10 435 2341

64 87 6 4 24 185

34.6 47.0 3.2 2.2 13.0 100

566 2465 310 106 470 3917

2 105 3 0 8 118

1.7 89.0 2.5 0 6.8 100

44 4346 326 0 507 5223

31 132 5 3 14 185

16.8 71.4 2.7 1.6 7.6 100

932 5296 647 25 615 7515

139

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

Table 8 Beekeeping contribution to Mwingi household income groups and proportions of smallholder farmers in each group from the farmers' reports (N = 303). 2008

2015

Income Quintile

Mean

Std. Err.

Beekeeping contribution (%)

% Non-certified (N = 118)

% Certified (N = 185)

Mean

Std Err.

Beekeeping contribution (%)

% Non-certified (N = 118)

% Certified (N = 185)

1 2 3 4 5

347.2 619.0 842.5 1122.2 1847.3

16.6 8.2 8.3 11.2 165.6

5.6 5.4 3.2 2.0 1.8

15.3 26.3 18.6 18.6 21.2

23.3 16.2 20.5 21.1 18.9

677.7 1183.5 1529.6 2043.3 3478.2

31 13.9 14.1 23.9 223.8

10.6 8.0 5.8 5.8 5.8

15.3 21.2 20.3 22.0 21.2

23.2 19.5 19.5 18.9 18.9

purchased from a Kitui broker in a semi-processed form and the cooperative only sieves and packs it”.

4.6.5. Financial support The Kenyan as well as the Kitui county governments support conventional beekeeping. However, the Mwingi organic cooperative was not eligible for beekeeping support offered by the county government as it was a CBO and as such not recognized by the government as a legal entity for financial support. Therefore, the major financial support for the cooperative came from NGOs and loans from banks to support its activities. In Kenya, NGOs are pillars in providing credit to organic initiatives. However, NGOs depend heavily on donor support through fixed period projects and after project end, there are no funds left to support the started initiatives. This was clearly shown in this case study where staff from NGOs noted limited funding periods to support the organic honey initiative while there were still capacity gaps at both farmer and cooperative management levels.

The above quote from a cooperative member was confirmed in a follow up interview with the noted Kitui honey broker. The broker reveals being contracted by the Mwingi organic cooperative since 2012 to supply it with honey. Interviews further show that lack of adherence to cooperative internal rules and regulations for organic honey purchases, coupled with the lack of external monitoring by local organic certifiers and discontinued OA support from the original supporting NGOs, contributed heavily to the Mwingi organic cooperative's decision to purchase, process and market non-certified organic honey. A review of the cooperative's purchase records, which confirms beekeepers' testimonies, show that the cooperative purchased 83.8% of its total processed and marketed honey in 2015 from the honey broker in Kitui. The remaining 16.2% came from the certified cooperative members.

4.6.6. Mwingi organic cooperative management Interviews and document reviews revealed discernible fund mismanagement at the Mwingi organic cooperative, which seemed to have started when the current Mwingi organic cooperative was still a CBO. This mismanagement through fund misuse had spread through the different cooperative management regimes by either some of the technical staff (before their dismissal in 2015) or some of the management board members. The number of unnecessary board meetings were beyond the legally accepted number by the Kenyan cooperative societies act by-laws (Co-operative societies act chapter 490, 2012). This was a great issue among cooperative members, as was a general lack of transparency as shown by a beekeeper's statements during the Mwingi organic cooperative's special general meeting in 2016;

4.6.4. Technical support Document review and informal conversations and interviews with the cooperative management in 2015 reveal that the Mwingi organic cooperative virtually had no technical management and extension staff to monitor and ensure adherence to certified OA standards. On this issue, a key informant said; “We do not have staff to perform day-to-day technical field management and outreach to the beekeepers as they were dismissed last year on grounds of fund mismanagement”. Review of field monitoring documents also found no trace of monitoring and follow up at either the farmer level by the Mwingi organic cooperative or at the Mwingi organic cooperative level by the organic certifiers and OA supporting NGOs. Results further reveal that the Mwingi district local government was no longer actively involved in monitoring or in the sanctions committee, which it used to be when ICIPE was still funding the initiative. There was also no functioning internal control system. The only trace of recorded auditing of the certified beekeepers was in 2008, shortly before organic certification in 2009.

“I am one of the founders of Mwingi honey market place. Ever since we started this facility, the problem has been record keeping and lack of transparency.” Indeed, a closer analysis of the total annual costs of the cooperative reveal that the costs of the board meetings and board allowances accounted for 25.6% of the total annual costs. Further, several beekeepers indicated that the cooperative had lost property and funds from the previous management who had never handed over officially to the current committee. As mentioned during the extraordinary general

Table 9 Self-reported reasons for smallholder beekeepers' market channel choice in Mwingi. 2008 Market channel Mwingi organic cooperative

Brokers, individual processors and consumers

2015

Reasons for/ against

Non-certified (N = 118)

Certified (N = 185)

Non-certified (N = 118)

Certified (N = 185)

Contractual agreement Delayed payment Avoiding low price Low/no transport cost Brokers do not mind quality Cash payment Relatively high price Total

Freq 3 5 3 37 6 96 8 158

Freq 24 8 2 39 13 118 25 229

Freq 0 0 4 70 8 94 20 196

Freq 12 75 0 86 12 130 32 347

% 1.9 3.2 1.9 23.4 3.8 60.7 5.1 100

140

% 10.5 3.5 0.9 17.1 5.7 51.5 10.9 100

% 0 0 2.0 35.7 4.1 48.0 10.2 100

% 3.5 21.6 0 24.8 3.5 37.5 9.2 100

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

meeting in 2016;

and Gardebroek (2015) find higher prices and better management of contracts hence a higher income to the beekeepers could have contributed to the success. In a study of beekeeping cooperatives in Ethiopia, Biruk (2014) found that negative impacts to the beekeepers related to low involvement in cooperative activities were due to inadequacies of the management committees, lack of working capital, poor bookkeeping and lack of financial transparency. The situation observed in our study is characteristic of unsuccessful cooperatives indicated by the cooperative fund mismanagement and members' questioning of the leadership abilities of the cooperative board. The situation is aggravated by lack of working capital and no extension services which further limit engagement of beekeepers in the cooperative activities including honey sales. Such reasons are consistent with what has been found regarding failure of many cooperatives in developing countries because of problems in ensuring that the management is accountable to members (the moral hazard) as indicated by Akwabi-Ameyaw (1997). A cooperative's failure to be accountable to its members leads to inappropriate political activities and financial irregularities (Akwabi-Ameyaw, 1997; Baka, 2011; Biruk, 2014; Sira and Craig, 1991). The management issue was exacerbated by the fact that the Mwingi organic cooperative heavily depended on support from ICIPE, which in turn coordinated the cooperative's capacity building and organic certification with support from Kenyan NGOs. The Kenyan OA sector is fully dependent on the NGO sector (Kimemia and Oyare, 2006). In our study, the termination of the NGO-funded organic certification project in 2008 also largely terminated the capacity building, mentoring and monitoring of the Mwingi organic cooperative by NGOs (Chapeyama, 2008). Similar issues experienced in another study limited cooperative performance (Brown, 2001). The scenario in our study could partly be attributed to limited project time lines and funds given by donor agencies (Chapeyama, 2008). Further to this, the limited time and resources of the project did not allow for adequate local capacity building, which is vital for livelihoods-conservation projects success and sustainability (Brooks et al., 2012; Chapeyama, 2008). Livelihoodsconservation interventions that include product development and market linkages may provide viable pathways for local community entry into mainstream markets (Scherr et al., 2002), but for market linkages to develop and be maintained, adequate time and resources are needed (Chapeyama, 2008). Lack of persistent NGO-supported development projects has been studied e.g. (Brown, 2001; Carter, 1995; Chambers, 2014, 1995; Ouko, 2018). This also applies to the Mwingi organic cooperative where it is hard to get further financial support for post-project sustainability enhancement requests (Chapeyama, 2008). For instance, with the lack of formal audits of the beekeepers' performance vis-à-vis organic honey production, the credibility of the entire organic honey production seems to be jeopardized. The lack of monitoring and close support to certified beekeepers violates “the basic underlying philosophy of the certification process” and the scheme in which the certified beekeepers are operating (Herberg, 2007, p. 10). Therefore, it is important to put in place strategies for project exits and post-project follow-up to ensure sustained success of initiatives such as the case of this organic certification of smallholder beekeepers shows (Chapeyama, 2008; Ouko, 2018). As the results section has also revealed, the non-certified households displayed slightly better economic status, e.g. they had a higher total physical asset value as compared to the certified households. This could be attributed the non-certified beekeepers being more diversified with a higher number of income generating activities, including casual work and operating village shops and food stalls. They indicated to have more time besides their other beekeeping activities, and hence could earn more income for reinvestment into assets than the certified beekeepers. The non-certified spent less time on beekeeping as they did not practice all the recommended practices for organic beekeeping, contrary to the certified who invested more time and other resources into organic beekeeping but also expected a higher price for their organic

“Why has the past executive board not handed over to you the current management committee and yet they have even never paid their debts to the cooperative?” 5. Discussion The above findings point to underlying factors for the limited impact of the cooperative to its members, and the implications for the achievement of the general conservation objective of the livelihoodsconservation initiative as discussed below. The lower quantities produced by both certified and non-certified beekeepers in 2015, compared to 2008, indicate a general need for improvement in beekeeping and honey production in the Kitui county to reach its productive potential, which was estimated by Mbwika and Mburu (2013) to be at a deficit of 67%. The honey production in Kitui county accounts for 25.2% of the national production, so any improvements would be noticeable at national scale (Mbwika and Mburu, 2013). The Mwingi organic cooperative honey prices appear to be stable compared to the prices of all other honey market channels since the cooperative sets a fixed price unlike other channels. However, the set price in 2012 had not been revised in 2016 and there was no plan for a review soon by the board members. Further, there were no set guidelines for price setting, which could constitute an ‘achilles heel’ for the cooperative in the efforts of ensuring an up to date premium price for the organic honey. Though the cooperative price appears significantly higher when compared to the broker price for instance, other circumstances of the cooperative outweigh its impacts. These include poor management and the purchase of non-certified honey by the Mwingi organic cooperative. Such have very likely contributed to reduced moral and economic incentives for certified farmers to maintain a closer relationship and engagement with the cooperative. This explains the very limited number of certified producers selling to the cooperative since 2008, falling to just 17% of certified members in 2015. The reduced sale to the cooperative can also be explained by the fast cash payments offered by alternative buyers, e.g. the brokers. This finding is consistent with other studies on organic certification e.g. coffee in Latin America and East Africa, where it was found that smallholder farmers sell outside the certified market channels due to relatively low prices offered by the certified market channels, delayed payments, and producers' need of urgent funds to satisfy household needs (Bacon et al., 2008; Méndez et al., 2010). Besides the immediate cash payments, the alternative market channels also collect honey directly from farmers' areas, further contributing to the certified beekeepers deselecting the Mwingi organic cooperative due to the high cost of transport. Transport cost was one of the barriers to smallholders' market access as found by Ayuya et al. (2015) in the same study area. According to Ayuya et al. (2015), the Mwingi organic cooperative used to collect honey directly from producers when it was under the support of ICIPE, but this service has ceased. The study results concur with the findings of Shiferaw et al. (2006) and Shiferaw et al. (2011) in Eastern Kenya that brokers or assemblers, rural wholesalers and transporters were powerful in terms of reaching farmers and able to purchase their honey from local areas. For that matter, farmer associations or cooperatives need to be well organized to bypass them (ibid). Positive impacts from cooperatives and certified production are built on the foundations of good leadership, high level of organisation, and management efficiency to facilitates transparency and accountability (Baka, 2011; Fox, 1992; Girma and Gardebroek, 2015; Méndez et al., 2010; Mojo et al., 2017; Wossen et al., 2017). Further to this, cooperatives that impact positively their members offer efficient extension services to enable members' continuous engagement with cooperative activities (ibid). Specific to beekeeping cooperatives, Girma 141

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

honey. However, the organic market was inaccessible due to the already identified unfavourable cooperative circumstances and hence prevented them from selling at higher prices. The findings regarding diversification and higher income (among the non-certified) is in line with other studies that find diversification to be positively correlated with higher income and total asset value, e.g. Barrett et al. (2001) and Ellis (2000). Further to this, certified beekeepers invested in more traditional log hives and Langstroth box hives as compared to the noncertified, and also received more support in form of beehive donations from NGOs like ICIPE. These findings are consistent with what Mburu (2015) found in the same area. With regards to the higher operational cost of beekeeping observed among the certified beekeepers, in most cases, such costs of OA are often off-set by the organic premium (Jacobsen, 2009). However, though the certified beekeepers sold at a higher price in 2015, only a few did so for reasons discussed above and the overall financial impacts from certification were thus limited. As compared to other household income-generating activities, beekeeping often contributed a limited amount to the total household income of the beekeepers, irrespective of their certification status. In the context of a livelihoods-conservation initiative, the lack of financial gains might reduce the incentive for beekeepers to conserve their surrounding woodland. Though this cannot be confirmed by our study, other livelihoods-conservation studies note a higher possibility for conservation when improved livelihoods are achieved (Forcella and Huybrechs, 2015; Oldekop et al., 2016; Shephard et al., 2010; Ulambayar et al., 2017; Dave et al., 2017; Harbi et al., 2018; Chou et al., 2018). With reference to beekeeping related livelihoods-conservation initiative, Sutcliffe et al. (2012) indicate that honey income was not enough to incentivise the participating communities to continue conserving their surrounding forests. With regards to lack of economic competitiveness of honey as a NTFP compared with forest clearance, Ingram (2014, p. 205) concurs that “the opportunity costs of other forest uses (for agriculture, hunting, grazing, fuelwood, and Prunus africana bark harvesting) are too high for apiculture chain actors to compete with”. The financial and welfare improvement impacts from beekeeping were not discernible in our study, similar to recent findings from Uganda (Amulen et al., 2017). However, the percentage contribution of honey income to lower income groups of the certified and non-certified beekeepers indicated that beekeeping is still important as a part of the beekeepers' livelihood strategy in the area. Honey income might portray a characteristic of an environmental income but in this case, it is managed beekeeping practiced with in the woodlands and also near the smallholders' homes in small apiaries. This partly limits its role as a safety net for the beekeepers when compared to wild honey collection. Further to this, due to beekeepers' need for cash, they do not store honey for sale but rather sell it immediately after harvest. These further limit the role of this type of beekeeping in providing a safety net and hence diminishes its capacity as a pathway out of poverty. Such a finding concurs with some study findings on smallholder managed beekeeping and also environmental income's inability to help smallholders as safety nets (Amulen et al., 2017; Wunder et al., 2014). As a safety net, the activity would contribute tangibly to pushing the beekeepers out of poverty, but it is limited because of being associated with low returns (ibid). On the other hand, the capacity of beekeeping to support lower income and marginalized smallholders is consistent with what literature indicates about the suitability of beekeeping as a diversification strategy for the less privileged smallholders and more so in the ASAL (Bradbear, 2004; Carroll and Kinsella, 2013; Dietemann et al., 2009). The higher number of groups associated with the certified households showed that they benefited from certification a higher access to connections and support networks, which are vital assets for rural households in developing countries. This is consistent with other certification impact studies which have shown that certifications expand households' social networks and access to support groups (e.g.

Bebbington, 1996; Raynolds et al., 2004). However, the Mwingi organic cooperative was inefficient in mediating between the certified households and the OA supporting and certification organizations in Kenya. This impeded the growth of real OA oriented social capital for the certified beekeepers since such OA oriented social capital would continuously improve the beekeepers' technical, financial and social capacity to command their own development. This is further portrayed from the seemingly low technical capacity within the community as showed by our study which is vital for the success of community based livelihoods-conservation initiatives (Brooks et al., 2012; Ouko, 2018; Scherr et al., 2002). Because of lack of capacity within the community, smallholder beekeepers have resorted to an overdependence on the services of external agencies, as found by Ayuya et al. (2015) in Mwingi and Brown (2001) in Randonia. This in turn can be deleterious as it perpetuates smallholder farmers' overdependency syndrome on NGOs and donor agencies that start and support directly or indirectly development initiatives mostly without clear sustainability/exit (Brown, 2001). The sustainability and success of community based livelihoodsconservation initiatives depends on thoroughly developed project designs with clear exit strategies, a proper understanding and consideration of the local context and local capacity building (Beauchamp et al., 2018; Brooks et al., 2012; Muriithi and Kenyon, 2002; Ouko, 2018; Scherr et al., 2002). 6. Conclusion, recommendation and areas for future research 6.1. Conclusion We find minimal discernible impacts of the local organic certification scheme studied. Despite a higher organic honey price, only a few certified beekeepers marketed their honey through the Mwingi organic cooperative due to low trust and cooperative mismanagement. This greatly reduced the financial impact from organic honey production. The certified farmers intensified their beekeeping activity which reduced their capacity to perform other income generating activities. This likely negatively impacted their total household income and total asset value. In contrast, the non-certified smallholder farmers had a more diversified income portfolio, likely translating into higher incomes and total asset value. The livelihoods-conservation initiative did successfully link the certified beekeepers to more support networks, at least during the program phase, as the network linkages have been stalled due to a break-off between the certified producers and the Mwingi organic cooperative. Overall, as a market mechanism, the local organic certification scheme has performed poorly in the study area. An overhaul of the institutional and organisational framework in which the Mwingi organic cooperative operates is needed in order to ensure transparency and accountability, and adherence to internal rules and regulations and the Kenyan cooperative societies' act by-laws. This could help to rebuild the trust of the smallholder beekeepers in their Mwingi organic cooperative, revitalize its organic honey marketing activities and create an incentive for conserving the local woodlands and bushlands. 6.2. Recommendations for livelihoods-conservation initiatives Our study underlines the importance of local capacity building, mentoring and continuous support to enable self-perpetuating community action after donor funding. It also highlights the importance of understanding the context of the community and working within that particular context when introducing foreign funded interventions. It is important to understand that achieving goals of livelihoods-conservation initiatives involves behavioural change, requiring tangible amount of time invested in the initiative for its institutionalization in the community. This implies that program donors and implementing agencies need to consider project periods, exit strategies and think through long-term sustainability of such programs from the program 142

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al.

design. This includes involving the local target communities from the first phase and not only build capacity related to the main program objectives, in our case organic honey production and cooperative setup, but also related to local community coherence and efficient mechanisms for cooperative accountability.

livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy 26, 315–331. Bauch, S.C., Sills, E.O., Pattanayak, S.K., 2014. Have we managed to Integrate Conservation and Development? ICDP Impacts in the Brazilian Amazon. World Dev. 64https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.009. S135–S148. doi. Beauchamp, E., Clements, T., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2018. Assessing medium-term impacts of conservation interventions on local livelihoods in Northern Cambodia. World Dev. 101, 202–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2017.08.008. Bebbington, A., 1996. Organizations and intensifications: Campesino federations, rural livelihoods and agricultural technology in the Andes and Amazonia. World Dev. 24, 1161–1177. Belton, L.R., Jackson-Smith, D., 2010. Factors influencing success among collaborative sage-grouse management groups in the western United States. Environ. Conserv. 37, 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000615. Biruk, D.D., 2014. The Constraints of Honey Production in Beekeeping Cooperatives. Mekelle University. Bradbear, N., 2004. Beekeeping and Sustainable Livelihoods. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO. Brooks, J.S., Tshering, D., 2010. A respected central government and other obstacles to community-based management of the matsutake mushroom in Bhutan. Environ. Conserv. 37, 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000573. Brooks, J.S., Waylen, K.A., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., 2012. How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 21265–21270. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1207141110. Brown, J.C., 2001. Responding to deforestation: Productive Conservation, the World Bank, and Beekeeping in Rondonia, Brazil. Prof. Geogr. 53, 106–118. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/0033-0124.00273. Brown, H.C.P., Lassoie, J.P., 2010. Institutional choice and local legitimacy in community-based forest management: lessons from Cameroon. Environ. Conserv. 37, 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000603. Carroll, T., Kinsella, J., 2013. Development in Practice Livelihood improvement and smallholder beekeeping in Kenya: the unrealised potential Livelihood improvement and smallholder beekeeping in Kenya: the unrealised potential. Dev. Pract. 233, 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2013.781123. Carter, J., 1995. Alley Farming: Have Resource-Poor Farmers Benefited? Overseas Development Institute. Chambers, R., 1995. Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? Environ. Urban. 7, 173–204. Chambers, R., 2014. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Routledge. Chapeyama, O., 2008. Developing Incentives for Community Participation in Forest Conservation through the Use of Commercial Insects in Kenya. (New York). Chomba, M., Nkhata, B., 2016. Property rights and benefit sharing: a case study of the Barotse floodplain of Zambia. Int. J. Commons 10, 158–175. https://doi.org/10. 18352/ijc.600. Chou, P., Chou, Phanith, 2018. The Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in Creating Incentives for Forest Conservation: A Case Study of Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. Resources 7, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030041. Co-operative societies act chapter 490, 2012. The National Council for Law Reporting. Dave, R., Tompkins, E.L., Schreckenberg, K., 2017. Forest ecosystem services derived by smallholder farmers in northwestern Madagascar: Storm hazard mitigation and participation in forest management. For. Policy Econ. 84, 72–82. https://doi.org/10. 1016/J.FORPOL.2016.09.002. De Alcântra, T., De Alcântra, D.P., 2004. Development of local organic markets. Ecol. Farming 31–32. Dfid, U.K., 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. DFID, London. Dietemann, V., Pirk, C.W.W., Crewe, R., 2009. Is there a need for conservation of honeybees in Africa? Apidologie 40, 285–295. Duchelle, A.E., Kainer, K.A., Wadt, L.H.O., 2014. Is certification associated with better forest management and socioeconomic benefits? A comparative analysis of three certification schemes applied to Brazil nuts in Western Amazonia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27, 121–139. Dyer, J., Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Leventon, J., Nshimbi, M., Chama, F., Kafwifwi, A., Muledi, J.I., Kaumbu, J.-M.K., Falcao, M., Muhorro, S., Munyemba, F., Kalaba, G.M., Syampungani, S., 2014. Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: Experiences in community engagement from southern Africa. J. Environ. Manag. 137, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.057. Egelyng, H., Bosselmann, A.S., Warui, M., Maina, F., Mburu, J., Gyau, A., 2017. Origin products from African forests: A Kenyan pathway to prosperity and green inclusive growth? For. Policy Econ. 84, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2016.09. 001. Ellis, F., 2000. The Determinants of Rural Livelihood diversification in developing Countries. J. Agric. Econ. 51, 289–302. Ferraro, P.J., Pattanayak, S.K., 2006. Money for nothing? A call for Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Investments. PLoS Biol. 4, e105. https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pbio.0040105. Fisher, E., 1997. Beekeepers in the Global “Fair Trade” Market: a Case from Tabora Region. Tanzania. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 6, 109–159. Fomété, T., Vermaat, J., 2001. Community Forestry and Poverty Alleviation in Cameroon. Forcella, D., Huybrechs, F., 2015. Green Microfinance for Ecosystem Services - an Empirical Quantitative Study of a Project's results, the Variables Influencing its Outcomes and the Effectiveness of the Related Conditional payments. SSRN Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2635228. Fox, J., 1992. Democratic rural development: leadership accountability in regional peasant organizations. Dev. Change 23, 1–36. Frick, M., Grgić, Z., Franić, R., Štefanić, I., Kezić, N., 2006. Cooperative business potential

6.3. Areas for further research Our study shows that there could be links between beekeeping, livelihoods and conservation. The conservation link explored in our study is at a nascent stage and warrants further empirical investigation just as there is still a gap in the literature on this topic (Agera, 2011; Lowore et al., 2018; McKinnon et al., 2016; Minja and Nkumilwa, 2016; Roe et al., 2015). We contend that a study designed to explore behavioural changes of the beekeepers towards forest resource use and conservation would contribute to more nuanced understanding of the linkage between beekeeping and conservation. Such a study could apply indirect questioning techniques e.g. the unmatched count technique-UCT (Nuno and St. John, 2015) to garner information from the beekeepers to estimate their level of involvement in natural resource use (their surrounding national forest and other small reserves, woodlands and bushland). This would unravel the linkage between beekeeping and natural resource management. The UCT technique is preferred to direct questioning approaches as it offers respondents' privacy protection while enabling sufficient data collection to estimate the level of involvement of respondents in illegal natural resource use. Acknowledgement Many thanks to Mr. Kevin Mwangangi Kimwea who was a field guide during the entire data collection period in Kenya. Mwingi smallholder beekeepers and the organic cooperative management who were so patient and provided data unreservedly are greatly appreciated. Comments from the reviewers helped to improve the manuscript. The study is part of the VALOR research project, financed by the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) grant number 1302KU. Additional funding for the study was provided by the University of Copenhagen and PLAN DANMARK grants, Danida Fellowship Centre through its travel grant scheme (A29104) and OTICON Fonden. References Agera, S., 2011. Role of beekeeping in the conservation of forests. Glob. J. Agric. Sci. 10, 27–32. Akwabi-Ameyaw, K., 1997. Producer cooperative resettlement projects in Zimbabwe: Lessons from a failed agricultural development strategy. World Dev. 25, 437–456. Amulen, D.R., D'Haese, M., Ahikiriza, E., Agea, J.G., Jacobs, F.J., de Graaf, D.C., Smagghe, G., Cross, P., 2017. The buzz about bees and poverty alleviation: Identifying drivers and barriers of beekeeping in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One 12, e0172820. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172820. Angelsen, A., Wunder, S., 2003. Exploring the Forest–Poverty Link: Key Concepts, Issues and Research Implications. Ashley, C., Hussein, K., 2000. Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. Overseas Development Institute, London. Augustino, S., Kashaigili, J.J., Nzunda, E.F., 2016. Impact of traditional beekeeping on Mgori Village Land Forest Reserve in Singida District. Tanzania. Tanzania J. For. Nat. Conserv. 86. Auld, G., Gulbrandsen, L.H., McDermott, C.L., 2008. Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33, 187. Ayuya, O.I., Gido, E.O., Bett, H.K., Lagat, J.K., Kahi, A.K., Bauer, S., 2015. Effect of certified organic production systems on poverty among smallholder farmers: Empirical evidence from Kenya. World Dev. 67, 27–37. Bacon, C.M., Mendez, V.E., Gómez, M.E.F., Stuart, D., Flores, S.R.D., 2008. Are sustainable coffee certifications enough to secure farmer livelihoods? The millenium development goals and Nicaragua's Fair Trade cooperatives. Globalizations 5, 259–274. Baka, L.O., 2011. The challenges Facing Co-operative Societies in Kenya a Case Study: Kenya Planter Co-operative Union (KPCU). Public Policy Adm. Res. 3, 32–43. https:// www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/PPAR/article/view/8743/8977. Bär, R., Ehrensperger, A., 2018. Accounting for the Boundary Problem at Subnational Level: the Supply–demand Balance of Biomass Cooking Fuels in Kitui County, Kenya. Resources 7, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7010011. Barrett, C.B., Reardon, T., Webb, P., 2001. Nonfarm income diversification and household

143

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al. for beekeepers in Croatia. J. Apic. Res. 45, 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00218839.2006.11101354. Gemeda, T.K., 2014. Integrating improved beekeeping as economic incentive to community watershed management: the case of sasiga and Sagure districts in Oromiya region, Ethiopia. Ethiop. Agric. For. Fish. 3, 52–57. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff. 20140301.19. Girma, J., Gardebroek, C., 2015. The impact of contracts on organic honey producers' incomes in southwestern Ethiopia. For. Policy Econ. 50, 259–268. Grashuis, J., Su, Y., 2018. A review of the empirical literature on farmer cooperatives: performance, ownership and governance, finance, and member attitude. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12205. Gray, T.W., Kraenzle, C.A., 2002. Problems and Issues Facing Farmer Cooperatives. Harbi, J., Erbaugh, J.T., Sidiq, M., Haasler, B., Nurrochmat, D.R., 2018. Making a bridge between livelihoods and forest conservation: Lessons from non timber forest products’ utilization in South Sumatera. Indonesia. For. Policy Econ. 94, 1–10. https:// doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2018.05.011. Hecklé, R., Smith, P., MacDiarmid, J.I., Campbell, E., Abbott, P., 2018. Beekeeping adoption: a case study of three smallholder farming communities in Baringo County. Kenya. J. Agric. Rural Dev. Trop. Subtrop. 119, 1–11. Herberg, L.A., 2007. Organic certification system and farmers' livelihoods in New Zealand. Agribusiness Econ. Res. Unit 291, 1–91. https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac. nz/handle/10182/131. Howard, J.L., 2010. Managing for justice in community-based water planning: a conceptual framework. Environ. Conserv. 37, 356–363. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0376892910000627. ICIPE, 2013. Linking Insects to Forest Conservation [WWW Document]. WRENmedia URL. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/228477/ICIPE_-_Linking_insects_to_forest_conservation_Feb13.pdf, Accessed date: 2 September 2016. Ingram, V., 2014. Win-Wins in Forest Product Value Chains?: How Governance Impacts the Sustainability of Livelihoods Based on Non-timber Forest Products from Cameroon. Ingram, V., Njikeu, J., 2011. Sweet, sticky, and sustainable social business. Ecol. Soc. 16 (doi:Artn 37). Jacobsen, R.F., 2009. Organic Agriculture in Uganda. Roskilde University. Kalonga, S.K., Kulindwa, K.A., 2017. Does forest certification enhance livelihood conditions? Empirical evidence from forest management in Kilwa District, Tanzania. For. Policy Econ. 74, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2016.11.001. Kalonga, S.K., Midtgaard, F., Klanderud, K., 2016. Forest certification as a policy option in conserving biodiversity: an empirical study of forest management in Tanzania. For. Ecol. Manag. 361, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.10.034. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2016. CPI and Inflation Rates 2015 [WWW Document]. URL https://www.knbs.or.ke/?searchword=inflation rate 2015& searchphrase=all&Itemid=77&option=com_search. ((accessed 3.30.17)). Kenya Wildlife Service, 2007. Meru Conservation Area Management Plan, 2007–2017. (Nairobi). Kenya Wildlife Service, 2015. Kenya Wildlife Service Annual Report. (Nairobi). Kimemia, C., Oyare, E., 2006. The Status of Organic Agriculture, Production and Trade in Kenya: Report of the Initial Background Study of the National Integrated Assessment of the Organic Agriculture Sector in Kenya. Kitui County government, 2015. Committee on Tourism and Natural Resources Report on Kitui County Tourist Sites [WWW Document]. Kitui. URL https:// kituicountyassembly.org/userfiles/Committee Report- edited.pdf (accessed 7.17.18). Klooster, D., 2006. Environmental certification of forests in Mexico: the political ecology of a nongovernmental market intervention. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 96, 541–565. Klopp, J.M., 2012. Deforestation and democratization: patronage, politics and forests in Kenya. J. East. African Stud. 6, 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2012. 669577. Kothari, A., Camill, P., Brown, J., 2013. Conservation as if people also Mattered: Policy and Practice of Community-based Conservation. Conserv. Soc. 11 (1). https://doi. org/10.4103/0972-4923.110937. Krishnakumar, J., Yanagida, J.F., Anitha, V., Balakrishnan, R., Radovich, T.J.K., 2015. Non-timber forest products certification and management: a socioeconomic study among the Kadars in Kerala, India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 17, 837–858. Lalika, M., Machangu, J., 2008. Beekeeping for income generation and coastal forest conservation in Tanzania. Bees Dev. 88, 4–6. Lowore, J., Wood, A., 2014. A Discussion of the Importance of Forest Beekeeping and Commercial Honey and Beeswax Trade for the Sustainable Management of Natural Forests in SW Ethiopia [WWW Document]. Bioecon. http://www.bioecon-network. org/pages/16th_2014/Lowore.pdf, Accessed date: 28 October 2016. Lowore, J., Meaton, J., Wood, A., 2018. African Forest Honey: an Overlooked NTFP with potential to support Livelihoods and Forests. Environ. Manag. 62, 15–28. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00267-018-1015-8. Luckert, M.K., Campbell, B.M. (Bruce M., eds., 2002. Uncovering the Hidden Harvest : Valuation Methods for Woodland and Forest Resources. Earthscan Publications. Ma, W., Abdulai, A., 2016. Does cooperative membership improve household welfare? Evidence from apple farmers in China. Food Policy 58, 94–102. https://doi.org/10. 1016/J.FOODPOL.2015.12.002. Makupa, E.E., 2013. Conservation Efforts and Local Livelihoods in Western Serengeti, Tanzania: Experiences from Ikona Community Wildlife Management Area. University of Victoria. Malkamäki, A., Toppinen, A., Kanninen, M., 2016. Impacts of land use and land use changes on the resilience of beekeeping in Uruguay. For. Policy Econ. 70, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2016.06.002. Malla, Y.B., 2000. Impact of community forestry policy on rural livelihoods and food security in Nepal. Unasylva (English ed.) 51, 37–45.

Mallet, P., 2001. Certifying the Harvest: Developments in NTFP Certification. Markandya, A., Setboonsarng, S., 2015. Organic Agriculture and Post-2015 Development Goals: Building on the Comparative Advantage of Poor Farmers. Markelova, H., Mwangi, E., 2010. Collective Action for Smallholder Market Access: evidence and Implications for Africa. Rev. Policy Res. 27, 621–640. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00462.x. Matose, F., Watts, S., 2010. Towards community-based forest management in Southern Africa: do decentralization experiments work for local livelihoods? Environ. Conserv. 37, 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000639. Mburu, P.D., 2015. Mapping of the Honey Value Chain and Analysis of Changes in Gender Roles and Factors Influencing Women Empowerment among Beekeepers in Kitui County, Kenya. University of Nairobi. Mbwika, J., Mburu, B., 2013. Results of the Assessment of Honey Sector in Four Counties. McKinnon, M.C., Cheng, S.H., Dupre, S., Edmond, J., Garside, R., Glew, L., Holland, M.B., Levine, E., Masuda, Y.J., Miller, D.C., Oliveira, I., Revenaz, J., Roe, D., Shamer, S., Wilkie, D., Wongbusarakum, S., Woodhouse, E., 2016. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ. Evid. 5, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-0160058-7. McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.C., Songorwa, A.N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mutekanga, D., Van Thang, H., Dammert, J.L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Peter Brosius, J., Coppolillo, P., O'Connor, S., 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144, 966–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038. Mekonnen, A., 2000. Valuation of community forestry in Ethiopia: a contingent valuation study of rural households. Environ. Dev. Econ. 5, 289–308. Méndez, V.E., Bacon, C.M., Olson, M., Petchers, S., Herrador, D., Carranza, C., Trujillo, L., Guadarrama-Zugasti, C., Cordón, A., Mendoza, A., 2010. Effects of Fair Trade and organic certifications on small-scale coffee farmer households in Central America and Mexico. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 25, 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1742170510000268. Minja, G.S., Nkumilwa, T.J., 2016. The role of beekeeping on forest conservation and poverty alleviation in Moshi rural district, Tanzania. Eur. Sci. J. 12, 366–378. Mitlin, D., Hickey, S., Bebbington, A., 2007. Reclaiming Development? NGOs and the Challenge of Alternatives. World Dev. 35, 1699–1720. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. WORLDDEV.2006.11.005. Mojo, D., Fischer, C., Degefa, T., 2017. The determinants and economic impacts of membership in coffee farmer cooperatives: recent evidence from rural Ethiopia. J. Rural. Stud. 50, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRURSTUD.2016.12.010. Muli, E., Munguti, A., Raina, S.K., 2007. Quality of honey harvested and processed using traditional methods in rural areas of Kenya. Acta Vet. Brno 76, 315–320. Muriithi, S., Kenyon, W., 2002. Conservation of biodiversity in the Arabuko Sokoke Forest. Kenya. Biodivers. Conserv. 11, 1437–1450. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1016234224819. Muya, B.I., 2004. An Analysis Report on Kenya's Apiculture Sub-Sector. BENFLO Consult. In: Nairobi. Nkhata, B.A., Breen, C.M., 2010. Performance of community-based natural resource governance for the Kafue Flats (Zambia). Environ. Conserv. 37, 296–302. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0376892910000585. Norton-Griffiths, M., Southey, C., 1995. The opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation in Kenya. Ecol. Econ. 12, 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94) 00041-S. Nuno, A., St. John, F.A.V., 2015. How to ask sensitive questions in conservation: a review of specialized questioning techniques. Biol. Conserv. 189, 5–15. https://doi.org/10. 1016/J.BIOCON.2014.09.047. Ofcansky, T.P., 1984. Kenya Forestry under British Colonial Administration, 1895–1963. For. Conserv. Hist. 28, 136–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/4004697. Oldekop, J.A., Holmes, G., Harris, W.E., Evans, K.L., 2016. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12568. Ormsby, A.A., Bhagwat, S.A., 2010. Sacred forests of India: a strong tradition of community-based natural resource management. Environ. Conserv. 37, 320–326. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000561. Ouko, E.M., 2018. Contextualising integrated conservation and development projects: Restoring the lost ‘harambee’ link in Kenya. Geoforum 92, 81–91. https://doi.org/10. 1016/J.GEOFORUM.2018.04.002. Paumgarten, F., Kassa, H., Zida, M., Moeliono, M., 2012. Benefits, challenges, and Enabling Conditions of Collective Action to Promote Sustainable Production and Marketing of Products from Africa's Dry Forests. Rev. Policy Res. 29, 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00549.x. Pierce, A.R., Laird, S.A., 2003. In search of comprehensive standards for non-timber forest products in the botanicals trade. Int. For. Rev. 5, 138–147. Pokhrel, S., 2009. Comparitive Benefits of Beekeeping Enterprise in Chitwan, Nepal. J. Agric. Environ. 10, 46. https://doi.org/10.3126/aej.v10i0.2129. Pouliot, M., Ouedraogo, B., Simonsen, H.L., Smith-Hall, C., 2010. Household-level studies of forests and poverty in Burkina Faso: contextual information, methods and preliminary results. For. Landsc. Work. Pap. 47, 1–92. Rahoveanu, M.M.T., Gheorghe, A.Z., Cristea, L., 2012. Research on the association benefits for the agricultural producer market manifestations, in: The Research Institute for Agriculture Economy and Rural Development. International Symposium. Agrarian Economy and Rural Development: Realities and Perspectives for Romania. In: Proceedings. The Research Institute for Agriculture Economy and Rural Development, Bucharest, pp. 370–373. Raina, S.K., Kioko, E.N., International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, 2009. Commercial Insects and Forest Conservation : Improving Forest Conservation and Community Livelihoods through Income Generation from Commercial Insects in

144

Forest Policy and Economics 97 (2018) 132–145

P. Musinguzi et al. Three Kenyan Forests. In: ICIPE Science Press. Raynolds, L.T., Murray, D., Leigh Taylor, P., 2004. Fair trade coffee: building producer capacity via global networks. J. Int. Dev. 16, 1109–1121. Redford, K.H., Padoch, C., Sunderland, T., 2013. Fads, Funding, and Forgetting in three decades of Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 27, 437–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi. 12071. Rodríguez-Izquierdo, E., Gavin, M.C., Macedo-Bravo, M.O., 2010. Barriers and triggers to community participation across different stages of conservation management. Environ. Conserv. 37, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000500. Roe, D., Elliott, J., 2006. Pro-Poor Conservation: The Elusive Win-Win for Conservation and Poverty Reduction?. Roe, D., Booker, F., Day, M., Zhou, W., Allebone-Webb, S., Hill, N.A.O., Kumpel, N., Petrokofsky, G., Redford, K., Russell, D., Shepherd, G., Wright, J., Sunderland, T.C.H., 2015. 2015. Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to specified elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation status of those elements. Environ. Evid. 41 (20), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tree.2004.10.010. Rowley, J., 2002. Using case studies in research. Manag. Res. News 25, 16–27. https:// doi.org/10.1108/01409170210782990. Saito-Jensen, M., Nathan, I., Treue, T., 2010. Beyond elite capture? Community-based natural resource management and power in Mohammed Nagar village, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ. Conserv. 37, 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0376892910000664. Scherr, S.J., White, A., Kaimowitz, D., 2002. Making Markets Work for Forest Communities. Forest Trends and CIFOR, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17528/ cifor/001026. Shephard, D.J., Moehrenschlager, A., Mcpherson, J.M., Mason, J.J., 2010. Ten years of adaptive community-governed conservation: evaluating biodiversity protection and poverty alleviation in a West African hippopotamus reserve. Environ. Conserv. 37, 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291000041X. Shiferaw, B., Obare, G., Muricho, G., 2006. Rural Institutions and producer Organizations in Imperfect Markets: Experiences from producer Marketing groups in Semi-Arid Eastern Kenya. Socioeconomics and Policy Working Paper Series 60, 1–79. http:// agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=GB2015402209. Shiferaw, B., Hellin, J., Muricho, G., 2011. Improving market access and agricultural productivity growth in Africa: what role for producer organizations and collective action institutions? Food Secur. 3, 475–489. Sira, F.N., Craig, J.C., 1991. Managing co-operative development in third world countries: a participatory model for Kenya. J. Dev. Soc. 7, 218.

Sunderlin, W.D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., Wunder, S., 2005. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Dev. 33, 1383–1402. Sutcliffe, J.P., Wood, A., Meaton, J., 2012. Competitive forests–making forests sustainable in south-west Ethiopia [WWW Document]. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol 19, 471–481. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504509.2012.740510. Takahashi, R., Todo, Y., 2017. Coffee Certification and Forest Quality: evidence from a Wild Coffee Forest in Ethiopia. World Dev. 92, 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2016.12.001. Teheux, C., 2014. Beekeeping as a Livelihood Strategy in a Changing Environment : A Study on the Effects of Forest Governance Change and Landscape Transitions on Local Beekeepers in Rwanda. Wageningen University. Ulambayar, T., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Baival, B., Batjav, B., 2017. Social outcomes of community-based Rangeland management in Mongolian Steppe ecosystems. Conserv. Lett. 10, 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12267. Wiersum, K.F., Endalamaw, T.B., 2013. Governing Forests for Provisioning Services: The Example of Honey Production in Southwest Ethiopia. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5176-7_15. World Bank group, 2016. Official Exchange Rate (LCU per US$, Period Average) | Data [WWW Document]. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.FCRF?locations= KI, Accessed date: 7 March 2016. Wossen, T., Abdoulaye, T., Alene, A., Haile, M.G., Feleke, S., Olanrewaju, A., Manyong, V., 2017. Impacts of extension access and cooperative membership on technology adoption and household welfare. J. Rural. Stud. 54, 223–233. https://doi.org/10. 1016/J.JRURSTUD.2017.06.022. Wren, S.A., 2012. Socio-Economic and Livelihood Impacts of Environmentally Supportive Bio-Enterprise Development for the Agro−/Pastoral Communities in Samburu Heartland, Kenya. University of Plymouth. Wren, S., Speranza, C.I., 2010. The struggle to diversify rural livelihoods: bio-enterprise initiatives and their impacts on agro-pastoralists and pastoralists communities in the drylands of Kenya. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 22, 751–769. Wright, J.H., Hill, N.A.O., Roe, D., Rowcliffe, J.M., Kümpel, N.F., Day, M., Booker, F., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2016. Reframing the concept of alternative livelihoods. Conserv. Biol. 30, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12607. Wunder, S., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., 2014. Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base. World Dev. 64, S1–S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2014.03.007. Zar, J.H., 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th. Up. Saddle River. NJ Prentice Hall 1, 389–394.

145