The Contribution of Beekeeping Output to Household Income ...afghaneconomicsociety.org/images/pdf/1_Farahmand... · million Ethiopian households own honeybees, and the country sports

The Contribution of Beekeeping Output to Household Income and Food Security: The Case of Bamyan Province

Eshaq Farahmand

Volume | 002 Bochum/Kabul |2017 www.afghaneconomicsociety.org

1

The Contribution of Beekeeping Output to Household Income and Food

Security: The Case of Bamyan Province

Eshaq Farahmand

Keyword list

Beekeeping, household, neoclassical production function, honey, food security, Panjab,

Yakawlang No1, Bamyan

Abstract

This study aims to predict the annual beekeeping output empirically and identify the contribution

of honey production to beekeepers’ income and their food security in the Bamyan, Panjab and

Yakawlang No1 districts of Bamyan Province, Afghanistan. The data was collected from 300

beekeeping households(BK-HHs) in the study area.

The neoclassical production function approach was applied to predict the annual honey

production of each sampled BK-HH.

The results show that while capital and labour both contributed positively to the honey production

process, capital represented a larger coefficient than labour; this confirms that beekeeping activity

does not qualify as a labour-abundant activity. A separate group investigation distinguished

between beekeeping managed by women and men; the results indicate that businesses managed

by women produced a higher annual output than businesses managed by men.

Furthermore, the study confirms that beekeeping and annual honey production contribute

positively to the annual income of the sampled households. Honey sales were a major source of

income for the households surveyed and beekeeping was proven to eliminate the food insecurity

among rural households.

Description of Data

This study uses both primary and secondary data to identify the determinants of BK-HH’s honey

production output and costs, and also to understand the characteristics of small scale beekeeping

in Afghanistan. Beekeeping is new to Afghanistan and few accurate and detailed studies on

beekeeping activity in this country exist, particularly in the area studied of Bamyan Province.

Therefore, primary data at the household level were collected through household surveys, using

a questionnaire designed for this study. A random sample of 300 beekeepers was selected from

three districts of Bamyan-Province with 100 beekeepers selected separately from each district.

2

The data collected for this study include the annual amounts of honey produced and sold, the

total number of bee boxes in each household sampled, the number of tools used for beekeeping,

the annual amount of feed in cold seasons, the average daily time spent on beekeeping activity,

and the household income from various activities and sources.

The structured questionnaire for the beekeeping survey was developed after a field visit and

discussions with several beekeeper households. The pilot survey with fifteen households was

conducted to examine the accuracy of the questions before the main survey, and the

questionnaire was then modified accordingly.

The questionnaire accounted for annual honey production and its contribution to annual

household income. It asked for the following information: general information about the

interviewee, household composition and its demographic and social characteristics, details about

honey boxes, beekeeping tools, and where the honey boxes were placed, agricultural land, the

climate situation from a beekeeping perspective, honeybee sickness and treatment, the rural

market for honey produced, and income from other economic activities.

Research Question/Theoretical Contextualization

Ecosystem services such as pollination are important for the continuous provision of food to a

growing population. The literature has pointed out that the global decline of insect pollinator

populations around the world poses a risk to food and nourishment security; a declining pollination

rate will have a negative effect on seed yield. Additionally, the research pointed out that the total

estimated economic value of the pollination services of honeybees provide to the agricultural

industry in New Zealand totals $ 1.96 billion annually (Sandhu, et al, 2016). Beekeeping activity

has been practiced since ancient times and many cultures have long considered honey a precious

commodity to be used in medications and traditional rituals, or as food (Lietaer, 2009). While

beekeeping and honey production are practiced on a large scale around the world but this activity

also provides sustainable livelihoods to many small-scale farmers and other rural and non-rural

populations (FAO, 2012). Ethiopia has a longstanding beekeeping practice is endowed with huge

apicultural resources, which form an integral part of other agricultural activity; approximately one

million Ethiopian households own honeybees, and the country sports a hived honeybee

population of more than 5.15 million (Tesfaye, et al, 2017). Mexico’s state of Yucatan once had

the highest level of child undernourishment, but agricultural and farming improvements,

innovations in agricultural production, improvement in chicken production, and the innovation

begins on beekeeping activity and honey production were implemented in the poorest region to

alleviate the food insecurity problem (Siniarska, 2006). Beekeeping activity has contributed to the

development of rural areas by supporting agricultural production, providing honey, wax, and other

3

products for home use, and by generating income for both farmers and the landless (Farooq, et

al 2007).

As a developing country, Afghanistan faces many challenges regarding agricultural production

and food security; to decrease such problems, the ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock

and the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development together decided to propagate

beekeeping activity among households, particularly in rural areas (MAIL, 2017). Beekeeping is

an activity that can carried out in parallel with large-scale agricultural and forestry activities

assisting not only agriculture and the pollination of wild plants but also utilizing various sources

uncommonly processed by humans, such as pollen, nectar and wax. Beekeeping also offers

steady nutrition and has many advantages, such as providing the local community with wax and

honey, opening up an easy and profitable profession for farmers, creating jobs for local artisans

who produce tools (such as carpenters), improving the quality and quantity of other fruit and crops,

generally a stable source of income without eroding the environment, requiring little capital and

land, and the fact that beekeeping activities can be carried out by males and females of any age.

Thanks to the awareness of such benefits and Afghanistan’s situation as a mountainous country

with many pastures featuring various flowers that bloom for at least three seasons of the year,

after the establishment of the new government the country has has created the Department of

Beekeeping and Animal Husbandry Development (BAHDP) in the Ministry of Agriculture,

Irrigation and Livestock to expand beekeeping activities across Afghanistan (MAIL, 2014).

Bamyan is one of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces and is situated in the country’s central region.

According to the Central Statistics Organization(CSO), the province is located 2,800 meters

above sea level, with a total land area of 18,029 square km2, which denotes 2.8 percent of the

Afghan territory. Bamyan has seven neighboring provinces, bordering Baghlan and Parwan in the

northeast, Wardak and Ghazni in the southeast, Daikundi in the southwest Ghor in the west, Sar-

i-Pul in the north west, and Smangan in the north. Additionally, the province lies 240 km north-

west of Kabul. Apart from its provincial center, Bamyan has seven other districts that serve as

administration units: Shibar, Saighan, Kahmard, Yakawlang No1, Panjab, Waras and Yakawlang

No2 (CSO, 2013).

In Bamyan Province beekeeping activities were launched and developed through the direct

engagement of the Ministry of Agriculture and the financial corporation of the Agha Khan

Foundation and the ActionAid association. Theses associations worked in cooperation with the

local branches of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock and the Ministry of Rural

Rehabilitation and Development in the districts of Bamyan, Kahmard, Yakawlang No1, and

Panjab. Their efforts began in mid-2014 and more than 800 households have engaged in

beekeeping activity in the mentioned districts (Local Department of MRRD, 2015). This study

4

considers the capital district of Bamyan as well as the districts of Yakawlang No1 and Panjab,

while ignoring the Kahmard district because of security issues.

According to Afghanistan’s Central Statistic Organization, the capital district of Bamyan Province

has a population of 86,766, comprised of 43,444 females and 43,322 males (CSO, 2016). The

residents of Bamyan District are engaged in activities such as agriculture, livestock, shop-keeping.

The main crops grown in this region are wheat, barley, potato, and beans. Most of the land in this

district is infertile and unreachable, and the population is faced with serious water shortages,

small landholdings, extensive food insecurity and poor soil quality (CSO, 2013).

Yakawlang was once the largest district of Bamyan Province, but in recent years the authorities

have split it into two administration units named Yakawlang Number 1 and Yakawlang Number 2;

This study considers only Yakawlang Number1. The district mentioned is connected to the center

of Bamyan with a paved road and lies 95 km away from Bamyan’s center. Yakawlang No1 has a

population of 63,18, consisting of 31,224 females and 31,957 males which makes up the 13.8

percent of the total population of Bamyan Province. the residents of Yakawlang No1 are mostly

engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry, with these two income sources serving as their

main sources of nourishment (CSO, 2016).

Panjab Districts lies 144 km from the center of Bamyan Province, connected by a rough and dusty

road. This district has an area of 1,889 Km2 and is situated about 2,800-meters above sea level.

It has 442 villages and 19,158 households; the density is estimated at 46 persons per m2. Panjab

has a population of about 70,744, consisting of 35,006 females and 35,738 males. In the other

words, about 17% of the population of Bamyan lives in Panjab Districts. Panjab citizens’ income

and nourishment are mostly dependent on its agriculture and livestock (Japan International

Cooperation Agency , 2013).

Bamyan is a mountainous province with poor-quality soil, which has made it difficult for its citizens

to gain sources of income and food security. Flood damage is confirmed along the Sorkhjoi River,

which is the main river of Panjab District. This includes washed-away intakes, sand and mud

flowing into agricultural plots, and crop damage. Although a project to offer river protection is

underway, it is only being implemented in one section of the river and its effect is limited. The

mountaintop villages use water from springs and snowmelt for irrigation, and the situation here is

like in Yakawlang; floods caused by seasonal concentration of the outflow of water have been

reported. The farmers repair the canals every spring, but these measures are not sufficient for

flood management. The Agha Khan Foundation (AKF) has promulgated beekeeping farms in the

districts of Bamyan, Yakawlang, Panjab, and Kahmard. In order to provide the rural households

with more opportunities to diversify their income sources, thereby promoting their food security

also rising their quality of life (Japan International Cooperation Agency , 2013).

5

This study examines how honey production contributes to the income of beekeeping households,

whether it increases their access to various income sources and decreases their food insecurity.

For this purpose, the following questions are raised:

1. Does beekeeping activity provide a major source of income for the households sampled?

2. Does honey production contribute to the total income of the households sampled?

3. Does honey production decrease food insecurity among the households surveyed?

The present study uses a production function approach to predict annual honey production and

its contribution to the sampled households’ annual income. Production function is based on

economic theory and aims primarily to relate physical inputs or production factors to the physical

output of a production process. Companies or production units can use the production function

approach to predict their output under consideration of given inputs such as capital, labor, and

technology in general. By also predicting output, the production unit can define the conditions for

profit and profit maximization (Aigner, et al,1977). Production function express the combination

of inputs to produce output in a certain time span. Firms usually use the production function

approach to predict the maximum possible of production under considration of a given amount of

inputs (Aigner & Chu, 1968).

Field Research Design/ Data Gathering-Methods

The survey was conducted in the Bamyan, Yakawlang No1, and Panjab districts of Bamyan

Province. Bamyan lies 240 km north west of Kabul, while, Yakawlang No1 and Panjab lie 96 and

144 km away from the center on Bamyan respectively. In mid-2014, two local NGOs (ActionAid

and the Agha Khan Foundation) in Bamyan Province began to implement beekeeping activities

in the districts of Bamyan, Yakawlang No1, Panjab, and Kahmard. As Kahmard had security

issues, the study covered only Panjab, Yakawlang No1, and Bamyan. In total, 510 beekeeping

households from all three districts were registered with the mentioned incorporated NGOs, and

the distribution of registered beekeepers among the districts was as follows: 240 in Panjab, 140

in Yakawlang No1 and 130 in Bamyan. This study randomly selected 100 beekeepers from the

registered list of each district, for a total sample of 300 beekeepers.

Model Specification

This study uses the production function approach to estimate annual honey production in each

household sampled and so examine the contribution of honey production to annual household

income. Honey output is measured in kilograms and denoted by X; this output is generated by

capital (K; includes honeybees, honey boxes, machine to filter honey from beehive, tools, and

sugar water during the winter and late fall seasons) and labor (L; includes household members

who are involved in the beekeeping activity). Beekeeping is considered a low-tech activity and

6

the level of technology is assumed to be the same for all beekeepers. The general form of the

production function approach is demonstrated as follows:

(1) 𝑋𝑖 = 𝑓(𝐴, 𝐾𝛼 , 𝐿𝛽)

To estimate the contribution of each component of Equation 1 on the explained variable, the

above equation is reformed as follows:

(2) 𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑋𝑖 = 𝛼0 + 𝛼𝑙𝑜𝑔𝐾𝑖 + 𝛽 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝐿𝑖

By analyzing Equation 2, one can estimate the annual average honey production in each sampled

household, so the households will offer their produced honey to the local market and local traders

at an exact price (P) to generate income from this path. To calculate the gross income (GI ( of

sampled households, the following equation is used:

(3) 𝐺𝐼𝑖 = 𝑋𝑖 ∗ 𝑃

Where 𝐺𝐼𝑖 denotes the gross income for each household in the sample, 𝑋𝑖 shows the amount of

honey produced during one year in kilograms and P expresses the price of each kilogram of

honey. To measure the net income (NI ( of sampled households from honey production; some

small costs (𝐶𝑖) must be deducted from the gross income and expressed as follows:

(4) 𝑁𝐼𝑖 = 𝑋𝑖 ∗ 𝑃 − 𝐶𝑖

As the sampled households have various income sources, an incentive exists to discover the

importance of each income source from an earning perspective. Therefore, a simple regression

is considered to find out the contribution of each income source on total annual income as follows:

(5) 𝑌𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑚𝐼𝑛𝑐 + 𝛽2𝑛𝑜𝑛𝐹𝑎𝑟𝑚𝐼𝑛𝑐 + 𝛽3ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑦𝑃𝑟𝑜𝐼𝑛𝑐 + 𝛽4𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑦&𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝐼𝑛𝑐 + 𝑈𝑖

Where 𝑌𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑡 denotes the total annual income, i stands for each household, (𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑚𝐼𝑛𝑐) for the

household farming income, (𝑛𝑜𝑛𝐹𝑎𝑟𝑚𝐼𝑛𝑐) for the non-farming income, (ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑦𝑃𝑟𝑜𝐼𝑛𝑐) for the

income from honey production sales, and (𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑦&𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝐼𝑛𝑐) for the dairy and remittances

income while 𝑈𝑖 express the residual in this regression line.

7

Results

Demographic and Income Composition

The 300 sampled beekeeper households in the three districts of Bamyan Province had an

average of eight members each, distributed equally from a gender perspective. Four members of

each household were of working age, between 18 and 65. The rest were family elders above 65

or children, younger 18; these two mentioned groups are considered inactive in economic activity.

The sampled households were earning an average annual cash income per capita of 37,367 Afg

from various income sources, which is equivalent to €498.

The beekeepers sampled were using many materials and tools as inputs for their beekeeping;

the principal ones are stated in Table 1. They had 977 honey boxes full of honeybees, and were

provided with 831 empty boxes during the year to create new bee-hives, since a single bee box

does not have enough space; the beekeepers need to separate a colony into another empty

honey box. They used 288 wax scratchers, 349 brushes, and 300 honey-filtering machines to

separate the honey from the beehive and prepare the produced honey for further processing, as

well as 212 hats while driving out honey from the beehive, along with 342 special gloves and 300

smokers tool to pump the smoke inside the beehive. The action makes the bees a little dizzy,

preventing them from biting the people working to extract the honey.

Table 1. Number of Tools Used in Each Household for Beekeeping Activities

No Type of tools Number of boxes and tools Median Mean

1 (Total number of)Honey

boxes 977 6 6

2 Empty boxes 831 3 3

3 Wax scratchers 288 1 1

4 Brushes 349 1 1

5 Honey filtering machines 300 1 1

6 Hats 212 1 1

7 Gloves 342 1 1

8 Smokers 300 1 1

Estimation of Honey Production Among Beekeeper Households

Beekeeping is a major source of income for the targeted area in Bamyan Province. On average,

each household has six bee boxes to produce honey for one year. The contribution of capital and

labor to annual honey production is estimated using Equation 2 and the results are presented in

Table 2 below.

8

This analysis considers two different models: Model1 expresses the initial estimation without any

statistical test and is presented in the second column of Table2. According to Model1, capital and

labor as explanatory variables contributed positively to the honey production of the sampled

beekeepers. The second step of the analysis is Model2, which applies different statistical tests to

increase the reliability of the estimation. The outcomes of this step are presented in the third

column of Table2. Model2 applies a heteroscedasticity test to determine whether the emphasized

approach suffers from heteroscedasticity. The test confirms that it does; since the P-value is under

5%, one can reject the null hypothesis. The Huber-White test is applied to solve the

heteroskedasticity problem and produce consistent standard errors; the model was accordingly

changed from OLS to GLS. The standardized coefficient and robust standard errors are reported

under Model2 in the third column. In addition, Ramsey test used to chick for misspecification and

an appropriate linear relationship between the explained variable and the explanatory variables.

In this test, the null hypothesis is rejected once more, signifying that the current model suffers

from a misspecification problem.

Table 2: Estimation of Neoclassical Honey Production Function, Including All Beekeepers

Logarithmic estimation of annual honey production, consisting of 300 observations

Variables Model1 Model2

Log(K): 0.74∗∗∗ 𝟎. 𝟓𝟐∗∗∗

(0.069) [0.106]

Log(L): 0.15∗∗∗ 𝟎. 𝟏𝟓∗∗∗

(0.050) [0.050]

Constant -2.02 NA

(0.449) -

Observation 300 300

Adjusted R-squared 0.32 0.32

Prob(F-statistic) 0.0000 0.0000

Akaike 0.709251 0.709251

Heteroscedasticity Breusch-Pagan-test:

F-statistic= 16.988 Prob.F(2,297) =0.0000

Obs*R-squared= 30.7967 Prob.chi-square (2)=0.0000

Ramsey test: Value Df Probability

F-statistic: 2.525781 (1,296) 0.0121

Note: standardized coefficients are indicated in bold, robust standard error in bracket;*** is signifies a

confidence level of 0.01, ** a confidence level of 0.05, and * a confidence level of 0.1.

Of the 300 beekeeping businesses, 156 are managed by women and the rest are managed by

men. This paper analyzes these two groups separately to examine whether they produce different

amounts of honey annually. The analysis indicates that the first group women uses capital and

labor more productively. The initial results of beekeeping activities managed by women are

presented under Model1a and the results with standardized coefficients and robust standard

errors are presented under Model2a of Table 3. This model suffered from a homoscedasticity

problem because P-value was less than 5% the issue was solved by applying the Huber-White

9

test and the model was changed from OLS to GLS. In addition, the Ramsey test revealed that the

model has a misspecification problem. The results are presented in the third column of Table 3.

A separate investigation of beekeeping managed by men was conducted. The initial results are

presented under Model1b and the robust standard errors and standardized coefficients are

denoted under Molde2b in the fifth column of Table 3.

Table 3: Estimation of Honey Production with a Distinction Between Male and Female Managers

Logarithmic estimation of annual honey production, distinguishing between beekeeping managed by

women and men

Beekeeping managed by women, n=

(156)

Beekeeping managed by men, n= (144)

Variables (Model1a) (Model2a) (Model1b) (Model2b)

Log(K): 0.85∗∗∗ 𝟎. 𝟓𝟖∗∗∗ 0.71∗∗∗ 𝟎. 𝟓𝟏∗∗∗

(0.096) [0.135] (0.101) [0.151]

Log(L): 0.09∗∗∗ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕∗∗∗ 0.05𝑁𝑆 𝟎. 𝟎𝟔𝑵𝑺

(0.088) [0.100] (0.062) [0.057]

C -2.43 NA -1.73 NA

(0.560) [0.560] (0.427) [0.631]

Observation 156 156 144 144

Adj-R-squared 0.33 0.33

Prob(F-statistic) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Akaike 0.558091 0.558091 0.922649 0.922649

Heteroskedasticity-Breusch Pagan-test:

F-statistic=5.462451 Prob.F(2,153) =0.0051 F-statistic=7.485368 Prob.F(2,141) =0.0008

Ob-R-sq=10.39674 Prob.chi-sq=0.0055 Ob-R-sq=13.82173 Prob.chi-sq=0.0010

Ramsey test: Value Df Probability Value Df Probability

F-statistic 0.411705 (1,152) 0.5221 17.83785 (2,139) 0.0000

Note: standardized coefficients are indicated in bold, robust standard error in bracket;*** is signifies a

confidence level of 0.01, ** a confidence level of 0.05, and * a confidence level of 0.1, and NS= not

significant.

The income composition of beekeeping households is estimated using Equation 5 and the initial

results are obtained in the second column under Model1 of Table 4. The final results, using

statistical tests Model2, are derived in the third column of Table 4. The estimated parameters

under Model1 reject the shift of household members from one income source to another, since

the elasticity of these sources signifies that they are not truly distinguishable.

10

Table 4: Income Composition of the Sampled Beekeeper Households

Income composition of surveyed beekeeper households

Variables Elasticity of income source

Model1

Elasticity of income source

Model 2

Honey production income 1.044∗∗∗ 𝟎. 𝟏𝟑𝟑∗∗∗

(0.078) [0.133]

Farming income 1.063∗∗∗ 𝟎. 𝟓𝟓∗∗∗

(0.022) [0.055]

Non-farming income 1.056∗∗∗ 𝟎. 𝟕𝟐∗∗∗

(0.014) [0.030]

C -2952.784 NA

(4048.570) -

Observation 300 300

Adjusted R-squared 0.97 0.97

Akaike 24.34486 24.34486

Prob(F-statistic) 0.0000 Heteroskedasticity- Breusch-Pagan test:

F-statistic:9.130462 Prob.F(3,296) = 0.0000

Obs R-squared:25.40398 Prob.chi-square (3) =0.0000

Ramsey test: Value Df Probability

F-statistic 4.104683 (2,294) 0.0175

Note: standardized coefficients are indicated in bold, robust standard error in brackets, *** signifies a

confidence level of 0.01, ** a confidence level of 0.05 and * a confidence level of 0.1.

Assessment of HHs’ Honey Income with Respect to Annual Predicted Production

To compute the net income from honey production, this study considers three different groups of

beekeepers in the study area: all sampled beekeepers, beekeeping managed by women, and

managed by men. The annual production of honey is estimated using a logarithmic form; thus, a

log-level convert solution is required to predict the annual production in kilograms. Therefore,

Equation 2 applies several measurement steps to the three groups.

To obtain the annual honey production in kilograms of all sampled beekeepers, the following steps

are applied. Firstly, the estimated parameters for the explanatory variables are considered, which

is predicted under Model1 and presented in Table 2. Subsequently, each parameter is multiplied

to the logarithmic value of the identical variable. Adding a constant value to the equation produces

the logarithmic value of the annual average honey production for each beekeeping household.

The logarithmic value of annual production is then converted into kilograms. Taken together,

these steps produce the predicted annual honey production for a single beekeeper household in

kilograms. The same approach is then used to obtain the annual honey production for beekeeping

managed by women; the parameters for the explanatory variables are estimated under Model1a

and presented in Table 3. The same calculation is applied for beekeeping managed by men

presented under Model1b in Table 2. A brief calculation of the results from all three groups

presented in Table 5.

11

Table 5: Conversion of Predicted Output from Logarithmic Value to Level Value

Measurement of annual honey production, n = 300:

Log (honey production in kg) = 1.55 => (1.55)10 = 80 𝑘𝑔 as annual honey production in each

household.

Measurement of annual honey production where the beekeeping activity is managed by women, n = 156:

Log (honey production in kg) = 1.56 => (1.56)10 = 85.3 𝑘𝑔 as annual honey production in each

household.

Measurement of annual honey production where the beekeeping activity is managed by men, n = 144:

Log (honey production in kg ) = 1.541 => (1.541)10 = 76 𝑘𝑔 as annual honey production in each

household.

Measurement of Net Income from Annual Honey Production

The cost of honey production is approximately the same in all surveyed households. Thus, their

annual net income is calculated with Equation 4 which is illustrated in the Model Specification

Section, and based on the estimated annual honey production which is presented in Table 5.

The average sales price for each kilogram, the predicted annual honey production for all sampled

beekeepers as well as for beekeeping managed by women and men, the total annual cost, and

the gross and net annual income from honey production are all shown separately in Table 6

below.

Table 6: Calculation of Income from Estimated Annual Honey Production

Distinction of beekeepers by

gender

No of

beekeeping

HHs

Average

p/kg

Predicted

output in

kg

Gross

annual

income

Afg (€)

Annual

cost

Afg (€)

Net

annual

income

Afg (€)

Number of beekeepers in

total 300 688 80

53,440

(713)

2,956

(39)

50,484

(674)

Number of beekeeping

operations managed by

women

156 685 85

58,225

(776)

2,865

(38)

55,360

(738)

Number of beekeeping

operations managed by men 144 733 76

55,708

(743)

3,056

(41)

52,652

(702)

A: The exchange rate is the one current in the Kabul financial market at the time of the

survey, 1€ = 75 Afghani

B: Euro currency denoted in parentheses and Afghani currency denoted without parentheses

12

Discussion & Conclusion

This study evaluates how much annual honey production contributes to a BK-HH’s income

through an empirical investigation of three districts of Bamyan Province, Afghanistan. The

sampled BK-HHs have various major sources of income, from both farming activities (including

livestock and agriculture) and non-farming activities, which include shop-keeping, administrative

work, beekeeping, and handicrafts. With respect to beekeeping earnings the businesses

managed by women showed higher earnings than those managed by men.

A growing number of households are engaged in beekeeping activity in all three mentioned

districts in Bamyan Province. A neoclassical production function approach was applied to

evaluate the contribution of capital and labor to the honey production of the sampled BK-HHs.

This assessment reveals that while capital and labor both contribute to the honey production

process, capital has a larger impact than labor. Beekeeping can accordingly be considered a

capital abundant business that producers can engage in even with few workers.

Further, the study evaluates the differences between beekeeping managed by women and men.

The results indicate that female beekeepers produce about nine kg more honey than their male

counterparts. This result may be because men are engaging in beekeeping as a supplement to

another, official job, while beekeeping serves as the women’s main job. Therefore, women invest

more time and effort into beekeeping than men.

The sampled households’ income compositions indicate that honey production is a major source

of revenue. Thus, engagement in beekeeping activity particularly in the rural area of Bamyan

creates an additional and achievable income source and can decrease the rate of food insecurity

among the surveyed households and society as a whole.

13

References

Aigner, D. J., & Chu, S. F. (1968). On estimating the industry production function. American Economic

Association, 58(4), 826-839.

CSO. (2013). Socio-demographic and economic survey Bamyan. Kabul: Central Statistics Organization of

Afghanistan with co-oporation of UNFPA.

CSO. (2016, December 28th). Central Statistics Organization of Afghanistan. Retrieved from

www.cso.gov.af: http://www.cso.gov.af/fa/page/demography-and-socile-statistics/demograph-

statistics/3897111.

CSO. (2016, December 28th). Demography. Retrieved from CSO:

http://www.cso.gov.af/fa/page/demography-and-socile-statistics/demograph-

statistics/3897111.

Farooq Ahmad, S. R. (2007). Beekeeping and rural development. Kathmandu: International Center for

Integrated Mountain Development(ICIMOD).

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2012). Beekeeping and sustaniablelLivelihoods. Rome: FAO

Diversification booklet Number 1 .

Harpinder Sandhu, B. W. (2016). Scarcity of ecosystem services: An experimental manipulation of

declining pollination rates and its economic consequences for agriculture. PeerJ 4:e2099; DOI

10.7717/peerj.2099.

Japan International Cooperation Agency . (2013). Project for socio-economic activation of rural

Afghanistan. Kabul: Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development.

Lietaer, C. (2009). Impact of beekeeping on forest conservation ,preservation of forest ecosystems and

poverty reduction . Forestry Congress Buenos Aires , Argentina, 18-23.

Local Department of MRRD. (2015). Annual activity report. Bamyan: Local Department of MRRD.

MAIL. (2014). Beekeeping and animal husbandry development project (BAHDP). Kabul: Ministry of

Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL).

MAIL. (2017, December 22nd). News. Retrieved from the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and

Livestock: http://mail.gov.af/fa/news

Siniarska, H. E. (2006). Changes in a rural community (Yucatan, Mexico) associated with improvements

in production and productivity. International Journal of Anthropology, 21(2), 131-140.

Tesfaye, B., Begna, D., & Eshetu, M. (2017). Beekeeping Practices , trends and constraints in Bale, south-

eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture Extension and Rural Development, 9(4), 62-73.