Meliponiculture as a sustainable development alternative: financial management within family groups in northeast Amazon, Brazil

Gisele Freitas da Silva giselefresa@yahoo.com.br

Giorgio Cristino Venturieri giorgio@cpatu.embrapa.br

Enilson Solano A. Silva enilson@cpatu.embrapa.br

INTRODUCTION Nowadays, agrobusiness status is the result of technological advances that allow a competitiveness of rural products in an increasingly demanding market. As such it has an unquestionable role in the economy of developing countries. On the other hand, the agricultural model, which is normally used in these countries, provides a concentration of richness at the rural environment, excluding from the development process a large part of population from the countryside. Following the Program of Production of Familiar Agriculture (2004), of the Brazilian government, the modernization in the agrarian sector left household production at the mercy of large properties, and favored migration of the rural population to the big cities. Social and environmental problems, among others, are the consequences of a lack of political measures to improve family agriculture. Family agriculture has a fundamental role in Brazilian rural economy. It occupies 30.5% of the cultivated area and represents 85.2% of the agricultural establishments. It is responsible for 37.9% of the total national agric production, although receiving only 25.3% of agricultural credit. When the basic food products of the Brazilian people and small animals are considered, the contribution of the family production reaches 60% of the total (GALVÃO et al. 2001). The application of available and appropriate technologies to family agriculture sector can generate an increase in production, through an increase in productivity or through a decrease in loss. This strategy has demonstrated that this segment can be viable and profitable, contributing to an improvement in the quality of rural life (AGRICULTURA FAMILIAR 2004). The model of family scale production also presents advantages of business diversification and brings social and environmental benefits. However, in poorer regions, where the development indices are aggravated by the low level of education and access to credit, the introduction of technological innovations is prejudiced. Considering this reality, new possibilities can be exploited as alternatives for sustainable development. Meliponiculture, breeding of indigenous stingless bees, is an activity that has been encouraged in several regions of the country. The honey produced by these bees is used as a source of food and medicine and, in some cases, represents an important improvement in family income. In the Northeast of Brazil, where meliponiculture is already practiced for some time, there are beekeepers with about 1.500 hives that survive practically only trading this product (DRUMOND 2004).

1

In the state of Pará, meliponiculture, an activity which adjusts perfectly to the concepts of diversification and sustainable use of the Amazonian land, is practiced by farmers of several communities of the interior of the state. In the town of Igarapé-Açu, Northeast of Pará, there are many beekeepers that breed stingless bees in a rudimentary way (traditional manner), i.e., in “cortiços” or traditional hives, also known as “caboclas-boxes”. Nevertheless, some methods of rational breeding of stingless bees have been proposed and have demonstrated an increase in production, ease of collection and in quality of the honey (PORTUGAL-ARAÚJO 1955; NOGUEIRA-NETO 1997; VENTURIERI et al., 2003a, 2003b). On the other hand, generally the beekeepers give little importance to this activity and ignore how much it could contribute to their income. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the financial and economic aspects of meliponiculture for communities in the municipality of Igarapé-Açu.

METHODOLOGY This research was performed in the municipality of Igarapé-Açu, located in the northeast of Pará, 110 Km from Belém, with an area of 768 Km2, between the latitude of 0o o o o 55' and 1 20', and longitudes of 47 20' and 47 50'. Igarapé-Açu is part of the microregion of Bragantina, the most ancient region of slash-and-burn agriculture of the Brazilian Amazon. Four households were selected for this study. They presented the following characteristics: they were located near communities with a significant population, occupied small areas of around 15 hectares, their production was based on short cycle crops and they also keep stingless bees. In general, the floral composition of the surrounding areas of the properties was composed by poor secondary vegetation, small cultivars, grazing areas, seasonal crops (such as passion fruit) and perennial crops (such as oil palm). This study involved quantitative and qualitative aspects, comparing data from the literature and data collected through interviews with beekeepers. We compared results of production from traditional and rational beekeeping, collected from literature. Published information about honey production from rational hives was compared to data from traditional hives collected in this study. Based on the information collected in this study, a budget was determined to identify the amount of money necessary to implement a small apiary with 20 rational hives. In this planning, family labour and materials collected from the property were considered. The depreciation of the materials used was calculated based on the following formula: Depreciation = Actual value, (residual value = 0).

Useful life Throw the budget composition, were possible to calculate the cash flow from the meliponiculture, using 20 rational hives, projected to be used for 10 years, and a market value of R$ 25.00/l of honey (US$ 8.30). The methodology used to calculate the budget, considered the structure of operational costs with the objective to estimate all the

2

expenses with productive resources and services used in the implantation and maintenance of the activity. To analyze the viability of meliponiculture we used the financial indicators Net Present Value (NPL), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Cost-Benefit Ratio (C/B) and Break-Even Point (BEP). Calculations were done using the MS-Excel program through formulae adopted by Sanguino et al. (1999). The economic impacts of the traditional keeping in the family gross earnings were analyzed. We also evaluated the economic impacts introducing rational methods of stingless bees keeping. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Comparative analysis: traditional x rational breeding Factor Production According to the data obtained from the beekeepers, shown in Table 1, we could calculate the average honey production using the traditional breeding system (with “cabocla” hive). We found a value of 1.25l honey/hive/year. This average production, however, is low when compared to the average honey produced in the town of Bragança, that was 2.43l in nests propagated in the same year, and from 3 to 4.4 l in hives occupied for more than a year (Venturieri et al. 2003). The lower average production of Igarapé-Açu can be related to the floral composition used by the bees in the studied area, which is predominantly secondary low vegetation. Another explanation to this lower production refers to the more intense relationship from the stingless bees with high trees (OLIVEIRA 2003), that in the region are only found in fragments of riverine forests. Table 1. Honey production in “cabocla” hives in Igarapé-Açu

BEEKEEPER PRODUCTION / HIVE A 1,5 B 1,5 C 1,0 D 1,0

Average 1,25 Source: interviews from this research In relation to breeding using rational hives, preliminary studies performed in Bragança, showed an average production of 3.32 litres of honey/hive/year (Venturieri et al. 2003). Figure 1 shows the average values of honey production in traditional hives compared to rational hives. It was observed that the introduction of the rational hive (figure 2b) can, at a minimum, duplicate the volume of production of the beekeepers. Moreover, it facilitated honey collection, and improved honey quality and hygiene. However, according to Drumond (2004), some beekeepers from the Northeast, were able to collect from 5 to 8 litres of honey/hive/year. But there is a variation due to the blooming in the area, being the

3

productivity of the hives depending on the bee plants and on the existence of other beekeepers in the surroundings.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

traditional hives rational hives

prod

uctio

n (li

tre)

Figure 1. Average values of honey production.

Costs In general, the beekeepers, did not have expense with the construction of the “cabocla” hives, since they used residues of wood to make them, and mud to seal crevices (figure 2a).

Figure 2. Stingless beekeeping . a- traditional hives in Igarapé-Açu; b- rational hives in Bragança, PA, Brazil.

Among the interviewed people only one bought wood to build the traditional hives. In this way, it was possible to measure the costs. Using only a piece of plank two hives were built, without any extra costs according to the information provided by the beekeepers. This box costs around R$ 3,00 (US$ 1.10). In relation to the cover from the boxes, it is generally not necessary since the hives are placed laterally to houses or huts. In relation to their management, it is not adequate. The beekeepers simply verify sporadically whether the hives are being invaded by pests. They usually spend less than 20 min in this work. To obtain the nests there is also no expense because they get them from the forest.

4

On the other hand, the rational hive (figure 2b) presents higher costs. Its unitary value is R$ 20,00 (US$ 7.40), including the manual work of the carpenter. Nowadays, there are several models of rational hives for different bee species. However, the model adopted by Embrapa Amazônia Oriental (Venturieri et al. 2003) is indicated. It introduced modifications in order to suit the local bee species better. In figure 3 it is possible to observe the internal view from a vertical rational hive. The fixed costs and variables in meliponiculture with rational breeding, involving shelter, management, honey collection and wrapping are the following: Fixed costs: apiary, spatula, chisel, filter cloth, plastic bucket of 10 litres, rational hive and fixed manual work; Variable costs: wrapping pots (500ml), vinegar, sugar and variable manual work. Based on these costs it was possible to estimate the budget for implementation and maintenance of 20 rational hives, according to table 2.

Figure 3. Internal view from the rational hive (Original draw from S. Cordeiro).

5

Table 2. Budget for implementation and maintenance of 20 rational hives. Items Unit Quant. Unitary

value (R$)

Total Total Invest. (US$)

Useful Life

(years)

AnnualCost (R$)

Annual Invest.

(R$) Cost (US$)

I. installations 553,65 205.06 10 55,36 20.50II. tools 7,50 2.78 3 2,50 0.93III. utensils 6,50 2.41 3 2,17 0.80IV. materials 17,00 6.30V. wrapping pots 26,40 9.78VI. manual work 162,50 60.19Total of initial investment 567,65 210.24 Total of operational costs 265,93 98.49Production/earnings* litre 66 25,00 1650,00 611.11Earnings 1384,00 512.59Cost-Benefit 6,20 2.30Break-even point litre 10,64 3.94Production/ earnings** litre 66 12,50 825,00 305.56Earnings 559,07 207.06Cost-Benefit 3,10 1.15Break-even point litre 21,27 7.88Source: data from this research Technical indices used * Value of one litre at the market: R$ 25,00 (US$9.26) ** Value of one litre of honey on site: R$ 12,50 (US$ 4.63) Productivity: 3.32l/hive/year US$ 1 = R$ 2,70 Manual work Capture of nests: 0.5 men/day (m/d) per nest; Cleaning of the area: 0.25 m/d for cleaning; Management: 0.25m/d for 20 rational hives, being 20 visits/year; Construction of the apiary: 2m/d, considering one helper; Honey collection: 0.5m/d for the 20 hives, being 2 people working/2h; Wrapping: 0.5m/d for the production of 66l (2 people/2h). Based on the data from table 3, one can observe that it is necessary to do an initial investment of R$ 567,65 (US$ 210.24), distributed in the following manner:

Table 3. Total initial investment for the meliponiculture.

Items TOTAL INITIAL INVESTIMENT (R$)

TOTAL INITIAL INVESTIMENT (US$)*

I. Installation 553,65 205.05 II. Tools 7,50 2.77 III. Utensils 6,50 2.40 Total 567,65 210.24

* US$ 1.00 = R$ 2,70 in 12/04/2004 In this initial investment depreciation was included for each of the mentioned items. The values of devaluation summed to the needed resources (materials, wrapping pots, manual work, management, honey collection and wrapping annual cost of the production sums R$ 265,93 (US$ 98.49).

6

The predicted annual honey production is of 66 litres. If sold for the price of R$ 25,00/l (US$ 9.26/l) the gross earnings will be R$ 1.650,00 (US$ 611.11). The net earnings (Gross Earnings minus the Operational Costs) will be R$ 1.384,00 (US$ 512.59). These numbers indicate a Cost-Benefit Ratio of 6,20, i.e., for each R$1,00 (US$ 0.37) spent the beekeeper will have a return of R$ 6,20 (US$ 2.29). The Point of Equilibrium of this production will be of 10.64 litres, i.e., from the sale of the 12th litre of honey the beekeeper will have profit. In other words, the production (66 litres) is five times larger than the Break-even point (11 litres). On the other hand, if the product will be sold at R$ 12,50 (US$ 4.63), local price, the gross earnings will be R$ 825,00 (US$ 305.55) and the net earnings R$ 559,07 (US$ 207.06), with a cost-benefit ratio of 3.10 and a Break-even point of 21.27 litres. It is important to stress that the honey produced by the local family beekeepers, which is traded at R$ 12,50 (US$ 4.63), is of low quality. This is because of a lack of hygienic practices during the production process, which favours fermentation and contamination. In this way the honey becomes less competitive and inadequate for the formal market. In this sense, Venturieri et al. (2003) (1) mention that the use of rational hives improves the quantity and quality of the honey. Consequently this adds value, increasing the selling prices and the opening of new markets.

Analysis of viability indicators The cash flow represents the need of resources of the activity during a certain period of time. Table 4 shows the annual flux of production, as the earnings obtained with meliponiculture, based on the model of 20 rational hives, with an estimate for 10 years, life time of the business. From the results were calculated the Net Present Value (NPV), considering a discount rate of 6% p.a. and the Cost-Benefit Ratio (C/B). The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) could not be calculated because there was a financial return from the 1st year.

7

Table 4. Cash flow of the meliponiculture in Igarapé-Açu, PA, using 20 rational hives during 10 years, in the family unit. Years (US$) Items

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Installations

Rational hive 148.15 Construction of apiary-2,0x2,4x1,9m 56.91 Tools 2.78 Uten sils 2 1.4 Materials 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30Wrapping pots 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78Manual work 60.19 60.19 60.19 60.19 60.19 60.19 60.19 60.19 60.19 60.19A – Total 286.50 76.26 76.26 76.26 76.26 76.26 76.26 76.26 76.26 76.26B – Earnings 611.11 611.11 611.11 611.11 611.11 611.11 611.11 611.11 611.11 611.11C – Net Earnings (B – A) 324.61 534.85 534.85 534.85 534.85 534.85 534.85 534.85 534.85 534.85

Discount rate = 6% per annum NPV = R$ 10.092,54 (US$ 3,737.97) Cost-Benefit Ratio = 5,92 * US$ 1,00 = R$ 2,70 in 12/04/2004

8

One can observe that in the first year the income is enough to cover all expenses, of initial investment, and the other costs needed for honey production. The same happens in subsequent years. Analyzing the viability indicators, which presented values of NPV R$ 10.092,54 (US$ 3,737.97) and cost-benefit ratio 5.92, there is a recovery of the invested capital in the 1st year of activity, which returns an economic profit. One can confirm from this that meliponiculture is an activity very attractive economically and within family agriculture will provide a significant impact on family income. Other advantages of this activity should be taken into consideration, such as: the initial investment is relatively low, and therefore, compatible with the profile of the small familiar producer and the time investment in manual work with meliponiculture of only 16 days/year. This promotes an increase of more than 5 minimal wages in the income of the producer. Therefore, beekeeking of stingless bees do not interfere on other activities at the property, and appears as a complementary alternative for family income. It is important to mention yet that the financial analyses of viability were performed taking into account 20 productive units. Nevertheless, following Venturieri et al. (2003) the support capacity, without the depletion of the bee plants of the surroundings, is of up to 200 nests. Economic impacts of meliponiculture on the families It was observed that during the interviews there was a large lack of interest in meliponiculture, and that it plays a secondary role for the majority of the producers, for according to them, the profit with the activity is low. Table 4 shows data of the economic impact of the meliponiculture on annual gross earnings, using traditional hives.

Table 4. Economic impact of meliponiculture on annual income, using traditional hives.

Beekeeper Total annual income

Total annual income

Annual income

from honey (R$)

Annual income

from honey (US$)

Impact on annual income (%)

(R$) (US$)A 2.100,00 777.78 60,00 22.22 2.8 B 10.400,00 3,851.85 45,00 16.67 0.4 C 7.800,00 2,888.89 60,00 22.22 0.7 D 8.400,00 3,111.11 1.100,00 407.41 13

One can observe that only one of the producers had a significant percentage impact on family income (13%). Probably this was a result of the larger number of hives (30) and of the higher sale price, about 20,00/litre of honey, since the others use the local price which varies from R$ 10,00 (US$ 3.70) to R$15,00 (US$ 5.55)/litre of honey.

9

In table 5 are shown the results of the economic impact of meliponiculture on the annual family income using the proposed model, that utilizes 20 rational hives and a market price of R$ 25,00 (US$ 9.26)/litre of honey.

Table 5. Economic impact of meliponiculture on annual income, using 20 rational hives.

Beekeeper annual income

annual income

annual income/

annual impact income/ on annual

income (R$) (US$) honey honey (RS$) (US$) (%)

A 2.100,00 777.78 1650,00 611.11 78.6 B 10.400,00 3,851.85 1650,00 611.11 15.9 C 7.800,00 2,888.89 1650,00 611.11 21.5 D 8.400,00 3,111.11 1650,00 611.11 19.64

Analyzing the results one can observe that the economic impact on the annual family income increased considerably. This occurred due to the following factors: the increase in the number of productive units; the selling price and the utilization of rational hives that improve aspects such as quantity and quality of the obtained honey. One can verify as well that the major impact occurred on the beekeeper "A" that had the lower annual income. Therefore, the annual family income was inversely proportional to the economic impact. In other words, the lower the annual income, the larger the economic impact on it and vice-versa. Therefore, is remarkable that it is possible to improve the quality of life of those families with meliponiculture using the rational method of breeding. Another important aspect is observed when the manual work is done by the own producer and the materials are from the family. There is a reduction of 61.3% of the investment costs in relation to the budget used in this study. In this sense, the implementation of a strategy, in order to reduce the costs, will guarantee a significant increase in the viability of the activity. In this context, it should be stressed that the stingleess bees honey can be considered as an “indirect profit”, since according to Melo (2004) this honey is considerably richer in terms of energy. In fact, it is a complementary food of great importance, because it contains sugar, mineral salts, vitamins and proteins, which are essential nutrients in the human diet. Moreover, it is largely utilized in popular medicine, decreasing expenses with medicines.

CONCLUSIONS Meliponiculture plays a secondary role in the families of Igarapé-Açu, PA, where they use the traditional method of breeding, producing honey with low indices of quality and productivity; The proposed model of breeding is economically viable, and it presents initial investment and operational costs relatively low for family production;

10

The utilization of 20 productive units need 16 days/year with the use of manual work, promoting an increase of more than 5 minimum wages in the income of the producer and gives a financial return from the first year; The economic impact of stingless beekeeping using the rational method is significant and inversely proportional to family income. REFERENCES AGRICULTURA FAMILIAR. Embrapa/CPATU: Belém, 2004. Available in: <http://www.cpatu.embrapa.br>. Access in: 23/03/2004. DRUMOND, P. Abelhas indígenas sem ferrão. Embrapa/ CPAFAC: Acre, 2004. Available in: <http://www.cpafac.embrapa.br/chefias/cna/artigos/abelhas.htm>. Access in: 29/03/2004. GALVÃO, E.U.P; VILAR, R. R. L.; MENEZES, A.J.E.A. de; SANTOS, A. A. R. dos. Caracterização dos sistemas de produção da agricultura familiar de Nova Colônia, Município de Capitão Poço, Pará. Belém: Embrapa, Amazônia Oriental / Documentos 90, 2001. 31p. OLIVEIRA, F.P.M. Recurso polínico de abelhas sem ferrão (Apidae, Meliponinae) em floresta urbana na Amazônia. PhD Thesis– INPA/UFAM. Manaus –AM, 2003. MELO, R. Abelhas sem ferrão – um bom negócio. INPA, 2004. Available in: http://www.inpa.gov.br/em_evidencia/03-08-07_abelhas_sem_ferrao.htm. Access in: 04/12/2004. NOGUEIRA-NETO, P. A vida e criação de abelhas indígenas sem ferrão. São Paulo, SP: Ed. Nogueirapis, 1997. 445p. PORTUGAL-ARAÚJO, V. de. Colméias para as abelhas sem ferrão – Meliponini. Boletin do Instituto de Angola. n. 7, vol. 9, 1955. p. 9-31. PROGRAMA DE SISTEMAS DE PRODUÇÃO DA AGRICULTURA FAMILIAR. Embrapa/ CPATU: Belém, 2004. Available in: <http://www.gigaf.cnptia.embrapa.br/itens/progo9/index.html>. Access in 23/03/2004. SANGUINO, A.C.; SANTANA, A.C.de; HOMMA, A.K.O. Análise econômica da produção de eucalipto no Estado do Pará. Revista de Ciências Agrárias. n.31, p. 13-20, Belém, 1999. VENTURIERI, G. C; FERNANDES, M. M.; RODRIGUES, S. T.; SANTANA, J. C. S.; RAIOL, V. F. O. Caracterização e avaliação de abelhas indígenas e de plantas utilizadas para a produção de mel entre os pequenos agricultores da Amazônia oriental. Embrapa – CNPq/ COAGR: Research Report, Belém, 2003. 84p. (a)

11

VENTURIERI, G. C.; RAIOL, V. F. O.; PEREIRA, C. A . B. Avaliação da introdução de Melipona fasciculata (Apidae: Meliponina) entre os agricultores familiares de Bragança, Belém, PA. Biota Neotropica, vol.3, n.2, 2003. Available in: <http//www.biotaneotropica.org.br/v3n2/pt/abstract?article+BN00103022003>. Access in: 04/12/2004. (b)

12