1.70099!report of Internal Mid-Term Review Bees Biodiversity Livelihoods-Final

Final – 31st December 2007
Internal Mid-term Review of the

Darwin Initiative:
Bees, Biodiversity and Livelihoods in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve
8th – 15th December 2007
Project Team
1
Contents
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................4
Summary of recommendations.........................................................................................................5
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................8
Approach ......................................................................................................................................8
The team for the review ...............................................................................................................9
Timetable of the review................................................................................................................9
2. Management ...............................................................................................................................10
Communications.........................................................................................................................10
3. Proposed Publications ................................................................................................................11
4. Livelihood Studies......................................................................................................................12
Introduction ................................................................................................................................12
Activities undertaken for building new knowledge of indigenous livelihoods..........................12
Data Collection and Assessment ................................................................................................13
Data Quantity and Coverage ..................................................................................................14
Data quality and data management ........................................................................................14
Data Interpretation..................................................................................................................15
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................16
Recommendations. .....................................................................................................................17
On content ..............................................................................................................................17
Household Case Studies .........................................................................................................19
On procedure ..........................................................................................................................19
5. Bees and biodiversity studies .....................................................................................................21
Findings ......................................................................................................................................21
Field work undertaken............................................................................................................21
Types of data collected...........................................................................................................22
Presentation by Dr Stephen Devanesan, All India Coordinated Project on Honeybee Research
and Training Centre, Kerala. ......................................................................................................25
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................25
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................26
Concerning research findings.................................................................................................26
Concerning field work for 2008 .............................................................................................26
Concerning research to count numbers and locations of bee nests ........................................26
Concerning research concerning pollination aspects .............................................................26
Concerning further support from Stuart Roberts & Simon Potts ...........................................26
Concerning visit of field staff to Bees for Development during 2008 ...................................27
Other questions to be considered: ..........................................................................................27
Bibliography on bees and biodiversity.......................................................................................27
6. Capacity building – Strengthened capacities of key institutions................................................28
Introduction ................................................................................................................................28
Tribal Advisory Council (TAC).................................................................................................29
State Forest Departments ...........................................................................................................29
Recommendations on capacity building ....................................................................................33
For the Tribal Advisory Council/local people........................................................................33
For the Forest Departments ....................................................................................................33
For Project Staff .....................................................................................................................33
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................34
7. Next steps ...................................................................................................................................35
2
Annexes..........................................................................................................................................36
Annex 1 -- Bees, Biodiversity and Livelihoods Project team ....................................................36
Annex 2 -- An M&E Framework for the MTR of Bees, Biodiversity and Livelihoods ............39
Annex 3 -- Bees, Biodiversity and Livelihoods Research Project -- Authorship guidelines .....41
Annex 4 -- 18 month plan ..........................................................................................................42
Annex 5 – Contacts for identification and genetic analyses of bee species...............................45
Annex 6 -- Bennae (information in field diary) .........................................................................46
Annex 7: Site Comparisons........................................................................................................60
Annex 8 – Skills gained from the project (as recounted by some individual team members
during the review) ......................................................................................................................67
Annex 9 -- Inventory of facilities – equipment purchased.........................................................69
Annex 10 -- Record of training events – Bee Museum Activities (School & Visitors);
Presentations and Promotional material developed ...................................................................71
Bee museum visitors ..............................................................................................................71
Training/workshop events at the bee museum .......................................................................71
Promotional material developed.............................................................................................72
List of presentations at Apimondia Conference in Melbourne September 2007 ...................72
3
Acknowledgements
The eight days of the review was an intense experience for all of us and we are grateful to all our
colleagues for their inputs. The research assistants and field assistants deserve special thanks for
all their inputs that enriched the discussions with their invaluable insights from the field. We also
thank Kunal Sharma who worked hard to prepare for the review and gather inputs from his
colleagues as well as participate in the discussions himself. We are also grateful for the hard
work of Adam Pain and Nicola Bradbear during our discussions during the review and in drafting
sections of this report.
The inputs of B.J. Kishnan and Dr Stephen Devanesan provided useful material for our
discussions and we thank them for giving us their time.
We are grateful, of course, to the Darwin Initiative for funding.
Janet Seeley and Pratim Roy

December 2007
4
Summary of recommendations
We are now halfway through project implementation. We decided that it was time to take stock,
to review progress and set out our objectives for the remaining 18 months. The review was
conducted between 8th-15th December 2007 by the project team. The following recommendations
were made as a result of the review:
Management:
Communication among team members had not always been effective during the first 18 months
of the project. We agreed to discontinue monthly summary reports and put in place a system
whereby subject-matter specialists communicate directly amongst themselves, regularly, so that
data are shared and analysis begun. We agreed that Janet and Pratim would be copied into all
such correspondence so that they can facilitate communications if someone falls silent!
We agreed a tentative list of publications and an àuthorship policy’ to try to guard against
misunderstandings among the team as writing begins.
Livelihoods studies:
It is clear that there are key areas in which we need to deepen understanding of livelihood
practices in general and those concerned with honey collection in particular. These issues should
be addressed over the coming three – four months (January – April 2008) in the process of
consolidating household information at the sites.
Household Case Studies will be developed from April 2008 onwards once the broad thematic
overview has been completed. The purpose is to build up detailed portraits of households that are
involved in activities related to bees (including honey hunting) and some of those who are not (so
we can explore the differences between the households).
On procedures, the key issues that arise are a response to the observations on data quality and
management:
- Ensure systematic recording of which bee species honey (and potentially other bee products)
are being collected from;
- Systematic confirmation that households which do not state they are collecting honey are
actually not collecting honey and the reasons for this;
- Systematically record of which households are collecting NTFPs, when they are collecting,
what they are collecting, both for honey and non-honey collecting households.
- Systematic record of household and informant identity (tribal, age and gender). We need
more female perspectives on NTFPs and honey collection;
- Ensure that there is a complete data set on all household income sources and detailed
household calendars for those households reporting the collection of honey and other NTFPs;
- Ensure that each month (at least) there is a section in the diary on observation of changes or
interesting events;
- Systematically date interviews and prepare an index for each field note book recording what
information is on each page: if there is a change in field assistant this must be recorded in the
diary.
- All diaries should be regularly and systematically reviewed and debriefed and data transferred
to a summary sheet to ensure completeness of data collection; these should be typed up on a
regular basis to ensure prompt review.
5
- All diaries should be transcribed to provide a complete record for sharing.
Bees and biodiversity studies

It has been recommended to the ecologist (Sumin) and Melissopalynologist (Shiny) that they
present the methodologies and data in logical formats. This should be achieved during December
2007 – January 2008.
Fieldwork towards determining the array of insects present at 16 sites will be completed by the
end of February 2008. This leaves the Research Assistants and Field Assistants to work on:
• Field work to assess colony numbers
• Pollination research
A time schedule was drawn up during the midterm review, and protocols for this fieldwork will
be finalised during the coming weeks.
Decisions about the fieldwork to be undertaken in 2008-2009 will be taken during the next few
weeks, based on data provided, including livelihood-related findings.
It is important to record the height of the nest above ground, and, where bees are nesting in or on
trees, to record the diameter of the tree at breast height.
It is recommended that Shiny undertake review of the literature to ascertain what is known about
pollination of significant NTFP plants and crop plants within NBR.
Plans for field work for 2008 to be finalised by end February 2008.
Since the entomologist originally trained by Stuart Roberts has now left, it is recommended that
Stuart Roberts return early in 2008 to provide further training as necessary, and to assist with
development of the key for identification of Apis species, and creation of the permanent Apis
reference collection. This is proposed for February March 2008.
It is proposed that Sneh Nath and Kunal Sharma participate in this visit in April 2008. The
purpose of the visit is to:
• Gain understanding of the information systems in place at Bees for Development
• For Kunal Sharma to gain experience of scientific documentation
Other questions to be considered:

Is it necessary, desirable or possible to continue fieldwork at all 16 research sites?
Capacity building
For the Tribal Advisory Council/local people: More regular meetings to focus on information on
CBD and people’s rights under various current amendments / acts related to the environment in
which they live. .
For the Forest Departments: A lot still needs to be done with all three Forestry Departments in
terms of advocacy and imparting information on the importance of CBD and making practical
6
decisions and policies on this sector. Continued efforts need to be made to keep the Forestry
Departments informed and to build their support for what we are doing, at all levels.
For Project Staff: Mentoring rather than formal training is our main tool for this. Keystone staff
who are not on the project team have a key role in this to support less experienced colleagues.
Discussions during the review highlighted the importance of making the most of all data sources,
the field diaries for example and debriefing with the Field Assistants and Research Assistants as
well as more formal data collection methods. More training is needed to institutionalize this
aspect into research practice.
Significant inputs are required from the UK-based Biodiversity team (Nicola, Simon and Stuart).
Capacities need to be developed significantly within the India-based team in data management so
that data are easily accessible and can be used by the wider team.
7
1. Introduction
This Project began in June 2006. We are now halfway through project implementation. We
decided that it was time to take stock, to review progress and set out our objectives for the
remaining 18 months to ensure that we reach a successful conclusion and meet the standards
required by our funder and the various academic and practitioner stakeholders with an interest in
our work.
In the application for funding we stated that we would seek to elucidate the interdependencies
between bees, biodiversity and forest livelihoods in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (NBR),
Western Ghats, India. We needed to ascertain how well we are doing that, with the methods we
are using and identify any gaps which may need to be filled. We needed to ensure that we really
can deliver on delivering high quality scientific data about the status of these indigenous bees and
their ecology, with participatory livelihoods analysis. We also needed to document and assess
our progress on capacity building of the whole team and our community and forestry department
partners.
Approach
The log-frame with its identified research outputs and purpose provided the framework for the
review.
The causalities underlying the project logframe are complex and unclear and a deductive
argument is rather difficult to sustain. This argues for an approach that builds on a null
hypothesis – that a project output has had no effect and has limited potential impact. By phrasing
the question in this way it places the burden of proof on the project and encourages us not to just
retreat to pre-ordained indicators. This is not a pessimistic way to proceed but serves to stimulate
a debate about how to construct positive evidence of success. Overall monitoring is about
‘building arguments’ for the conclusions reached rather than a straight and narrow matter of
testing outcomes against unambiguous indicators. Part of this can be expressed as ‘looking for
significant change’ put in motion by the project – what changed, why did it change and what are
the perceptions of different actors about the change. This could also be seen as a process of
improving probabilities surrounding conclusions that are reached, but in many cases the findings
are likely to remain probable rather than certain.
We also have to pay attention to the different dimensions of effect and impact and separating out
the more immediate effects of project outputs from their intermediate and longer term effects and
impact. While this will need to be explored in terms of the details of the project, the more
general point given the complexity of the issue is that is it useful to structure the monitoring and
evaluation around a hierarchy of domains in order to identify, explore and organise the key
questions for monitoring and evaluation.
Figure 1 presents an indicative framework of how the proposed three domains ( Project Delivery,
Direct Project Impact, Wider and Longer term Project Impact) could be structured. The
framework, drawn from the Project log-frame, that was used to guide the review is given in
Annex 2.
8
Figure 1. Structuring Monitoring and Evaluation Themes into Domains and Questions.
Is the programme impacting on sustainable management of biodiversity in the NBR?
Wider & Longer term project impact Questions about the ways in which the BBL has
contributed to the goal
Direct Project Impact Questions about the ways in which BBL project
have achieved effects and impact
Direct Project Delivery Questions about whether the BBL project has
fulfilled the criteria and delivered the agreed
outputs
The team for the review
The review was conducted by the full team present in India during the week 8th-15th December.
See Annex 1 for a full listing of the team. A smaller group, made up of Nicola Bradbear, Adam
Pain, Pratim Roy and Janet Seeley finalised the report between 15th and 30th December.
Timetable of the review
8th December UK-based team members arrived and initial briefing. Discussion Pratim Roy,
Adam Pain, Nicola Bradbear and Janet Seeley around linkages between Bees,
Biodiversity and Livelihoods and key questions
9th December Meeting focusing on work of the ecologist. Initial discussions on project
progress and management.
10th December Internal presentation by botanist and group discussions around linkages
between bees, livelihoods and biodiversity.
11th December BJ Krishnan presentation on legislation around CBD and forestry in India.
Afternoon presentation by GIS consultants. RA/FA staff began exercise on
analysis on site data comparison.
12th December RA/FA staff feedback on exercise on analysis on site data comparison.
Planning around sample selection and approach on the biodiversity/bees
13th December Session on livelihoods approach and discussion on data gaps. Afternoon
presentations by RA/FA on their analysis
14th December Further discussions with each subject matter specialist. Discussion (by SKYPE)
with Stuart Robert’s (Reading) on plans for 2008.
15th December Presentation of the team’s findings and discussion on management (including
data sharing), methods, timetable and plans for publications. Presentation by
Dr Stephen, Devanesan on his research and discussions on areas possible for
collaboration.
16th – 30th Report finalisation.
December
9
2. Management
Communications
The implementation of the project in India is managed by the three directors of Keystone
Foundation: Snehalatha Nath, Pratim Roy and Mathew John. Snehalatha coordinates the day to
day project activities assisted by Kunal Sharma (the information officer on the team), Pratim
takes care of policy and external linkages and Mathew is responsible for financial management.
Janet Seeley has maintained contact with all three directors, although given their areas of
responsibility her main contact in the first 18 months of the project was with Pratim and Mathew.
The practice of copying India and UK team members into emails on research activities and policy
related information has helped to ensure that both India and UK-based team members have been
kept informed of developments.
It was decided at the beginning of the project that Kunal Sharma would coordinate with his
colleagues working in entomology, biodiversity, botany and livelihoods to produce a monthly
report on progress. These reports provided a brief overview of what was happening and served a
useful administrative purpose.
During the review we decided that these summary reports were no longer a useful way of keeping
team members abreast of developments, largely because the time has come when data need to be
shared and discussed among team members; the summary reports cannot provide that level of
detail. While thanking Kunal for his reporting efforts over 2006-2007 we resolved to put in place
a system whereby subject-matter specialists communicate directly amongst themselves, regularly,
so that data are shared and analysis begun. We agreed that Janet and Pratim would be copied into
all such correspondence so that they can facilitate communications if someone falls silent! The
main lines of communication are as follows:
• Data and correspondence from Shiny and Sumin – Nicola and where appropriate, Simon
and Stuart. Copy to Anita, Pratim, Sneh and Janet.
• Data and correspondence from Samita – Adam, Sneh and Janet, copied to Pratim.
We all agreed that wide sharing of data would be welcome (people not directly involved in a
particular area can always press `delete’ if they do not feel the need to be informed on some
particular matter) to facilitate the linkages that must be maintained between our data sets: bees,
biodiversity and livelihoods. Those linkages are, after all, the core of this project.
10
3. Proposed Publications
It was agreed that we should not only set out a tentative list of publications but that we should
also have an àuthorship policy’ to try to guard against misunderstandings among the team as
writing begins. Our main decision was that all publications should have at least two authors (one
from India and one from UK). The authorship policy is given in annex 3. The list of possible
publications is as follows, as time goes on we can discuss and fill in the column on àuthors’ as
well as decide which are publications are a priority. None can be started until data collection,
cleaning and analysis have begun to yield findings for discussion and debate. :
Type of publication Where to publish Authors?

Overarching paper distilling World Development To be decided
our findings on linkages
Paper on culture and Development and Change To be decided
biodiversity
Paper on forest policy and One of the ecology journals? To be decided
bees
Book from the workshop in OUP, UK/India To be decided
2009
Dorsata paper on relatedness ? To be decided
and migration
Paper on naming of stingless ? To be decided
bees
Paper on cerana ? To be decided
Biodiversity findings paper ? To be decided -- probably led
by Simon
Colony numbers paper ? To be decided
A book on Bee Flora of the ? To be decided
Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve
A key Identification Manual Keystone publication? To be decided
A compact disc feature on Keystone? To be decided
Pollens
A paper on Nest habitat of ? To be decided
bees
A book based on the diaries of ? To be decided
the Research Assistants
Policy briefs (various topics) To be decided
A paper on livelihood patterns ? To be decided
of indigenous communities
Booklet on the nesting Locally produced booklet To be decided
architecture of all the types of
bees, on trees and rock faces
A film for UK and Indian Produced in collaboration with To be decided
television the Commonwealth
Broadcasting Association
11
4. Livelihood Studies
Introduction
Output 1 of the project envisaged ‘increased scientific and livelihood knowledge through
research’ contributing towards the purpose of ‘elucidating the interdependencies between
indigenous bees, biodiversity and forest livelihoods in the NBR’. Livelihood studies have been
undertaken around the 16 sites in five locations of the BBL project.
In keeping with the analytical approach of this review the null hypothesis that underlies the
following analysis is that:
‘the project has not increased knowledge, and does not have the potential to do so, indigenous
livelihoods and the interdependencies of livelihoods with indigenous bees and biodiversity’
If this null hypothesis is not disproved, then it follows that the purpose of the project is unlikely
to be achieved. This section reviews the available evidence. It starts by reviewing briefly what
has been done, before assessing the knowledge that has been generated and how that might be
interpreted. It provides an overall assessment of progress before concluding with an outline of
key actions that need to be taken for the remaining 18 months of the project.
Activities undertaken for building new knowledge of indigenous livelihoods
The project has undertaken qualitative livelihood studies in all 16 sites. Informal household and
group interviews, structured around key themes have been undertaken by the field assistants in
each location with support from the research assistants of the project. The list of key themes and
methods of data collection were discussed and prioritised during a training workshop held in
December 2006 (see BBL Back to Project Report, December 2006).
The key themes that have been focused on are the following:
• History of the area

• Social Structure
• Occupations / things people do to make a living
• People’s relation with the forest – NTFPs, wildlife etc
• Land Use and Animal Husbandry
• Culture and Religion
• Government policy and practice
• Institutions
• Infrastructure
• Family Wellbeing?
• Risk & uncertainties?
During 2006 (October to November) the social mapping of villages was undertaken. From
January 2007 interviews were held with household members in each village following up on the
key issues and recording the answers in field note books. By December 2007 most of the issues
12
have been covered at varying levels of detail. Table 1 provides summary details on the site, the
number of households at each site, the number of households interviewed and number of
households reporting that they were honey hunting. This final statistic is indicative as there are
still a few gaps in the data set to be filled.
Table 1. Locations, sites, village sizes, number of households interviewed and indicative number
of honey hunting households
Locations Code Research Sites Indigenous Village No. hhlds No. hhunting
Community size (No. interviewed Hhlds
of hhlds)
Chamraj- Bedaguli Sholiga, Kannadiga 55 55 7
Nagar ChB
ChG Geddesal Sholiga 96 48 15
ChK Kalidimbam Irula 55 55 8
Pulinjur Sholigas, Kannadiga2 103 52 14
ChP Badaga3
Coonoor CM Marikode Kurumba 7 7 4

CP Pudukadu Kurumba 34 34 4
CS Situkunni Irula 10 10 1
Kotagiri Bikkapathy Toda 9 9 3

KB Mund
KK Koduthen mund Toda, Others 4 8 8 2
KT Tunieri Badaga, Others 320 51 0
Mudumalai Benne Kattunaicken 51 51 18

/ SB
Sigur
SC Chemmanatham Kasava/Irula 44 44 5
Siriyoor Kasava/Irula/Jenu 52 52 7
SS Kurumba
Nilambur NA Appankapu Kattunaicken, Paniyas 54 54 15

NM Mancheri Cholanaicken 145* 12* 8
NMu Mundakadavu Padinaickens, Paniyas 29 29 5
* The unit here is people since these are cave dwellers and caves are not occupied by households
Data Collection and Assessment
This section draws from the following sources which combine an assessment of data quantity and
coverage, data quality and preliminary interpretation of the data.
- reading of a selection of field note books

- summary sheet on the information collected prepared for each site
- a participatory review of site contrasts prepared by the field assistants during the course of the
review.
13
Data Quantity and Coverage
Tabulation of the data by site had not been undertaken by the time of the review1. Accordingly
the livelihood data was tabulated for one site chosen at random (Bennae) to evaluate data
coverage and quality (See Annex 6 for the example from Bennae showing the tabulation of
information in the field diary). This was complemented with a reading of all the field notebooks
for the three sites of Kotagiri location and selected reading of notebooks from other sites.
A number of conclusions can be drawn with respect to data quantity and coverage.
- There is a fairly complete data set in terms of household occupations, household relations with
the forest, land ownership and use although it is variable both within site and between locations
reflecting different field practices by Field and Research Assistants;
- There is in particular a fairly complete data set (although there are gaps) on which households
collect honey (see table 1 and NTFPs ) and how this varies across sites although details on
specific household honey collecting practices have not yet been described;
- Data on social structure, Family wellbeing, Institutions and Risks and Uncertainties is less
complete;
Data quality and data management
As the above section indicates there is some unevenness in the data that has been collected.
Particular points that were noted included;
- The absence of systematic recording of which bee species honey (and potentially other bee
products) was being collected from and a general absence of information on honey collection
practices for those households that reported collecting honey;
- The absence of systematic confirmation that households were not collecting honey (confirmation
of the negative) and the reasons for this;
- The absence of systematic recoding of which households were collecting NTFPs and what these
NTFPs were. For example were household that were collecting honey also collecting/ selling
other NTFPs
- The absence of systematic data on household identity (tribal categorisation) and age of informant;
- The unevenness in depths of interviews across locations: in some cases no more than three lines
have been given to describing household activities: in other cases there may be almost a complete
page;
- The data on household income sources is often not complete and although there are calendars for
the village as a whole, there are no specific household calendars in which specific household
honey collecting practices are described;
- The limited amount of systematically disaggregated data with respect to gender, age, tribal
identity etc.
- It had been agreed that each month there would be a section on observation of changes or
interesting events; in some cases this was done for the first few months and then stopped; in
others it has not been done at all. It was clear from the review that many field staff (and office
staff!) had interesting and relevant observations that were not being systematically documented.
1
Note that it was recommended in the 0707 Back to Project Note, Point 5 that this should be done
14
- It was also noted that interviews were not always systematically dated, and where there had been
a change in Field Assistants, this change was not recorded.
All the above issues point to the need for more systematic review and debriefing of field
assistants and encouraging more analysis and feedback on the information that is being collected.
In part this can be achieved by the construction of summary tables for each site (as shown in
Annex 6 for Bennae) to more systematically review the data that is being collected to ensure a
complete data set. In part this can also be done by establishing a more systematic debriefing and
promotion of analysis within and across locations to refine and sharpen the questions that are
being asked and to explore what is being collected and what it might mean. The proposed typing
up of field diaries into soft copy and their circulation for comment and feedback will greatly
assist this process
Data Interpretation
At this stage and without having viewed the whole data set it is premature to determine from the
field diaries what the emerging patterns of data tell us about similarities and differences between
sites and locations. What is important to point out, and the site summaries that were prepared
before the MTR somewhat fall into the trap, the understanding of sites and what is going on is
not going to be achieved by simply summarising data that are collected. Not only does this ignore
the differences between households which may be as great within a site as between sites or across
locations (for example the question of why do some households collect honey and others do not)
but it inhibits thinking about what the data might mean. As noted in the site ranking exercise
analysis happens when one begins to ask questions, make choices and provide reasons,
arguments or evidence as to the choices that you make about what is of more interest or important
in your data. Ranking with justification is one way to start this process.
Assessment and emerging themes from site contrasts
Annex 7 discusses in some detail the site ranking exercise. The key issues and questions that
have emerged from this preliminary analysis were identified as follows.
• First there are some gaps in the data and it might be worth seeing if these can be filled; there
is also some redundancy (in the sense of overlap or duplication between the indicators) in the
indicators that we might want to iron out. For example what exactly is the difference between
NTFPs and Forest based livelihood? Is firewood collection really different? Could we
quantify some of the indicators or seek means to do so e.g. the role of NTFPs or the
importance of Non-Forest Income. Can this be derived from the Field Assistance diaries?
Would it be worth having a cross location discussion of indicators to see if and how they
could be used in locations that did not use them in this initial exercise.
• Second with respect to the indicators attention should be paid to the frequency of use of
indicators. While the number of honey collectors is clearly the most direct indicator of the
strength of the linkage between livelihoods and honey collection (although note that the site
rankings are not entirely consistent with the data reported on number of honey collectors in
table 1 above – compare for example the Chamrajnagar & Nilambur sites – a point for further
investigation here), the fact that the role of non-forest income is ranked second is noteworthy.
15
What is this telling us? – that external drivers, the availability of non-forest employment, may
be a very significant element on the role of honey collection in tribal livelihoods? Does this
raise questions about the idea of ‘forest dependent livelihoods’ and does this mean we should
explore more fully the development of non-forest employment in order to build more specific
location and site comparisons?
• It would be worth thinking through in more detail the significance of some of the others
indicators such as infrastructure and settlement that may also be indicative of drivers towards
non-forest based livelihoods.
• Third within location comparisons of sites indicate that there is largely a consistency of
ranking of sites across indicators. Thus sites that are ranked 1 with respect to the first
indicator, tend to be ranked 1 across all indicators and emerge with the lowest score (and thus
highest position) within the location. Can we from this ranking advance an argument that
sites ranked first by location (sites ChG, CM, KB, SB, and NM) are the significant honey
collection sites. In what respect are they similar or different?; are these differences or
similarities greater or less than within location differences? What might this tell us about
‘drivers of change’ around the importance of honey collection? – what questions might we
want to further ask, and what data might we want to collect to further explore these issues?
• Further, is the identification of ‘significant honey collection sites’ by location a function of

supply or other factors? Is this relevant to how we might structure in terms of site contrasts
the bee nest density studies. How does this fit with the biological data on vegetation, bee
foraging etc that is being collected?
• Fourth a similar set of questions might be asked about those sites that ranked last in each
location – what is similar, different, have we evidence of what might have taken them out of
honey collection, how does the biological data relate to this;
• Fifth how soon can we get some preliminary ranking of sites according to bee species, bee
numbers, foraging data, pollination data etc; how soon can we compare that with this
analysis? Although the exercise was meant to cover the biological data we did not get there –
can we get the field assistance to bring their observations into a discussion on this?
Conclusions
On the basis of the above summary analysis of available data, it is argued that there is sufficient
evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there has not been an increase in knowledge about
indigenous livelihoods and the relative role of honey collection within these. However the data
are not as comprehensive and systematic as it needs to be and greater depth of information is
needed in relation to specific topics discussed below. While at this stage we can be confident, if
the following recommendations are carried through, that a substantial body of new knowledge
about the link between tribal livelihoods and honey collection will be established by the project,
what is less clear at present in the absence of the analysis of the biological data that the
interdependencies of livelihoods with indigenous bees and biodiversity are in the process of
being elucidated. There is an urgent need to develop the conceptual thinking about these
16
dimensions and to analyse, interpret and explore the relevant data to see what is being learnt
about the interdependencies.
Recommendations.
A number of recommendations arise from the review. These can be divided into issues concerned
with content and those to do with procedure.
On content, it is clear that there are key areas in which we need to deepen understanding of
livelihood practices in general and those concerned with honey collection in particular. These
issues should be addressed over the coming three – four months (January – April 2008) in the
process of consolidating household information at the sites. These can be listed as follows:
• All interviews need to systematically differentiate between different tribal households,

different ages, different genders and those that do and do not collect honey and ensure that
this information is recorded; there was a reference in one field note book (Chamrajnagar)
about an old woman who had honey hunted in the past – this needs to be followed up. We
want to be able to answer the question – who are the honey hunters?
o Is it particular tribal groups (all the evidence suggests it is .. but who are the illegal
collectors – we need to know about them?)
o Is it particular genders (all reports say that it is male dominated but is it?
o Is it particular age groups and if so why?
o Is it particular socio-economic groups? (poor, landless – to answer this question
we need systematic recording of land holdings or other indications of assets)
o Is it particular skill groups .. and how does that come about?
o Or a combination of all the above?
• At present the field diaries simply report which household collect honey: they tell us nothing
about honey collection practices of specific households. Honey collecting households should
be re-interviewed to build understanding of the following issues
o Who goes to collect the honey – just the collector or with a party of people and
who are in this party, are they related etc;
o What skills do the honey hunting party have and how did they gain them (there is
a constant statement that person x is a good honey hunter – what does this mean
and how is it assessed – does it relate to collection from specific species, finding
nets, harvesting technique or what?: what is a poor honey hunter?)
o How often and when do they go and how does it vary between months; how much
time is spent on a honey hunting collection trip
o What is collected and from which bees – is it just honey or is it other bee nest
products as well?
o How much honey (or other bee products) are collected and how does it vary
between sites and years
o What proportion of what is collected is used for consumption, sold and/or
given/exchanged with other households
o Where is it collected from – is it specific sites, are these sites with multiple or
single nests, what is the nest history at these sites (number of nests, reliability,
change etc) how far are these sites, how many sites is it collected from and do
these sites ‘belong’ to the household – if so what is the nature of the ownership,
17
has it been inherited, how is it defended etc; have these sites changed over time? If
they find new sites – can these be claimed?
o What observations do the hunters have on the changing density and location of
bee nests by species
o For all the above questions we are also interested in changes over time – what
changes have happened, when and why have they happened;
o Several note books make reference to illegal collection: we need to know much
more about what this means – why is it illegal, who is collecting illegally, when,
where, how much, what are the methods of collection, how significant is it etc?
• What is the role of honey collecting activities in peoples lives
o On a monthly or seasonal (whichever is appropriate) ask the household to rank the
most important activities that the household undertake (differentiate by women
and men) and ask them to explain their ranking;
o On a monthly or seasonal basis ask the household (differentiate by women and
men) to rank in terms of importance their income sources
o Probe on the need for and extent of borrowing from other households /
shopkeepers / traders in order to meet consumption needs and how this credit is
paid back – what is the role of honey collection in this, differentiate by different
bee species? Are households in debt, to who, what does this tell us about social
relations, what role do NTFP collection in general and honey in particular play in
maintaining social relations / credit etc
• Honey quantities: we are interested in the amount of honey that is being collected overall,
how that might relate to or be determined by supply (based on number of nests etc); We will
never know accurately what the supply/ collection figures are but we should at least estimate
to get order of magnitude estimates which might tell whether or not if we are over-estimating
or underestimating collection. We should think seriously about building data around the
following parameters:
o How many bees nests (by species) is the village collecting from (an estimate of a
minimum and maximum number?) and given the known range of honey yield for
different species calculate a maximum and minimum amount of potential honey
supply; how might this have changed?
o Given the data from individual honey collecting households estimate how much
honey by species they are collecting each year and how this has changed; indicate
the range;
o From trader interviews estimate how much honey is being sold / collected – again
get estimates of range;
o Compare and contrast the figures obtained from these three determinations: are
they producing consistent or inconsistent stories – if inconsistent what might this
mean? What further investigation might be needed?
o We will have estimates of overall bee nest densities from the sites with which to
compare the above estimates
• We need more systematic understanding of social structure and power relations and how
these may or may not relate to who hunts honey and what happens to the honey; how is this
influenced by the tribal mix in a village?: for example some of the Chamrajnagar sites made
reference to particular social groups being only allowed to settle in particular places of the
villages. Key areas to investigate could include
o Identification of who the powerful or influential people are in the village, what do
they do and how do they influence the lives of other people;
18
o What are the relations of these powerful people to the outside world – through
connections to trade, authorities e.g. Forest Department;
o To what extent are poorer people dependent on these people – and in what ways –
for permits, distribution of government benefits etc; to what extent are these
people engaged in honey trade indirectly through money lending, honey trading
etc?
• Encounters with authority: related to the above we need more systematic information from
individual households across locations of daily experiences/ encounters with government
authorities and Forest Department officials in particular: we need details on the following
with full details of experience
o Have honey hunters been restricted in any way directly through Forest Officials
stopping them or controlling them through where they can go or do they have to
avoid Forest Officials – and how do they do this;
o Do Forest officials have to be ‘handled’ through unofficial payments in kind (of
honey) or cash
o Have honey hunters had any experience of being punished by Forest Officials,
Honey being seized etc?
o Does this differ from the collection of other forest products?
• Risks and uncertainties: we need more information on the risks or shocks that households
have experienced, in particular those that might lead them into debt, loss of assets (land etc),
illness, death and affect honey collection practices.
o Ask household to list any shocks or bad events that have happened to them over
the last three years, how this has affected them and how they responded to it
Household Case Studies, will be developed from April 2008 onwards once the broad
thematic overview has been completed. The purpose is to build up detailed portraits of
households that are involved in activities related to bees (including honey hunting) and some of
those who are not (so we can explore the differences between the households). We will:
• Collect detailed life histories of the adults in the households;
• Document day to day activities in the households;
• Record significant events during the period of study, including any engagement
household members may have with people in authority (including the Forestry
Departments)
On procedure, the key issues that arise are a response to the observations on data quality and
management:
- Ensure systematic recording of which bee species honey (and potentially other bee products)
are being collected from;
- Systematic confirmation that households which do not state they are collecting honey are
actually not collecting honey and the reasons for this;
- Systematically record of which households are collecting NTFPs, when they are collecting,
what they are collecting, both for honey and non-honey collecting households. Remember
there is an assumption that these are forest dependent households? Is this the case and if so
what does this mean?
- Systematic record of household and informant identity (tribal, age and gender). We need
more female perspectives on NTFPs and honey collection;
19
- Ensure that there is a complete data set on all household income sources and detailed
household calendars for those households reporting the collection of honey and other NTFPs;
- Ensure that each month (at least) there is a section in the diary on observation of changes or
interesting events;
- Systematically date interviews and prepare an index for each field note book recording what
information is on each page: if there is a change in field assistant this must be recorded in the
diary.
- All diaries should be regularly and systematically reviewed and debriefed and data transferred
to a summary sheet to ensure completeness of data collection; these should be typed up on a
regular basis to ensure prompt review.
- All diaries should be transcribed to provide a complete record for sharing.
20
5. Bees and biodiversity studies

The Project’s planned Output A (reproduced below) shows the research planned towards gaining
knowledge of NBR:
Project summary Measurable indicators Means of Important

verification assumptions
Output A. Increased scientific and livelihood knowledge through research

Characterisation and Experimental protocol designed for collection and Permanent Apis and That Project
analysis of specimens and data at the 5 research
science of livelihood- sites. other bee reference partners
relevant, indigenous A reference collection of selected indigenous bee collection remain
bee species - their species established. established. committed
taxonomy, genetics, Data (morphometric and genetic) to assist correct Interactive key for to research
population, habitat, classification of indigenous Apis bee species, (or and
bee identification
placement within genera).
and distribution (of established (to capacity
An interactive key for identification of Apis bee
selected species) - species (using LUCID software), and for other species level for at building,
studied and relevant bee genera as far as possible. least Apis). and have
documented. Data and analysis of bee diversity and abundance: appropriate
Permanent pollen
Data collected on population data for Apis dorsata. expertise.
slide library
habitat and A catalogue and database of melliferous flora established. That
melliferous flora, at 5 sites created (using GIS). realistic
Research and survey
mapping. Data on pollination requirement of some market data
data, genetic data
Pollination studies in local crops and non-timber forest products. are
and reports.
both natural forest Traits analysis completed to compare data accessible.
GIS maps, electronic
and crops. for key species collected at five sites. database, and
Livelihood studies The role of bees in local livelihoods analysed. reports.
undertaken with Market assessment by Yr 3.
Published
indigenous people,
documents
and market and trade
studies on bee
products.
Findings
Field work undertaken

Keystone has created a new team of field workers (currently 5 Research Assistants (RA) and 3
Field Assistants (FA)) who have undertaken a significant amount of bee and biodiversity-related
fieldwork. The midterm review revealed the extent of their knowledge of the field sites, which
has been achieved during the first 19 months of this Project. In addition to the fieldwork, RAs
have been responsible for inputting their field data, preparing pollen slides, identifying bees and
preparing bee samples for display and further identification. These activities represent a
significant increase in Keystone’s capacity for undertaking research of this nature.
Working at the level above these field staff were Eashwaran (entomologist), Sumin George
(ecologist) and Shiny Rehel (melissopalynologist). The first two were new staff taken on
specifically for this Project, while Shiny was already in post at Keystone. However, Eashwaran
21
left during 2007. Shiny and Priya (one of the RA’s) both participated in the training given by
Stuart Roberts to the Project in 2006, and have continued the work of identifying insects at least
by genera.
Types of data collected

Table 1 summarises the fieldwork that has been undertaken and the type of information it is
intended to deliver:
Table 1 Information collected about bees and biodiversity to December 2007
Information about bees
1. Data on bees and other insects collected at 16 sites, using pan traps (Personnel: Priya,
SMR)
2. Specimens of bees and other insects collected at 16 sites (Personnel: Priya, SMR)
3. PILOT STUDY Data on number and location of bee nests obtained from 5km
‘transects’ in 5 protected areas (Wayanad, Bandipur, Nagarhole, Silent Valley,
Mudumalai) and 1 non-protected area (Satyamanagalam).-(Personnel : Sumin)
4. PILOT STUDY Data on number of bee colonies (all species) in 3-hectare plots at 16
sites. (Personnel: Sumin)
5. PILOT STUDY Data on number of cavities/nesting sites of Apis cerana and Dammar
bees in 3-hectare plots at 16 sites (Personnel: Sumin)
6. Data on bees seen foraging (although nests not found) in 56 ‘transects’. (Personnel:
Sumin)
7. Data on bees foraging from focal patch observations: 2(20x10) patches within 1-hectare
plots at 16 sites (Personnel: SMR)
8. Data on number of bee visits on flowering plant species, from focal patch observations
2(20x10) patches within 1-hectare plots at 16 sites (Personnel: SMR)
9. Data on pollen collected by bees on flowers visited in 16 sites from focal patch
observations 2(20x10) patches within 1-hectare plots at 16 sites (Personnel: SMR)
10. Data on bees foraging in flowering species in one hectare plot during recording of
phenology. 2(20x10) patches within 1-hectare plots at 16 sites (Personnel: SMR)
11. Data on bee flora from honey samples. (Personnel: SMR)
Information about biodiversity
12. Data on vegetation of 15 plots. (Personnel: Sumin)
13. Data on flowering phenology in 1-hectare plots at 16 sites. (Personnel: SMR)
14. Data on habitat quality in 1-hectare plots at 16 sites (Personnel: Sumin)
15. Data on climatic conditions in 1-hectare plots at 16 sites (Personnel: Senthil)
16. Habitat quality along 56 ‘transects’. (Personnel: Sumin)
This mid-term review adopted a null hypothesis approach towards examining the outputs
achieved to date and their value towards the Project’s proposed purpose. Concerning the bees
and biodiversity research aspects, the proposed outputs can be tested with the questions that are
shown in Table 2. The second column lists the research findings that aim to address each of
these questions.
22
Table Research questions about bees and biodiversity and pertinent data
Research questions Data that address
(cf Table 1)
Q1 Do we know how many kinds of bees there are in NBR? 1, 2, 6, 7, 10
Q2 Do we know where the honey collecting species are? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Q3 Do we know about honey-storing bee colony population sizes and 3, 4, 5
distribution?
Q4 What do we know about the scientific characteristics of these 2
bees?
Q5 On what do they forage? 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Q6 What part do these bees play as pollinators? 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Q7 Do we know about the plant habitat, climate, the habitat quality? 12 - 16
Bees in NBR (Q1)

According to permissions obtained, pan traps were placed and examined at 15 sites, with samples
collected at 11 sites. Samples collected from pan traps have been stored and identified as far as
possible up November 2007: some still await identification. Foraging observations have been
recorded in field notes. To obtain knowledge of the bee diversity and abundance, the
methodology needs to be written up, and the data presented in logical format by site and date. It
is not clear how much progress has been made concerning the development of the key for
identification of Apis species: this will be clarified when Stuart Roberts visit in March 2008.
Distribution and sizes of bee species populations in NBR (Q2 and Q3)
Fieldwork has been undertaken. The methodology needs to be carefully written up, and the data
presented in logical format (by site, by date). During this mid-term review, much time was spent
considering the nature and scientific value of the ‘transects’ that have been completed to date.
Issues surround the selection of the transects: their degree of randomness or the extent to which
they are ‘informed’ (selected for the likelihood of Apis dorsata being present). All of this needs
meticulous documentation in the descriptive methodology of this fieldwork, including
information about who undertook the fieldwork. Data must be presented in a logical format by
site and date, with the field for altitude completed. Only then will we be able to look for possibly
comparable findings. Because bees require specific physical features for nesting, height above
ground is also an important parameter that needs to be recorded. In a related paper2, authors have
recorded DBH, diameter at breast height, as an indicator of tree size, and it is recommended that
this would also be a useful parameter to be recorded for all trees with bee nests (of any bee
species). Total number of trees above a certain size could also be a useful parameter for
consideration.
Scientific characterisation of bees (Q4)

Further identification and classification of the samples collected can be achieved when Stuart
Roberts visits the Project in early 2008. Concerning genetic analysis of the Apis species, and
identification of the stingless bee species, please see Annex 5 for contact details of scientists who
have agreed to assist. In every case, 30 samples of bees are required, taken from one colony with
2
(Kajobe & Roubik, 2006)
23
GPS data, stored in 90% ethanol. During the midterm review, we agreed that samples would be
collected from the five locations, from sites for which there is permission for collection of
samples. In each case, duplicate samples will be retained at Keystone, to cover possible loss, and
so that all information obtained can be referred to identical samples held at Keystone. It was
agreed that Leo and Priya would be responsible for organising the collection, organisation and
dispatch of these samples. Please see Odroyd, Reddy, Chapman, Thompson, and Beckman
(2006) for recent, related work in this field.
Stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini)

The stingless bee samples should be obtained and dispatched for identification as soon as
possible. It is likely that one of the species present is Melipona iridipennis, as discussed by Dr
Stephen Devanesan (identified at Smithsonian Institute).
Apis cerana
The Apis cerana and associated Varroa, could be obtained and dispatched now. Concerning Apis
cerana, local people recognise three types:
• A black type, the ‘hill’ type bee found at altitude of +1,500m
• A yellow type, found at altitude of 0-1,500m
• A red type, the ’plains’ bee, found below 500m
The following types could be expected at each of the Project locations:
Table 3 Possible locations of varying types of Apis cerana

Project Black type Apis cerana Yellow type Apis cerana Red type Apis cerana
location
Chamrajnagar +
Coonoor + + +
Kotagiri + +
Mudumalai + +
Sigur
Nilambur +
Apis dorsata
The Apis dorsata samples will be the most difficult to obtain because of the nesting sites used by
this species: honey hunters will have to be enlisted to help with this. All samples should have
been collected and dispatched by July 2008. Within NBR, Apis dorsata colonies begin arriving
in February with honey collection beginning as early as April in Kerala, and completed thought
NBR by the end of July.
It would be interesting also to obtain samples from identical Apis dorsata nesting places in 2009:
this will enable genetic analysis to reveal the relatedness of colonies, and answer the question of
whether the same, related or unrelated colonies are returning to nest sites in subsequent years in
NBR. Samples collected from neighbouring colonies on cliffs or trees would also enable genetic
analysis to reveal the relatedness of these colonies. In every case, GPS data must be recorded,
and photographs will be useful. Leo related interesting observation concerning different building
habits of Apis dorsata: some use a mid-rib for their comb, whereas other colonies do not.
Apis florea
24
There may also be two different ‘types’ of Apis florea present within the Project area: these are
all interesting observations that genetic analysis can help to elucidate.
Bee forage plants in NBR (Q5)

Considerable fieldwork has been completed, with all plants identified. The data need to be
compiled and presented in a logical format. Pollen has also be collected (from plants, from bees)
and identified; the proposed library of pollen reference slides is in preparation. Slides are also
prepared of pollen obtained from honey. The data are being collected and collated.
The role of bees as pollinators of NBR (Q6)

Data are collected concerning the plants on which bees forage, the pollen being carried by bees,
and whether or not these plants are cited as NTFP’s within NBR. A limited extent of pollination
research is planned for 2008, estimating the involvement of bees in pollinating three NTFPs:
Vaccinium, a Shola species that is bee-visited (Apis cerana only) and produces berries; soapnut,
an important NTFP species of dry deciduous forest, visited by several bee species, producing
fruit; and Phyllanthus, another important NTFP of dry deciduous forest that is visited by several
bee species and produces fruit. Methodology for this fieldwork has been discussed, and a more
detailed plan will be provided after consultation with Stuart Roberts and Simon Potts in January
2008.
The plant habitat of NBR (Q7)

Much field data has been collected from the 16 sites and the 56 x 5km ‘transects’. The
methodology needs to be described and this data presented in logical format.
Presentation by Dr Stephen Devanesan, All India Coordinated Project on

Honeybee Research and Training Centre, Kerala.
On 15 December Dr Stephen Devanesan attended the midterm review and gave a short
presentation about the work at Kerala Agricultural University. Dr Devanesan and his wife, Dr
Premila Kamalam Simon, have excellent skills in morphometric analysis of Apis cerana, and are
able to recognise 50 separate morphological characters. By this method, they have identified four
clusters within samples of Apis cerana populations collected at different altitudes in Kerala. It is
very good to have such a resource of morphometric skills near to the Project, and this may be
drawn upon in the future. Dr Devanesan’s centre has also had good success in selecting Thai sac
brood tolerant colonies of Apis cerana, and this knowledge and experience can be very helpful
for Keystone.3
Conclusion
Significant research capability has been developed at Keystone, in terms of physical
infrastructure (five field centres, one resource centre) and human resources, Research Assistants,
Field Assistants, and one full time ecologist. A loss for the Project was that the entomologist left
within the first year of the Project (this relates to the risk mentioned in the logical framework, of
3
Contact details for Dr Stephen Devanesan: devanesans@yahoo.co.uk, All India Coordinated Project on Honeybee
Research and Training Centre, Vellayani, Dept of Entomology, Kerala Agricultural University, Trivandrum, Kerala.
25
whether trained staff remain with the Project), with the consequence that significant
entomological skills have not yet been acquired by Keystone.
The fieldwork completed during the first half of the Project has generated a significant volume of
field data pertinent to the questions that the Project aims to address. However, the methodologies
and the data require presentation in systematic ways before we can move to the stage of drawing
conclusions from valid findings.
The strength of Keystone is that it is not an isolated research organisation, but is working closely
with communities within NBR. This strength is enabling Keystone to collect information that is
novel and unique in its breadth and time-scale. The challenge presented to Keystone by this
Project is the requirement for scientific rigour. This rigorous approach is required if Keystone’s
information and policy recommendations are to be accepted internationally and in the long-term.
Recommendations
Concerning research findings

It has been recommended to the ecologist (Sumin) and Melissopalynologist (Shiny) that they
present the methodologies and data in logical formats. This should be achieved during December
2007 – January 2008.
Concerning field work for 2008

Fieldwork towards determining the array of insects present at 16 sites will be completed by the
end of February 2008. This leaves the RAs and FAs to work on:
• Field work to assess colony numbers
• Pollination research
A time schedule was drawn up during the midterm review, and protocols for this fieldwork will
be finalised during the coming weeks.
Concerning research to count numbers and locations of bee nests

Decisions about the fieldwork to be undertaken in 2008-2009 will be taken during the next few
weeks, based on data provided, including livelihood-related findings.
It is important to record the height of the nest above ground, and, where bees are nesting in or on
trees, to record the diameter of the tree at breast height.
Concerning research concerning pollination aspects

It is recommended that Shiny undertake review of the literature (see in particular Free [1993] and
McGregor [1976]) to ascertain what is known about pollination of significant NTFP plants and
crop plants within NBR.
Plans for field work for 2008 to be finalised by end February 2008.
Concerning further support from Stuart Roberts & Simon Potts

Since the entomologist originally trained by Stuart Roberts has now left, it is recommended that
Stuart Roberts return early in 2008 to provide further training as necessary, and to assist with
development of the key for identification of Apis species, and creation of the permanent Apis
reference collection. This is proposed for February March 2008.
26
Concerning visit of field staff to Bees for Development during 2008

It is proposed that Sneh Nath and Kunal Sharma participate in this visit in April 2008. The
purpose of the visit is to:
• Gain understanding of the information systems in place at Bees for Development
• For Kunal Sharma to gain experience of scientific documentation
Other questions to be considered:

• Is it necessary, desirable or possible to continue fieldwork at all 16 research sites?
Bibliography on bees and biodiversity

Free, J. B. (1993). Insect Pollination of Crops. London, UK: Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Publishers.
Kajobe, R., & Roubik, D. W. (2006). Honey-Making Bee Colony Abundance and Predation by Apes and
Humans. Biotropica , 38, 210-218.
McGregor, S. E. (1976). Insect Pollination of Cultivated Crop Plants: Agriculture Handbook No. 496,
Agriculture Research Service. US Department of Agriculture.
Odroyd, B. P., Reddy, M. S., Chapman, N. C., Thompson, G. J., & Beckman, M. (2006). Evidence for
reproductive isolation between two colour morphs of cavity nesting honey bees (Apis) in south India.
Insectes Sociaux , 53, 428-434.
27
6. Capacity building – Strengthened capacities of key institutions
Introduction
The project works with indigenous people (known as `tribals’ in India), local researchers and the
Forest Departments of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. Currently the India-based team has 20
persons from diverse educational, social and cultural backgrounds (Annex 1). The project has
given opportunities for several new capacity building initiatives in formulation of ideas, learning
to ask questions, organizing data and getting a clear, rigorous systematic training in social and
biological science with specific reference to phenology, population ecology of bees, livelihood
assessment and analysis through the collection of qualitative data. On the whole this project is a
capacity building exercise combining the skills and approaches of science, observation,
indigenous knowledge and field information and processes of people and ecology.
Specifically the project provided the following in staff training:
1. All Research Assistants ( RA) and Field Assistants (FA) and staff have been trained in
Biodiversity Methodology by Stuart Roberts, September, 2006
2. Project team trained in Qualitative techniques by Janet Seeley and Adam Pain, December
2006
3. Project team trained in analytical writing by Adam Pain, July 2007.
4. Training on secondary data collection for livelihoods by Adam Pain, July 2007
In addition, staff have also received the following training:
Position Staff Training/experience received and gained

member
Research assistant Saneesh Social Analysis Systems at Pune, 2006 December
Training on collecting, collating and filing data as per
requirements
Darwin presentation for Forest Minister and senior
bureaucrats of the forest department, 2007
Experience on dealing with Local forest department staff
Mahadesha Social Analysis Systems at Pune, 2006 December
Learning ecological monitoring methods, 2007
Kuttan Wild Honey Bee Nest Survey, experience of conducting
the study
Learning about other people’s techniques and problems
and issues of honey hunting during Madhu Duniya, 2007
Suresh Learnt how to interact with people, an experiential
training
P Chandran Learning about other people’s techniques and problems
and issues of honey hunting during Madhu Duniya, 2007
Priya PRA Training at Pandalur, 22nd to 25th January, 2007
Entomology training from Eashwaran, 2006
Justin PRA Training at Pandalur, 2006, 22nd to 25th January,
2007
28
Ecologist Sumin Methodology preparation training with Nicola and Anita

Analysis of Vegetation data at Ashoka Trust (2 visits to
Bangalore)
Liaising with Tamara Ticktin on Principal Components
Analysis, 2007
Presentation on Habitat Analysis at TEC, Dehra Dun,
2007
Melissopalynologist/ Shiny Insect identification by Eashwaran, 2006
Botanist Pollination techniques training at KMTR, February 2007
Sociologist Samita Social Analysis Systems at Pune, 2006 December
During the review we asked each other what skills we had gained from the project so far. The
results of this discussion are given in Annex 7.
Tribal Advisory Council (TAC)

The TAC is an initiative led by indigenous people from Keystone to bring to the community
information and knowledge about projects in the NBR that affect these communities. It is also a
platform to share their insights on these subjects. Since the beginning of the project (June 2006) it
has met twice a month at the Keystone Centre. It has mainly concentrated on Kurumbas and
Irulas of Kotagiri and Coonoor region and has started with other locations and stakeholders.
These meetings have also led to tribal children and students from the village who go once a
month to the Bee Museum for a study exposure on bees, biodiversity and forest livelihoods
through films, posters and practical classes with beeswax and crafts (see Annex 10 for a list of
events at the bee museum).
State Forest Departments

The project works closely with the Forest Departments who are the implementers of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Through the project we are attempting to acquaint
individual foresters with the bees, biodiversity and livelihood linkages in the NBR. We are doing
this through working with forest staff in the field as well as through briefing senior forest officers
as and when opportunities arise.
As we write this Mid Term Report we have an official letter from the Kerala Forest Department –
Chief Wildlife Warden’s office that our permission for specimen collection of bees from sites is
not permitted. As the letter of agreement is between National Biodiversity Authority and the
University of East Anglia and not Keystone Foundation who wants these specimens. We have
asked our legal advisor to go through all the documentation and give a response. This example
provides a reality check for working on advocacy related issues in conservation practice, policies
and management.
Forestry Officials Study Tour: 24 April – 9th May 2007

Mr Vallil Gopinadhan, Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance), Trivandrum, Kerala, Mr B.K.
Krishnan, Environmental Lawyer, Ooty, and Mr Pratim Roy, Director, Keystone Foundation
took part in this study tour in April/May 2007. Unfortunately two senior foresters, Mr Chembra
Kuniyil Sreedharan, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tamil Nadu Forest Department and
29
Mr Avani Kumar Varma, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Karnataka Forest
Department, were unable to join because their clearance for travel from the Government of India
did not come through in time.
The timetable of the tour is given below:
Date Time Contact/Venue Focus

Tues 24 0915 Arrive via KLM 1505 From
April Amsterdam Met at Norwich airport Overview and County
by Jane Donaldson and taken to UEA responsibilities/strategy.
1430 (map supplied).
1515 Meet Adam Pain in ODG
1530 Depart UEA from Security Lodge for
arrive North Burlingham Church to meet
Gerry Barnes (Forestry Officer –
Norfolk County Council).
www.norfolk.gov.uk
1700 appr. (map supplied)
Return to UEA.
Stay at University of East Anglia,

Norwich
Weds 25 0830 Meet Paul Burgon in ODG
April 0900 Leave from Security Lodge to meet
1030 Mr M J O’Lone, Land Agent. - Private forestry
arrive Sandringham Estate (map supplied) management
Kings Lynn, Norfolk PE35 6EN
Tel: 01553 773675
Once appt. is over travel to
1230 Sandringham Visitor Centre. Return to
UEA at own convenience.

Norwich
Thurs 26 0945 Depart Security Lodge UEA with Jane
April 1000 Donaldson to meet Nick Taylor, - Innovative woodland
arrive Manager use in peri-urban areas
Colney Woodland Burial, Watton
Road
Norwich NR4 7TY
Tel: 01603 811556
www.woodlandburialparks.co.uk

Norwich
Fri 27 0845 Leave UEA Security Lodge to meet - Public Forests and
April 0945 Richard Brooke, Forestry Services their management
arrive (formerly Forestry Commission) - Forestry for
30
Santon Downham recreation/biodiversity

Thetford, Norfolk (map supplied)
Tel: 01842 816031
www.forestry.gov.uk/sustainableforest
ry
Appt finishes 1300 and move to High

Lodge to take lunch.
1400 dep Leave for UEA
Norwich
Sat 28 Travel to London on train
April
Sun 29 Stay at Premier Travel Inn (London,
April Kew – see map), 52 High Street,
Brentford, Mddx TW8 OBB. Tel:
0870 990 6304
Mon 30 1000 appt Dr Natasha Ali
April (pls report CBD Implementation Officer - Royal Botanic
to The Conventions and Policy Section Garden’s policy wrt to
Herbarium Royal Botanic Gardens the CBD and CITES
Reception) Hanover House
Kew Green, Richmond, Surrey TW9
3AB
Tel: 0208 332 5742 (map supplied)
www.rbgkew.org.uk
- Education wrt to
1130 appt you will be taken to article 13 of the CBD
Dr Gail Bromley MBE FLS and target 14 of the
Education Development Manager & GSPC
International Consultant for
Biodiversity
Royal Botanic Gardens
Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB
Also seeing Dr Colin Clubbe (Head of

Conservation Techniques course)
Stay overnight at Premier Travel Inn

Tues I May Rest day – Messrs Varma and
Sreedharan arrive?
Stay overnight at Premier Travel Inn

Weds 2 May Dep 1405 Travel to Heathrow Airport to check-
Arr. 1530 in by 1200 to catch flight BD 58 from
London, Heathrow to Edinburgh,
Scotland.
Met on arrival and taken to
31
Rob Roy Hotel, Aberfoyle.

Tel: 01877 382245
Thurs 3 May Programme mounted by Reforesting
Scotland.
www.reforestingscotland.org
(Piers Voysey and Kristin Olsen)
David Marshall Lodge Visitor Centre
and Loch Katrine Woodland
Restoration: accompanied by Russell
Lamont
? RSFS Cashel
Stay overnight Inverary

Fri 4 May Arr Hospital Woodlands & Buildings, - Atlantic Oakwood,
@1000 Barbluie restoration, hazel
12 noon Barnluasgan coppice, cattle grazing,
1430 Woodland FCS nest and bat boxes, deer
control, schools
involvement.
Stay overnight Inverary

Sat 5 May Arr @ Strathfillan Community Woodland
1000 Stay
? FCS Dunkeld
Stay overnight Atholl Arms Hotel,
Bridgehead, Dunkeld
Tel: 01350 727219 (4)
Sun 6 May Rest day
Stay overnight Edinburgh
Mon 7 May Possible visit with Mike Dudley,
International Policy Officer, Forestry
Commission (and CBD focal point
link) - Otter holt, sheds, craft
workers
Woodplaw Community Wood:
with Angela M. - Forest Schools
Borders Forest Trust: with Anna C.

- Adding value, wood
Wood School: with Aeon Cox. processing
Paths, habitats, NFLS,
Gordon Community Wood: with Jim huts
and Margaret Fairgreave.
Flight dep
2040 hrs Taken to Edinburgh airport to catch
Arr. 2200 BE49.
Met by Courtesy/City Cars (Tel 01603
633336) and taken to UEA.Pl. Collect
32
keys from Security Lodge and make

own way to Guest Suite. University of
East Anglia, Norwich (5)
Tues 8 May 1030 - Round-up/reflections with Janet
1230 Seeley
Rm 1.83
DEV
Norwich
Weds 9 May Dep 0445 Taxi collects. Fly from Norwich
LCR/Studi 0615am dep via KL 1502
o
The three participants all enjoyed the tour and said that they gained considerably from the
experience. The project gained from the contacts that were made through the tour, particularly in
Scotland and also in Kew Gardens.
Recommendations on capacity building
For the Tribal Advisory Council/local people
More regular meetings to focus on information on CBD and people’s rights under various current
amendments / acts related to the environment in which they live. . In Bedaguli site, where people
have been reluctant to take part in the research, greater efforts required with local people to
explain the research and why are we doing this study.
For the Forest Departments:
A lot still needs to be done with all three Forestry Departments in terms of advocacy and
imparting information on the importance of CBD and making practical decisions and policies on
this sector. Continued efforts need to be made to keep the Forestry Departments informed and to
build their support for what we are doing, at all levels.
For Project Staff
There are a range of areas in which capacities can be built. Mentoring rather than formal training
is our main tool for this. Keystone staff who are not on the project team such as Anita Varghese
and Robert Leo have a key role in this to support less experienced colleagues.
Discussions during the review highlighted the importance of making the most of all data sources,
the field diaries for example and debriefing with the Field Assistants and Research Assistants as
well as more formal data collection methods. More training is needed, by Adam and Janet, to
institutionalize this aspect into research practice.
33
Significant inputs are required from the UK-based Biodiversity team – especially Dr. Nicola
Bradbear on bees, Dr. Simon on Pollination systems and Stuart on insect taxonomy and research
methods. Given the shortage of days in the budget for their time, we need to find something more
innovative so that communication and inputs between teams flow regularly and freely so that
they can contribute to this subject better. Capacities need to be developed significantly within the
India team for data management and recording. Improved, and timely communications, between
India and UK, will go a long way to improve data management and quality. This is a priority.
Conclusion
Training and Capacity Building through this project is achieving a rare combination of academic
excellence, research rigour with grassroots action and initiatives in Conservation – Livelihoods
Project through Darwin. A few lessons for the next 18 months.
• Quality in observation and not only quantity in data.

• Being open to what people say and not jump to a format for pre-conceived ideas
and statements
• Investigate the differences and similarities and detail out the process of why this
happens the way it does
• Bees, Biodiversity and Forest Livelihoods is a complex field and has got multiple
causalities and factors – that vary from valley to valley, ridge to plains,
community to community and habitats. These open new challenges in thinking
and formulation of strategies of capturing change.
34
7. Next steps
The timetable for the next 18 months is given in Annex 4. There is a lot to be done and our
success will largely depend on our collective ability to learn from the lessons of the first half of
the project. The most important lesson is, perhaps, to improve our communications and sharing
so that we can all engage in the challenges of data collection and analysis! We need to bring the
parts of the project together more effectively. There is an urgent need to develop the conceptual
thinking and develop a cross –disciplinary analytical framework which will drive the exploration
of issues and the collection and analysis of data that will help build understanding on the
interdependency between livelihoods, bees and biodiversity. This is something we can all
contribute to in the months ahead.
35
Annexes
Annex 1 -- Bees, Biodiversity and Livelihoods Project team
Name Educational Designation Roles& Status Remarks

Qualifications / Responsibilities
Experience /
Community
India-based team
Pratim Roy MS, Ecology Local Advovacy, Project Continuing
Coordinator Management
Snehlata Nath MA, Economics Livelihoods Project Management Continuing
Advisor
Mathew John MBA, Rural Local Finance Fund Management Continuing
Management Coordinator
Samita Vasudevan MBA, Forest Livelihoods Livelihoods Research Continuing
Management Officer Coordination
Kunal Sharma MBA, Forest Information Project Coordination, Continuing
Management Officer Reporting
Shiny Mariam Rehel MS, Botany Botanist Biodiversity Research Continuing
Coordination
Sumin George MS, Ecology Ecologist Wild Bee Study & Continuing
Thomas Habitat Study
Robert Leo MA, Rural Coordinator - Advisor - Bee Continuing Resource Person on a needs
Development Implementation Biodiversity basis - gratis
Anita Varghese MS, Ecology Coordinator - Advisor - Floral & Bee Continuing Resource Person on a needs
Action Research Biodiversity basis - gratis
Senthil Prasad BSc, Computer GIS Officer GIS and mapping; Continuing
Science Coordination technical
Priya MS, Mathematics Research Coonoor Location Field Continuing
Assistant Research
Saneesh BA, History Research Nilambur Location Field Continuing
Assistant Research
Mahadesha B Indigenous person / Research Chamrajnagar Location Continuing
Soliga Assistant Field Research
36

Experience /
Community
Justin Raj Beekeeper Research Sigur Location Field Continuing
Assistant Research
Suresh MS, Wildlife Studies Research Kotagiri Location Field Continuing
Assistant Research
P. Chandran Indigenous person / Field Assistant Pudukadu & Marikode Continuing
Kurumba (Coonoor) Site Field
Research
Vellian Indigenous person / Field Assistant Situguni (Coonoor) Site Continuing
Irula Field Research
Murugan Indigenous person / Field Assistant Chamrajnagar Site Continuing
Irula Field Research
Arhadkuttan Indigenous person / Field Assistant Kotagiri Site Field Continuing
Toda Research
UK-based team
Nicola Bradbear PhD Co-investigator Bees, biodiversity, Continuing
livelihoods links
Adam Pain PhD Co-investigator Bees, biodiversity, Continuing
livelihoods links
Simon Potts PhD Co-investigator Biodiversity specialist Continuing
Stuart Roberts MSc Co-investigator Entomologist Continuing
Janet Seeley PhD Principal Overall coordination Continuing
Investigator and bees, biodiversity,
livelihoods links
Former team
members
Eshwaran MS, Entomology Entomologist Bee Biodiversity Joined June 2006; Left April 2007
Research
Rajesh Indigenous Person / Field Assistant Nilambur Site Field Left
Padinaicken Research
Mahadesh Indigenous Person / Field Assistant Chamrajnar Site Joined Jan 2007; Left Oct 2007
Soliga Research
37

Experience /
Community
Sivakumar Indigenous Person / Field Assistant Sigur Site Field Left
Irula Research
Murugesh Indigenous Person / Research Kotagiri Location Field Left June 2007
Badaga Assistant Research
38
Annex 2 -- An M&E Framework for the MTR of Bees, Biodiversity and Livelihoods
M&E Domain Null hypothesis Detailed M&E Questions Data Sources Proposed analysis
Achievement of Project • The project has made no • What has been the intended focus • Data on biodioversity • Examination of direct
Goal impact on the conservation of of the project in relation to the in the NBR and indirect evidence in
Has the project made or biological diversity conservation of biological • Projects reports and relation to changes in
have a strong potential diversity and to what extent, analyses conservation of
to make an impact on where and how have these • Other? biological diversity
- the conservation of impacts been achieved and are
biological diversity; attributable to the project?
- the sustainable use • The project has made no • What has been the intended focus • As above • Examination of direct
of its components; impact on the sustainable use of the project in relation to the and indirect evidence in
- the fair and of the components of sustainable use of the components relation to changes in
equitable sharing of biodiversity of biodiversity diversity and to sustainable use of
benefits arising out what extent, where and how have components of
of the utilisation of these impacts been achieved and biological diversity
genetic resources are attributable to the project?
• The project has made no • What has been the intended focus • As above • Assessment of changes
impact on the fair and of the project in relation to the in benefits arising from
equitable sharing of benefits fair and equitable sharing of the use of genetic
arising from the use of genetic benefits arising from the use of resources differentiated
resources genetic resources and to what by area and livelihood
extent, where and how have these group
impacts been achieved and are
attributable to the project
39
M&E Domain Null hypothesis Detailed M&E Questions Data Sources Proposed analysis
Achievement of Project • The project has not achieved • What is the evidence that there is • Project Reports & • Characterisation both
Purpose its purpose and elucidated the or is demonstrable potential Field data; quantitative and
How effectively has the interdependencies between (what, where and how) for • Participatory qualitative of various
project indigenous bees, biodiversity improved understanding on the Assessments interdependencies by
- elucidated the and forest livelihoods in the interdependencies between location
interdependencies NBR indigenous bees, biodiversity &
between indigenous forest livelihoods?
bees, biodiversity • The project has not • What are the ‘capacities’ of the • Project Reports & • Before and after
and forest strengthened the capacity of various participants to be Monitoring data; analysis of capacity and
livelihoods in the local researchers, indigenous strengthened and what is the • Participatory identification of
NBR; people and government staff evidence that they have been Assessments significant change of
- strengthened the strengthened? various participants
capacity of local
researchers,
indigenous people
and government staff
Achievement of Project • The project has not increased • What is the evidence that there is • Project Reports & • Project understanding
Delivery scientific and livelihood improved knowledge of the bbl Monitoring data; of new knowledge and
How effectively has the knowledge on indigenous bees, components and their • Participatory the interlinkages
project delivered the their relation to habitat and the interlinkages? Assessments between bbl
agreed outputs link with indigenous components
livelihoods
• The project has not • What is the evidence that key • As above • Demonstration of new
strengthened the capacity of personnel of relevant institutions capacities by
key institutions have been trained? individuals and
institutions
• The project has not enhanced • What is the evidence that • As above • Demonstration of
technical & professional skills technical and professional skills technical and
in the host country have been enhanced? professional skills
• The project has not increased • What is the evidence of increased • As above • Analysis of biodiversity
awareness and engaged in awareness on BBLissues? policies and project
relevant policy in India and the contribution to these
UK on bbl issues
40
Draft 23rd December 2007
Annex 3 -- Bees, Biodiversity and Livelihoods Research Project -- Authorship

guidelines
Multiple authorship of publications is a requirement for all material produced for publication
from this project. Each author of a paper/chapter needs to have participated in key aspects of the
work for the paper, including study design, data analysis, first drafting of a paper, writing draft
sections of a paper and extensive editing. Data collection on its own is not deemed sufficient to
qualify for authorship, although acknowledgement to all field workers will be made, or a
secondary listing of contributors (worded “with…”) may be included. Authorship is based on
contributions to study design and input into data analysis and writing.
There will be an Indian and UK author on every paper, chapter or book produced from the
research findings of this project. It is recommended that agreement on named authors be reached
well before a paper/chapter is written. Agreement on the authorship order should be agreed
among those contributing to the paper. The order will be determined by the amount of work
contributed to the paper. Arbitration in any of these matters, if needed, will be by Janet Seeley
and Pratim Roy in consultation with affected individuals.
While the right to publish will be fully respected, a step in the publication process will be that a
near final draft be circulated to the core team. This is to ensure that the team is informed of
publications in progress, and that any problematic issues can be identified and resolved prior to
submission. A response from the core team should reach the authors within seven days to avoid
delay in the publication process.
An article should carry an end note with a full list of the project team, including members of the
field team and data management.
We are required to acknowledge that the research has been grant aided by the Darwin Initiative
through funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. On posters and
reports we should also use the Darwin Initiative logo wherever possible.
Similar authorship guidelines apply to conference presentations, reports, posters and working
papers.
41
Annex 4 -- 18 month plan
Month Entomology Ecology Botany Livelihoods (Samita) Training/workshops/visits

(Sumin) (Shiny)
January Pan-trap work completed Foraging data Foraging data Gap filling and Nicola Bradbear meeting Simon
2008 in all but Nilambur and ready for ready for deepening on data Potts and Stuart Roberts in UK to
data ready for analysis analysis analysis across the 16 sites discuss their inputs
Way forward on Analysis of Data analysis People’s biodiversity

entomologist support transect data (bee for phenology register work continues
fixed. nest counts) and and pollen
three hectare plot Analysis
data
February Bee nest counting Bee nest Data analysis Gap filling and
2008 counting for phenology deepening on data
and pollen across the 16 sites
Analysis
March Pan-trap work completed Bee nest Pollination Gap filling and Stuart Roberts/Nicola Bradbear
2008 in Nilambur counting study? deepening on data visit for training on
across the 16 sites. entomology/ecology
Bee nest counting
Sample selection of Samita conducts training on life
case study households history/ daily activity research
tools with RAs/FAs
Analysis
April 2008 Bee nest counting Bee nest Life/household history Sneh Nath/Kunal Sharma UK visit
counting interviews and daily
activity data collection
in case study
households
42
Analysis
May 2008 Bee nest counting Bee nest Life/household history Janet Seeley visit
counting interviews and daily
in case study
households
Analysis
June 2008 Samples ready for Bee nest Life/household history
despatch (two of each counting interviews and daily
sample to be sent). activity data collection
Assessment of timetable in case study
for sample analysis in US households
and Netherlands.
Analysis
Bee nest counting
July 2008 Life/household history Adam Pain visit
interviews and daily
in case study
households
Analysis
August Life/household history
2008 interviews and daily
in case study
households
Analysis
September
2008
43
October Pollination Asian Apiculture Association

2008 study? attendance by Keystone?
November Draft analysis completed Draft analysis Pollination Draft analysis
2008 completed study? completed
Draft analysis
completed
December Janet Seeley/ Adam Pain/ Nicola
2008 Bradbear visit
January
2009
February Bee nest Pollination
2009 counting study?
March Bee nest Workshop 27th-29th March
2009 counting
April 2009 Bee nest
counting
May 2009 Bee nest Policy briefs shared at advocacy
counting workshop
August Final report completed
2009
44
Annex 5 – Contacts for identification and genetic analyses of bee species

Three scientists have been contacted by Nicola Bradbear on behalf of the Project:
Concerning genetic analysis of Apis species
1. Dr. Deborah Smith
Dept. Ecology & Evolutionary Biology/Entomology
Haworth Hall, 1200 Sunnyside Ave
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045 USA
tel 1-785-864-4340
fax 1-785-864-5321
debsmith@ku.edu
Dr Smith is interested to receive samples of Apis dorsata, with GPS data, and samples of Apis
cerana, with associated Varroa mites, if possible.
2. Dr. Marina Meixner

Bieneninstitut Kirchhain
Erlenstr. 9
35274 Kirchhain
Germany
Phone: ++ (49) (0) 6422 9406 39
Fax: ++ (49) (0) 6422 9406 33
Email: meixnerm@llh.hessen.de
www.bieneninstitut-kirchhain.de
Dr Meixner is interested to receive samples of Apis cerana, Apis florea, and Apis dorsata.
Concerning identification of stingless bee species

Dr Marinus Sommeijer has agreed to assist with identification of stingless bee species. His
contact details:
3. Dr Marinus Sommeijer
Prof. Dr. Marinus J. Sommeijer
Behavioural Biology, Utrecht University
P.O.Box 80.086, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands
Phone Office: +31-30-2535425
Mobile number: +31 6 2002 6754
Email: m.j.sommeijer@uu.nl
Websites: http://www.bio.uu.nl/sommeijer/
http://www.bio.uu.nl/sommeijer/apimondia
http://www.apimondia.org
45
Annex 6 -- Bennae (information in field diary)
This version has not yet been edited by Samita or Justin

HH History Social occupations Relationshi Land- Culture Policy Institutions infrastructur Family well- Risks and
numbe structure p ownershi and External e being uncertaintie
r to forest p and use religion influence s
s
SB 1 Live on patta Husband and Bamboo and Landless. Say Own house
land given wife coolies grass for Live on there is
during on chetty house patta land gradual
British land (man construction. own a change
period. His 100/- and day , edible house on in culture
grandparent and woman green that land
s came to 50/- a day). leaves, tuber
Bennae a Work for collection,
100 years Thorai tea firewood
ago estate for collection,
Rs75 man honey
and Rs 60 collection
woman. and from AD, AC
collect honey and AF.
Medicinal
plants (rare
nowadays)
SB 2 Coolie on Tuber landless Collect Kallur No transport.
Thorai estate. collection, honey at society Have to walk
Man Rs75 firewood night keeps back 3 km to get
and woman collection, Rs20 kg for ration. Sell
Rs60. Prefer edible green each sale honey to
to work on leaves, and Kallur society
Chetty land bamboo and provides in Bennae
where they bamboo during which is 7 km
get Rs100 flower seed Onam away in
man and collection festival Bennae
RS50 and honey
woman. And (AD)(whole
collect honey family collect
for sale to at night)
46
s
Kallur Honey
society – sell
for Rs, 60 but
society
people
deduct Rs20
at time of
sale and
provide that
during Onam
festival. If
they sell
direct to
village people
or others they
get Rs150 a
kg.
SB 3 Works as Firewood ?
coolie until collection,
time for edible green
honey leaves
collection. collection,
Honey is tuber
major collection,
occupation. medicinal
Collect 15-20 plants
kg honey a collection,
day and sell it wood and
privately for grasses (inc.
150/- a kg or honey)
to Kallur
Society for
Rs60 kg. On
average they
collect 80 kg
honey a year.
47
s
SB 4 Coolie on Firewood landless Widow aged
chetty land collection. 22.
for Rs50 a Edible green Husband
day leaves died on an
illness.
SB 5 Coolie (wife Honey landless Young
gets Rs 50 collection, children not
and husband wood and in school
gets Rs 100) bamboo,
do honey saeruppai
collection grass and
fibres,
tubers,
firewood,
bamboo rice
(seeds after
flowering)
during month
of March
SB 6 Works as a Firewood, landless Says he Says 5 children
coolie (man bamboo, consider government
100/- woman wood/grass s forest has given
50/- a day on for house as Lord only a few
Chetty land construction facilities. No
and Rs 75 edible tubers electricity
and Rs60 ??) and green supply
leaves
SB 7 Living in two Temple Bamboo rice Older people
houses on server at (flower seed) living in joint
the Bhagavathi collection, family (eat
compound Amman wood/grass together)
but food is temple. collection,
prepared Medicinal edible tubers
together for knowledge of and green
everybody plants leaves,
medicinal
48
s
plants
SB 8 Share cost Coolie Bamboo and Son of SB7.
with father. (Rs100 for bamboo He and his
himself and seed (after father share
Rs50 for his flowering), money for
wife) wood and purchase of
grass ration.
collection,
edible leaves
and tubers,
medicinal
plants
SB 9 Used to work Firewood Wife does
as Anti- collection not work
Poaching and honey outside
Watcher collection home
(APW) in
Mukatty
range now a
coolie for
100/- a day.
SB 10 Stays in Sell produce Firewood Owns an Wife 5 children.
Athikunni from land collection, acre of secretary in Use
(banana, house land SHG. chemical for
pepper, construction Training to products or
coffee, (wood, manufactur plants sold
paddy) to grass, e and to market
Paatavayal bamboo) market not for crops
Pandalur and papads for own
Andulur from rice. consulmptio
market. n
Employs
many
Kaatanaikens
. Learning
to make and
49
s
papad for
sale (trainer
makes and
sells papad
for Rs10 a
packet ???
SB 11 Grow coffee, House Own three Widow living
banana. construction acres -- with son and
Pepper, using Grow daughter-in-
tapioca, bamboo, coffee, law
paddy – sell wood and banana.
some. Work grass. Pepper,
on own land Firewood tapioca,
collection paddy
SB 12 Sell products House Own 3 Take produce Widow
from their construction acres to market in
land (banana, (bamboo, Gudalur
tapioca, wood,
pepper, grasses),
coffee, paddy firewood
collection
SB 13 Son’s till land Firewood Sons till Old man.
– not clear if collection, father’s 3 Elder son
produce is tuber acres of and younger
sold. collection land. son
Cultivate
paddy,
pepper,
plantain,
tapioca
SB 14 Works as a Firewood Owns one Widow with
coolie – gets collection acre two children
Rs60 a day.
Cultivates her
land during
rainy season
50
s
SB 15 Agricultural Firewood Own one
work done collection acre
during rainy
season. Do
coolie work
Rs 75 man
and Rs 60
woman at
Thorai estate
SB 16 Agricultural Firewood Own 3.5
work. Not collection. acres
clear if they Tuber cultivate
sell crops collection plantain,
tapioca,
paddy,
pepper
SB 17 Coolie work Collect landless
Rs75 for men honey during
and Rs60 for the season.
women at Firewood
Thorai estate collection,
and Rs100 bamboo rice
and Rs50 for (seeds after
Shetty land. flowering),
Collect honey tuber
during the collection
season and
sell to Kallur
society for Rs
60 a kilo
SB 18 Agricultural Firewood Owns 1
work collection, acre
throughout bamboo rice cultivate
the year. Not (flower seed) banana,
clear if they collection paddy,
sell crops. tapioca
51
s
SB 19 Agricultural Firewood Own 2 Live as a
work done collection acres of joint family
throughout land
the year. Not
clear if they
sell crops
SB 20 They are Agricultural Firewood Own 1.5 He is old so
from work collection. acres of son and
Pandanurai Bamboo rice land daughter in
(flower seed) law do the
collection work on the
land.
SB 21 Works on his Firewood Son of SB20
father’s land collection
SB20 during
rainy season.
Does coolie
work on
Thorai estate
for Rs75 a
day
SB 22 Agricultural Firewood Owns 1
work. Does collection. acre of
coolie work Fodder for rainfed
on Thorai cattle. agricultura
estate at Rs l land
75. Own five
cows – milk
provided to
Bitherkad at
RS15 a litre.
Daughter
works as a
teacher (gets
Rs600 a
month,
52
s
salary)
SB 23 Agricultural Firewood 2 acres of
work collection land which
he
cultivates
SB 24 Tea shop Owns 0.88
which acres and
provides a tea shop
Rs50 a day
and
agricultural
work
SB 25 Daughter Firewood Owns 2
does coolie collection acres of
work at rainfed
Thorai estate land
for RS60 a
day.
Agricultural
work?
SB 26 Works at During landless Own a grass
Thorai estate honey house. Old
as a coolie season parents do
for Rs75 a collect not work
day (man) honey.
and Rs60 a Gather
day (woman). honey during
Sell honey to night.
Kallur society Firewood
for Rs60 kg collection.
Bamboo rice
(flower seed)
collection,
bamboo and
grass for
home
53
s
SB 27 Coolie work Collect landless
on Shetty’s honey.
land. Rs100 Firewood
for men, Rs and bamboo
50 for rice (flower
women. Sell seeds)
honey to collection
Kallur society
for Rs60 kg.
Crop ginger
from kitchen
garden and
sell in market
Change of hand-writing – change of RA?
SB 28 Belong to Work in Collect landless 5 children
Beatunayak Thorai estate honey.
s for Rs75 men Firewood
and Rs60 collection.
women a
day. Sell
honey to
Kallur society
for Rs60 kg
SB 29 Have lived in Belong to Agricultural Bamboo 2.5 acres Get 3 children
Bennae a Chetti work on own collection permission
long time. community land. Own a and grass from forest
Have had cow – sell department
pata land milk for Rs15 to get
since British a litre. Have bamboo
time 2 bull and grass
for their use
SB 30 Man from He married Agricultural Firewood Wife had 4 children
Dhaneshola ìnto’ work. During and grass 1.5 acres
(query – Bennae. summer wife collection
related to Access to works at
SB31). wife’s land Thorai estate
54
s
for Rs60 a
day
SB 31 Man from He married Agricultural Collect Wife has 1 4 children
Dhaneshola ìnto’ work. During firewood, acre.
(query – Bennae. summer wife greens and
related to Access to works at bamboo
SB30). wife’s land. Thorai estate
They are for Rs60 a
Chettis day
SB 32 He is a Firewood landless Get Married with
labourer collection. permission 2 children
working in Bamboo from forest
Pudherkad (with departmen
area. He is permission t to gather
earning of forest bamboo
Rs100 a day department
SB 33 Belongs to Sell honey to Collect Only a
Katnnakan Kallur society honey, house.
for Rs60 kg. firewood and Landless
During wild potato
summer
season they
are going to
Thorai estate
for work.
Men get
Rs75, women
get Rs60
SB 34 Belongs to Sell honey to Collect Has patta Married with
Kattu Kallur society honey and for house 3 children
Nayakan for Rs60 litre beeswax. but no
(?Kg). Work Collect other land
at Thorai bamboo rice
estate. Men (flower
earn Rs75, seeds) for
women Rs60. own use.
55
s
Collects
beeswax and
sell to
Aalathur for
Rs30-50 a kg
SB 35 Belong to Go to estate Collect Don’t have Living in
Kath for work. honey. land, only joint family
Nayakans Man earns Firewood house.
Rs 75 and collection.
woman Rs60. Bamboo.
Collect honey
and sell to
Kallur society
for Rs60
SB 36 Belong to Working in Collect Don’t have Married with
Kath Thorai estate. honey. land. Only 3 children
Nayakans Men earn Collect have
Rs75 and bamboo. house
women earn
Rs60. They
go and work
with Chetti
people and
earn Rs100
man and
Rs50 woman.
Sell honey to
Kallur society
for Rs60
SB 37 Working with Collect No children.
Chetti people honey. They are old
for men Bamboo people
Rs100 and collection.
women Rs50.
Sell honey to
Kallur society
56
s
at Rs60.
SB 38 Belong to Working in Honey Have 4
Kattu Thorai estate collection children
Nayakan men Rs75 Bamboo
and women collection
Rs60. They Firewood
are also collection
working for
Chetti people
men get
Rs100 and
women Rs50.
Collect honey
and sell to
Kallur society
for Rs60 a
litre (?)
SB 39 Belong to His work is Collects
Kattu collecting honey.
Nayakan honey and Collects
sells to Kallur bamboo rice
society for (flower
RS60 a litre seeds) for
(?). Also own use.
works for Collect
Chetti people firewood.
for men 100/-
and women
50/-
SB 40 Belong to Working with Collect Don’t have
Katta Chetty people honey. land.
Nayakan for100/- for Collect
men and 50/- bamboo rice
for women. (flower
Collect and seeds) also.
sell honey the Collect
57
s
Kallur society firewood.
for 60/-
SB41 Belongs to Works his Bamboo Has one Married with
Chetti own land. collection. acre of 2 children
people Firewood. land. He
has
planted
coffee,
banana,
rice and
potato
SB42 Belongs to Works his Firewood Has one He has 2
Chettimar own land. collection. acre of children
people Kattu Bamboo own land.
Nayakan collection Cultivates
people work coffee,
for him and pepper
he pays 100/- and rice
men and 60/-
for women.
SB43 Working on Firewood Owns 4 Married with
his own land. collection. houses one child
Gives work to Bamboo ànd they
Katta collection. are using
Nayakan that’ ??.
people with Has one
daily wage of acre of
100/- for men land.
and 60/- for Grows
women. coffee,
banana
and rice
SB44 Works in Firewood Have 3 Has two
Tasmak collection. acres of children
Brandy Shop. Bamboo land and
Give work on collection crops are
58
s
their land to rice,
Katta banana.
Nayakan
people and
pay men
100/- a day
and women
60/-
SB45 Give work to Firewood Has 5 He has 3
Kattu and bamboo acres of children.
Nayakan collection land and Live in a
people. Daily the crop is joint family
wage is man banana,
100/- and coffee and
woman 60/- rice.
SB46
SB47
SB48
SB49
SB50
59
Annex 7: Site Comparisons.
1. As part of the MTR, an exercise in site contrasts with respect to the relative importance of
honey collection in household livelihoods was undertaken. The details of the methods used
are provided at the end of this annex. This was a participatory exercise with the Field and
Research Assistance and was designed to drawn in their understanding to the evaluation and
to contribute to the beginning of analysis of site contrasts. The analysis that was undertaken
was a preliminary analysis and designed to more raise questions than provide final answers. It
should be seen as an exercise which must be built on.
2. Accordingly the interpretation of the site rankings that are briefly described here are designed
to stimulate further exploration and refinement of site contrasts rather than be authoritative.
The point is made that it is the analysis of contrasts between sites- both with respect to
similarity and difference – that will provide the evidence based argument about livelihood –
bee –biodiversity linkages.
3. Table 1 summarises the indicators that were used for contrasting sites within locations with
respect to linkages between livelihoods and honey bees. They are ranked within location
according to what was seen to be their relative importance as an indicator (see Step 1 of the
methods). This discussion does not address the indicators that were excluded in each location
for the ranking of sites and it is possible that at some stage a discussion on location contrasts
could be had with respect to these indicators. Note that at this stage we are only investigating
site contrasts within location and not contrasting sites across locations.
Table A1
Location Chamrajnagar Conoor Kotagiri Mudumalai/ Nilambur

Sigur
Rank
1 Importance of Importance of Importance of Importance of Importance of
honey collection honey collection honey collection honey collection honey collection
2 Importance of Importance of Sig.of non-forest Importance of Traditional skills
NTFP collection NTFP collection source of income NTFP collection
3 Sig.of non-forest Availability of Importance of Availability of Sig.of non-forest
source of income infrastructure NTFP collection infrastructure source of income
4 Availability of Permanence of Availability of Permanence of Extent plantation
infrastructure settlement infrastructure settlement forest
5 Traditional skills Forest based Traditional skills Sig.of non-forest Mobility & Man /
livelihood source of income Animal conflict
options
6 Forest based Sig.of non-forest Forest based Culture Access to Market
livelihood source of income livelihood
options options
7 Culture Culture Culture
8 Different local Extent plantation
rules forest
9 Firewood
collection
10 Extent plantation
forest
60
4. In constructing the table it has been necessary to reorder the ranking of sites for particular
indicators. While many of the indicators were positive (indicators that would favour honey
collection e.g. ‘the importance of honey collection’) and led to a ranking of sites by declining
importance, others such as the ‘importance of non-forest income’ were essentially negative
(high ranking would work against honey collection) and led to a reverse ranking of sites – i.e.
those with most non-forest income ranked first would actually have least honey collection. In
this latter case (and for the Infrastructure and Plantation indicators) the site rankings were
reversed to ensure that all indicators worked the same way with respect to the overall question
– what indicators can be used to contrast sites according to the relative importance of honey
collection?
5. A number of observations can be made about the indicators and location contrasts. The first is
that although there are similarities in the indicators used in the five locations there are also
differences both in the ranking of the indicators and the number that were used. As can be
seen from table 2, only 2 indicators (The importance of honey collection and the Importance
of non-forest income) were identified in all five locations. What this may point to (and this
will need further discussion with the field assistance, thought and evidence) is that according
to location there may be different variables that can help explain or indicate outcomes in
terms of the relative importance of honey collection in the different sites and the variables
linking livelihoods and honey collection.
6. Second the indicators used differ in terms of what they illustrate about the nature and
significance of livelihood – bee linkages. In the case of the importance of honey collection
based on an assessment of the number of households within a site that are collecting honey
(see main report and note this does not inform us about the relative significance of honey
collection to a household in terms of its wellbeing, subsistence or income generating
function) this is the most direct indicator. Other indicators may be seen more as proxy
indicators (indirect) such as the significance of NTFPs, culture, skills, forest based livelihood
options and so forth. There are a third set of indicators which could be seen more as those that
work the other way – where these indicators have strong or positive values, then honey
collection is likely to be less significant. Examples of these are the significance of non-forest
income, the presence of good village infrastructure (roads, schools etc) and the nature of
settlement. It should be remembered though these are indicators and do not tell us about
causes or drivers of honey collection practices.
7. In order to build a cross location comparison, the indicators were ranked (see table 2) in
decreasing order by the number of times they were used across sites (from a maximum of 5 to
a minimum of one) and the score that they attracted (a low score indicating more importance).
The ranking of indicators by frequency was then ordered within frequency class (e.g. all
indicators that were used 5 times) according to ascending scores. Thus ‘the importance of
honey collection’ was assessed to be a more indicator with a score of 5 (i.e. it was ranked 1
across all locations) than non-forest income (which had a combined score of 14). Note that
this is a relative ranking and simply provides an overall relative assessment of the
significance of the indicators. The ranking of sites within location is compiled by ranked
indicator in table 3.
Table 2. Ranking of indicators according to frequency of use and position in ranking
Rank Indicator No. of times used Score

61
1 Honey Collection 5 5
2 Non-forest income 5 14
3 NTFP 4 9
4 Culture 4 27
5 Infrastructure 3 11
6 Traditional Skills 3 12
7 Forest based Lhds options 3 17
8 Perm. Settlement 3 18
9 Plantations 2 12
10 Pop. Movement 1 5
11 Market 1 6
12 Diff Local Rules 1 8
13 Firewood Collection 1 9
8. Drawing from Table 2 and 3 a few preliminary observations with implications or questions
can be made
• First there are some gaps in the table and it might be worth seeing if these can be filled;
there is also some redundancy (in the sense of overlap or duplication between the
indicators) in the indicators that we might want to iron out. For example what exactly is
the difference between NTFPs and Forest based livelihood? Is firewood collection really
different? Could we quantify some of the indicators or seek means to do so e.g. the role of
NTFPs or the importance of Non-Forest Income. Can this be derived from the Field
Assistance diaries? Would it be worth having a cross location discussion of indicators to
see if and how they could be used in locations that did not use them in this initial exercise.
• Second with respect to the indicators attention should be paid to the frequency of use of
indicators. While the number of honey collectors is clearly the most direct indicator of the
strength of the linkage between livelihoods and honey collection (although note that the
site rankings are not entirely consistent with the data reported on number of honey
collectors in table 1 of the main report – compare for example the Chamrajnagar &
Nilambur sites – a point for further investigation here), the fact that the role of non-forest
income is ranked second is noteworthy. What is this telling us? – that external drivers, the
availability of non-forest employment, may be a very significant element on the role of
honey collection in tribal livelihoods? Does this raise questions about the idea of ‘forest
dependent livelihoods’ and does this mean we should explore more fully the development
of non-forest employment in order to build more specific location and site comparisons?
• It would be worth thinking through in more detail the significance of some of the others
indicators such as infrastructure and settlement that may also be indicative of drivers
towards non-forest based livelihoods.
• Third within location comparisons of sites indicate that there is largely a consistency of
ranking of sites across indicators. Thus sites that are ranked 1 with respect to the first
indicator, tend to be ranked 1 across all indicators and emerge with the lowest score (and
thus highest position) within the location. Can we from this ranking advance an argument
that sites ranked first by location (sites ChG, CM, KB, SB, and NM) are the significant
honey collection sites. In what respect are they similar or different?; are these differences
62
or similarities greater or less than within location differences? What might this tell us
about ‘drivers of change’ around the importance of honey collection? – what questions
might we want to further ask, and what data might we want to collect to further explore
these issues?
• Further, is the identification of ‘significant honey collection sites’ by location a function

of supply or other factors? Is this relevant to how we might structure in terms of site
contrasts the bee nest density studies. How does this fit with the biological data on
vegetation, bee foraging etc that is being collected?
• Fourth a similar set of questions might be asked about those sites that ranked last in each
location – what is similar, different, have we evidence of what might have taken them out
of honey collection, how does the biological data relate to this;
• Fifth how soon can we get some preliminary ranking of sites according to bee species, bee
numbers, foraging data, pollination data etc; how soon can we compare that with this
analysis? Although the exercise was meant to cover the biological data we did not get
there – can we get the field assistance to bring their observations into a discussion on this?
63
Table 3: Indicators of the importance of honey collection: site ranking by indicator and location.
Chamrajnagar Conoor Kotagiri Mudumalai/Sigur Nilambur

Sites ChB ChG ChK ChP CM CP CS KB KK KT SB SC SS NA NM NMu
Indicator
Honey 4 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 * 2 1 3
Collection
Non-forest 3 1 2 4 1 2 N/A 1 2 3 2 1 ?? 3 1 2
income
NTFP 4 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 ?? - - -
Culture 3 2 1 4 1 2 ? 1 2 3 1 2 ?? - - -
Infrastructure 1 3 2 4 - - - 1 2 3 1 2 ?? - - -
Trad. Skills 3 1 2 4 - - - 1 2 3 - - - 2 1 3
Forest based 3 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 - - - - - -
Lhds options
Perm. - - - - 1 2 1 1 ? ? 1 2 ?? - - -
Settlement
Plantations - - - - - - - 1 2 3 - - - 3 1 2
Pop. - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 1 2
Movement
Market - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 3 2
Diff Local 2 4 3 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rules
Firewood - - - - - - - 1 2 3 - - - - - -
Collection
Count 23 14 16 27 6 14 8* 10 18 27* 7 11 * 14 8 14
No Indicators 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 10 10 10 6 6 6 6 6 6
64
Ranking and Comparing Sites
1. This exercise in the ranking and comparison of sites is the beginning of doing analysis.
Analysis happens when you stop listing answers or summarising data and begin to ask
questions, make choices and provide reasons, arguments or evidence as to the choices that
you make about what is of more interest or important in your data.
2. The exercise that you are being asked to undertake is a three step process.
Step 1
3. First for the livelihood component of the research you are asked to identify the key features or
types of data (and we will use the term indicator for these) that you have collected on
livelihoods that are relevant to understanding the role of bees in livelihoods and the
interactions between livelihoods and bees. In the case of livelihoods the indicator list could
include (but this list needs to be added to)
• Proportion of households collecting honey

• Proportion of households collecting NTFPs
• Proportion of household income coming from non-forest sources
• Number of new settlers in the village
• Etc
• Etc
4. Prepare a complete list of what indicators you think are relevant and then rank the indicators
in order of importance (with 1 as the most important) in terms of what they provide in terms
of understanding about the role of bees and livelihoods. So you might rank the above
indicators as follows
1. Proportion of household income coming from non-forest sources

2. Proportion of households collecting honey
3. Proportion of households collecting NTFPs
4. etc
5. Provide reasons and evidence to support the ranking and give details on any discussion
around the ranking.
6. In the case of the bees/biodiversity issues the ranking should be done with the following
indicators
• Bee Diversity (from the pan traps)

• Foraging Behaviour
• Phenology Observations
• Pollen studies
65
Step 2
7. For each of the livelihood indicators list them on the horizontal axis of a matrix and then rank
each site in terms of its relative position in relation to the other 2 or 3 sites for each indicator.
For example if site 2 has proportionately more households collecting honey than site 1 and 3
and site 3 more than site 1, then the sites would be ranked 2,3,1 against the indicator
‘proportion of household collecting honey’
8. Justify the rankings with argument and evidence.
9. Repeat the exercise for the next indicator.
10. Conduct the same exercise for the bee/biodiversity indicators
You should end up with a table as follows
Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3 Indicator 4 Indicator 5

Site 2 Site 3 Site 2 Site 2 Site 1
Step 3
11. Compare and contrast the sites according to their ranking by indicators exploring similarities
and differences between sites according to their ranked positions. Discuss similarities and
differences by sites according to their ranking against indicators. What questions do these
raise?
12. Compare and contrast the ranking of sites for the livelihood indicators and the bee indicators.
Discus similarities and differences in site ranking according to these two different types of
indicators.
66
Annex 8 – Skills gained from the project (as recounted by some individual team
members during the review)
Anita
Learnt more Project management skills. Learnt about bees.
Suresh
Learnt how to interact with people and knowing about tribal people and their life. The role of
bees in eco system.
Priya
Interaction with people, knowing about and environment, learning about bees and community.
Saneesh
Learnt to work in a new scientific project.
Making plots,
Identifying honey bees
Learning GIS
Learn to interact with Indigenous people
Justin Raj
Insect & livelihood research.
Knowledge on various forest types.
Knowledge on the bee &insect capture rates in different coloured pan traps.
New learning on the history of Sigur.
Sumin
On field experience of field techniques regarding sampling of vegetation and data analysis.
- Insect research components.
- To devise methodologies.
- Allied knowledge on the other components of the project such as botanical & livelihood
aspects.
P Chandran
Laying the plots in forest, new specific species which foraged by bees and how to handle bees
carefully.
Senthil
Survey methods what we are assessing and mapping of bee sites, Plot data in GIS.
Sneh
Managing a research project, keeping up the interest of staff during data collection.
Arade Kuttan
Observation Skills such as looking at butterflies, birds and insects
Pollen slide preparation
Communication skills and data collection
Confidence and evolution into an independent worker
Shiny
Sharing her skills with others, especially on pollen issues
Insect identification, which is not my specialty work
Pollination techniques – through a workshop held in Kalakkad Muduntharai sanctuary
Confidence through exposure trips
Increase of taxonomy skills
Kunal
Managing and trouble shooting
A definitive increase in technical writing skills
67
Gain in ecological perspective

Pratim
UK tour exposure and see examples of innovative use of natural resources - small steps leading to
big action... Yet the CBD connection was not evident in initiatives. Another learning gained is
how to work with Forest Department from different states.
Mathew
Accounting and book keeping is different in this project compared to other projects in Keystone.
Have to keep track of changing exchange rates and claim expenses and be reimbursed. Every
three months is a new exercise.
Adam
Learning from working with a diverse team -- never worked with a team like this before
Janet
Learning about bees!
Commentary on staff capacity building (taken from an account written by Kunal Sharma
during the review)
Capacity building has been intense during this project, especially for the RA's ( some RA's have
had the benefit of more training, especially through other project within Keystone). Saneesh has
benefited the most through trainings, followed by Priya who is fast carving her niche, especially
with entomology, Suresh has continued Murugesh's work with diligence and helps Justin in
completing his work, Justin has had an average year with Darwin work and has required
considerable help from Murugesh, Siva kumar (his old FA), Suresh, Shiny and Samita.
Amongst the FA's, both Kuttan and PC have had equal chances though Kuttan has been given the
additional work of maintaining the Shola Nurseries of Keystone. The other FA's have had no
training through this project, though Murugan from Sathy region is involved in nursery and
beekeeping, Rajesh from Nilambur was also involved in several projects, Velian from Pillur is
also into other projects.
Amongst, the four project incharges, Eashwar had initially benefited the most with trainings. At
Present, Sumin is being intensely trained on his work, this is expected to considerably increase
his professional capacity. Shiny too has had the benefit of being trained, but here the difference is
that she has been trained more through other projects e.g. work with French Institute, pollination
work with ATREE and so on. She is using her knowledge for her work in Darwin and has also
taken up new aspects of work that differs from her core input to taxonomy.
Samita has been trained by Janet, Adam and Sneh and through her training in Social Analysis
Systems. Working with diaries was an entirely new concept for her and she is gaining from
working in the team.
These are some of the things that strike me as enriching from the project and one that has also
enriched the organisation as well as the staff.
68
Annex 9 -- Inventory of facilities – equipment purchased
Details of Equipment purchased in the Darwin Initiative Project June 2006 - December 2007
S.No Particulars Month of Purchase Amount

1 Field Equipments
Binocular - I No Dec-06 6,512.00
GIS Sep-06 20,708.00
Binocular - 2 No Mar-07 13,000.00
2 Computer and Accessories

Acer Laptop Nov-06 30,500.00
System for Nilambur Sep-06 37,294.00
Printer for Bee Museum Mar-06 4,056.00
Acer Laptop May-07 33,278.00
3 Books
BFD Sep-06 38,355.00
Others 16,127.00
4 Bee Museum
Audio Visual Equipments
DVD drive Mar-07 2,300.00
LCD Feb-07 58,880.00
DVD Player May-07 3,600.00
EPBAX for Museum May-07 6,650.00
Exhibits for Bee Museum Sep-06 19,040.00

Furnitures and Fixtures Sept to November 2006 155,050.00
Building Renovation 131,606.00
5 LAB
Lab Supplies 2006-07 25,790.00
Renovation 2006-07 7,326.00
Lab Supplies 2007-08 9,075.00
6 HONEY POPULATION SURVEY

Survey Expenses May and June 2007 89,978.00
69
7 Nilambur Centre
Renovation and Settingup 2006-07 17,553.00
70
Annex 10 -- Record of training events – Bee Museum Activities (School &

Visitors); Presentations and Promotional material developed
Bee museum visitors

TOURISTS &
MONTH TOTAL NO. OF VISITORS STUDENTS LOCALS
2006
OCTOBER 8 1 7
NOVEMBER 68 60 8
DECEMBER 15 5 10
2007
JANUARY 70 56 14
FEBRUARY 16 11 5
MARCH 66 49 17
APRIL 46 15 31
MAY 115 20 95
JUNE 44 12 32
JULY 30 15 15
AUGUST 29 12 17
SEPTEMBER 96 75 21
OCTOBER 151 103 48
NOVEMBER 106 52 54
Training/workshop events at the bee museum

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
KURUMBA PAINTING (4)
1.St Hilda's 30
2. Blue Mountain 11
3 . St.Hilda's 34
4. Locals 4
TODA EMBROIDERY (3)

1. St Hilda's 30
2. Blue mountain 11
71
3. St Hilda's 34
TRAINING (1 )
1. Bee Keeping 25
2. Science Forum 6
KURUMBA PAINTING (2)

1.Hebron School 30
2.Valley School 7
BAMBOO CRAFT (3)

1.Hebron School 30
2.Blue Mountain School 6
3.Valley School 7
Promotional material developed:

Item
Information Brochure on Darwin Project Sep-07
T shirt on Indigenous bees Sep-07
T Shirt on Darwin Project Sep-07
Information about Darwin project in the Bees for development journal
2nd Set of Information brochure about Darwin project in the Bees for development
journal
List of presentations at Apimondia Conference in Melbourne September 2007

A study of Nest Bee density - Sumin George Thomas and Kunal Sharma
Creating a database on Melliferous flora - Shiny Mariam Rehel
About Darwin - Pratim Roy
Sustainable ways of honey Harvesting - Robert Leo
72

1.70099!report of Internal Mid-Term Review Bees Biodiversity Livelihoods-Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.70099!report of Internal Mid-Term Review Bees Biodiversity Livelihoods-Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final – 31st December 2007

Internal Mid-term Review of the

We are grateful, of course, to the Darwin Initiative for funding.

Janet Seeley and Pratim Roy

- All diaries should be transcribed to provide a complete record for sharing.

Bees and biodiversity studies

Other questions to be considered:

The team for the review

Timetable of the review

Type of publication Where to publish Authors?

Activities undertaken for building new knowledge of indigenous livelihoods

• History of the area

Coonoor CM Marikode Kurumba 7 7 4

Kotagiri Bikkapathy Toda 9 9 3

Mudumalai Benne Kattunaicken 51 51 18

Nilambur NA Appankapu Kattunaicken, Paniyas 54 54 15

Data Collection and Assessment

- reading of a selection of field note books

Data Quantity and Coverage

Data quality and data management

Assessment and emerging themes from site contrasts

• Further, is the identification of ‘significant honey collection sites’ by location a function of

• All interviews need to systematically differentiate between different tribal households,

5. Bees and biodiversity studies

Project summary Measurable indicators Means of Important

Output A. Increased scientific and livelihood knowledge through research

Field work undertaken

Types of data collected

Bees in NBR (Q1)

Scientific characterisation of bees (Q4)

Stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini)

Table 3 Possible locations of varying types of Apis cerana

Bee forage plants in NBR (Q5)

The role of bees as pollinators of NBR (Q6)

The plant habitat of NBR (Q7)

Presentation by Dr Stephen Devanesan, All India Coordinated Project on

Concerning research findings

Concerning field work for 2008

Concerning research to count numbers and locations of bee nests

Concerning research concerning pollination aspects

Concerning further support from Stuart Roberts & Simon Potts

Concerning visit of field staff to Bees for Development during 2008

Other questions to be considered:

Bibliography on bees and biodiversity

6. Capacity building – Strengthened capacities of key institutions

Specifically the project provided the following in staff training:

In addition, staff have also received the following training:

Position Staff Training/experience received and gained

Ecologist Sumin Methodology preparation training with Nicola and Anita

Tribal Advisory Council (TAC)

State Forest Departments

Forestry Officials Study Tour: 24 April – 9th May 2007

The timetable of the tour is given below:

Date Time Contact/Venue Focus

Stay at University of East Anglia,

Stay at University of East Anglia,

Stay at University of East Anglia,

Santon Downham recreation/biodiversity

Appt finishes 1300 and move to High

Also seeing Dr Colin Clubbe (Head of

Stay overnight at Premier Travel Inn

Stay overnight at Premier Travel Inn