Uganda is one of the smallest landlocked Country in East Africa. It is located at the line of zero-degree equator and bordered to the East by Kenya, to the West by Democratic Republic of Congo, to the South by Tanzania and Rwanda, and to the North by South Sudan (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.  
Map of Uganda showing location in Africa. Source; google.

The country has Ten agro-ecological regions that include North-western savannah grasslands, North-eastern savannah grasslands, North-eastern dry lands, Southwestern farmlands, Pastoral rangelands, West savannah grasslands, Para savannah, Highland ranges, Lake Victoria crescent, and Kiyoga plains (MAAIF, 2018). All these agro-ecological zones share the two seasonal rainfalls with variations in the amount of rain received, soil types, agricultural systems, and terrain (Wortmann and Eledu, 1999).

Uganda has a total population of forty-seven million, two hundred and sixty-five thousand and forty-one (47,265,041), which is made up of males (49.1%) and females (50.9%) (UNBS, 2022) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.  
Total regional distribution of population in Uganda. Source UNBS 2022.

Uganda presents enormous potentials for beekeeping industry because of its natural resources that provides excellent forage and ambient climate for the honeybee colonies. The common bee forage plants in Uganda are; Coffee (Coffee arabica and Coffee rubasta), Combererirum (Combererirum spp), Calliandra (Calliandra calothyrsus), Albizia (Albizia spp), mango (Mangifera indica), Acacia (Acacia spp), Banana (Musa spp), Shea nut tree (Vitellaria paradoxa), including food and cash crops grown in open farm lands namely; maize (Zea mays), peas (Pisum sativum), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), vegetables, cotton (Gossypium spp), sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum), and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) (Otim et al., 2019) (Table 1).

In Uganda, due to the available natural resources providing bee forage plants, only few beekeepers (21%) provide supplementary feeds to the bees especially during dearth period. The bees depend entirely (79%) on natural food (nectar and pollen) for producing hive products (Kugonza and Nabakabya, 2008) which, therefore, increase the value of its natural honey in various markets. As a result, the supply of honey in Uganda became low and could not meet the rapidly expanding market demands both domestically and regionally. Majority of beekeepers trade their honey informally in the local markets and across borders within East African countries. Baseline survey conducted by Kimani (2021), showed that the main honey producing areas in Uganda were the West Nile, Eastern, Northern, Western, Southern, and Central regions. There are lots of informal cross border trade of bee products between Uganda and its neighboring countries (Petreanu, 2001). The local and cross-border markets are fast growing and have less stringent requirements compared to Europe. This has made it exceedingly difficult to quantify and produce accurate data about the actual production of hive products produced by beekeepers. However, the production of honey in the country is estimated at 500,000 metric tons annually but the actual data collected showed that the production of honey amidst all the potential is far less than estimated (Table 2). This is due to the demands in both local and cross border business and poor culture of record keeping (TUNADO, 2022).

Beekeepers in Uganda have organized themselves into smaller groups in different villages, but the management of hives/apiaries is done individually. According to TUNADO (2021), the total number of beekeepers are one million two hundred and seventy thousand, five hundred and forty-four (1,270,544) with the total number of six million three hundred and fifty-two thousand seven hundred and twenty (6,352,720) beehives, 77% of which are colonized and 23% uncolonized in all the beehive types (local, transitional, and modern).

The first system invented was the traditional system which is still in practice to date by most beekeepers in Uganda to keep and maintain honeybee colonies (Otim et al., 2019). An un-published annual report of the United Nation Development Program (UNDP) (2017), Uganda chapter estimated that there are about three million (3 m) hives in Uganda, 87% of which were traditional log hives with 76% colonization rate. Although the traditional beehives had the least reported yield in terms of production, they were the most used and owned types of hives by most beekeepers to date (Al-Ghamdi et al., 2017). This was attributed to their low cost, availability of construction materials within the locality, and little technical skills required in making and management of these hives (Amulen et al., 2019; ChiEmela et al., 2022).

In traditional beehives, the production of honey ranges between 20-25 kg annually during flowering and honey flow seasons (Shimelis, 2017). Traditional beehives are of different types invented based on regions which were divided along different ethnic groups and availability of construction materials within a particular locality. The common types were the palm tree, log, woven, bamboo tree, twigs smeared with cow dung and tree bark (Fig. 5). However traditional beekeeping is associated with many problems such as fixed space and combs, vulnerable to pests, colony cannot be divided, and easily affected by weather and it is difficult to check for queen’s performance and other colony management practices (Amulen et al., 2019; ChiEmela et al., 2022).

Fig. 5.  
A. Beekeepers training on making local hivesfrom Bamboo tree ans B. Beekeeper smearing local hives made of twigs with cow dung. Sponsored by TUNADO.

Transitional beekeeping is the second most popular system commonly practiced. Top bar hives like Kenya Top-Bar hives (KTB) and Tanzania top-bars are used (Roberts, 1971). Adjare (1990), Amulen et al. (2019), and Abro et al. (2022) suggested that the early and serious beekeepers were not for the poor and for this reason, most African countries were capable of adopting beekeeping technologies only up to this level as would represents there satisfactory compromise. KTB hives (Fig. 6) were mostly used because they are less costly to manage in terms of skills and easy to construct as opposed to modern Langstroth hives. Also, Abro et al. (2022) reported that transitional hives yield more honey (50 kg or above) annually compared to the traditional hives.

Fig. 6.  
A. transitional hives sited in the forest and B. Demonstration on the best way to handle transitional hives to Beekeepers. Sponsored by Makerere University in Uganda.

The fact that modern beekeeping (Langstroth hives) is environmentally friendly and easy to manage, produces more honey (Al-Ghamdi et al., 2017) which diversifies the farmers’ income (Amulen et al., 2019), the rate of adoption has remained exceptionally low (Amulen et al., 2019; Kaudjhis et al., 2020). Low adoption of Langstroth hive (Fig. 7) was attributed to high cost of production and management skills (Kaudjhis et al., 2020; Tulu et al., 2020; Mulatu et al., 2021).

Fig. 7.  
A. modern hives (Langstroth) installed in beehouse and B. demonstrating how to work with Langstroth hives. Sponsored by Makerere University.

Honeybees just like any other insects, are vulnerable to chemicals or pollutions from the environment (Amulen et al., 2017). Commercial farmers in Uganda (85%) spray their crops, fruit trees and domestic animals against several pests and fungal infections using different chemicals in attempt to reduce the level of damage with little or no consideration to pollinators (honeybees). Application of these chemicals are on the rise with increase in human population, and commercialization of agricultural products. A study conducted by Amulen et al. (2019) revealed the presence of minute traces of chemical residues in honey and beeswax. These chemicals, when taken by honeybees, lower their body immunity, strength to collect food, and resistance to pests and disease in the colony. It is estimated that over 40% of the global honeybee species are declining by more than a third (DeGrandi-Hoffman et al., 2013; Fikadu, 2020) due to the use of different chemicals in the environment.

In Uganda, beekeepers pay very little attention to the factors leading to colonization such as hive hygiene, baiting, and planting forages because there are lots of wild trees providing forages (Chemurot, 2011; Otim et al., 2019). It is important for beekeepers to understand where and when to install the hives (swarming period). However, due to inadequate knowledge about colony management, many hives were sited and abandoned in the forests. This is because they believed that there were many swarm colonies in the wild to colonize the hives in the forests. It was also proven that colonization is high when hives were sited high on trees than workable heights (Acai and Okullo, 2010). Therefore, many beekeepers were unable to climb the tree since it is a taboo for women in some cultures in Uganda. The commonly used baits included beeswax, propolis, Ocimum, lemon grass, honey, and smearing local hives with cow dung (Ande et al., 2008; Acai and Okullo, 2010).

Absconding is when honeybees abandon the hive and move to another location leaving uncapped and or capped brood and pollen in the hive. This could be attributed to inadequate forage plants within the vicinity, deforestation, pests, disease, predators, leaking hives or other human activities in the environment (Masuku, 2013; Kasangaki et al., 2015; Kajobe et al., 2016), and poor colony management (Amulen et al., 2019; Njukang et al., 2021).

Human activities on the environment such as cutting of trees for poles, timbers and curing bricks has led to deforestation which is depriving honeybees from suitable habitats and forages (Forneri et al., 2006; Aggrey et al., 2010) and because of these, colonies of honeybees are seen colonizing ceiling board of houses occupied by human being. A similar study was conducted in Nigeria by Mustafa et al. (2015) where man was labeled as the worst enemy to honeybees and its environment. Abnormal changes in air, shift in temperatures, increased frequency and intensity of droughts have contributed to the high mortality of honeybees. A situation that has progressively reduced the population of honeybees over time and pollination services hence reducing agricultural production and productivity. This is because there were no bloom and flower synchrony, some plants were able to emerge earlier than the normal time (Kimani, 2021). The effects have led to direct influence in the behavioral and physiological characteristics of honeybees and floral environment (Büchler et al., 2014).

The fall in the population of worker bees reduces the yield of agricultural crops and other wild plants, thus resulting in food insecurity. This has also affected the ecological functioning of honeybees in their ecosystems (Safe et al., 2020; Rahimi et al., 2021). In some instances, the beekeepers have abandoned their hives as it was recorded in Benin (Paraïso et al., 2012). The change may also favor the growth of honeybee pathogens with haplotypes of varying virulent on different honeybee populations leading to absconding (Reddy et al., 2012). The effect of climate change is a global problem. In Uganda, there are two rainy seasons and ten agro-ecological zones with varied weather. This causes prolonged drought, rise in temperature, floods, and wildfires (Josephat, 2018) which are a threat to beekeeping environments and survival. It has affected the seasonal pollination services, bee habitats, foraging cycle (Reddy et al., 2012; Kalanzi et al., 2015) because of short season or no flowers, and compromising their body immunity leading to high mortality rate (Markandya et al., 2015).

Common honeybee pests, parasites and diseases of economic importance to beekeepers includes; Little black ants (Monomorium minimum), small hive beetles (Aethina tumida), Greater wax moths (Galleria mellonella) (Fig. 8), Oriental hornrts (Vespa orientalis), black rats (Rattus rattus), Honey badger (Mellivora capensis), Birds (Indicator indicator) and varroa mites (Varroa destructor) (Kajobe et al., 2016; Chemurot, 2017). V. destructor and black queen cell virus (BQCV) were first detected by Kajobe et al. (2010) while studying the viral infection of honeybees and later deformed wing virus (DWV) and American foul brood (AFB) disease (Chemurot et al., 2016), Nosema, chronic bee paralysis virus (CBPV), acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV) and Sacbrood virus (SBV) were also confirmed in Uganda by Otim et al. (2020). Apart from the known species of Nosema (Nosema apis and Nosema ceranae), Otim et al. (2020) also identified a new species of Nosema (N. neumanni). However, the fact about its effect is not yet known though it seems less virulent than N. ceranae and N. apis (Stainton, 2018).

Fig. 8.  
Common honeybee pests and parasite in Uganda A. Greater wax moths (Galleria mellonella), B. Small black ants (Monomorium minimum), C. Small hive beetles (Aethina tumida), and D. Varroa mites (Varroa destructor),

Burning of bushes, use of direct fire instead of smoker for hive inspection and harvesting of hive products, and poor handling colonies are some of human activities which are problematic to beekeeping as a result of poor skills (Amulen et al., 2017).