A controversy has been gathering pace among British beekeepers since 2003. In exchange for endorsing a number of products as ‘bee-friendly’, the British Beekeepers Association (BBKA) has received funds from four agro-chemical companies worth tens of thousands of pounds. The companies use the endorsements in technical literature, on their websites and in verbal communication with growers. The terms of these agreements are confidential and the money is paid to BBKA Enterprises Limited. In the five years from 1999-2003, over 383 bee colonies were devastated by pesticides and of these 14 of were affected by pesticides endorsed as bee-friendly.

The BBKA has been vigorously challenged over this on several occasions by its members and other concerned beekeepers. “We don't think we should be sponsoring pesticides”, says George Eames, secretary of the Durham Beekeepers’ Association. “It’s not ethically right that we should be receiving money from these multinationals, because it goes hand in hand with GM technology.”

The deals are defended by Glyn Davies, BBKA President, who argues that by working closely with the companies the organisation can influence them to produce more benign insecticides. He says that “a file is held by BBKA on each product and a signed agreement made which includes instant withdrawal of approval if any proven, harmful incident occurs”.

However the BBKA appears to be ignoring evidence of pesticide-related bee deaths. According to the UK government’s Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme’, twelve colonies of bees were confirmed destroyed by deltamethrin and two by alphacypermethrin, the active ingredients in products endorsed by the BBKA, in the time period of the agreements.

Bees play a vital role in both UK and global agriculture pollinating around three quarters of the world’s staple crops. Estimates of the annual economic value of these crops range from $10 billion to $200 billion. Declines in bee numbers have been well-documented in France and led to restrictions in the use of fipronil and imidacloprid. But similar declines have taken place elsewhere with pesticides being one of the major culprits in their demise.

As part of a PAN UK investigation of this issue a survey was sent to BBKA contacts in February and March of 2005. We received 12 responses to approximately 60 questionnaires sent out. The responses highlighted a number of key issues. Crucially farmers and sprayer-contractors need to give local beekeepers advance notice of spraying, a measure also advocated by the pesticide companies themselves. In practice it rarely happens. The PAN UK survey asked “in your experience, do farmers comply with the best practice (ie non-statutory) requirement to “inform ... the local spray liaison officer 48 hours in advance of their intention to spray?” Half of the respondents said that they do not, with comments such as “I have only ever been contacted by a farmer once in ten years.” Ian Copinger is an experienced beekeeper who has been actively campaigning against the pesticide endorsements. He points out that spray contractors and farmers can only inform beekeeping association liaison officers or individual beekeepers who are known to them, and that probably less than 50% of beekeepers join an association. Not all English associations are affiliated to BBKA: Ian Copinger is aware of approximately 30 unaffiliated associations.

However, even when notified, action that keepers can take to protect their bees from insecticides is limited. The consensus among respondents is that, to protect bees against spray, hives have to be moved. Because bees have sophisticated homing instincts in reality this means moving hives at least three miles away. Other actions that can be taken are: “shut the bees up in the hive, which is not practical if it is a hot day: if the spraying is delayed it can cause stress to the bees. Rotate the hive 90 degrees as this confuses the bees – good for about two hours.” “Block the entrance with grass which takes a while for the bees to remove.” “Farmers should keep spray at least 25 yards from the hives and be persuaded to spray after sun-down.”

The Durham Beekeepers Association proposed to their annual delegates meeting “That BBKA and BBKA Enterprises Ltd end their financial relationship of product endorsement with all companies that manufacture and sell products that are toxic to bees as soon as is contractually possible.” Unfortunately, on that occasion, it was defeated.

Other steps could also be taken:

• no-spray buffer zones next to hives would protect bees
• all UK beekeepers should be made aware of the UK government’s Wildlife Incidents Investigation Scheme to monitor wildlife poisoning and of the evidence required to determine whether bee deaths are due to pesticide poisoning. Annual reports produced by this scheme should be scrutinised.
• BBKA and relevant UK government bodies should work closely with farmers and sprayer-contractors to raise awareness that, if bees are in the area, local beekeepers should be notified well in advance, spraying should take place late in the evening, and there should be no spraying of flowering crops.

With thanks to beekeeper and PAN UK member Peter Smith. For brevity, the original tables and references have been omitted.

Text © Pesticide Action Network UK
Image © David Foster