German Association of Professional Beekeepers has decided to withdraw from the Bee Monitoring Project - Walter Haefeker reports

After 2 years of cooperation the Deutsche Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund (German Association of Professional Beekeepers, DBIB) has decided to withdraw from the Bee Monitoring Project; which involved the Beekeepers, the German Farmers Union and the Pesticide/ Chemical Industry. The reason for our withdrawal from the scheme, is that despite repeated attempts by the DBIB, the German Pesticide Industry refuses to investigate pesticides to the same extent as other factors, which they allege are involved in the mass bee decline. After several beekeepers' representatives protested at this biased approach, Bayer agreed to carry out laboratory investigations into neonicotinoids - which - to nobody's surprise - all produced negative results - i.e. neonicotinoids were not implicated in the death of bees. In the second year of the Bee Monitoring Project the German Chemical Industry simply dropped all investigations regarding the pesticides issue. Instead, it was decided that the samples of dead bees should be frozen, and that these should then only be investigated for pesticide residues when required. This meant that this issue was sidelined. Instead, in the project, big budget cuts were made regarding funding for all possible investigations into illnesses afflicting bees. At a stroke the budget for independent laboratory investigations on pesticides was done away with! There was also no research work to determine which pesticides are used near honey bee colonies. Hence, it transpired that targeted investigations of specific pesticides became impossible. And this allowed the Bee Monitoring Project to happily concentrate on the most important part of the project: the press and PR work! When it came to the Public Relations really impressive work was done.

When it came to Public Relations nothing was sidelined and no budgets were cut. The doors of the Federal Press Conference were suddenly thrown wide open. The press jungle was full of life. Lectures were delivered. German Radio started reporting even while the project members were still engaged in a meeting. German Radio even reported that the monitoring had shown that genetic engineering posed no danger to beekeeping, though this was not even the subject of the investigations! But if one uses money to pacify the beekeeping front, one naturally has to try and maximise the PR benefit. We have tried unsuccessfully to obtain a recording of the radio broadcast. German Radio claims it does not have a recording because the broadcast was produced as an external production commissioned by the German Farmers' Association. The German Farmers' Association claims it knows nothing about this. The recording remains missing! The DBIB once again expressed criticism at the so-called "round table" on 9th November. This only resulted in our negative critique being censored from the Minutes drawn up by the German Farmers' Association. Apparently anything which they do not like is simply erased from the record. All this has fuelled the Beekeepers mistrust, and it raises the suspicion that the Bee Monitoring Project was only ever intended to keep beekeepers quiet and to give the pesticide industry breathing-time, to continue unhindered in making profit from the pesticides that were the focus of criticism. And there are many reasons to justify this view. With regard to the Pesticide Industry, money cannot be spent unless it directly contributes to the company's profits. Company law forbids corporate groups from carrying out 'charitable' operations. If they did indulge in charity work, shareholders could sue the board of directors for the "incorrect use of funds". But during the Bee Monitoring Project there were no shareholder complaints about it being financed. Any suggestion that pesticides dangerous to bees, should be banned - in the same way as they are in France - was quickly brushed under the carpet by referring to the "ongoing investigations". This strategy secured $millions in sales of neonicotinoids over the years. Thus the companies judged that it was certainly worthwhile investing some petty cash to fund these 'delaying tactics'. Against this background it was surprisingly easy to see through the whole thing, when the representative of the Pesticide Industry had already prepared a Press Statement for the results of the conference, before the meeting has actually taken place! He then presents this press statement as a general absolution for the financial backers, presents a host of excuses for 'the decline of the bees' and forecasts a very good honey harvest for this year. He did not mention a single word about the doubts expressed by the beekeepers who attended the "round table".
When the issue of new pesticides for the treatment of oilseed rape was raised, another aim of the round-table was suddenly revealed. The Syngenta rep. was annoyed that beekeepers had contacted the authorities directly, over our concern that no licences had ever been issued for 'ELADO'.
Syngenta argued that such complaints should be resolved at the "round table" - and not by contacting the regulators. If beekeepers persisted in talking to the authorities directly he would not be able to justify to his company the provision of funding for the Bee Monitoring Project. With regard to the German Bee Research Institutes this raises the question of why they accepted these new pesticides without any criticism? Firstly we should note that for the Bee Research Institutes, participation in the bee monitoring project means they receive additional funding. Naturally the suspicion that this project is simply one purely financed by the Pesticide Industry as a favour is very upsetting for the participating institutes.
The Institutes point out that the Bee Monitoring Programme is not merely financed by the pesticide industry, but that the institutes themselves make a roughly equal contribution through their own work.
However, the Institutes do not carry out this work in their spare time but, with employees and resources that are actually financed from other sources and which were earmarked for other purposes. Here it is justifiable to ask what proportion of the EU financial support for beekeepers the Institutes received within the framework of EU regulation no. 1221, and why the beekeepers do not receive this money? And if the beekeepers demand that pesticides should be completely included in investigations, why is the money not spent to investigate the role of pesticides? It is an deliberate strategy on the part of the pesticide industry to dole out funds for the project year by year, instead of providing all the funding at the beginning of the project. This means they could abandon the project at any time, if it produce unwelcome results. This creates a conflict of interest between the participating Institutes: if there are any unwanted results the money might be cancelled. This leaves a "bad taste" in the mouth. The Bee Institutes also regard it as normal for the next press campaigns and series of lectures to be planned with a great effort and military precision. although this project has up to now produced very little that could justify such a fuss. However, one has to make a big fuss again every year, because this is the perfect way to distract us from the original issues at stake. The accusation levelled at the Bee Institutes is not that they manipulate research results but that they do not support the beekeepers in their demand for a balanced investigation into all factors involved in bee-collapse, which should obviously include pesticides.The Institutes proudly report that the German Bee Monitoring project is well respected throughout Europe. Colleagues from other countries say it would not be possible to do this sort of thing with the beekeepers' associations in France.
However, from discussions with French beekeepers we know how the German Bee MonitoringPproject is really regarded there. At a meeting of European beekeepers' associations in Paris to address the issue of pesticides, which COPA wanted to prevent, our French colleagues politely but forcefully said to us:
"Only in Germany are the beekeepers stupid enough to get involved with this PR strategy of the pesticide industry. You not only make yourselves a laughing stock, but you also undermine the position of beekeepers in other EU countries." The concerns of our European colleagues are justified. The 'Europeanisation' of the German Bee Monitoring is already being advanced, because the results of this project are also to be used to hide pesticides from the spotlight in other EU countries. We are certainly not doing our European colleagues any favours if we allow ourselves to be used as a fig leaf for a project whose structure does not guarantee result-oriented research. Naturally we beekeepers should be always interested in 'real' bee-monitoring. As mentioned above, our Association was actually the driving force behind the initiative for Bee-Monitoring. We must continue to support a project if it could be exclusively financed by public funding, so that genuinely honest results are possible. We must ensure that the Bee Institutes are released from this serious conflict of interests and are able to work independently of the pesticide industry. We are not merely intending to have one or another pesticide banned. Our goal must be to learn what we beekeepers can do better, in our bee management, and what people in the agricultural landscape ? (where our bees should be able to survive) ? can do better, in order that the many factors which make our bees increasingly weak can gradually be improved in a step-by-step approach. Although a far-reaching reform of the licensing procedures for pesticides is not the only issue at stake, it is a vitally important one. In its current form the German bee monitoring does not help us at all; in fact it is actually designed to hinder us. We have observed it in operation for two years. Many members of our association gave their time and energy. We showed complete goodwill and gave our trust in advance, because although we had considerable doubts about it we urged our members to participate. Perhaps one thing that we could criticise ourselves for is the fact that we waited so long before underlining our position in this way. Unfortunately we have not been able to keep the overwhelming influence of the pesticide industry within reasonable limits. In the interests of all beekeepers we will therefore have to recommend our members to end their participation in this project if our demands are not implemented. Therefore we would hereby like to reiterate our list of demands:
1. In investigating the causes of bee-deaths, all possible factors should be treated in the same way. If we beekeepers are doing something wrong we want to know this, so that we can improve our management. If there are new pathogens (viruses, bacteria and fungal infections) we want to find them and learn how to control them. If pesticides weaken our bees, we want to understand this so as to develop a strategy to minimise damage ( together with chemical industry, the German Farmers' Association and the authorities). We are fully aware that pesticides are needed in farming, but we would also point out that the success of Organic Farming demonstrates that it cannot be argued that there is 'no alternative' to using the chemically based approach of the pesticide industry.

2. If it is argued that it is worthwhile recording the entire spectrum of potential bee illnesses on a routine basis, this logic also must apply to studying the presence of the most important pesticides.

3. Many scientific papers have revealed that a sub-chronic impairment of the bees efficiency happens long before the adult bees die. If the flying bees of a colony are disoriented, one of the functions crucial to their survival is disrupted. These sub-lethal effect on bees can be observed at concentrations of pesticides which are so minute that the presence of the chemical can be proved but not quantified. In the investigations carried out by Bayer, any results which do not reach the quantifiable level are simply ignored. However, all results for which the presence of specific pesticides can be proved should be taken into account in the research.

4. The investigations must be carried out using the analysis methods which currently have the most sensitive possible levels for proving and quantifying.

5. Manufacturers of pesticides have a conflict of interest, and therefore should not be regarded as an independent investigation laboratory. In the monitoring project sufficient resources must be provided to allow investigations of pesticides by a fully independent laboratory which we trust.

6. In the investigation of the honey bee colonies the agricultural environment must also be examined to determine the type of cultures and pesticides which are used.

7. Transparency: an approved report should be published on the Internet and in the press. An offensive PR campaign going beyond such publications is then only worthwhile if it is aimed at communicating results that can be practically implemented on a broad basis. This was not the case in the past.

8. The fact that this project is being carried out should not be allowed to delay the implementation of improvements that we are already aware of. If ? as the chemical industry likes to claim ? varroa mites are the main reason why the bees are dying, then it is incomprehensible why:
1. we don't have any support for the licensing of 85% formic acid,

2. after a long struggle and a considerable delay only a method using oxalic acid treatment is allowed,

3. the use of varroosis treatments, which involves the problem of residues accumulating and resistance building up, is still supported,

4. inflated bureaucracy in the application of European Law on animal medicines for beekeeping is not prevented,

5. specialist consultants' training for beekeepers has to be restricted to outdated methods because other methods are not authorised.

If the chemical industry is really convinced that the problem here is caused by varroa, then it would be advisable to support the beekeepers' approach concerning the question of substances for varroa treatment. There has also been no progress regarding the methods used in the investigations for determining the dangers for bees during the licensing process for pesticides. The figures contained in the statistics of the Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft (Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry ? BBA) on the extent of the damage to bees in Germany only appear to show a decrease because there is an increase in undetected cases. As already pointed out, the above demands are certainly not new for the organisers of the bee monitoring project. Unfortunately they were not implemented over the past two years to win the trust of beekeepers. Moreover, too much time has been wasted in addressing issues which we are not really interested in, and money has been diverted from actual bee monitoring. We therefore recommend that you act according to the principle of Erich Kästner: "Never sink so low that you will even drink the sewage they pull you through!"

Source:
Walter Haefeker, 27 January 2013 (personal communication)
Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund