Bees
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-4080, in the name of Peter Peacock, on declining bee numbers. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern reports of the continuing decline in bee numbers and in the number of other key pollinators; notes the importance of bees for the production of honey and, along with other species, their vital importance in food production and in support of biodiversity; supports measures to research and understand better what may be causing the reported declines as a basis for appropriate further actions; further notes that in some areas, such as Colonsay, the varroa mite, which is known to be responsible for some of the decline in bee numbers, is not present, and considers that every effort should be made to maintain that position and sustain bee and other key pollinator numbers.
I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and am grateful for the support of members from all parties that has enabled it to take place.
As this is biodiversity week, it is appropriate that we talk about a number of the species that play a vital part in ensuring that that biodiversity continues. It is interesting to note that, tomorrow, the House of Lords will debate exactly the issue that we are about to debate.
As we workers sit here in this latter part of the evening—that is the last pun that I will use today—millions upon millions of honey-bees, bumble-bees and other pollinating insects are going about their work, of which we are a principal beneficiary. Their work is vital. They pollinate our flowers, our crops and our fruit. Two out of every three mouthfuls of food that we eat are reckoned to come from plants that are pollinated by insects. Around 84 per cent of European Union crops are pollinated by insects and 80 per cent of wild flowers depend on insect pollination.
The sad truth is that, despite the fact that millions and millions of insects are currently doing their work, fewer of them are doing so than was previously the case. The fact that their numbers continue to decline has profound implications. The decline has gone largely unnoticed by most of us for many years, although many people have argued that we should place the issue higher up the political agenda—accordingly, I welcome the attention that the issue has been getting in recent years.
Although the source is disputed, it is said that Einstein said that if bees go, mankind will follow within four years. That statement focuses the mind wonderfully on the nature of the challenge that we face.
We know that there is a serious decline in bee numbers not just in Scotland, the United Kingdom and Europe but in many other parts of the world. Honey-bees, bumble-bees and other species are in decline. That is an issue for all species, as pollination is a complex matter—some insects pollinate some plants but not others, which means that species overlap.
We know that, with the decline in insect numbers, pollination becomes more limited. If pollination is less complete, a vicious downward cycle will start up: fewer seeds will be produced, which will mean that there will be fewer flowers the following season, which, in turn, will mean that it will be harder for the insects to survive.
Insect-pollinated plants are declining at a faster rate than those that are pollinated by water or wind. Twenty-seven bumble-bee species are in decline and three are already extinct. Seven bumble-bee species have declined by more than 50 per cent in the past 25 years and two thirds of moth species and 71 per cent of butterfly species are in long-term decline. Entire honey-bee hives have collapsed or are in serious decline, the great yellow bumble-bee is now unique to Scotland and the native Scottish black-bee now exists in very few places—one of which is Colonsay.
We do not understand all the reasons why the numbers are declining. We know about the varroa mite, which is affecting honey-bee populations and has spread rapidly throughout the country. It is now regarded as being endemic, and although there is a treatment for it that is used by many amateur and commercial beehive managers, we know that the parasite is becoming resistant to that treatment. We will have to consider new forms of treatment, which might mean using the new EU-licensed products that we know exist.
Habitat loss is a significant part of the issue. I visited Struan apiaries in Conan Bridge last year. The manager told me about habitat loss—significantly, he used to place his beehives in set-aside land or in field margins that were rich in flowers, but those are now decreasing because of set-aside changes, which has direct implications for his business and for us too, because of the effect it has on pollination.
Road verges are being cut more often at a particular time in the season, which may prevent the creation of, or destroy, nests of bumble-bees and the like. There are fewer grass meadows than there used to be—indeed, we have fewer gardens than we used to have. More people—for perfectly understandable reasons—are paving over their gardens or putting gravel down, and growing fewer flowers. That has implications for the insect and bee populations that those gardens had previously supported. We need flower-rich habitats in more places.
There is a debate about insecticides and the impact that they have on the insect population. One dimension of that concerns not only whether insecticides directly kill insects and bees, but what happens at the sub-lethal level. We do not fully understand the long-term effects of toxicity on those species. We need to do more to find out about that.
Do we really understand the effects of climate change on invertebrates? Are they an early indicator—a barometer—of something much more fundamental that is happening in our environment but which we do not yet understand? Those issues, and the matters that I have just outlined, are some of the reasons why we need more research. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has, with the UK Government, put more money into research and I hope that in the process of deciding where to focus that research the Government will consult the Bee Farmers Association and the Scottish Bee Association to try to get the priorities right.
I welcome the Government's invertebrates strategy—it is good to see the Government standing up for invertebrates, if I can put it that way. I look forward to welcoming the bee strategy in due course. We need more incentives for farmers to farm, particularly in bee-friendly ways, and we need the Scottish rural development programme to help with that. We need individuals to do more in their gardens and we need more diagnostic services to examine the bees that are dying and to test them earlier to find out why.
We need to do more to protect the last remnants of certain species in the few communities in Scotland where they still exist—and to protect communities of bees that are native to Scotland. In Colonsay there is a bid to have a black-bee reserve because it is one of the very few places left in Scotland where the native black-bee exists. I hope that the Minister for Environment will ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage and her department work closely and urgently to take that forward.
A bee keeper in Easter Ross e-mailed me—and other members, I am sure—to say that there is an army out there and that if we are ready we should take action to help. The bee keeper said that they may need ammunition and leadership, information and support, and training to know what to do in some circumstances, but that there is a group of people who are willing to help. I hope that the minister will offer some of that leadership.
I learned on Sunday, while reading a famous Scottish journal, that the acts that we pass in the Parliament are finally affixed with the great seal of Scotland, which I gather is made from beeswax. I hope that that continues well into the future. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other members to this debate on a very important subject.
We move to the open debate. Speeches will have to be kept to four minutes because many members wish to speak.
I welcome the fact that Peter Peacock has secured this debate. I find it interesting that major companies such as the Co-op have decided to ban certain pesticides from their farms. The fact that commercial organisations have taken such action out of concern for bees raises the question what discussions have taken place in Europe about the pesticides that have been used. We need much more scientific research on the matter, and I am delighted that the Scottish and UK Governments are starting to undertake it.
I note, too, that the EU Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has launched its own so-called plan bee and is trying to find the best means of securing EU funds to implement it. The plan has not entirely been agreed, but the committee hopes that it will include developing research into the parasites and diseases that are devastating hives; setting up ecological pollen and nectar-rich recovery zones like, for example, that proposed for Colonsay; promoting necessary measures to combat the threat of inadequate pollination; monitoring and controlling the quality of surface water; and providing financial aid to apiaries that are in difficulty.
We can learn from knowledge gained not just in Britain but in many other countries. Although I can never remember how to spell the word, it has been many years since we all discussed the varroa mite in the Press and Journal. Someone had been foolish enough to bring a beehive from an infected part of Yorkshire, I believe, to Brora. Because they did so in February, the bees died—unfortunately—but we should at least be thankful that they were not allowed to infect the area to which they had been taken. Since then, varroa, which as yet we have no means of combating, has moved north. I agree with Peter Peacock that it is highly important that we spend money on scientific research to tackle it.
With regard to habitats, we need to find ways of encouraging people to grow more flowers. After all, as members who grow vegetables will know, flowers attract various beneficial insects, and I suggest that the potager approach to gardening will be all the more important in that respect.
The impact of bees was discussed a number of years ago during the genetically modified oil seed rape trials on the Black Isle. At that time, people flagged up the danger of bees being able to fly for miles and to distribute pollen—in this case, genetically modified pollen, the effect of which has not yet been scientifically proven—in areas where we did not really want it to go. Bees have beneficial effects, but if they fly in the numbers that they have in the past, they can affect other plants in other ways.
I hope, however, that this debate has a positive tone. As the motion makes clear, we want the science to kick in. Although we in the north of Scotland might be lucky in being the last in the queue for the varroa mite, we cannot be complacent. We must ensure that we can strengthen the bee population, and I think that the proposal for sanctuaries in areas such as Colonsay should be extended to other parts of the country.
I congratulate Peter Peacock on securing this important debate in Scottish biodiversity week. I also declare an interest as a farmer.
In "Tam o' Shanter", Robert Burns wrote:
"As bees bizz out wi' angry fyke,
When plundering herds assail their bike".
Bees were as important to pollination and farming 200 years ago as they are today, but threats to bee populations other than shepherds have emerged, resulting in declining bee numbers in the UK and colony collapse disorder in America and Europe.
It is estimated that almost half of America's honey-bee population has already been lost. Given that 70 to 80 per cent of pollination worldwide is carried out by honey-bees, a real threat is emerging.
Bumble-bee populations in Scotland are at risk, too. Experts suggest that in the past four or five years alone we have lost four of the 23 species known in Scotland—that is a different figure from Peter Peacock's, but the principle is the same.
A real problem exists and my concern is that the Government, particularly at UK level, is not addressing it adequately. Of course I welcome the £10 million research grant that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced in April to help identify the main threats to bees and insect pollination, but one has to ask why it does not appear to address the threat of insecticide.
The four main research projects are: breeding disease-resistant honey-bees; "How good is the British countryside for honeybees"; "Learning from other countries: Testing and developing European and North American varroa mite control methods under British conditions and extending knowledge and good practice to beekeepers"; and "Monitoring hives for pathogens and other causes of death: What is killing British honeybee colonies?".
Today, Parliament must ask the Scottish Government to use its influence to suggest to DEFRA that research be carried out into the alleged damage that the neonicotinoid group of pesticides is inflicting on honey-bee populations. Clothianidin has already been banned in Germany and Imidacloprid has been banned as a sunflower seed dressing in France since 1999. As Rob Gibson said, here in the UK the Co-op supermarket group has also banned the use of neonicotinoid sprays, arguing that they damage the neurological and immune system of honey-bees. The Soil Association has written to Hilary Benn to ask him to prohibit the use of the neonicotinoids that have already been withdrawn in France, Germany and Italy.
Of course I welcome the fact that DEFRA has invested £4.3 million to investigate the impact of the increased prevalence of the varroa mite, poor weather and the management of disease on declining bee numbers, but such research might well miss the point if the effect of pesticides on bee populations is not investigated too.
Peter Melchett of the Soil Association notes:
"While new funding and new research is welcome, it will not help if the government ignores existing scientific evidence that has led other countries to ban chemicals known to kill bees."
Given that approximately 35 per cent of the food we eat is dependent on honey-bee pollination, there are huge implications for food production in the worldwide decline of the honey-bee.
Not only do we have to look into better control of the varroa mite as resistance develops to existing treatments of it, we have to evaluate comprehensively the role of insecticides in the decline of bee populations.
In addition, we have to re-establish more bee-friendly habitats and suitable crops and clover-rich swards to help reduce stress levels in bee populations, given that stress is also a factor in bees succumbing to varroa mite and pesticide challenge.
The member must wind up.
Struan Stevenson wrote recently:
"The loss of bees is not just a problem for beekeepers but for the whole world. Probably the most fundamental link in the food chain, the honeybee is fast becoming the weakest".
He encapsulates the emerging view.
I am sorry, but the member's time is up.
I apologise for my slightly late arrival and I warmly congratulate Peter Peacock on securing the debate, even if it has provided an opportunity for him to rehash his "standing up for invertebrates" joke. Members will be aware that Mr Peacock boasts a proud and long-standing record of involvement with RSPB Scotland. After his detailed and well-informed speech this evening, it is tempting to consider him his party's—if not Parliament's—leading authority on the birds and the bees. Given that the current scandal that is laying low the body politic is financial rather than sexual, I am sure that it is safe for him to accept that accolade with justifiable pride.
I offer my thanks to the Bumblebee Conservation Trust for its briefing and contribution ahead of this evening's debate. The trust rightly drew to members' attention the significant and valuable contribution that a wide range of pollinators makes to Scottish agriculture, notably the soft-fruit industry. It is difficult, taking into account the associated processing industry, to envisage how about £260 million of economic activity could take place in Scotland without the sterling efforts of our pollinating insects.
As the briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre makes clear, bees make an important contribution not just to the sustainability of our countryside, but to our biodiversity. I am therefore concerned to note the impact that a loss of habitat is having on a range of our bee species.
Orkney is fortunate to be one of the few parts of Scotland—and, indeed, of the UK—that can still lay claim to being home to the great yellow bumble-bee in some numbers. However, it is said that changes to grazing patterns are having a negative effect on bees, as the plant life that protects nests is eaten back and flowering is prevented. Rural Affairs and Environment Committee members discussed the topic earlier this week as we were chauffeured up to Peterhead by our convener, Maureen Watt. Committee colleagues waxed nostalgic for the Swiss model of allowing road verges to grow untamed, thereby allowing a thousand flowers—and many more insect species—to bloom and flourish.
I urge the minister to consider what more might be done to assist beekeepers in my constituency. Peter Peacock and Rob Gibson referred to the potential impact of the varroa mite on hives in Colonsay and other parts of the country. I can testify to the impact on Orkney—several keepers in my constituency have raised the issue with me.
The minister knows that the Bee Diseases and Pests Control (Scotland) Order 2007 (SSI 2007/506) requires beekeepers and others to notify the Scottish ministers of the suspected presence of notifiable diseases. I am sure that she is also entirely familiar with the fact that notifiable diseases and pests include American foul-brood and the small hive beetle. Sadly, they do not include the varroa mite. The extension of statutory infected area status to Orkney and Scotland's islands therefore lifted a layer of protection.
The Pentland Firth presents any number of challenges for those of us who live and work in Orkney, but it also provides great opportunities, not just in tidal energy, but in the fact that it is a barrier to a variety of animal and insect diseases, as in this case. I concede that exempting Orkney from SIA status might no longer be possible, but I hope that the minister will agree to work with Orkney Islands Council, local beekeepers and transport providers to see whether a voluntary ban on imports of hives and other bee equipment can be established. I accept that that might not be straightforward, but the benefits to Orkney and—more widely—to Scotland and the UK would be worthwhile.
I congratulate Peter Peacock again and look forward to the minister's response to my plea for the bees of Orkney.
I, too congratulate Peter Peacock on securing the debate during biodiversity week. I apologise that I cannot stay until the end of the debate: I have another meeting to attend.
Many people might at the moment consider politicians to be a species of invertebrate, so perhaps it is appropriate that some of us are speaking out for invertebrates, which cannot speak for themselves.
The humble and necessary bee that quietly buzzes about its business is a worthy discussion topic in biodiversity week. Scotland has many species of bee. I note the slight difference between the information that Peter Peacock provided and that which John Scott had, but we are advised that Scotland has more than 80 species of solitary bee. The great yellow bumble-bee, which was mentioned, is now a rare species—I appreciate that it can be found in Orkney. Apparently, an extremely rare solitary bee called Osmia uncinata is unique to Scotland.
Bees are crucial to the maintenance of diverse habitats and ecosystems. As other members have said, bee populations have declined in recent years for several reasons. The varroa parasitic mite has been mentioned. It is a non-native invasive species that originally infected Asian bees, but which has unfortunately managed to get into the British bee population, which had no resistance to it. The mite used to be treated with a pesticide, but it is now—unfortunately—becoming resistant to that, so new chemical and biotechnological solutions are being sought. As Peter Peacock's motion says, and as other members have said, it is important to preserve the status of mite-free areas such as Colonsay while other solutions are sought.
As John Scott said, pesticides can be dangerous to bees: they can kill them outright or have sub-lethal effects on complex social insects, like bees. Those effects can lead to changes in behaviour, lifestyle and reproductive systems that cause populations to decline.
I do not want to be unduly negative. Individuals and families who have gardens can take steps to help bees. Many people in my neighbourhood consider my garden to be overcrowded and overgrown. That could be the result of a lack of time for gardening, but I like to think that my garden is doing its bit for the environment by sequestering carbon and providing a habitat for birds, bees, butterflies and amphibians. Those creatures pay us back with hours of enjoyable observation. We all know about bird-watching, but the Bumblebee Conservation Trust will provide people who are interested with the means of identifying different types of bumble-bee. I understand that we can attract at least six types of bumble-bee, if not 10, into our gardens. Apparently, there are short-tongued and long-tongued varieties. As other members said, the traditional habitats that support bee populations, such as hedgerows and grasslands, have become scarcer. Wildlife gardens are now a stronghold for some bumble-bee populations.
Of course, bees need flowers, not only in the spring and summer but into the early autumn. The Bumblebee Conservation Trust can advise on which flowers to plant in our gardens to enable a food supply for bees throughout that period. The species do not need to be exotic—many common garden plants and wild flowers will do the trick. We need only ensure a rotation of flowering plants between spring and early autumn. I also understand that the Co-op has bee boxes in which solitary bees can nest. I have not yet been successful in obtaining one, but anyone who wishes to get such a box can obtain it from that source.
Bees need us to look out for them, not least because, without them, our lives would be much less sweet.
I will start with a few observations on chemicals. Research in the United States of America shows that fluvalinate, which is used for controlling mites, has a registered lethal dose rate of 50 per cent for a 65.85 microgram application on test bee populations. I am not sure whether there is research on the reformulated version, but 0.2 grams will kill 50 per cent of the bees that come into contact with it. Some formulations have added stabilisers that increase toxicity by a factor of 10³. Chemicals that looked quite safe when they were first passed for use are now possibly hugely dangerous to our bees.
Fungicides such as myclobutanyl and chlorothanonil are also deadly to bees. In the USA at any rate, those fungicides are not tested for bee toxicity. I wonder whether that is the case in this country. Tests in the USA on 92 samples of pollen from plants that were visited regularly by bees show that 47 had chemicals on them that could lethally affect bees. One pollen sample had 17 different chemicals on it. In other words, in the USA and this country, bees are being exposed to a huge chemical soup of fungicides and pesticides. We do not know what the cumulative effect on our bees will be.
The varroa mite has been mentioned several times in the debate. Obviously, it is at the top of people's list of concerns. However, it is vital that beekeepers do not find themselves on the same chemical treadmill as conventional farmers, given what we know of the effect of those chemicals on our bees. Overuse of chemicals such as Apistan is already leading to breeding resistance to chemical treatment among mites. Scotland has been rather successful in combating varroa resistance to Apistan and beekeepers are being trained to use a variety of integrated approaches to controlling varroa. I urge the Government to give as much support as possible to that work.
It would be highly misleading to suggest that the only problem that bees face is disease. As we know, many places throughout Scotland have experienced unprecedented colony deaths that cannot be explained by varroa alone. The chemical cocktail to which our environment is now subjected is putting our bee populations under increasing pressure.
We must also not be drawn into thinking that we need to worry only about the plight of the domesticated honey-bee in the United Kingdom. Some 27 species of bumble-bee and about 230 other pollinators are under great pressure owing to loss of suitable habitat. Other members have mentioned that problem.
Members have also mentioned the loss of roadside habitat. In February, I lodged a motion to highlight the threats that wildlife faces through the loss of set-aside. Over the course of 2008, the amount of land in the set-aside scheme fell by 71 per cent, from 63,000 to 18,000 hectares. Losing such set-aside land represents a huge loss of undisturbed habitat for the declining numbers of many varieties of wildlife, including the all-important pollinators. The Government is consulting on its approach to common agricultural policy changes and restoration or mitigation of all the goods that have been lost by the demise of set-aside. We must make it clear that current agri-environment schemes are not enough to replace the benefits that set-aside provided.
We must ensure that a percentage of the cultivated landscape is managed explicitly to support biodiversity; I also support restoring our roadsides to an area of biodiversity. The Bumblebee Conservation Trust argues that habitation provision on a landscape scale is needed now to support pollinator populations. It is not a matter just for the Government and the agriculture industry—everyone with a garden can play an important role by growing native flowering shrubs and flowers that provide valuable food for bees and all the other pollinating insects.
I congratulate Peter Peacock on securing this debate, which is on an issue in which I have long had an interest. I, too, had intended to lodge a motion on the subject, before Mr Peacock's covered it admirably.
In children's books and commercial logos, bees are renowned stereotypically for their happy, human-like, smiling faces—they are an important part of children's literature and our culture. They are also fundamentally important to the Scottish environment and economy. The steady decline in bee populations is, therefore, of great concern to conservationists, field naturalists, farmers and gardeners. It is primarily a consequence of loss of extensive flower-rich habitats and fragmentation due to increasing intensification of land use for agriculture, forestry and development.
As we have heard, the varroa mite makes bees more susceptible to deadly viruses and is now resistant to treatment. If bees become infected with the mite, it will kill 99 per cent of a colony within four years. Three British species of bumble-bee are now extinct, with a further nine species listed as endangered. As we have heard, at one time the great yellow bumble-bee was widespread across Britain. In the past 50 years, the population has declined by 95 per cent, and the species now resides only in the north and west of Scotland, mainly in the Hebrides, Orkney, Sutherland and Caithness. Also of concern are neonicotinoid pesticides and climate change, both of which have been mentioned.
As a result of their dependence on an abundance of diverse flora, bees are key indicators of the health of the environment. If there is a large bumble-bee population, it is highly probable that there will be significant populations of other wildlife. DEFRA recognises that
"bees make an important contribution to the sustainability of the countryside, contributing both to agriculture and horticulture",
not to mention biodiversity. Bees are crucial for pollinating vital crops. As we have heard, approximately 35 per cent of our diet depends on crops that are pollinated by bees. Furthermore, there are approximately 30 commercial bee farmers in Scotland whose business is completely dependent on the bee industry. I confess that I have often thought that I fancy being a bee farmer when I retire.
The decline in honey-bee populations has not only resulted in a shortage of honey but jeopardised the pollination of commercial fruit and vegetables. The honey that bees produce not only is a healthy substitute for refined sugar but has antibiotic characteristics. A survey conducted last year by the British Beekeepers Association revealed that nearly one in three of the UK's 240,000 beehives did not survive the winter of 2007 and spring of 2008. BBKA president Tim Lovett expressed his deep concern at the 30 per cent death rate, which contrasts with the usual 5 to 10 per cent and will have a serious impact on the economy. It also places at further risk the Government's campaign for members of the public to consume five portions of fresh fruit and vegetables a day. The chief executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Professor Douglas Kell, has warned:
"Without effective pollination we will face higher food costs and potential shortages."
The director of the Wellcome Trust, Sir Mark Walport, adds:
"The devastating effect that this decline may have on our environment would almost certainly have a serious impact on our health and wellbeing."
I fully support the announcement that the Scottish Government will contribute £500,000 to the UK Government's project to research and identify the prominent threats to bees and other insect pollinators. That funding will be available to researchers across the UK under the living with environmental change partnership, which involves the Scottish Government, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, DEFRA, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. The project is undoubtedly critical and requires our support. In the words of Richard Lochhead MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment:
"The impact these insects have on our rural industries, such as the soft fruit sector, and on plant biodiversity across Scotland cannot be under-estimated. Any reduction in numbers could have catastrophic consequences".
I fully support the four strategic outcomes that are proposed in the honey-bee health strategy in Scotland, although I take on board John Scott's comments.
I will not cite Albert Einstein's declaration, to which Peter Peacock has already referred. I will close with a reflection on Rupert Brooke's poem "The Old Vicarage, Grantchester", in which he asks:
"Stands the Church clock at ten to three?
And is there honey still for tea?"
We must ensure that the answer to Brooke's poem is an emphatic yes.
I well remember my mother keeping bees during my childhood, and I recall being fascinated looking at the hives and watching the activity as the workers relentlessly went about their business—business that is essential to the sustainability of mankind. Bees are one of nature's miracles. They are famous not just for their delicious honey; we also owe the bee a debt for the pollination process that ensures the production of the food on which we depend for our survival. Scottish Highland heather honey and wildflower honey are surely among the finest tasting in the world, and have so many health benefits.
Two years ago, when I was conducting a surgery at Bonar Bridge in Sutherland, I was visited by Hamish Robertson, who runs Struan Apiaries, which was mentioned earlier by Peter Peacock. Mr Robertson alerted me to the significant losses of honey-bees that Scottish beekeepers were suffering. It was not a gradual decline, but a very sudden one—I remind members that I am talking about two years ago. I am most grateful to Dr Beryll Stevenson, a well-known Sutherland lady, for encouraging him to raise the issue with me.
I subsequently lodged a written parliamentary question on the subject, and I was concerned to read the answer from Michael Russell, which said:
"No research is being carried out at present.
Where beekeepers have suffered larger than normal post winter losses, in the vast majority of cases the loss was due to poor husbandry".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 15 May 2008; S3W-12732.]
I thought that that was a bit of an insult to our hard-working Scottish beekeepers, and I feel that the former Minister for Environment perhaps ought to be stung by a bee to make him understand that.
Why is the UK now spending £10 million, including £500,000 from the Scottish Government, to identify the threat two years too late? Beekeepers in Scotland want more support from central Government. There is only one bee adviser, based at Auchincruive, to cover the whole of Scotland. Although he does an excellent job, beekeepers believe that more support staff are required to cover such a huge area.
Peter Peacock referred to Einstein's comments on the importance of bees to biodiversity and human sustainability. Einstein suggested that mankind would be doomed without the work of the bee. He gave us four years, which is a pretty sobering thought, especially as the BBKA survey of its members shows that bee numbers declined by 30 per cent during the winter and early spring of 2007-08. Beekeepers are waiting to see how their bees have fared this winter.
I congratulate Peter Peacock on raising an issue of singular importance and on highlighting a problem that screams for an answer. If we are to believe Einstein, we should put the situation in the same category as the problem that is caused by nuclear waste: a solution must be found, and we ignore it at our peril.
I am not 100 per cent certain that Einstein is actually the person who made the comment that has been cited. However, it is widely attributed to him, and I know that people understand the importance of bees from that comment, even if it was not Einstein who actually said it.
I congratulate Peter Peacock on securing the debate and for the very impressive cross-party support that he obtained for the motion. The decline in the world's bee population is a matter for real concern and has in fact become a priority of my directorates. We are in the final stages of the preparation of a honey-bee health strategy, some details of which I can provide to the Parliament this evening.
As we have heard, rapid, unexplained losses of honey-bee colonies pose a threat to Scottish agricultural production, a point that John Scott made very clear. They pose an even greater threat to global food security. Experts believe that Scotland lost up to a third of its honey-bees last year alone, on top of heavy losses in previous years. Other countries fared even worse.
There is a lot of debate and disagreement about the causes, as we must accept. Many of the possible causes have been discussed here this evening—Peter Peacock, Rob Gibson and Robin Harper did so extensively. The potential effects are very serious, whatever we decide is the cause. It is the usual story: lots of possible reasons but no obvious definite cause. It would be easy and popular to scapegoat one aspect, but scientists know that there is no magic bullet.
Understanding the complexity of the matter might be the key to saving the insects. That is why we have been working with stakeholders and experts on a 10-year honey-bee health strategy, which was developed throughout 2008 to tackle this very issue. We intend to publish it in the near future.
I hope that members will follow up the interest that has been shown in today's debate by engaging with us and with beekeepers to implement the strategy and develop a brighter future for Scottish apiculture. I also hope that members will encourage their local authorities and beekeepers to interact with one another—I said that in response to Liam McArthur, in particular.
The honey-bee health strategy will broadly follow the framework and principles of the animal health and welfare strategy. We want to achieve a sustainable and healthy population of honey-bees in Scotland through work in five main areas. The first area is education. Although the challenges are beyond the capacities of individual beekeepers, good husbandry can and does have a significant role to play. Secondly, communication among policy officials at their desks, scientists in their laboratories and beekeepers in their gardens and fields requires effort and thought if it is to be focused and effective. Thirdly, good surveillance is needed, so that we can understand the situation on the ground, know how many beekeepers and colonies we have and track diseases in the field.
Fourthly, research will be crucial. We do not yet know the extent of colony loss or disease problems in Scotland, nor what the key drivers are. Pesticides are a reserved matter, which makes it difficult for the Scottish Government to act in that regard. As I understand it, although neonicotinoids have been banned in a number of countries in Europe, they are not shown to have an impact on the rate of colony loss.
Notwithstanding what the minister said, does she agree that as part of its research DEFRA should consider research elsewhere in Europe, which suggests that neonicotinoids are causing bee deaths?
It is clear that there is a debate about that in the scientific community. I hope that DEFRA will explore every possible cause. It would not be good enough if DEFRA were to ignore anything. I simply say that there is no unanimity on any particular issue.
Finally, the strategy will focus on diagnostics. It is important to feed back information to beekeepers, to allow early intervention and disease prevention.
We have identified new money for research. We have contributed up to £500,000 to a £10 million UK-wide research initiative. The money will be made available to research teams to investigate the relationships between biological and environmental factors that affect the health and lifespan of pollinators. That understanding will assist in the development of improved disease control and population management.
It is not just about honey-bees. Our wild bees are also at risk, as Liam McArthur said. Bumble-bees play a crucial role in pollination: they can pollinate a wide range of crops and are essential for the pollination of certain crops. The problem does not seem to be critical in wild bee populations, but that might be because we do not yet know enough about what is happening.
Is the minister aware of the European Parliament's recommendation that countries set up bee safe zones, which are safe for bumble-bees and honey-bees?
I am sure that officials are well aware of the recommendation. Robin Harper might be thinking about Colonsay, which I will talk about shortly.
Money is available through the SRDP and SNH for a variety of different projects, which will help our understanding and make a difference. We will follow up the debate with a letter to interested members, which will set out sources of funding that their constituents and other stakeholders might find useful.
As Peter Peacock identified in his motion, some places, such as Colonsay, are currently free of the varroa mite. We are exploring ways of maintaining that status. The legal advice is that the Colonsay black bee is not a wild species and is therefore outside the protection of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—that is where we get into complicated arguments. Government officials and SNH scientists will meet on 5 June specifically to discuss issues to do with Colonsay and the black bee. Of course, the outcome will have ramifications for other parts of Scotland. We are aware of the issue and are working on it.
There is much that we still do not know, such as how many people in Scotland keep bees, how many bees they keep and what the wild population is. We do know that we cannot watch from the sidelines and hope that populations will recover.
I thank members for their speeches and repeat my call for them to stay engaged. In the meantime, they might want to visit excellent and informative websites such as those of the Scottish Beekeepers Association and the Bumblebee Conservation Trust and apply the information that they find there to their own gardens. Like Elaine Murray, I have many bees in my garden. The number of bees tends to increase in line with the owner's neglect of their garden so, in this context, neglect can be truly benign. There is more land in gardens in the UK than there is in nature reserves, so small actions by many people can make a big difference.
Meeting closed at 17:44.