here - United Kingdom Parliament

1757 Pollinators and Pesticides
6 JUNE 2013 Pollinators and Pesticides 1758
[Dr Alan Whitehead]
concerning what is happening to bees and pollinators,
what the causes are and what role pesticides may or may
not play in the problems that we have heard this afternoon
are occurring with bee populations are far less certain
than that. It is thus potentially a matter for a great deal
of dispute.
I want to reflect on the related problem that we as
legislators have in addressing those issues and deciding
how best to take action on them. The Select Committee’s
work on this issue was an exemplar of how to go about
that when the members themselves are not experts.
Interestingly, however, as we have heard, the Environmental
Audit Committee has rather more experts on it than
one might think in respect of those who hold a certificate
in apiculture. Also, several members are active or former
farmers who have a great deal of knowledge and
information about how these things work in general.
The Committee did not go about its business in any
kind of sensationalist manner. It operated carefully,
quietly and at some length, seeking a large range of
thoughts, opinions and experts in order to shed some
light on what is a very knotty problem.
The problem was well summed up in a book published
recently by the Canadian author, Douglas Coupland.
He posited as a starting point of his novel that bees had
been declared extinct. Then, across America, five people
were found who had been stung by bees, and they were
all arrested and immediately investigated by scientists
on the basis of that apparently counter-scientific fact
relating to the continuous existence of bees. Douglas
Coupland was, I think, a little unscientific in setting out
a world in which there were no bees, without taking
account of the large number of other pollinators that
exist alongside bees.
We know from the evidence produced before the
Select Committee that the problem is not just about
honey bees; in fact it is not just about bees as it is about
all the pollinators that operate in our environment in
such a fundamentally important and basic way to ensure
that our ecosystem continues in a recognisable way. If
the sort of declines that the Committee heard about are
to continue at the same rate over the same sort of
period, not just several bumble bee species but large
numbers of bumble bees will be extinct.
The Committee was told that 600 solitary bees can
pollinate as well as two hives containing 30,000 honey
bees, so it is not just about honey bees. As our Committee
Chairman mentioned, they are a sentinel species, but it
is nevertheless the case that hoverflies, butterflies and
all sorts of other pollinators are in steep decline. We
were told that 66% of larger moth species in the countryside
are declining, as are most of the bumble bees—we were
told that six species had declined by at least 80% in
recent years. As we have heard, hoverflies are declining,
and 71% of butterfly species are declining at an alarming
rate. We do not have data on the vast majority of the
other pollinators, and we have to take some of those
sentinel species as indicators for those other species, but
we certainly do know that something is beginning to go
seriously wrong with the species that pollinate our
crops, flowers and food.
So I do not think the Committee had a choice in the
conclusions it might reasonably draw from the material
presented to it, given that, as legislators, we have to
make choices when we are not necessarily complete
experts in a subject. We are responsible for what happens
and we have to take the best shot we can in terms of
getting the best evidence available to inform our judgments.
The evidence that came before the Committee demonstrated
clearly a strong relationship, not only where neonicotinoids
were used, but, for example, where crops were routinely
dusted. Farmers cannot purchase oilseed rape seeds in
this country that have not been dusted. Whether or not
they think there is a problem with their crops, they
simply have to plant those crops, which have, systemic
within them, the effect of the neonicotinoid with which
they have been dusted.
The Committee heard about the various studies done
by Henry, Whitehorn and Gill, which demonstrated a
strong causal link between neonicotinoids and an effect
on bees in a laboratory. We also heard about the continued
difficulty in conducting adequate field trials. One person
who contributed to our evidence suggested that getting
scientific certainty from field trials would cost about
£20 million and take 10 years, if that is what one wanted
to do. So we cannot deal in absolute scientific certainty
on these things and, in terms of decision making, nor
should we. The conclusions that the Committee reached
on what should be done about neonicotinoids are absolutely
right, given what we, as legislators, are charged with
doing. I continue to be a little dismayed about the
extent to which it appears that this is not quite the route
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
is taking in its representations on pesticides, pollinators
and bees.
I welcome the notion that further, and, we hope,
much less flawed, field trials will be carried out urgently,
which can get further indicators to the fore. I also
welcome the idea that we should try to ensure that
integrated approaches are brought to the fore in the
future management of pesticides. It has been implied—the
Committee unanimously felt that this was not the case—that
there are no alternatives to neonicotinoids if they are
taken off the roster of usable pesticides for those plants.
I hope that we can use different methods of pesticide
management and ensure that the crops are well maintained,
with advice and assistance from DEFRA, in a way that
a number of people say is not possible to do.
We remain in a world in which there is an enormous
amount that we do not know. I hope that DEFRA will
monitor developments involving non-bee pollinators
much more closely, will keep them well to the fore in
terms of the views that it expresses and the action that it
decides to take, and will continue to look at the evidence
that is being produced about elements that are thought
to be having an impact on colony decline. I hope that its
consideration will bring together such issues as varroa
mite habitats, food availability, husbandry, and, indeed,
climate change, in order to create a more complete
picture of what is going on.
Let me emphasise again that we do not know the
details of what is going on. We do not know what is the
prime cause of decline. What we do know is that there is
a decline, that it is very serious, and that we can do
things about it. That is the essence of what the Committee
is saying in the report. It does not seek to provide all the
answers; it does not look for a silver bullet; but it does
suggest that there is a strong case for taking action. I
hope that DEFRA will take precisely the sort of action