POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
6.4.4.2 Legal responses
Two key policy responses are first, registration and
inspection of managed pollinators, and second, regulation
of managed pollinator movement, for example related to
imports of hive pests and trade in managed pollinators
at a single country level, or movement restrictions related
to diseases. A list of such regulations around the world is
included in the reference list (Annex 1). In Australia, this has
so far prevented the introduction of Varroa mites of honey
bees (Cook et al., 2007).
As an example of within-country movement, in the UK,
beekeepers whose colonies are infected with American
Foulbrood (caused by Paenibacillus larvae) are mandated
with standstill orders by the 1980 Bees Act, under the UK
Bee Diseases and Pests Control Orders 2006, SI 2006/342.
This policy mandate thus prevents spread of this highly
contagious hive pathogen.
In dealing with multiple countries, there is significant
potential for regional coordination of policies surrounding
movement of managed pollinators, both within and between
countries. Many countries and regions have regulations in
place (e.g., in the UK, The Bee Diseases and Pests Control
Order 2006 [2006 No. 342]; European Union Council
Directive 92/65/EEC), though a key component of their
success is border enforcement infrastructure. In addition,
general biosecurity, beyond specific control of managed
pollinators, is necessary to limit accidental introductions of
managed bees and/or their parasites and pathogens (e.g.,
Cook et al., 2007).
An additional policy concern is the potential for mandated
registration of managed bees, which again is common in
many countries and regions for honey bees (e.g., the state
of Maryland, USA, under Maryland code 15.07.01.02), but
could be done for bumble bees, Osmia, and other species.
Registration would potentially assist with monitoring efforts
and pathogen containment. There is very limited systematic
evidence on how either regulation of pollinator movement or
mandated registration of colonies affects tangible outcomes
related to managed pollinators.
6.4.4.3 Economic responses
Economic responses for managed pollinators include
access to markets and market building, incentives for
beekeepers and other pollinator managers, and product
certification. Access to markets, as well as building
existing markets, is particularly relevant for alternative or
newly managed pollinators. Economic incentives including
supports could potentially play an important role in markets,
such as for pollination contracts, where there is year-to-year
variability that may discourage particular beekeepers or
other pollinator managers from entering the market.
Product certification involves three areas of consideration:
the targeted product; the pollinator species involved; and
the certification type. Product targets currently include
honey and other hive products (including wax, propolis, royal
jelly), as well as bees themselves (colonies, packages, pupal
cases, queens, or even bee semen for breeding purposes);
for example EU Council Regulation No 1804/1999, of 19
July 1999 includes provisions for certifying any beekeeping
product. While to our knowledge there is no thorough
accounting of pollinator-related certification at a global level,
at a species level honey bees and their products appear
to account for the vast majority of certified products. Thus,
there is a particular opportunity for developing certification
for other species. Meliponine honey is a good example in
that it already commands a price premium for its potential/
perceived medicinal effects in parts of the world (Cortopassi-
Laurino et al., 2006). In terms of types of certification,
these include: organic; trademark; quality; floral source;
and geographic provenance. Again, while exhaustive
surveys of certification types is lacking, organic certification
and monofloral honey certification are very likely (but
speculatively) the largest players. Product certification could
also potentially be useful to protect indirectly biodiversity and
traditional knowledge (Avril, 2008).
An example of protected monofloral honey is Manuka
honey, produced from Leptospermum scoparium trees
that grow in parts of New Zealand and Australia. Manuka
honey commands a strong price premium for its perceived
medicinal properties. The New Zealand Ministry for Primary
Industries regulates labeling of Manuka honey, and in
addition there are two Manuka honey trade groups that have
licensed trademarks for Manuka honey meeting particular
biochemical standards, though labeling of honey in New
Zealand is under review at the time of this writing (http://
archive.mpi.govt.nz/food/food-safety/manuka-honey, last
accessed 11 December 2014).
An example of trademark-protected bees are Buckfast TM
honey bees, which were bred at Buckfast Abbey in the UK
in an isolated, treeless moor that lacks honey bee nesting
habitat, thus allowing for careful selection and breeding,
in particular against tracheal mites (Osterlund, 1983).
The abbey has held various UK and EU trademarks, e.g.,
trademark EU003089224, to the Buckfast bees (http://www.
ipo.gov.uk/tmtext, search for “buckfast bees”, 13 April 2015).
While various certification schemes for products from
A. mellifera are well established and very likely enhance
beekeeper livelihoods in some contexts, there is no direct
evidence to our knowledge that such certification improves
colony or crop pollination outcomes. In addition, to our
405
6. RESPONSES TO RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED
WITH POLLINATORS AND POLLINATION