Dr Apolline Roger

In 1994, French beekeepers started to blow the whistle on the abnormal behaviour and disappearance of their bee colonies foraging on sunflowers and maize. Quickly, beekeepers considered “Gaucho”, a new neonicotinoid authorised the same year for the treatment of sunflower and maize seeds, as the prime suspect.

Were these two events linked by a causal relation or purely coincidental? Neonicotinoids are chemicals which attack the nervous system of all insects, and thus can have a lethal impact on bees. They were nonetheless authorised, under the condition that they are not to be used over a dose previously identified by the industry, and accepted by the regulator, as being non-lethal for bees. However, french beekeepers observations questioned the scientific grounds of this decision. Was the non-lethal dose correctly identified? Furthermore, do neonicotinoid insecticides have chronic sub-lethal effects on bees which were not foreseen when they were authorised?

In 2008, a perfect storm of dry and windy weather, inappropriate technology, and late sowing resulted in the production of a cloud of toxic neonicotinoid dust from insecticide treated maize seeds which severely poisoned 12,000 bee colonies in Germany.

Is this accident teaching us more than the existence of an acute lethal risk in dust clouds released when sowing seeds treated with neonicotinoids?

As always in times of uncertainty, science was called on to bring clarity. In the context of the growing mobilisation of beekeepers and civil society against neonicotinoids, public and business research flourished. The increased knowledge that resulted from this effort has, however, not offered a clear-cut answer to the political question: should public authorities act to protect bees from neonicotinoids?

 Answering this question requires an interdisciplinary reflection involving toxicology, ecotoxicoly, insectology, ecosystem science, biology, bee managers’ knowledge, sociology, as well as political and legal sciences. What follows does not pretend to develop this exhaustive approach, but rather seeks to give some reflections and facts to ground the interdisciplinary discussion between GESA master students. The questions we will explore are: (1) What is the societal impact of any restriction on the use of neonicotinoid? (2) What actions would effectively protect bees from neonicotinoids? (3) Are the actions taken so far appropriate?

1) What is the societal impact of restriction on the use of neonicotinoids?

 Neonicotinoids have several economic and health benefits, some which are confirmed and some which are claimed, all of which have to be taken into account when considering their restriction.

Economic benefits

Firstly, neonicotinoids are a profitable and massive market for EU industries. They are present in 120 countries and are the most used insecticide worldwide. The biggest producer of neonicotinoid insecticides are European industries: Bayer and BASF (Germany) and Syngenta (Switzerland). Imidracloprid, one of the several neonicotinoid subclasses, is the best selling insecticide worldwide. Bayer is one of its main producers, through products like “Gaucho”. Imidracloprid grossed 824 million dollars in 2010 for Bayer only.

Other economic benefits have to be added to these impressive revenues. At farm level, neonicotinoids require less work from farmers. Indeed, neonicotinoids’ main modus operandi relies on the treatment of the seed itself, even though they can also be sprayed or be used as soil treatment. The seeds are “coated” with the insecticide, which will therefore be diffused internally by the vascular systems of the growing plan. This treatment is holistic; the whole plant is impregnated. It is also systematic; all fields are treated, even when there is no identified threat. The farmer does not need to control the health of his field and to spray it during growth.

More generally, another advantage of this newest generation of insecticides is that they are very efficient in meeting their target. Even though the accounting of the benefits for agriculture is difficult to faithfully establish, the gains resulting from the protection of crops against pest have to be taken into account. However, the efficiency of neonicotinoids might be impaired in the long term by their systemic use. Indeed, their application on all seeds might speed up pest resistance. This issue might be worsened by the wide use of the insecticide, which is broadening with the gradual expiration of patents.

Health and environmental benefits?

Secondly, neonicotinoids are claimed to be safer than the insecticides they replace, such as the highly hazardous organochlorines and organophosphates. It comes first from the fact that they are supposed to target the nervous system of insects, which differs from the nervous system in mammals and other animals. They are therefore claimed to be safer for humans and the environment. In addition, seed-coating is seen as safer than spraying because it limits the environment and farmer’s exposure. The dust cloud accidents might however bring this claim into question.

Any decision to restrict the use of neonicotinoids therefore has to take into account the impact on the agrochemical industry, the economy and agriculture – in particular food production. In addition, it must consider the availability of a safer alternative. Indeed, situations where bee health would be obtained at the cost of human health or serious environmental destruction should be avoided. Restrictions are therefore complex decisions which require to balance essential and potentially contradictory interests. This is why they should be adopted only when there is a reasonable guarantee that they will effectively improves bee’s health.

 2) What actions would effectively protect bees from neonicotinoids?

As discussed, neonicotinoids were placed on the market in the mid-90s under the condition that they would be used only at doses identified as not lethal for bees. Should they be authorised but submitted to stricter conditions? Should they, or some of their uses, be entirely prohibited? To be able to answer these questions, a public authority needs to have information on the routes of exposure and on the risks associated with each of these routes. Whereas the former are quite well known, the latter are the target of intense controversy which is partially due, as we will see, to the inadequacy of the risk assessment framework used to identify the impact on bees.

Understanding bee populations decline: the routes of exposure to neonicotinoids

The first route of exposure is the sowing process of neonicotinoid coated seeds. As we saw, the manipulation of seeds when sowing can indeed create a cloud of dust containing high level of insecticides. The cloud can be lethal for honeybees flying through it. What should the reaction be to this known risk? Should seed coating be prohibited? Should the sowing equipment and process be improved to prevent the creation of a cloud? Should sowing of coated seeds be allowed only at times and in locations identified according to bees needs; for example by avoiding blooming period or proximity to plants which attract bees?

The other routes of exposure are all related to food gathering and consumption. Foragers bring contaminated substances back to the hive which will then be used to feed the whole colony (through the form of pollen, jelly, honey, etc.). Firstly, honeybees will be exposed to the low neonicotinoid doses present in nectar and pollen of plants grown from treated seeds or soils, for example sunflowers and maize. However, treated plants are not the only contaminated ones. Neonicotinoids are very persistent. Depending on climate conditions, they can remain in the soil for more than one year. The residues can therefore be absorbed by the succeeding non-treated crop, but also by weeds and wild flowers growing in the area. Secondly, other sources of food can be a source of exposure. Guttation drops, the “sudation” of plants like maize, can contain a high dose. Honeydew, the liquid secreted by some insects feeding on plant sap, might also expose honeybees to the chemical. Finally, high fructose corn syrup, used as winter feed, can also contain low doses of neonicotinoid.

Understanding neonicotinoids impact: the controversial low dose effects

The risk of exposure through food sources differs from the “cloud” accidents. Rather than an acute risk with quick lethal consequences, it involves a chronic exposure to low doses potentially causing cumulative, long-term and synergistic sub-lethal effects.

These effects are the point of contention which deeply divides or challenges scientists. Do neonicotinoids have low dose effects at all? Can low doses of neonicotinoids be linked to bee population decline and colony collapse disorder in particular?

Industry research tends to reject the responsibility of neonicotinoids and to emphasise the multifactorial causes. It also questions the relevance of laboratory studies (which found effects at low doses) and emphasise the positive results of their field studies. On the other hand, some public research found impacts of low doses on bees cognitive abilities (orientation, communication, foraging), in particular when looking at the combination of low doses from different sources, with deadly impacts for the hive. They also established a synergistic effect between neonicotinoids and certain fungicides, the combined exposure to which have adverse impact on bees (bees, like humans, can be jointly exposed to a chemical cocktail of more than 100 chemicals). Other studies showed a synergistic effect between neonicotinoids and bees pathogens or pests. Neonicotinoids are thought to weaken bee’s immune systems; therefore making them more vulnerable. They are also thought to reduce their capacity to produce the enzyme used to sterilise jelly; opening the hives to infection. Furthermore, bees affected by pests and pathogens need more energy, therefore they consume more food, leading to exposure to a higher dose of chemicals. However the results of these studies are denounced by the industry as not being ground in “sound science”. The core of the debate does not focus on the results per se, but on the methods used to obtain them. The knowledge on the bee/neonicotinoid relations is highly dependant on the risk assessment framework used to analyse the impact of the chemicals. The determination of this framework is therefore a highly strategic, politicised and lobbied process. It has resulted in the inadequacy of the methods used to deliver the scientific knowledge grounding the first authorizations of neonicotinoids.

The fuel of scientific controversy: an inadequate risk assessment framework

The scientific debate on bees is poisoned by an unsuitable and out-dated risk assessment framework which focuses on:

– the determination of the lethal dose rather than chronic, long-term and sub-lethal effects;

– on the identification of a causal link between one source/one effect rather than combined and synergistic effects;

Furthermore, the risk assessment framework was created for sprayed chemicals and is therefore not adapted to the specific risks of seed coating. These weaknesses, recognised by EU authorities, are resulting in ignorance on the long term and chronic effects of neonicotinoids, as well as on their cumulative and synergistic effects. The scientific debate is also made even more complex by the fact that field studies on bees & chemicals are extremely hard to organise in light of the foraging radiance. How can the substances to which the bees are exposed be precisely controled? How can it be ensured that the control group is not exposed to any chemicals? However, some new approaches, involving radio-frequency identification equipment attached to each forager, might help to obtain a real life vision of the multifactorial causes of bee populations decline.

For public authorities, however, these questions remain: How can they justify a restriction to economic freedom when faced with contradictory research? How do they justify such a restriction when the neonicotinoids are known as not being the sole cause and are not, for certain, the main cause of bee populations decline?

3) Are the actions taken so far appropriate?

Several principles are supposed to guide EU public authorities in their decision making process in risk regulation.

– Prevention principle: environmental actions should, as much as possible, prevent the risk rather than react to its consequences;

– Proportionality principle: the action should not be more restrictive than necessary to achieve the objective pursued;

-Precautionary principle: this principle provides a justification for public action in situations of scientific complexity, uncertainty and ignorance, where there is a potentially serious or irreversible threats to health and/or the environment. The risk cannot be purely hypothetical, public authorities have to justify their decision using an appropriate strength of scientific evidence.

EU institutions and Member States have to respect these principles. The US recognises the first two, but has a different approach to precaution than the EU. The variety of reactions to the bees/neonicotinoids controversies shows the complexity of the identification of the appropriate public action on the matter.

– The US has not adopted any restriction but is actively promoting research to further understand the multifactorial causes of bee populations decline.

– Germany recommended best practices and better information on sowing equipment and process in order to prevent the formation of toxic dust clouds. It also temporarily prohibited Clothianidin, a subclass of neonicotinoid.

– The EU (and therefore its Member States) has implemented, since 2013, a regulation (Regulation 485/2013) which prohibits the use of 3 neonicotinoids subclasses (Clothianidin, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid. Fipronil was recently added) as a seed or soil treatment for crops attractive to bees and for cereals (except winter cereals). For crops, foliar treatment (sprays) is authorised but only after flowering. For all the other plants, these 4 neonicotinoids can be used but their environmental impact has to be monitored. Only professional uses are authorised. Best practices have to be implemented for equipment and sowing processes.

Other neonicotinoids are not subjected to specific requirements.

Are these actions appropriate? Should they be more restrictive? Less restrictive? What are the alternatives?

Discussion questions:

• Should public authorities prohibit the usage of neonicotinoid insecticides despite their economic and societal benefits?
• Should public authorities prohibit the usage of neonicotinoid insecticides despite the contradictory scientific results related to their role in the bees population decline?
• Should public authorities prohibit the usage of neonicotinoid insecticides even though they are known as not being the sole cause of bees population decline?
• Are the actions taken so far appropriate? Should they be more restrictive? Less restrictive? What are the alternatives?

Indicative Readings:

• Maxim L., van der Sluijs J. “Seed-dressing systemic insecticides and honeybees” in EEA Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation 369. http://tinyurl.com/oaflhfg
• Kleinman D.L., Suryanarayanan S. “Dying bees and the social production of ignorance” Science, technology & human values 4 (2012) 492.
• Reynard B.W. “The producer-pollinator dilemma: neonicotinoids and honeybee colony collapse”, 2012 http://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones/50/

Dr Laura Jeffery

Dr Laura Jeffery

Until the end of the 20^th century, most Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) were relatively small-scale conservation zones in coastal waters. The past decade has seen a proliferation in the designation of ever larger MPAs. Mega MPAs measuring over 100,000km² now already comprise the vast majority of the total area covered by MPAs worldwide. But why are the world’s powerful leaders – including Clinton, Bush, and Obama – competing to create ever larger MPAs?

The states party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have agreed on a target to protect 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020. Mega MPAs clearly help governments as they seek to reach this (repeatedly deferred) target, but do they offer effective protection? Proponents argue that the smaller border-to-area ratio of mega MPAs means that the area of well-protected ocean in the middle is increased while the border zones exposed to external threats are reduced. But critics point to a range of problems associated with mega MPAs:

Challenges to surveillance and enforcement: Size and remoteness pose particular challenges for effective surveillance and enforcement of mega MPAs, where surveillance vessels cannot effectively patrol such large areas, and remote sensing technologies cannot track illegal fishing vessels that do not have satellite tags. Environmental NGOS (eNGOs) have reported widespread illegal fishing within numerous MPAs, including illegal shark fishing in the Galapagos Marine Reserve (Ecuador).

Diverting attention from real challenges: Most mega MPAs have been designated in remote areas with little human habitation, but this means they are not ideally located to address the real challenges facing the world’s oceans, such as overfishing, tourism, and pollution. A good example of this is the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument designated around the uninhabited and relatively unexploited northwest Hawaiian Islands (USA).

Vulnerability to commercial interests: Seeking to meet ambitious targets without threatening economic growth, governments are likely to protect areas that already have low economic value. Australia’s Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve, for instance, covers deep water that sees little fishing activity at present, and leaves the most valuable commercial fishing areas unrestricted.

Undermining social justice: By banning resource use within vast areas, mega MPAs risk undermining social justice in terms of equitable access to economic livelihoods. The UK’s Chagos Marine Protected Area, for example, seems to have been designed to entrench UK sovereignty over an Indian Ocean territory also claimed by Mauritius, safeguard the security of the US military base on Diego Garcia, and harm the displaced islanders’ campaign for their right of return to the Chagos Archipelago.

Diverting resources from existing MPAs: Promoting mega MPAs may divert attention and resources from improving the management and effectiveness of existing or smaller MPAs. On the other hand, however, mega MPAs such as the Chagos MPA and South Georgia and Sandwich Islands (UK/Argentina) were designated alongside a network of smaller coastal MPAs around the UK mainland; Australia’s Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve was designated alongside smaller MPAs in areas of high resource use.

Discussion Questions

• Can national solutions such as mega MPAs effectively address global challenges?
• How can remote mega MPAs be effectively monitored and enforced?
• Does vulnerability to commercial interests undermine mega MPAs?
• Do remote mega MPAs divert attention from the real issues?
• Do mega MPAs undermine social justice?
• Do mega MPAs divert resources from smaller MPAs and MPA networks?
• Can MPA networks and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) offer effective solutions?

Indicative Readings:

• MPA News. International news and analysis on marine protected areas published by the University of Washington.
• De Santo, E.M. 2013. Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal of Environmental Management 124: 137-146.
• Leenhardt, P, B. Cazalet, B. Salvat, J. Claudet & F. Feral. 2013. The rise of large-scale marine protected areas: conservation or geopolitics? Ocean & Coastal Management 85, A: 112-118.
• Singleton, R.L. & C.M. Roberts. 2014. The contribution of very large marine protected areas to marine conservation: giant leaps or smoke and mirrors? Marine Pollution Bulletin 87: 7-10.

Dr Laura Jeffery is Lecturer in Social Anthropology in the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, and has research interests in island ecologies, human–environment relations, and the politics of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). She has recently published on WikiLeaks evidence in judicial review of the Chagos MPA, debates about environmental guardianship of the Chagos Archipelago, and ‘coconut chaos’ and the politics of restoration ecology.

The presence of minerals on the deep seabed was first discovered by the HMS Challenger expedition in 1873. Polymetallic nodules and other seabed resources (polymetallic sulphides and crusts) offer abundant supplies of valuable minerals, including manganese, cobalt, copper, gold, silver and several so-called rare earth elements.

Despite our knowledge of this (literal) goldmine at the bottom of the oceans, it was not possible to exploit these riches for almost 100 years due to their inaccessibility. Yet, the profits to be gained from mineral mining on the ocean floor have meant that millions of dollars have been invested in developing the technology to conduct deep seabed mining on a commercial scale. In the last few years, mining companies have announced technological breakthroughs and it is widely anticipated that deep seabed mining will become a reality within the next decade.

This development has a number of potential benefits. Firstly, it addresses concerns about the growing scarcity of many valuable minerals required for manufacturing items that are in increasing demand in modern society, particularly communications and computing equipment, as well as renewable energy technologies (components of wind turbines, solar panels and energy-saving light bulbs). There are also potential broader benefits of deep seabed mining. The legal regime for the regulation of deep seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction, contained in the 1982 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, declares that the mineral resources of the deep seabed are the “common heritage of mankind”. Thus, the profits to be obtained from seabed mining are to be equitably distributed amongst the international community, taking into particular consideration the interests and needs of developing countries.

Yet, not everyone is thrilled at the prospect of deep seabed mining. Critics point out that we know very little about the marine environment on the ocean floor and therefore we should proceed with caution before authorizing commercial activities. It has been suggested that deep seabed mining poses unacceptable risks, including direct damage to vulnerable deep seabed ecosystems, as well as noise, light and other forms of pollution from mining activities. As a result, groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have called for a moratorium on deep seabed mining. They argue that a precautionary approach[1] is required and this activity should not be permitted to commence until independently verified research has been conducted in order to demonstrate that ecosystems will not suffer long-term negative impacts.

Even the International Seabed Authority, which is responsible for overseeing the deep seabed mining regime beyond national jurisdiction, has admitted that seabed mining will cause “inevitable environmental damage.” Yet, a precautionary approach to deep seabed mining does not necessarily entail a full-scale moratorium until there is evidence that no harm will be caused. The international regime for deep seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction already requires mining companies to conduct environmental impact assessment and continuous monitoring of mining operations. Moreover, the International Seabed Authority is empowered to oversee the activities of commercial mining companies and to step in if serious damage is caused to the marine environment. The International Seabed Authority has also provisionally established nine protected areas in the central Pacific where no mining will be allowed to take place and it can require mining companies to establish additional “preservation references zones” within their mining areas. Supporters of the commercial seabed mining argue that these measures are sufficient to prevent the type of long-term negative impacts that worry environmental campaigners. Furthermore, such an approach is arguably in accordance with the concept of sustainable development, which requires a balance between economic development and environmental protection, ensuring that resources can be exploited for the benefit of both present and future generations.[2]

Discussion Questions

• Is sustainable development a useful concept for managing seabed resources?
• In what circumstances should environmental protection take priority over economic development?
• What is meant by the precautionary approach in the context of seabed mining? Who should bear the burden of demonstrating that the environmental risks of an activity are acceptable or not?
• Who should be responsible for monitoring the effects of seabed mining on the environment?
• How much of the seabed should be designated as a protected area and who should decide?

Indicative Readings:

• International Seabed Authority, Environmental Management Needs for Exploration and Exploitation of Deep Sea Minerals, ISA Technical Study No. 10 (2012) 29-33, available at:

http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Pubs/TS10/TS10-Final.pdf

• Greenpeace International, Deep Seabed Mining: An Urgent Wake-up Call to Protect our Oceans (July 2013) 3-16, available at:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/oceans/2013/Deep-Seabed-Mining.pdf

Dr James Harrison is Lecturer in International Law in the School of Law at the University of Edinburgh and he has research interests in International Law of the Sea and International Environmental Law. He has written widely on these subjects, including Making the Law of the Sea: A Case Study in the Development of International Law (Cambridge University Pr

[1] Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development on the precautionary approach says that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

[2] The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”; The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, 1987) 43.