Bees for Development Journal 111
THE GAMBIA
As a keen beekeeper he expects the highest standards for bees. Therefore hives from Prince Charles (first in line to the UK throne) are handcrafted from Forest Stewardship Council cedar and larch at a price of £1,250 (US$ 2,130; € 1,565). All profits go to the Prince’s charities. Each is bespoke and takes 8-12 weeks to produce. The website says “the hives allow the bees to live in a sustainable low-impact environment similar to their natural environment”.
Derek Marin, US Peace Corps (More information about Resource Boxes on page 16)
For sale at www.highgroveshop.com
DAY OF THE HONEY BEE
Source UK press
ROYALTY HIVE
I am working with The Gambian Ministry of Parks & Wildlife to establish a burn free National Bee Reserve in my area and a large tree nursery at the local forest station. If all goes well it will be the first bee reserve in all of West Africa, hopefully just like they have in Tanzania. The Resource Box received from BfD Trust will help with great sustainable ideas.
projects through the Ministry of Agriculture’s Development Fund, two projects focused specifically on honey bees. The Ministry also collaborated with industry and producers to create DriftWatch Saskatchewan an online tool that assists in identifying drift sensitive agricultural areas such as hives, orchards and organic farms. This voluntary risk mitigation tool enables crop producers, beekeepers and pesticide applicators to work together to manage the potential effects of spraying operations.
Saskatchewan Province in Canada held the 5th Annual Day of the Honey Bee on 29 May. Saskatchewan has a well-established honey bee industry, with the highest per colony honey production in Canada: 100,000 colonies with an average production of 84 kg honey per year. In 2013 its beekeepers harvested 8,570 tonnes of honey worth US$40 (€29) million. The provincial and federal governments have announced over US$1.0 (€0.7) million funding for three bee-related research
Angela Hall, Agriculture Regina
RESOLUTIONS OF THE XXXXIII INTERNATIONAL APIMONDIA CONGRESS SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME
de facto standard of the industry and is followed by all major laboratories serving the honey sector.
• Regulations covering the GMO status of honey must ensure
consumer choice and consumer confidence in healthy natural bee products.
• Governments choosing to permit the cultivation of GMO crops
must consider the impact on all bee species, the beekeeping sector and the pollination needs of farmers. Governments have a clear obligation to take steps to minimise these impacts.
• GMOs producing an insecticide are just another systemic
Apimondia Working Group 10: GMOs and impact on the beekeeping sector
pesticide delivery mechanism and therefore need to be regulated not only under GMO legislation but also under applicable pesticide regulations.
• Consumers have the right to know the Genetically Modified
Organism (GMO) status of the food they buy and should have freedom of choice. In some parts of the world, these rights are already enshrined in law. In other parts consumers are actively campaigning for GMO labelling.
• Herbicide tolerance is enabling a farming system which creates a green desert with no foraging opportunities for bees. When regulating GMOs it is important to look at the impact of the farming system the plant is designed to enable. While bees may not directly be impacted by herbicides, the experience in several countries shows that there can be a significant impact on the beekeeping sector from herbicide tolerant crops.
• Honey can be contaminated by genetically modified (GM)
pollen. If beekeepers are producing honey for consumers in the European Union (EU), contamination with GM pollen may cause the products to be not marketable in the EU. Where GMO cultivation takes place the honey sector has a high analysis cost to find out if the honey is contaminated and whether the event found has food authorisation or a labelling threshold has been reached. There is high demand for GMO-free honey in the EU. As a result there is a clear opportunity for the beekeeping sector to position itself to supply this market.
• If there is no help from the government, beekeepers have
to protect their products and their colonies by leaving areas with GMO cultivation. This has a negative impact on farmers requiring bees for pollination. Farmers in the vicinity of GMO cultivation may not be able to find beekeepers willing to risk contamination or may have to pay higher pollination fees, to make up for lost honey sales of the beekeepers.
• Using registers of GMO fields or regional maps of
In conclusion, it is clear, that GMO cultivation has several complex impacts on the beekeeping sector and farmers in need of pollination. It is generally understood that the economic benefit of beekeeping is approximately ten times the value of honey sales. Every country has to decide, if the claimed benefits of genetically modified crops outweigh the clear benefits of a strong beekeeping sector.
contamination risk combined with honey analysis it is possible to produce honey which meets the specifications of different markets including the EU.
• Laboratories are able to test if honey meets the specifications for different markets including the GMO regulations of the EU.
• The honey analysis guidelines published by the Federal German Reference Laboratory and further described in Waiblinger et al (2012) Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety is the
Walter Haefeker, Beekeeping Economy Round Table and Symposium Conclusion 13
