"Save the bees" petition  [11.10.19]

Bavaria has shown how it's done: The petition for a referendum "Save the bees" was the most successful in the state's history and is now to become a law exactly as written. Since Tuesday, a petition for a referendum under the same name has also been running in Baden-Württemberg. But the demands to stop the death of insects go far beyond the Bavarian model. The resistance of farmers in Baden-Württemberg seems to be correspondingly greater. Hohenheim experts are also sceptical. The Online Courier has collected three reactions from different disciplines: Prof. Dr. Johannes Steidle, animal ecologist, Dr. Sabine Zikeli, Head of the Center for Organic Farming and Prof. Dr. Ralf Vögele, Dean of the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Phytopathology.

The petition for a referendum "Species protection: Save the bees" is an initiative of "proBiene - Free Institute for Ecological Beekeeping" and is supported by numerous associations such as BUND BW, NABU BW, Demeter BW, and Naturland BW.

 

The demands at a glance:

- The share of organic agriculture is to be increased to 50% by 2035.

- Pesticides to be banned in nature reserves

- Areas on which pesticides are to be used will be halved by 2025.

- Orchards to be protected

 

What do you think of the demands?

Prof. Dr. Johannes Steidle, Animal Ecology, Dept. of Chemical Ecology

 

"My opinion on the petition for a referendum in a nutshell: Very well meant, but poorly done.

The issue of insect death is really serious, and it remains to be hoped that politicians will act quickly. I am grateful that the petition is drawing attention to this important issue. Nevertheless, I will not sign the text as it stands.

My main criticism is that the demands are too focused on pesticides. They are certainly a factor in the extinction of species. But to declare them to be the core of the problem is simply not possible based on the data available.

On the other hand, a really decisive factor is virtually not taken into account in the referendum: In order for insects to survive, they need habitats: plants to eat, plants where they can lay their eggs, gaps in the soil, flowering wild plants, hedges...

Monocultures with useful plants, on the other hand, are about as attractive to insects as tarred surfaces. Whether or not pesticides are applied to this "tarred surface" is no longer as important.

The first step would therefore be to do something about the structural poverty of our landscape: For example, a mandatory green strip on the edge of large fields. Another important starting point is a different approach to grassland, which after all accounts for 50% of the agricultural area in Germany. Mowing should be much less frequent.

My second point of criticism is the call for a blanket ban on all plant protection products and biocides in protected areas. As I understand the relevant legal texts, this also includes biological pest control and other environmentally friendly methods, without which organic farming would not be possible.

For example, many winegrowers use biological confusion tactics in the fight against sourworm and hayworm. In the vineyard, they spread the scents of females so that the males no longer find the real females. This is a successful and proven strategy that helps to reduce the use of chemical poisons. This method would also be prohibited.

In retrospect, I consider it an unrealistic bureaucratic task to obtain a special permit for each individual biological agent.

My impression is that the Bavarian petition for a referendum was so successful because an intensive dialogue with all the groups concerned had taken place in advance. In Baden-Württemberg, on the other hand, this debate was obviously lacking." 

 

Dr. Sabine Zikeli, Director of the University of Hohenheim’s Center for Organic Farming.

 

"The petition for a referendum wants to massively expand organic farming. However, I am convinced that the demands, if they were implemented as written, would not do the industry any favors. On the contrary.

The text of the petition suggests that no pesticides would be used in organic farming. This largely applies already to organic farming: there are alternative strategies for pest control, e.g. mechanical control of weeds or crop rotation to avoid fungal diseases and pests. In orchards and vineyards, however, neither fungi nor insects can be controlled in this way. Measures must also be taken against the potato beetle when growing potatoes.

Although no chemical-synthetic pesticides are used, copper, plant preparations, or biological agents such as viruses that act on certain insects are used. However, according to the demands of the petition, all this would no longer be permitted.

However, anyone who gardens even a small plot knows that it is possible to cultivate apples under our climatic conditions, but without biological pest control they do not always look "beautiful" but show scab marks or are infested by worms, or rather by the caterpillars of the codling moth. We would therefore have to stop apple cultivation completely in protected areas or enclose the apple trees, i.e. cultivate them under foil and net. I suspect that the initiators of the petition did not have large-area foil plantations near Lake Constance in mind either.

The plan to increase organic farming to 25% by 2025 and to 50% by 2035 also seems unrealistic to me. After all, there must be a market for the products. The organic market is growing, but not that fast. Competition among organic farmers would therefore increase considerably, making organic farming less attractive.

Last but not least, organic farming depends on farmers taking this path out of conviction. If the change were to be forced, the number of black sheep would be significantly higher. Regulations would probably have to be monitored much more closely and the credibility of the sector could be jeopardized.

Numerous scientific studies show that organic farming contributes more to biodiversity conservation than conventional farming. Farmers are aware of this and many of them are very concerned about preserving biodiversity.

Associations such as Demeter BW or Naturland BW support the petition. However, I suspect that the voices of members engaged in arable farming were heard and that the consequences for special crops were not fully recognized. The Bioland BW association has therefore spoken out against the petition for the reasons stated.

Prof. Dr. Ralf Vögele, Director of the Institute of Phytomedicine at the University of Hohenheim

 

"The basic idea of the petition is worth supporting. Unfortunately, however, it goes far over the top and is therefore, in my view, unacceptable in its present form.

I am convinced that we can significantly reduce the use of synthetic chemical crop protection products. We need to develop intelligent strategies for this, and there are already very promising approaches. A blanket demonization, on the other hand, will not get us any further.

We must not forget: If we were to do without crop protection products overnight, we would no longer be able to feed the world's population. For many German farms, it would mean the end of their business. For example, we would have to import almost all potatoes or apples from abroad. Winegrowing would also no longer be possible in Germany.

It should also not be forgotten at this point that a reduction in the pesticides that can be used can lead to major resistance problems. A reduction of the application rate can very quickly lead to the necessary threshold being undercut, which makes the use of the agents ineffective. In contrast, a reduction in the spectrum of the agents may quickly lead to the development of resistance in the pathogens due to the use of only one active substance - similar to the currently observed increase in antibiotic resistance in hospital germs.

A sensible and forward-looking management of the use of plant protection products would therefore be far more effective.

Digitization, for example, offers great opportunities. New technologies are helping farmers to apply crop protection products in an increasingly targeted manner and thus reduce the quantity used.

I also consider another approach to be very promising - it attempts to combine the advantages of conventional and organic farming and to reduce their respective disadvantages as far as possible. The aim is to develop cultivation systems that do without chemical pesticides, but not without mineral fertilizers. At the University of Hohenheim, we are coordinating the 5.3 million euro joint project "NOcsPS".

Today, many people seem to have a romantic, glorified view of agriculture, but no idea of the reality of farms. Farmers feel unjustly accused by the petition.

The desire to do without pesticides also stands in stark contradiction to the actual behavior of consumers. As long as only optically flawless fruit and vegetables are in demand in the supermarket, the reduction of pesticides will be difficult to achieve."

 

 

Addition (2 Oct 2019):

Dr. Peter Rosenkranz, Director of the State Apiculture Institute

 

"Even though the beekeepers are naturally very concerned about the protection of insects, the majority are critical of the maximum demands in the petition. Therefore, neither the Württemberg nor the Baden regional beekeepers' association, which together represent approx. 25,000 beekeepers, currently supports the petition for a referendum.

Numerous fruit and wine growers, especially in nature reserves of the Lake Constance region, have meanwhile made it clear that they see their existence threatened by the demands in the petition. Indirectly, beekeeping would also be affected.

Even if there are always conflicts between farmers and beekeepers, both sides are strongly dependent on each other. Because fruit and vegetable farmers need bees as pollinators, and in turn the special crops are important sources of pollen and nectar for beekeeping.

Most beekeepers know the concerns and needs of the farmers very well, and know e.g. that in the area of special crops, plant protection cannot be completely dispensed with. At the same time, beekeepers naturally have a strong interest in ensuring that their colonies remain healthy and that the honey is not contaminated by pesticides.

For many years, bee protection committees have been working intensively at the local level on how to reduce the use of pesticides and how to make the cultivation areas more bee-friendly. These quite controversial disputes and discussions have also led to improvements in bee protection with many conventionally working farmers, who are unfortunately largely excluded from this referendum.

A support of the petition by the beekeeper associations would undermine this cooperation and open up old trenches again, especially in the fruit and wine growing areas."

Interview: Leonhardmair, Translation: Neudorfer